. .

>> want to enter a statement for the record from congresswoman bernice johnson. >> it is our pleasure to welcome michael ware. the floor is yours. >> thank you. >> excuse me, is your microphone on? >> it is. >> a little closer. >> members of the subcommittee, a year ago congress reauthorized

the federal aviation administration. after 4.5 years the predictability reauthorization provided was welcome. it allowed us to have greater certainty, and we are grateful to have this committee on this and we have been working diligently to implement the provisions of reauthorization, the one year later we again faced unpredictability. the sequester is looming. i want to make a clear distinction about how sequestration differs from previous government shutdowns that have been caused by a failure to pass the budget or a temporary lapse in authorization that took place in 2011. first, almost all of our faa accounts would be affected, and this would affect all employees. we are looking at all options to reduce costs -- the hiring freeze, putting contracts and travel, and other items not related to day-to-day operations.

to reach the large figure, we have little choice but to make up the rest through the furloughing of other employees. this is not something we take likely. -- lightly. almost all of our employees will be affected. the vast majority would have to be furloughed. under the sequester, flexibility is limited because we must cut proportionately from all affected accounts and we cannot move money around and we have limited flexibility in what to cut. a large portion of the department of transportation's budget is exempt from the sequester, which means the faa will take more than 60% of the sequester cuts in the lower agency only makes up 20% of the department's budget.

within the faa, the airport grant program is also exempt from the sequester, so, this again, limits the choices we have on where to cut the money. finally, we have a short time to make the bulk of these massive cuts, and that means the cuts would need to be deeper to have the same affect. it is my hope that our leaders can work together to rally around the improvements we need for our transportation system. we hope we can continue to support the programs we acknowledged were important one year ago. the number one mission of the faa is safety. that will always be our priority. with regard to the boeing 787, we are working to conduct a comprehensive review of the critical systems including the design, the and assembling of the dreamliner.

as part of that review we are working on a data driven process to identify the cost of the battery issues and mitigations. i appreciate the expressions of confidence from the committee chairman and the ranking member. we all had a productive meeting just a couple of weeks ago. we met with senior boeing executives to address the battery issues. we will analyze boeing's proposal to address these issues, but the safety of the flying public is our top priority, and we will not allow the 787 to return to service until we are confident that are a failure risks were addressed. in the last few years, congress has given us guidance on safety and we have accomplished a great deal, overhauling rules to guarantee pilots have the opportunity to get the rest that they need to operate safely, and we are increasing the experience needed.

we are also finalizing a rule that will require more rigorous and realistic training so flight crews can handle rare but serious scenarios. while we are enhancing the safety of the system, we are also working to deliver the benefits of new technology. we are working to safely integrate unmanned aircraft systems into our airspace. earlier this month, we requested proposals to host six test sites to test unmanned aircraft systems. we need to better understand the operational issues to safely implement unmanned aircraft into our airspace. we need to make sure they can avoid other aircraft.

if an unmanned aircraft loses the link to its ground-based pilot, we need to make sure that it operates safely. we are addressing comments about how to address privacy concerns with these test sites. each site operator will have to obey all laws protecting an individual's right to privacy. to bring this to fruition, we need to collaborate across the faa in the industry. reauthorization asked us to do this and we have made great strides. we have worked with our labor unions to lay the foundation for nexgen with the modernization and the collaboration has been exceptional. we are now using this new computer system to guide airplanes at high altitudes and nearly half of our sites across the nation. chairman, as you know, a lot of the research that propels nexgen takes place in atlantic city. he plays a key role, and we

appreciate your support. we are collaborating with industry and as a result of the work we are doing with many partners we are producing procedures much more quickly and we are using these procedures right now to reduce the miles an aircraft must apply to create more direct routes, reduce fuel burn and cut greenhouse gas emissions. right here in metro washington, we have used these procedures to fly into dulles and reagan national, and we estimate they will save $2.3 million in fuel per year. reauthorization laid out a vision to address the future needs of our nation's aviation system. these needs have not gone away. it is important for us to work together to protect the great contribution civil aviation next to our economy. aviation is our largest export industry.

