tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 20, 2014 8:00am-10:01am EST
for people access the air safe and -- airspace and be done. >> the the adoption, what does it cost? what is the least costly entry point for something in general aviation to become compliant with the 2020 standard? >> it gives the pilot in the cockpit no information, chest pains, about five or $6000 installed today. >> so it's over 20% of cost of aircraft? >> a disadvantage. >> is the result is a some of these are going to be parked in hangers come in bone yards? pilots will not be flying? >> correct. >> there needs to be a lower cost solution. what is your organization doing to promote this lower cost solution? >> working with general aviation
association manufacturers association. remember the ipad wasn't invented when ads-b cannot. there some type of lower cost of ice that could be like our cell phone. >> general scovel, the faa seems to be behind on issuing rulings on drones and integrating uas, uab, whatever want to call them, integrating them into the airspace. how far behind on the no? >> are behind. they are behind the mandate established by congress in the last reauthorization from 2012. >> we should say we really mean it this time. >> well, yes absolutely. and it would certainly help
everybody if the agency listened. faa was slow in designating its sites, six of them. they were finally designated, again for switzer congressional authorization or mandate, but we have found that the agency's plans to develop data and to learn from the results that accrue from operations at these test sites have not been prepared to the agency satisfaction. and certainly not to the needs of the burgeoning industry. when it comes as well to gathering safety data from uas users currently in the system and from the department of the defense, faa has a lot to learn. a long way to go. >> i wish they were here today to defend themselves are giving an edge to the next question. wing to you think they will give us some rules? i've had a constituent, on
behalf of a constituent i sent a letter to the faa three months ago just asking them to point me to the rules on what rules exist and i still have a response to that letter. wendy think they might come up with some rules of? >> the so-called small uas rule has been promised by the end of this year. i'm not sure what kind of uas your constituent may be interest in operating but if it's a small uas i would say stay tuned, see what faa can produce by the end of this year. >> sounds like mr. baker kind of hinted at an id that can help us with drones, the accuracy. made we could relax some of the rules for accuracy. yes, captain moak? >> there's one point i think that's been missed. in commercial aviation, to keep it safe and keep our customers, passenger seat, we need to know where all the planes are. i'm confident working with morgan aopa we will be able to
achieve that. but on the points that are made down to i think i couldn't disagree more with the analysis coming up. we have to be using the same principles, a certification of the aircraft, the remote piloted aircraft, the drone, the operator and the people that are operating them as we d did for airlines we have the same safety spent my time is expired but let me agree with you. look, having no rules doesn't benefit the air traffic controllers, the commercial pilots, general aviation votes, everybody is put at risk. when there are no rules because the rest of the world is leaving us behind and give commercial entities who are being encouraged or they are encouraging themselves break the rules that don't exist and your anecdotal stories of near collisions. so i think it's incumbent upon us to get these rules so that everybody benefits. thank you, mr. chairman. my time is expired.
>> recognize mr. defazio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. perhaps a few observations i'd like to think about. first off, the biggest problem relates to budget, money, sequestration. this year 83% of all faa operations and acquisition is being paid for out of the trust fund. you could look at it and say we've got 17% problem. if they can cover 100% we make it mandatory spending, then we're not going to have these stupid issues with shutdown with sequestration of all the things in the future. i want people to recommend faa procurement. they are worse than the pentagon. how do we fix that? it's always a moving target. we never get them to end up at a point for something that were, to me change orders. i want people think about that. we have a dispute over ads-b, in out schedule. we have a ground system, we have
a mandate. europe has a mandate. they have no ground system. why can't we harmonize those two things to say europe and the united states ought to move together? we worked on harmonizing the electronics. why can't we harmonize the schedule for adoption so there would be real benefits to people both in europe and the united states of america. i don't know why. i'd love to hear more about that. and then on air traffic control, granted a lot of my information is somewhat dated but i want to a vigorous debate when i was ranking on aviation with mr. mica in '06 on this issue and i didn't find there was a safer system and were. before we had that debate we had a midair collision which killed people in europe because they were understaffed and the one person on duty is off somewhere doing something.
productivity issues where virtually identical with candidate. so again i think making major changes there is a steep slope but am willing to have a thoughtful discussion about that. now i will get to question, which will be directed principally to mr. rowan aldie. you know -- run all the. of the poses are forcing more people to consider early out. and i read in your testimony and again this is the question what's with the faa? why do you take people just graduated from the academy and send them to the highest level facilities and basically engendered a high failure rate? what could the rationale for the vantage be? do you think what we could have more retention and better trained controls if we change that? >> great question, and the simple answer is yes, we could have a better system and --
[inaudible] >> do i have power? i have power. >> good, all right. and we go. >> it's a great question and yes, we could retain more controllers. if we sent them to the low-level facilities and let them develop and hone their skills. our busy centers are struggling with staffing right now because it has been an faa way to take some a freshman you out of the cabinet and send them to a lab or new york or chicago and within six to eight months their unsuccessful and descended to the level facilities.
we've tried worked with the agency for about two years now to develop a real losses, to move the controls at oil facilities without and evolving their skills so they can maintain the ability to do it at a high level like new york or land or chicago. we are not there yet. we call the faa speed sometimes you we should've been done with is about a year ago because new hires coming out -- >> what's so hard about it? >> well, you will have to ask them. we've had some ideas. it was a drawnout process and we thought we had a good plan, and it's just taking a very long time. >> okay. spin when you take someone straight out of the academy and you send into a busy tracon, they don't have the training program to teach them from zero -- >> i sat and watched those screens but i couldn't do. i wouldn't even begin to think i could do it. mr. calio, he woul you want to d
to the idea but why not have harmonization in terms of the schedule with europe on ads-b? would that eliminate some of the concerns of the airlines of? >> it would not eliminate all of our concerns. this is a classic case of the faa embracing a standard before they reviewed the cost benefits and make the business case for it. as i said, we've made a lot of investment. we have equipment on airplanes we can't use no. it's mandated we get more equipment and we don't know how it will work, whether the steps will change, whether equivalent will change. harmonization is one part but making it work in making sure there's a business case to be made for it is critical. if you go back through all the cost overruns and all of failures and hiccups, that's great consistently one of the problems. it's got to be part of the process of how you get to where you are when you can say okay, use this equipment. >> mr. woodall be, as i
understand ads-b, we're going to get comedy think it's critical that with updates every like real-time as opposed every seven our eight seconds? will this make, which is what i understand? no rehab transponders. >> more accurate information and more timely information, especially in the interim environment where you can get constant in root update of airplanes building at a very high speed is very, very valuable. at the low-level activity, as mr. baker was talking about, i'm not sure that there really is a bank for a buck, so to speak. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first question is for inspector general scovel. in your recent ads-b audit report, how many commercial and general aviation aircraft will be affected with the update? >> thanks, mr. graves.
our count, and it's an estimate, 240,000 general aviation aircraft are subject to the mandate. about 18,000 commercial aircraft as well. >> does not include the entire existing fleet? >> virtually, yasser spit do the numbers change or do they anticipate them changing any? >> certainly. they will move up and down, but we believe that between now and 2020 those numbers will hold generally, generally firm in that range. that's the problem which some of my fellow witnesses have spoken to. but it's the ability of the manufacturing industry to produce the equipment to the ability of faa to get certified. it's simply time and space for aircraft owners to get their planes into repair facility, repair stations so those boxes can be installed on the aircraft.
