[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CLIMBING AGAIN: STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON RESUMING AIR TRAVEL IN THE COVID
19 ERA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND
MARITIME SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 18, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-71
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
43-089 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Mike Rogers, Alabama
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island Peter T. King, New York
Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey John Katko, New York
Kathleen M. Rice, New York Mark Walker, North Carolina
J. Luis Correa, California Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Xochitl Torres Small, New Mexico Debbie Lesko, Arizona
Max Rose, New York Mark Green, Tennessee
Lauren Underwood, Illinois John Joyce, Pennsylvania
Elissa Slotkin, Michigan Dan Crenshaw, Texas
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri Michael Guest, Mississippi
Al Green, Texas Dan Bishop, North Carolina
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Dina Titus, Nevada
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
Val Butler Demings, Florida
Hope Goins, Staff Director
Chris Vieson, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND MARITIME SECURITY
J. Luis Correa, California, Chairman
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri Debbie Lesko, Arizona, Ranking
Dina Titus, Nevada Member
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey John Katko, New York
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California Dan Bishop, North Carolina
Val Butler Deming, Florida Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (ex Mike Rogers, Alabama (ex officio)
officio)
Alex Marston, Subcomittee Staff Director
Kyle Klein, Minority Subcomittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable J. Luis Correa, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Transportation and Maritime Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Debbie Lesko, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Arizona, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Transportation and Maritime Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Witnesses
Mr. Kevin M. Burke, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Airports Council International--North America:
Oral Statement................................................. 13
Prepared Statement............................................. 14
Ms. Sara Nelson, International President, Association of Flight
Attendants--Communication Workers of America:
Oral Statement................................................. 18
Prepared Statement............................................. 20
Ms. Neema Singh Gulliani, Senior Legislative Counsel, American
Civil Liberties Union:
Oral Statement................................................. 24
Prepared Statement............................................. 26
Ms. Victoria Emerson Barnes, Executive Vice President for Public
Affairs and Policy, U.S. Travel Association:
Oral Statement................................................. 34
Prepared Statement............................................. 36
For the Record
The Honorable J. Luis Correa, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Transportation and Maritime Security:
Letters From the Honorable Ed Case, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Hawai`i........................... 56
Letter From Captain Joseph G. DePete, President, Air Line
Pilots Association, International............................ 67
Statement of John Gannon, CEO/President, Blue Spark
Technologies, Inc............................................ 69
Article From USA Today......................................... 70
Appendix
Questions From Honorable Dina Titus for Kevin M. Burke........... 73
Questions From Honorable Dina Titus for Sara Nelson.............. 74
Question From Honorable Dina Titus for Victoria Emerson Barnes... 74
CLIMBING AGAIN: STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON RESUMING AIR TRAVEL IN THE COVID-
19 ERA
----------
Thursday, June 18, 2020
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Transportation
and Maritime Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:05 p.m., via
Webex, Hon. J. Luis Correa (Chairman of the subcommittee)
presiding.
Present: Representatives Correa, Thompson, Cleaver, Watson
Coleman, Barragan, Demings, Lesko, Rogers, Kato, Bishop, and
Van Drew.
Mr. Correa. The Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime
Security will now come to order.
Thank you, Ranking Member Lesko, and our panel of witnesses
for joining us today. We are here to discuss proposals for how
to restore our Nation's aviation system that has been so
devastated by COVID-19.
We have seen passenger volume in the last few months go as
low as 5 percent of normal. Today, it is close to 15 to 20
percent of normal, but that is just not good enough to keep the
aviation industry in business, and it is not good enough for
the health of this Nation. As all of us know, this pandemic is
unprecedented.
The lack of Federal leadership and interagency coordination
is very concerning to all of us. Of course, we ask the
question: How can we protect our front-line aviation workers
and our passengers if our consultation coordination is not
there? That is why Chairman Thompson and I recently sent a
letter with the leadership of the transportation committee to
the heads of DHS and DOT, calling for an interagency task force
to take a holistic approach to supporting our Nation's aviation
industry.
I am very concerned about the different requirements for
mask, temperature checks, health assessments across the
aviation industry, a lot of different requirements, a lot of
confusion. This is not good for the traveling public. It
creates risk for both passengers and aviation workers. We have
to follow and trust the expertise and recommendation of our
public health officials. They have to be the ones front and
center when it comes to public policy. Science and facts must
inform future Government and industry actions, and our
decisions ultimately will affect millions of travelers and
nearly 11 million people whose jobs depend on a healthy
aviation sector. I repeat: 11 million workers who depend on the
aviation industry.
Among the most publicized CDC guidelines are social
distancing measures. These are most visual when stay-at-home
orders were issued across the country and have been credited
for helping to slow the spread of this deadly virus. Today,
social distancing measures are visible at security checkpoints
and at boarding gates. However, on board many in the aircraft
different images have emerged. We have seen social media posts
of crowded aircraft full of unmasked passengers, and Americans
are rightfully surprised and troubled to see passengers forced
to travel in those conditions when by all counts, the demand
for travel is still very low. Even now we hear from airlines
that limiting passenger load factors or limiting middle seats
is not necessary.
An unfortunate reality to this moment is that we are forced
to address this crisis during a perilous economic environment
with very limited resources. That is why we must take--we must
make sure that the measures we put into place are effective and
innovative. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today
who represent different parts of the industry and have
different perspectives on temperature checks, health
assessments, health questionnaires, and contact tracing.
The complexities of air travel under COVID-19 have also
sparked an interest in technological solutions. Reducing
contact between front-line employees and passengers is critical
to limit the transmission of the virus. Of equal importance is
to make sure that medicine--that the medicine is not worse than
the disease.
The impact of these technologies and procedures on the
privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of the flying public
must be communicated clearly as well. Further, any such
invasive protocols, like temperature checks, should be subject
to notice and comment by the public or the public before they
are wide-spread deployed.
For example, I understand that TSA is considering
installing cameras with facial recognition software on TSA's
Credential Authentication Technology, or CAT, machines that are
needed in some TSA security checkpoints. Before we roll out
such facial recognition biometric technology in airports, TSA
and DHS have a lot of work to do.
This committee has already done a great deal of oversight
on this issue, but there are still many concerns over data
collection, data protection, and use of public's identity--can
somebody mute themselves out there?
It is not in anyone's interest to see the Department push
out new facial recognition technology without having the
necessary protection in place.
Another technology under consideration is detection at
range. These machines use thermal imaging technology to detect
metal and nonmetallic threats and can reduce the need for pat-
downs at security points. However, history reminds us that the
last time TSA deployed image technology, specifically the
advanced image technology at checkpoints today, Congress had to
step in. Congress issued a deadline to stop the use of scanners
that did not protect the passengers' privacy, which resulted in
avatar use today.
Ultimately, I am looking for solutions, and I want to hear
from our aviation partners, and the public has a right to an
informed debate that highlights the issue that must be
identified and considered before these decisions are made.
Last but not least, I want to hear from our stakeholders
how they are protecting their front-line workers. There is no
aviation industry without the workers. Keeping workers healthy
and safe and supporting them during this pandemic will ensure
that this industry and its employees make it through. Our
aviation industry is resilient but needs all of to us work
together to ensure the safety, security, and health of the
public. I look forward to a discussion today.
[The statement of Chairman Correa follows:]
Statement of Chairman J. Luis Correa
June 18, 2020
We are here to discuss proposals for how to restore our Nation's
aviation system that has been devastated by COVID-19. In recent months,
we have seen passenger volume plummet to as low as 5 percent. Although
passenger volumes has increased to 15 to 20 percent, we are a long way
from where we were last year. This pandemic is unprecedented.
Still, it is the lack of Federal leadership and interagency
coordination that I find particularly concerning. How can we protect
our front-line aviation workers and passengers if the consultation and
coordination is not there?
That is why Chairman Thompson and I recently sent a letter with the
leadership on the Transportation Committee to the heads of DHS and DOT
calling for an Interagency Task Force to take a holistic approach to
supporting our Nation's aviation industry.
I am very concerned about the different requirements for masks,
temperature checks, and health assessments across the aviation system.
This creates uncertainty for the traveling public and can increase the
health risks to both passengers and aviation workers. Following and
trusting the expertise and recommendations of trusted public health
officials must be the way to go. Science and facts must inform future
Government and industry action.
Our decisions, ultimately, affect millions of travelers and nearly
11 million people whose jobs depend on a healthy aviation sector. Among
the most publicized CDC guidelines are ``social distancing'' measures.
They were most visible when ``stay at home'' orders were issued across
this country and have been credited for helping to slow the spread of
this deadly virus.
Today, social distancing measures are visible at security
checkpoints and at boarding gates. However, on-board aircraft,
different images have emerged. We have seen social media posts of
crowded aircraft, full of unmasked passengers. Americans were
rightfully surprised and troubled to see passengers forced to travel in
those conditions when, by all accounts, the demand for travel was
fairly limited. Even now, we hear from airlines that limiting passenger
load factors or limiting middle seats is not necessary.
An unfortunate reality of this moment is that we are forced to
address this crisis during a perilous economic environment with limited
resources. That is why we must make sure the measures we put in place
are innovative and effective.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, who represent
different parts of the industry and have varying perspectives on
temperature checks, health assessments, health questionnaires, and
contact tracing. The complexities of air travel in the COVID-19 era
have also sparked an interest in technological solutions. Reducing
contact between front-line employees and passengers is important to
limit the transmission of the virus. Equally important is making sure
the medicine is not worse than the disease.
The impact of these technologies and procedures on the privacy,
civil rights, and civil liberties of the flying public must be
communicated clearly. Further, any such invasive protocol like
temperature checks should be subject to notice and comment by the
public before wide-spread deployment.
For example, I understand that TSA is considering installing
cameras with facial recognition software on TSA's Credential
Authentication Technology or ``CAT'' machines that are in use at some
TSA security checkpoints. Before the rollout of facial recognition
biometric technology into airports, TSA and DHS have a lot of work to
do. This committee has already done a great deal of oversight on this
issue.
There are still many concerns over data collection, data
protection, and use of public's identity data. It is not in anyone's
interest to see the Department push out new facial recognition
technology without having the necessary protections in place.
Another technology under consideration is ``detection at range''.
These machines use thermal imaging technology to detect metal and non-
metallic threats and can reduce the need for pat-downs at security
checkpoints. However, history reminds us that the last time TSA
deployed imaging technology, specifically the Advanced Imaging
Technology at checkpoints today, Congress had to step in.
Congress issued a deadline to stop the use of scanners that did not
protect the passengers' privacy, which resulted in the avatar in use
today. Ultimately, I am looking for solutions, and I want to hear from
our aviation partners. The public has a right to an informed debate
that highlights issues that must be identified and considered before
sweeping decisions are made.
Last but not least, I want to hear from our stakeholders how they
are protecting their front-line workforces. There is no aviation
industry without its work force. Keeping workers healthy and safe and
supporting them during this pandemic will ensure that this industry and
its employees make it through.
Our aviation industry is resilient but needs us all to work
together to ensure the safety, security, and health of the public.
Mr. Correa. Now I would like to recognize the Ranking
Member for an opening statement. The Chair now recognizes
Ranking Member of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from
Arizona, Mrs. Lesko, for an opening statement.
Mrs. Lesko.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is good to see all of you.
Hello to Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Rogers. Good
to see both of you as well.
I am pleased that the subcommittee is meeting today to
perform oversight that is critical to both health--the health
of our Nation and our Nation's economy. I am disappointed,
however, that Members are not allowed to meet in person. I, for
one, am here in Washington, DC, and I am in 2 other committees
where we are allowed to go in person, even if other Members
choose to go remotely. It is my understanding this committee
does not allow that. While other committees have developed
protocols to allow Members to safely meet in committee spaces,
this committee has not.
This is not in keeping with the guidance of the House Rules
Committee. I hope that soon we can move forward in a manner
that allows Members to be physically present for the work our
constituents sent us here to do.
Turning to the topic of today's hearing, I want to commend
the men and women of the TSA for continuing to do their jobs
faithfully throughout the pandemic, even as their agency became
the hardest-hit in Department of Homeland Security. More than
650 TSA personnel got tested positive for the virus, and
tragically, 5 TSA personnel have lost their lives. I sincerely
want to say that I pray for the families for their comfort from
their loss.
The aviation industry is one of many sectors of the economy
that have been devastated by the impacts of COVID-19. At the
pandemic's peak, air travel dropped below 100,000 passengers
per day, a level not seen in the history of TSA and far below
the average 2.5 million travelers per day that TSA was
screening prior to the virus' outbreak.
I can tell you from personal experience--I assume you have
seen the same--is when this whole thing kind-of started and I
started traveling back to Washington, DC, there was maybe 12
people on the plane. It has since grown. When I came last, the
plane was pretty full, not totally full, but it was getting
better. Now that is also due to the fact that my airline I
travel on cut down to one nonstop flight per day.
As our Nation slowly reemerges from the worst of the
pandemic, we are beginning to see slivers of hope that air
travel is starting to increase. With this recovery, TSA and
transportation stakeholders are responding to new challenges in
order to keep travelers safe and get America flying again.
This process presents stakeholders and this subcommittee
with important questions, including: What will the TSA
screening process look like? What changes need to occur for
passengers to be and feel safe? What more can be done to
protect passengers from a potential second wave of coronavirus
or a future pandemic? These questions and more continue to
circulate within the aviation community, and it is my hope to
hear feedback from our stakeholder panel today.
Having recently received a briefing from TSA's
administrator, Mr. Pekoske, I am eager to hear the
stakeholders' perspective on what partnering with TSA looks
like in response to the pandemic and how best to implement new
solutions to passengers' screening and safety. The aviation
sector is truly on the front lines in the fight to protect
public health and ensure the free movement of people and goods
and that fuel America's economy.
I really do want to thank each one of the witnesses today.
We are in unprecedented times. When I first started traveling,
it looked like a ghost town, like we were on some kind of movie
where, you know, people didn't exist anymore. You know, I was
often the only car, you know, pulling up to be dropped off at
the airport, and so I am glad to see that it is picking up
somewhat. But I do want to hear from our witnesses on what
their recommendations are because we honestly need to get our
economy back working again. So thank you again.
I yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Lesko follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Debbie Lesko
June 18, 2020
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that the subcommittee is
meeting today to perform oversight that is critical to both public
health and our Nation's economy.
I am disappointed, however, that Members are not allowed to meet in
person. While other committees have developed protocols to allow
Members to safely meet in committee spaces, ours has not. This is not
in keeping with the guidance of the House Rules Committee. I hope that
soon we can move forward in a manner that allows Members to be
physically present for the work our constituents sent us here to do.
Turning to the topic of today's hearing, I want to commend the men
and women of TSA for continuing to do their jobs faithfully throughout
this pandemic, even as their agency became the hardest-hit in DHS. More
than 650 TSA personnel have tested positive for the virus, and
tragically, 5 TSA personnel have succumbed to the virus. Our thoughts
and prayers are with their families.
The aviation industry is one of many sectors of the economy that
have been devasted by the impacts of Covid-19. At the pandemic's peak,
air travel dropped below 100,000 passengers per day--a level not seen
in the history of TSA and far below the average 2.5 million travelers
per day that TSA was screening prior to the virus's outbreak.
As our Nation slowly emerges from the worst of the pandemic, we are
beginning to see slivers of hope that air travel is starting to
increase. With this recovery, TSA and transportation stakeholders are
responding to new challenges in order to keep travelers safe and get
America flying again. This process presents stakeholders and this
subcommittee with important questions, including: What will the TSA
screening process look like? What changes need to occur for passengers
to be and feel safe? What more can be done to protect passengers from a
potential second wave of coronavirus or a future pandemic?