it strengthens our balance of trade and it adds $1.3 trillion to the economy, providing for 10 million jobs. i look forward to working with you and i said really hope we can work together to make sure america continues to operate the largest and safest aviation system in the world. this concludes my prepared remarks. i would be pleased to answer questions. >> thank you. this will likely be the first hearing, and what we do not cover today we are likely to cover in future sessions. on sequestration, in your correspondence with the aviation industry, you mentioned a plan to close about 100 towers as a result of the sequestration, but i believe the faa sent out a list that has something like 235 or 240 that would close.

can you explain the difference? >> the list that we provided encompasses all towers that have 150,000 annual operations and 10,000 commercial operations. the principle that we were working from was to provide the least impact on the largest number of travelers. now, that represents the universe of facilities that we feel we need to look at. we are engaging in discussions with labor partners and industry stakeholders to actually understand the specific operating characteristics of each of those operations, but in order to achieve the savings we need to achieve this year, we have to cast a broad net and look at a wide range of towers.

in terms of where we ultimately land, a lot of it is determined by the ongoing contract review we have underway and the savings we can achieve this year. our effort is to minimize the impact on travelers, but these are significant cuts and we need to look at our lowest activity towers in order to preserve the maximum benefit for the maximum number of travelers. >> discussing the maximum benefit for the maximum number of travelers, recognizing that all towers are important, but certainly in some of our major metropolitan areas, where there are critical concerns about how all of this will work and staffing, will such staffing critical facility areas the identified in advance of sequestration and on a continuing basis and what are your plans to try to minimize for these major facilities?

>> this is something we have to look at on a facility-by- facility basis, and the characteristics of each are quite different and we need to consider the impact overall. we might have a modest impact through furlough on controller hours at large complex facilities, but how it effects the operation will be very dependent on the specific facts of that facility. chicago o'hare international airport is one of our largest facilities and it has signed the ticket impacts across the entire system. it is somewhat unique in that it operates with two air traffic control towers, one on the north side of the airfield and one in the center.

because it runs at a very tight level of staffing, and if we need to reduce controller hours, one factor we would need to consider is in certain weather conditions we might need to close the north tower. if we need to close the north tower, that effectively removes a runway from operation. we would do everything we could to mitigate some of that if we have fewer hours from a this could impact larger airports. >> i will have additional questions. mr. larson, the floor is yours. >> if we could continue on towers? >> sure. >> can you tell me how you will prioritize traffic control tower closures?

how you came up with 150,000 hours? >> it is 150,000 annual operations and 10,000 commercial operations. in terms of operations and passengers, it represents a relatively small percentage of the total, but it is a large number of facilities and the cost of operating these facilities through contracts, utilities, personnel costs, they are quite significant. what we are focused on is how to maximize the benefit for the maximum number of travelers, but we do recognize that some of these small facilities might serve unique needs. they might support some sort of military operation. that is a factor we might need to consider. for every facility we are able to preserve we have to find an offsetting cost saving somewhere else.

>> so, in that sense, you do have some flexibility, but you have to meet an overall number? >> correct. >> some have suggested the faa could avoid furloughs, in part by saving over half of $1 billion on consultants and $200 million on travel and supplies statements that seem to have been refuted by a fact checker article that ran today in "the washington post." can you provided the faa response for a suggestion that savings could be found through consulting contracts and travel supplies? >> the $500 million figure that is referenced, my guess is this represents the universe of contracts in our operations account and those are not limited to consultants. our estimate is about $21 million of the number is truly designated as consulting services, which represents only

1% of our total contracting obligations for the last fiscal year. what is included are some very large service contract, the largest of which is a program called the federal telecommunications infrastructure program. that is about $228 million, and what that is is the infrastructure that underlies the whole air traffic control system, which is provided to us by a private contractor, and -- but for budget expectation purposes falls into this larger account. >> travel and supplies? >> travel and supplies has been an area where we have cut 30% over the last year and we have made significant improvements in our travel budget. what we are preserving is essential for our safety mission.

