jobs so in this most recent proposal rule march 12, 2015, this is what it says, some large manufacturers have already begun moving production to lower cost countries. short term, u.s. job loss. this is the department of energy saying that. an amended standard that necessitates large increases in labor content or that requires large expenditures to retool facilities should cause other manufacturers to reevaluate production siting options. what that means is that if we squeeze too much -- my colleague mr. rush, if we go too much, we lose jobs to overseas manufacturers, and that would be unfortunate. thank you, i yield back my time. >> gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee

from new jersey for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. noll, from listening to some of the people silting next to you on the panel and some of my colleagues on the other side, you'd think that the standards process has suddenly become far more contentious than it used to be. in my opening statement i talked about the fact that the standard setting process has always yielded some controversy from one industry to another and that's not to say that complaints or controversies weren't always important or even valid. but i just see some contention as inevitable part of any meaningful standard setting process no matter how well it functions. so while not every standard can be negotiated my sense is that there has been more consensus than ever before and that every industry trade represented here today has been involved and likely benefited from that consensus. so my question is, do you agree with me that there actually seems to have been more consensus in the standards setting process over the past eight years and of the rules finalized in the last eight years what percentage of those rules has been established through consensus negotiations,

if you could. >> good morning. yeah, it's interesting because i think about the number of rules and the number of negotiations that have taken place over the years, and there's so many to choose from. i mean, the last two revisions to home air-conditioning standards went through a consensus process and landed a negotiated consensus outcome. and that's fantastic for consumers and the value of that is going to deliver to them and for the environment as well. so i think from my perspective i would say that the controversy is the exception, not the rule. you know, that we can demonstrate i think of the -- as i said in my opening remarks, of the 42 standards that have been finalized since 2009, almost a quarter of those stemmed from joint consensus negotiations. and that's not to say that every rule needs to or can come from a consensus or a negotiation.

and those that didn't went through the normal rule making process. and with the exception of maybe a few standards have been without controversy and supported by stakeholders through the process and input. so, yeah, i would just encourage us not to characterize action as controversy at this point. >> all right. i'm a strong supporter of energy efficiency programs and again i'm confused by some of the claims being made by members of today's panel. i find it difficult to believe there are no more significant energy efficiency gains to consumer products unless you assume we can't improve on current technology or develop entirely new technologies that are more energy efficient. for example, tv went from tubes to liquid crystal displays to plasma to l.e.d. in a little over a decade. so are we truly done with refrigerators, dishwashers, air conditioners, furnaces, whatever?

>> our experience has been no. i mean, i think in the latest refrigerator standard revision this was the sixth time including the state standards that that standard had been revised. it represented about 20% to 30% improvement over the previous standard, and that's on par with other revisions, fully supported by manufacturers and stakeholders. and i think we've seen, you know, that that trajectory has held true. refrigerators are now 75% more efficient. they have more product features, are 20% larger, and it costs half as much. i think the lighting revolution that we've seen take place is another example of -- i don't think in 2000 we could have predicted the number of choices and the efficiency that we would get from l.e.d.s today. so those are just a few examples of where this could be headed. >> right. several witnesses have referred to mandatory serial rule

makings. my understanding of the law is that it mandates the review of a standard every six years. however, to my knowledge, the law doesn't require that the standard be updated every six years. so just to clarify, would you just answer yes or no to the following questions, okay? does the law require a standard be reviewed every six years, yes or no? >> once it's gone through its statutory requirements, then yes it's required to be reviewed every six years. >> does the law mandate that a standard be updated every six years regardless of any other fact pattern? >> no. >> does the d.o.e. have to determine whether rulemaking is likely to result in significant savings before requiring a standard be updated? >> yes. >> and does d.o.e. have to determine whether rulemaking is likely to be technological feasible and cost-effective before updating a standard? >> yes. >> okay. thanks a lot. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman's time has expires. the chair uses the privilege of

the vice chairman to recognize himself for five minutes. a hearty texas welcome to mrs. miller, mr. mcguire, miss noll, mr. cosgriff, mr. eckman, and mr. yurek. in the initial time i have one we question about air-conditioning. southeast texas, my home, exists in a climate we call 95/95. from early april to late september it's 95 degrees fahrenheit with 95% humidity. until 1902, the only job in that region was picking cotton and guarding prisoners in big state prisons. that provided very, very slow, low growth. and then this carrier invented the air conditioner in 1902. that single invention combined with oil being discovered at spittletop and beaumont and the

51 mile houston ship channel being built has put houston on track to be the nation's third largest city some time this decade. federal actions affecting air conditioning gets the attention of all texans. especially if two federal agents are in conflict. we've seen that situation right now with air-conditioners. d.o.e. as to higher efficiency standards for air-conditioners. while epa is banning foam blowing agents from being used in air-conditioners. so my only question is for you, mr. mcguire and you mr. yurek. mr. yurek first. can companies comply with these conflicting standards? can they comply with these? what are the challenges? >> first off, yes, they can comply with it. but how they comply with it is it costs a considerable lot of money in the conflict between the two statutes going into

effect and the needs to spend money on research and development and then once that -- the research and development is completed, they need to then retool their plants. yes, they can do it. it's going to cost the big manufacturers that have the funds will have the ability to do it. there will be several of the small manufacturers that don't have the funds available that will go out of business either being acquired by the bigger ones or just leaving the area. >> big guys pay, the small guys go away. mr. mcguire your thoughts. can they survive? can they work with these conflicting regulations from different departments? >> the industry can comply, but the problem is it takes a certain amount of time to do that. and the epa decisions, proposals on refrigerants is not being coordinated with d.o.e. on the efficiency standards. with the vast majority of greenhouse gas emission avoidance benefits come from the appliance standards, not reducing the -- changing the refrigerants. we have to deal with the fact that the safety standards in the

u.s. do not allow the type of refrigerants we have to go to yet and the amounts necessary. that requires a safety risk assessment tests that companies are going. it takes a lot of time, sequence and investment for this to happen and it would be prudent for the two agencies to talk about this and reach a decision that makes sense for the environment and for the people that are making these products. >> final question, sir. do you believe the obama administration is meeting their own goals set with their executive orders to minimize the cumulative impact of these regulations? they said, let's make that lower. does this achieve that, or is this in violation of that? >> we do not believe the d.o.e. is in a proper analysis to the cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers when they're doing their appliance efficiency standards because they're not taking into account the cost and investments that have been made for previous versions that haven't been recouped as well as

the investments that have to be made in alternative refrigerants. >> mr. yurek, your thoughts sir? >> i agree with mr. mcguire in that that proper analysis has not been done and the burden on manufacturers is not being considered and actually has been ignored when raised in some of the rulemakings related to commercial refrigeration equipment where we did raise epa changing the refrigerants that could be used at the same time efficiency regulations went into effect. d.o.e. said, they haven't changed it yet so we're using the current refrigerant. they issued the rule, six months later epa banned those refrigerants. there's two different implementation dates, one is 2016 for the refrigerants and 2017 for the energy efficiency standards. you have to redesign twice in two different periods of time. >> thank you. my time is expired. one word of warning. don't mess with texas air conditioners. chair recognizes the gentleman from california mr. mcnerney,

for five minutes. >> i thank the assistant chair. mr. cosgriff, i believe that you stated that many of the imported products are not held to the same standards as american-made products. is that right? >> i didn't say many. i said that we should be on guard to make sure that nonqualified products enter the stream of commerce inside the united states. >> so that must be happening then. is that happening? are products entering -- >> we receive information from our manufacturers routinely that they find products in the stream that don't by objective standards meet the standards of the united states of america. >> so consumers, u.s. consumers are buying products made overseas that are potentially less efficient and cost american jobs at the same time? >> they might be, yes, sir. >> how can we remedy that situation? >> neiman in the past has worked with commerce in the past in the

area, for instance, of counterfeiting, take our expertise from our -- customs, excuse me, customs and border security to make it available to their agent so they can know what they're looking for, to be able to identify what constitutes a valid third party certification mark, what might be a counterfeit and other tells you might see in product -- >> so this is an enforcement issue, not a trade rules issue. >> mostly enforcement, yes, sir. >> okay, very good. mr. eckman, please elaborate a little bit if you would on how the rulemaking process could be improved, the transparency of the rulemaking process could be improved. >> i'll go through a little bit of history so that the context is there. in mid-2000s, d.o.e. staff directed their consulting staff to sit down with advocates and manufacturers to help negotiate whitegood standard with aham folks so the technical staff that was supporting d.o.e.'s

rulemaking was appraised and involved in those negotiations that were informal at the time. they weren't authorized by d.o.e. we were handling those on the side. and that led to another process on electrical transformers where both d.o.e. staff and their consultants got involved an finally d.o.e. established under the federal administrative procedures act a negotiated rule making group. appliance standards rule advisory committee. which now oversees a series of requests that might come in from parties that want to enter into negotiations and through a regulatory process as opposed to a rule making through a standard comment process. and that has opened i think the doors to more consensus agreement. the agreement on major refrigeration products, the hvac equipment, pumps, and electrical

transformers all came from those kinds of negotiations where there's a great deal more transparency interaction with the manufacturers, with advocates and d.o.e. staff and its consultants because they can get down and talk face to face, roll the sleeves up in a meeting not in a very formal hearings type process. i think that has improved both the outcomes and the feelings that come out of those outcomes about we agree we can't get everything we need, but the compromise works for all of us. and that process to me is really central to in advancing the rule making process. >> thank you. mr. cosgriff again, you mentioned that the -- or i'm going to ask this question. do you believe that the current standards have room to drive more innovation? >> do i believe the current standards have -- >> can drive more innovation? >> can drive more innovation. i think the manufacturers are driving innovation. i think competition is driving innovation and i think standards have a part in that.

but i wouldn't overstate what their part is. so if a product is at the low end of efficiency, then the standards are a welcome boost. if a product like a transformer is approaching 99% efficiency, i'm not sure what they're accomplishing. >> thank you. ms. noll, could you give some examples of efficiency improvements that are still possible? >> yes, i'd be happy to. you know, i think that as we look at some of the products that are still -- that will be revised in the next eight years, there's standards for equipment and household appliances that have seen standards before. water heaters is the likely potential opportunity for increased savings. as mr. cosgrove just mentioned, distribution transformers, they ed may be reaching a high level of efficiency but all of the electricity that is produced in america goes through transformers so even half of a percent improvement there is going to be a significant national benefit.

so i do think that there is opportunities that still exist to improve through the standards process. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta, for five minutes. >> thanks, mr. chairman. and i also would like to echo that i think this is a great panel today and i really appreciate you all being here. i'm kind of an expert. my wife and i in the last six weeks just bought a washer and dryer and the refrigerator's next. but in northwest ohio we do make hvac. we make dishwashers. we make dryers. we make washing machines. we also make waffle irons. we make large mixers. and we also have a large freezer plant right in west central ohio. so we have a lot of things going on. it's very important to our economy, but mr. mcguire, if i could start with you, you've been particularly critical of

the proposed new standard for dishwashers. can you explain what is wrong with the standard both in terms of the substance of the proposed rule as well as the process by which it has come about? >> well, the proposed dishwasher standard from last year, first of all, it required a 20-year payback to the consumer for a product whose useful life is 13 years. it reduced the amount of water that a dishwasher uses in a cycle from 5 gallons to 3. and the proposed rule did not go through any type of performance or consumer testing before it was issued. we did not get a chance to do that. we normally do in these rule makings. >> let me interrupt. why didn't you get to be part of that? >> d.o.e. just didn't do that part of the process. they just went right to the rule without that type of testing. so once it was proposed, we did the testing and we demonstrated to d.o.e. and others that dishes were not cleaned and multiple

product manufacturers products it did not clean the dishes. so the utility of the product was affected. the consumer payback was not there. and the energy savings was minimum. less than a quad. 7% of one quad. now, the current dishwasher standard that's in place today, that has a payback to the consumer of 12 years so that was already at the limit in terms of economic sense. there was no need for this fifth dishwasher standard. so it didn't -- it messed up the product. and it did not make sense for the consumer to buy such a product. so our view is that there's something wrong when the process spits something out like that. that has to be a product or a category where you don't do another rulemaking unless some quantifiable measure can show there's going to be a real significant savings in energy that won't harm the consumer. but under the current process,

it's very difficult it to get d.o. vmt's assumptions and other things that go into their analyses done by their contractors of the national labs so that's part of the process change we'd hilike to see. >> just out of curiosity, when you were doing this testing when you were going from five gallons to three gallons, how much did that cost the industry? and what did that cost the consumer in the end? >> well, how much did it cost the consumer? >> when you are doing the testing, going from five gallons to the three gallons you said, i was just curious, is there a cost to the industry that you had to do? >> oh, sure. >> and overall, i assume that would go back to the consumer. >> well, these tests that we did on this proposed rule were -- the standard didn't go into effect so those costs were absorbed by the companies. thousands dollars to do these tests. but once the standard is in effect, in order to prove your compliance with the standard, you have to test your product before it's submitted to the marketplace and then a regular routine testing market surveillance that our industry

actually does some of that testing to police ourselves and to provide some information to the government. those tests are very expensive, and the cost of compliance -- the tolerances are very, very tight. so manufacturers invest a lot to make sure their products meet the standards and the tests are sophisticated so it's a costly part of being an appliance manufacturer. and those costs are going to the product like any other cost and are passed on to the consumer. >> thank you. mr. yurek, i'm concerned about the economic effects that the administration's aggressive regulatory agenda has. it's my understanding that doe is implementing rules that set new standards for individual components in your members' residential and consumer products such as the new standard for the efficiency of furnace stands. how does regulating a specific component on a large heating or cooling system add to the cost of a furnace or air conditioning

system? >> we have a lot of concern and i think looking at this 40-year-old law that it's dealing with products and in some instances it's going into the components in those products and pieces of equipment. which is the wrong direction. really what we should be looking at is how these products are put into the house or into the building and looking at an overall systems approach to efficiency to really look at the gains because if you start dictating and regulating the components, be it the compressor, now they're looking at regulating the fans that go into the air-conditioning and furnaces and others. you're dictating how these products are designed. once they're put into the product, they might have -- we've shown in a case in a proposal out with the california energy commission when they were doing this with air handlers, what they were proposing and the efficiency level for fans actually used more energy when applied in the air handler than

being abe to design the overall product and the energy use of that air handler. and so we just want to make sure that this is done rationally and the current law doesn't give d.o.e. that type of authority to look at the broader picture. i think we just need to step back and say, it's 40 years old. let's look at it and make some changes and make it better so we can actually get some energy savings out in the field and have consumers be able to afford the equipment. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman. my time's expired. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, for five minutes. >> thank you very much. this is a great panel. appreciate it. couple of things. we don't have a bill yet, right? so this is kind of an abstract discussion? and i thought mr. shimkus kind of laid out the potential for cooperation here. i do like the notion of collaboration in the process because you've got folks at doe who are doing their best to

implement efficiency standards. you've got real world folks that are the manufacturers that have to contend with the very practical issues of implementation. i mean, ms. noll, you're okay with that, right? >> yes. >> i mean, i think standards are incredibly important. i don't think they're everything. mr. cosgriff, you mentioned that the standard in some cases does spur innovation but if you've got something that's highly efficient then it's not going to accomplish all that much. i mean, a lot of what you're saying sounds very reasonable to me. the jobs issue i think it really is all -- it's not so much the jobs issue. i mean, air-conditionings, by the way, is one of the most outrageous loss of jobs is with carrier leaving indiana to go down to three buck an hour wages in mexico, which i think is pretty appalling but has nothing

to do with standards particularly since whatever it is that's manufactured at 3 bucks an hour has to meet the standards before it can come back into this country, right? so you've got a level playing field as long as the standards apply to everywhere. but i do, as a strong, strong supporter of efficiency standards with mr. mckenly, who's got a lot of experience in this, i feel that those of us who believe standards can work have to be extremely diligent in trying to address practical concerns as they come up. that makes sense to me. so i've heard the industry folks saying that you're not for unraveling them. you want them to be more practical. yeah. i'm not asking a lot of questions because i don't think there's that much disagree the and we don't have a bill. but i think one thing that would be helpful as part of this process would be to get the d.o.e. folks in here and ask them what are some of perhaps the congressionally imposed burdens we're imposing on them,

where you're saying they've got so many rules they've got to deal with they don't have the time and space. the bottom line here, collaboration i think is really good. i think standards are absolutely essential. i mean, the energy efficiency savings that we've had have been tremendous in -- if they're done right, it can save consumers money. it's not without impact. i mean, we all understand that. but there was a cost associated with requiring the automobile manufacturers install seat belts. that cost more money when you bought a car. but most of us think it's about time. mileage standards have been tremendous. that is a cost, but it's really had an impact on the average mileage in our fleet. so really what i'm asking for is to take up mr. shimkus on his observation that this is an area where there's some opportunity for us to cooperate, but that means not letting it get adversarial. if there's acknowledgment even

from the people who are affected by this in ways that they think are a little too aggressive, to have some interaction with d.o.e. and us to try to figure out what are the process improvements we can make in order to get the benefits of regulation? i mean, i'll just ask the industry people. mr. mcguire and mr. yurek, is that a problem for you, the approach i'm talking about? >> it's not a problem. we've used consensus many times in the past. but we think consensus ought to be to change the law so that the process requires these improvements and they're not discretionary. >> well, that's got to be a discussion -- there's no specifics here. so you're making -- we don't have a bill in front of us. >> there are some process improvements in the energy bill in conference, but the ones we're talking about the major reforms aren't, you're right -- >> i'll tell you what would be helpful for me. if each of you did like a one-page bullet point assessment of convict katrina things that

you think in the process would improve it. then we can assess it, have a discussion, talk to d.o.e., how does that work? would it improve it or not? what's the downside? we're just having this real abstract discussion here. and regulations i think are really important and can be really beneficial, but they also if they're not done right can have a lot of downside to them with no upside. ms. noll, how about you? do you -- what i'm saying -- >> i would be happy to do that. i just would also encourage us to look at some of these -- where the process is working and i think dishwashers is an example of that where d.o.e. heard from industry and congress granted them the authority to look at consumer utility and performance as one of the criteria. >> that would be helpful. >> for economic justification. >> just as an example how it's working and serving to protect consumers and also ensuring a balance both the impacts on manufacturers as well as the impacts on consumers and

the environment and reducing our energy consumption. >> what about you -- >> gentleman's time's expired. i'm sorry, sir. got to move on. i recognize the gentleman from west virginia mr. mckinley for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me just build a little bit on some of the remarks that were made earlier about some of the credentials. peter welch and i have had a wonderful working relationship. we both -- we chair the efficiency caucus. we put language into the current energy bill that we're waiting to see what's going to happen in the senate. we've been to the white house for signatures on energy efficiency bills. so this is something i think he and i really grasp fairly well this. back when i was in private practice in engineering, we designed some of the first lead certified schools in office will buildings in west virginia. working with tonka over at energy efficiency with the turbines to create electricity, make that more efficient.

energy efficiency is one of the prime areas i like to play with and get involved in here. but i get to a point, there's a vast difference -- i want to play back a little bit on what my colleague and good friend bobby rush from illinois was talking about, the disparity of income when people are facing this. if you look at this, it poses a challenge for all of us. it really does for us. if you look at mississippi, my colleague here from harper, mississippi, their medium family income is $36,000 a year. in mississippi. $36,000 a year. but in maryland it's over $70,000 per family income. so in those affluent states or neighborhoods, they make choices. they have choices. you'll probably if we went through the motor vehicle licensing we probably find they

have more bmws and lexus cars there than we have in some other areas of the country or in neighborhoods. we have -- so cars are going to be different because people have choices. we have housing, different pricing for housing because people have choices for that. we have health care. when you go to the exchanges under obamacare, there are different exchanges so people have choices. but when it comes to their major consumer appliance, they don't. for your air conditioning, your refrigerator, your range, your dishwasher, your furnace, all of these now have been mandated that this is the only one that they have available to them. i'm troubled with that because of the diversity of income, their capability of doing it. don't tell me it's going to save me $500 a year because we understand the whole payback is so much longer on all these. so i'm wondering, is there a suggestion you all could make that might make it more

palatable for people to be able to have a choice? so that they're not confronted with this hard decision. i know of families that are trying to fix anything they can -- their equipment as much -- make it last as long as possible because they know that they can't afford the cost of the new one. so they're spending a lot of money in repairs because they don't have a choice. they know what the cost is. that air-conditioning costs the same in connecticut as it does in mississippi. or that dishwasher. so what would you suggest that we in congress could do to maybe ameliorate some of these differences so that the poor mustn't communities, states that have trouble, how can they afford to have these costs? >> congressman, i think this is a really important issue.