These questions and more continue to circulate within the aviation
community, and it is my hope to hear feedback from our stakeholder
panel today. Having recently received a briefing from TSA's
Administrator Pekoske, I am eager to hear the stakeholders'
perspectives on what partnering with TSA looks like in response to a
pandemic and how best to implement new solutions to passenger screening
and safety.
The aviation sector is truly on the front lines in the fight to
protect public health and ensure the free movement of people and goods
that fuels America's economy. I thank each of the witnesses for
appearing before the subcommittee today, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. Correa. Thank you.
Can you hear me OK?
I want to thank the Ranking Member.
With, that I would like to yield to the Ranking Member for
the purposes of a colloquy.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Could you please, Mr. Chairman, explain our agreement of
committee procedures during these remote proceedings?
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Let me begin by saying that the standing House Committee
rules and practices will continue to apply during remote
proceedings. Members will be expected to continue to adhere to
those rules of the committee and the House.
During the covered period, as designated by our Speaker,
the committee will operate in accordance with House Resolution
965 and the subsequent guidance from Rules Committee in a
manner that respects the rights of all Members to participate.
The technology we are using today requires us to make some
small modifications to assure that the Members can fully
participate in these proceedings.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Could you also elaborate on how Members may expect to be
recognized during remote proceedings?
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much.
First, to simplify the order of questioning, I will
recognize [inaudible] establishing a quorum or for voting and
Members should make every effort to remain visible on the
screen throughout the proceedings. If a Member experiences
issues with their video stream, they may proceed with solely
audio to ensure connection, provided they have been identified
previously.
At the beginning of this hearing, Members are on mute.
Members may unmute themselves in order to be recognized for the
purposes of their 5-minute questioning of the witnesses. At the
conclusion of speaking, Members will be expected to then mute
themselves again to prevent excess background noise. In the
event that a Member does not mute themselves after speaking,
the Clerk has been directed to mute the Members to avoid
background noise. Should a Member wish to be recognized to make
a motion, they must unmute themselves and seek recognition at
the right time.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do have, before we proceed, I have a question for the
staff.
Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you knew it, but your video
went away and you--your speaking went away for a while, at
least on my side.
So, to the staff, do we need to repeat all the stuff for
the record that he said when it we lost connection with him? Is
there any staff members, parliamentarians, anybody on this
call?
Mr. McClelland. Mr. Chairman, if you can just read the last
paragraph one more time.
Mr. Correa. In the event a Member does not mute themselves
after speaking, the clerk has been directed to mute Members to
avoid background noise. Should a Member wish to be recognized
to make a motion, they must unmute themselves and seek
recognition at the right time.
Ms. Lesko. OK. Well, to the staff, you might want to email
all of these rules out, if you haven't already, because it
wasn't the last paragraph that went out.
Mr. Correa. Do you want me to read the whole--I can go back
and read the whole.
Mrs. Lesko. I don't need it for me. I just don't know if it
needs to be done officially or not. I can move on.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What could a Member expect, should
they encounter technical issues during a remote event, which is
kind-of funny because that just happened?
Mr. Correa. Mrs. Lesko, you are prophetic.
In the event a Member encounters technical issues that
prevent them from being recognized for their questioning, I
will move to the next available Member of the same party and
will recognize that Member at the next appropriate time slot,
provided they have returned to the proceeding. Should a
Member's time be interrupted by technical issues, I will
recognize that Member at the next appropriate spot for the
remainder of their time once their issues have been resolved.
In the event that I should encounter technical issues, the Vice
Chair of the committee, if available, or the next senior Member
of the Majority shall assume the duties of the Chair until I am
able to return to the proceedings.
Thank you.
Mrs. Lesko. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, what should Members expect regarding decorum
during a remote event?
Mr. Correa. Thank you.
Members are reminded that they are only allowed to attend
one virtual event at a time. Should they need to attend another
committee's proceedings, please fully exit the hearing before
entering another proceeding.
Finally, all Members are reminded that they are expected to
observe standing rules of the committee decorum for appropriate
attire and should have a professional and apolitical background
when they are participating in any remote event.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
What should Members expect if a witness loses connectivity?
Mr. Correa. In the event a witness loses connectivity
during testimony and questioning, I will preserve their time as
staff addresses the technical issue. I may need to recess the
proceedings to provide time for the witness to reconnect.
Debbie, you are muted. Go ahead. We can't hear you.
Mrs. Lesko. I think what is happening is I am doing it and
the staff is doing it or something is going on. Hopefully you
can hear me now.
Mr. Chairman, finally, what should Members expect if a vote
is called during a remote event?
Mr. Correa. Thank you.
House Resolution 965 requires Members to be visibly present
to have their vote recorded during a remote event. Members who
join the proceedings after a vote is called and who are not
called upon for their vote should seek recognition from the
Chair to ensure that their vote is recorded. Should a Member
lose connectivity during a roll call vote, I will hold the vote
open for a period of time to address the technical issue and
provide Members with the opportunity to have their vote
recorded.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Mr. Correa. Thank you.
With that, I ask unanimous consent to waive committee rule
8(a)(2) for the subcommittee during remote proceedings under
the covered period designated by the Speaker under House
Resolution 965.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair now recognizes its Chairperson of the full
committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson? I can't hear you, sir.
Mr. Thompson. OK. I think we got it this time.
Thank you, Chairman Correa and Ranking Member Lesko, for
holding today's hearing.
I welcome the stakeholders' perspectives on safely resuming
air travel in the era of COVID-19. The aviation sector consists
of so much more than TSA and FAA. It includes airports,
municipal authorities, airlines, and, importantly, all their
dedicated employees. Additionally, it includes civil rights and
civil liberties organizations who focus on protecting
travelers' privacy and civil rights, a heightened concern in
the wake of the coronavirus.
COVID-19 has not only inflicted unprecedented loss of life
on our country, but it has devastated industries including the
aviation sector. Our Nation's aviation system has been the
front line of efforts to stop the spread of the pandemic from
the beginning. TSA's transportation security officers
constantly interact with passengers, flight crew members, and
other airport workers, putting themselves at risk each and
every day. According to TSA, to date, 651 TSA employees have
tested positive for the virus, of which 468 employees have
recovered, and, sadly, 5 have died.
As Chairman of this committee, I have advocated tirelessly
on behalf of TSA's front-line work force and demanded that they
be issued appropriate protective equipment like gloves and
masks to do their important work. They, after all, are on the
front lines of aviation security, keeping the traveling public
secure from threats to transportation during the global
pandemic.
We must continue to make every effort to ensure that all
aviation workers are kept safe from this virus. This includes
airport workers, flight crew members, and mechanics. Failure to
keep these employees safe has severe negative implications, not
only to workers in the aviation sector but also risks further
spread of the virus.
Like I mentioned earlier, the impact of COVID-19 has been
devastating to the sector. According to TSA, air travel is down
84 percent from this exact moment last year. Given this
reality, the Federal Government must establish the right
health, safety, and security standards to protect airport
workers and restore public confidence in travel. This will
require significant coordination and collaboration on the part
of agencies like TSA, FAA, and the White House, coordination
and collaboration that currently does not exist. Instead, we
see a patchwork of standards and requirements throughout the
aviation sector, and the American people and the traveling
public deserve better.
That is why I called for DHS and DOT to establish an
interagency task force to ensure that all efforts and policies
are coordinated at the highest levels in a holistic manner to
support the successful recovery of the aviation industry.
Recent news reports have suggested that DHS may be
preparing to commence a temperature check program where TSA
would be tasked with checking the temperatures of departing
passengers to identify individuals who may be COVID-19--may
have COVID-19. I find this news alarming, given that there is
an absence of evidence that such health screenings are
effective, especially since people can spread COVID-19
asymptomatically, not to mention there are civil rights and
civil liberties concerns around TSA conducting temperature
checks.
I am particularly concerned about DHS collecting, using,
and safeguarding the sensitive health information of the
traveling public, airport workers, and airline crew members.
Additionally, given that COVID-19 disproportionately impacts
certain communities, including African Americans and the
elderly, any proposed temperature check protocols must be
designed to guard against the potential discrimination of
travelers.
All the issues I just raised highlight that any temperature
check program must undergo the notice-and-comment regulatory
process to ensure the proper rollout of temperature checks at
our Nation's airports. The future of the aviation industry in
the COVID-19 era will include a number of challenges, as I have
just outlined. As the Chairman of this committee, I am
committed to working with TSA and aviation stakeholders to
ensure that the sector ultimately succeeds, despite these
challenges. I am interested in hearing from today's witnesses
on how we collectively can do so.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The statement of Chairman Thompson follows:]
Statement of Chairman Bennie G. Thompson
June 18, 2020
I welcome stakeholder perspectives on safely resuming air travel in
the era of COVID-19. The aviation sector consists of so much more than
TSA and FAA. It includes airports, municipal authorities, airlines,
and--importantly--all their dedicated employees.
Additionally, it includes civil rights and civil liberties
organizations who focus on protecting travelers' privacy and civil
rights--a heightened concern in the wake of the coronavirus. COVID-19
has not only inflicted unprecedented loss of life on our country but it
has devastated industries including the aviation sector.
Our Nation's aviation system has been on the front line of efforts
to stop the spread of this pandemic from the beginning. TSA's
transportation security officers constantly interact with passengers,
flight crew members, and other airport workers--putting themselves at
risk each and every day. According to TSA, to date 651 TSA employees
have tested positive for the virus, of which 468 employees have
recovered and, sadly, 5 have died.
And as Chairman of this committee, I have advocated tirelessly on
behalf of TSA's front-line work force and demanded that they be issued
appropriate protective equipment--like gloves and masks--to do their
important work. They, after all, are on the front lines of aviation
security, keeping the traveling public secure from threats to
transportation during a global pandemic.
We must continue to make every effort to ensure that all aviation
workers are kept safe from this virus--this includes airport workers,
flight crew members, and mechanics. Failure to keep these employees
safe has severe negative implications for not only the workers and the
aviation sector but also risks further spread of the virus.
Like I mentioned earlier, the impact of COVID-19 has been
devastating to the sector. According to TSA, air travel is down 84
percent from this exact moment last year. Given this reality, the
Federal Government must establish the right health, safety, and
security standards to protect airport workers and restore public
confidence in travel.
This will require significant coordination and collaboration on the
part of agencies like TSA, FAA, and the White House--coordination and
collaboration that currently does not exist. Instead, we see a
patchwork of standards and requirements throughout the aviation sector.
The American people and the traveling public deserve better.
That is why I called for DHS and DOT to establish an interagency
task force to ensure that all efforts and policies are coordinated, at
the highest levels, in a holistic manner to support the successful
recovery of the aviation industry.
Recent news reports have suggested that DHS may be preparing to
commence a temperature check program where TSA would be tasked with
checking the temperatures of departing passengers to identify
individuals who may have COVID-19. I find this news alarming given that
there is an absence of evidence that that such health screenings are
effective especially since people can spread COVID-19 asymptomatically.
Not to mention, there are civil rights and civil liberties concerns
around TSA conducting temperature checks. I am particularly concerned
about DHS collecting, using, and safeguarding the sensitive health
information of the traveling public, airport workers, and airline crew
members.
Additionally, given that COVID-19 disproportionately impacts
certain communities--including African Americans and the elderly--any
proposed temperature check protocols must be designed to guard against
the potential discrimination of travelers.
All the issues I just raised highlight that any Federal temperature
check program must undergo the ``notice and comment'' regulatory
process to ensure the proper roll-out of temperature checks at our
Nation's airports. The future of the aviation industry in the COVID-19
era will include a number of challenges, as I have just outlined.
As the Chairman of this committee, I am committed to working with
TSA and aviation stakeholders to ensure that the sector ultimately
succeeds--despite these challenges. I am interested in hearing from
today's witnesses on how we collectively can do so.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Now I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the
full committee, the gentle Member from the State of Alabama,
Mr. Rogers, for an opening statement.
Welcome, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Can you hear me?
Mr. Correa. Yes, yes.
Mr. Rogers. I am pleased this subcommittee is meeting to
hear stakeholder perspectives on safely resuming air travel,
though I am perplexed as to why the ACLU is here, not the
airports.
Mr. Chairman, I am also disappointed that Members are
unable to meet physically for this important hearing. Yesterday
and today, 2 large committees met for mark-ups. Members were
physically present and adhered to social distancing guidelines
during debate. Minority Members also were allowed to use the
committee rooms for these hearings.
The House will be back next week voting in person. Yet this
committee chooses not to vote in person or to meet in person.
The Minority looks forward to working with the Majority in a
bipartisan manner to allow Members to be physically present for
committee activities in the future.
Today's hearing comes at a time when thousands of aircraft
remain grounded across the United States. Passenger volume has
dipped 85 percent below average. Ensuring that travelers have
confidence in the ability to fly safely is vital to the
industry. Aviation stakeholders must work collaboratively with
relevant Government entities, including TSA, to restore trust
in air travel.
As an agency, TSA has been on the front lines throughout
this pandemic. We are grateful to the thousands of TSA officers
who have continued to protect the traveling public. More than
650 of these line officers have contracted the virus, and each
Member of this committee is saddened by the tragic loss of 5
TSA personnel to COVID-19. In addition, air transportation
stakeholders have also seen their personnel hit hard by COVID-
19.
As we seek to ensure the health and safety of aviation
personnel and travelers, I hope to hear more about what
policies and procedures have been implemented in recent months.
I also hope to hear from the witnesses what additional actions
should be taken to protect the flying public.
I thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee. I
yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Rogers follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Mike Rogers
June 18, 2020
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that the subcommittee is
meeting to hear stakeholder perspectives on safely resuming air travel.
Though I am perplexed as to why the ACLU is here and not the
airlines.
Mr. Chairman, I also am disappointed that Members are unable to
meet physically for this important hearing.
Yesterday and today, two large committees met for mark-ups.
Members were physically present and adhered to socially distancing
guidelines during debate.
Minority Members were even allowed to use the committee rooms.
The House will be back next week voting in person yet this
committee chooses not to meet in person.
The Minority looks forward to working with the Majority in a
bipartisan manner to allow Members to be physically present for
committee activities in the future.
Today's hearing comes at a time when thousands of aircraft remain
grounded across the United States.
Passenger volume continues to hover around 85 percent below
average.
Ensuring that travelers have confidence in the ability to fly
safely is vital to the industry.
Aviation stakeholders must work collaboratively with relevant
Government entities, including TSA, to restore trust in air travel.
As an agency, TSA has been on the front lines throughout this
pandemic.
We are grateful to the thousands of TSA officers who have continued
to protect the traveling public. More than 650 of these front-line
officers have contracted the virus.
Each Member of this committee is saddened by the tragic loss of 5
TSA personnel to COVID-19.
In addition, air transportation stakeholders have also seen their
personnel hit hard by COVID-19.
As we seek to ensure the health and safety of aviation personnel
and travelers, I hope to hear more about what policies and procedures
have been implemented in recent months.
I also hope to hear from these witnesses what additional actions
should be taken to protect the flying public.
I thank the witnesses for appearing before this committee today,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Thompson. I don't think we can hear you, Lou.
Mr. Correa. I couldn't hear all of you either. You dropped
out.
Mr. Rogers, did you finish your statement?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I yielded back.
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much.
Other Members of the committee are reminded that, under the
committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the
record. Now I would like to welcome our panel of witnesses and
thank them for joining us today.
Our first witness is Mr. Kevin Burke, president and CEO of
the Airport Council International--North America, where he has
been since 2014. ACI is a trade association representing the
governing bodies that operate over 300 commercial airports in
the United States and Canada.