an aviation safety inspector might -- must visit the facility to provide inspections, or a tech office employee needs to visit a facility to provide repairs and maintenance. there is a level of travel necessary for us to do our job and preserve the safety of the system. >> mr. chairman, i see you not have me on the clock, and i want to be respectful of that, i have a few rapidfire questions and then i will move on to mundane issues like the application of the bill, but i will rescue yes or no type of questions. on the topic of sequestration, the faa could absorb this half of $1 billion the rest of the fiscal year without compromising efficiency, but on the following actions would you agree that efficiency would be compromised if we took actions like cutting one half of $1 billion -- first off, would the efficiency be

compromised if we furloughed the vast majority of all faa employees? >> yes. >> eliminated midnight shifts? >> it would certainly have an impact, yes. >> closing over 100 towers? >> yes. >> reducing maintenance and preventative equipment? >> that introduces a level of risk where we might face delays in restoring services if a piece of equipment breaks. >> thank you. >> mr. shuster. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

the controllers are in an organization called the air traffic organization, and that is a line of business? >> correct. >> its operating budget is $7.4 billion a year? >> yes. >> and the five percent cut would be $370 million? does that sound about right? >> for total, that sounds about right, yes. >> could you find $30 million a month savings in a $7.4 billion budget? >> as i mentioned, our focus is starting first with the hiring freeze and then focusing on contracts, and in discussing the contract it is important to point out that our largest contract is the telecommunications infrastructure, so that is very important for maintaining the operation of the national airspace system. likewise we are focusing on other contractual areas and taking significant reductions in things like training, travel and consulting services.

>> it sounds that you are headed down the road to figure and out figuring out how to find the $30 million a month but without jeopardizing safety? >> the thing is our third largest contract is contract tower services and these are the lower-level towers that we talked about. in addition, what we are solving for is what is the amount of money that we would need to achieve through furloughs? we are making every effort to reduce that number is much as we can but i do not see any way to avoid it. >> you do not think you'll find find $30 million a month in savings? >> we have identified a wide variety, but i cannot really eliminate -- >> the history of the faa has been one of financial stumbling and bumbling, before your time, but there needs to be real

reform in the financial management of faa and i believe this is an opportunity to go through these contracts, and it sounds like you are doing that, and i know your reputation and experience is excellent, but this is a time that we need you to sharpen the pencil, go back, and i have to believe you are able to find $30 million a month in a 7.4 billion dollar budget without the threat of furloughs or endangering safety. i encourage you to go. this committee stands ready. we have been working around the clock am a talking to the budget committee -- clock about talking to the widget committee, and we believe you have the flexibility to move money -- around-the- clock, talking to the budget committee, and i believe you have the flexibility. >> we are looking within each of those areas. it does limit flexibility.

>> project program accounts -- you do have flexibility to move money? >> within specific lines. >> which would be the ato? >> we need to focus on where we can get out of contract, and minimize the impact on the pay and benefits. based on where i am, and where contracts are, i do not see a way to avoid it, but we will continue to work on it. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. at the risk of beating a dead horse, i have to return to the closure of control towers and their affect on rural communities. you heard my opening comments and i am sure you know how important these rural airports are to the economies and jobs in rural america.

you know how much of a sticking point the central air service was in the last reauthorization we are supposed to be examining today, and i am sure it will continue to be a sticking point in reauthorization's to the essential air service program. the 200-some hit list that you issued as far as towers that might be closed, there were five in my state of west virginia. my question is have you considered alternatives? i heard you respond that you look at the affect of the traveling public, but have you considered alternatives to the towers that might be closed in rural america? >> obviously, we are trying to work closely with industry to understand the impact in each of these areas and that is a conversation that we began this week working with industry stakeholders.

the reality is we are looking at a series of bad choices. our overall principle has been how can we protect the maximum number of travelers? that said, we are looking at each of these facilities to understand their place, and how they operate within the national airspace system. the challenge that we are going to have is that for every one that we identify the need to preserve some level of operation there, we need to find a budget offset to meet the overall sequester total, and that is going to be the thing that we will need to work with. we have heard from some local sponsors perhaps a willingness to step in with local resources, and that is something we would be able to consider, but those are the discussions we are in the middle of right now. >> i am still not sure i heard

alternatives to the closures in rural america, but please keep that in mind. it is vital in so many areas, and i have to add weather, when we have tragic weather events, they are essential as far as air weather service as well. let me ask you one further question on what is deemed -- let me ask one further question on what is deemed essential employees. when we fail to reauthorize in 2011, it at traffic controllers continue to work as if they were deemed essential employees. why are they not essential under sequestration? >> the provisions of the sequester are different. previous interruptions have generally operated under an assumption that the funding would be restored on the back and and for that reason the government as a whole has drawn a distinction between essential and nonessential appointees.

the sequestration is a different framework. it actually is a budget reduction that takes place that we need to manage to across all of the accounts of the faa. we cannot assume that the funds would be restored because we are not seeing anything that would suggest that is the case, so we have no choice but to take the steps to assume that we need to operate at a low of -- lower funding level. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. graves? >> thank you, administrator, for coming in. we appreciate it. my question is basic. if it sequestration goes into place, what does it take you back to, funding levels in what year? staff tells me it is 2010.