it's a tough road to hoe between now and 2020. >> next question is probably for mr. rinaldi and i want to hear from the airlines. but we have a situation. one of the things nextgen has always promised us is lower cost and it's going to save us money in the long run and we can eliminate the outdated system which is passing radar to radar overall. but we all know that with ads-b, -- [inaudible] >> there we are. you can go invisible if you want if you pull the circuit breaker with ads-b edge of no way to track the plane. you have the argument we can make the system permit so they can never be shut off. we know in an airplane you don't want o to have a system that cannot be disabled if you have an electrical failure of whatever the case may be.
what worries me in this whole situation is we will be operating to systems. so we will never achieve any cost savings. i would be curious what you think, captain, and probably naked, you can weigh in on that. i would also like mr. baker, if you could, but go ahead. >> so look, we have a problem there and we will be able to work good on ads-b implementation and mandate. but let's be clear. ads-b is revolutionary. it's what we need. we probably needed it five years ago. you have less separation. you can fly current approaches at six or miles an hour you go a long ways in seven seconds. this is where we should be going and it's going to help aviation tremendously, okay? so a few things we disagree on what we needed it is to be working together to address them. cost is one your ads-b is good for the airlines.
it's good for the air traffic controllers. it's good for our customers. it's good all the way around. we just have to work through the hiccups a not that those hiccups defined the problem. >> i'd like to address the safety aspects of it further. are we going to operate to systems? will we have to operate to system? >> we always do that. it's the transition phase. we normally have two systems. is rarely you can ever have a light switch on this but and again that's part of this transformative issue. it's not one day. it's over a little piece of time. you will have cost savings when you fully implement. >> go ahead and hear from mr. baker. >> the concern that we have with the general aviation airplanes is cost related to the benefit. this is just to get ads-b out. we think it coul can be advantas to better weather in the cockpit
using some other tablet device would be a benefit. we see it as a benefit long-term but it's something what is the time to get to the benefit. i think you're right, that we will be operating to system for a long time and that was a big part of initiative to save money. part of the cost benefit to the government. i think it is not accurate today. >> mr. calio? >> i should've stated early on we believe ads-b is a cornerstone of nextgen. there are issues i have laid out and captain moak address we need to work through with the faa. the call to action anything earlier i guess last month now was a good start. there's still those issues that have to be resolved in order to achieve any cost savings, increase safety down the line. in terms of two systems, yes, as captain moak said we always do, but once we get past all that will have a much better system.
>> mr. rinaldi, i know my time is expired but i would like to hear from you on this. >> i think you'll always have two systems. you think have two systems. you think will shut down a raider system in this country after the tragic events of 9/11 and someone will be up to shut off ads-b transponder and we won't be able to track airplanes. and i think ads-b shows tremendous amount of value but we have to have necessary redundancy of the radar system also. >> try to thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, i'm about to get on a plane for the fifth time in 90s but i want to make sure it's safe, right? we are good? >> yes. >> and thank you. >> we are paying for it. i've been listening to this but i don't think a forgiving i disagree with a source where we want to go. we have a good system. we have to make it better. that's natural. that's the america. that's good.
that's a good progress. i have a little problem though. everything i know that i want to make better about myself or my family, and everything, cost money. somebody has to pay for it. and i think everybody in agreement that we're short on funds. but i'm not sure i heard anybody say where we should get those funds. so does anybody have any suggestions? i'd like to hear them. yes, sir, captain. >> i have one thing i want to see. we do need to give the faa or encourage the fa restructure the faa to be able to use private enterprise business principles when they're putting in an infrastructure program like this. to have them doing what they're doing with one arm tied behind their back -- >> i understand that and i appreciate that, captain -- >> but that saves money and that reduces the funding gap.
>> i need more explanation. i love those generic terms, this is can do better than anything else. they fit on the bumper sticker and the bumper sticker and the good of political commercials but i'm not sure what you mean by that. i read governor english system and i agree. at&t is his example. rightfully improved their business model. it cost them a fortune to do it. it cost a lot of money to go from a little tape system to a new 4g system. somebody has to pay for it. napt's case it was some shareholders but mostly expanding their business footprint. how are we going to expand our footprint with more people flying and how are we going to charge the more? if we don't do that, even private businesses have to make money. it's all well and good. if you're telling me there's that much waste in the faa, i
would love to hear where. i'm not saying there isn't but show me the numbers. your statements are fun but i need numbers. >> we're happy to provide it for you. stabilize funding and a funding shortfall is little different. you can't be working up and all of a sudden have all funds shutdown on -- >> i agree with you but i voted against the sequestered. you're talking to the wrong guy. i think there are some of the people there you need to talk to. >> i want to point out occasionally some of the cell phones, not to name any names, still drop calls despite the infrastructure and privilege they put -- >> the are trying to improve but as they do it is causing the money. if you want to get nextgen, somebody has to pay. it's either going to be taxpayers directly or through to the people who use airplanes, the customer. who else? who else is going to do it? if it's the customer, let's not pretend to buy us as everything
we're going to spend vanessa but somebody charge them for. that's not a tax. it is. i'm not against that but i don't want to kid myself. if government takes action and cost somebody money, direct or indirect -- indirect tax cost. so who is going to pay for this? i'm all for it. and by the way, i think it's appropriate i'm on the far left of this panel. i'm not afraid of that. but for me, honest is more important than anything else. eve we are going to keep up and improve, someone has to pay for it. are any of you willing to say that someone should pay for it? i'm particularly interested in arguing to say somebody other than somebody else should pay for its?
are you willing to help pay for its? >> well, in fact let me try to, mr. chairman, a little bit of clarity on this from the perspective may be of our ceos. one, just in doing the buildup, i believe the government ought to have a budget process. that's something pretty much every state has. i've worked -- >> i'm in, i'm in. >> the way you do a big project which is what nextgen is, lease in terms of technology, you go and say what's -- we use this equipment for a lot of years so you do a bond issue, get the money and then you go out and carefully invest that money in, you wouldn't have to go, captain moak just as they come you can't start and stop a that's expensive. >> i am a former mayor. i'm all for it spent i want to do a better job, more efficiently spend my money on the project.
we heard testimony from general scovel about overruns and mr. defazio talk to acquisition but we could do that better. there's more money to be saved there. the bottom line, you heard an array of multiple different taxes that are being collected. we're suggesting there's a way among the stakeholders to look at that, look at what other nations have done. are the ways to make that equitable? of kosher to pay for it. we as the flying public, members of congress fly more than most of the public, you pay every time you fly. what we are saying is can we become a that all you're going to make ago and get a dollars worth of value, not 85 cents? >> i'm all for that but we will need more money to keep, to catch up now. when we're finished with a nextgen who will be something else. drones are the next thing coming but i know someone drones will be delivering my chinese food. i know that but also know another thing. i know captain moak and his
people need to dash away to come up with a system that will allow you to do it in that will cost money. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for indulging me. >> with that recognize mr. mica. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this important hearing on the authorization. having been through several of them, probably one of my main concerns is our lack of progress on nextgen. first bill that i helped author, we worked on it, the last build we worked on it, and, unfortunately, i think nextgen is either in a stall or reverse, and that's not acceptable. inspector general scovel, is the lack of funding, has that been the major problem in not moving
forward with nextgen? >> from our work we don't think a lack of funding has been a problem. certainly the timing perhaps of that funding, a steady stream of funding. but i think that's different from a lack of funding. in fact, in the past congress has been generous, even exceeding the administration's request specifically for nextgen. >> and i think that's the case. somehow faa is not getting it together. and the other thing is in order for nextgen to be implemented, everybody here has to have some benefit to the airlines have had the benefit, right, transform? >> clearly -- mr. calio? >> it's a point we have made over and over. >> mr. baker? the pilots, mr. moak? >> nextgen is a future. we need to keep moving forward speed governor, do you know
anything and business or business aviation that doesn't look for some benefit to a new system or expenditures they are called on them to? >> absolutely. we want to get rid of -- >> somehow there's a disconnect here i don't think, i don't think we're headed in the right direction. we've got to turn this around. and actually everybody who was at the table, i didn't get to you, all or mr. rinaldi, air traffic control the use this. it has to benefit them, right? right. i saw the late and great staff director mr. thune sitting by the texan which i told him not to do during the hearing, but -- texting. he and i were leaving aviation the we both sort of like our four head when i chaired that.