Our second witness will be Ms. Sara Nelson, who serves as
the international president of the Association of Flight
Attendants--CWA, representing 50,000 flight attendants and 20
airlines, and she has served in this capacity since 2014 and
has been a union member since becoming a flight attendant in
1996.
Our third witness, Ms. Neema Singh Guliani, serves as
senior legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties
Union. Ms. Guliani is part of the National Political Advocacy
Department that is focused on surveillance, privacy, and
National security issues. Before joining the ACLU, she worked
in the Department of Homeland Security, concentrating on
National security and civil rights issues.
Our fourth and final witness is Ms. Victoria Emerson
Barnes, the executive vice president for public affairs and
policy at the U.S. Travel Association. The association
represents over 1,100 members, organizations in the U.S. travel
industry, and supports almost 16 million jobs.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted in the record. Now I am going to ask each witness to
summarize their statements for 5 minutes, beginning with Mr.
Burke.
Welcome, Mr. Burke.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN M. BURKE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL--NORTH AMERICA
Mr. Burke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Lesko, for inviting me today. Please excuse my voice. It is
allergy time. I am doing my best to get through a 5-minute
statement and answer questions later.
Again, I am Kevin Burke, president and CEO of Airports
Council International--North America, a trade association
representing airports in the United States and Canada. I
welcome this opportunity to discuss with you today the current
state of America's airports and new policy recommendations ACI-
NA has developed to provide for the health of travelers, to
instill public confidence in air travel, and set a solid
foundation for the future of aviation.
Since the outbreak of COVID-19, airports have been
intensely focused on providing for the health and safety of
passengers, employees, and their tenants. To raise public
awareness about reducing the spread of COVID-19, airports are
updating their public websites, installing signage, and making
routine public announcements about safety in the airports.
Airports have also implemented numerous mitigation measures at
their facilities. That includes deploying additional hand
sanitizer stations and plexiglass barriers at ticket counters,
checkpoints, gates, and in restrooms. Airports are also working
to ensure physical distancing space through the facility which,
as we will discuss later, is a very large challenge. Airports
have increased the frequency of cleaning with an intense focus
on, ``touch points.''
As we continue to navigate these unprecedented times, U.S.
airports are very grateful for the $10 billion in emergency
support Congress provided through the CARES Act. Frankly,
ladies and gentlemen, it was a life line for every commercial
import in this country. Now the CARES Act grants are helping
airports offset some of the financial damage from the abrupt
drop in air travel, but airports Nation-wide still face major
financial and operational hurdles.
Now, as all of you who have traveled to and from your
districts back to Washington, you all know that America's
airports are indeed hurting. With passenger traffic down nearly
90 percent from this time last year--that is 90 percent from
this time last year--ACI-NA estimates U.S. airports face at
least $23 billion in operating losses as a result of the COVID-
19 pandemic.
Now on top of that, these airports face significant new
COVID-related operating expenses for cleaning, employing hand
sanitizers, installing plexiglass barriers, supplying personal
protective equipment, and encouraging physical distance in our
airports.
Our airports are working hard to cut their budgets, defer
many capital projects, and plan for the new airport experience
once this COVID-19 pandemic gets out of the way for us. We also
are helping employees in this time of extreme stress. We want
to keep people working at our airports.
We continue to coordinate closely, very closely, with FAA,
the TSA, Customs and Boarder Protection, and others on recovery
efforts, regulatory guidance, and regulatory flexibility to
help airports remain open while ensuring the safety and
security of the traveling public.
I want to commend the agency leaders--that is, David
Pekoske from TSA and Steve Dickson from FAA--for partnering
with us and other airport members on these initiatives and for
their extraordinary accessibility and assistance during this
very challenging time.
My written statement details Federal policy solutions we
and our members have developed to assist airports and aviation
as we head toward recovery. I would like to highlight 3 key
points this afternoon.
First, with air traffic and airport revenues down
significantly, U.S. airports need another infusion of Federal
funds to assist during this National emergency. Thirteen
billion dollars in additional emergency assistance is needed to
help airports meet growing operating costs and their debt
service obligations in the coming year.
Second, U.S. airports are working with stakeholders to
develop and implement new measures to protect public health. We
need what I would call a touchless aviation security screening
process to help provide adequate physical distancing for
passengers and their baggage as they move through TSA
checkpoints and Customs and Border Protection ports of
industry.
Now to achieve this, we recommend the following: New
checkpoint technology that reduces touch points, maintains
physical distancing, and increases security effectiveness. We
also need a sufficient number of TSA officers so checkpoints
remain operational, efficient, and safe by maintaining an
efficient flow of passengers and, again, providing for that
critical social distancing.
More support for resisting programming like janitorial
reimbursement, law enforcement reimbursement, and explosive
detection system.
We also need a new airport security grant program at TSA to
fund activities like perimeter security, checkpoint redesigns,
pandemic planning, airport emergency operation centers, and
enhanced closed-circuit TV.
Third, we recommend the establishment of a joint advisory
panel involving DHS, DOT, HHS, the State Department, and
industry stakeholders to develop recommendations for the
operational infrastructure and technology issues related to
pandemic planning.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, airports are leading economic
engines in your districts, your communities. Investments in
airports can multiply impacts throughout the region. I look
forward to working together to help airports weather this
crisis and get Americans back to work and back traveling again
in an aviation system that is safer, stronger, more secure, and
more resilient than ever.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. I welcome
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin M. Burke
June 18, 2020
Thank you, Chairman Correa and Ranking Member Lesko, for inviting
me to participate in today's hearing. I am Kevin M. Burke, president
and CEO of Airports Council International--North America (ACI-NA), the
trade association representing the local, regional, and State-governing
bodies that own and operate airports in the United States and Canada. I
would like to take this opportunity to share with you information about
the current state of America's airports and then outline some policy
recommendations ACI-NA has developed to provide for the health of
travelers, instill public confidence in air travel, enhance security,
and set a solid foundation for the future of aviation.
airports appreciate emergency assistance through the cares act
As we continue to navigate these unprecedented times, U.S. airports
are very grateful for the $10 billion in emergency support Congress
provided through the CARES Act, which was truly a lifeline for airports
all across the country. I want to thank all of you in Congress for
including airport funding in the CARES Act. The CARES Act grants are
helping airports offset some of the financial damage from the abrupt,
unexpected drop in air travel that resulted from necessary precautions
to limit the spread of COVID-19. Even with the CARES Act grants,
though, airports Nation-wide still face major financial and operational
hurdles.
america's airports are still hurting
During the COVID-19 National emergency, ACI-NA and its member
airports remain committed to ensuring that our Nation's aviation system
remains safe, secure, and efficient for all users. But as you have all
likely seen in your travels to and from Washington, America's airports
are hurting.
Powerful economic engines before the COVID-19 pandemic, generating
more than $1.1 trillion in annual activity and supporting over 10
million jobs, U.S. airports have been reduced to mere shells of their
former selves, with passenger traffic down nearly 90 percent from the
levels we saw this time last year. As a result, airports, airlines, and
tenants are all now struggling to survive. ACI-NA estimates U.S.
airports face at least $23 billion in operating losses as a result of
the COVID-19 pandemic, based on preliminary data about air service
reductions to date. On top of that, tenants at U.S. airports--such as
airlines, concessionaires, and rental car companies--are all seeking
financial relief from airports via rent/fee waivers and deferrals.
Meanwhile, airports must still keep the lights on, provide for the
health, safety, and security of employees and tenants, while ensuring
the bills are paid. One big cost for airports is debt payments.
Approximately $7 billion in airport bond principal and interest
payments are due each year, with total outstanding debt for U.S.
commercial airports standing at roughly $100 billion.
At the same time, U.S. airports face growing operating expenses as
they increase cleaning of public areas, checkpoints, and restrooms; add
more hand sanitizing stations for passengers and employees; install
plexiglass barriers in passenger-facing areas; procure cleaning
supplies and personal protective equipment; and implement physical
distancing measures.
As a result, airports are working hard now to cut their budgets,
reduce other expenses, defer many capital projects, and plan for the
new airport experience now and into the future.
airports working on industry initiatives to enhance safety and recover
from covid-19
Since the outbreak of COVID-19, airports have been intensely
focused on providing for the health and safety of their passengers,
employees, and tenants. Airports have enhanced communications to raise
awareness about reducing the spread of COVID-19 by updating their
public websites, installing signage, and making routine public
announcements.
Airports have also implemented numerous mitigation measures to
include the deployment of additional hand sanitizer and plexiglass
barriers at various locations, like ticket counters, checkpoints,
gates, and restrooms. In collaboration with the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), airports have worked to ensure ``social
distancing'' space between screening checkpoint lanes. And airports
have significantly increased the frequency of cleaning, with an intense
focus on ``touch points.''
ACI-NA, in coordination with other transportation sector
representatives, advocated for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency (CISA) to encourage the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) to provide face coverings to critical infrastructure
workers. As a result, 3.757 million face coverings were allocated to
the aviation sector and shipped by FEMA to the top 30 airports plus 6,
to ensure geographic coverage, availability at carrier hubs and cargo
airports, for distribution to critical infrastructure workers in the
aviation sector.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) subsequently advised
ACI-NA that it was tasking the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to
contact all Part 139 airports with commercial service to request
delivery addresses so FEMA could ship 87 million cloth face coverings
to airports for distribution to passengers and critical infrastructure
workers. ACI-NA worked closely with DOT and FAA to provide information
and answer questions from airports about the shipment of cloth face
coverings. Airports that have received the shipments are in the process
of making the face coverings available to passengers.
The airport industry, through ACI-NA and its network of committees,
is also working on industry initiatives to aid in the recovery from
COVID-19. Our team is hard at work developing and disseminating the
best ways to help minimize the spread of the virus, promote confidence
in air travel, ensure consistency across the industry, and streamline
the overall recovery of air travel. I have included as part of my
testimony ACI-NA's official policy positions on facial coverings and
passenger health screenings related to COVID-19.
We continue to coordinate closely with the FAA, TSA, Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), and others on recovery efforts, regulatory
guidance, and flexibility on regulatory requirements that is critical
in helping airports remain operational while ensuring safety and
security of the traveling public. Of particular importance is our
coordination to ensure the consistency of messaging, which is critical
to instill passenger confidence. I want to commend the agency leaders
for partnering with ACI-NA and our member airports on these important
initiatives as we collectively strive to recover from COVID-19.
airports offer additional policy solutions
There is increasing concern, however, that the drastic budgetary
actions airports are taking, coupled with the initial infusion of
emergency funds from the CARES Act, will not be enough to keep pace
with the sharp revenue declines, putting many airports at risk. Most
importantly, airports want to do what they can to help all of their
employees in this time of extreme economic stress. In addition to the
important work the airport industry is doing, I would like to offer the
following Federal policy solutions that will greatly assist airports
and aviation as we head toward recovery.
First, with passenger traffic and airport revenues down
significantly, U.S. airports need another infusion of Federal funds to
assist them in this time of National emergency. We recommend $13
billion in additional emergency assistance to be distributed as quickly
and efficiently as possible to commercial service airports through
existing entitlement formulas with no reduced apportionments. These
funds would help airports meet the operating costs and debt-service
obligations detailed above in the coming year.
Second, U.S. airports are working with stakeholders in their
facilities--including Federal agencies, airlines, and tenants--to
develop and implement new measures to protect public health and promote
public confidence in air travel. A major facet of those plans is
developing ``touchless'' aviation security screening processes that
provide enhanced security, lower false alarms, and adequate physical
distancing for passengers and baggage moving through TSA checkpoints
and CBP ports of entry. In order to further enhance security and
provide for the health of the traveling public, we recommend immediate
funding for new technology, infrastructure, and programming updates
throughout the aviation system, including the following security
upgrades at U.S. airports:
Congress should provide funding for TSA to procure and
deploy technology at security checkpoints that reduces touch
points, maintains physical distancing, and increases security
effectiveness. Technology such as enhanced Advanced Imaging
Technology, Credential Authentication Technology with opt-in
Biometric Authentication Technology, and Computed Tomography
integrated with Automated Screening Lanes will increase
efficiency and security effectiveness while minimizing document
exchanges and false alarms that necessitate pat down and bag
inspections.
Congress should ensure there is a sufficient number of
Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) so that screening
checkpoints remain open, operational, and safe. In addition to
maintaining an efficient flow of passengers though the
checkpoint while properly physical distancing, airports remain
concerned about the vulnerability associated with large groups
of passengers waiting in checkpoint lines, as well as the
potential for misconnecting checked baggage and passengers who
miss their intended flights. A shortage of TSOs at a time when
airports, and the industry, are attempting to recover from
COVID-19 would be disastrous, negatively impacting security and
airport operations.
The TSA Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) Reimbursement Program
is essential in helping to ensure law enforcement coverage at
security checkpoints and public areas. Through the TSA
Modernization Act, Congress clearly recognized the significant
security value the TSA LEO Reimbursement Program and required
TSA to expand it. Section 1935 of the Act directs the TSA
administrator to increase the number of awards under the LEO
Reimbursement Program ``to increase the presence of law
enforcement officers in the public areas of airports, including
baggage claim, ticket counters, and nearby roads,'' not just at
security checkpoints. Since TSA has taken a more restrictive
approach to approving applications and limited reimbursement to
only those law enforcement officers stationed in the immediate
vicinity of security checkpoints, the expansion of the program
envisioned by Congress to increase the presence of law
enforcement officers in other critical airport areas has not
occurred.
TSA created the LEO Reimbursement Program to partially reimburse
airports for providing law enforcement officer staffing at screening
checkpoints, as required in Federal law, because the agency did not
have the funding to do so. Over time many airports have entered into
reimbursable agreements with TSA to provide law enforcement officers to
support TSA screening operations. As security threats in the public
areas of airports continue to evolve--and TSA imposes additional
requirements on airport law enforcement officers--it is essential for
Congress to provide TSA adequate funding for the LEO Reimbursement
Program.
In accordance with an Aviation Security Advisory Committee
recommendation, Congress should establish an airport security-
focused grant program at TSA to support checkpoint redesigns,
pandemic planning, new airport emergency operations centers,
the deployment of perimeter security, access control, automated
screening lanes, enhanced closed-circuit TV and other security
technology at airports. Airport operators have limited funding
available that must be prioritized across a multitude of
safety, security, and operational projects. While DHS's
existing grant programs have dispensed billions of dollars for
systems and technology to bolster State, Tribal, and local
security, very little has been allocated to airports.
Congress should provide funding for cleaning and
sanitization services at checkpoints and other areas that helps
airports provide for the health and safety of TSOs, passengers,
and aviation workers. This year's final appropriations measure
included an administration request to eliminate a TSA program
that reimbursed airports for janitorial services at security
checkpoints, effectively shifting the full burden to airports.
Despite the administration's assertions to the contrary, there
is no Federal requirement that airports provide janitorial
services at TSA checkpoints. Airport operators should not be
forced to assume the costs of janitorial services at tenant
locations outside of their control, particularly when they are
required by law to provide the space to TSA free of charge. Now
that TSA has established a program to reimburse airports for
cleaning and sanitization, airports are better positioned to
support increased cleaning requirements in response to the
COVID-19 National emergency. Congress should fully authorize
and appropriately fund this program.
Congress should ensure TSA has the funds necessary to
purchase new Explosive Detection Systems (EDS) to replace
outdated systems, and to continue to fulfill its obligation to
reimburse eligible airports for the installation of past EDS.
As many EDS have or are rapidly reaching the end of their
useful lives, TSA needs funding to purchase replacement
systems. Absent necessary funding, TSA will incur increasing
costs to operate and maintain old systems that routinely break
down and adversely impact security and airport operations.