>> i think it is about 2008. >> let's go 2008. everything was operating just fine. 2010? 2010? what is so different. i feel like the sky is falling because of sequestration, and we are going back that far. >> the operations account has increased from 2008 through 2012, and in that time personnel costs increase by about $887 million. we have been absorbing reductions in our non-pay spending for the last five years and cost savings have resulted in significant savings across a wide variety of accounts there.

i would also like to point out that we have spent a lot of money for things the industry wants to implement things like advanced navigation procedures and developing new and much more efficient approaches and departures from airports, and for a very important reason. the airlines want benefit, they want to save fuel burn and the cost of the operation system. all of that costs us money. it is money to develop and maintain these procedures, so we have a much more complex aviation system then we had. i think we have been successful in achieving savings through things like strategic sourcing, but at our core we are a people- based organization and people costs have increased in the intervening years. >> more efficient approaches, and early departures, is that an ongoing cost?

you said that as one of the major things you spend money on some of the what did you do different? >> it is an ongoing cost a cousin in terms of developing a new procedure at an airport, we have to maintain it, and that carries costs associated with regular maintenance, assuring its safety, all of which represent ongoing cost. >> you are coming up with new approach procedures. what are you maintaining the cost so much money? >> flight checking, or providing for -- >> but you were doing that before. procedures might have changed, but you are doing that before, flight checking, and you weren't look, -- >> we are flight checking more

of them. >> ok. you are flight checking more of them, and i do not mean to belabor this, but you are not going back that far. the sky is not falling. we will not have more meteors hit because of sequestration. i do not understand why the administration continues to take this approach that the world is falling apart because of this and i do not see that much changing, to be honest with you. maybe i am completely wrong, but the faa, and i know very well your procedures and what it takes, and i just do not understand what the attitude is. you know, it baffles me. mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you, mr. graves.

mr. lipinski? >> i congratulate both of you on your rise into leadership on the subcommittee. i look forward to working with you. i want to also thank you for holding this hearing on implementation of faa reauthorization and reform act, and i'm going to surprise everyone by actually asking the question about that act. while this reform act was not perfect, it provides guidance applicability to the faa has an agency that perp -- produces next-generation air transportation systems and works to meet day-to-day meaning -- needs. i would like to start with section 221 which relates to nexgen public/private partnerships. we know they cannot happen if planes do not have new enhanced equipment. these updates will not happen by themselves emma so i was happy

to include section 221 which authorizes the faa to establish an incentive program for equipping general aviation and commercial aircraft with communication, surveillance and other avionics equipment necessary for nexgen. can you describe what the faa has done to implement the nexgen public/private partnerships? >> thank you, mr. lapinski. that has been a discussion we have had on a continuous basis with stakeholders in the industry and we wanted to develop an understanding of how we would measure the benefit and what incentives they actually need and look forward to in order to encourage them to participate in the new system. that got us quickly into a conversation about operation incentives and financial

incentives. an operation incentive is essentially, "how do i know that if there is an advanced procedure or i can take advantage of new technology that a controller will allow me to use it?" that is related to developing the metrics, and knowing with certainty that they will be able to realize the benefits of fuel burn, reduced miles flown and everything that goes with that. if we can deliver and if we have the tricks for measuring the delivery of these operational incentives, one of the things that has become clear in those conversations with industry stakeholders, the financial incentives, while important, he come less important, because the operational benefit -- become less important because the operational benefit is there, and we're working closely to put more more precision around those operational benefits.