when i left as chairman sort of wiped our four head. it was a sigh of relief that there had been no major aircraft, passenger aircraft from this is in large aircraft that we had a disaster like the one we had, was at november of 2001, after 9/11. we did have small commuter and regional aircraft, the late mr. oberstar and i, we worked, mr. defazio isn't here, did you commuter safety, and we've done good there. but i'm telling you guys the clock is ticking. it's going to happen. it can be in air traffic control. it can be a pilot air. there is no reason for united states should not have the most advanced air traffic control system in the world. and we do not have to. mr. rinaldi, have you been to
canada? >> i have. >> candidate is about one-tenth our size but they have a system. they are already placing consoles. of satellite capacity. we should be ahead of the game on this thing. but maybe it's going to take a disaster to wake people up to this. we cannot backslide on nextgen. so that's just one point. in the meantime -- did you want to comment? >> yes, sir. congressman mica, i also represent the pilots of the canada, and although it's a system we should be looking at, it's, i want to point out of also to represent high that the major aircraft accidents of their come and in this page play mode we have to be mindful that some of the airports in the northern part, they don't under that system they don't have the most advanced system. >> but they are adopting to the
faster than we are and will soon have that th. so that's my point, is we've got to stay ahead of that gain. you don't want to be anything that is outmoded as technology but what you want to have in place is the technology that gives us the best coverage but and we were probably as was testament will probably always have to have the backup systems. because we have had and want to maintain the safest but i'm telling you we all need to gather again together, maybe not mr. scovel, but this group here can make it happen. we've got to pay for it, and some of it, it's been mostly about and 80/20 proposition. i would like to see that more self paying. i don't think there should be a war between the airlines and the airports.
we need the facility to our airports be to be expanded across this coach dale to accommodate the aircraft that we have coming in to play. one last thing. to you all find that to our representatives at icao? whose the ambassador to icao? okay. there should never be -- icao international civil aviation agency up in montréal controls all rules, the international rules. there should never be a passenger aircraft that takes off in the united states, or anywhere in the world and this s the world standards, but we don't know where that is. ..
>> i did want mr. baker to address the falling number of single piston-powered aircraft and number of pilots in the united states -- >> believe he did that in his testimony. >> yeah, i did. >> so we got that on record. with that, ms. norton's recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. forgive me, i have a cold. i agree with mr. mica. in the present environment, it may take a catastrophe to move
this along. it's a good thing this wasn't, this hearing wasn't called progress on nextgen, because you have had nothing but accessbacks. setbacks. it's murder flying today, it's murder. because more people are trying to fly, and you're having to be more and more cautious. i had high hopes for nextgen because of what it means for our place in the world. but you've operated within a, an environment where you've had to stop major nextgen programs where, you know, the environment of 20,000-plus furloughs, half a billion dollar cut in operation, hiring freezes, you know? you know, somebody needs to be candid here.
and tell the public what i think the testimony is here. now, captain moak said proceed cautiously. god, i wish we were proceeding at all. proceed cautiously to a new system. this 2020 date that was set some time ago is a fiction, and what we need to tell the public, don't we, is that they're going to have -- we are going to be living with the present system for the foreseeable future. mr. colvo, you are an inspector general. you're supposed to tell the truth here. i mean, isn't that, in effect, what the testimony amounts to today and what the present lack of progress has meant? >> there are some very tight wickets to be run between -- >> very what? >> tight wickets. in other words, for industry and for faa to --
>> i'm talking about on the public side. >> i'm sorry? i misunderstood. >> i'm talking about on the public side. the public side has to be a partner to whatever wickets the private side is trying to run. >> yes. and by "public," if you mean the faa and what it must do in order to provide these enhanced air traffic control services to our national air space, absolutely. >> so this is a system you got, and what i'm asking you to do is to make the system we've got as safe as you can. because you really can't sit there with a straight face and tell me and tell the american public that the way we're going to get out of this is we're going to move to a new system, another system that has high hopes, less delays, less environmental impacts, because we're not going to do that anytime soon. yes, captain moak.
>> just in case i gave the wrong impression, our system for our customers and for our pilots, for our crew members is the safest system in the world -- >> captain, i'm not questioning your safety. >> it's very -- >> i'm telling you this -- look, i don't even have to fly the way my colleagues do. but when i do fly, i see what is happening. i can't imagine what they see. it is murder. because more and more people want to fly, in more and more crowded skies. i believe we have a safe system. i know it, because you slow things down to make it safe. >> and the other thing i wanted to add on the safe system is many -- nextgen is not defined by the 2020 mandate, by adsb. nextgen is a work in progress, and many of the benefits have already come online, and i think that's getting missed there.
>> captain moak, the faa and nobody here is even willing to give us a target date for when we could say we have now made the transition, and we've moved to nextgen. isn't that the case? >> i would say, i would say -- >> for most programs in our country, we at least have a target date. and if you don't have a target date, then it does seem to me your goal should be to keep the system we have, because that's the system we're going to have for some time. mr. colvo didn't object to that characterization. and to keep it as safe as it can with whatever slowdown telling the public, yes, there'll be slowdowns, but you have to understand that these slowdowns are to keep you safe. it is better to have that kind of candor than to have people being angry at the airports when you tell them that they can't get someplace when we were supposed to get someplace. now, i'm not chastising the private sector. i know who's to blame here.
but i am saying now that we know what the atmosphere is like, be candid with the public so that the public does not expect anything but slowdowns for the foreseeable future. if anybody objects to that, speak now or forever hold your peace. >> i can't let that stand like that because, you know, the on-time records, the improvements, the safety, that's not a characteristic of our u.s. aviation system. we are working. it's never going to be a finite date that everything is done because it'll be constantly improving all along. the nuance problems we're working through here as a team, we will always work through them. so i would say it was a mischaracterization of the u.s. airline industry. >> gentlelady's time has expired. i'm going to recognize myself for five minutes to ask a question. i think it's pretty apparent that the process doesn't work like it should. we obviously have the safest air space in the world, the biggest, largest air space in the world. but when you look at
mr. engler's example of at&t, and you can look at apple in the last seven years, they've had eight phones, eight iterations. we're now at the faa spending $115 million on an information system, flight information system that they're projecting to be done in 2025. there'll be probably eight, ten more iphones out before the faa gets there are. and those are the kinds of things that it's just apparent the process is broken. when you look back over the last three decades and the 10, 11 different pieces of legislation and executive orders that said let's get this done. and i'm sure that as michael huerta, who i think has done some good over at the faa, if you look back, i'm sure you can find every administrator saying we're moving in the right direction can. they're moving at a snail's pace. and to mr. mica's point of view, we have got to get these things up and running. the process doesn't work, and we all, i think it's apparent that
the money stopping and starting is a huge problem. so, governor engler, coming from -- you all represent businesses, but as a user, as somebody that looks at this and needs this air space that needs this system to work with efficiently and with the benefit of how your companies operate in it, in a technology world, a new governance model, how do you envision that working not only from the process, but also from the funding side? and we've talked about it a little bit, but i won't interrupt you, and i'll let you lay it all out. >> well, at least some of the thinking is to examine these stakeholders, and many of us are at the table here today. others are not but would want to be included. and it really is a question of stakeholders coming together, and nobody's made any decisions on exactly how, what a funding model would look like. that's always been a sticking point in the past. i mean, that's when it gets hard, when you start putting money. and that's been referenced here.