We appreciate Congress providing funding in the past 2 fiscal years
for TSA to reimburse airports for previously-incurred costs associated
with the construction and deployment of in-line checked baggage
screening systems. Since these airports diverted significant amounts of
money from other important aviation security projects in order to
purchase and install EDS, we encourage Congress to continue to follow
through on this commitment with additional funding, and prohibit TSA
from redirecting any unused EDS funds to other TSA programs until all
eligible airports receive full reimbursement.
Third, we recommend putting additional resources toward retaining
and hiring additional CBP officers at the ports of entry and fully
implementing the biometric entry-exit program. CBP user fees have
decreased tremendously during this pandemic, which has put a huge hole
in the agency's budget for this year and next. ACI-NA remains at the
forefront of a diverse coalition of industry stakeholders who support
improving travel and trade facilitation through CBP ports of entry. The
coalition--which includes leading voices from various shipping,
tourism, travel, trade, law enforcement, and employee groups--sent
letters to the Appropriations Committees last month in support of
supplemental funding for CBP to make up for the multi-billion loss of
user-fee revenue.
Fourth, along those lines, we recommend finally ending the
diversion of user fees designed to enhance security. Each year billions
of dollars in TSA and CBP user fees are needlessly diverted from their
intended purpose to subsidize other Federal programs. In this time of
National emergency, it is critical to stop these budgetary gimmicks,
end the fee diversion and ensure the revenue is restored to its proper
use of funding and enhancing crucial transportation security programs.
Fifth, we recommend establishing a joint advisory panel involving
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of
Transportation, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and
the U.S. Department of State--along with industry stakeholders--to
develop recommendations about the operational and infrastructure issues
related to pandemic planning. Most notably, funding for infrastructure
and technology will be urgently needed to ensure airports can continue
to make necessary upgrades and adjustments to their facilities.
Finally, we recommend extending the deadline for full
implementation of REAL ID to a future date that allows for significant
Nation-wide penetration of REAL ID compliance in order to minimize
unnecessary impacts on air travelers and operations during what is
expected to be a prolonged economic recovery. Earlier this year, before
State DMVs shut down due to COVID-19, DHS data indicated that States
had issued little more than 95 million REAL ID-compliant driver's
licenses and identification cards, and more than two-thirds of driver's
licenses and identification cards held by Americans were not REAL ID-
compliant. Although DHS streamlined the process by allowing States to
accept the required documents submitted electronically, applicants must
still come in person to a DMV location with the required documentation
for the purpose of obtaining a REAL ID. Given the likelihood that
DMVs--when they do reopen--will be faced with a backlog of other
service requests, REAL ID applications may be delayed even further. The
health of the aviation industry must be considered when establishing a
deadline for REAL ID implementation, and a rush to implementation must
not depress air travel during a recovery period that is expected to be
slow and prolonged.
conclusion
Airports are leading economic engines in their community and
investments in airports have multiplying impacts throughout their
regions. I hope we can all work together over the next few months to
help airports weather this crisis so we can get Americans back to work
and traveling again though an aviation system that is stronger, safer,
more secure, and more resilient than ever.
Thank you for this opportunity today. I welcome your questions.
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much, Mr. Burke.
I now recognize Ms. Nelson to summarize her statements in 5
minutes.
Ma'am.
STATEMENT OF SARA NELSON, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION
OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS--COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA
Ms. Nelson. Thank you, Chairman Correa, Ranking Member
Lesko, and, of course, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member
Rogers, for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Sara Nelson. I am a 24-year union flight
attendant and president of the Association of Flight
Attendants--CWA, representing flight attendants across the
industry.
The coronavirus is by far the largest crisis ever
experienced in aviation. We must make some substantial changes
to air travel to meet this moment. Just as we did under the
leadership of DOT Secretary Norm Mineta and President George W.
Bush in the aftermath of 9/11, starting with new emergency
procedures enacted as early as September 12, 2001. Throughout
this crisis, airlines have been responsive to our concerns on
certain safety policies.
All major airlines now have put in place the requirement of
masks in the airport and on the plane. But after nearly 120,000
Americans have died, no contact tracing or containment in
place, we are just now on Day 3 of this requirement by
airlines. Without clear instruction from Government and
airlines passenger and crew, proper training or Federal
enforcement, flight attendants are left to manage a hodgepodge
of airline policies on the front lines. Most travelers comply
with the mask requirements, but conflict still flares up as
some have been led to believe that masks are a political
statement rather than a public health necessity.
Safety is built with a layered approach. This is exactly
why we have a Department of Transportation to coordinate every
aspect of travel, consider every touch point, and coordinate
private, public, and Federal sector workers and services to
facilitate safe, efficient, accessible travel. Without a
Federal requirement, including procurement of proper PPE, we
leave many vulnerabilities and opportunities for spread,
creating unnecessary health risks for travelers and essential
workers.
Our union has written to DOT and HHS to urge the
Departments to issue emergency safety and health rules as
detailed in our written testimony, and we would expect them to
work with DHS as well. Statements by DOT indicate the
Department does not believe it has a role in public health
regulations, but, by contrast, the recent DOT ban on e-
cigarette use aboard aircraft was to, ``reduce the risk of
adverse health effects on passengers and crew members.''
We strongly support daily health and wellness self-
assessments for flight attendants and other aviation workers
before we report for duty and for passengers before they fly.
This can and should be done without requiring aviation workers
or passengers to reveal private health information. Creating a
community health corps deployed at our airports can also create
good jobs that help to reverse sky-high unemployment.
Staying off a flight for duty at the airport to protect
health and safety should never result in discipline for
workers, but many carriers have long-standing punitive policies
that can lead to discipline or even termination for use of
legitimate sick leave. Without Federal guidelines that prohibit
discipline, airlines will choose to do for themselves what
policies they will put in place. Already Delta Airlines
subsidiary, Endeavor Air, has announced it will apply
disciplinary points for any callouts based on new COVID-19
symptom checks. Many other carriers have instituted symptom
checks and instructed flight crews to follow Federal guidelines
to stay home if ill but have not committed to protect workers
who follow the rules.
Congress can help the entire industry stay safe by working
with Federal regulators to pass emergency rules that protect
jobs, pay, and benefits of any aviation worker who is unable to
fly because of COVID-19 symptoms.
Standards for health and safety will be impossible to
implement without the dedicated, highly-trained, and
credentialed work force of the aviation industry. Flight
attendants and aviation workers have been on the front lines of
the virus since its earliest days, and we are essential to our
Nation's ability to function. That is why Members of both
parties joined together this past March to pass a historic
``workers first'' relief passenger for aviation workers in the
CARES Act. The Payroll Support Program has kept close to a
million workers in our jobs and connected to our health care
and other benefits through September 30.
I urge the Members of this committee to support a clean
extension of the PSP through at least January 31, 2021, without
which we will see hundreds of thousands of furloughs and
layoffs as of October 1.
Finally, I would like to recognize the critical need to
address the disproportionate impact of coronavirus on Black
lives. We must do everything we can in every sector to ensure
we implement antiracist policies. Coronavirus lays bare that an
injury to one is an injury to all.
On this point, we also celebrate two major Supreme Court
cases this week that are a step forward--that are a step
forward on antidiscrimination. The last thing we need in the
middle of a pandemic is removing Dreamers or LGBTQ workers from
their jobs in health care. These rulings acknowledge the
dignity of American workers, and Congress has the opportunity
to recognize the dignity of work during this pandemic by
ensuring that workers on the front lines are protected.
Thank you so much for your time, attention, and action.
Flight attendants appreciate the work of this committee so
much. We depend on you, and we look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nelson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sara Nelson
Thursday, June 18, 2020
Dear Chairman Correa, Ranking Member Lesko, and Members of the
committee: My name is Sara Nelson. I am a 25-year union flight
attendant and president of the Association of Flight Attendants--CWA,
AFL-CIO (AFA), representing 50,000 flight attendants across the
industry. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on what we are
experiencing in our work environment during this pandemic and how
uniform safety policies can mitigate risks and instill confidence for
the traveling public. Millions of workers' jobs and our entire economy
depend upon us getting this right.
COVID-19 remains an unprecedented threat to aviation. Hundreds of
flight attendants have tested positive for the virus and 10 have lost
their lives. Three months in, commercial volume is still down by more
than 85 percent from last year. As a result of the pandemic, nearly
1,000 U.S. flight attendants have lost jobs permanently and thousands
more have accepted voluntary furloughs or leaves. Trans States Airlines
and Compass Airlines have both shuttered since the onset of COVID-19,
while Norwegian closed U.S. flight attendant bases at the end of March
(flight attendants have contractual recall rights for 2 years if
operations resume) and Cathay Pacific will end U.S.-based operations as
of June 20, 2020. Long-time charter carrier Miami Air filed for
bankruptcy on March 24, 2020, solely as a result of the pandemic, and
refusal by Treasury to process the airline's application for a CARES
Act payroll grant added 350 workers in the Miami area to the
unemployment line.
The health and economic impacts of COVID-19 still loom large for
our industry. Keeping passengers and crew safe is our top priority and
we must make some substantial changes to air travel to meet this
moment. Just as air travel changed in the aftermath of 9/11, it will
need to change now to adapt to the new realities of the post-pandemic
world. I know this is an analogy that the Members of this subcommittee
understand well, which is why I'm so grateful for the opportunity to
testify today, to share my experience with how COVID-19 is affecting
the work, health, and financial security of flight attendants, and how
we can move forward together.
Uniform, Federal COVID-19 Health and Safety Rules Are Needed to Protect
Passengers and Workers
As trained public safety professionals, safety is always our top
concern. We have a duty to make sure that passengers are safe. We need
clear, enforceable Federal rules for health and safety that set uniform
standards people can depend on. Federal rules are necessary to protect
our passengers, protect aviation workers and their families, and build
confidence for millions of businesses counting on the resumption of
safe air travel.
To date, the response to COVID-19, the biggest crisis aviation has
ever faced, has been a hodge-podge of individual voluntarily-adopted
measures by airlines. The best available public health information
confirms that crew and passenger use of masks and cloth face coverings,
along with proper hand hygiene and social distancing, can help to limit
the health risks of air travel. The airlines took an important step
when they put policies in place requiring masks, but in the absence of
Federal requirements, flight attendants know these policies and related
communication will remain inconsistent and unclear. Without clear
instruction, proper training, or clear backing, enforcement will be
nearly impossible.
We are also seeing inconsistent safety policies at airports, which
leave many vulnerabilities and opportunities for spread, particularly
in enclosed places where large groups of people are frequently
gathered, sometimes sitting in place (such as when a flight is
delayed). If passengers do not wear masks inside airports, it creates
unnecessary health risks for airline and airport workers and all other
travelers.
Thus far, Federal agencies have failed to provide the clear rules
we need to keep people safe. On May 11, 2020, the FAA updated a
previous guidance document (non-required) for air carrier operators,
SAFO 20009,\1\ to include an expanded CDC list of COVID-19 symptoms,\2\
but still did not require the use of masks or other personal protective
equipment (PPE) by crew and passengers. At least one carrier, Omni, has
refused to follow SAFO guidelines, assigning discipline to flight
attendants when sick, and outright refuses to notify passengers and
crew who may have been exposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FAA; COVID-19: Updated Interim Occupational Health and Safety
Guidance for Air Carriers and Crews; May 11, 2020. https://www.faa.gov/
other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/
all_safos/media/2020/SAFO20009.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2020.
\2\ CDC; Symptoms of Coronavirus; Page last reviewed: May 13, 2020.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/
symptoms.html. Accessed May 18, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No flight attendant wants to tell a scared passenger that there's
nothing we can do to make them feel safe. Flight attendants and gate
agents need full management support and the authority to enforce
airline policies that keep everyone safe and defuse tensions. Without
the reinforcement that comes with Federal rules--the same regulations
we use to stop smokers and get people to sit down and buckle up--we're
being set up to fail. And that will put passengers and crew at risk.
On June 1, our union wrote again to the U.S. Departments of
Transportation (DOT) and Health and Human Services (HHS) to urge the
Departments to issue emergency safety and health rules for aviation
during the COVID-19 pandemic. We cited the emergency measures taken to
address airline security following the events of September 11, 2001,
and more recent health and safety measures, including the recent DOT
ban on e-cigarette use aboard aircraft, the purpose of which was to
``reduce the risk of adverse health effects on passengers and
crewmembers.'' Specifically, we asked that DOT promulgate an emergency
rule for the duration of the pandemic that includes the following
specific measures for all commercial flights:
All airplane cabin occupants must wear a mask or cloth face
covering per CDC guidelines.\3\ Masks should be worn at all
times, except as necessary for eating, drinking, or during
other similar, temporary activities. Incidents involving
passenger violations of this rule should be considered
interfering in a crewmember's duties in violation of 14 CFR
91.11 or 121.580, or 49 USC 46504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CDC; Use of Cloth Face Coverings to Help Slow the Spread of
COVID-19; https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-
sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html. Accessed May 18, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flight attendants, as aviation's first responders and
potential carriers of the virus without proper protection, must
be provided N95 masks, gloves, and other PPE. While we
recognize the challenges originally created due to supply
chains, we reiterate the need to implement this standard as
soon as practicable following proper provisioning of hospital
workers and other health care professionals.
Government must establish and conduct health monitoring for
passengers and crew members, which could include temperature
checks, signs/symptoms, travel history, and viral or antibody
testing. While these measures will not prevent every
asymptomatic person (who may still be capable of transmitting
the virus) from boarding a flight, they will minimize this risk
and deter abuse.
Social distancing standards in the cabin must be set; this
may require defining hard load limits that vary depending on
specific airplane cabin configurations. Although this could
result in more aircraft placed into service for the duration of
the pandemic, minimizing the spread of COVID-19 on aircraft
should decrease the duration of the emergency.
Require airlines to meet cleaning standards to disinfect, or
sanitize, per appropriate CDC guidance, aircraft cabin surfaces
after each flight.
Airlines must be required to operate the ventilation air
supply systems on ``high flow,'' particularly during boarding
and deplaning. And any cabin air that gets recirculated must
first pass through High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA)
filters, per manufacturer's instructions.
It is clear to anyone working a flight that inconsistent and
voluntary airline policies leave gaping holes in safety. These policies
and practices are poorly communicated to crew and passengers alike,
leaving flight attendants to risk our health and safety while
attempting to manage the otherwise avoidable conflicts that result. Our
passengers deserve better.
As we look forward to the recovery of commercial air travel, our
goal must be to raise the standards of safety and the confidence of all
who fly. Enforceable, mandatory, National standards, including those
outlined here, will protect my colleagues, protect our passengers, and
help our industry take off again.
employee health and safety policies cannot be punitive
Our union believes that no one should fly or work a flight if they
are presenting with symptoms of COVID-19 or any communicable disease.
This is a matter of public safety. We strongly support daily health and
wellness self assessments for flight attendants and other aviation
workers before they report for duty, consistent with updated Federal
guidelines,\4\ and for passengers before they fly. We believe that
wellness checks, as one part of a set of safety and health policies and
procedures, will boost public confidence in air travel and help limit
the spread of the virus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/
airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2020/
SAFO20009.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We ask that Congress work with our Federal regulators to establish
clear standards for the entire industry that protect the health and
wellness of the traveling public while safeguarding the private health
information of aviation workers and passengers. In short, daily
wellness checks, including symptom checks, should be conducted without
requiring aviation workers or passengers to reveal private health
information.
Staying off a flight to protect health and safety should never result
in discipline
Unfortunately, many carriers have long-standing disciplinary
policies that could undermine any policy to keep aviation workers at
home if they are feeling sick. It might surprise Members of the
committee that if pilots, flight attendants, and gate agents are
scheduled to work and call out sick, we can be disciplined or even lose
our jobs. Union contracts help limit corporate abuse on this issue and
provide due process, but airlines still seek to discipline employees
for the legitimate use of sick leave.