i think it's bring back the balance that was originally put out in the 40-year-old law where it says technically feasible and economically justified. right now the focus is too much on the technical feasible in saying, hey, my manufacturers manufacture products everywhere from the federal minimum to very high efficiency. yes, we could go to the high efficiency but we need to look at the cost. and i think it's bringing that balance back to that economic justification in saying, this law is intended to raise that floor slowly. people that have the incomes in maryland and other places are going to purchase the things with all the different bells and whistles on their refrigerators, their dishwashers and everything else. but there's a lot of people in this country when you u look at the cost now of the minimum efficient air-conditioner, you're looking at $6 ,000 to $10,000 at a minimum that is done in an unplanned time because most the time these units tunit s go out when it's the hottest day o the year or the furnace

when it's the coldest day of the year. the federal reserve had a study last week, over 40% of people have less than $400 of emergency cash available. they need the comfort. the wintertime they need the heat. a lot of time for medical reasons they need the cooling in the summer so it's bringing back that balance. probably putting more of an emphasis on the economic justification -- >> my time is expired. all i can ask, could each of the six of you, would you mind putting a little paper to me or something, say what you would suggest that might be a solution to help out for families in depressed areas? thank you very much. i yield back. >> gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair and thank you to our witnesses. certainly we're citing a 40-year history. again, to repeat what my

colleague from vermont, we have to look at some of the trade situations where offshoring of jobs might have helped some families retain those jobs and be able to afford these items and this job loss thing i think is much more complex than just suggesting standards caused it. our energy efficiency standards have improved products that benefit all of our constituents, many of these are not luxury goods but necessities found in nearly every home. we've heard support for national efficiency standards from manufacturers and on soupers and heard from industries, states, environmental groups that there is convict sense us that this program has been a success. i'm certainly open to improving the program but improvements cannot undermine the purpose of this program. and while we look for those improvements we should not lose sight of the fact that this program is incredibly successful while there have been a few contentious rules, it is my understanding that of the final rules issued since 2009 almost one-quarter were the result of negotiated consensus agreements and only five have been subject to litigation.

so to our witnesses, do you agree that many of these rules have been consensus driven? >> yes. >> yes, most of them -- as ms. noll said, 25% of the rules in this administration have been through the consensus process. that means 75% of those 40 others have not. and i think we all support and would encourage that negotiation consensus process because there's more of that give and take that mr. eckman talked about versus the notice in comment where you only have the adversarial is much more adversarial versus the negotiation. i think that's something we >> okay. i think it's worth noting that d.o.e. has a history of working to improve the program, especially around increasing stakeholder engagement dating back to the 1990s. a few years ago d.o.e. established, as i understand,

the appliance standards regulatory advisory committee which formalized the process for negotiated consensus rulemakings for the first time. the number of our witnesses participate on this committee which includes, again, our manufacturers, our trade associations, states and consumer groups. can anyone comment on this committee's work and what -- you know, what it is as a positive -- what it might be as a positive step to formalize this process. mr. eckman? >> yeah, i think it has improved the process a lot, particularly where there's a likelihood that both the manufacturers and the efficiency advocates and the d.o.e. agency personnel, consultants, can come to a more flexible conclusion than would otherwise be provided. and i think that's -- it's allowed for lots of horse trading that wouldn't occur as mr. yurek said under the standard process that was rulemaking hearings process and file your report.

i think that's been a huge advantage. i've been a member since the committee was established. we've had multiple work groups, seven different work groups so far, negotiating standards. they work the best when both the parties that want to participate in that come before the committee and say be, we think we can work this out, give us a chance. if that's not possible or there's not really an issue everybody thinks we can do this through rule and comment, that's a much more expedient process. it takes a lot of time and energy to do the negotiations as you're aware but they turn out to be a better rules as a consequence for everybody involved. i think supporting that on a continuing basis, the committee in process, that has a really -- has improved the process a lot. >> does anyone else -- >> i would just want to note that on the 75% that weren't consensus or joint negotiations does not mean that they weren't going through the normal rule yn making process to deliver a superior outcome and only five of those rules have been litigated.

i think that is still a very small number on the grand scheme of things. >> thank you. mr. cosgriff? >> and to mr. yurek's point following up a little bit, when you're sitting around a table talking about technical things you better have the technical chops to have that conversation. and so in this highly quantified algorithm that d.o.e. consultants use, i'd like to see inside of that. we have mathematicians. i don't understand why we can't sigh wh see what key assumptions are and how they play inside the model and run through the pewtut comp. one of the things we've learned over the last four years i think is this incoming tide has raised all the boats. let's do it in a scientific way as possible. >> sorry, gentle mapman's time expired. got votes coming up.

i recognize the gentleman from missouri, mr. long, for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. mcguire, could you recommend to me what type of hairdryer would be the best to purchase for my dishwasher so i can dry my dishes whenever the cycle is through? >> ill provide that for the record. >> my dishes aren't feeling the burn as they once did. mr. cosgriff, the department of energy coordinating better with other agencies was mentioned an area of improvement, marley particularly making sure imported products are held to the same standards as domestically manufactured products are on their own. what are your thoughts how we can ensure a level playing field for u.s.-made components? >> there would be a number of

things. i think clearly it may not be d.o.e.'s responsibility but it would be their responsibility to make sure their fellow travelers, principally customs and similar policing functions, are aware of what the standards are, what to be looking for. i think industry -- >> can you pull your mike a little closer? >> i think industry has a role in that, too. we should step up and offer our technical expertise. there's other distributors would have a role in that. systems, manufacturers, will have a role in that. so it's not going to be one easy solution but we don't want those products in the stream or in the system. >> the energy conservation standards program requires the department of energy to start a new rulemaking procedure on a product as part of a six-year review cycle. could you tell me generally how long it takes to fully comply with the energy conservation standards for product factoring in all of the cumulative rules including test procedures?

>> three years sticks in my mind. i think it would be different for digfferent products. meeting a motor efficiency standa standard, there's more complex. machine. i think it's different. assuming we have tlhree year to get into compliance, that gives you three years of run time before the next rulemaking kicks off and d.o.e. tends to, as you'd expect, and as they should, start the rulemaking early so they're able to comply with the law when they get to six years. i also point out in the covered products, we know only two times where they've chosen the cost/benefit analysis to go forego the rule. >> what are the challenges in complying with the energy conservation standards and additional test procedures? >> congressman, that's one of the interesting things that

was -- the change when we made the serial rule part of the, i think it was 2005 amendments. you have to review the standards every six years. the requirement is to review the test procedures every seven. what we're starting to see in a lot of our products, the test procedures aren't complete for the products that they're setting standards for. so as a matter of fairness, we don't even know what the test procedures can be and how our products are going to be measured. the information isn't there. and they're setting efficiency standards in minimum levels. and so i think the interrelationship is very important. we need to know what the rules are. be able to evaluate what those rules are through testing our products and providing that information to d.o.e. before they start setting the next standard. the next thing, the previous questioner, mr. cosgriff, our products, it's a five-year implementation time from the

standard being set and when it becomes effective. and it takes that entire time to do it. and so what we're seeing is even before in some cases these standards are put into effect, we're seeing the next round. we saw that with residential air-conditioners. standard went into effect of january 2015. fall of 2014 they already started discussing the next round of efficiency, so you're looking at increasing the efficiency standards on this equipment even before the prior standard went into effect. >> welcome to washington, d.c. mr. cosgriff, do you care to comment on that as far as what the challenges are? >> they're pretty much as mr. yurek said. it's going to take us some additional time depending on the product. >> okay. thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina mr. hudson for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank the panel for being here today. very informative discussion.

mr. mcguire, which of your appliances have been regulated multiple times? do you believe we're reaching a point of diminishing returns with this serial rulemaking? >> virtually all of our products have been regulated multiple times. the current refrigerator standard that's been in effect since last year is the fourth version of that standard. same for dishwashers. the rule i mentioned that was proposed last year was the fifth revision. so we believe we hit the point of diminishing returns in the last tranche of standards that were negotiated to the consensus process. we think standards going forward for most of our products are not justified on the economics or the energy savings. >> appreciate that. mr. long asked one of the other panelists about the issue of having the d.o.e. propose new standards for some products while the underlying test procedures are also changing. would you like to elaborate on how this is a problem for you? >> it's a major issue because a manufacturer cannot tell whether

they -- what they have to do to comply with a new standard until they know how to test to it. that's why the law as to the test procedures come first. but that process is a little out of whack right now. so we in the case of portable air-conditioners, we've had to comment on a proposed standard before we knew what the final test procedure was. that's really impossible to do. but that's what we're forced to do under the current process that's being employed. >> that seems like it's not serving the best interests of the people either. if we aren't getting the true assessment of the results of these tests. i can obviously see why that's a mistake. many of your manufacturers make several regulated products and face multiple rules. what's the challenge? maybe you can elaborate a little more for your member companies in terms of complying with all these different requirements simultaneously just in addition to sort of the testing thing we talked about. but just elaborate on that.

>> the initial investment to gear up for a new standard as mr. yurek and cosgriff said is quite an investment to understand the test procedure and get your products qualified. ongoing once a standard is in effect, a manufacturer has to test and identify those products to the department of energy. if you want your products to be energy star qualified, that requires a further upfront test as well as ongoing testing of a certain percentage of your products. so that's a pretty significant testing burden for the manufacturers. and when the test procedures are under revision, it has to be very precise in order for you to design a product. what we've experienced also is energy star sometimes will want a digfferent test procedure tha d.o.e. requires for the standard. one of the benefits we found of negotiating the consensus is we would peg the energy standard requirement to the standard

requirement with the same test procedure so manufacturers can plan that out. that hasn't always been the case. so these are processes that used to be employed but haven't been across the board in recent years. >> thank you. industry groups have repeatedly asked d.o.e. to establish separate product categories for condensing and non-condensing covered products only to have the d.o.e. provide a response that condensing and non-condensing equipment provide the same utility to consumers, so there's no justification for establishing separate product categories. is this another area that warrants an objective third-party review? >> congressman, what you're talking about is the famous furnace rule. and there, again, it's related to technology. this equipment is at a point where you have condensing and non-condensing and there's cost

differences thar that are considerable between the two technologies. right now we are at the highest level of non-condensing efficiency. and the rulemaking is looking at moving to a condensing requirement. i think the groups -- this would have been a rule that would have been great for negotiation because what we've seen over the years is that every rule that's come out has ended up in litigation. and to see that the groups could come together and reach a solution, i think would have been a better solution. here right now in the midst of a notice and comment. i believe d.o.e. just issued their proposed rule to omb for review. so we'll see what happens there. but having two separate product classes for condensing and non-condensing does not look like it will be something that's put forward. >> looks like my time's about expired. so i'll yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio mr. johnson for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i, too, want to thank the panel for joining us today. i know you've been here a while already. for mr. mcguire, mr. cosgriff and mr. yurek, how important is early stakeholder input in the rulemaking process? what are the additional challenges that you face when d.o.e. issues a notice of proposed rulemaking without having consulted with you beforehand? mr. mcguire, let's start with you. >> i think it's very important from an effectiveness point of view. if the manufacturer hasn't had the ability to be in a dialogue with the government about the proposal and how they expect the efficiency requirements to be achieved and do some testing, then you're really dealing in a vacuum. this is what happened with the proposed dishwasher rule. so it's very important. these are technical matters. it's very important that not only manufacturers are engaged, but also all stakeholders. this asrac process does do that.

but the asrac process is useful once a decision has been made that there will be a new standard. so what we're talking about is changing the process for determining whether there should be a new standard. be a new standard. we feel we'll do better as the advocates feel, give and take, puing data on the table and not wond wrerg the data came from. >> i really want you to get the dishwasher rule right. if the dishwashers don't clean, i have a real problem. i'm the dishwasher at my house. it's going to be double work for me. i think what i've heard is this is not an assault on standards. we want the energy efficient economy to thrive. it's good for business.

that said, it can be more transparent. but the department of energy has some true experts in their fields but so do we. let's put the numbers on the table and then bring in the business people and sat cost of efficiency improvement goes like that. or goes like. that but the efficiency curve is almost flat. at some point we've got to call enough. >> got you. thank you. mr. urich? >> i think it's very important because industry has the information that this rule's going to be based on. it has information on what technology's available. it has information on the cost. it has information on the products that are being sold today, both on the different efficiency levels. so if that conversation doesn't occur, what is the regulator looking at to make its decision on is there significant energy savings, can there be energy savings, and should we move

forward with the rule? it's very necessary for that dialogue, and i think d.o.e. would like to have that dialogue, but again they are tied by what u.s. congress has put in the act in the serial rulemaking where you're mandating these rules every six years, and they just don't have the time to do a lot of times everything they need to do or like to do to get these rules out and also meet the court order from the 2nd circuit to make sure they meet all their deadlines. >> let's continue with you, mr. urich. the d.o.e. has proposed new standards for some of your products while the underlying test procedure is also changing. why is this a problem for you? >> it's a huge problem in that i stated earlier, yes, we need to know what the rules are, how our

products can be measured. and again, it's getting d.o.e. the right information. if the test procedures aren't set, how do they know how products are performing out in the field? >> is it safe to say it's pretty dadgum hard to innovate when you don't know how you're going to be measured at the end of this? >> you don't know what the target is. you don't know what you're going to be measured on. >> if you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there. okay. mr. chairman, i'm going to yield back 45 seconds. >> we thank the gentleman from ohio. the chair will recognize the gentleman from oklahoma mr. mullin for five minutes. >> thank you, sir. thank you for having this meeting. i'll be honest, there's a few meetings we have in here that i had to study hard on because i'm not familiar with it. this is as i would say in my wheelhouse. i understand this situation extremely well. ms. noll, i'm going to talk to you for probably the remainder of the time. because a couple of things you said, and i just want to set the

record straight. one, you said huge savings that these energy savings standards the d.o.e. has put out has put huge savings. that was your words, right? based on what? >> based on analysis. >> what analysis? >> analysis that aceee and the appliance awareness project that's done as well as energy zone analysis. >> are you really looking at bills and prices? because you said huge savings and then you said up to $500 a year on energy cost. is that correct? >> correct. >> in oklahoma the average household today their total energy bill a year is $1,296. so you're saying that because of your savings, you know, that bill would have been $1,796? is that right?

>> absent the standards. >> but yet if i go back and i look at 2008, the midline whirlpool dishwasher, the average use was about $29 a year is what that unit cost to run. at the same time, the cost of the unit was $375. today the same unit is $399 and it costs $32 a month to -- or a year to run. >> the standards program's been in effect since 1987. >> i'm just talking about -- you said huge savings. >> mm-hmm. >> so i'm trying to figure out where the huge savings are from. because right now we're just talking about -- we're just talking about dishwashers. dishwashers we can see in the years have went up. they cost more. so that's not a savings. and they cost more to run per

year. so just give me an opportunity again. where is huge? huge would be massive. i mean, i'm thinking like big time. that's huge, is your word. $500, i guess you could say that's huge. but i don't see it. that's the dishwasher. so i'll give you the mike and let you go ahead and try to explain that for me. >> in my opinion i think $2 trillion in savings to consumers is a lot of -- >> you say 2 trillion. i'm trying to figure out what the $2 trillion are. d.o.e. comes in here and makes all these outlandish claims all the time. how much they're saving the mid-level households and all this stuff and how much energy is down when energy cost is actually up. and then you're in here making claims that the household is saving money and i'm just not seeing it. if anybody on the panel can help me, let me know because i don't want to make a claim that's not true and right now i'm seeing a claim that's not true. go ahead. miss miller. >> i think it's a valid question to say what is this analysis based on. and i think to reiterate some of the other remarks made by other members of this panel it's difficult to see where those claims come from in d.o.e.'s analysis.

>> right. >> and if you're looking at dishwashers specifically, if you look at the standards that were finalized in 2012, they assumed as you mentioned before, mr. mcgwire, that the payback period would be about 12 years, which is only as long as your dishwasher is going to last. and i think they assumed that households would save on net $3. >> let me read you a manual for a startup for a new dishwasher now. on top of it costing more to run, quote, this is out of the manual, says "run hot water at sink nearest your dishwasher until water is hot. turn off water for best dishwasher results. water should be 120 degrees before it enters the dishwasher." this is the new standards that we have to have out. so not only does it cost more to run, ms. noll, now we're having -- we're wasting water, which this is a big issue nowadays. we always talk about water savings. especially let's go to

california. let's talk about california for a second. they're supposed to run, waste hot water, and let it run 1/4. this is the manual that comes for dishwashers now that says that. refrigerators. let me use refrigerators real quick. refrigerators in 2008, average whirlpool refrigerator cost $999. that same unit comparable today is $1,299. energy cost, also up. now, these are two major appliances. we're talking about refrigerator. we're talking about a dishwasher. where's the huge savings? d.o.e. and the argument on all these energy-efficient appliances are always out there talking about huge savings. and the american people think it's huge. and yet i gave you two examples of -- >> hold on, mr. chairman. >> gentleman's time has expired. thank you. seeing no further witnesses seeking time the chair asks

unanimous consent to enter for the record a multitude of statements on the subject matter from a number of agencies and concerned citizens. without objection, so ordered. in closing, the chair wants to thank all the witnesses for your time, your expertise, and your insights as to use hair blow-dryers to dry dishes in the dishwasher. the chair reminds members you have five legislative days to submit questions for the record and executive eors, statements for the record. without objection this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you.

cia director john before. e -- brennan will testify live on c-span3 on thursday at 9:00 a.m. >> i often say that 50 is not the new 30 and 6 o is not the new 40. 50 is the new 50 and it looks good and it's okay. and that people are to own their age and we ought not be talking about being over 50 as the period of decline. >> sunday night on q&a, aarp's ceo talks about the health and

financial challenges older americans face and what aarp is doing to assist them. she is also the author of "living best life at every age." >> the fastest growing segment is people over 85. the second is the people over the age of 100. and so when the program were put in place life expectancy was 67 or 68. so not only are there more people in the system, but they're living longer. and so we have to be able to look at the program and make meaningful adjustments that's going to allow people to live with dignity at a much longer period of time. >> that's sunday night on c-span's q&a. >> the number of air traffic controllers has hit a 30-year loechlt they rale recently held a hearing on theish would you witnesses from the federal aviation administration and the national air traffic

controller's association. the pennsylvania congressman chairs the committee. >> good morning. the subcommittee will come to order. i like to thank you for being here. before we proceed -- hearings and assure you that will be a top committee priority for safety and remember the tragedy and the loss that you all suffered. and if any of you think this hearing date was arbitrary, it's not. so please help me in recognizing ranking member rick larsson's birthday. rick, happy birthday.

if only my birthday was on air traffic control staffing meeting. dreams come true. >> dreams come true. okay. so again, thank you all very much. at a subcommittee roundtable in december, the d.o.t. inspector general and air traffic controller's association high litd a number of challenges to the faa continues to face in ensuring that our nation's busiest air traffic control facilities are staffed with the most experienced and highly trained air traffic controllers or cpcs. like most people, when i board major airliner, i assume the pilots are highly experienced and well trained. and that flight under today's air traffic control system is going to be guided to its destination by hard-working team of dedicated faa air traffic controllers. like with airline pilots, we assume faa's 14,000 plus controller workforce are highly trained and experienced.

however, in 2012 and in 2016, the d.o.t.ig found that a high percentage of the controllers that are busiest atc facilities including terminal radar approach, control facilities and n. atlanta, chicago, dallas-ft. worth, houston, and new york are so-called developmental controllers who can't manage traffic without the direct supervision of a fully certified controller or facility manager. in addition, of the 14,000 plus controller workforce, just over 10 10,600 controllers are fully certified which is a 27-year low. we're also concerned about the safety implications of the rising work load for cpcs, many of whom are subject to mandatory six day work weeks and high rates of overtime. the drop in cpcs can be

attributed to several factors. over the past several years, the faa has strugled to replace the thousands of controllers who were hired during the 1981 professional air traffic controllers organization strike. most of whom have reached the agency's mandatory retirement age of 56. the faa's hiring efforts were severely hampered in 2013 when the agency stopped training new hires at its training academy in oklahoma city due to sequestration. in 2014, the faa abruptly changed the controller hiring process and made even further poorly executed changes in 2015. consequently, the faa has missed the controller hiring targets for six consecutive years. in the past year the faa made some progress on hiring front with the agency's stating it will reach the hiring goal this year.

