In a Democratic Administration, Republicans Would Likely Oppose
It
August 20, 2003
The Honorable Norman Mineta
Transportation Secretary
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 7th Street, S.W
Washington, DC 20590
Dear Mr. Secretary:
We write to express our grave concern about the recent conduct of
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in lobbying Congress for
the authority to privatize America's air traffic control (ATC)
system.
Although the FAA has said
that it had no intention of privatizing ATC functions, it worked
behind closed doors to gain authority to replace federal
controllers at 69 airport towers with contract employees of private
companies. Then, in an apparent private deal with the Alaska
delegation, the FAA agreed to be prohibited from privatizing Alaska
airports. How, Mr. Secretary, can you defend a system that has one
standard for Alaska, and another for the other 49 states? If
privatization did not pose a threat to safety and efficiency, why
would the experienced legislators of the Alaska delegation bother
to exempt their own airports?
And now, in an effort to win Congressional approval of the
conference report on Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization
Act ("Conference Report"), the FAA appears ready to use a similar
scheme to exempt towers in other states. It seems the
Administration has different standards for air traffic control
towers depending on the votes the Administration needs to pass the
Conference Report. It has recently come to light in a report in the
Tulsa World that the FAA has promised Senator Nickles that the
Riverside Airport control tower in his home state of Oklahoma will
not be privatized. It is not surprising that Oklahomans are
concerned about privatization, and that concern was reflected in
the support the Lautenberg amendment received from Senator Inhofe.
The Administration will need Senator Inhofe, and others of the 11
Republicans who supported the Lautenberg amendment, to have a
change of heart in order to pass its plan to privatize air traffic
services.
Once again we ask, if
privatization poses no threats to safety and efficiency, why are
members of Congress demanding they be exempted from the
program?
This is not the first instance of improper behavior on behalf of
the Administration on this issue. Shortly before Senate
consideration of the Lautenberg amendment in June, Administration
officials sent a factually incorrect e-mail to many Senate offices
(except that of Senator Lautenberg) in a failed attempt to lobby
against the Lautenberg amendment. The e-mail claimed the scope of
the proposed Lautenberg provision was much broader than it actually
was. This instance was chronicled in a hearing by the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, on July 8.
Safe and efficient air travel for all Americans is a
non-partisan commitment from both the House and the Senate. The FAA
is charged with protecting the safety of air travel, not cutting
political deals-especially when those deals appear to be based on
no sound safety or economic policy, but rather political
calculations. To that point, we are asking you to instruct the FAA
Administrator to report to Congress on any and all arrangements to
exempt FAA-run control towers from being contracted out. We assure
you that failure to report fully and promptly on this matter will
lead to a loss in confidence among ourselves and our colleagues in
the Congress in the leadership of the FAA.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Lautenberg (lower photo, flanked by union friends),
U.S. Senator (D-NJ)
James L. Oberstar (top photo, with TSA
buddy James Loy, at AOPA convention), Ranking Democratic
Member, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure
[At the risk of sounding cynical, we find it odd that the debate
never mentions the obvious union interests that are at stake, or
the vested interests of those who fly -- us -- in having everybody
else pay for the ATC services we use. While not the only
issues, they certainly are relevant, and are huge
motivators for the politics behind 'safety' --ed.]