Over the past 5 years, as cities and States across the county have
passed mandatory sick leave laws to protect workers who fall ill before
they are scheduled to work, the aviation industry has refused to
comply. The country's largest airlines have gone so far as to sue
Washington State and Massachusetts to challenge the State sick leave
laws.
We believe that aviation workers deserve the same rights as all
other employees, to stay home from work if they are sick, without fear
of discipline or termination. But during the on-going COVID-19
emergency, I think we all recognize that it is a serious public health
risk to force sick aviation workers to choose between going to work or
losing their jobs.
In the absence of clear Federal guidelines that prohibit
disciplinary measures from being taken against flight crews, airlines
will choose what to do for themselves. Already, Delta Air Lines
subsidiary Endeavor Air has announced that it will apply disciplinary
``points'' for any call-outs based on new COVID-19 symptom checks. Many
other carriers have instituted symptom checks and instructed flight
crews to follow Federal guidelines to stay home if ill, but have not
committed to protect workers who follow the rules. Congress can help
the entire industry stay safe by working with Federal regulators to
pass emergency rules that protect the jobs, pay, and benefits of any
aviation worker who is unable to fly because of COVID-19 symptoms.
There are already good model rules in place to put safety first.
The Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS)\5\ collects voluntarily
submitted aviation safety incident/situation reports from pilots,
controllers, and others. A critical feature of the ASRS system is that
flight crew members can report safety issues without fear of discipline
or reprisal. As a result, more than 1 million reports have been made,
resulting in countless safety improvements in flight. A comparable
should be instituted here to prioritize health and wellness on flights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/overview/summary.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
community health corps
As a result of this pandemic, Americans find themselves in the
midst of twin crises--a health crisis and a jobs crisis. Our policy
makers must respond to both which is why AFA-CWA is supportive of
proposals to create a Community Health Corps, modeled after the jobs
programs created by the New Deal's Works Progress Administration. The
WPA employed millions of Americans to carry out public works projects,
including building public buildings and roads. Instead of building
roads and bridges, the CHC would carry out critical health work,
including testing and contract tracing, and build the public health
infrastructure that will carry us through the pandemic and ensure that
we aren't again caught flat-footed when the next pandemic emerges.
We've lost tens of millions of jobs since the pandemic first hit.
Only a large-scale Federal jobs program will be able to create enough
jobs to fill the gaping hole in our labor market. But a CHC would do
more than create jobs--with no vaccine in sight it would also help us
to save lives and reopen the economy by scaling up testing and tracing
to contain the virus. Without testing and tracing, we're certain to
face a second wave of the virus, leading to a second wave of shutdowns,
more joblessness, and importantly for my union, less air travel.
Consumer demand in the aviation sector simply will not rebound
without confidence in safe air travel. Right now, there is no Federal
plan for ensuring that sick passengers do not board flights. There are
no health checks required for passengers prior to boarding and no
mandatory temperature checks. The major carriers require passengers to
wear masks in flight, but that is not adequate to ensure the safety of
other passengers, crew, or airport personnel.
In the wake of 9/11, Congress created the Department of Homeland
Security and the Transportation Security Administration to respond to
new security threats in aviation. These new screening protocols kept
passengers and crew safe in flight and built renewed confidence in the
safety of air travel, which had dropped precipitously in the wake of
the terrorist attacks. There are now 50,000 TSA agents in airports
across the country who screen passengers, crew, and luggage prior to
boarding.
As part of the CHC, Congress should authorize the Department of
Transportation to hire and deploy a Pandemic Health Crew (PHC) at every
airport in the country to screen all passengers. As air travel picks
up, we would need at least as many PHC workers as TSA agents. PHC
workers would run temperature checks for all passengers and ask a
battery of health questions to screen for exposure to COVID-19 prior to
boarding. This would also help us identify potential hot spots by
geographic region and aid health authorities in targeting contact
tracing. As more passengers consider air travel once again, a PHC is
essential for their safety.
A PHC won't create 40 million jobs, but it can be a model for a
Federally-funded Community Health Corps. Some States have already begun
exploring similar programs. Massachusetts has already trained contract
tracers, provided them with good wages and health insurance, and
prioritized hiring the unemployed. I hope that the committee will
consider our proposal for the PHC and work with their colleagues on the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on
Appropriations to authorize funding for this program in short order.
payroll grant extension
The new standards for health and safety I have described in my
testimony today will be impossible to implement without the dedicated,
highly-trained, and credentialed work force of the aviation industry.
The brave men and women in our union have been on the front lines of
this virus since its earliest days, and they are essential to our
Nation's ability to reopen. That is why Members of both parties joined
together this past March to pass a historic workers' first relief
package for aviation workers in the CARES Act.
The Payroll Support Program (PSP) in the CARES Act keeps workers in
the aviation industry--from gate attendants to flight attendants to
mechanics to catering workers to pilots--paid, connected to our health
care in a pandemic, out of the unemployment line, and importantly,
ready to lift our entire economy. Funding for the PSP goes exclusively
toward maintaining the salaries, wages, and benefits for aviation
workers. It conditions the carriers' receipt of Federal funds on making
no involuntary furloughs or layoffs. Participating carriers must also
maintain levels of scheduled service needed to ensure well-functioning
health care and pharmaceutical supply chains to serve small and remote
communities.
The program has been an overwhelming success. But without an
extension, the funding will expire on September 30, and the carriers
will begin massive furloughs to match the COVID-19 shrunken industry. I
raise this with the committee today because extending this program is
essential to carrying out the health and safety provisions I've
recommended above. To ensure that travel will not be impacted by crew
calling out sick, and to ensure that management doesn't pressure crew
to come to work sick, we will need a robust crew on Reserve. This
Reserve crew will need to be paid for minimum guarantees and stay on
our health insurance. A program extension will keep hundreds of
thousands of airline workers current with certifications and security
clearances, off unemployment, and able to contribute to our
communities.
I urge the Members of this committee to support a clean extension
of the PSP through at least January 3, 2021, to ensure that a lapse in
this critical protection does not result in massive job loss or hamper
our ability to keep passengers and crew safe during the pandemic. This
program is a success and has largely kept airlines intact and workers
in our jobs. The airlines have been able to use this time to downsize
and reduce operational costs, but jobs are still at risk unless the
payroll support is extended to bridge us through the worst of this
pandemic.
It is an honor to represent flight attendants and other aviation
workers here today. Safety is fundamental to the success of air travel
because consumer demand simply will not rebound without confidence in
safe air travel. The people on the front lines of aviation need your
continued support on this and our jobs in order to ensure aviation, and
all of the people within it, can continue to support the U.S. economy.
We are so grateful for the work of this committee and we are counting
on your continued action. Thank you for your time, attention, and
action. I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Ms. Nelson, for your testimony.
Now I would like to recognize Ms. Guliani to summarize her
statement for 5 minutes.
Welcome, ma'am.
STATEMENT OF NEEMA SINGH GULLIANI, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Ms. Guliani. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today
on behalf of the ACLU.
COVID-19 and 9/11 are 2 very different crises, but they
have some things in common. Both resulted in a tragic loss of
life. Both upended the aviation industry, and both triggered
quick and massive investments.
After 9/11, we wasted billions of dollars in many failed
programs that did not make us safer and violated basic
liberties. As we grapple with COVID-19 and how to make air
travel safe again, we must be vigilant to not repeat the
mistakes of the past where we rushed to implement many measures
that were ineffective and inconsistent with our values.
The stakes for getting it right are high. If our aviation
response to COVID-19 is ineffective or privacy-invasive, it
will not only hurt air travel; it will also undermine our
overall public health efforts by decreasing trust and
contributing to community transmission.
Fortunately, public health professionals have provided us
guidance on how we can avoid the mistakes of the past. These
experts have emphasized that the most effective measures are
rooted in public trust and voluntary compliance. They have
cautioned against the law enforcement approach, which often
sparks resistance and distrust. Some of the best ways to make
air travel safer are low-tech and, if implemented correctly,
will likely have a minimal impact on individual rights. These
include reducing how crowded airplanes are and facilitating
basic health precautions like handwashing and wearing a mask.
It also includes making it easier for individuals to
changes their travel plans without penalty if they are
exhibiting COVID systems or may have been exposed to the
disease and providing flexible and paid sick leave to all
employees so that workers do not suffer financially when they
take steps to protect us all.
An approach rooted in compliance and trust is also
consistent with our values. As we consider new measures in
response to COVID-19, we must remember that the right to travel
is not a luxury. It is a Constitutional right. As former
Supreme Court Justice William Douglas observed, freedom of
movement is the very essence of free society. The Supreme Court
has repeatedly recognized that the right to travel is protected
under the Fifth Amendment as a liberty interest and cannot be
denied without due process of law. It also implicates the First
Amendment. Thus, it is unconstitutional to deny individuals the
right to fly in ways that are unnecessary, arbitrary, or
discriminatory. Given this, any new measures should reflect the
following 5 principles: No. 1, it must be recommended by public
health agencies and developed in concert with public health
professionals. For example, if reports are accurate and the CDC
recommended against temperature checks in airports as a poorly
designed control and detection strategy, they should not be
deployed. If they are, they must be meet clearly established
benchmarks for effectiveness.
No. 2, any measure must not improperly restrict
individuals' right to travel. For example, using temperature
checks as a sole basis for barring people from traveling would
be inherently overbroad. It would sweep in individuals who
might have fevers for reasons unrelated to COVID-19, likely
disproportionately affecting people with chronic illnesses.
Thus, as most, an elevated temperature should merely trigger
further examination with avenues for redress.
No. 3, any measure deployed should not collect additional
personal data unless it is fully transparent and strictly
necessary from a public health standpoint. This information
should only be stored and used by public health agencies for
public health purposes and not maintained on DHS databases,
shared with law enforcement or immigration agencies, or used
for any other purpose. The last thing we want is people being
fearful of disclosing medical or other critical facts out of
fear of how that information can be used against them in other
contexts.
Proposals like the TSA's CAT-C expansion or other uses of
face recognition technology which do not adhere to this
principle should be rejected as a response to COVID-19. TSA's
most recent privacy impact assessment goes beyond the one-to-
one map system to permit networking with a secure flight
system. There are countless other less costly and less invasive
ways to reduce transmission of disease on travel documents,
like asking someone to hold their document up for review
instead of handing it to somebody. These options do not involve
the multitude of privacy and civil liberty concerns of facial
recognition. Suggesting such an expansion should move forward
as a response to COVID will rightfully cause travelers to
question the legitimacy of other TSA measures going forward.
No. 4, there must be proactive transparency and
accountability. This will require many things but at a minimum
should require that an independent oversight body assess any
proposed measure for effectiveness and privacy. It should also
include compliance with existing requirements, like privacy
impact assessments and rule-making requirements.
Finally, any measure adopted should end with the pandemic.
A clear end date is essential to ensure that invasive measures
do not simply become the new normal. To the extent something
proves to have other non-COVID-related benefits, it should be
evaluated separately to ensure it meets travel needs and
preserves privacy.
COVID-19 offers an opportunity for us to adopt positive
changes in aviation that enhance trust and public health. I
look forward with working with the subcommittee to consider how
we can make travel safer and how to avoid the pitfalls of the
past.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Guliani follows:]
Prepared Statement of Neema Singh Guliani
June 18, 2020
Chairman Correa, Ranking Member Lesko, and Members of the
subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)\1\ and for holding this hearing
on, ``Climbing Again: Stakeholder Views on Resuming Air Travel in the
COVID-19 Era.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For nearly 100 years, the ACLU has been our Nation's guardian
of liberty, working in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend
and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution
and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. With
more than 3 million members, activists, and supporters, the ACLU is a
Nation-wide organization that fights tirelessly in all 50 States,
Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, to preserve American democracy and an
open Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COVID-19 has upended commercial air travel--raising serious
questions about how and whether it can be safely resumed during the
pandemic. At this stage, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
continues to caution against air travel. For individuals who do travel,
the CDC encourages keeping 6 feet apart from other people and adopting
various health precautions.\2\ Given this, the best way to make air
travel safer is likely to reduce how crowded airplanes and airports
are, facilitate basic health precautions like hand washing and mask
wearing, and make it easy for individuals to voluntarily change their
travel plans if they are exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms or may have been
exposed to the disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Considerations for
Travelers--Coronavirus in the US (May 28, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/
coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/travel-in-the-us.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government agencies, airlines, and airports are also exploring a
variety of new surveillance, health, and screening measures designed to
minimize contact during travel, prevent individuals who might be
infected from traveling, and limit transmission during travel. Some of
these measures, like a face mask requirement, reflect the guidance of
public health professionals and, if implemented correctly, will likely
have a minimal impact on individuals' rights. Other proposals, like
those to expand facial recognition technology or implement remote fever
detection,\3\ have dubious public health value, raise significant
privacy and civil liberties concerns, and should be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Attached is a comprehensive ACLU white paper that provides more
guidance specifically on implementing temperature checks. See ACLU,
TEMPERATURE SCREENING AND CIVIL LIBERTIES DURING AN EPIDEMIC (May 19,
2020), https://www.aclu.org/aclu-white-paper-temperature-screening-and-
civil-liberties-during-epidemic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must be vigilant to ensure that the pandemic is not exploited
opportunistically to entrench discriminatory and privacy-invasive
practices in aviation. In addition, we must ensure that any new
measures adopted do not undermine overall public health efforts by
giving individuals a false sense of security or engendering public
distrust. Thus, any new aviation measure adopted in response to COVID-
19 must:
(1) Be consistent with the recommendations of public health
professionals and meet efficacy benchmarks;
(2) Ensure equitable treatment and prevent against improper
encroachments on the right to travel;
(3) Require that any new personal or health data collected be
available only to public health agencies for public health purposes,
and prohibiting use for any other reasons, including law enforcement,
immigration enforcement, security/risk assessments, public benefit
determinations, or commercial purposes;
(4) Have a clear end date that does not extend beyond the pandemic;
and
(5) Require proactive transparency and accountability measures.
(1) Public Health Effectiveness
No new surveillance, technology, or screening measure should be
deployed unless it is recommended by public health agencies, developed
in concert with public health professionals, and likely effective. For
example, if reports are accurate and the CDC recommended against
thermal checks at airports as a ``poorly designed control and detection
strategy,'' they should not be deployed.\4\ Similarly, we should be
wary of relying on technologies, like technology assisted contact
tracing, which public health professionals have emphasized are not yet
proven to be effective.\5\ It is particularly important that public
health professionals be a central part of any aviation response because
our understanding of COVID-19 continues to evolve, and measures that
seem like a good idea today may need to be modified as we learn more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Brett Murphy and Letitia Stein, CDC scientists overruled in
White House push to restart airport fever screenings for COVID-19, USA
TODAY, May 9, 2020, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/
2020/05/09/white-house-push-airport-fever-screenings-overrules-cdc-
scientists/3097158001/.
\5\ World Health Organization, DIGITAL TOOLS FOR COVID-19 CONTACT
TRACING (June 2, 2020), https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-
2019-nCoV-Contact_Tracing-Tools_Annex-2020.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help ensure effectiveness, any proposed aviation measure should
be evaluated independently by the CDC and other relevant public health
experts on an on-going basis. Protocols around the use of such measures
should be developed in concert with these agencies to reflect public
health best practices. In addition, there should be clear public
benchmarks for what standards must be met for a measure to be
considered effective, which identify limitations, factors that impact
effectiveness, cost, and an evaluation of whether there are better
alternatives. Information about whether any measure meets these
benchmarks should be released publicly, so that the public and
policymakers can evaluate them.