some of the internal bottle neck that's were highlight ted december roundtable include prolonged security and medical reviews and they have been addressed. the faa has worked on a policy to facilitate the transfer of controllers to the busiest facilities. that being head, we have a long way to go. in addition to seeing little improvement in the development of fully certified controllers, we're concerned that the agency's revamped controller hiring process is not putting forward the highest quality controller candidates as evidenced by a it 20% drop in the faa academy pass rate nins the hiring process would change with the academy failures 1shgs 42% above the fy-2015 forecasted level. yesterday the parents and instructors of one of our nation's many fine collegiate training initiatives, cti

institutions, met with me to share their frustrations with the faa's revamped controller hiring process. the story i heard many times over in the past two two years. but one that is no less saddening. the experience led me to conclude that current controller hiring process is underserving our nation and flying public. nearly 3,000 highly qualified cti graduates who want to serve as air traffic controllers were left in the cold when the faa changes were made in hiring process with many more abandoning hopes because they aged out and left in the cold with no notice of any kind that changes were being made after expending on some cases huge sums of money. and, yet, they -- we are holding a hearing on inadequate controller staffing levels. i hope that our witnesses can explain why the faa eliminated

the cti program preference. if further progress is not made in the areas of controller hiring, placement and training oushgs nation's atc system may not be able to handle rising airline operations and passenger demand which is expected to reach one billion passengers by the end of the next decade. should the faa not hire, train, and retain sufficient number of controllers, the faa may be forced to reduce airline operations to the detriment of passengers, shippers and overall economy to ensure safety is not compromised. we saw the scenario played out in april 2013 when the faa curtailed atc operation as cross the country due to sequestration related control are furloughs causing weak delays and cancellations. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses on ways question work together to address the long standing problems. before i recognize my colleague

mr. larsson for his comments, i'd like to ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material for the record of this hearing. without objection, so ordered. now i'd like to yield to mr. larsson for any comments he may make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i hope this hearing will enform and encourage progress on a timely re-authorization bill. as we know, the current extension expires july 15th. today we hear from witnesses with several perspectives regarding air traffic control staffing. i welcome any discussion of what we need to keep our spaces the safest and most efficient in the world. the office of the inspector general from whom we have a representative testifying to day provides a good starting point for our discussion. the oig reported earlier this year that the fay fanz to face challenges and ensuring enough

fully trained controllers at critical facilities. we should krt bigger picture. there is no evidence of safety lapses associated with the staffing issues. we're living in the safest period of aviation history. every day usair lines safely transport about two million passengers around the country. at the same time, there is no evidence of decreased efficiency to the staffing. in fact, the department of transportation reported on air libz on time performance improved by 3% in april. the healthy airline industry is critical for our international competitors. the airlines are doing well financially. the system is seay safe and the system is operating efficiently. but i make this observations not to deny the need for continued oversight and vigilence on the subcommittee's part retiring the hiring, training, and staffing of air traffic controllers. i think it's critical to keep this hearing in proper speaker inspective. that says, i am concerned about

understaffing the critical facilities. potential check -- choke points in the air traffic control system such as when passengers first feel the ripple effects of the line of thunderstorm over nebraska, facilities like radar approach control and cities in new york, atlanta, dallas-ft. wor worth, chicago, all need more controllers. on average, three quarters of controllers in the facilities are fully certified controllers. the rest are trainees and manufacture the fully certified controllers are eligible for retirement. it is i didn't think call that they demonstrate two things. it is hiring enough controllers ahead of projected retirements. and it has at built to shift controllers from other facilities to the critical facilities. and while there is more work to be done, i'm encouraged on some progress. we're on pace to hire 1,619 controllers this year and the agency has over 2400 controllers available in canada pools.

the faa in collaboration with the national air traffic controllers association has streamlined the process for transferring controllers between facilities more quickly, reducing the late time and certifying the facilities. but the faa can make further improvements and should not hesitate to hire more controllers when staffing needs require it. the faa academy, inexperienced controls have to train before being placed in a facility has the capacity to matriculate only 1,999 controllers per year. and before controllers can attend the faa has to conduct a background check and the faa has to process about 300 per month. this hearing is an important exercise in the subcommittee's oversight and safety and efficiency of the air traffic control system. by all of the objective measures, facilities staffs and shortages have not compromised safety and capacity today.

but i do look forward to hearing from our witnesses on what we need to do to ensure that that remains the case. i thank you for holding this hearing and i yield back. >> thank you mr. larsson. i'd like to welcome and recognize the chairman of the full economy. >> thank you. and i want to start by welcoming a group of young people from my district. they're participating in the pennsylvania electorate youth program. they're all the ones standing. they have young legs. they can stand a little bit. welcome to washington. it's great that you're here and seeing what's going on in your federal government in the nation's capitol. also, i'd like to say happy birthday to the other man from everett, mr. larsson. for those of you from my district, he is from everett, washington. as you know, i'm from everett, pennsylvania. we share that. happy birthday, rick. an also i want to say glad to see mr. holmgren here. he is a real advocate and trying to get things done to hire the

controllers we need. thank you for being here today. aviation safety is a top priority of this committee. in fact, across all areas it's a top priority. the u.s. has the safest aviation systems in the world. that is largely due to the dedicated and professional work of our air traffic controllers and the faa safety personnel. however, it is clear from the reports that faa has not hired and trained enough fully certified controllers at our busiest atc facilities to make up four the thousands of controllers hired during the 1981 strikes. it's not clear where the faa dropped the ball m problems can be attributed to sequestration as well as the timing and poor execution of questionable changes to the controller hiring process. this is another example of the faa's long standing inability to adequately manage the controller workforce. and that's a big reason i believe one of the biggest reasons why the atc reform that i proposed and we passed out of this committee we should take

up. and the faa has a history of whether it's hiring or not hiring personnel or being able to deploy a modern air traffic control system again. we ought to continue to work towards a breaking out the atc from the faa, allowing to operate as an entity that can hire, maintain, deploy a modern and safe aviation system. so i'll continue to push for that. again, under the status quo, the passengers will suffer from the faa's force to reduce air traffic flows across the country. and just imagine, we see the news reports today of the lines at the tsa has. and that's causing some delays. it's causing passengers thousands and thousands of passengers to miss their flights or miss their connections. imagine if we don't have the flow of the air traffic control, the lines will be not in the airport, the lines will be on the tarmacs. planes will be waiting with hundreds of passengers waiting in line to get to the next destination. missing connections and missing flights being canceled. so this is a serious problem we

have to address. and again, i appreciate chairman holding this hearing. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. we're pleased to welcome and recognize mr. defazio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, we -- our air traffic controllers are doing a phenomenal job. some of them are being forced into mandatory overtime six day weeks. that's not sustainable. certainly doesn't help recruitment into the busiest areas of the country, particularly new york and others. we have to look at ways to endeuce fully qualified controllers to move there. and, you know, we also have to facilitate the hiring of qualified people and the full certification. you know, there is legislation and i've spoken to the chairman about this and i'm trying to remember the number introduced

by mr. malonehr a292 which would help in the hiring process, particularly targeting veterans and otherwise experienced controllers. to move on and to get to work. so i would hope that we would take up that bill. i think it's a noncontroversial bill. i suggest since we're doing a lot of pretent legislation around here on the floor, maybe we should do some real legislation and put that bill through, you know, before congress embarks in yet another one of the long breaks in this year which is more breaks than work. the issue is critical. many people have been talking about this for years. and we've seen the shortage, the aging of the workforce coming. and it's pastime to do something about it. but despite all that, the air

traffic controller is doing such an extraordinary job. you know, the number of air traffic control related flight delays actually decreased by 17 1/2% in the last two years. i think that's an extraordinary testimony to them and the work they're doing. but i think it's not sustainable without an adequate workforce. so i'm very worried that this will hurt our retension if we don't bring in some more help. the chairman also mentioned tsa. i have a bill on. that he recommend the members of the committee every american is taxed every time they buy a ticket and it's infinite wisdom, the congress put through one of the really bad budget deals written by speaker ryan and patty murray, it's a bipartisan problem, which decided to divert one dollar, $1.2 billion each year from security fees into the

eejer. deficit reduction or some other part of government. to get enough tsa agents out there according to the union, would cost about a third of the money that's being diverted. it's not right to tax people for something and then take the money away. so i would also recommend that does relate to our system and it's efficiency. it's no longer under the jurisdiction of this committee. but i would recommend it to my colleagues if they're concerned about that. with that, i look forward to hearing from witnesses. >> thank you. now we're going to turn to our first panel with one witness. it is congressman randy holtgren. randy has been very passionate about this issue and we welcome hearing from you, randy. >> chairmen, thank you for your

help on. this thank you for letting me be theer morning and make remarks. this is an issue that i have scrutinized over the last three years, it's very important to me and my constituents and air traffic controllers nationwide. as a former member of this subcommittee and i also represent several hundred air traffic controllers in illinois, the largest number in illinois, i met with many of them and many who aspire to become atcs. the students have put in long hours with our nation's military and reputable and accredited institutions to gain the skills and education to be entrusted with the public safety which is bestowed on our air traffic controllers. as a weekly commuter from o'hare to reagan, i'm invested in making sure that our skies are safe. only 30% of trainees at the chicago trade con reach full certification. ensuring we have a sufficient number of air traffic controllers is paramount to secure air traffic. that means cutting back traffic

and hurting our economy. no controller means to flights. that's why i was surprised and confused with the faa when they changed the long standing hiring procedures without warning in 2014 and launched an enus in social science experiment. students, teachers and administrators of the collegiate training initiative were blindsided by the faa's decision and told me of the negative effects. for decades, the cti training program established by the faa itself was the recognized and trusted pipeline for highly qualified candidates and military veterans. most disturbingly, i believe new hiring standards jeopardize air travel safety by diverting -- veterans in an attempt to elevate off the street candidates. why the faa did this remains unclear. what is clear is that the faa has been less than trarnz parns and open. an investigation revealed the effects of the modifications not only aspiring air traffic

controllers but on the legitimacy of the hiring process itself. the investigation also revealed that faa or aviation related employees may have assisted in giving potential recruits special access to answers on key admissions tests to help them gain jobs with the faa. yet the faa has refused to respond to audio, video, and witness accounts of misconduct. they conducted a self audit of the allegation and cleared themselves of any wrongdoing. this is no way to run an agency that is responsible for the welk of thousands of lives every day. a new and confusing psychological test, the faa repeatedly has been nonresponse i. that's why since 2014 i called for a congressional hearing on these issues and grateful to the chairman for invite meg to speak here today. we still have more questions than answers. today we need answers. we need answers about the alleged cheating. the administrator stated that he tasked two internal officers

within the faa to conduct thundershower owe investigati thorough investigations of the cheegt. they failed to uncover what was demonstrated clearingly on audio recordings. they never denies of the cheating allegations. so which it is? march filed a motion in federal court admitting the agency is unable to recover missing and corrupted e-mails at the center of the algdz cheating do. they demonstrate whether the faa knew someone on the inside was helping people cheat? when will administrator horta come forward with the results of the investigation? we need answers about the discredited buy graphical assessment and who validated it if, anyone. how did some candidates fail the buy graphical questionnaire in 2014 and then pass it in 2015? why were the candidates allowed to sit for the test in an unsecured location without showing proof of id? as a result of the faa's chachgs, many clearly qualified cti graduates and military veterans were disqualified by a test. they don't understand and cannot

improve upon even after years of education and experience. many have now aged out of the process forever losing their chance to join the ranks of air traffic controllers. where is the relief for these individuals. americans deserve an answer. where do we go from here? i introduced hr 1964, the air traffic controllers hiring act 206 2015 to restore safety and confidence to air travel. i'd like to thank you for your support on my bill. i also want to thank you for the co-sponsorship of this legislation. my bill prefers hiring stat quus for cti graduates, qualified veterans and experienced controllers and provides relief for those aged out of the process. it eliminates the use of the buy graphical assessment. my colleague introduced similar legislation this congress hr 5292 i thank him for shared

information on this. his legislation creates two separate hiring pools. the hires from the two pools may not exceed the 10% difference. however, i have concerns that should the faa hire more pools equally, it would disadvantage our cti graduates and military veterans. i worked tirelessly to instead create a three pool system of cti graduates, veterans and hires which would alleviate this problem. i welcome continued conversations with you and understand the politics and rational for the two pool approach. this isn't just about securing fair job application process before the status quo. this is about americans feeling and being safe and secure when flying. this is about transparency and openness from a agency. i'm grateful for all of you for your attention and work on this issue. i look forward to reaching solution that's provide fairness and safety and security for all. thank you, chairman.

i yield back. >> thank you, randy, very much. now we're going to move to the second panel. so we'll give the staff a second to set up and while they're doing that, i will introduce the second panel which includes miss terry bristol, chief operating officer of the air traffic control organization at faa who is accompanied by mr. ricky cannon, assistant administrator for human resources at the faa. we're also joined by mr. matt hampton who we're pleased to welcome back again, assistant and inspector general for aviation audits, united states department of transportation. mr. paul renaldi, president of the national air traffic controller's association, and mr. randy bab obitt, senior vic president for relation affairs for southwest airlines. we thank you all for being here.

and ms. brinstol, you are now recognized for your statement. microphone, please. >> chairman, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss our air traffic controller workforce. our controllers are proud professionals who are entrusted with our mission to run the safest, most efficient airspace system in the world. the national airspace system is an extremely complex operation. we need to continually meet both the on going and the emergency needs of aviation community. therefore, we must remain committed to hiring, training, and supporting the best controller workforce in the world. today i'd like to discuss four key areas of the faa's controller staffing process. hiring, training, placement and

our collaboration with the national air traffic controller as association. let me start by discussing hiring. the agency has created two hiring tracks, one track is focused on reaching candidates with no previous air traffic experience. candidates must meet the position's minimum qualifications and pass validated occupational tests which include biographical assessment in the air traffic selection and training test. the second track is a specialized air traffic control experience track. it focuses on reaching candidates with operational experience such as military veterans with at least one year of air traffic control experience. with these changes in our hiring process, the ato was on track not only to meet but to exceed the fy-16 hiring goal. this hiring process better addresses the agency's current hiring needs. it also ensures equitable

treatment in the broadest pool of qualified candidates. we will continue to monitor and refine the process as necessary to ensure the best possible individuals are selected to maintain safety and efficiency of the mass. our robust training program at the faa academy and in our facilities provides a strong foundation for our new controllers. we made continual improvements in our training curriculum in the last five years. the faa administrator recently convened an aviation rulemaking advisory committee with 11 experts from industry and the academic community. they will work with the faa to evaluate innovative approaches for future hiring and training of air traffic controllers. the air traffic organization supports the air traffic controller basic qualification

training working group under the aviation rulemaking advisory committee. we're also establishing a center of excellence for technical training and human performance. this enables us to explore opportunities for cost share research and grants that could be used to help shape the future of air traffic controller training. we're also focused on placing controllers in the right facilities. there is a priority placement tool to prioritize controller staffing requirements. it captures the latest priority ranking of all 315 facilities and it's sorted in order of greatest staffing need. we place trainees where we need them. collaboration is paramount to our success. the best way to meet staffing challenges is to collaborate with our labor partners. this means working together to

make better decisions. our collaboration supports our ability to place controllers where we need them. we're jointly defining our priorities and working to improve the process by which controllers requests are assignments to other facilities the in addition, we've established a clibtive resource working group that is reviewing the staffing models that we have in place. in conclusion, i believe the faa has a solid and comprehensive plan to address the controller hiring and placement and we collaborate to ensure success. we made tremendous progress in recent months. i believe we're on the right track. while we're always looking for ways to improve, the air traffic system in the united states is extremely safe and efficient. it remains the envy of the world. we look forward to working with our government and industry partners to consider even better ways to meet air traffic needs of the future.

this concludes my statement. i'll be happy to answer your questions. thank you. >> thank you, miss bristol. now we turn to mr. hampton for your statement. thank you for being here. >> chairman shuster, thank you for inviting me to testify today on the key challenges facing faa's air traffic controller works for. my remarks today are based on a report published earlier today in our on going work for the committee. today, the total number of fully certified controllers are 365 o. that is at the lowest range. furthermore, a look at individual facilities highlights a number of pressing challenge that's demand urgent attention. our analysis of faa's most critical traffic control facilities, the most complex and busiest ones in the national airspace system shows that over half of the 23 facilities have certified controller staffing levels well below minimal

staffing requirements. these include new york, atlanta, dallas, and chicago trade coms. the facilities are stress bid large percentages of controllers in training and controllers eligible to retire. we found that these problems are the result of several factors including lack of precision with faa's model for estimating staffing requirements for facilities that manage high altitude operations, not fully utilizing systems to maximize controller schedules, a lack of accurate and complete data on retirements and training times and poor communication between headquarters and the field. in term of hiring, faa introduced several changes to the controller hiring process over two years ago in february 2014. based on internal and external reviews. the changes included standardizing the minimum qualifications for all applicants, centralizing the processes and the office of human resources, and introducing a new screening mechanism known

as the buy graphical assessment. however, the agency lacked implementation strategy for the new policies. as the committee is well aware, stake holders expressed concerns that they implement the new process a month over announcing the changes even though they were significant. in addition, faa did not establish an effective tracking system to monitor candidates as they moved through the pipeline. it is too soon to assess the overall impact of faa's new hiring process and whether or not it will lead to successful outcomes and getting new controls certified faster facilities given the length of time it takes to train the controllers. our work shows that they continue to face challenges and meeting the hiring. they lack metrics on the time you take as they advance through the hiring process. in addition mshgs of the new hires selected to the new process have not yet completed required on going board processes contributing to the delays. we expect to complete our report

later this year and our recommendations for corrective action. there are also several issues that will effect the workforce in the near term that require attention. first, implementing scheduling tools to help facility managers better manage resources. particularly at large complex facilities. we recommended and faa agreed to adopt a tool that is widely used in other countries. this will help significantly. second, accelerating efforts to develop procedures, training and tools to controllers to safely manage unmanned aircraft systems in the same airspace as other aircraft. faa is taking steps to address our recommendations. finally, assessing the work load and productivity impact of new next gen technologies like the $1.6 billion that will allow them to communicate with pilots via messaging. this is important. studies suggest that this technology could allow controllers to handle 30% more

aircraft. in summary, the total training, hiring, and staffering issues are long standing concerns and require sustained faa management attention and action. mr. chairman this concludes my statement. i'd be happy to answer any questions you or the subcommittee may have. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. hampton. mr. renaldi, you're recognized. >> good morning, chairman. happy birthday, ranking member larsson. chairman shuster and members of the aviation subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to testify about one of the most critical problems facing our national airspace system. we all have a stake in our national airspace system. it's an economic engine contributing 1$1.5 trillion to our country. we run the safest, most complex, most diverse airspace in the world. our system is unique. unequal and unrivalled by any other country. this is due to a large part in

the work with the men and women i represent who run this system. the united states airspace system is considered the gold standard in the world aviation community. and yet, the air traffic controller cross-iceous puts this status at risk. we held a meeting to discuss the air traffic control staffing. that he vent was the catalyst to collaborate and develop solution onz many aspects of the staffing crisis. with the changes we have made are small steps in the right direction. air traffic control staffing has been a concern for many years. it is now reached a crisis level. controlling staffing at 10% since 2011. the faa has missed the hiring goal in each of the last seven years. with one-third of the current workforce eligible to retire, the bureaucratic structure is failing us. stop and go funding contributed to staffing problems n 2013, due

to sequestration, the faa froze hiring, shut down the faa academy and since then it has not been able to catch up. after sequestration of 2000, the sequestration of 2013 kushgts the faa reduce third down th3,0 because of bq which is fundamentally flawed. they work with the faa to validate the secretary bq with a large number of controller workforce before they used it in the 2015 vacancy announcementn july of 2015, they retired the military control program which we known as rmc. piling on, faa hr decided that the air traffic control selection test could nobt ut bed again. we worked hard to encourage members to validate a new exam.

this say full day test. and with our controller staffing crisis it is not an easy task. the validation is not complete yet and the faa will not post a vacancy announcement until it s the bureaucratic, self inflicted wounds have delayed the hiring of new employees. since the roundtable discussion in december, the faa collaborated to make progress. the job is far from complete. we believe the faa must take a holistic approach. we should not do anything to make the current situation worse or delay hiring or slowing training or reduce the staffing targets. we don't just come with a concern. we believe that nerve this room could work together and get a solution. congress needs to pass an faa re-authorization bill and provide a necessary, stable, predictable funding to operate a fully staffed national airspace system. sequestration must be fixed or the faa should be exempted.

otherwise, we see another hiring freeze, reducing staffing, seek furloughs, delays and reduce capacity. we support the passage of the bill which would stream like the hiring process by ensuring that they'll be hired quickly with fewer bureaucratic hurdles and allow graduates to be hired without being subject to the viral data questionnaire. the faa needs to hire as many experienced controllers that are qualified. in addition, it should be hiring 2,000 inexperienced employees per year to maximize the through put through the faa academy. our controllers are dedicated highly skilled professionals. the best in the world. they're forced to shoulder of chronically understaffed facilities. they're doing an amazing job every day under this staffing crisis. but it's time for some relief. no one wants interruptions in service, delays, decreased capacity, least of all our air

traffic controllers. i want to thank you for calling this hearing and continue to keep our staffing crisis front and center. we must remain vigilant and continue it move the ball forward, otherwise, we're hard pressed to maintain the current capacity let alone expand and modernize our system. i thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i look forward to answering any of your questions. >> thank you, mr. republican aldy. now we turn to mr. babbitt for your statement. you're recognized. >> thank you. chairman shuster mr. larsson, members of the aviation subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee today to discuss the issues that are related to air traffic controller hiring, staffing, and training. i come before this body today actually wearing a number of hats that i collected over the years, almost five decades in aviation. those hats are airline executive, administrators of the faa, former president of an airline union and a former commercial airline pilot.

and because of my former lives, if you woshgs in aviation, i think i offer a unique perspective on a number of these issues. but first and foremost, i'm here today as a senior executive from southwest airlines. southwest is, as you may know, the nation's largest domestic carrier in term of carrying passengers in the country, 150 million passengers customers and annually with a combination of low fares, no annoying fees and a friendly customer service that is developed by outstanding people in a safe and reliable operation. we operate southwest a fleet of over 700 boeing 737 aircraft operating nearly 4,000 flights a day over will 87 u.s. destinations and 11 international destinations and every single one of those flights is in controlled airspace. so to say the least, we're gent upon and highly appreciative of a robust, highly skilled air traffic controller workforce.