but, you know, one of the other members was pressing us on money. there's a lot of money in the system, and so -- and there's a recognition, there still are airport needs out there, and that's -- so this, separating this out, that's one of the reasons some of the work we've been doing is really trying to understand what funding models might look like, what options might be there but not trying to get into that conversation. because that really is, my sense has been given the size of the committee, the complexity of the issue if you can't get all the stakeholders together, we're not going to be able to show up here and be very successful, so that's going to be really important. on the governance side, the same thing is true. the people who are putting up the funds who have an interest in this working be they pilots, be they the controllers, be they, certainly, the commercial airlines himselfs, general aviation, all will want a seat at the table for that. there was sort of a model used up in canada in terms of
bringing the stakeholders together. that really is only on sort of building out the system, the things, the technologies. the other very key part of this never leaves the faa. it is the whole, the safety regulation is there. and i made reference to you sort of have today the regulator, the decision maker on the technologies designed to enhance safety also being the decision maker on safety itself. so there is an inherent kind of conflict that exists, if you will. and what works well, i think, is some separation. the agency still has got all the safety responsibility, plus they've got all the operational responsibilities which are, i mean, these captains, they have challenging jobs. they've got these manuals of technical specifications. you have to comply with how you fly. the reason we're the safest in the world, if they find -- i don't know if there's a different way to deal with wind
sheer, an edict goes out, and pilots are almost returning instantly on that in the commercial space. controllers have a lot of technical things they're in charge of. the agency's way behind on some of this stuff and, frankly, an agency that was really focused laser like on getting caught up there so that as new technology was available it could be deployed, would be an agency that would really be working well. so i actually think in this case kind of realigning these responsibilities a little bit so that everybody's doing what they're best at doing and picking up the pace, we get to a better place for the nation's a air traffic system. >> thank you, governor. and i think you made a good point there, which is the point i've been making. we need to be looking at all these other different systems around the world and how they do things. the one number that just absolutely jumped off the page at me was that we are nine times the size of the canadian air space. we spend 20 times as much in cap
ex as they do. and from what i've seen and chairman mica's been up there, their technology's advanced to ours, and they're spending a lot less money getting technology and getting it out there quirk, so i think that's something we need to pay attention to. with that, i'd yield five minutes to ms. estes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and as a new member of the committee, i have to say this is one of the rare areas when i came on the committee two years ago when i said, oh, my god, this is a triple win. if we get nextgen right, we are helping with safety, we won't lose planes -- which i was told we don't lose planes, but now we know we do. it has happened. it's better for environments and for communities. we need to find a way to get this done. so it seems to me there are two different issues, one is the funding, and one is the timing. the benefits don't really accrue until we have a critical mass who have equipment in place. so i think we need to be looking at, mr. chairman, a carrot and
stick model. when we have the cost of borrowing near zero, we absolutely need to find a way right now to do this with american technology that sets the standard for the world. and one way to do that is set a date certain by which all equipment must be retrofitted, and there are heavy penalties beyond that. and then you set together a funding corpus that you borrow from. but anybody who wants to be the late one to the table to be the free rider, they are going to pay heavily. and that seems to me a way to help to engage the market, engage wall street in setting out that money. the federal government ought to partner, but we immediate to set a realistic -- we need to set a realistic time frame and very heavy incentive to comply by the time frame. that would bring the cost of the technology down and get it done before 2025. this is ridiculous, we should not have to wait that long. and, clearly, we're going to the need more iterations. but we risk the real opportunity right now that not only are we
behind, but that other countries are going to develop and sell the technology to the world and the standard, and that is foolish. we should not do that. our citizens deserve the safety, our communities deserve to have cleaner air, it's better for the environment, we deserve to not be chewing up land we don't need to, and we should get this done faster. so if anyone would care to opine on whether we think what kind of time frame is realistic if we could get the money together to borrow from over time, what is the time period by which realistically we could say you have to retrofit or have new equipment to meet this model? >> congresswoman, if you are suggesting that it's -- are you talking about the airlines need to retrofit? >> yes. >> okay. well, i think here it's a very complicated question or more complicated question. we have deadlines. we've had deadlines in the past. we have met the deadlines. we have invested money.
there's $6 billion in the trust fund right now that's unallocated. we have the money really. the problem lies in the processes and making sure that the equipment works and making sure that there's a return on the investment for the equipment. it's far more than that. just setting a deadline, i don't believe with all due respect, is going to do anything. if we have a deadline for 2020 on adsb, and yet we're not harmonized with the world, the case hasn't been made that there's going to be a return on the investment for the people who are being forced to invest in it. meanwhile, we're flying around on aircraft, we have aircraft in our fleets that has equipment on it that we can't use because the procedures are not in place to use it. it's a very frustrating situation. >> well, then what are those pieces that we could, to realize the benefits? obviously, we're talking about sort of these unrealized or unrecognized benefits. how do we incorporate that into the system so, in fact, they are realized or the incentive is there such that they do get realized by those who currently find it not to be in their interest?
>> so, congresswoman, we are making progress. you know, it doesn't lend itself in the time we have here, but if you go out to greener skies in seattle, for example, they concentrated on that, they brought it online. it saves emissions, it saves fuel, it's a safe operation, and they're trying to replicate that all over the united states. the houston metroplex, they brought that online. great job there. and, again, i want to stress what i said earlier: the airlines have trained the pilots, the controllers have trained, we're working through procedures with the controllers. the airlines have invested, and the faa continues to work. but, again, private enterprise management principles applied in the public sector with the faa stabilize the consistent funding, all those things allow them to do a better job. right now they're working with a hand tied behind their back with, i believe. >> i think that your summation a
excellent. i mean, you say how do you kind of make these pieces and sequence them to get them all to work, but there's a point in there you really touched on that deserves to be picked up a little more, and that is on these procedures that captain moak just referred to that one of the recommendations of the management advisory committee -- and this was a unanimous recommendation -- is give these stakeholders more of a role in helping to prioritize what procedures need to come when so that we can get those done. because some are high value, high payoff, pretty quick return. others have a little bit longer tail, and i think that kind of -- this is what i think the general was talking about in terms of performance management. i mean, normally all of us would in our offices or in our enterprises do it by order of priority. >> gentlelady's time has expired. mr. meadows is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
mr. scoville, let me come to you because sitting in your exact seat we have had people before this committee with the faa and both the administrator and the person in charge of making sure that nextgen gets implemented. and when we ask for deadlines, we ask for time frames, i see sweat pop out on their brow, and really the plan to get it implemented -- there's not, not an answer. you said it was a very tight wicket. i make the analogy it's like getting a bowling ball through a wicket. what degree of confidence on a scale of one to ten with ten being most confident do you have in the faa's ability to implement most of this thing and meet the target deadlines that have been reestablished, i might add? these are not the first deadlines. these are multiple deadlines. on a scale of 1-10, how confident are you, and would you place your job based on that
rating? [laughter] >> well, a tall order, sir. when i mentioned tight wickets, i was referring specifically to the time between now and the mandate in 2020 -- >> right. >> -- for adsb-out equipage. what happens after that is anyone's game. >> so we're going to invest billions of dollars on anyone's game or guess. >> yes. but i do agree with captain moak that it's essential, it's necessary, and it's achievable. it's a question of enough time -- >> well, achievable that i can run a marathon, but it's not real likely that it's going to happen in the near future. >> right. >> so from a time frame standpoint, when do we start -- when does the stakeholder start to get counting on our time frame so that they can make the proper investments? as a business guy, it concerns me greatly that we're spending millions and billions of dollars to have equipment and training ready, and yet we're not doing