(2) Equity and Protecting the Right to Travel
As former Supreme Court Justice William Douglas observed,
``[f]reedom of movement is the very essence of our free society,
setting us apart.''\6\ The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that
the right to travel is protected under the Fifth Amendment as a liberty
interest that cannot be denied without due process of law.\7\ Moreover,
freedom of movement allows access to information and encourages the
free exchange of ideas and opinions, thus implicating the First
Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 520 (1964)
(Douglas, J., concurring).
\7\ See Regan v. Wald, 468 U.S. 222 (1984); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S.
1, 14 (1965); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 505-06
(1964); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the rights at stake, no measure adopted should be as a basis
to deny an individual the right to fly in an arbitrary, unreasonable,
or discriminatory manner. Additionally, the information used to
determine whether someone can fly must be transparent and fully
available to the individual, and there must be the opportunity to rebut
or appeal such a determination in a fair process. For example, using
temperature checks as the sole basis for barring people from traveling
would be inherently overbroad, as it would sweep in individuals who
might have fevers for reasons unrelated to any communicable disease,
including COVID-19. This would likely disproportionately affect
individuals with chronic illnesses, including those who may travel in
order to seek critical medical care. Thus, at most, an elevated
temperature should merely trigger further examination, providing
individuals the ability to provide additional information regarding
whether they are at risk of having the disease or may have a
temperature for other reasons.
(3) Limited Public Health Purpose
Public health experts caution that a law enforcement approach to
combating disease is less effective than relying on voluntary measures
and compliance. That is because an enforcement approach often sparks
counterproductive resistance and evasion and tends to sour the
relationship between citizens and their Government at a time when trust
is of paramount importance. Good public health measures leverage
people's own incentives to report disease and help stop its spread.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ACLU, LIMITS OF LOCATION TRACKING IN AN EPIDEMIC (April 8,
2020), https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field--document/
limits_of_location_tracking_in_an_- epidemic.pdf; See also ACLU,
PANDEMIC PREPAREDNESS: THE NEED FOR A PUBLIC HEALTH NOT A LAW
ENFORCEMENT/NATIONAL SECURITY APPROACH (Jan. 2008), https://
www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/privacy/pemic_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encouraging self-monitoring and adoption of voluntary measures is
particularly important in the aviation context. Individuals themselves
are best positioned to know whether they have experienced COVID-19
symptoms, have had large number of exposures to other individuals, or
have traveled in a high-risk area. In addition, there are likely ample
ways to circumvent screening and surveillance measures that may be
designed to identify people with the disease. For example, individuals
can take medication to suppress COVID-19 symptoms, such as a fever or a
cough. Given this, the best measures will be those that encourage
individuals to self-monitor and simply stay home if they may have the
disease. This includes providing clear guidance about what factors an
individual should consider before flying, and making it easy for them
to change or cancel their travel plans if needed without penalty. In
addition, for employees, it includes providing paid sick leave, so that
individuals can take time off without suffering financially.
To maintain public trust, any other surveillance or screening
measure must do two things. No. 1, it should not collect additional
personal data, unless such collection is fully transparent and
necessary to protect public health. No. 2, any data collected must be
stored and used solely by public health agencies for public health
purposes. Such information should not be stored in DHS databases where
it can be accessed for other purposes, including immigration, law
enforcement, risk/screening assessments, or public benefit
determinations. The last thing we want is people being fearful of
disclosing medical or other critical facts out of fear that such
information could be used against them in another context.
Proposals that do not limit information use and collection in such
ways are a clear signal that a measure is being opportunistically
deployed and is not strictly necessary for public health. For example,
earlier this month, TSA announced an expansion of its Credential
Authentication Technology device equipped with a camera (CAT-C)
program, permitting it to network with the Secure Flight System, a
passenger prescreening program. Although the TSA has been working on
this program since at least 2007, the Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
cited COVID-19 as a partial justification for the expansion, indicating
it would reduce disease transmission by eliminating handling of
documents.
Justifying the expansion of the CAT-C program with COVID-19 is both
opportunistic and dangerous. As an initial matter, there are many less
costly and less invasive ways to reduce transmission of the disease on
travel documents. This includes installation of clear glass or simply
telling travelers to hold a document up for verification, instead of
handing it to an agent. In addition, the PIA glossed over a multitude
of other concerns with the CAT-C program, including demographic
differences in accuracy cited by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology.\9\ According to NIST, leading facial recognition
algorithms were more likely to have false positives or negatives for
certain demographics, including Asians, African Americans, and
women.\10\ In addition to this, the expansion raises further concerns
that TSA has expanded use of facial recognition without clear
Congressional authorization or regulations, and has opened the door to
networking with additional DHS databases used for law and immigration
enforcement. The expansion of CAT-C is unnecessary to combat COVID-19,
and opportunistically relying on the disease as justification will
decrease public trust in any other legitimate measures put forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Dep't of
Commerce, FACE RECOGNITION VENDOR TEST (FRVT) PART 3: DEMOGRAPHIC
EFFECTS, (Dec. 2019), https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2019/
NIST.IR.8280.pdf.
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Clear end-date
Any new technology, surveillance, or screening measure implemented
specifically to respond to the pandemic should come with a clear end-
date. We do not want COVID-19 to repeat post 9/11 mistakes--where we
rushed to adopt many new and concerning security measures that cost
billions, were ineffective, violated individual's rights, and have been
difficult to undo. For example, it took 5 years for the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) to partially abandon its Computer
Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II (CAPP II), which would have
allowed the Government to tap into commercial databases to perform
background checks on all Americans who fly. The program was
impractical, unwise, and ineffective.\11\ Nevertheless, facets of
problematic components of CAPPS II continue today in other TSA
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Jay Stanley, Airline Passenger Profiling: Back From the
Grave?, ACLU (Feb. 8, 2011) https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-
security/airline-passenger-profiling-back-grave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To avoid similar problems, any new DHS program or regulation
adopted in response to the pandemic should include a clear sunset date,
including deletion of any data collected, that corresponds to the end
of the COVID-19 pandemic. The end data of the pandemic should be
dictated by public health agencies and experts, and based on periodic
evaluations and clear criteria. If such programs require expenditures
or activities that have not been previously authorized, they should
only be deployed with explicit Congressional approval that includes
such a sunset. To the extent a measure proves to have other non-COVID
related benefits, such as making travel quicker or more convenient, it
should be evaluated separately for effectiveness, explicitly approved
by Congress, and evaluated to ensure it does not improperly impinge on
travelers' rights.
(5) Transparency and Accountability
In order for individuals to resume air travel, they must have full
confidence and trust in any measures adopted to make travel safer. This
will require the following additional transparency and accountability
measures, designed to ensure efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and
protection of travelers' rights.
No. 1, the Government and private sector should adopt a proactive
transparency policy, fully disclosing information about what measures
are being adopted, why, and how. This should include proactive public
release of any evidence or studies related to efficacy, including
analysis of independent public health professionals. No. 2, any measure
adopted should be evaluated by an independent overseer, such as the
Government Accountability Office (GAO). No measure should be continued
unless the GAO or other independent overseer finds that it is effective
and being implemented in a manner that safeguards individuals' rights.
No. 3, the Government and private sector should adopt protocols to
ensure that there is the opportunity for meaningful public engagement
and consultation regarding any measure that is being considered, so
potential pitfalls or concerns can be remedied. No. 4, any process
should include a robust redress process, so that individuals can rebut
or appeal determinations, or raise concerns regarding unfair or
discriminatory treatment. Finally, any measure adopted must fully
comply with existing laws, including those requiring appropriate
privacy assessments and rule making. Agencies should not circumvent
these processes, which are designed to reduce the risk of programs that
are wasteful, ineffective, or antithetical to our values.
conclusion
To resume air travel, consumers must have trust and confidence in
the health measures adopted to ensure their safety. In addition, they
must be encouraged and incentivized to self-monitor and take voluntary
precautions to prevent disease transmission. Now is not the time for
opportunistic efforts to advance unnecessary technology that engenders
distrust and sparks resistance to overall compliance. Rather, it is the
time for transparent and effective policies that address the pressing
public health needs. Thus, to ensure that any aviation measures adopted
are wise and appropriate, they must come with a clear sunset date; meet
benchmarks for effectiveness established by public health
professionals; limit data collection and use to public health; prevent
against discriminatory and improper encroachments on the rights to
travel; and require transparency and accountability.
Appendix.--Temperature Screening and Civil Liberties During an Epidemic
by jay stanley
May 19, 2020
As Americans look beyond the current coronavirus lockdowns, there
has been a lot of discussion about the role of technology in a new,
more open phase of the pandemic response. Many experts envision a world
where wide-spread testing is combined with careful disease surveillance
and contact tracing in an effort to suppress transmission enough to
allow some cautious semblance of normality until researchers are able
to develop a vaccine. A range of proposals have been offered, including
using cell phone data for contact tracing, which we have analyzed at
length.
Another technology that is often mentioned is remote or
``standoff'' fever detection. Some companies have already begun
screening their workers for fevers, and restaurants their customers.
Manufacturers report being swamped by sales and inquiries. In China,
temperature screening checkpoints have been set up everywhere from
markets to subway and building entrances to highway roadblocks.
What are we to think about the use of this technology to fight
coronavirus transmission from a privacy and civil liberties standpoint?
effectiveness
The first question is always effectiveness. If a technology can't
deliver what it promises, it should not be deployed. If it works
poorly, that fact should be taken into account when it is weighed
against privacy or other values. Temperature screening should only be
done if, where, and in ways that public health experts believe will
actually meaningfully contribute to combatting the pandemic. Currently,
experts say that there are sharp limits to its potential usefulness in
detecting COVID-19.
First, elevated body temperature can be caused by many factors
other than COVID-19, including exercise, emotional state, and other
illnesses. As one medical article put it, ``One has to keep in mind
that screening for fever and screening for a virus are two different
issues.'' In these instances, fever detection will be over-inclusive.
Second, body temperature measurement will do nothing to detect
infected people who don't have a fever. COVID-19, unlike some other
diseases such as Ebola, is contagious well before symptoms appear, and
many infected people--perhaps even most--never do get any symptoms,
much less fever. In addition, there is a lot of variation in people's
body temperatures; what is a fever for one person could be a normal
temperature for another. Finally, even those who do have fevers caused
by COVID-19 can suppress them by taking antipyretic medicine like
aspirin or ibuprofen. In these instances, fever detection will be
under-inclusive.
Third, stand-off fever detectors are of highly questionable
accuracy. In addition to internal (usually oral or anal) thermometers,
which are regarded as the gold standard of accurate temperature
measurement, there are 3 primary kinds of thermometers:
1. ``Tympanic'' thermometers, which are inserted into the ear to
measure heat in the tympanic membrane;
2. ``Thermometer guns,'' or ``non-contact infrared thermometer''
(NCITs), which are held 3-15 cm away from the subject's skin,
typically at the forehead; and
3. Standoff thermal cameras that try to detect body temperature
from further away.
All of these devices have to be used correctly, which is not
necessarily easy for those who aren't medical professionals. Assuming
proper use, ear thermometers have proven to be reasonably accurate, but
a number of studies have found that the other 2, which measure surface
skin rather than core body temperature, are of questionable accuracy.
Skin temperature can be affected by such things as sunburn, alcohol
consumption, moisture on the skin such as sweat, or hot or cold air
temperatures.
As one industry analyst put it, ``Some people who have elevated
skin temperature (EST) may have elevated body temperature (EBT). Some
of those people with EBT may have a fever. Some of those people with a
fever may have coronavirus.'' But that is a narrow path to accuracy.
Nevertheless, products marketed as ``fever detectors'' (and
sometimes even ``coronavirus detectors'') are flooding the market. In
China, thermometer guns have been found ``unreliable outside carefully
controlled health care settings.'' Indeed, the FDA has published a long
list of finicky requirements for their proper use. There are even more
questions about thermal cameras. The flood of new products has been
encouraged by the FDA, which announced that during the pandemic it
would allow thermal cameras to be used as unapproved fever detection
devices even though the agency considers them to be medical devices.
The FDA did set some important qualifications, however. It said that
such devices should:
Only be used to measure one subject at a time;
Only be used in conjunction with a more accurate back-up
means of measuring temperature; and
Include a ``prominent notice'' reminding operators how
``different environmental and system setup factors'' can
influence a device's accuracy. Those factors include where on
the human body a temperature is measured as well as the
``screening background, ambient temperature and humidity, [and]
airflow'' at the camera location.
The FDA's caution is backed up by testing carried out by the
independent camera testing and review site IPVM, which found
significant accuracy issues with cameras on the market. The difference
in temperature between a healthy and febrile person--especially those
with low-grade fevers who are more likely to be out and about--is quite
minor. The typical precision claimed by the scores of companies now
offering such products is 0.3-0.5 degrees C (0.54-0.9 degrees F)--but
the reviewers were ``skeptical of actual field accuracy as these are
likely overinflated,'' and found cameras on the market that were far
less accurate. Camera positioning was also a problem since recording
subjects from the side, or subjects who are moving, ``significantly
reduces'' accuracy.
Like temperature guns, thermal cameras are also apparently very
finicky with regards to calibration. Even in controlled environments,
they are highly sensitive to room and climate conditions and often need
hourly calibration reviews. Many of the most accurate thermal cameras
utilize ``blackbody devices''--essentially small heaters that maintain
an exact temperature--which have to be mounted within a camera's view
and at the same distance as the subject for proper calibration.
Readings can be disrupted by hats, sunglasses, masks, and hair over the
face. And, as IPVM notes in a dismissive review of one company's fever
detecting sunglasses, ``virtually none of the large providers of
thermal fever cameras are recommending such outdoor, on the move
applications'' because there is an ``engineering consensus'' that such
uses are ``not reliable.''
As IPVM, which has caught several companies making false marketing
claims, sums up the situation:
``A core issue is there are no independent tests of thermal camera
performance/accuracy and no independent standards to measure against.
This has allowed manufacturers to tout products meant for body/fire
detection as a fever solution, or falsely claim pinpoint accuracy at
long distances.''
By this point, given this litany of challenges, it should be
apparent just how far-fetched is the concept of a ``Coronavirus-
detecting drone'' like the Draganfly aircraft briefly considered by a
Connecticut town. Given the FDA's stipulation that unapproved fever-
detecting cameras only measure one person at a time, such a device may
not even be legal. But the Draganfly and fever-detecting sunglasses are
not the only unlikely products; companies are marketing less flashy
devices that still purport to be able to scan dozens of people at once,
in movement, and at long and varying distances.
The thermal cameras that are most accurate (which can cost 2 to 4
times as much as a typical $15,000 system) are designed to scan only a
single person at a time (per the FDA's guidance), and to do so
frontally, at close range, and on still subjects. Overall, however,
there is a veritable gold rush of companies scrambling to put ``fever
detectors'' on the market and cash in on the crisis. The result is
accuracy levels that appear to be all over the map and a certain degree
of snake oil.
The bottom line is that nobody should imagine that blanketing our
public spaces with thermal sensors is going to serve as any kind of
effective automated ``COVID detection network,'' or that this
technology is likely to contribute significantly to stemming the spread
of the virus.
Some will argue that despite all these shortcomings, the
possibility of detecting some cases is better than nothing, and that
temperature screening could therefore have some role in suppressing the
disease before a vaccine is developed. There may be some truth in that
view, though such a possibility needs to be balanced against 3
significant risks:
1. If there are too many false positives, that could waste
resources, annoy people (leading to circumvention), and create
a ``Boy Who Cried Wolf'' effect, causing operators to ignore
even true positives. All of that would reduce the effectiveness
of temperature screening even further and potentially even be
counterproductive.
2. Temperature screening that misses many actually infected people
can create a false sense of security, lulling people into
complacent sloppiness about more effective measures such as
social distancing.