my prior roles as the faa administrator and commercial airline pilot, i was proud to interact daily with the professional men and women of the usair traffic controller workforce. dedication to aviation safety, operational efficiency and professional integrity is truly remarkable. and it leads to the fact that we all must have confidence in this atc system. during my 50 years of flying, i never have lost that confidence and it's in large measure due to the skill and professionalism of the nation's air traffic controllers. now with that said, my confidence in overall atc system today is a little bit shaky. i have no concern, let me underscore, no concern from a safety perspective. the safety of the atc system is never in doubt. but i do question the reliability of the overall atc system from an operational and customer service perspective. the u.s. aviation system is both labor and capital intensive and like other modes of

transportation in other sectors in the aviation industry, prolonged underfunding of staffing needs and system improvements will eventually take its toll as it has with the d.c. metro and the tsa security apparatuses, two examples. all of this produces concerns about whether the current atc system can be sustained in the present form. eventually without major structural changes and greater funding and staffing certainty, serious inconvenience to aircraft operators and ultimately to our customers and your constituents will result. specifically in, delivering to the beneficial nextgen technologies and to avoid the crisis, the federal government needs to do more to address the supply of certified controllers as well as providing the required training to fully utilize the nexgen capability that are available today, principally, navigation and other capabilities expected to be rolled out in the near

future, data communications in the en route environment. aviation traffic is forecast to grow steadily. and certainly having certified controller staffing levels continue to decline with no relief in sight is not going to be helpful. this seems to be particularly problematic with critical atc facilities which require the most experienced controllers to manage the complex operations skillfully and efficiently. and as the nation's largest domestic airline, it concerns us and challenges our promise to our customer that's we'll provide friendly, reliable, and on time service. due to our concerns with the future capabilities of the atc system and the current pace of progress with regard to the next gen program, southwest joined most of the airline community and several aviation unions including natca to support significant structural financing, procurement reforms all contained within the house version of the faa

re-authorization act. they generate more than 12 million jobs. we believe that such an important economic engine will struggle to meet future demand under the current system challenged by the fits and starts of annual appropriations process and the threat to sequestration or government shutdowns. we applaud the committee and looking for these important issues to resolve and at least recognizing that the status quo is not acceptable. so hopefully a bipartisan solution can be acleefd sooner rather than later. on behalf of southwest airlines, i thank you for this opportunity to testify and i'll be happy to answer any questions later. thank you. >> mr. babbitt, thank you very much. we'll now turn to mr. shuster for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start off by saying first of all, i know mr. babbitt in your long distinguished career you were on the '93 commission

that recommended the type of atc reform that we proposed here and passed out of committee. i appreciate you being here today, your long service and your wisdom and trying to figure out how we change this system and right this ship so we can have safer, more efficient air traffic control system and airspace in america. so far this morning we learned that the faa missed its own controller hiring targeted in each of the last six years. and the percentage of the controller trainees being used are at near record levels in our busiest air traffic controlled facilities. in an effort to right the ship, you said you changed, revamped your controller hiring process twice in three years this happened. i, for one, i'm very skeptical and doubtful that record of six years not being able to meet i think the latest numbers is you're behind in hiring the type

of people that we need to get in the facilities. so i'd like our witnesses, at least mr. hampton and mr. babbitt if, you'll give the faa on a scale of an a to an f their performance and hiring placement and training over the last five years. mr. hampton? >> that's a dangerous thing to ask an ig to give a grade. on this one, given the -- what we've done over the years on the critical facilities long standing, we would have to give them an incomplete. we think it's a long standing issue that needs continued management. incomplete. it's staininging grade. >> sounds like you're a politician. i would expect you to come down hard one way or the other. mr. renaldi? >> i'm going to go with the incomplete also if that's appropriate. you said a through f. i go with the incomplete. you know, the self inflicted bureaucratic processes that they put in place, i still can't

consciously figure out why they would decide to do such a thing. but at the end of the day, they are trying to make changes. since the roundtable discussion, we're seeing changes. keep in mind, not that i would grade this great body, stop and go funding does impact it. >> i would do that. and i would be in the politician or ask the questions, i'd give congress a d minus on what we've done over the last 20 or 30 years on the funding level, the different pieces of legislation that we've passed that we have not enforced with our oversight of the faa but i would give us a d minus. maybe a d since it's larsson's birthday today. mr. babbitt? now you're in the trickiest position of all. because you have to deal with the faa every single day. >> so i'm going to default to the fail/pass voting method and give them a passing grade but as

a good teacher, mentor might try to do, i say that with caveats. i think it's tools they need for the performance of what we have asked them to do. and again, the fuping, the changing of external circumstances for them being forced to furl low, all of that is detracted from their grade but not their fault. so i guess i will default to the point of stabilizing the funding, have a clear path and having the ability to put your hand up occasionally and say, look, we need more money to do this. this is a critical piece and we can't do it with the fund williing and the budget you have set for us. i think all of those with would help them improve that grade and get into a good college. >> i want to ask you to grade yourself, but again, why should we is assume after six years of failure, after the last two, three years changing the system

twice, tell us the metric we need to look for in the next couple of months, several months, to prove that you are moving forward in a positive way. >> okay. thank you very much. so i think that the first metric to make is to make our hiring targets each year. we're on track to do that this year. we'll probably exceed our goal upwards -- >> when will we see that? >> we've already met the goal, and we expect to exceed it by any number of applicants probably in the high 1600s for this fiscal year. and i think that we have had some challenges over the years, and i think sequestration played a part in that. but i know that there have been a number of changes and i think we are making progress. i think the changes that we've put into place both process and tools i think will continue to bear positive results as we move

forward now and into the future. my organization, the air traffic organization, is working very closely with other parts of the faa including my colleague mr. ricky cannon who is our deputy assistant administrator for human resources. our folks are working very closely together and hiring and training is one of our highest priorities in the agency. we're also working very closely with my colleague paul rinaldi and his team. we've put in place a number of changes in the way that we're working together on how we move people throughout the system, ensuring that we address the highest need facilities first and foremost and really focus on putting our new hires in the lower level facilities. >> okay. well, know we're watching closely and i know this problem has to be solved now because the real damaging effects come down the road if it's not addressed today. >> right. >> so again, thank you for being here. thank you all for being here. >> thank you.

>> mr. defazio. >> thanks. i'll move on quickly to the controller issue but i just want to correct the record mr. babbitt, you can help with this. you served on the '93 commission, that's correct? the '93 commission you served on it, looking at the changing the ato governance? >> i believe that was the '92 commission. >> yeah, you did. >> yes. >> was the conclusion to go to a private corporation, or was the conclusion to establish an independent government corporation? >> i will plead a fair amount of distance between 1992 and today. >> well, i have it here and although ms. row bien and others keep saying we were there, this is what they wanted to do, it actually came to the conclusion it should be an independent government corporation removed from the federal budget process. not a private, not for profit corporation. let's move on to air traffic

controllers. ms. bristol, why was this b.a. created? my understanding is the at sat was compromised and that's part of the rationale for the b.a.? >> congressman, i will attempt to answer your biographical ass created to provide some initial screening as assets matriculated through the process. >> it's not because the at sat had been compromised? >> we can talk about that a little later. but let me try to answer the first question. >> all right, let me just get to my point. i met a person at the last nadca event on the hill who went through the cti, is working as a military controller but can't come aboard with the faa because they can't pass the b.a. and baxt a. seems to be designed to see if you have the temperament to be a controller. if somebody has successfully

completed the school and is working without reservations, without problems as a military air traffic controller, is that test valid? >> yes, sir. the test is valid. both versions of the biographical assessment -- >> i thought you had -- you hadn't valid aested the first one with the workforce and then you redid the b.a. and it has been somewhat validated but there's still questions in my mind about that validation. >> no, sir. >> why would you then want to screen out a person who's fully qualified working as an air traffic controller trained? why would we want to screen her out with a biographical assessment? >> well, i don't believe we want to screen any particular individual. >> but there seems to be a problem. what's the goal? i mean, if the goal is to get people, you know, because it becomes more expensive as you go through the process, you have to apply the atsap, my understanding is it costs you $139 for at sapp compared to 45

bucks for the s.a.t. i'm really kind of wondering about this whole process, the b.a., the at sat and whether we need two processes or whether we should have one simplified process, which is, do you have the skills necessary, yes or no, and we're going to give you an atsat, we're going to keep it secure so it doesn't get compromised in terms of answers. maybe we can get prince ton to do it for us for 45 bucks a person as opposed to $139. i mean, this whole process is aggravating. i mean, i think we're screening out potentially at least one and i'm sure it's more than one qualify people from becoming controllers. i mean, you're totally confident in this process as the best way to good, b.a., then the atsat? >> yes, sir, i am. and i think it's producing results and ms. bristol just said, we will exceed our hiring target this year. >> okay. that's another question. >> we have a good start.

>> ms. bristol, why is the target less than 2,000? the academy has the capability of processing 2,000. and we have a severe shortage in many of our critical centers, and it's going to take people three years to get there. why are we hiring less than 2,000? >> so as we stepped from 15 to 16, we transitioned to a new controller training contract. we wanted to ensure that we didn't have more trainees in the field than that could go right into training. in other words, we track to the individual where they're at and how many training resources are available to move those people through the system. >> so you're saying that you put through -- your target is because of restrictions in terms of supervision of entry-level controllers. >> it was one consideration. as we move into next year, we're looking to bump that and look to max out the academy as well. in addition to bringing on previous experienced controllers over and above that number.

>> right. and the faa as a target minimum head count, which is set by some sort of mathematical algorithm by the finance people, doesn't sound ideal to me because the green eye shades probably have something else in mind, and then we had the crwgcpc working group, which came up with much more robust levels. so if we had actually applied working group that drilled down into each center and came up with higher numbers, why do we even bother with the mathematical algorithm that p popped out of the finance department? >> that would be be the controller workforce plan it's put out every year. it's stra steej teeth ick. it's very high level. the ato worked with and a half and that -- working group it was ato and nat ka. >> so it's actually practitioners working with the

bureaucrats to come up with real nicks as opposed to numbers created by a mathematical alga ridge. >> it doesn't take into account everyone in a facility. what it does is average out the certified professional controllers and we set targets on how we're going to staff to that level and move people through the system from our more healthy to less healthy facilities. but we have to account for the developmentals that are already in the building. so in working together, i'm very confident. that is how we have laser approach on who we're putting into which facilities. >> mr. rinaldi, can you comment on this b.a. process? when they did the control, how many -- do you know how many controllers took the test and what their pass and fail rate was with the b.a., actual working controllers? >> sure. thank you, sir. when they did the first one in 2014, 28,511 applicants took the b.q.

2,407 passed. so roughly 10% passed. then we found out later on that -- and i'm not a scientist, but all you have to do is read the first page about a biographical assessmentment. it says the test must be validated with a large group of incumbents. being the only person who -- so we asked the faa if you're going to do this again, you probably need to validate this test. and they did. we did it together and validated it and roughly 18,000 took it and roughly 5,000 passed the b.q., about 28%. again, i don't know much about the science, but i do know there are a lot of qualified people out there that are actually doing the job today that have not passed it. >> thank you. thank you mrshgs cha, mr. chair >> just very briefly, i want to strongly associate with mr. defazio's comments on the revised hiring process. ms. bristol and mr. cannon, do

you realize when we're talking about a military air traffic controller that can't be qualified for civilian air traffic control and you're telling this committee and the rest of the world that you're justifying that your process is valid and trying to make all of us understand how that's okay, how absurd and ridiculous it is to us that somehow you don't kind of regroup and say, look, maybe we've got to relook at this? and if we've got military air traffic controllers that have gone through cti maybe we've done something wrong here? so you're hurt yurgself by doing this. very briefly, we're going to go to mr. akita. but mr. shust achuster asked. >> mr. defazio hit the nail right on the head. i appreciate that. but i want to make sure the record reflects that in my act reform it accomplishes everything he wants too except

for it's not in a failed -- the history of america has been failed government corporations. and it take it's out of that and we've seen around the world that this system works. i just want to make sure that stands on the record too. >> mr. atekiakita. >> ms. bristol, so the military training program doesn't suffice? military controllers can't pass your processes and cannot work in the civil system? >> no, sir. we are hiring any number of former military controllers. in fact, our most recent track two announcement we did in all sources announcement opening continuous back last december we recently hired 260, all veterans, all former mill controllers. well, why can't -- why do

they fail? >> sir, the biographical assessment like any test is basically -- it predicts success at the academy and cpc at first facility. it's not flawless, like all tests. >> so you agree to correct the flaws. >> well, what we've done is we've done our consultant has done the validation work to ensure that the test is valid. that's legally an obligation we have as an agency that any selection procedural tool we use mub validated under the uniform guidelines. >> mr. rinaldi, do you have a comment on this? >> just mr. cannon said something about an open continuous bid. that was closed in march. so if it's open and continuous it would be open all the time i would think. so it's not -- it's actually closed. they have not issued another open continuous bid for experienced controllers or direct hires oust the military.

the individual that mr. defazio was speaking about is an actual cti graduate, highly recommended from the school, and is working in one of our federal contract towers actually performing air traffic control and is not able to pass the b.q. either. >> roger. thank you. continuing on with the cti schools, mr. cannon, can you explain why the faa decided to use a b.a. bachelor arts for general graduates including second can you explain why the faa modified the b.a. so quickly? >> modified the b.a.? >> yes. >> and why we use it? again, we created and use the biographical assessment for the 2014 a's nounsment because it's a good screen and it's validated for success at the academy and success at cpc at first facil y facility. we modified the biographical assessment in 2015 because between the 2014 and the 2015

announcement wshe had enough ti to do a job task analysis to take a deeper look at the occupation to see if it changed. >> why did you use the same contractor for the buy graphical analysis? >> why did we use the same contractor? >> yeah. when that contractor failed the first time. >> well -- >> wasn't able to do the job correctly the first time. >> well, the contractor did not fail to do the job correctly the first time, sir. >> mr. rinaldi, is that your opinion? >> that is certainly not my opinion. the test was never validated with air traffic controllers so it wasn't valid. that's why it had such a horrible success rate. more importantly, they did have time. they had 3,000 qualified cti students on a list that they basically expunged. they could have hired them for that year and given us the opportunity to validate the test. my executive vice president brought this up to who was the head of hr who's no longer there at this time and they basically put the hand up and said, we

know exactly what we're doing. the science doesn't lie. it did lie. it was flawed. >> thank you very much for that testimony. ms. bristol, purdue university in my district is one of the 36 schools approved to participate in the collegiate training initiative. when the hiring process was changed cti students no longer received a bonus on their application, whatever that looks like, for completing the program. why do you think that's right, that's the right decision not to give priority to these students who are specifically trained to do air traffic control at what -- unless you're a hard iu fan wouldn't agree that purdue is not a good place to get that kind of work done, that kind of training done? >> sir, cti students never got a bonus. what they had was a separate announcement in which they were placed in the inventory. the only thing we've done, if you really look at it closely,

is we've taken them and they are just competing in the pool with the rest of the -- >> there's a shortage, sir. why not -- you have these people trained already. why not get them to the front of the line and get them in a tower or get them in a tray con? i don't get it. >> sir, they're actually doing better if you can indulge me for just a second, than they ever have. i'll give you just a few examples. in fy '08 the faa hired 2,096 controllers. 823 of those were cti students. these numbers by the way were reported in the controller workforce plan. that's 37%. and fy '09 faa hired 1731 controllersor, only 335 were cti students, 19%. and then in ny 10 and 11 an independent panel review report that was commissioned by mr. babbitt had when he was the

faa administrator, the faa was roundly criticized because in fy 10 and 11 of 1,000 controllers selection only 33% were cti students. now, in fy 14, 47% of the 1593 people selected were cti grads or had some cti education. in fy 15 that number ballooned to 50%. there were 1452 out of 2895 people who referred. so that's a 50% growth doing nothing at all but putting this new process in place. >> i thank the chairman for his time. i yield back. apparently we don't need to have this hearing chairman. >> mr. lipinski. >> thank you, mr. chairman. having a discussion about whether or not there are shortages or not, i think a couple of things i want to make sure we focus on.

13 of 23 critical facilities were found by the ig to be below the facilities planning staffing range. and two of these facilities are chicago trey con and chicago o'hare tower which are below the minimum level for cpcs. so we're talking about some of the busiest terminal air space in the entire world. now, in the chicago tray con, chicago center o'hare tower, the percentage of retirement eligible controllers range from 43% to 50%. so clearly we see problems right now and certainly issues in the future with having shortages. i have great concerns about what has been done with the changes to the system for hiring controllers.

i know that i have one of the best cti schools in the country in my district, lewis university in romeoville. professor bill parrot is here today. we talked about this yesterday. i want to point out that there's a 2013 report by the faa civil aeronautical medical institute that said, quote, based on training performance a preference for cti graduates over general applications seems warranted. another in 2814 said, quote, overall larger -- status than did general public hires. now, i know that in hiring procedures were changed in 2013. there was an alarming increase in the number of academy failures in 2015. so it just seems common sense to me as others have noted that it's common sense to hire from cti graduates and veterans

first. so ms. bristol, can you tell me how veterans and cti graduates' performance and training compares with those from the general population? >> congressman, i don't have those statistics with me. i would have to provide those to you. >> okay. i'd very much like to see that because it seems like something we would want to know, especially when we see this increase in academy failures and we want to know who is perform ing best and really is succeeding in the process. now, i want to associate myself with mr. hole krun's comments when he spoke before this panel. we need to figure this out. we cannot have -- i understand that because of the current and coming potential shortages of air traffic controllers we don't

want to slow the system down. but we have to get at how we do this best to keep our aviation safe. we need to get at a lot of those things mr. hole crumb talked about. we need to understand the alleged cheating that went on, to know what happened there. i think mr. hoe krun's bill that i worked with him on hr-1964 is the best way to go about doing this. i'm also co-sponsor -- for the reasons mr. hoe krun laid out there, i think his bill is -- i prefer that bill. but we need to do a much better job here. one question i want to ask. there's probably not any information on it. i'm not sure if it's directly related to what we're talking about here. but ms. bristol, around midnight on june 4th an incoming

commercial flight was unable to reach air traffic controllers in the chicago midway tower. the flight diverted to milwaukee and two other incoming flights entered holding patterns. during this time, the crews remained in contact with tray con in elgin so it wasn't any direct safety issue. but i wanted to know if the faa has determined the cause of this communications difficulty. >> yes. thank you, congressman. with we are investigating that matter. we expect to wrap up that investigation in the next two to three days and we'll certainly circle back with your office to share that information. >> obviously it's very create that we get to the bottom of this incident and also -- getting back, we need to make sure -- i want to find the answer to the question about how cti and veterans perform and that i will yield back.

>> thank you, mr. lipinski. mr. micah. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for letting me go ahead i do have another obligation shortly. we've been talking about training of air traffic controllers for as long as i've been here and we set up a system that is flawed. ms. bristol, how many people do we have that have applied to be air traffic controllers? don't we have a waiting list or something? >> can you answer it, mr. cannon? >> how many people do we have -- >> we had a list apply to get in. how many do we have on the list currently? i know we had thousands at one point. do we still have thousands? >> yeah. >> we have thousands. >> right now -- >> what's the capacity to run through the school at oklahoma? >> 2,000. >> how many? >> 2,000. >> is that during what period of

time? >> that would be during the fiscal year. >> one year you can do 2,000. >> plus we can also put experienced controllers directly into the field to train them. >> and your washout rate i understand is still pretty high from those that come out of oklahoma. is that correct? who knows the washout rate? >> in the en route option the failure rate at the academy is around 30%. >> about 30%. so a third. we have dozens of colleges, universitieses -- i don't have it in my district. emery riddle who can teach these courses. why can't faa set the standard for colleges and universities? right now, aren't we paying -- we were paying them money to go to the school and this big mechanism and a 30% washout rate. are we still paying them to go to school? >> yes, sir. >> yes. all this money we're spending and we have a washout rate and

we can't fill the positions. we have plenty of schools that can teach these people if faa can get out of that business. and there's a role for oklahoma city. when they come out of the colleges or the military air traffic control or something, they should be tested. they should be brought up to date on the very latest protocols. and then they should be dispersed to the vacancies, correct? >> yes. >> so we need to get faa out of that business. they're not doing it right. >> we've with embarked upon -- >> get the colleges and universities and schools that can do this, they'll pay for it themselves, they come out. i see someone in the past behind mr. rinaldi that told me the excellent performance of those that come out of the schoolsedu. if faa can do its job in setting the protocols, the standards, the courses and the

certifications to get the hell out of the business, don't you think we could do a better job? >> sir, we've started that process. >> where's the -- >> we have started a control -- a working group. >> let's totally get out of it. it's nice the legislation pending. but it doesn't solve the problem. the problem is basic, that the structure that we have is fundamentally flawed. okay? so we need to get out, members. listen to this members. introduce legislation that changes the role of oklahoma city and directs faa to set the standards, the certification, and you can do checks on these people. there's a very small washout rate. they're better performers. they're better equipped in many ways to get on the job and fill those gaps. anybody disagree with me? mr. rinaldi? you like it? >> do i disagree with you, sir?