our part on the federal government side. >> well, let me just take the january 2020 mandate. >> right. >> realizing everything that needs to be done there in terms of automation platform renewal and modernization, b-ram is supposed to be done in 2015, right? >> right. >> star is supposed to be done several years after that. datab com in 2019. the need to develop procedures and training for the controllers, the need for the entire -- for enough of the fleet that's going to use the system to equip so that we canh. without the end-to-end test, we can't be sure it's going to operate as intended. >> right. >> and all of that by 2020, i'm -- >> scale of 1-10, 10 being the highest -- >> i'm less than 5. and i would say probably we don't have until four and a half years from now in order to judge. we may have a year and a half, two years --
>> yeah. >> because by the time -- [inaudible conversations] >> so let me -- >> we won't have time for that. >> so let me shift to europe then because they're in the middle of an atc modification as well, and they're taking a different approach which is saying that make sure all the stakeholders have all of their stuff, and yet they're not going to make their deadlines either. so would you say that our approach is better than their approach? it's a softball. >> in terms of -- >> in terms of ultimately getting what the airline industry and what air travelers need, is it better approach to make sure the stakeholders are equipped first, or is it better that we do what we need to be doing on the part of ground i'm sorrylation, etc. installation, etc. >> well, ground installation is done. >> which one's better? >> that's about one-third of the equation. >> right. >> we still have a long way to go -- >> in the training and other implementation. >> and the stakeholder -- >> so is our process or your
process better? i need you on the record to tell me which one's better. >> oh, let's see. [laughter] we're going to make ours work, and it's going to be done right. >> so is ours better? >> for us we have to take into account our -- >> it sounds like you're running for office. that's a political answer. >> i'm trying to avoid any kind of policy input because i know that's the committee's -- >> i'm asking you for that. i'm asking you a direct question. >> uh-huh. >> would it be better that we get rid of the process we're having and adopt theirs? okay. >> by "process," are you referring specifically -- >> their emphasis is more on the stakeholders. i would assume that your answer is no. >> no, we have to have an emphasis on stakeholders. >> all right. i'll yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. meadows. and with that, mr. lieu pinsky's recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this
hearing. i wanted to, first, ask mr. baker we talked already about the issue with adsb out and incentives for installation of those. let me ask specifically two things. would financial incentives be enough, and/or should there be a greater use of best equip/best served policy that the faa uses? your thoughts on those? >> from my perspective, the best incentive would be to provide equipment and a process by which we can employ the equipment and see a return on investment that there would be, that the cost would not outweigh any benefits. >> okay. nothing more specific. okay, mr. baker. i understand that. >> we don't need a loan guarantee to invest in equipment if we know the equipment is going to be -- is going to work
and that we can use it and get our passengers to their destinations faster and more efficiently and safer than we do now. >> okay. mr. baker? >> the general aviation marketplace, we're open to anything that helps lower the cost. the general aviation marketplace has been under siege for years and years, and we're driving 40-year-old average aircraft. if there is a way to look at what are the other choices between an affordable device, some type of financial incentive, anything that lowers the cost for general aviation, we'd want to consider. >> what are the thoughts on the current best equipped, best served policy? >> well, the faa is not doing best equipped, best served. we're still on the first come, first served. obviously, we're not going to, you know, put a cessna that's flying at 110 knots in front of an airbus that's doing 170, we're going to move that cessna out of the way because it's safe and orderly.
best equipped/best served would work. the problem comes, congressman, when it's mixed equipage. and if we don't have a high number of aircraft equipped, then we can have the greatest procedures in the world, but we're going to have to reduce it to the lowest common denominator to continue to run a safe and efficient flow. >> all right. i want to move on to another issue. as many of you know, midway airport's in my district and suffered from thousands of canceled flights after the fire at the aurora center. i'd like to express my appreciation for the hard work that natca and my appreciation for the work you put into keeping our system running and to get aurora facility back in line. i know it was a 24/7 operation, and years of work were completed in less than a month, and i commend the collaborative, diligent effort that was undertaken to manage and remedy that situation.
i understand that natca works collaboratively in a working group to identify relations to keep the system online. i'm interested to learn about the status of these collaborative efforts, what recommendations have been made and whether you believe that the recommendations will be adopted. and will finalizing nextgen mitigate the effects of emergencies that may occur in the future? >> well, we were excited to participate with the panel with the faa and other stakeholders. it's still in its infancy stage. we did put it all together, and it's in the process of review to go through the department of transportation at this time. >> additionally, looking specifically at the finish i know that the ig is still examining the security protocols at the chicago area facilities, but i'm interesting -- interested in learning more about what we need to do as a whole.
for instance, the fire suppression system at aurora used water to put out the fire, and while that did work to put out the fire, i'm wondering if there's a need to look into alternative suppression systems that could effectively handle fire to save lives without compromising the equipment. are there other fixes that can be made, mr. renalty or mr. scoville if you have any answer on that one. >> yeah. i believe the security panel on which we also participated is looking at all options, and they're making their recommendations and phoning them up. >> mr. lu pinsky, we'll be looking at what the agency's current plans are and also what they intend to proceed with. so i can't say at this point. give you a definitive answer to your question. but it clearly is a significant concern for the agency going forward along with the safe integration of uass into the air space. this will have huge
ramifications for the faa. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. lupinsky. i think all our members have questioned. i just want to thank the -- oops. i always forget you, dais. davis. [laughter] >> you know -- >> mr. davis, i'll give you six minutes. >> well, thank you. thank you. you sit in the chair, give the guy a break, and i said i wasn't going to give it back up, but you see who actually gets the chair back. and then he forgets me. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that. i just used my extra minute too, nick. but i do want to start with mr. calio and also give mr. baker and mr. rinaldi a chance to answer this. you've touched on the $6 billion investment that the gao reported, but there's little confidence among the stakeholders in faa's ability to
implement nextgen. where is that disconnect, and what return on investment is the taxpayer seeing from this process? mr. calio, if you could just expand more on what you've already talked about on that issue, i'd appreciate it. >> thank you. congressman davis, there are -- as captain moak pointed out, there are benefits that are already being realized. in certain areas we've put in procedures where planes can get in quicker and take off faster. more clearly needs to be done though. the return on investment will come, i think, when the -- or we think when the procedures or the business processes captain moak has referenced and governor engler addressed are put in place. our problem is the system currently as it's structured and operated does not have -- the question came from i can't remember which member, if you were making a capital expenditure as a business, you would look at your return on investment, your return on
capital, you would have your process laid out over a long term, you'd approach it probably ip centally -- incrementally which has not always happened with the faa. you need those business-like private sector decisions. that's not a general knock on government, it's just we have not been doing that, and we've seen the embrace of technologies too often that weren't ready, the standards set the wrong ways and with very little input from the stakeholders most affected. >> thank you, mr. calio. mr. renaldi? >> i think we have to look at some of the successes we do have. although the faa and maybe even congress doesn't want to talk about transforming our platforms, our enroute modernization platforms and our terminal platforms are the first things. they're the chassises in which we're going to attach a lot of the technology to. we are making a lot of progress with that, and we should be done with what we would call the eram
in 2015 and star's replacement by 2018. then you can actually start attaching the technology in the adsb and the s.w.i.m., the information systems, and start bringing them online. you know, my frustration is that we're still the safest and most efficient, and we're working very hard and very collaboratively to modernize the system, and we're doing it piece by piece. we've revamped the whole state of texas air space, basically. we did what we call optimizing the air space in houston. it's a huge success. the airlines are seeing benefits from it. you know, optimization of departures and arrivals. we now rolled it out in north texas also. texas is a big state, it's a big air space, a lot of airplanes, so we did that. now we have a playbook to move forward. it's not going to -- it's not a flip of the switch or a snap of the fingers. we still have to continue the
legacy system and run it as safe and efficiently as possible while we're doing this. >> all right. mr. baker? >> we think about general aviation aircraft, if it makes sense, people adapt. we think there's probably close to 80-90% of the people today are using some type of a gps to move around and navigate with. people are starting to use a tablet, namely the ipad, in very significant ways to get weather where there is a value, and you can see when things are getting better to fly the aircraft with, people adapt. what's the lowest possible cost to do that so we get the adaptation across the system. if we can get weather and traffic in the cockpit, we're going to be better off. >> thank you. mr. scoville, if your testimony concern in your testimony you raised the issue of safely integrating uas into our air space. many economies from canada to even france have successfully navigated small uav into their