>> are you saying you are not moving ahead with the -- >> no, but the the two are related. on the financial benefit side, we are continuing to work with stakeholders on what that looks like. >> thank you. i cannot yield back without going to everyone's favorite topic, the sequester. it is amazing to me to hear that the sequester would actually be worse for the flying public that if we had a government shutdown where we have essential employees at work. it shows the craziness of what is going on right now. i want to asked what my constituents are asking me. midway airport is in my district. i want to be asking about midway. what is the impact about -- with

midway? i have heard the midway tower would be closed -- midway? i have for the midway tower would be closed, i was wondering if that is true, and what it would mean for air traffic? >> we are considering a midnight closure but we are in conversations with industry to understand what their operations are. again, we are focused on the universe of facilities had fallen into a certain category 150 thousand operations, or 10,000 commercial operations or fewer. as it relates to midnight closures, those that have the smallest number of midnight operations, but this is exactly the nature of the conversation we are having with industry stakeholders to understand the impact and determining if there is a way to mitigate them. if we identify medications, again, we have to find offsetting cost. >> thank you. i will give back to >> thank you. >> -- back. >> thank you.

thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for your work on behalf of the faa. there has been a threat that because of the sequester the faa will have to furlough the majority of their 47,000 in place, putting air traffic at risk, that i find this hard to believe since faa funding has increased 41% since 2002 to spite affected flights are down by 27% and the same timeframe. in my state of indiana we have streamlined and made more effective date government, going from $700 million -- state government, going from $700 million in debt, to a $200 million surplus, and instead of tax increases, we have given an automatic refund. we have the same number of employees that work for the state that we had in the 1970's and universally it is believed that services from the state government have genetically improved.

with fewer employees, our government has worked at her for every -- genetically improved. with fewer employees, our government has worked better. this was done with no furloughs. can i be reminded again of what you're annual budget is? >> about $16 billion. >> what is your share of the sequester cuts the faa will have? >> $627 million. >> if the sequester were half that size, would that make a difference? >> yes, if it were a smaller number. >> there are some people proposing to increase taxes to cover half of it, and still have some cuts. you would not have to furlough anyone if you had only $300 million in cuts as opposed to $600 million in cuts?

>> we are focused on what we can do with contracts and our planning is that the $627 million level. we have not seen an alternative to that. >> the nexgen program -- i guess there are three programs related to implementation and developing this modernization program. do you have any idea of what you cost overruns are customer >> -- are? >> our program is within its baseline budget. you might be looking at the plan we we authorized a couple of years ago. >> of the three key modernization programs, the cost overruns have a combined total of about $4 billion, so my question is, where does the $4 billion come from if we have as much cost overrun trying to modernize the faa? where does that come from?

$4 billion against $600 million in cuts for the faa, where does that money come from? where are you getting that money to continue to have inefficiencies in the way we spend the taxpayer dollar at the faa? i just find it hard to believe that if we could spend $4 billion over what it is supposed to cost that we cannot find $600 million in savings in a $16 billion annual budget 30 >> i am not aware of the programs you are talking about or the time frame you are talking about, but as we have come before congress we have explained where we are in each of those programs in congress has been supportive of them.

>> what you are saying is each time we give you more money? >> every year to come before congress with our program plan and congress has been supportive. >> so, we are giving you more money on top of what we would normally appropriate to cover that overrun? but again, i do not know what programs you are speaking about, so i cannot answer directly. >> related to how our state has helped government, and you know a proximally how many employees faa had in 2008, about four years ago? >> i do not. >> right now there is about 40,000. is that spread through the country? >> 85% of our employees are in the field, outside of our major centers.

>> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. cohen. >> thank you. i want to say thank you for the dedication to the tuskegee airmen at the memphis airport. how much discretion do you have, if any, in where these cuts -- they have to go across the board, what do you have some discretion as far as which airports, which times -- how you implement them? >> the cuts need to be applied across the board within a program, project, or account as laid out in the faa budget. the only exempt program is the airport improvement program, but aside from that our operations account, facilities account, and research account, they must be applied across the board there. within that, each program, project or account, there is an ability to work within the

account, but when you are talking about an organization that is largely driven by people, that flexibility is limited. >> you had estimated in the larger cities -- new york, san francisco -- there could be delays of up to 90 minutes. if you did not have those delays, with the alternative be risking safety? >> we are always going to err on the side of safety. that could mean that we would have a disproportionate impact on efficiency, but we will always do everything we can to ensure the system is safe.