>> yeah. >> i think there's a fairness issue when a student ghekboez i college. i'm paying two college tuitions right now. they're going into a college program to be specifically an air traffic controller and then they come out and they have to take a biographic aal assessmen >> to go back into that, i think you can recraft the role of oklahoma city to test them, to make certain that they are competent, and to see where their skills best match the vacancies that we have in the system. but, you know, there's an unfairness, yes, you but right now the taxpayer is paying for a 30% washout rate to a system that doesn't get people on the job. so i think we need to transition again to a system that can produce them. we -- why should we be paying for this system of failure? it just goes on and on. i've got to run to another

function. mr. chairman, members of the committee, we he need to reform this whole process. anything less you're just messing around. >> thank you. mr. larsen. >> thank you. mr. rinaldi, from all accounts, the naca workforce helps the faa fill its position to provide the safest and most efficient aerospace system in the world. can you point to any safety lapses in the last year that you would associate with controller staffing levels? >> no, sir. the controllers plug into their position day in and day out to maintain first and foremost the safety of the national air sfais space system. if they're working double positions because staffing is short, then capacity will have to be appropriately reduced to make sure they're not in a safety concern. >> so the first option would be to reduce capacity as opposed to

trying to keep capacity levels the same if there's an issue an staffing. >> absolutely. >> mr. babbitt as well, apart from the service reductions associated with sequestration, can southwest airlines point to any other air traffic control related delays or service reductions? >> we certainly have our suspicions. we rely somewhat on anecdotal data or information. >> be sure to get right in the microphone there. >> with we do have our suspicions. we don't have clear insight into a lot of the granular pieces when an air traffic control facility begins to increase spacing, things like that, ground stops. we don't necessarily know what the issue is within that station. we do know of a couple, though, a good example in the chicago center they have a metering station that has been somewhat short-staffed. the problem for you us is they

have adjacent sector vectoring so aircraft coming out of chicago center going into the minneapolis center they have a protocol. well, if there's not staffing in either of those centers it doesn't happen and it's not happening. and what that leads to you for us is increased vectoring, increase fuel burn, longer en route times. it's a delay. i mean, we pay the financial penalty. we burn 2 billion gallons of fuel a year, and it's expensive. so anytime we can reduce that and use the enhanced procedures, we welcome it. those are the kind of restructuring. midway tower itself has the same issue. they don't sometimes cannot staff a metering -- ground metering system that they use for lack of personnel in the tower. so it leads to us for increased tarmac times. you just sit longer on the ramp burning fuel, delaying passengers. not anything we look forward to. >> thanks. ms. bristol, there's some criticism of the controller workforce plan staffing ranges

as unreliable. can you just enlighten me a little bit when we talk about shortage, from your perspective, what's the baseline we're supposed to use? and in fairness i'm going to ask mr. rinaldi to comment on that same question as well. what's the baseline? >> well, you know, right now we've got -- in the entire system 14,376 folks that are with working their way through the process from the early levels through the top. we'restriving right now to get everyone to our certified professional controllers in a range that's in the 80% to 85% rate which we would feel is more healt healthy. so we're focused in facility that's are above that on helping them if they desire to go to a facility that's below that level help them get there more quickly

so that we can start getting everybody up to that range. >> mr. rinaldi, how should we assess this? >> so i would just say that the most accurate assessment of each facility is your onboard staffing of your fully certified professional controllers. these are the individuals that can plug in and work any position. these are the individuals that will train the other people in the building that are learning to be air traffic controllers xs these are the individuals that will fill in for supervisory functions and be controllers in charge. these are the individuals we take off the boards to actually help us modernize the system and develop real-time efficiencies in nextgen. that is the goal to actually measure that. what the controller workforce plan, it just is bodies in the building. and all too often they give you a number and it's misleading at best that they say, well, at atlanta trey con we have 95 people on board but really you only have -- and if our cpc

number is 100 and you have 95 people on board you would think, well, we're okay. we're only 5 under. really you only have 68 people that can fully work all the positions and those other people are in some form of training, which their success rate in atlanta is less than 40%. so you're counting people that will never be be successful in the building and it's almost a charade that you're saying, well, we're fully staffed there. the people will never certify there. the number is flawed. if you go strictly by certified professional controllers is the best way to see the healthiness of a building. >> mr. chairman, could i just ask the same question of mr. hampton? >> it's your birthday. whatever you want. >> it's my birthday. great. i've got another 15 minutes worth of questions. one for every birthday. matt, could you talk a little bit -- have you looked at the right number? >> we don't know exactly what

the right number is, but let me get you a different perspective. when we visit the field, the facility manager and he runs that place day to day and he's responsible and he runs multiple shifts, and mr. rinaldi is quite correct. the certified controller is a utility infielder. he trains controllers and can work all segments of the air space. that gives a facility manager tremendous flexibility. i think it's important for the faa to communicate to the congress a specific number, whether it's in -- particularly in the controller work tss force plan. what's the right number at the right facility particularly at the critical facilities? it doesn't really matter, we've looked at this for a number of years so the cpc seems to be a very important number. that's kind of our take on it. it matters to the facility manager, the guy that runs the facility particularly at chicago, atlanta, the most critical facilities. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. rinaldi, at the roundtable we held in december,

you outlined some steps that you thought the faa should take to improve the hiring and training and placement. can you tell us any specific improvements in this area over the last six months? >> so after the roundtable hearing we had in december, the agency actually opened up the continuous bid for a couple of months, which helped get streamlined military controllers into the system and get them directly into the facilities. so that helped. what also helped is we've come to an agreement on what we call an err policy, which is basically a national release policy moving controllers from mid-level and lower level facilities to the higher level facilities where we have the shortage in a very streamlined way so it's not 314 -- but it's actually a very national overlook and making sure that

the system is staffed correctly and the facilities are getting the resources they need to do. so these are some steps with swre taken. hr-5292 will give the agency the ability to continue to hire maximize the academy and hire straight from the military and actually give the ability for the cti students to get right into the academy also and get that rolling. that's why we actually support the passage of hr-5292. >> ms. bristol, i want to commend you and your team for the collaboration with mr mr. rinaldi and nadka seems like that is going to be crucial and essential. but can you explain the difference between the staffing targets your team developed and the recommended staffing ranges included in the faa's annual controller workforce plan? >> the annual controller workforce plan that's put out, it's a very high level,

strategic target. and it does give ranges, it gives a high and a low as an indicator of, you know, health, if you will, in a facility. when we look at managing facilities every day and how we move our controllers through the system and inside the buildings, it was clear that we needed a much more tactical tool, and that is why we worked with nadca to laser in on individual facilities and how wie place an recognize. there's also people moving through the facility at the same time as they become more proficient. so the controller workforce plan i think serves a purpose, but for day-to-day management in the system our organization works with that interim target on how we move and place people in the system. >> mr. hampton or mr. rinaldi, do you care to comment? >> as i said earlier, the

controller workforce plan just gives a head count. what we did in our collaborative resource working group is actually laser in how many cpcs we run the mission. and the mission is running air traffic control, actually getting recurrent training and mandatory briefing items, do an ojti, helping modernization in the system. so we went with the cpc number and ms. bristol is correct of actually what's a good number to actually move somebody through the system. and we came with 85% cpc number. that's why that number seems to be working for us. but if you just look -- if you just went on the controller workforce plan as i said with atlanta but we could do it with chicago also, about 30% of the people in the building that come in as new developmentals become fully certified. controller workforce cpc target

is 100. that's the number we came up with collaboratively. but, you know, they would right now say that we're within range because their range is from 81 to 100. right now there's 83 people there. except for the fact there's only 64 that could actually work position. the others are in some stage of training. but they're counting them as a full body. if you with were going to schedule that person to work a shift, you certainly would not schedule a group of those 20 people that can't work by themselves all alone on a shift. so it's disingenuous to say they're okay, they have 84 people on board. the workforce plan to me, it just gives a false depiction of what's actually going on in a facility. the healthiness of a facility and the staffing of a facility goes right to the cpc number and what accomplishes the mission of moving air traffic control safely throughout our system.

>> i think that's encouraging that faa and nadca are working together, but i think it's important in the future that they clearly communicate to this committee and other committees what number they're measuring particularly at the critical facilities about the health. are with we measuring cpcs or measure the controller work force plan? i think that's an important measurement. i think it's a positive step, but i think going forward what measurement are we using, and that's an important measure for we should measure by. and i do think what mr. rinaldi said the cpc and it's okay to express it in ranges there's a level of precision that's not easy to get here. but i think it's a positive development but i think it's important going forward whether or not we'll see in the next if the next plan they put forward in 2017 will reflect that. but i think it's important to communicate the health of a facility by that measurement in the future. >> thank you. ms. bristol, according to mr. rinaldi, controllers are working mandatory six-day work

weeks in atlanta, chicago, dallas/ft. worth and new york and according to your agency controller overtime expenditures have jumped from 54 million in 2011 to 78 million in 2015. do you share our concern with the pressure being put on controllers, the safety and operational implications of increasing their workloads and how long can this be kept up this way before we have some kind of a breaking point? >> well, thank you, congressman. i think that is one of the priority reasons that we're so focused on moving our experienced controllers into some of our most critically staffing challenge facilities. there's different levels of overtime in every facility. you know, ours can vary. you know, my -- i do not like to see people working more overtime than they need to, and that is

why it's a priority for me to ensure that we get bodies as quickly as possible in and then move bodies to where they really need to be to support the workforce that's already there. >> mr. hampton or mr. rinaldi, do you care to comment? >> overall, overtime nationwide is 2.6%. most facility managers tell you us if it's in the 4% to 6% range it's manageable. however, some of the critical facilities they do exceed 10%. new york trey con almost 15%. dallas tray con 12%. atlanta tray con and chicago tray cons are 11%. so that shows a level of stress at a facility. it's questionable how long that can be sustained. it shows signs of staffing shortages. mr. rinaldi? >> i would agree with the numbers the ig put out. those are accurate, and it does -- it's a -- it does fa teak the workforce if you're working six-day workweeks

ten-hour days and maxing out on that. it's a high-stress occupation and it's not something we should rely on as a normal part of our day-to-day operation. >> thank you. now turn to mr. maloney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. happy birthday to our colleague mr. larsen. proof that the aviation subcommittee really is the secret to staying forever young. mr. rinaldi, i appreciate the kind words on the bipartisan legislation that my colleague mr. cabello and i have introduced to address some of the issues you've been discussing this morning. hr-5292 known as the air traffic control hiring improvement act, you've done a better job in your testimony than i could of outlining some of the merits of the legislation. but i would -- but i'd love to ask you about a couple of issues that are covered by our

bipartisan legislation as i'm sure my colleague mr. cabela may as well. and let me also say thank you to your members at nadca for the extraordinary work they do day in and day out that ensure millions of us who travel every year and every week in many c e cases arrive at our destinations safe and sound. so thank you for that. and thank you for your efforts in advancing my legislation. but let me focus you specifically on the new buy graphical assessment test conducted by faa. could you speak to some of the ways that this test has led to qualified controllers, including veterans being rejected from potential atc positions? i'm not sure people fully understand this issue. >> well, thank you, sir. and thank you for your leadership on hr-52-92. we do really appreciate it. we think it's the right piece of legislation to move forward to help us with the hiring. the buy graphical assessment was

established to help cull a list basically of 28,000 applicants, and it took -- it didn't take into account, regardless of any schooling you would have or any actual on the job function of being an air traffic controller you've been doing for years in the military or years in the faa. and really just put everybody into one pool and i don't know how they graded it. i do know some people that did take the test they were just told that they passed or failed. weren't told what they answered correctly or incorrectly. and it really seemed -- it doesn't seem like a fairness issue like i started to say earlier. i pay for two college tuitions, and i would like to knee if my child can actually do the job before i'm actually paying for the college tuition. especially something as precise and specific as air traffic control. you can't come out of emery riddle with an air traffic

control degree and fail a b.q. there's not many other places you can turn to. it's a fairness issue of allowing cti students not to be lumped in with off the street. same as military that are actually providing day-to-day air traffic control services in the military to actually then put them and treat them and put them into the biographical questionnaire seems silly. >> thank you. if you'd also expound on how it unnecessarily restricts military and department of defense civilian controllers and if that's contributing to the staffing crisis we've heard quite a bit about this morning and we're seeing in places like new york. >> well, to be an air traffic controller in a large tray cons is a very, very hard task. you really can't come out of the academy and make it into one of those busy facilities, the success rate is very, very low.

depending on what your job function is in the military, if you're actually a tower controller, you're probably best suited to go into a tower environment in the faa. if you're a range controller, you're probably best to go into the academy and learn exactly air traffic control in the civilian world. but really what it comes down to for new york tray con, atlanta tray con, dallas, chicago trey con and the other busy tray cons, we need to move controllers through the mid-level facilities and that's what the err process does do. it gives us the ability to place appropriately out of the academy into the lower level facilities where you can develop and hone skills so that you can actually make it into the big leagues. very similar to a farm system, not to simplify it, but what we would do in the major leagues in baseball, a, double-a, triple-a and the majors. >> in the time i have remaining, i'd appreciate it if you'd say a

word about how allowing faa to directly notice atc vacancies to minority serving institutions would help ensure we are promoting a diverse workforce while working on the staffing short ajz. >> we truly believe inform having a very diverse workforce. i think that you get the best workforce if you reach from all areas of our community. but i think that there's a way to do that with hr-5292 because you can hire directly ow of the military, which is very diverse. you can hire from the cti students and you can still do off the street hiring. you can have a three-way track to make sure you're making your mark at the faa academy each time. and you could use the b.q. to cull a list of someone who has no experience. >> thank you very much. >> mr. fairn thaul. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and i'd like to thank witnesses for

participating. i hear consistently and believe we have a shortage of air traffic controllers. yet it seems like we're putting up more and more barriers to entry there. i understand the issue of the cost associated with training someone. is it also a difficulty -- i'll ask mr. cannon this, i guess -- with folks washing out or getting rid of bad apples once they get in or not -- bad apples probably isn't the right term. but people who are not performing or not able to move up through the farm team mr. rinaldi talked about. >> i'll speak first to the academy. then i think my colleague can speak more to once we get to the facility. anyone going to the academy is on a temporary appointment. if they're not successful at the academy both in classroom, indoor behavior or conduct, they can be gotten rid of very, very quickly and there are some that

go that way. >> all right. go ahead, ma'am. >> i would love to see every trainee be 100% successful and move through the academy and out into our facilities and again have that kind of a trajectory. so i think overall, you know, we have -- it's a graduated process that we're working with our students at the academy and once they move into our facilities, again, we've got -- >> how difficult is it to get rid of someone that isn't performing once you've hired them? there a probation period? after that -- >> i don't think it's -- i mean, if you wanted to -- how hard is it? no, i don't think it's hard to get rid of someone. >> then what's -- why then do we put these big barriers to entry and tests and all? if somebody is able to perform through the academy and you're able to get rid of them, why do we have these huge barriers to entry at the very beginning?

especially for people who have already worked in the military or in contract towers and have some experience? it seems like you're shooting yourself in the foot meeting your hiring goals. >> will well well, sir, i take your point. we certainly have not sought to put up barriers. we did after the 2014 announcement look back at the initial process we put in place. it was always called the interim process. that's why we pulled the track two out. we did say, let's not have people who already have experience have to go through a biographical assessment. and those people when hired can go directly to the facility. so we have incrementally tried to improve what we started since 2014, and i think we have made some improvements there. >> all right, thank you. i'm going to -- mr. babbitt, you came out of the faa. you've worked in industry now.

let's assume president obama or whoever the next president is reappoints you there. how do you fix this problem? >> well, once we got past no -- >> i don't blame you. i wouldn't want to move out of texas either. >> i appreciate the question. we were faced with a very similar situation in '09. we had a massive retirement, clearly had to ramp up and address the problem with increased training and broader network, a more focus on the cti programs and so forth. i think today that one of the things when i look back in defense of the faa would be, you know, stable funding. do we know what we're going to do? do we know precisely what our needs are? you can work the problem backwar backwards. it's not high math. >> that's an interesting question. let me go back over to our folks from the faa. are we not paying these people enough? is that -- it doesn't look like we have a shortage of applicants. are we not paying our air traffic controllers enough?

>> no. i think our controllers are very well compensated. >> all right. so age retirement and tough screening is why we have the -- is what i'm taking way as a general shortage. let me go back to mr. rinaldi. you're a union guy. you've been with the air traffic controller, i'm promoting you to faa administrator. what do you do? >> jump off a bridge. i think hr-5292 is a good start. >> that's us. what do you do at faa administrator under current law? >> well, i would do, you know, under current law i believe the administrator could actually do hr-5292 and start hiring directly out of the military, bypass cti students that have a well qualified or recommendation. they can move forward. but the problem is being the faa administrator, you're governed by lots of lines of bureaucratic pressure and passing hr-52-92

will give him or her, whoever that might be, the ability to do the streamline procedures to hire enough air traffic controllers. >> or spinning them off into an outside entity. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> we're going to go to ms. johnson next. but just very quickly, mr. cannon, you're hearing a lot about this, but the cti students without any notice, without any ability to grandfather in some cases spends tens of thousands of dollars to go through the system and just the ax fell down and that's it. and it just there's not a good answer for that. ms. johnson? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thanks to all of the witnesses for being here. as you know, the air traffic controller staffing shortages

are impacting critical airports all across the united states and especially those in the dallas metroplex that i have to fly out of on a weekly basis. a good example is the dallas-ft. worth airport has 42 fully certified controllers on staff. and this falls way below the minimum head count target of 48 cpcs established by the controller workforce plan, which is updated by faa on an annual basis. the dallas/ft. worth terminal radar approach control tray con handles all arrivals and departures into and out of dfw, dallas love field and many other smaller airports in the metroplex. at 17,000 feet and below and at a radius of approximately 40 miles from dfw airport. the dfw tray con is also chronically understaffed with

only 57 cpcs on staff which is far below the target minimum of 78 cpcs. staffing at the dallas love field is also dangerously close to the established minimum of 19 with only 20 fully certified on staff. even if we consider the cpc targets established by the joint natca and faa working group which mr. rinaldi referred to in his testimony, the dfw tower and dfw tray con both fall far short of the minimum standing targets regardless of the standards used, this is a dangerous precedence which i had mentioned earlier when you were here. my first question is, ms. bristol or mr. hampton, ms. bristol, you said in your testimony discussing support for

facility to facility transfers, i believe such transfers can serve as a quick and viable alternative to finding certified controllers to fill in at facilities with the greatest need. can either of you speak to some of the barriers preventing faa from quickly moving staff from facilities above 90% of the facilities specific target for the cpcs? i've asked this question before, but i still don't have an answer. what actions are you taking to overcome these challenges? that's one. retirement eligibility is another serious issue facing traffic controllers. i've had a number of them come to me to ask me to recommend they be extended. most are but quite a few especially those that are noisy are never extended. according to the faa's own estimates, almost one-quarter or

24% of the fully certified controllers nationwide were eligible for retirement as of september 2015. and even more alarming as mr. hampton's statement that faa does not sufficiently consider facility specific information which trying to anticipate future retirement trends. i'd like to know whether the reason for this is due to the lack of available data or if faa has simply failed to act when facility managers express these concerns. i know i've asked more than one question in this, but i would like an answer to all of them, especially what official steps has faa taken to address any of the two issues that i brought up. >> well, thank you congresswoman. so the national team that my organization is working with natca to place certified professional controllers into

other facilities, our teams have met twice now and we've done two rounds of controllers that we can look to be moving. some are shorter term. some are a little bit shorter t. some are a little longer. we've got two selection that's would go into dallas-fort worth tracon you that you had mentioned. that certainly is a high priority for us is looking to expedite the movement of controllers where we can into the more challenged facilities. as far as the retirement eligibility, sometimes it's difficult. we can estimate when controllers can retire. certainly they have to go to their hr office to actually fill out the paperwork. and they're the only organizations typically that know for sure when. we know that controllers have to retire by the time they're 56. in some cases, especially in our

critically challenged facilities, if we have controllers that want to work a little bit longer, they can grant waivers to do that. and it's not something we do very often. but sometimes we do in those critically staffed places. so again, we're trying to expedite our processes, stay on top of the hiring, and go through the entire process with training. it's something that i'm committed to and i know my colleagues in the faa and macca as well. it's one of our highest priorities. >> those that request to go beyond retirement? >> it's actually pretty low. >> what is it? >> of yo hand, i'd have to get back to you. i don't have that number on the top of my head. >> miss johnson, yes. thank you for the question. on the first question on the transfer, since the round table when you raised the issue, faa and naca have worked very well. we don't have the numbers, but faa has taken action and we'll

get back to it and watch very closely on how well the situation is working. given the hiring situation and the questions of how that will work i think that's one of the most important things in how we are going to address the critical facilities and the staffing and the cpc issue. you raise a very important question on the retirement issue. overall faa's been very accurate on the retirement question, but again, it's critical facilities. and some of the critical facilities like new york trade con, 39%. houston 30%. 34% of their cpcs are eligible to retire. there is very, very careful watching. and when these things happen they can have a very, very dramatic effect on the facility. so that's something that has to watch. and i think it bears an important point that we made in our report working very closely with headquarters with the local facilities. particularly about the 23, 24 critical facilities we've watched over the years. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> mr. davis.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm very pleased we're holding this hearing today because it's imperative we address this looming shortage in air traffic controllers before it's too late. and i'm very proud to co-sponsor my friend mr. cubela's bill i'll let him talk in nor detail. hr-5292. it makes a couple common sense changes to the air traffic control hiring process. one provision of that bill that i want to focus on is that i believe will have an immediate impact is it will raise the entry age for experienced controllers, those with a minimum of 52 weeks of experience from 31 to 35 years of age, importantly it will also promote the hiring of veterans and many in minority communities. my question to the panel -- i'm very frustrated by much of what has been discussed today. you look at chicago tra con that

i fly in and out of on a regular basis. the faa -- -- the chicago center as greed upon number with the faa for controller stuff is i believe 321. as of today there are 297 controllers at chicago center and it's projected by 2018 that number will be under 250. i think the implications of the controller shortage can have a tremendous impact on safety. and overall here to make sure passengers get from point a to point b safely and come back. my question to the panel, and i'll start with you, mr. menaldi, is if another act of sabotage of what we saw in chicago were to take place in the future would there be enough resources and manpower left to keep air traffic moving and return the system to full capacity as soon as the repairs are made? >> well, thank you, sir. i certainly hope we never experience what we did in chicago september of 2014.

we are down in our staffing numbers since 2014. and it would be a challenge to accomplish what we did back then. >> so in your opinion, basically, much of the air traffic control system, if we were to see another act of sabotage like this one would be much more difficult with the staffing levels we have now to do what you did. >> we worked very collaboratively with a lot of facilities, and most of our facilities throughout the country. we're at a 27-year low in cpcs. most of our facilities across the country are very short with certified professional controllers. so it would be a challenge to continue to keep the capacity that we did. >> well, thank you. and thanks to all your members who are getting traffic back to as normal as it can be. a common theme in today's hearing is that controller staffing problems, they appear to be chronic. the faa's missed its controller

hiring targets in each of the last six years. controller staffing has fallen nearly 10% since 2011. the faa's bureaucratic structure is clearly failing us. in february the committee passed the aviation innovation reform and reauthorization act of 2016, which would separate atc functions from the faa and establish an independent not for profit entity to provide air traffic control services including the staffing, placement and training of controllers. i'd like mr. hampton, mr. rinaldi, and mr. babbitt to respond simply yes or no if they believe we would face these long-standing controller hiring and staffing problems if atc services were provided by an independent non-government entity. mr. hampton. >> yes. >> mr. rinaldi. >> no. >> mr. babbitt. >> no. >> all right. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. carson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to hear from everyone,

what are your views regarding the additional physical barricade outside of the cockpit? i've heard proponents point out that this measure could be effective and not especially expensive. but we've also heard objections, as you know. i'm planning to offer an amendment to add a secondary barrier to all u.s. passenger carriers manufactured going forward. what do you guys think of this idea or concept? >> sir, my colleagues in aviation safety would probably be more up to speed and involved in that kind of a matter. i would have to defer to them. since they're the experts and certainly have them circle back with you and your team.