air space. canada has issued 1500 approvals compared to the faa's seven. i think that shows the risk-based small uas rules, actually, we need to unlock what i think could be rapid job creation. and the faa partners with its counterpart foreign agencies in countless ways. has the faa leveraged those best practices in preparing the small uas rules? >> every done work, my office has done work, sir, on faa's efforts to safely integrate uas into our air space. i don't know whether we have looked at faa's review of other nations' procedures and practices. i'd be happy to get back to you on that. >> would you please do that? i mean, in my district, it's a very rural district -- >> right. >> -- we need to make sure we have some cd of what type -- some idea of what type of possible commercial expansion in uas technology we can utilize
here in this country. i think when you look at a 1500 commercial approvals in canada versus seven here, there might be something to be learned in what they've seen and how they have integrated that into our air space -- or their air space. with that, i thank you for your questions, or thank you for your response, and i yield back. >> thank the gentleman, and my apologies for overlooking him. i'll never do that again. well, i want everybody, especially our panelists, for being here today. final word is, well, let me start off by saying i believe administrator huerta has done some positive things down at the faa. as i mentioned earlier, i think if you go back 30 years and every add mer you're going to say -- administrator, you're going to say that person did some positive things. these five chairmen on these walls worked to pass legislation to reform, to change the faa, and you look back to '92,
governor bliley who wrote a report, we're talking about the same stuff. and so i think we have an opportunity here to do something different. the process doesn't work the way it should. you know, we get a little bit here, a little bit there. the funding's not there, and if you think congress in this environment that we are in today with the deficits and the debt that we have is going to be able to fix in the, we're not going to be able to. so we need to look at something different not only from the process standpoint, but from the funding standpoint, a new way forward. and we have to do it together. and right here's the core group of folks that you represent that we've got to sit down, and we've got to figure out together. it's not going to be peter defazio and i saying this is what we're going to do. i think if you looked over the last, the 90s and 2000s, president clinton and president bush both pretty much hatched it in the back room and then got
slaughtered when they took it to the floor of the senate or the house because they didn't take it to the stakeholders. not everybody's going to get everything they want, but i think we can get something that is going to improve the system significantly, that's going to give us -- today we have the safest, we need the most efficient because if we don't, i really, truly believe if we don't do something now -- and i think there's an opportunity for us -- we are going to continue to lose our lead in the world when it comes to aviation, and you look back through history, and it's strewn with when america doesn't step up and do what's right to get out of the way of business, we lost many, many industries. so, again, on my watch i don't want that to happen, and i'm going to continue to work with mr. defazio, members on both sides of the aisle is and you, of course, the stakeholders, to be able to craft something. september's the date, the due date. so we need to strap on our helmets and go to work and figure out how to do this. again, thank everybody for being here. it was a great hearing today, i appreciate it greatly. thank you.
[inaudible conversations] >> a senate panel will investigate airbag defects from the japanese company takata and the recall process. senior officials will testify. live coverage from the senate commerce, science and transportation committee begins today at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> this weekend on c-span, saturday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on "the communicators," tim wong, founder and ceo of fiscal note, on their congressional legislation predicter which uses data mining and artificial
intelligence. and sunday evening at 6:30, governors rick perry of texas, bobby jindal of louisiana and scott walker of wisconsin on the road ahead for the gop. saturday night at ten on booktv on c-span2, former cbs investigative reporter sheryl at keyson on the obstacles she faced while reporting on the obama administration, and sunday night at ten, the 2014 national book awards. and on american history tv on c-span3, saturday night at nine brooklyn college professor benjamin carp tells how leading up to the american revolution taverns in new york city were used as central meeting places to foster a patriotic spirit. and sunday at six on "american artifacts," u.s. house historian matthew wasniewski and its curator use articles from are their collections to tell the story of house pages. find our complete television
schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400, e-mail us as firstname.lastname@example.org, or send us a tweet at @c-span/comments. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> the senate's coming in in about 20 minutes from now, and they'll work on executive nominations. yesterday republican senator chuck grassley came to the floor to talk about his iowa colleague, tom harkin, who's retiring after serving six terms in the senate. we'll also hear from senator harkin.y: >> mr. president, i rise today to celebrate the 75th birthday of my friend and longtime colleague from our home state ow iowa, senator tom harkin.
as you know, senator harkin will be retiring in just a few weeks. at the end of the 113th congress, senator harkin will then close a chapter on public service that spans more than a half century, including four decades in congress. he also served 27 years in the united states navy and u.s. naval reserves, ten years in the house of representatives and 30 years here in the united states senate. now, i think anybody looking at that would say that that's a remarkable and distinguished record of public service. after 40 years of representing iowans in congress, my friend tom soon will leave behind the halls of the u.s. capitol. he also will leave behind a legacy of fiery floor speeches, passionately delivered on behalf
of people with disabilities. also for iowa farmers, also for the elderly, also for child laborers and for many causes that he championed such as early childhood education, nutrition and wellness, conservation, renewable energy and the environment and probably lots of others, but those are things that everybody knows that he has worked hard on. throughout the years tom and i have served side by side in washington for the good of our home state. for three terms we worked together in the u.s. house of representatives. it was here in the senate our shared commitment to give rural america a voice at the policy making table was sown. and for many years we've worked together on the senate agriculture committee looking out for the millions of
americans who choose to work and earn a living in rural america. we worked together to advocate for rural infrastructure and investment, access to health care, housing technology and transportation. for the last three decades, we have served alongside one another here in this distinguished body, the united states senate. an institution that both of us hold near and dear to our hearts. although some of our silver-tongued critics may have ascribed tom's views as those of a bleeding heart liberal or mine mischaracterized as that of a cold-hearted conservative, we both -- tom and i -- know that our hearts have always been in the right place. neither of us was born with a
silver spoon in our mouths, and we learned early on to appreciate the work ethic of our parents and grandparents. each of us raised our families with the hopes that our children and grandchildren would achieve the promise of america's prosperity and grow up to enjoy the pursuits of happiness. as iowa's u.s. senators, we have worked to keep alive the dream of hard working iowa families. now, of course, it's true that we have vastly different views on the government's influence on america's ladder of opportunity. however, we do wholeheartedly agree that it is an honor and a privilege to serve the people of our state. for some reason our respective re-elections every six years
have actually confounded political on receiverrers. many -- observers. many couldn't seem to square the notion that iowans would continue to elect two u.s. senators from opposite sides of the political spectrum for the last 30 -- three decades. so, mr. president, to explain, i think i don't have to because it is widely understood that iowans aren't casual political observers. our electorate takes pride in retail politicking, and its first-in-the-nation political caucuses. we certainly have given iowa voters a night and day choice between these two u.s. senators. so while we may not see eye to eye on politics and ideology, we do see eye to eye when it came
to working for iowa's best interests. although our voting records may reflect night and day positions on some public policy, you wouldn't see the light of day between us when we worked together on matters that are of most importance to iowans including but not limited to natural disasters such as the tremendous floods of '93 and 2008 and iowa farmers and agriculture notably recovering from farm crises, renewable energy and rural infrastructure's been our mutual interest. we've also enjoyed welcoming economic development leaders and constituents to the nation's capital between the famous sioux land steak dinner here in washington and the harkin steak
fry in indianola, there's no doubt tom will miss steaking out iowans to discuss politics and policy. however, i have no doubt that my home state colleague will continue to champion the causes for which he has devoted a lifetime of service. in fact, i've read in news media about his retirement of what he intends to pursue, and so i have no doubt that he's going to pursue out of the senate what he's pursued in the senate. to his credit, my colleague's legacy reflects the priorities that he set out to achieve decades ago. to make a difference for those on the downside of advantage. so, mr. president, my wife barbara and this senator extend
