Mr. Vice President and distinguished members of the Commission, my name is Tom Chapman, and I am Senior Vice President of AOPA Legislative Action.
AOPA Legislative Action enjoys the financial support of 340,000 dues paying members. Together with our affiliated organization, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, we promote the interests of those who contribute to our economy by taking advantage of general aviation aircraft to fulfill their business and personal transportation needs. There are more than 650,000 general aviation pilots nationwide.
We appreciate the work and dedication of the Commission and its willingness to hear our views. Overall, it seems the Commission is about to produce an interesting set of proposals. However, we are extremely concerned with one recommendation contained in the draft staff report.
In the draft report we had an opportunity to review, the staff recommendation numbered 3.4 proposed to fund an acceleration of the Federal Aviation Administration modernization program through a system of user fees. Although AOPA supports the goal of accelerating FAA modernization, the financing language proposed by the Commission staff is premature in light of the ongoing outside audit of the FAA currently being performed by Coopers & Lybrand.
In addition, the assertion by the Commission's staff that establishment of the National Civil Aviation Review Commission (NCARC) by Congress is an acknowledgment of the need for a new aviation funding mechanism is simply incorrect and is not supported by legislative history. In fact, one of the questions to be determined by the NCARC is whether a new funding mechanism is necessary. And so it requires a quantum leap in logic to assume further that the NCARC is going to design a new user fee system, or find that user fees are the best alternative - if, in fact, it should determine that a new funding mechanism is necessary. Yet the language of the draft recommendation suggests that the only role of the NCARC is to simply refine whatever user fee system is ultimately to be adopted.
The Commission staff's assertion that a new financing mechanism is necessary to ensure that modernization of the air traffic control system will occur on an acceptable schedule is not established fact and reflects no consensus within the industry or Congress. Congress, as part of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996, ordered the DOT to contract with an outside entity to conduct a comprehensive FAA needs and cost allocation assessment of the financial requirements of the FAA through 2002. As the report issued by the Conference Committee states: "The purpose of this assessment is to determine independently what the financial needs of the FAA will be in the short- and long-term….This assessment is urgently needed by the task force, Congress and the aviation community so proper evaluation of the FAA's financial picture can be done using a single, objective set of numbers and assumptions."
The intent of Congress in creating the NCARC was not, as stated in the staff draft, to acknowledge a need for a new funding mechanism. In establishing the NCARC Congress stated: "A major premise of this legislation is that old assumptions and old ways of doing business must be re-evaluated and updated." This is not a mandate for a new funding mechanism. In fact Congress, in establishing the NCARC's twin task forces on safety and funding, was quite clear as to the objectives of each. The safety task force is not to duplicate the work of the Gore Commission. As stated in the conference report; "Rather, it is intended and anticipated the safety study in this bill will build on the experience and recommendations of the Gore Commission."
The NCARC task force on funding issues also received guidance from Congress. "The recommendations of the task force may include a variety of possibilities, such as alternate funding proposals, taking the trust funds off budget, user fee system proposals, modifications to the aviation excise tax system, a combination of excise taxes and user fees, and means of meeting airport infrastructure needs."
At no point has Congress uniformly acknowledged the need for a new aviation funding mechanism, nor that user fees represent the best alternative approach to funding. In fact, in 1996 Congress specifically decided not to pursue the user fee concept. Instead, Congress provided the NCARC with an independent, outside audit of the FAA as a tool and gives the task force on funding the widest possible latitude in looking at the issue.
AOPA has deeply appreciated the opportunity to participate in numerous Commission events leading up to this report. The fact that we are here today underscores the high standard of openness and accessibility the Commission has followed. However, a report which inappropriately seeks to influence the very controversial debate on FAA financing alternatives, and in fact conveniently dovetails with the Administration's budget request released just last week, will undermine the important work of the Commission in the areas of safety and security. Therefore, we respectfully request that the Commissioners drop the specific references to user fees altogether.
We appreciate your willingness to consider our views and stand prepared to continue assisting the Commission in any way possible.