>> thank you. >> thank you for the question. we're working on assignment related to cockpit security and safety. we'd be more than happy to brief you after it another time in the subcommittee in a less open forum about that if you'd prefer. that would be better. i'd feel more comfortable with that, sir. is that okay? >> thank you. thank you. secondly, how does the explosion of drones into our national airspace factor into air traffic control staffing and management? some have suggested the possible use of geofencing or even other techniques to keep airport approaches and takeoffs safe and unimpended by amateur drone officers, to keep them out of our airspace. but what is the safety plan to avoid drone accidents that could easily hurt people on the ground or even interfere with other operations? and won't air traffic controllers be needed to keep drone operations safe? how do you guys see this being factored into our proposal today?

>> our workforce has been dealing with drones for quite some time. we work closely with d.o.d., dhs, other organizations with large vehicles. the agency expects to pass a small rule into the future and we will work in a very graduated manner on how we roll those folks into the national airspace system. we're working closely with naca on this matter as well. i want to ensure that my workforce is trained, that they have the proper resources. so we have a lot of activity in this area. i would say that we'll move in a graduated manner and make sure we have a very safe system, as we do today. thank you. >> we specifically made a recommendation to faa last year that controllers needed better training and information on specifically dealing with unmanned aircraft. and faa's taking steps to address our recommendation, and they're going to get back to us

earlier sometime in september. it's an excellent point and it will impact the controller workforce. i think mr. rinaldi would agree with that. >> yes. integrating unmanned vehicles into our system is a big challenge. obviously controllers are going to need to identify and see them on the radar. they're going to need to know exactly what their mission is and where they're going and route of flight in order to continue to vector and keep airplanes separated from them so there is not a safety issue. >> from commercial airline operation it's a pretty serious issue for us as well. you've seen what a 2 1/2-pound goose can do to an engine. you can imagine what a 50-pound drone can do to an aircraft. i think the bigger -- well, the technology we're going to have to refine, it's one thing to track and be aware of the unmanned aerial vehicle. but having it be controlled and

responsive in the air space is going to be key. to ensuring that you can provide separation. it's one thing to watch it. but if we have no control over it, the difference between being unmanned and uncontrolled. >> thank you all. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. dolan is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a question. and perhaps miss bristol, mr. cameron, mr. hampton and mr. rinaldi, i'd like you all to consider it. i'm perplexed the way veterans are dealt with in this employment process. you have this shortage here. if my information is correct,

there's approximately 10,000 military air controllers working and operating and helping to manage our skies. your last application period for veterans to apply was described as long term, and it was like for three months. march of december -- or excuse me, december 15 to march of '16. number one question is why wouldn't you open that up for them all year long since you have a shortage and you have all these experienced, seasoned people out there? that would be question number one. and then help me understand. as i understand, is it correct that after age 31 you cannot apply?

veteran or otherwise. >> sir, the maximum entry age is they have to have not turned 31 by their original appointment. yes. >> yeah. >> so you know, i remind you what ralph waldo emerson once said about a foolish consistency. you know, why would you not consider a formula whereby 31 -- unless you had one year of successful experience, of which you're going to be 32. if you had five years of successful operating experience, it could be 36. if you had ten years, it could be 41. it's not like they just walked into the environment. why are we not coming up with a better plan to utilize and create opportunities for these men and women who have served to

protect and serve us and obviously if they've performed well and have a good record of performance, why wouldn't we be looking for more ways to expand the period of opportunity for them to make that decision? which is a tough decision. they've already been in the military for some considerable amount of time. they're trying to decide do i want to go for 20 or enter into the civilian -- there's an opportunity here to provide them with a longer-term way to continue their service to the public. and it just doesn't seem to me that we're looking to create those opportunities that are just there, ready, prepared, experienced, seasoned. they know what they're doing. they've done it before. and here we have this shortage. why can't we find some better ways to access that pool of talent, of men and women who have served and are ready to serve and wanting to serve more

in a civilian capacity? >> well, sir, i certainly agree with you and pay our respects to those who have served this country. with regard to the age, i believe there is proposed legislation that would take that age up to 35. i don't think there's any disagreement because it would still allow 20-plus years on the back end for full retirement for those individuals. with regard to the announcement last december from which some 260 of those individuals were selected, it wasn't open to continuous announcement. i think there's sometimes a misunderstanding when we say opened continuously. there still has to be some balance with how many people are put into those facilities from those announcements. we are certainly working with

our customer, air traffic very closely and we'll have another one of those announcement very, very soon. but from that last announcement all those selections were the individuals that i think both you and i -- it was 260. and they are matriculating through the security and medical process right now. those individuals are also capable of applying on the interlevel announcement. they actually have two bites at the apple. so if they don't get in they can apply under the entry level announcement as well. we provide two opportunities for them to come into the process. >> is my time expired? >> yes. >> mr. cabella is recognized for five minutes. >> my colleague mr. maloney who joined me in filing hr-5292

asked a lot of the questions i want to rise. mr. rinaldi described a situation in atlanta which resembles a situation we're experiencing in miami. of course miami international arnt is the main economic driver in south florida and we have 91 positions but only 58 fully certified controllers. so exactly what mr. rinaldi explained in atlanta, this is a crisis for us. that's why mr. maloney and i came together to int dice hr-5292. we believe it is going to give the faa a clear mandate, clear direction to solve this hiring crisis once and for all. i'd like to ask all of my colleagues who have not co-sponsored the legislation. up to 122 bipartisan

co-sponsors. if you're not on get on. i'd like to ask our leadership in both chambers and here in the house on both sides, republican and democrat, to help us advance this legislation. because if my colleagues think this tsa line issue is a problem, if we don't get this right this is going to become a much greater problem for our air transportation system in this country. i want to thank mr. rinaldi for all his comments today in support of this legislation. i want to thank the chairman, the ranking member for holding this very timely hearing on this matter. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> you're welcome, mr. curbelo. thank you. i'd like to take some time to ask a follow-up real quick. mr. hampton, i'd ask you to give a simple yes or a no on whether you think the atc reform package would affect -- how it would -- would it positively affect the

hiring process. can you expand on your answer of yes? >> thank you. i think the question is it's been a long-standing issue at faa. and it's a policy question. and the question is it would take some time once the new -- if the new entity was established it would be a first priority for that entity to address the staffing challenges at the critical facilities. i would think an entity that was so totally focused on air traffic would stand a much better chance of addressing it than the current structure. >> thank you. mr. cannon. the pass rate at the faa academy was higher than 90% between 2005 and 2011 but dropped significantly since the controller hiring process was revised to 79% in 2014 and just

65% in 2015. has the faa determined the reasons why an increasing number of its controller candidates are not making the grade? >> that would be mine, sir. >> ms. bristol. my apologies. >> that's okay. thank you. i think it's still too soon to say because it takes time for controllers to work through the entire training process, but i will say there were also at the academy, we had some curriculum changes as well between the terminal and on route courses. it had to do with the way we do our performance verification. we wanted to standardize it more. so that we didn't see as many failures in the field. if a trainie can't make it through, we'd rather see that happen earlier in the process than later in the process. because we continue to pay for the employee's development. so i think that is contributing as well. we don't see that necessarily as

a bad thing. but completely, i don't think we have enough information yet to understand. >> is there any nexus between the rising failure rates and the agency's revised hiring process, specifically the requirement that applicants with no atc experience must pass a biographical assessment? >> again, i don't think we know for certain yet. >> can you look into that matter and r0 and report back to the subcommittee? thank you. i recognize miss titus for five minutes. >> i'd like to follow up. i wonder your comment about focusing on the understaffing and this private entity. i wonder if your staff specifically researched whether in canada or in great britain they have looked at the understaffing problem or if they have explored understaffing in relation to people not wanting to go to these tough expensive areas like we've heard is a problem in the u.s. have you all specifically

studied that? >> no. and we looked at that -- >> thank you. now i have another question. this question is directed to ms. bristol and mr. rinaldi. it's related to staffing. but it's more about 9 equipment and the ongoing efforts by the faa to modernize the control towers. last week there was an article in the a.p. it ran across the country and including in my district in las vegas. and the article was entitled "union: new airport towers must be remodeled before opening." in the article, mr. rinaldi, you specifically identified the new control tower in las vegas saying it requires an overhaul before it can be operational. i reached out to our local controllers, our safety engineers and the faa because i'm concerned this overdue project is going to have to be

delayed even further due to a failure by the faa. and i'm also worried that people around the country are going to read there might be a problem flying into las vegas and might not want to come there and we certainly can't have that. so what i learned is our controllers were given a role and a responsibility in designing the system that's in place and the p tower in las vegas can operate with both the taper of light strips and an electronic system once it's chosen to be put in place. now, i know there's a prototype that's being tested now, i think it's in cleveland and in phoenix and y'all are going to make that decision this summer. there maybe concerns about that electronic system, that prototype. but i would ask mr. rinaldi if maybe this got framed in the wrong light in that article. that has been known to happen by the press. i want to be able to figure out

what's happening with that tower and reassure our potential visitors. and then ms. bristol, i'd like to ask you to weigh in. i know we've had a lot of problems with next gen but i want to know kind of what the plan is with this tower prototype. because i think your comments to the press was, well, we'll figure out what we need to do. that's not very reassuring. so could the two of you address that article and let me know what's going on? >> sure. i'll go first. as you can imagine, someone who's been in the press as much as you, sometimes your statement gets twisted and misconstrued. we were talking whats talking about on the panel was two brand new facilities. actually we had an idea of bringing in the prototype to facilities and being a 100% electronic flight strip like the rest of the world is. but we're brand new facilities. and the prototype that we've been working in phoenix and in cleveland, we have jointly made a decision it's just not stable

enough to bring into a new facility. i want to talk about san francisco tower that went with very small counter spaces because it is a smaller tower cap than las vegas. and that they would need bigger counter spaces to put printers in and strip bays in. in las vegas they have made that accommodation. really it was about san francisco tower, which is coming on roughly the same time as las vegas tower is also. the challenge in las vegas tower that they did something very dynamic and we support is put the controls a little higher, a few steps up than the controllers working the ground view so they can see straight down. so there's going to be a lot of mochl with the controllers to hand strips back and forth as opposed to being able to have an electronic flight strip program where controllers would never

have to move position. that's what i was capturing. it did kind of get lost. it's not going to delay the opening of las vegas tower. but it is a challenge that the workforce is going to have to move paper strips around when we have this beautiful brand new facility and we should have the most modern equipment. that's my biggest concern. >> so it's not going to be delayed and it's not a problem of safety for people flying into las vegas. >> it is not. and i fly to las vegas a lot. >> congresswoman, that's why i answered that question that way. i never had any doubt that we would be able to provide that capability. we'll make a determination if the prototype can come online at that facility. but regardless, it will not impact in the least and certainly it's not a safety issue. at the same time this month we expect to award the contract for the production system of that

electronic flight strip capability. so only a few facilities will have the prototype and they'll be the first ones to be replaced when we roll 9 production system out into the future. >> and are you listening to the air traffic controllers as look at that prototype with any problems that they may have with it? >> yes, ma'am, we are. >> we are working together on that. >> thanks, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. rinldy, i'm shocked that you would think that sometimes statements get misconstrued in the media. just shocked. >> it's always the headline that seems to say something completesly you that didn't say in the article. >> well, obviously i've never had that happen. >> never. >> if there are no further questions i would like to thank once again our participants for being here this morning. this has been a very informative hearing. we will continue to exercise vigorous oversight to ensure our facilities are fully staffed with the most highly trained air

traffic controllers in the world. thank you all for being here today. [ room noise ] cia director john brennan testifies on thursday before the senate intelligence committee. that starts at 9:00 a.m. eastern and you can see it live here on c-span 3.

on american history tv on c-span 3, this saturday starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern we're live from gettysburg college in gettysburg, pennsylvania for the annual civil war institute summer conference as authors, historians, and professors examine topics such as freed people's refugee camps, reconstruction in the north and the post-civil war career of ulysses s. grant. also hear a conversation on the return of the american veteran and the origins of the lost cause. at 10:00, with the approach of the 40th anniversary of the smithsonian's national air and space museum in july, real america will showcase a series of nasa finlz. this weekend we'll look at the 1966 film "science reporter: suited for space." >> a couple of our earlier models. here we have the al shepard suit. this is the mercury suit. after the mercury suit is the gemini. and here we have -- this is a suit very similar to this.

in fact, identical to this. was worn by weiss in his extravehicular excursions. >> this does look quite a bit different from that gemini suit we saw. >> it is. this is one of our earlier models of the apollo suit. >> tracing the secretary of space suits from the mercury program to the apollo moon mission. and sunday evening at 6:00 on american artifacts, curator jeremy kenney takes us on a tour of the smithsonian national air and space museum to show some of the museum's artifacts and the quest to go further, faster, and higher. >> this airplane in may of 1927 flew the 3600 miles in 33 1/2 hours from new york to paris. flown by charles lindbergh, who was an unknown male pilot. his goal was to win the orteg prize of $25,000 for the first nonstop flight from new york to paris. that was the impetus for this flight. but what it represents in the history of aviation is part of

this telling of the airplane and the transformation of the airplane from what the wries brothers created and how it transitioned over the '20s and '30s for what we called the md erin airplane. >> for the complete weekend special go to c-span.org. >> i'm pleased that the body has come to this conclusion. television in the senate will undoubtedly provide citizens with greater access and, exposure to the actions of this body. this access will help all americans to be better informed of the problems and the issues which face this nation on a day by day basis. >> what brought us here is not partisanship but the conduct of one man who happened to be the president. who happened to be elected by the people and given the most solemn responsibility in the nation to be the chief law enforcement officer of the land

and he failed miserably in that responsibility and he deserves to be impeached bayed on what he did. >> i hereby appoint the honorable susan m. collins, a senator from the state of maine, to perform the duties of the chair. signed strom thurmond, president pro tem prooe. >> the majority leader is recognized. >> madam president, perhaps you've already noticed my colleagues that the senate seems to be extraordinarily well organized and effective today there is a reason for that. with apologies from the chaplain and majority leader i think we should note that a significant milestone in the 220-year course of the senate's history taken place. >> celebrating 30 years of coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span 2.

transportation secretary anthony foxx recently testified before a senate committee about highway and mass transit funding. andy answered questions about the recall of takata airbags. this is two hours. >> good afternoon. this hearing will come to order. mr. kret, welcome. great to have you here. thanks for joining us to discuss the implementation of the fast act. we just passed the six-month anniversary of the enactment of the first lodge term highway bill in more than a decade and after 36 short-term restrictions the fast act provides the reforms necessary to improve our nation's infrastructure and spur economic growth. the fast act was a 1i67b9 bipartisan achievement showing once again the senate is back to work for the american people. this committee's work, which accounted for more than half of the text of the bill, helped to enhance safety increase transparency reform regulatory structures and improve planning for free. with reforms covering everything from cars to trucks to ports, as

well as research and technology. this legislation was a true team effort to reduce congestion, protect passengers and improve our nation's supply chain. each member of the committee contributed the success of the fast act. senator fisher drafted the fmcsa reforms. senators blunt, heller, and manchin contributed provisions to streamline the permitting process for rail projects. and senator cantwell made major contributions on freight transportation. stoshz ayotte, heller, mccaskill and klobuchar made sichbts contributions to the nhtse titles. it protects lives on our nation's road waids by improving highway traffic safeties and promoting gaeter consumer awareness and corporate responsibility for vehicle safety. for instance i'm pleased that the motor vehicle safety whistleblower act is now the law of the land. this law which i introduced with ranking member nelson and others

incent sizes employees to blow the whistle when manufacturers sit on important safety information. other provisions in the bill also sought to address a lack of confidence in nhtsa's handling of recent recalls by creating strong incentive i. for the agency tote gits house in order. in the wake of the recall gm's ignition switch the inspector general prubld a scathing report about serious lapses at nhtsa including questions about its ability to investigate safety problems. following the incentives in the fast act i understand that nhtsa has made some problems implementing the reforms called for by the insmerkt general closing eight of its 17 recommendations. clearly there is nor work to be done and you can expect this agency -- i'm proud of the impaired driving provisions we worked tone act the law adds a new grant state to provide 24/7 sobriety programs a program which originated in south dakota

while maintaining the ground store states with stronger interground laws. i'm pleased the department seems to be listening to stakeholder concerns about the imation of highway safety grants but the department needs to improve its partnership with the states on highway safety and provide greater flexibility so the states can tackle their own unique highway safety challenges. as i noted in addition to vehicle safety the fast act includes a rail title sponsored by senators wicker and booker that reformed amtrak to improve its services and finances, overhauls the railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing program to make it more fishtd and accessible and most importantly raises the bar on rail safety. i commend the department for its thoughtful approach in defining amtrak's new account structure and its expeditious action to meet the deadline set in law, while some of the program reforms are tied up with the creation of the innovative finance bureau i hope the department can nonetheless take quick action to increase transparency of the program repay credit risk premiums and provide stakeholders with

greater certainty concerning eligibility and program terms. on rail safety i'd look forward to fra's forthcoming actions to implement the great crossing requirements of the fast act including the distribution of model action plans in states. in 2015, 244 individuals died at railroad crossings the second most common cause of railroad related fatalities after trespassing. i incourage them to provide states with enforcement and eternaling strategies to decrease rail crossing accident risk. i expect this will entail collaboration kroots department and stakeholders among the more effective uses of section 130 program funds. i also look forward to the fra's forthcoming actions to implement my amendment regarding cameras on passenger trains fulfilling a long-standing ntsb recommendation in helping railroads better monitor crews and track conditions. this is just one of several fast act requirements to increase rail safety as positive train control is fully and 15i69ly implemented. n. in addition to new safety

measures the fast act provided 1899 million in dedicated funding to states and commuter railroads to accelerate the deployment of this important safety technology. i think it's also important to note that this bill buildings upon freight planning efforts from the previous short-term authorization map 21 to ensure that freight planning is truly multimodal. highways bring freight tower stores and our doors but railroads and ports bring goods to our shores and across the country. recognizing that our transportation system is a network dependent on each element ensures that planning considers the whole supply chain from farm to truck to rail to port. the port performance working group will ensure we achieve efficiencies at our ports by capturing and analyzing performance metrics. our economic competitiveness is dependent on our ability to compete with foreign competitors and if our corn is more expensive because our transportation is more secretary that means our competitors are going to win. >> pl secretary, i'd like to close by thanking you and the department for your commitment to meeting the deadline set in

the fast act. the committee understands that this comprehensive legislation includes many new program reforms safety mandates and reports and we greatly appreciate your efforts thus far to help this legislation deliver for the american people. there's much work to be done over the next 4 1/2 years and this committee will conduct rigorous oversight to ensure success of these transportation programs but we really are off to a good start. the fast act as implemented and as this congress works to send to the president and faa pipeline safety and marriott reauthorization in the near future. i'd like to thank you personally for your continued partnership in improving all aspects of our nation's transportation intersect. it's been great to work with you and your team and i think we have achieved some very meaningful and long-lasting results. so thank you, mr. secretary. it's great to have you here. i look forward to hearing from you. and at this moment i'll flip it to our ranking member the senator from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for having the

secretary here. and i'll echo what the chairman has said with regard to the fast act that otherwise we refer to as the highway bill. but it's got a lot of other things in it other than highways including the 11 billion to improve freight across all types of transportation. and an additional 8 billion to repair the nation's passenger rail network. and so you all are going to distribute a lot of this money through these grants and for the economic engine of the country to keep going along, we have to keep the engine of transportation going. now, mr. secretary, one area that we have got to do better is vehicle safety.