3. The overinclusive nature of temperature checks will lead to real
consequences for people--for example someone who may not be
able to shop for groceries or use the Metro to get to work
despite the fact that they pose no public health risk. These
consequences could be especially serious where temperature
screening is used at essential facilities such as courthouses--
and may be outsized for poor, minority, or other underserved
communities who have fewer alternative options and less ability
to seek redress.
It is for reasons such as these that many public health experts are
dubious about the benefits of temperature screening. Prominent
epidemiologist Michael Osterholm says, ``I don't think airport
temperature checks have any major effect on stopping or even slowing
down transmission.'' The University of California San Francisco
hospitals don't do temperature screening because the experts there
found that the time and expense was unjustified and creates a false
sense of security. ``It's something we should not be doing,'' they
declared. An expert analysis of existing studies likewise found that
temperature screening programs ``are ineffective for detecting infected
persons.''
privacy issues
Temperature checks also raise privacy issues. In most
circumstances, a remote temperature check is not an enormous invasion
of privacy, especially if individual records are not retained--as they
should not be outside of health care contexts. But neither is it
something that we would ordinarily want companies or Government
agencies to routinely collect. And lurking in the wings behind remote
temperature readings are technologies like remote detection of heart
rate, breathing rate, and heart rate variability, which studies have
found can all be measured using digital cameras (on still subjects, at
least for now). There have even been preliminary results on the
measurement of blood oxygenation. That kind of data is a significant
privacy risk that can reveal a person's medical conditions, from
detection of arrhythmias and cardiovascular disease, to asthma and
respiratory failures, physiological abnormalities, psychiatric
conditions, and even the stage of a woman's ovulation cycle.
Already, Draganfly claims that its COVID-detecting drone can
remotely detect heart and respiratory rates in addition to temperature.
The TSA has proposed collecting passengers' physiological data in the
context of a program (now apparently stalled) called FAST (aka
``Project Hostile Intent''), which aimed to detect terrorists by
measuring every passenger's heart rate and body temperature as well as
things such as eye movement and facial patterns.
In addition, with so little still known about the disease, it's
possible scientists could conclude that other metabolic signs are equal
to or better than temperature in flagging possible COVID-19 cases. For
example, anecdotal reports suggest that ``silent hypoxia'' often
accompanies COVID cases; that might lead to the screening of people's
blood oxygen levels using oximeters. It has even been suggested that
people be tested for their sense of smell.
This crisis threatens to normalize such physiological surveillance,
with the result that even after a vaccine is distributed and COVID-19
retreats as a public health threat, new infrastructures for the routine
and suspicionless collection of such data will remain. We don't want to
wake up to a post-COVID world where companies and Government agencies
think they can gather temperature or other health data about people
whenever they want. Before the outbreak, the Department of Homeland
Security had already been pushing the use of thermal cameras as body
scanners in transit stations as a way to try to detect threats such as
suicide bombers--a Constitutionally-problematic and certainly
ineffective program that would alert over all kinds of private items
that people carry in their clothes. But it's not hard to imagine a
network of thermal cameras created to fight the coronavirus repurposed
for these suspicionless thermal body searches.
Some companies are betting on the technology outlasting the crisis;
as one manufacturer wrote, ``We believe the demand for viable solutions
like these will last far longer than most people think. Just like 9/11
and how it impacted and changed air-travel forever, this too will
change the way we live and work for a long time to come.''
That is precisely what we do not want to see.
temperature checks as part of a disease surveillance effort
It is true that we may be facing a years-long battle to suppress
the coronavirus before the advent of a vaccine, and efforts to quickly
detect and quarantine COVID-19 cases could be crucial during that time.
Such disease surveillance will be needed not only to save lives, but
also to provide Americans with the widest possible freedom while they
wait for a vaccine. The ideal way to track the disease would be through
a fast, inexpensive, easy-to-administer, and widely available test for
COVID-19.
Despite all of the technology's shortcomings, it's possible that
some public health officials could judge that temperature screening is
also worth doing in at least some contexts. Any such judgments should
factor in the potential for significant or disparate disruptions in
people's lives, for example by creating hour-long waits for transit
stops in low-income neighborhoods. In addition, a lot of employers,
stores, and other establishments will want to institute temperature
screenings based either on similar judgments, out of a mistaken
understanding of their effectiveness, or as a kind of ``public health
theater'' meant to reassure customers who themselves hold such a
misunderstanding.
Given the balance of factors involved, we do not think that ``mass
screening'' thermal cameras should be used in any temperature
screening. Even accurate temperature checks are of dubious usefulness
in stopping the spread of the coronavirus. Among all means of trying to
detect fever, remote detectors also appear to be the least accurate
while at the same time the most likely to outlive the epidemic and end
up being used for other purposes, like security screening, when COVID-
19 is no longer a threat.
If public health experts decide that properly-conducted temperature
checks in certain appropriate times and locations would make sense as
part of a disease surveillance effort, then that goal would be better
served by deploying more accurate, direct detection devices such as
clinical-grade tympanic thermometers. Any contact devices must of
course be used in hygienic ways lest they spread the disease they are
meant to stop. Thermometer guns and the best close-range, single-
subject thermal cameras might also be used if their accuracy rates are
found to be reasonable enough that their advantages over tympanic
thermometers (speed and lack of direct contact) justify their use.
Like standoff detectors, such devices raise privacy issues because
they gather people's physiological data, and they can be mildly more
intrusive. Unlike a standoff sensor, more accurate devices have a low
throughput rate and will require people to line up and actively
participate in allowing their body to be physically measured. At the
same time, they do not involve remote checks that can be done without a
subject's knowledge, permission, or participation. For that reason, and
precisely because they are slightly more intrusive and inconvenient,
the use of more accurate devices is far less likely to outlast the
pandemic.
Because they are less accurate, standoff fever detectors are also
more likely to lead to discriminatory treatment for people of color and
members of marginalized communities. What we have found with other
imprecise technologies is that they tend to devolve into racial
profiling in the hands of at least some of their operators. Examples
include the TSA's SPOT program, and polygraphs, aka ``lie detectors.''
This is because when risk-detection systems produce highly ambiguous or
unreliable indicators, their operators begin filling that vacuum of
reliability with their own judgments. Unreliable devices can also
enable harassment or selective enforcement against people because of
their appearance or political views.
One point that public health experts have long stressed is that
voluntary measures to combat disease tend to be more effective than
mandatory ones. This is because they leverage people's own incentives
to report disease and receive help rather than creating an antagonistic
relationship with the authorities that can spark resistance and
evasion. For that reason, people should always have the right to leave
rather than submit to a public temperature checkpoint. And employers
and other establishments that want to perform temperature checks should
consider offering self-serve temperature-checking facilities that allow
employees to monitor themselves. People want to know if they may be
sick; people don't want to spread a disease to their families or anyone
else. And as we have seen, people who are antagonized by mandatory
checks have many ways of intentionally defeating temperature
screenings.
Finally, many people have fevers not related to infectious
conditions. Some have low-grade fevers that may last weeks or longer,
which can be caused by conditions such as cancer, urinary-tract
infections, or even just stress. Where temperature screening is
deployed, provisions will need to be made for them, especially if it is
used at essential facilities. One thing that means is having a
conversation with those who show up as positive, rather than summarily
blocking them from entry. And anyone denied access to a critical
service or function (such as applying for benefits, or appearing in
court) because of a temperature screening should be given an alternate
means of access to that service or function.
summary of recommendations
Temperature screening should not be deployed unless public
health experts say that it is a worthwhile measure
notwithstanding the technology's problems. To the extent
feasible, experts should gather data about the effectiveness of
such checks, to determine if the tradeoffs are worth it.
People should know when their temperature is going to be
taken. Standoff thermal cameras should not be used.
People should always have the right to leave rather than
submit to a public temperature checkpoint.
Personally identifiable data about individual readings
should not be stored.
No action concerning an individual should be taken based on
a high reading from a remote temperature screening device
unless it is confirmed by a reading from a properly-operated
clinical-grade device, and provisions should be made for those
with fevers not related to infectious illness.
Anyone denied access to an essential service because of a
temperature screening should be given an alternate means of
access to that service.
Hygienic self-serve or voluntary temperature-checking
facilities are preferable to mandatory checks.
conclusion
There's a lot of reason to doubt that temperature checks will help
stop the spread of COVID-19, and they should not be deployed unless
public health experts say conclusively that they will help. What we
don't want is a world where inaccurate tests disrupt people's lives--
especially those most vulnerable to such disruptions--waste time and
other resources that could be better used in fighting the pandemic, and
invade our privacy.
Cameron Chell, the CEO of drone company Draganfly, told a reporter,
``Drones buzzing a few hundred feet away may seem intrusive, but it's
certainly not as intrusive as having a line-up and someone sticking a
sensor on your forehead.'' But how intrusive it seems is not as
important as what data is collected about you, what is done with it,
whether that data is accurate, and whether that data collection becomes
permanent or even expands.
Many new products and approaches for combatting the coronavirus
pandemic are being proposed. We need to skeptically scrutinize all such
products and proposals, especially where they have implications for our
privacy or other civil liberties. Temperature checks do have such
implications, so they should be adopted only where their accuracy, and
thus their benefits against COVID-19, are reasonably high, and where
they are not likely to outlast the disease.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Ms. Guliani, for your testimony.
Now I recognize Ms. Barnes to summarize her statements in 5
minutes.
Ms. Barnes, welcome.
STATEMENT OF VICTORIA EMERSON BARNES, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND POLICY, U.S. TRAVEL ASSOCIATION
Ms. Barnes. Thanks, Chairman Correa, Ranking Member Lesko,
Members of the subcommittee, good afternoon.
I am Tori Emerson Barnes, executive vice president of
public affairs and policy for the U.S. Travel Association.
Thank you for inviting the broader travel industry to
participate in this important hearing.
Before the devastating COVID-19 pandemic, travel supported
15.8 million American jobs but now the Nation's seventh-largest
work force has been cut in half, with more than 8 million jobs
lost, totaling a third of all jobs lost since March. This
represents a total economic impact 9 times greater than the 9/
11 attacks. Simply put, the only way to restore the economy
will be to restore travel. To restore travel, we must make sure
that Americans are willing and able to fly again.
According to a survey by destination analysts, more than
half of Americans said that they will feel safe taking a road
trip compared to just 21 percent who said they would feel safe
traveling by air, and 53 percent of Americans said they won't
fly by air until at least March 2021, if not later.
That is why I am here today, to discuss the hurdles that we
must overcome to restore air travel and what Congress, TSA,
CBP, and the entire industry can do to help. While there are
several opportunities and solutions, today I would like to
focus on 3 areas: No. 1, implementing health and safety
guidance to protect aviation workers and customers; No. 2,
clearly communicating the travel with travelers about what is
being done to help keep them safe; and, No. 3, steps that
Congress can take to accelerate recovery and invest in the
long-term competitiveness of our Nation's aviation industry.
After 9/11, industry leaders said, without security, there
will be no travel. The global pandemic requires a similar
approach. Without guidance to promote the health and safety of
travelers and workers, there can be no travel, no reopening of
businesses, and no revival of our economy.
To that end, U.S. travel convened a task force of health
experts and travel industry leaders to create a core set of
health and safety guidance that the industry can adapt to
reopen responsibly, which includes, among other guidance,
increased sanitation, transmission barriers, and touchless
solutions.
TSA and CBP must also take steps to protect the health and
safety of travelers and workers. TSA can focus resources on
requiring masks at security checkpoints, modifying security
lines to allow for physical distancing, and enhancing
sanitation.
As with every other segment of air travel, TSA and CBP must
take a flexible, layered, and risk-based approach to health and
safety. When physical distancing is not fully possible, other
measures such as transmission barriers must be put into place.
Similar to security challenges, we will never be able to
eliminate 100 percent of risk, but a layered, risk-based
response from TSA and CBP can be enormously beneficial.
As we saw in the early days of TSA, once a security
screening standard is introduced, it is hard to roll it back.
Any measures put in place related to COVID-19 must be temporary
and then ease as the threat of the virus is eliminated or
reduced. It is critical that CBP and TSA work with the broader
travel industry to facilitate consumer confidence by very
clearly communicating health and safety procedures that
passengers can expect at airports.
There are several steps that Congress can take to mitigate
all of this damage, shorten the industry's recovery time, and
increase long-term competitiveness for the United States, which
includes enhancing a temporary travel tax credit, restoring the
business and entertainment tax deduction, and funding a local
travel promotion campaign for the United States domestically.
Another important long-term solution is the wide-spread
implementation of opt-in biometric identifications and CLEAR, a
contactless identification system.
The travel industry and the larger American economy will
not recover on its own. We need resources, stimulus, planning,
and clear communication to travelers and employees to ensure
air travel can safely resume and help power our Nation's
economic revival. Travel is not going to look the same as did
it before the pandemic. Every segment of the travel aviation
community has made significant changes to protect the health
and safety of all travelers and workers.
Thank you, again, to the subcommittee for having me here
today. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Barnes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Victoria Emerson Barnes
June 18, 2020
Chairman Correa, Ranking Member Lesko, Members of the subcommittee,
good afternoon.
I'm Tori Emerson Barnes, executive vice president of public affairs
and policy for the U.S. Travel Association. Thank you for inviting the
broader travel industry to participate in this important hearing.
U.S. Travel is the only association that represents all sectors of
the travel industry--airports, hotels, State and local tourism offices,
car rental companies, theme parks and attractions and many others. I am
here today to discuss the hurdles we must overcome to restore air
travel and what Congress, TSA, CBP, and the entire travel industry can
do to help.
Before the devastating COVID-19 pandemic, $1.1 trillion in traveler
spending in the United States generated a $2.6 trillion total economic
impact and supported 15.8 million jobs. But now the Nation's seventh-
largest workforce has been cut in half, with more than 8 million jobs
lost--totaling a third of all jobs lost since March.\1\ Further, we are
on track to lose half a trillion dollars in spending by the end of the
year, representing a total economic impact 9 times greater than the 9/
11 attacks.\2\ Following the attacks, it took the travel industry 18
months to recover, indicating the travel industry's recovery time from
this crisis could take several years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/media_root/
document/TravelDepression_- FactSheet.pdf.
\2\ https://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/media_root/
document/TravelDepression_- FactSheet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simply put, the only way to restore the economy will be to restore
travel. To restore travel, we must make sure Americans are willing and
able to fly again. Unfortunately, recent data shows that air travel may
be the slowest sector of the industry to rebound.
According to a June 1 survey by Destination Analysts, more than
half of Americans (55 percent) said they would feel safe taking a road
trip, compared to just 21 percent who said they would feel safe
traveling by air.\3\ The same survey found that more than half of
Americans said they hope to take a road trip before October of this
year. Conversely, 53 percent of Americans said they won't fly again
until at least March 2021, if not later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.destinationanalysts.com/blog-update-on-american-
travel-in-the-period-of-coronavirus-week-of-june-1st/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We clearly have a long way to go in restoring travelers' confidence
in air travel. While there are several opportunities and solutions,
today I would like to focus on 3 areas:
1. Implementing health and safety protocols to protect aviation
workers and customers;
2. Clearly communicating with travelers about what's being done to
keep them safe; and
3. Steps that Congress can take to accelerate recovery and invest
in the long-term competitiveness of our Nation's aviation
industry.
First, changes must be made throughout the entire air travel system
to promote the health of travelers and workers alike. After 9/11,
industry leaders said, ``Without security, there will be no travel.''
The global pandemic requires a similar approach and demands a
comprehensive response. Without guidance to promote the health and
safety of travelers, there can be no travel, no reopening of businesses
and no revival of our economy.