our warm wishes to tom and his wife ruth and, of course, to the entire harkin family as you start life's next chapter. and i see my colleague's here, so i can look at him. as you start life's next chapter, may you enjoy the blessings of harte and -- herth and home, health and happiness. although tom is retiring from public office, i'm confident he's not retiring from serving the public interest. from one constituent to another, i thank you for your lifetime of public service, and i wish you good luck and godspeed. i yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> senator from iowa. >> mr. president, first, let me thank my friend and colleague for his characteristically, lifetime characteristic of him
being very gracious and or very general roughs -- and very generous in his remarks. chuck grassley and i have served together since 1974. i like to tell people that in 1974, that was a big wave of democrats came in. we called us, they called us the watergate babies. [laughter] we came in in a big wave. won a lot of elections and things like that. and, in fact, in iowa that year elected a u.s., democratic u.s. senator, and every house seat -- i think there were six at that time, six house seat all went democratic except one. and that was the seat that chuck grassley won that year, bucking the trend, bucking the tide in 1974. so it's kind of a funny thing, chuck, you know, that i speak to
my friend across the aisle here that a lot times people this year said, you know, oh, all you watergate, all you watergate babies are gone now, you and max baucus and chris dodd and then on the house side george miller and henry waxman. so this is the last of the watergate babies. i always have to remind them, no, there's one left. well, who's that, they say. and i i say, well, it's a republican. a republican? who's that? i say my colleague from iowa, chuck grassley, is sort of, i say, the last man standing from that class of 1974. and i think it's, again, a tribute to senator grassley that through all these years he has won the hearts and minds of the people of iowa, been elected and reelected. of course, i -- he came to the senate before i did. he came in '81, and i came in
'84. so i like to think that we at least share in common at least bucking the trend a little bit of the tide, because in '84 someone said, harkin, you ought to run for the senate in '84 because it'll be a big democratic landslide. so i ran. ooh, boy, it was a reagan landslide year, it was just the opposite. but i was fortunate enough to be able to win election, so i think the two of us sort of share bucking the tide, so to speak, to get into office when we ran. but it's been a great association through all these years, and as i stand here today on my 75th birthday, i guess when you're this age, i think you think of -- i have two kind of emotions. one, i wonder where the heck all the years went and how come they went so fast. and sometimes i think, gosh, i wish i could turn the clock back
and do it again. the other emotion is sort of the irish side of me. the eyish have a saying that -- eye spanish have a -- irish have a saying that anytime you're on this side of the grass is a good day. so i'm happy it made it this far. i just want to say since the time we took our oath of office together, i think it was january the 4th of 1975, we have served together both in the house and then the senate, and a lot of the time on the same committee, agriculture committee, working a lot on different agriculture bills. i remember back in the '80s working on the credit bill at that time when so many farmers were underwater. and so as the senator said, it's been a great honor and a privilege to represent the people of iowa. as you mentioned, we belong to different parties. we have different philosophies of approach of government. but i like to think that we
share a down to everett or, common sense,away of looking at the world. you know, iowans, we're not monolithic out there. they're not all one philosophy or all one the other philosophy. sometimes i find very conservative friends of mine and i may have have a more liberal view of one thing, and then i find liberals in iowa have a more conservative view of something else. so people in iowa, as my friend said, they think a hot about these things -- a lot about these things, and they take these things into consideration. and so my friend has said, well, a lot of people say how can iowans elect someone who's conservative and someone who's liberal? well, i think that's because there's common strains of that that weave itself through the people of iowa in so many ways where there's a cross-confluence of maybe a conservative approach and a liberal approach. so again, i just say to my friend i have valued his friendship and his counsel thrall these years -- through
all these years even though, again, as my friend said, we approach things maybe from a different philosophical standpoint. that's fine, that's okay. but we've never, we've never let a disagreement on philosophy ever be the last word between us. or the final word. anything like that. it's always, well, that's that, now what's next? what can we -- and the one thing that i really appreciate what my friend said, and that is when it comes to iowa, you don't find much, you don't find any daylight when it comes to the disasters what we can do for iowa and iowans, we have had a wonderful relationship. through all these years. and it's one that i have cherished very much. i heard my friend just making notes say that sometimes they say he's a cold-hearted conservative and i'm a bleeding heart liberal. i want to set the record straight. chuck grassley is not a cold-hearted conservative, he is a caring conservative.
he cares deeply about people, cares deeply about the people of iowa too, and i hope i'm not a bleeding heart liberal, i hope i am a sort of a liberal that believes in individual responsibility. individual responsibility. so my friend has been a very caring conservative through all these years. i think together we've achieved important things for our state; economic development, rural development, agriculture, energy, all these things we worked together on for iowa. i'm proud of the fact that iowa right now produces 25% of our energy comes from wind energy in iowa. and we've produced the blades and the turbines and everything in and all these jobs there, and that's something that we have worked together on through all these years. so again, people ask me about leaving the senate. well, it was my decision. but i said at the time almost
two years ago when i said i wasn't running again, i said i will not -- you'll never hear me ever say bad things about the senate. or denounce the senate or say -- i love the senate. this is a wonderful institution. yeah, we have a few bumps in the road once in a while, but that's what's to be expected in a legislative process representing 300 million people in this country. but it's the friendships you form here, the alliances, the friendships, the working together. i've often said that as a progressive i wanted to go this far this fast, and the conservatives want to go this far this slow. but together, working together you can make progress. you can make progress. and that's what i think both senator grassley and i have worked together on, to try to make progress. but especially for the people of iowa. and so i thank him for his kind
words, i thank you. i know we're not supposed to say this on the senate floor, we're always supposed to speak in the third person, but i'm never one to follow all the rules anyway. [laughter] so i can speak directly and say thank you very much, chuck grassley, for friendship, for counsel, for working together through all these years. i'm going to miss that relationship and working on the senate floor, but i will be in iowa, i'll be working, again, with the harkin institute at drake university, i'll be advancing the cause of people with disabilities in some way, shape or form. i don't know exactly how, but in some way, in that way. and i hope i don't -- i just want to say this to my friend, i hope that at some time since this is a bipartisan, a nonpartisan institute, we have a great board of directors, in fact, the former chair of the
iowa republican party is on the board of the harkin institute. we want to keep it nonpartisan. i would like to ask my friend to come and speak at and be a, perhaps lead a discussion sometime at the institute at drake university. i would be honored if my friend would do that at some time down the road, i don't know when, sometime. we can work it out or something like that. i think you'd be well received, and i think young people at drake need to hear the conservative side of the story. as well as the liberal side of the story. they need to have that kind of input. so i hope we can, we can work that out. and let me just say again that i know in the future that you and your wonderful wife barbara -- great, great, wonderful person -- that you and barbara and ruth and i will maintain friendships and will maintain our connections as we move into
the future and any way that we can ever work together for the benefit of iowans, just let me know, and i'll be glad to be your lieutenant or something out there in the field out there in iowa sometime. but thank you very much for so many years of counsel and friendship and working together. thanks, chuck. >> c-span2, providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. and every weekend, booktv. now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> we take you live next to the u.s. senate as lawmakers begin a period of general speeches. final votes at 2 p.m. eastern on five judicial nominations. the senate advanced these
nominations yesterday after that expected vote to confirm 11 executive branch nominations including ambassadorships and u.s. tax court judges. likely speeches on immigration with the president speaking tonight at 8 p.m. eastern. we'll have that live over on c-span. now live to the senate floor on c-span2. eternal god, thank you for not keeping a record of our wrong doing. as we lift our hearts in prayer, open your ears to our supplications. keep our feet on a smooth straight road, so that we will experience your best for our lives. lord, walk with our senators
throughout this day. remind them that they are your servants, as you keep them alert to your commands. forgive us when we forget to express our gratitude, for without your help challenges would overwhelm us. in this season of thanksgiving we're grateful that you have not left us defenseless. but that your grace and your mercy continue to prevail in our lives. we pray in your great name.