over the last couple of years, we have seen this saga play out on the takata air bag recall. and it's unbelievable. it's up now in excess just in this country of 70 million vehicles being recalled because of defective takata air bags that killed over a score of people and have injured hundreds. and so part of the work of this committee has released a report just last week that assessed the auto maker's progress in recalling and replacing defective takata air bag inflators and i would like to insert in the record the 14 companies that we wrote seeking

this information and i will tell about that information that we received a little later. >> without objection. >> so what we find is some alarming facts. that the completion rates range from as high as 57% to less than 1%. these defective air bags are still being produced. still being produced. this is with the ammonium nitrate and still installed as replacement inflators in the recalled vehicles, meaning that millions of consumers are going to have to replace their air bags not once, but twice. but the most shocking part is the discovery that four automobile makers out of all of

those letters that we sent, four responded that we know of that they are selling new cars with the defective air bags that are on a schedule to be recalled in two years. and so that means that a new car buyer is going and buying a new car and then they are going to find out that it has an air bag in it that is going to be on the recall list scheduled from two years from now. that doesn't sound very good to me except the quandary that nhtsa finds itself in. it can't make enough of these

replacement air bags and so it's going after the ones that they think are the most defective which are the ones that the ammonium nitrate sat around for several years and it has been exposed to heat and moisture and they can't produce enough of the air bags with the moisture absorber in the compound of ammonium nitrate that absorbs the moisture. so they are selling defective air bags in new cars. and so what i'm going to be asking you is not only your ability through nhtsa to stop the sale of a car since the law says you can't sell it. the new law said you can't sell it if it has a recall item and

in this case it's going to be an item that is going to be recalled in two years. at the very least, i'm going to ask you shouldn't we at least let the buyer know that they are going to have an air bag that will be recalled in two years if they are purchasing a new car? they are getting less than what they think they are purchasing if they are purchasing a brand new car that has got an air bag that is going to have to come in and get replaced. so that's where i will be going with my question. >> thank you, senator nelson. secretary, welcome. please proceed. we will get into a chance to give our members a chance to ask questions. thank you. welcome. good to have you here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me respond in like manner to

say to you and the committee how much of a pleasure it has been to work with you through the last three years. you all have taken your roles extremely seriously and the partnership has been strong. thank you very much. mr. ranking member and members of the committee, i want to thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding the department's progress in implementing the fast act. mr. chairman, when i was last before you, one of our points of discussion was the need for congress to pass and provide for certainty to states and pass a long-term surface transportation bill. while the fast act is not everything we need, i want to thank you for heeding our nation and is our department's call by passing this bipartisan long-term measure. it has removed the cloud of uncertainty hanging over the surface transportation simm for the better part of a decade and as a down payment for building a

21st century transportation system. i also want to applaud this committee for including for the first time inner city passenger rail programs in a comprehensive multimodal transportation bill. since the fast act was enacted last december, we have been laser focused on distributing as much of the resources congress has provided as possible to states and other grantees through formula dollars and discretionary opportunities. we've also identified five key program areas to focus our implementation efforts, and i'll talk about each of them in turn. safety, project delivery, freight, innovative finance, and research. first, as you know, safety continues to be our top priority, and we have taken a number of steps to implement fast act provisions in this area as quickly as possible. for example, in march, we issued a rule that raises maximum fines

against non-compliant auto manufacturers from $35 million to $105 millimeter 37. we also moved quickly to solicit nominations for fmcsa's motor carrier assistance program working group to analyze the program which provides much-needed support to state agencies. in the coming months they will seek public comment on new authority to prevent rental car companies from knowingly renting vehicles that are subject to safety recalls. this provision gives nhtsa an important tool to protect the safety of u.s. motorists as rental agencies operate some of the largest fleets in the country. second, in the area of project delivery, the fast act adopt a number of administration proposals to further speed the review and permitting processes while still protecting our nation's environmental and historic treasures. just last week the public

comment period opened to review f.r.a.'s survey of categorical exclusions used in railroad transportation projects. we also have a number of additional guidance and rule-making documents under way to implement provision that's eliminate duplication of environmental reviews. third, there are a number of freight programs and related provisions in the fast act that address challenges outlined in our traffic study released last year. as our study indicates that by year 2045 freight volume will grow to 29 billion tons, an increase of 45% from 2014 levels. the freight programs in the f.a.s.t. act now provide for the first time dedicated federal fund thoog will allow us to fund freight and highway projects, including multimodal projects to deal with these growing needs.

we just closed the application program for the freight and highway competitive program we call fast lane last month. which will provide 759 billion --billio billion -- million dollars. i wish it were billion. in grants. fourth i am pleased congress decided to build on the administration's successful initiative by establishing a national surface transportation and innovative finance bureau. then the fast act. in the next few months we will provide updated guidance for the riff program that incorporates changes provided for under the fast act including revised application processing procedures and an application dashboard. and finally something that goes hand in hand with all of the department's efforts is research and innovation. in march we began the competition for utc grants which allows students and faculty to

work together towards innovative transportation solutions. we've received 212 applications for the 35 grants available. i'm proud of the work the department has accomplished in such a short period of time. but this is just the beginning. and it would not be possible i would like to repeat without the work of this congress on a bipartisan basis. we will continue our aggressive schedule to execute the reforms you put into place because if our nation's going to have the type of transportation system tomorrow that is better than it is today, wasted time is something none of us can afford. so with that, mr. chairman, i want to thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. and i'll lead off and then we'll open up to our members in the order in which they arrived. your testimony noted that the federal railroad administration is making progress on a number of important initiatives from streamlining the permitting process to reforming the riff program and i'd like to get a little bit more specific if i might about the expected

implementation timelines, in particular you mentioned that fra plans to propose expedited mipa procedures this week. do you plan to finalize those procedures before the end of the year? >> that is my plan, yes, sir. >> and when does the department expect to have a functional, innovative finance bureau and what riff program reforms can be implemented as the bureau is set up? >> we're using a belt and suspenders process by basically two-tracking everything to get it up and running. i expect that we will have the bureau office space up and going by the middle part of the summer. i also expect that we will issue -- and i think we may have already done so -- job description for the executive director of the bureau as well. so, my goal is to have it fully operational no later than the end of the year but you'll see the rolling out of it steadily over the next six months.

>> can the riff reforms get going in the meantime? >> yes. they actually already are under way. there's a lot of work to try to consolidate a lot of the program structures of the riff program and the tifia program so they look more like each other. i think work is already under way. i think you'll start to see a steady rolling out of that on the outside as well. >> the 24/7 sobriety program and impaired driving acts was something that the fast act made some significant reforms to 37 and has a number of highway safety grants that provide more flexibility so the states can qualify for the grants and address their own unique unique highway safety challenges. and this new grant aids states with a 24/7 sobriety program is something we were very focused on while maintaining the all-offender alcohol ignition interlock grant so now you've got a program that's worked very well and proven to be effective

but we believe the 24/7 sobriety program is something that will enable states to use all the tools in their toolbox to combat the significant problem of impaired driving. i've pointed out in the past south dakota has been an innovator in creating the 24/7 sobriety program and the rand corporation recently showed that such programs reduce repeat dui and domestic violence arrests at a county level. so, can you give us an update on the approach the department is taking to work with the states to provide more flexibility as you go about the process of implementing these grants? >> yes. on may 16th of this year we issued an interim final rule on the ignition interlock and 24/7 sobriety program. at this point a lot of the work we're doing on this is working with the states to get the word out so that they are aware of the flexibility they have. we will be doing that through the summer and the fall, but i

expect that we'll have a very robust response given the additional flexibility. >> thank you. during consideration of the fast act there were a number of senators who were focused on supporting the needs of rural states. when implementing the law the department i believe should consider the burden of regulations on rural states and areas as the cost of implementing regulations on a per capita basis is higher. i'm told that current proposed performance rules would require all states to file reports for all parts of the national highway system. and the question really comes back to do states really need to prepare reports to show, for example, that rural roads are operating at the posted speed limit? i mean, some of the reporting requirements it seems to be a little bit extreme. >> i'll take a look at it, senator, and perhaps maybe respond either in an rfq or in a letter back to you on some of the questions related to this. >> i would just simply say that it seems to me at least that a

more targeted approach to these reporting requirements would make some sense and it would save money for investment in transportation as opposed to reporting, so i would encourage you, mr. secretary, as you look at those to be more skeptical about how some of these proposed requirements may work and how they would impact rural areas of the country. finally, let me just talk a little bit about csa. as you know, the dotig and the gao and an internal d.o.t. report concluded that the xlies safety and accountability program was badly in need of reform. while there's broad support for the intent of the program to focus limited enforcement efforts on the least safe truck companies congress expressed concerns about the quality of analysis used to develop scores for motor carriers. the fast act required the scores to be fixed before they could be publicly held out as safety data. and we appreciate that the scores were removed on the day of enactment and that the raw factual data was restored to the

website in a timely fashion after adjustments to the website were made. so the question is, when will the program be reformed so that the scores can be returned to the public website with confidence that the analysis is appropriate and represents the risk of an individual carrier? >> based on our preliminary assessment it's going to take a while to do revised analysis of this. and i would expect it would have to be maybe a year or two. probably more like two years before that information will be posted back up. >> okay. my time is expired. senator nelson? s >> okay. mr. secretary, on what i had talked about before, back in march we sent out letters to 14 automobile makers involved in the takata recalls and we said

we want you to identify all the new models that are equipped with the defective takata air bags that are offered for sale or are contemplated to being offered for sale. now, some responded and some didn't. and we put that into a detailed report which we released last week. but a bunch of them refused to answer whether they are currently selling new vehicles that contain the nondesiccated or, in other words, the ones that don't have the moisture absorbent desiccant that has been mixed in with the ammonium nitrate. so, this is a failure of informing consumers. and i think your regulator ought

to be getting answers on this. now, i can tell you, this senator -- and i think i can speak for a lot of senators up here -- intends to get answers. and that's why i put in the record the 14 letters that we have just asked again for complete disclosure of any new models with those defective air bags. and i'm expecting them to give us complete answers. so, now let me go to my question. under current law whether it's the law, whether it's the fast act or whether it is the amended takata consent order, do you have the authority to say, number one, stop selling a new car with a bag that is going to be recalled in two years? and the second question is, do

you in fact have the authority to require the disclosure to the buying consumer of that new car? >> first of all, senator, i want to thank you for your persistence and the determination you have to get to the bottom of this. i share your frustration with takata. we have been doggedly pursuing this issue with day one. we got a consent order with takata that we kept amending as the environment condition changed. the question that you ask and i think on the first questio question -- um, we are bound by our authorities to act where there is clear evidence that in action can be taken.

absent that it would be something of apparent victory to recall vehicles without having the substantiate to hold the recall, you effectively finding yourself twisting in the wind of lawsuits before people not have to be in those cars >> let me interrupt you here and then. what i think you are saying is where tas the law says because the chairman put this in of the fast act, it says that you cannot sell a new vehicle with a recall item. but, the fact that they're selling a new vehicle with an item that is going to be recalled in two years -- >> correct. >> you are saying you don't have to authority. >> how about disclosures? >> how about protection of the consumer public? >> within our existing

authority, i do not believe we have that authority, i will ask our lawyers to confirm that for you and i will share the answer with you. however, within the consent order, we have been able to obtain additional requirements from takata that would not have otherwise been available to us. so what i would like to do is pursue getting that kind of disclosure requirement within the consent order and within the remedies that we have been able to obtain from takata and so make those disclosures happen. i agree with you that these disclosures should happen to consumer before they purchase these new cars. >> therefore, if your lawyers determined if you do not have that authority -- then would you tell us what we do so the buyer can be ware and know what they're buying? they're buying of not the full

package of what they think they're buying. they're being something that got to go in and have it recalled in two years. >> yes, we'll work together to get to the bottom of it and i will pledge that to you >> great. will you help us if any of these automobile makers are dragging their feet, not responding to the 14 letters that we just sent out, will you help us? >> i will help you, yes, sir. >> maybe you ought to call a little prayer sessions with them. >> i did that back in january, maybe we'll do it again. >> thank you, secretary. thank you, senator nelson, a good line of question there. we'll get some follow up. >> thank you, mr. chairman, secretary, good to see you again. i thank you for your good leadership of this critical area. my first question is about the freight policy which we accomplished in the fast act and in order to maintain competitive, we need to have a

robust freight policy that enhances and the efficiency of our rural and urban -- the d.o.t. strategic plan will increase by 42% by the year 2040. in your perspective, what is the status of the implementation of that national strategic freight plan and how do you think the state is doing that designating those critical rule and urban corridors and how is d.o.t. providing any kind of technical assistance to the states so that they can move forward quickly on that. >> um, senator, first of all, i want to again thank you and this congress for the focus on freight.

this is an enormous issue for us and what the facts act have done both on the policy and resource side is to pivot the country on focusing this much more. i want to speak on your question to two things. one, is the formula based fright program. we have provided guidance to the states as of this winter to help them understand how to access those resources and our experience to this point has been there, there is been a lot of interest and excitement at the state level to implement on the formula side. >> the period has closed as i pointed out my opening statement for the discretionary freight program which i will hope to make announcements on that program in the summer time, but our goal is to continue not only putting the resources out there but things like expedited

permitting and category exclusions and all the work that's involved and trying to get project teed up. we are moving on an accelerated basis and we made a lot of progress. >> good, i thank you for that. there are resources out there and states like nebraska, i believe, already moved on this so we can start some good progress. and, as you know one of the elements of the highway build that i am really pleased with are the regulatory reforms that i offered for the fmcsa, that's to help with transparency and consistency but also with the public being involved and the rule making on that. next week the department's motor carrier advise committee is going to hold a public meeting concerning the implementation of that section 5203, that would require the smcsa conducting a

guidance that's currently on the books. in relation to this meeting, how does the smcsa planning to continue the process of reviewing revie reviewirevie reviewing regulatory so we can create greater transparency as we move into the future. >> well, i am pleased to report that the fmcsa has been conducting lessons throughout the country and we'll continue do so above and beyond the commission that you just referenced. this is helping us to understand the perspective of industry and other state hoke holders and it go onto the benefit of not only our operational approaches but our policies and regulatory approaches going forward. in addition, to that we created

an evaluation division as of last year, this is working to increase the use of available data and advance agency's efforts to arrive to regulatory and technical issues. we are using that agency to increase regulatory evaluations which is a great interest of our stake holders. >> we are committed to advancing the notice of proposed rules making or proceeding with the negotiating rules and considering major rules of technical or scientific modifications. these are the processes that we are working to of the language that you think is good enough to build. >> do you think it will help you respond quicker to stake holders when they are dealing with that

so the agency could have a former response in a timely matter? >> i think it will help. >> time is money. >> yes. [ laughs ] >> yes, it will help with speed and transparency. the more you are not communicating, the more people are kind of constantly having communication with us, the less surprises there are on both sides. >> exactly. >> i think it is very helpful. >> we want to see commerce to continue and the fmcsa is important to making sure that our stake holders are able to do that. thank you, sir, it is good to see you. >> thank you, it is good to see you. >> thank you, senator fisher. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and thank you secretary fox, i know you were there in spirit, we dedicated the overpass that you helped with the tiger grant, i know we talked about that. our congressman emerald and i were there.

i want to thank you the department for that. some fast questions here related to the fast act and the map 21 and the fast act and trying to reduce waze. what process has d.o.t. made and implementing projects of reform in the fast act. how are they going to communicate with states government and states people. how do you plan to monitor and assess the effectiveness of the reforms? >> so we are doing a number of things including the highway divisions. on project delivery, we are looking at the expansive use and we have through our bureau that was alluded to earlier. we are working on the permitting

the process by incorporating current reviews in the work so there is documents flowing between agencies and government using one table to make the decision to help speed up the time. >> very good, i am going to move on with the safe issue with rail. we just gotten a statewide rail director appointed coordinating these iefforts with a learlene. i talked about this in the past, it is something continues to be a concern and takata, i have been longed calling for this recall. we have a woman that was a passenger in the car, my question is related to how can we make sure consumers know what cars are under recalled and what

better jobs can we do with that because there are still people confused of what to do. >> we are working with the industry to ensure that when we have a consent order or a coordinated recall effort that we are using every tool available to us and to the industry and so i have got a long list of various strategies we are trying in relation to takata that includes a recall campaign and save cars and lives proactive and using internet and social media and there are a lot of things we are doing to get the word out unconventional way. our goal is 100% compliance. we are holding the manufactures

accountable. >> what replacement, the inflaters, what more can we do to make sure they are available as soon as possible? >> so, the unfortunate reality is that there is only so much supply i think some of the recall activity has actually triggered some additional spl r suppliers to come out of the wood work. we are continuing to tearing the risks as best as we can. we are doing everything we can in the supply work that's there. we are hoping see more supply coming in the market >> as you know there was a huge party of yours and as your predecessors and there were grants available to help states educate drivers more and more and injuries are occurring of

distracted drive. ing. we had a pile of money that no one could access. that happens on your end. we made some changes to make it easier for the states to get in compliance so they can access this money. i want to make sure you knew that as well as the graduated driver's license programs, we made changes there. i thought you could come in general of distracted driving. >> it continues to be a huge issue. we have to work with our young drivers. it is across demographics. may of this year, we issued an interim final rule implementing the fast act and disstratracted driving issues. >> thank you, you did that quickly. >> there will be comprehensive distracted grants as well a

as -- we'll move that as soon as possible >> thank you for your good work, secretary fox. >> thank you, senator. moving further west. >> thank you, miss west. >> thank you, secretary fox, i want to follow up with you on the financing fortran sit development, we reduced the dollar amount threshold for tiff project and included as el i didn't believe projects tod. i wanted to get your view on how we are moving along in terms of finding projects that are appropriate and i heard some concerns expressed from the private sector about exactly what the eligibility requirements are. i want to get your insurances and we are moving along.

we are very excited of this long program. fhwa released a guidance that clarified tod investments are available. we expect fra to follow shortly with the program. we don't have any to date or any applications but we heard a lot of interest in this program and if there is anyone who has a question, i would urge that you or others direct them to build america transportation investment center which can help them figure out not only to make that tool but other creative financing tools for transportation. >> thank you very much. >> we talked a lot about complete streets and i

appreciate the department's focus on transportation generally speaking that it is not the department of highways -- or the department of rails. it is the department of transportations that we need to be thinking about how to move people around and in as safe of a way as possible and i i have been working with senator helor en and others. >> we were not able to achieve it. i think you have been able to work with mayors and transportation directors for state government and arp and other stake holders, if you can give me a quick update on how we are moving along with respect to this. whether the statue of how i w t wanted it to or the compromise version, the key is implementati implementation and i want to know how they are doing. >> we are -- i think we are

moving along fairly well. we did initiate something called the safer people and safer street initiative which brought 200 mayors across the country to share best practices on how to implement essentially complete stree street designs. our federal highway administration is creating greater flexibility of federal highways and so there is a possibility of states and local governments can use those road ways in innovative ways for all users. this is an area where it is not just the local gun shovernment. it is also the federal government have to work together to lay out best practices. all three levels of government will be involved in execution. >> sure. obviously, you will have a different set of priorities. i want to recognize senator

helen on his leadership of trying to move this forward. i have one concern that's been expressed to me and has to do with a rule of proposing this. the concern is this, it ought to make sense in a vaccum -- the department is working on integrated transportation systems and being smart about all this, then you don't want to create a rule that's basically establishes a metric that says if you are a local d.o.t. director, look, that's all nice and encourage to do this but they are paying us to do that which is one more highway lane and one more boulevard lane and thinks in term of transportation, how can we serve -- the old core engineer,

it blows wide in the hole and channelize it and moving that water through as quickly as possible. transportation systems, there are instances where you want top move every car as quickly in the community as possible. there are other instances where you want to encourage people to not take the trip because something is right next door nowadays. i know understand that and i want you to take a look at that rule from that perspective. >> we'll do, sir. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. fox, it is always a pleasure to see you. the fast act does a lot to incentivise of transportation technology of a lot of automobiles. before i go onto questions, i want to take a moment to rather thank you for your work in the area, you have been a real advocate for exploring how we

can really fully utilize technology that eventually leading to autonomous vehicles. >> which can help drivers deliver critical information to those vehicles on the road and it is going to help reduce traffic congestions as we heard from previous speaker as well as dramatically reduced accidents. section 6004 of the highway directs the department of transportation to provide grants to localities to establish in advance of transportation and congestions and deployment sites. that's process is going forward, i understand as we speak. >> i know the department of transportation is finalizing its selection of the smart city challenge winner.