>> so, these cuts, if they come about with sequestration, unless the efficiency is sacrifice, which is what you are going to have to do, would potentially jeopardize the flying public? >> our focus is on maintaining a safe system, and where we see the principal benefit is in less efficiency -- correction, impact credible impact. -- printable impact. i think i said something else -- printable impact. i think i said something else. >> everything i have heard about was on passenger traffic, and that is important, as we fly all over from washington and allover the world, but the commercial impact is important. mostly they do a lot of their work at night. will there be an opportunity to look at how they will have their services affected and will they be able to deliver the next day? >> we had our industry forum where we met with members of industry and both fedex and ups were present. we understand the impact of the cargo industry and its unique

interest extended his will be need to consider. >> there is a possibility that since it is night time and they're not as many commercial, the traffic would not be interrupted? >> again, we are looking at two factors that one is total operations as well as commercial operations. these are commercial operations. >> thank you. >> what happens to fedex, a used to be what happens to general motors, but now it is what happens to fedex happens to america. thank you.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. let me take a moment to congratulate you on your ascension to the seat. i look for to working with you and the administration as well. i as a congressperson who represents philadelphia and the airport outside the city, we look forward to working with you on a number of deficiencies that the faa is part and parcel of, excluding the implementation of nextgen. i look forward to your leadership in helping to push that. i know in addition, one of our challenges has been looking at options to reduce costs as part of the reform act. there has been direct responsibility is to look for ways to streamline the offices to seek efficiencies. as part of that process, one of the things i know has been undergone is efforts to see consolidation in various places, including consolidations of the air traffic control facilities.

are you familiar with the planning? >> yes. >> that is a high priority for us. as has the potential to yield significant long-term efficiencies for the agency across the board. >> are you familiar with an rfi a request with respect to the air traffic control facilities in the northeastern united states? >> yes. >> that is good as well. on the rfi, one of the things i was struck by was the idea that you were looking for consolidation -- the request is for an interest in properties that can be sold to the united states. what are we selling? why are we looking to purchase

property when there is a great deal of governmental property out there that is underutilized? >> that is something we are also looking at. the basic issue we are looking at is these air traffic facilities we are looking to upgrade and replace, some are over 50 years old. what we need to have is a property interest in them to ensure that we do not have on we do not have on going [indiscernible] >> what kind of property interests? there are a lot of properties the government already owns. if we have a place in which there's a viable, already owned federal will -- federal facility, shouldn't that be a preference? >> it is specific to the location factors.

clearly we will look at it. >> tell me what the location factors are and how they are relevant to the decision making. >> we are considering impact on employees. what would relocation costs be associated with employees. what about utility costs? how has the facility hard and so it can be secure? access to utility services, access to the facility itself. is it well located? there are a wide variety of traditional location factors in the business would consider. >> it is saying the facility is asking for a facility located in new york within 150 miles of downtown new york city but located in the state of new york. why must it be located in new york?

>> the principal factor we are considering is to minimize the impact on the existing employees currently based in to long island. >> where one of the factors as cost-of-living? >> that is a factor. >> so if there is a region where the cost of living may be cheaper, than living in new york, is that a fact as well? >> we are considering all costs at kemper -- at operating the facility. >> are you familiar with the naval air station? >> i am not. >> can you get yourself familiar with in time to be responsible to this january 31 request. it is in 150 miles of nyc but it is not within new york. i do not understand why it would ask the purchase private property when we owned public property as a government entity already.

the naval air station has been reduced, has security and lower cost of living than that which exists in new york for employees and a variety of other and a structure already there, including infrastructure they have been handling flights. i think those factors would be naturally conducive to retrofiting of this. >> i am not familiar with the site. it is something we can -- >> can i have your commitment as this process goes along that we will not automatically have a preferential consideration for one state and then explain to me by the preference would be there? >> you have my commitment to look at the site. >> you didn't tell me why we would prefer one state over another? why? >> it is to minimize our impact on the employee's base on long

island. >> you can go to round two if you choose. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you mentioned in your opening statement to the issue of unmanned aircraft systems. the reauthorization allows for state integration of civil unmanned systems into our national air space by 2015. for missions like search and rescue, while life and whether research, border patrol and other law enforcement purposes. i am concerned about the challenge of balancing the risks of privacy in treasons with the benefits of protection from physical harm that drone technology can provide. the reauthorization calls for the faa to work in collaboration with other government entities to develop an authorization where licensing -- for licensing for civilian joan operations. please tell us what other entities the faa is working with. i have seen reports about falling behind schedule and i