the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c, november 20,2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable john walsh, a senator from the state of montana, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 2:00 p.m. today. during that period of time senators will be allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. there will be five roll call votes at 2:00 p.m. on confirmation of pepper, seans,
arleo, beetlestone and bolden nominations to be district court judges. there will be 11 voice votes following that on executive nominations. mr. president, the famous poet oliver wendell holmes said -- quote -- "put not your trust in money, but put your trust" -- i'm sorry. let's try that one again. "put not your trust in money but put your money in trust." that's what he said. and since 2005, the united states senate has put its money, pressures taxpayer dollars, in the trusted hands of a man named chris doby. the financial clerk of the senate and he's proven himself to be equal to the task, and that is an understatement. through budget cuts, sequestration and even a government shutdown, senators and staffs knew that chris doby
and his team would make it work no matter what it took. just one story i'll share with you. in the midst of the government shutdown, senate employees had no assurance much when their next paycheck would come. staffers with families, mortgages, student loan payments all hoped the shutdown would not be their personal financial disaster. missing a check or two can be very difficult for most everyone. after 16 days congress passed legislation funding the government and the shutdown came to an end. that was october 16, 2013, two days before payday for senate staffers. it's important to understand, mr. president, that processing payroll for almost 7,000 employees normally takes about a week. but anticipating what a missed paycheck would mean for his fellow senate employees, chris doby calmly pushed his team to make it work. in less than 40 hours with a very depleted staff chris and the senate disbursing office
ensured every senate staffer received their paycheck on time. because of their efforts, mortgage payments were made, groceries were purchased and working families breathed a sigh of relief. mr. president, i was trying to think what i could say today to indicate to this good man and his family and his friends and senate staffers what a good person he is and what a good professional he is. and in comparison i thought i would make is this. when i was a boy, i used to love to listen to the game of the day on radio. mutual radio network. and the town i lived in, little town in nevada, we of course had no tv, but radio reception came in pretty good during the day. i don't remember the station but we could listen to the radio. the game of the day. and i focused on some people
that were so good that later became even better than i imagined. one of those people who is now in the baseball hall of fame is a man named larry doby. he was a center fielder for cleveland indians and he was good. he could run fast, jurch -- jump high, hit with power and stole bases. he was very good. this doby we have in the senate, in my opinion, is somebody that, just like larry doby, would make the all-star team and should be in the senate hall of fame for the good work he's done over these many years. would the senate announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. mr. reid: the republican leader is here. go ahead. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.
mr. mcconnell: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i'd like to say a few words this morning about president obama's proposed executive action on immigration, and i'll begin with a quote from the president himself. "democracy is hard" he said during a commencement speech in
miami three years ago. but it's right and changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds and changing votes one by one. well, mr. president, as somebody who well understands just how difficult the work of changing minds and votes can be, i couldn't agree more with the president's statement. americans accept that democracy's blessings are only made possible by the constraints it imposes, both its legal contours and those imposed by popular election. we accept democracy's messiness. we accept that we may not always get all of what we want exactly when we want it. and based on more of what the president said in miami, this is something he seemed to understand as well. he was talking about immigration that day, and here's something else he said on that topic. "i know that some wish that i could just bypass congress and
change the law myself, but that's not how democracy works." indeed, mr. president, it isn't. all of which makes the president's planned executive action on immigration even more jarring. if the president truly follows through on this attempt to impose his will unilaterally, he will have issued a rebuke to his own stated view of democracy and he will have contradicted his past statements on this very issue. the instances of president obama saying that he does not have the power to do the kinds of things he now plans to do are almost too numerous to list. he tried to suggest otherwise last weekend, but a prominent fact checker panned the spin aspin noak i don't see -- as pinocchio laden and clarified that the president has been asked specifically about the sorts of actions that he is contemplating now, the
president's previous answers seem to be unequivocal. he lacked the legal authority to act, according to the president himself. as one example, president obama said last year that executive action was not an option. not an option because he would be ignoring the law. there's a path to get this done, he said, and that is through congress. he's right. the action he's proposed would ignore the law, would reject the voice of the voters and would impose new unfairness on law-abiding immigrants all without solving the problem. in fact, his action is more likely to make it even worse. we've already seen the consequences of deferred action for childhood arrivals or daca. his most recent action in this area. it was a factor in encouraging young people to risk their lives on a perilous journey some would
never even have contemplated and some would never complete. the effects of this action could be just as tragic. just as the affordable care act had little to do with making health care more affordable, slapping the term immigration reform on something doesn't make it actually immigration reform. and just as with obamacare the action the president is proposing isn't about solutions. it isn't about compassion. it seems to be about what a political party thinks would make for good politics. it seems to be about what a president thinks would be good for his legacy. those are not the motivations that should be driving such sweeping action, and i think the president will come to regret the chapter history writes if he does move forward. because the plan he's presenting is more than just as the president himself has acknowledged in overreach, it's also unfair.
what does the president have to say to the countless aspiring immigrants who spent literally years waiting patiently in line? to the people who played by all the rules? where is his compassion for them? what does the president have to say to the millions of americans who still can't find work in this economy? the president can't reach across the aisle to secure a serious jobs plan for them but he's willing to put everything he's got into one executive action? where's the justice? whereas the justice in that? there's a larger point, too, mr. president. some people seem to have forgotten this already, but we just had an election. before that election, the president told us about his plan to act unilaterally on immigration. he reminded us that his policies were on the ballot, and then the people spoke, and the president doesn't have to like the result,
but he has the duty to respect it. the american people clearly sent a message. nobody missed it. they said they want to see us working together. they said they want to see more serious ideas passed through congress. what they didn't say they wanted to see was the president side-stepping the very representatives they just elected. that's why so many queen kenyans have been call -- that's why so many kentuckians have been calling my office in opposition to this plan. i know phones have continued to ring off the hook all week in our offices on capitol hill. our constituents want to be heard. president obama needs to listen to their voices. if nothing else, perhaps the president will at least consider the views of democratic senators and members of congress who've urged him not to do this. these democrats understand the consequences of a president from a different political party
citing in precedent in the future. either way, needs to understand something. if president obama acts in defiance of the people and imposes his will on the country, congress will act. we're considering a variety of options. but make no mistake -- make no mistake -- when the newly elected representatives of the people take their seats, they will act. look, as the president has said, democratdemocracy is hard. imposing his will unilaterally may seem tempting. it may serve him politically in the short term, but he knows it will make an already broken system even more broken. and he knows this is not how democracy is supposed to work because he told us so himself.