one other kriecriteria is to integrate and of management of the city which includes the deployment of connected and aut autaut autonmous vehicles -- and to the eventually d.o.t. smart city that'll be granted? >> well, i think that first of all, we are at the very edge of a wave of technology will enter in the transportation space. i think there are areas that we know are going to be areas of opportunity. the advent of connected cars and autonomous cars, those trends are coming. we have a responsibility to be

ready for that. the vehicle infrastructure component follows along with that. what that means is a lot of things. from some perspective you have some of that functionality today -- it also in the future could do things like street lights are coordinating to the movement of automobile. when there is no automobile in the room, the street lights are dim and when cars appear of certain distance away, they come on and that could create energy savings and not compromise safety. there are a lot of opportunities in this space. how will they actually get deployed is one of the questions the smart city challenge is asking. we try not to be prescriptive in the city to tell them you have

to have your street lights coordinated or do this and do that. it is more o f the question of what does the city have -- it is been an exciting opportunity to see 78 cities and to see seven finalists and to see this process moving forward. this is the beginning of that conversation and not the end of it. >> all right. >> well, this is exciting and i think a critical part of that is the ability for vehicles and infrastructures to communicate back and forth which means having dedicated spectrum and as you know there are some discussions as to whether or not the spectrum to be shared. can you speak to how important it is to make sure the spectrum is available. >> you cannot under state or over state to be sure how it is.

we are supportive of the safe movement of vehicles. the thought process is to reserve the 5.9 ban for connected vehicles with the thought being that if you shared it, you would compromise safety. we are in the throws of research projects with the fcc to determine whether you can share spectrum safely. if you can, i am sure we'll be supportive of it. we need to know before we do it. we don't need to do it before we know >> you are acting according with fcc, you feel that's working well? >> yes, sir, there were some early hiccups on both ends but i think we are in a very good place right now working well together. >> right, it is great to hear. af f i have a few questions i would like to submit for the secretary, my time has expired. >> thank you, senator peter,

we'll make sure those questions get submitted. >> next up is hiller. mr. chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. secretary fox, thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to be here today. we have the las vegas metro chambers of commerce are in town. they held a fun civilized night in the kennedy caucus room unlike a function that's been held in that caucus room before. it is interesting of the dynamic train las vegas. vegas is a cannot do city. anything you think can happen in that town and city will happen. you come to washington dc, where nothing happens. it was quite dynamic and i would hope they come more often. maybe they have some influence

on our city out here in washington dc. here is question and there is a couple hundreds of them. they're interested of the i-11 corridor legislation that i pushed inside the fast act, i don't have to tell you the spor importance of it. two largest city in america, any ne phoenix and vegas without a freeway between them. it is not just the connection between las vegas and phoenix but all the way down to tucson and the canadian border. that's the plan, they want to know. i have to meet them tomorrow. the first question is going to be how long to get that corridor between las vegas to phoenix. what's the answer to that? >> the question that's going to be asked. >> we understand the importance

of the corridor and your leadership of moving the process forward has been critical. i am sure you are aware of the portion being designated and the facts you pointed out designates the portions between arizona and nevada. the biggest constraint is not just the planning or design but also identifying the federal and state funding sources for the project. we are going to continue to be at the table with arizona and nevada until we figure it out with them. um -- identifying flexibilities that may support the advancement of the i-11 corridor. we are working them. that's something like a tier

analysis is under discussion. we'll do everything we can to help move forward and getting the planning is part of it. getting resources in place is the biggest challenge. >> the first section of that is the boulder city by pass, that's taking federal state and local dollars in order for that to occur. i think nevada, boulder city and las vegas they're doing everything they can to get ahead of those things. how do they prioritize this and other projects? >> well, we always work based on the local jurisdictions want to do. and, in this case, you do have a demand that's coming from both states. getting them coordinated and figuring out how to jointly plan a project of this magnitude and how to go through the permitting

process and using the leverage that we have to try to accelerate that, that's some of the work that's currently ongoing. again, i think some of the biggest challenges are going to be each state looking at its complement of transportation projects and figuring out how it can figure out the resources to do these projects and we have the ability to help on the funding end, figuring out a way to help out. the question is i don't have an answer yes. >> two years or ten years or twenty years. we have not produced add new federal highway to this extent? >> i would set the planning and designing elements from the final elements. i would say we can move as fast as the locals move as they work through the alignment issues.

we are accelerating the need of process. we are continuing to do that type of work. we are constrain of what we have available of providing each formula dollars for each state and projects and it could be considered for that. we have guidance that we put out this year and to the extent our discretionary programs could support and help. we'll obviously considering the opportunity to help >> mr. secretary, thank you for being here. >> mr. chairman, my time is expired. >> by the way, what does it take for one to get invite to the las vegas capitol. >> mr. chairman, you are invited. >> i thought one of those happens in the caucus stay in the caucus. >> i would have to be 21 years old.

>> next is senator caldwell. >> certainly, looking forward to continue to work on what's an important tool for us to get to its final destination. thank you for that. one area where i think that you and i may not see eye to eye in the past definitely got an a point that was put is the explosion and demerailment. everybody knows how much oil crews are move moing in the are. i heard last friday of every major cities and regions in our state about the concerns and the continued movement of this product. that's primarily because this product moves to every major. it goes through vancouver and up in some cases all the way up to

refineries and the northern part of our states and troops and seattle. every community because we have just like the problem you are trying to fix. the rails are right there and close to urban center. part of our challenge is the explosion and derailment that we saw on this gorge situation was the thermo jacketed of 1232. under your rules, they'll take something like 20/25 to be basically phased out. specifically, to me of this issue of the product itself is not properly regulated. the volatility of the box and crew is over by the standard of other things is set and you know people are moving this product in to pipeline setting and revaporing pressure of the

product below ten. yet, we are letting the shippers self self determined over 13% vapor pressure which means it is more volatile. the reason i bring it up is because even with your own analysis of these new tank cars, the best tank cars we are going to implement in the future, even the thermo jacketed 117, at more than 18 miles per hour, they still have a puncture and can have a puncture. to me, while we are improving the rail safety, while we are improving rail cars, we also have to improve and lower the volatility of this explosive product. we cannot have this product shifting through tunnels and seattle with our light rail transportation system. we cannot have it next to hotels and vancouver. we cannot have it going through

neighborhoods or thousands of peek in spokane. i am asking you, will you consider an interim rule. you have the ability now to get the study done as it relates to the transportation bill to look at the volatility of this and doe and d.o.t. are working together. why not giving this most recent explosion look at and setting a interim rules on volatility and certainly of what we witness inside our region of the northwest. >> senator, i want to say first of all, i actually feel the same sense of urgency that you do around this issue. our department had been working since the way that i came in. it cannot happen within just a

few days of my taking office of this role. it has been a real push, almost everyday -- um, we have taken a bunch of actions but i don't think we are at the end of the cycle continuing of work. i think we still have a lot of work to do here. i would say that on a stabilization volatility issue, that's an issue that's within our sites. that's one of the reasons why we worked with department of energy to formulate a study to understand the dimensions, i would certainly take your recommendation back to our staff and providing awe former response from the department. but, i am taking any annul suggestions about how to deal with this going forward.

i think we made a lot of progress, we are safer today than we were three years ago. i hope that over the next seven months and years, we end up safer than we are today. >> well, i just think for us, we don't want to see a loss of life before we see a regulation of those vapor pressure. with the volume of crew moving to our state and every major populations centered is just too big of a risk not to have this product which we would not let a propane unregulated people moving through downtown seattle with that vapor pressure. we are not letting natural gas the same way. the people who are moving this product of pipeline are demanding it has a lower vapor pressure, why are we letting these trains continue to move as an explosive product through our community. so while i appreciate all of our efforts and d.o.t. and the lines that we are doing to do to

improve our rail system. fundamentally, we have to reduce this. thank you for considering that and i look forward to your response. >> thank you for your leadership on freight as well. i don't know if we would have much of a conversation if it had not been for your effort. >> we all know that freight cannot wait >> in mentioning my remarks of the work you did and components and aspects of this and a lot of reforms with regard to rail cars and blankets and refitting, protective measures and safe guards are in here, will be helpful and we'll make sure to work with the department to ensure those things get put in place in a timely way. so thank you. next up is senator ayer. >> thank you, chairman. >> secretary fox. new hampshire was recently welcomed to the news that we

recei received the loan. thank you for the i 93 improvement project which would widen 19.8 miles of interstate i-93 between two of the largest cities of our lanes and right on the new hampshire, massachusetts border. this is important to our state's economy and to transportation and noom shaso thank you for th. i know you briefly mentioned in our rent statement d.o.t. work to get the bureau up and running. i want to, could you please provide a detailed update for the committee regarding of the department work to implement the service transportation and

innovative finance bureau and have you been able to identify the executive director yet and do you expect that the bureau will be operational by the end of the year? >> on the last question, first of all, yes, i do expect for it to be operational by the end of the year. we expect to open the doors of this newbury row bureau. we have identified some of our existing resources, otherwise, could be placed in the bureau immediately. so, this will be a steady ramping up over the course of the year. it will start strongly in the middle part of the summer. our director, we are hopeful to get that person on board. >> once you get this up and running, i am glad to hear it is

moving up quickly. how do you think of this bureau in the long-term. how do you envision of supporting the work in moving forward of larger projects like i-93. >> one of the biggest things that the bureau is going to do is to bring finance resources under one roof and there will be one stop shopping of the local level as well as private sector. -- you will find projects that's moving in the bureau are going to have a sharper support as they move into the suspect and the project delivery including permitting and other spaces. >> i am sure states will. >> i expect this is going to be a very successful effort.

we have very good early experience with the bill of america transportation center that president authorizes us to do and we are going to keep on building on it with the bureau. >> thank you. >> i want to follow up, too. there is been health and safety concerns that have been raised of the standards of children 's car seats. i wonder if you are aware of these and what's being done to address them? >> safety standards for flammability does not require flame reta-- >> we know about 194,000 fires in the u.s. and resulting in fatalities and 1250 injuries. of these 25 fatalities and 25 injuries are children.

we know also that phone used in a child's seat can excerbate a child's seat. this is the initiate research today to better understand the issues and involved in the area and including flammability. >> very good, i want to follow up of the amendment that i had was focused on the steps to supporting states of drugs impaired driving. here in new hampshire, we are seeing places that are -- and heroine epidemic and i know the data of the national survey shown that there is been an

increase and now that data goes from 2007 and 2013 and 2014. in new hampshire of any measures, we are seeing 14 up like this, so, any fwrebrief thoughts on what we can do in terms of d.o.t. thinking of drug impaired driving or the action of it. >> there is a lot of activities going onto study drug impaired driving. i think the hardest nut for us to crack is going to be how do you set a standard, you know, you have a standard for alcohol, for instance, how would you -- >> how do you measure it? >> exactly. >> research is ongoing. but, you have my word that we'll work this expeditiously as much as we can.

>> thank you, senators. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to pursue the line of questioning that senator nelson raised and begin by sayin saying -- hey, the american public will be appalled that recall has not been extended to cars on lots right now that they are buying. that in effect are subject of the safe effects of the car that's under recall. they're buying defective cars simply because they have not been told they're under recall. if tlhere is a need to change te law, i say this to you because i know your heart is in the same

place. i respect immensely. should the consent order be amended right away or other tools used to stop the sales of these cars with these potentially, deadly, safety defects? >> we did have this before, i don't believe we have the authority to do that. >> why not? >> the cars are recalled now. >> why not put them under recall? >> because we don't have the bases to do so. >> why not? >> because the evidence is not there. in other words -- >> why not? >> because it does not exist. >> why not get it? >> we have a sense of what's

unsafe. that of what is unsafe have been recalled. we'll continue. we never said this takata thing is finalized. we are continuing to search and understand the dimensions of why it is unsafe. >> these products of ammonium nitrate that sent sharp and shaft metals in the american faces. >> i sat at this table and heard from takata. not ten years ago but within the last couple of years -- they simply lack enough parts and equipment to provide substituted air bags that would bene necessary. i call them for proprietary

conversations -- this recall should be done. >> i don't think it is true. this recall is the largest recall in the station's history. >> i give you credit for it. >> it is the largest recall of the nation's history, 70 million recalls. by the way, we don't know whether we are done yet. >> if there is a way to use the concurrent order to amended to ensure people who are buying cars that are notified. we are willing and hopeful to pursue that. i don't think this is a closed book. our agencies within authorities have to use evidence able. we do know that these cars will

eventually be recalled and in which case -- >> i agree with you that they'll eventually be recalled. i take -- i take at phase value the representations that you feel you lack. now, i would like to pursue with you the potential for amending that consent order for interpreting creatively or aggressi aggressively your existing authorities and uncreaincreasin authority if necessary because i think it is vital to public safety. i know you share -- >> i get it. >> trust me, i credit you and applaud you and thank you for your focus on the situation. >> i want to shift rail and

again, another area where you have been importantly creative. we need to make long-term robust investments well beyond of what we are doing now. i know you are working with my chee che colleagues and others in new jersey and new york on a plant under the tunnel. i would like your commitment to work with me of redeveloping along the northeast corridor beyond those tunnels and of the tracks that we have in connecticut, the need for positive train control, there are $199 million of the measure that we just passed. the amtrak rail has positive train control on all but the new york payment portion of it. i would like your commitment that you will work with me in

applying those money and those commitment to investment at northeast ambassad northeast corridor. >> absolutely. >> on the other pieces that you mentioned on the takata issue, i want to work with you on that, too. we have all shared interests of making sure the american public is as safe as possible. >> i agree. >> thank you very much. thank you for all your diligent and dedicated work at the department >> thank you, senator. >> it is some what remarkable that new cars are being sold and granted the air bags are not defective yet. therefore, the authority issues and i appreciate the dilemma that you face. this is something we'll have to continue to sample with. >> next up is senator sullivan. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. secretary, it is good to see you again. i want to thank you for coming out in meeting our leadership. it is an important meeting. i want to follow up on an issue that came up in that meeting that i and senator don young, sub frequently -- under the act of 1971 and consistently several other federal laws. it is been cleared under federal law that corporations are eligible to participate in the business program and certified by the sba. and d.o.t. has been implemented recognizing base odd on the certificate -- it is appropriate

for anc of federal destination of minority and disadvantage businesses and enterprises. what we discuss tonight and wrote about is there is this process right now that beginning of some of the states are not recognizing, this has to be a process that's creating a kind of a 50 bureaucratic hurdles in responding to congressmen young and senator mckousky, we wees appreciate that. the department chosen not to recognize spa certification process in particular self certification. >> as you can imagine this is a little confusing to me because you are on regulations recognizing sba certifications and the sba is recognizing self

certification but there seems to be a recent internal d.o.t. policy change that does not recognize what the spa is doing. >> can you work with us to iron out the inconsistent si. and the development of your guidan guidance, imd like your insurance to work with us to make sure there is uni formty across the state. the fba currently does and federal law in a zillion of statues. >> i know it is a little specific. we raise it in a ladder and it

seems to be this internal consistency because spa and federal law and what you are doing. >> i appreciate your commitment on that. let me turn to another subject that senator bloominthal focused on it nch. it is a disaster of six or citizen years. recent articles and i would like to spend for the record of mr. chairman of the highway of bureaucratic health and another one from lauren summers from the boston globe called why americans don't trust government? >> these lay laid out or being

prepared, fife years to raise the bridge -- and massachusetts, five years just for purposing? >> i think the fast ex scratches the surface. there are so much more that we can do. as you know, mr. secretary, 61,000 structurally deficient bridges in the america. one of the reasons our economy is not moving because clearly we cannot build infrastructure because it takes five to ten years to permit a road or a bridge or a bruj thidge that we want to repair and not even expand. one of the things i think is a good idea is if you are repairing a bridge to the way the permit is requiring so you are not hitting the ecosystem of

the environment. are there areas in terms of what you can do which is the fast act? i think it is a real problem for america. if you were able to streamline it, you would get 99% approval. what's some of your ideas in favor of requirements in just maintenances on bridges? >> well, i will tell you that one of the secrets of the last eight years has been an exclusion and moving quickly to the process. we have gone substantially and i am going to make it wrong. i will send you an rfq, i believe it was something like

93% before and we are closer now to 96% or 97%. >> i would also say a couple of other things that's being attempted by the state levels the and that are helpful. it is always clear whether state or federal permitting requirements that by these things. >> yes, sir >> there are technology that states are using. in massachusetts, they're able to install, i think it was 14 bridges over a weekend because the bridges were fabricated. they were actually knocking tout old bridge and slide the new bridge in and have it ready by monday morning. these technologies are ones that'll help us speed up construction time. when the government promises a project and it happens relatively quickly.

the public gains confidence. when people don't get projects done, people lose confidence. >> mr. secretary of section 5042 is focused on making sure of our veterans and expedited in the commercial trucking of the industry and i just have a question of how we are doing and following up on that. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you for being here and thank you for your public service and the relationship that you extended to me and my staff. >> let me bring to your attention of the amendment that included in the fast act. the section 55 of 23. what it does is allows for many manufactures of trailers to deliver them to their dealers and that provision preempt state law but it is my understanding that many states attempted to

force their own provision and so i raise you this particular issue of education of states at earlier specifically -- the department is doing what is being done and our states department -- >> coming back to you with a former response. i would suspect and we would verify that rewiwe are working this. >> this is important provision of getting projuduct. the fast act as required a national academy of science of a goa study in regard to the

breaks on rail carts of an issue that you and most of us are aware of, as the gal provided any status report and part of that study is national academy science of testings. do you see any results of testing that you could share with us? i do not know the status of the gal study. i know that the nas is in the process of standing up of the committee that'll be apart of the evaluating the testing. we are working on a concurrent bases to get the testing ramped up and started. that work is under way but that's the current status. >> when you say you viewed the department as a path to ramp up the testing, you are talking about assisting the national academy of science or several testing? >> as i unction the national

academy science methods, it takes them a while to ramp up there committees and they have a formal process by which they do that and given the back end time line that we have to move all this, we have actually started moving forward with some of the development on the testing. my hope is they're able to move quickly enough so we don't get too far that happens and we are worried we may blow the time line if we don't start working. i am being repetitive, i am trying to make sure i understand you are ramping up your testing. >> my understand is the nas will be evaluating the testing that's done by the department >> okay. >> the testing is your responsibility o f the evaluation that the testing would be done by the national academy of science. >> i assume that you would tell me when the testing and the

results are in is something that you will commit to pay attention to as you develop your plan in regards to. >> the results, no result of the testing that's being done will be published or put out there until the nas task force has a chance to drill into it and t validated or invalidated. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> this is a manufacturing question of some what outside of the scope of the fast act. my question relates to harmonizing cafe standard. epa are not in zinced of the standards and you can be in c e compliance with one and challenged by the other. the administration have the one program that try to harmonize

regulations so it can manufacturing and all of us can understand what the standards are, can you bring me up to date? >> as for work, doing the interim half way. i think things are going in a harm harmonous action. we are hoping to continue forward and reporting out in the fall >> if you have anything specifics, i would be glad for you to share that information with me. i am always looking for harmony so thank you. >> all right, thank you, senaorr morand. he's as hormonous guy. >> just of a reminder, that's another way of transporting oil

and one of the missed numbers of keystone pipelines of 100,000 barrels a day would enter the bucket and outside of baker, montana. secretary fox, thank you for visiting montana recently. that was on the reservation, it was a historic meeting. you are the first secretary transportation that ever step foot on the nation there. >> wow, i did not know. >> tell me what lesson did you learn from that business transportation? >> i think there are severa several -- number one is that you have a remarkable community. and, they have real idea of mary they want to grow their economy. tour ricism is a big part of it.

they're also agricultural products that's coming from the area. i found that people were very interested in multi transportation and very interested in hamming the ability to walk or bike or -- it is a thing they're trailing to get them fixed out there. i say the other piece is that they were also concerns of some of the rail of the commodities moving by rail within the reservation. those are some of the op vacati observations that i came away with. >> why are there major concerns as i heard from cot, anybody up and down on highway 83 is regarding the safety of u.s. 93. i was experienced it. >> a kid that grew up in montana.

i remember the bumper stickers that we have seen, it is still out there. it says "pray for me, i drive highway 93." >> what steps is d.o.t. is he helping? >> when we are there, highway 93 did come up and what i officered was a technical team to come out and try to help. i cannot remember where that project is in term of planning but there is a gap in the project where they're trying to get it finished. >> and, we also offer technical assistance on the grant riding side. as discretionary dollars becoming -- >> i appreciate that. and tourists is a huge part for our city. >> beautiful state.

>> we are ready to flying in missouri and driviing up to the glacial national park. >> in montana, three of the five bridges are considered structurally deficient. in fact, most is the brussels street bridge over 60,000 cars crossing these bridges. they were constructed back in the 1960s of the university of montana there. in your testimony, you mentioned reducing bureaucrat red tapes. what additional takes are you taking? >> well, i would say that -- the biggest that we have had has been a lot of uncertainty about funding levels. so now the fast act as passed

and states are start to ramp up their activities as well as replacing them. as they are doing that work, we are trying to find creative ways to help them move project quickly. i will give you one example of a case study. we are able to work with pennsylvania, not only to get the projects move to the permitting process quickly but actually pull a group of 500 bridges to make use of our animated finance programs and none of the individual bases would qualify or made sense to do financing but they got to pool. we are looking everywhere we can to help move through the permitting process as quickly as we can. >> that's good news getting through blocks. if you would take a look at the, adding the russell street to that list, i greatly appreciate

it. [ laughs ] >> okay, thank you, senator dane. >> i want to say thank you for being here and thank you for all your good work. you have been a great partner on a lot of these issues. this committee and the congress is acted on highways. lap lap