would like to know what we can do to get things on track. >> unmanned aircraft represent a significant challenge. it also represents is it the biggest opportunity. it is something we are taking very seriously. a couple weeks ago, we released in the screening of permission request inviting to compete for designation of one of the six unmanned aircraft test sites that are called for within the reauthorization. we are expecting the will receive a lot of proposals. there has been significant interest in this. the purpose of the test site designation is to develop data on how these types of aircraft operate within the national airspace system and how they can be integrated with manned aircraft that also operate with in the national airspace system. as we were developing screening information, one thing we learned -- a lot of concerns were being raised with respect to protecting individual rights to privacy. it is for that reason we worked closely with other agencies

across the administration to develop a firmer where at the same time we are seeking proposals -- a framework or at the same time we're seeking proposals, whoever is selected would be expected to abide by. we have received a lot of comments on that. integration of uas -- worked closely with our colleagues. we have also had a lot of conversations with state and local government entities. you mentioned law enforcement as

being one area where there is significant level of interest. we are expecting a lot of the proposals will be in support of that interest. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. webster. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for hosting this timely discussion. and -- i have a local question. i represent the orlando area. the orlando international airport is one of the largest of final destinations in the world. we get over 40 million visitors every year to our parks. i would imagine everybody on this panel has been there at some point and time in their life. several years ago, the orlando international airport purchased a property next to the airport

for $54 million. u.s. code requires airports should be as self sustaining as possible. their idea was to develop that what some commercial ventures so it would become more self sustaining. since 2007, they have been attempting to work to the environmental process necessary to get approval to use that land. and they began holding hearings in 2008. much of that has been stalemated. the general counsel for the faa has denied approval based on national environmental policy act. because they need a suitor that would be developed in a five- year period of time from the time of approval. they have tried to get people to

relocate their main as facilities and so forth. however, none of them want to relocate without certification. it is like we are against a brick wall. we cannot get anybody to come unless we have approval. we cannot get approval unless we have somebody coming. do you have any advice for me? >> i am going to have to get back to you on that. i am not familiar with that issue but i can consult with my staff and get back to you. >> could somebody work with me on coming to a solution? >> sure. absolutely.>> thank you for the opportunity to serve with you on the subcommittee. i am looking forward to it. i am tempted to -- is the only new

yorker on the subcommittee, i want to correct my colleague from pennsylvania on his misguided ideas of the superior to of all things located in the state of new york. i am very curious on the impact on small airports. would you say a word about what it means in practical terms for a small airport like dutchess county? >> if we find ourselves in a situation where we need to close a tower at the smaller airports, then it becomes a non- towered airport. there are procedures in place to operate within a non-towered airport. in general, we provide control to the facility and then there

are provisions that kick in in terms of how you actually arrive and depart the airport. in general, it is less efficient. in inclement weather we rely on in -- one in and one out. there are well-established procedures in clays to operate in non-towered airport. >> if you had your preference is a matter of safety and efficiency, you would never operate in airport in that manner if you could avoid it? >> it is fair to say that we are not going to do anything that is not safe. if you do not have a tower on the facility, it will certainly be less efficient to preserve that area a. >> many folks i represent rely on the airports in new york city.

can you say the word on the impact on those airports? >> the new york facilities are our most complicated facilities. they connect with how new york goes in terms of efficiency effects the whole national airspace system. it is, it it for us to staff and maintain. any reduction in hours in those facilities does create the potential for them to operate less efficiently and introduce delays into the system. that is one of the factors we are carefully studying right now. >> one of the things i think is lost in this conversation is that this is not a debate about whether to make cuts. it is the degree that cuts are necessary. it is about our choices and prioritization of sources. i was just on the house for talking about the cuts to west point, one of our most extraordinary american institutions. we are letting the cadet suffer and to with less.

i am curious whether you have looked at the impact, for example, reducing the benefits to corporate jet owners that would also be possible as a reduction to end the tax expenditure. the impact that might have or whether it would have an impact on the safety efficiencies. >> i think this is all part of the larger fiscal discussion that the congress and administration have been debating. the president has made proposals to provide additional resources for the aviation system. we have not been able to reach we have not been able to reach agreement