To that end, U.S. Travel convened a task force of health experts
and travel industry leaders--including airports, airlines, and 30 other
industry organizations--to create a core set of health and safety
guidance that the industry can adapt to reopen responsibly.\4\ This
guidance has been included with our testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/media_root/
document/HealthandSafetyGui- dance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This comprehensive guidance aligns with CDC guidelines for
reopening America and includes:
Limiting crowding in public spaces;
Providing touchless solutions for identification and
payments;
Enhancing sanitation;
Encouraging health screening of employees and customers;
Modifying food and beverage preparation; and
Developing procedures for if an employee tests positive for
COVID-19.
This guidance is being implemented across the industry. Most major
domestic airlines have adapted to this ``new normal'' by requiring
passengers to wear masks.\5\ Airports have modified spaces to allow for
physical distancing and have stringent disinfecting procedures in
place. CLEAR, a contactless identification system, has proven
invaluable in providing a hygienic, secure alternative to traditional
identity verification measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.airlines.org/news/major-u-s-airlines-announce-
increased-enforcement-of-face-coverings/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSA and CBP must also take steps to protect the health and safety
of travelers and officers. Similar to actions taken in other segments
of the travel industry, TSA can focus resources on requiring masks at
security checkpoints, modifying security lines to allow for physical
distancing and enhancing sanitation at checkpoints.
As with every other segment of air travel, TSA and CBP must take a
flexible, layered, and risk-based approach to its health and safety
protocols across airports. For example, physical distancing is an
asset, but it will be a dynamic challenge at some airports with
limitations on physical space. Where physical distancing is not fully
possible, other measures such as transmission barriers must be put in
place. Similar to security challenges, we will never be able to
eliminate 100 percent of the risk, but a coherent, layered, risk-based
response from TSA and CBP can be enormously beneficial. Passengers need
to see a thoughtful and rational approach from Government officials. As
we saw in the early days of TSA, once a security screening standard is
introduced, it is hard to roll back. Any measures put in place related
to COVID-19 must be temporary and then eased as the threat of the virus
is eliminated or reduced.
For these reasons, the broader travel industry has not taken a
position on whether TSA should conduct temperature checks at airport
checkpoints. During the development of U.S. Travel's health and safety
guidance, public health experts did not broadly recommend temperature
checks, due in large part to differing views as to whether temperature
checks are a reliable tactic to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Concerns included the likelihood of false negatives and false
positives.
There are also significant questions as to how TSA would
operationalize temperature checks, handle passengers who record a high
temperature and the family members or companions traveling with them,
and more. Without answers to these questions and without a clear
recommendation from public health officials that temperature checks are
absolutely necessary, we have not yet endorsed a requirement for TSA to
conduct temperature checks.
All of our recommended measures will require TSA and CBP to have
adequate funding and staffing. While the CARES Act provided $100
million to airports for janitorial services, TSA has told airports that
these funds may only be used to sanitize checked bag drop, TSA
checkpoints, or TSA offices. Limiting the scope of janitorial services
to these locations minimizes the effectiveness of cleaning and provides
little relief to airports; we believe these restrictions are
inconsistent with the intended purpose of this funding. TSA should
expand the use of CARES Act sanitation services to include all highly-
trafficked or high-touch areas at airports, including restrooms, food
service, seating, and touched surfaces.
Additionally, now is the time for Congress to end the diversion of
TSA fees and finally allow those funds to be reinvested back into
adequate staffing and equipment needed to create a more safe, healthy
and secure air travel process.
Second, the travel industry is working together to communicate
directly with travelers about what's being done to protect their health
and safety. It is critical that TSA and CBP work with the broader
travel industry to facilitate consumer confidence by clearly
communicating health and safety procedures that passengers can expect
at airports; the agencies must have adequate funding to carry out this
objective.
Third, there are several steps Congress can take to mitigate
damage, shorten the industry's recovery time and increase long-term
competitiveness. An important solution is the wide-spread
implementation of opt-in biometric identification. This technology has
already proven successful at facilitating secure, efficient travel, and
further promotes the health of travelers by providing a contactless
screening process. Registered traveler program participants are already
familiar with biometric identification, but TSA and CBP must invest in
CAT-C and CT screening technology to bring touchless security screening
to the checkpoint. Importantly, investments in CAT-C technology should
happen in tandem with allowing for interaction between the Secure
Flight Database and the registered traveler program. Ensuring that all
identity verification methods at the TSA checkpoint can utilize the
Secure Flight database makes sense for security and the facilitation of
passengers.
Congress must also take steps to push back the REAL ID enforcement
deadline until the travel industry is fully ready for enforcement and
implementation will not interrupt recovery. As stated previously, it
took the travel industry 18 months to recover after the 9/11 attacks;
the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic is 9 times worse and is
likely to stretch across multiple years. Ranking Member Lesko's Trusted
Traveler REAL ID Relief Act would be critical in requiring the TSA to
develop a contingency plan to allow those with non-compliant IDs to
still clear the security checkpoint after the enforcement date.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/
5827?s=1&r=8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, it is crucial that we put the right recovery strategies in
place now to mitigate the pandemic's economic damage and get our
country back on track. According to a report conducted by Tourism
Economics, travel loss mitigation efforts could see the industry gain
1.3 million jobs and $147 billion in overall GDP by the end of the
year.\7\ These strategies include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/media_root/
document/Coronavirus2020_- Impacts_April15.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enacting a temporary travel tax credit that provides a
refundable tax credit for transportation (including airfares)
lodging, food, and entertainment, as a way to help American
families reconnect with each other, stimulate travel demand,
and accelerate rehiring.
Restoring the business food and entertainment tax deductions
to encourage companies to reinvest in their communities by
doing business at local restaurants and centers for
entertainment and the arts; and
Funding a local travel promotion campaign to help promote
businesses that have safely reopened and provide information to
travelers about how they can travel safely to a destination and
what's being done to protect their health during their stay.
Every month that the downturn is mitigated would bring back almost
$17 billion to the travel industry and $21 billion to overall U.S. GDP.
The travel industry--and the larger American economy--will not
recover on its own. We need resources, stimulus, planning, and clear
communication to travelers and employees to ensure air travel can
safely resume and help power our Nation's economic revival. Travel is
not going to look the same as before this pandemic. Every segment of
the travel and aviation community has made significant changes to
protect the health and safety of all travelers and workers.
Thank you again to the subcommittee for having us here today.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Ms. Barnes, for the testimony.
I will remind each Member that he or she will have 5
minutes to question the panel, and I will recognize myself for
5 minutes of questions, and I would like to start up with where
Ms. Barnes ended, so to speak, her theme.
You know, it is often said that the U.S. airline industry
is the hub of international air logistics. We provide the world
with not only passengers but with all kinds of products. We are
the center, so to speak, of the world in terms of
transportation, delivery of goods and services.
Just to let you know how personal the industry is, the
biggest employer in my district is Disneyland. They remain
closed. They will open up probably sometime in July, but I
would imagine that getting tourists to start coming back to
southern California is going to be a long track. The issue,
like Ms. Guliani said, was trust and confidence. How do we get
voluntary compliance? How do we get folks to start traveling
again? I have got probably 98 percent of my hotel employees out
of a job right now. They are not going to last too long.
So my question to each and every one of you is, you know,
we have got Mr. Burke with the Airport Council.
Ms. Nelson, flight attendants, essentially, Ms. Nelson, you
are representing the employees.
Ms. Guliani, you are talking about the civil rights of how
far we can go in terms of addressing some of these issues.
Ms. Barnes, you are with the travel association.
So if any of you can take about a minute to tell me, in
coordination, what are the top 2 or 3 things we need to do to
get folks to start traveling between in a safe manner?
Mr. Burke.
Mr. Burke. Mr. Chairman, we have to make the American
public feel safe in traveling again. This disease, this COVID-
19, has terrified Americans, and rightfully so.
Mr. Correa. Let me interrupt you and say, how do you do it
with everybody having that confidence and that trust? That is
what the Chairman and I talked about an interagency task force.
What are the top 2 or 3 things we have got to do to make people
think, to believe, to be factually correct that they can travel
again safely?
Mr. Burke. Well, we have to convince them, Mr. Chairman,
that going into a big, public place like an airport, that they
will be safe if they wear masks, if the employees there are
wearing masks, if the TSA folks are wearing masks, if they are
required to wear masks on airplanes, if they socially distance
or if they wear masks, maybe cut the social distance. But we
have to, as public institutions, make people feel as though the
travel experience is not as terrifying as they think it is
going.
As they begin to travel again, the proof is in the pudding,
and the reality is the more we protect the traveling public and
the better the results, more and more people will want to
travel, but that requires cooperation between the private
sector, the airports, the airlines, and the regulatory
agencies. We have done a tremendous job working with TSA in
particular----
Mr. Correa. Excuse me.
Ms. Nelson, your comments on that? Ms. Nelson.
Ms. Nelson. Thank you so much.
So definitely we need to make sure the mask policies are
applied across the airport and airplanes and that it is backed
up by Federal regulations. We need to make sure that we are
doing self-assessments, wellness checks. That can be done with
a corps of individuals who are sent to our airports who are
trained to do that.
We have a model just like this in security. This is used as
a deterrent. It is used as a means to get travelers to think
about their security and to make sure that we are rooting out
as many risks as possible through this self-assessment. So we
ask travelers all the time: Did you pack the bag yourself? Show
us your documents. This gets people to not be violating the
security procedures. We can do the same thing with health. We
have to have social distancing policies in the airport. This is
impossible on the plane, although----
Mr. Correa. Thank you.
Ms. Guliani, the same question. Ms. Guliani.
Ms. Guliani. Yes, I couldn't agree more. We need trust and
confidence. I think 2 things that would help with that effort:
No. 1, clear public benchmarks for how you are actually going
to measure the effectiveness. If the public knows that it is
based on science and that we have met those benchmarks, they
are going have more trust and confidence in the measures
adopted.
The second thing is making sure that we are limiting any
information selected to what is necessary and that it is only
going to be used for health purposes. We want people to feel
comfortable, whether it is a system check or something else,
disclosing medical facts, disclosing information about their
life. If they are worried that that is going to end up in a law
enforcement database or someplace else, I worry that they won't
undertake the voluntary compliance measures that are necessary
to keep them safe.
Mr. Correa. Thank you.
Ms. Barnes, last comments.
Ms. Barnes. Sure. Completely agree that a clear
communication of health and safety guidance and what the
traveler can expect is absolutely necessary. We have a lot of
data that demonstrates that, with the right assurances and the
right communications as many as 60 percent of folks will get
out there and travel again.
We also think that the opt-in, touchless solutions that you
can achieve through biometric technology is something that
should really be on the table here and something that could
help improve the experience. Then we also think that, you know,
again, TSA and CBP collaborating and collectively sending the
same message. We agree masks are important. In the absence of
the ability to have physical distance, then you need to be able
to wear a mask.
But just as TSA and CBP have [inaudible] the ability for
folks to travel with hand sanitizer and the cleanly and social
distances required as airports, we think that should apply
across the board. Clear, articulation of the policies is
absolutely critical.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Ms. Barnes. I would now like to
recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, the
gentleperson from Arizona, Mrs. Lesko, for 5 minutes of
questions. Welcome.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I have to say that I give Congressman Dan
Bishop extra bonus points because it looks like he was on a
plane, then walked through the airport, and is now on another
plane. Are you on another--no, he is in a car now. Very
appropriate. It is very appropriate [inaudible] airport.
Anyway, I have--I wish that the airlines were on this
committee because I have a couple suggestions for them, which I
think--I do think that having people wear masks on the
airlines, actually, at least for me personally, makes me feel
better that the person sitting right behind me isn't going to
cough on me and, you know, spread their germs on me, but also
when I was on a call with the airlines, oh, boy, I think it was
a couple weeks ago, they had said that they thought that they
were going to have people board from the back of the plane and
instead of the way that they are now.
So I was wondering--I don't know who to ask this of. Maybe
the flight attendant association. Do you think that would be
helpful? Do you think that would help people feel better?
Because, you know--I usually try to wait till the end to get on
the plane, but other people sit in the front and then all those
people pass by.
So I want somebody's opinion.
Ms. Nelson. Sure. So this is Sara. Some of the airlines are
implementing policies like that because it decreases the touch
points that passengers are touching with each other. So some of
the airlines do have policies to board from back to front, and
that is very good thinking.
Mrs. Lesko. Well, I think so too. The other question I have
for Mr. Burke is actually about the airports itself and the
tenants. When I go into the airports--I mean, it is getting a
little bit better now, but most of the stores are closed. A lot
of the restaurants are closed, and so how are the airports
dealing with the tenants? Are you giving them some rent breaks,
or what is happening there?
Mr. Burke. Very good question, Madam Congressman. Some
airports are. The majority of them are. Some of them are not,
depends on what their contracts are. Some have closed because
there is no business for them. You walk through some airports,
there is literally no business at all. So it has been a very,
very difficult time, and we hope to have those tenants when
things come back, but they can't pay rent when they have no
money coming to them and when we have no money coming into
airports, we can't give abatement.
But an awful lot of airports in this country have given
abatement on rent, on minimal annual guarantees and things like
that, but it has been across the board a little bit uneven. But
for the most part, airports have done their level best to try
to help out their tenants because when it does come back, the
passengers are going to need these tenants to be able to buy
things, to buy food. Right now, they do grab and go, for
example, rather than sitting down.
The other thing that airports are doing is working with the
tenants to make sure that they are safe and the fact that they
are adhering to health standards as well. One of the challenges
we have is physical separation in airports that were not built
for this type of crisis, nor were they built for the crisis at
9/11 and, that is, separating people with gates and separating
people in lines whether it be at TSA or whether it be at lines
boarding planes.
Six-foot separation really means 6 by 6 by 6 by 6. So, in
airport jargon, that is a big piece of real estate to be able
to separate people. So wearing masks is going to be key, and we
welcome Federal guidelines to do that. Absent those Federal
guidelines, we would accept any regulations from State and
local authorities, but we think, to even things off, that the
Federal Government, on a temporary basis even, would put out
some guidance to require people to wear masks in airports to
protect passengers and vendors.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Burke.
Ms. Singh, I have a question for you. On the one hand, I
think in previous testimony, previous hearings in Homeland
Security, the ACLU and others is concerned about pat-downs.
Like, let's say, someone has a hair-do, hair bun, that type of
thing and they have an extra pat-down, but then also I know
that the ACLU and others are concerned about new technologies
that it would actually then eliminate more of the use for pat-
downs.
So I am trying to reconcile where you are at and how we can
solve this problem? Because on the one hand, you don't want
pat-downs, but then it seems like you are also against new
technologies.
Ms. Guliani. Sure. So thermal detection has been one of the
things for pros to try to reduce pat-downs. In the past, TSA
has tried to use thermal detection outside the airport context,
and that does raise a number of Fourth Amendment and
Constitutional concerns.
Within the airport context, I think there is just
questions. There are some threshold questions about whether
that type of thermal detection will be helpful. There are a lot
of false positives, right, and so will it actually serve the
purpose for which it is intended? But if it is done in a way
where it is pursuant to rulemaking, privacy impact assessments,
it is proven to be effective, you know, a temporary measure to
reduce pat downs in a way that is consistent with civil
liberties is certainly possible.
I think we just have to have the data and the information
to understand what exactly is being done and to what extent is
it consistent with individuals' rights.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. You know, I know that my time is up,
but I do know that if they are good systems, I think that the
National Institute of Science has said that some of these are
really good, the technology is really good, and doesn't have
that many false readings.
Mr. Correa, I would yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Ranking Member Lesko.
The Chair will now recognize other Members for questions
they may wish to ask the witnesses as previously stated. I will
recognize Members in order of seniority, moving between
Majority and Minority. Members are reminded to unmute
themselves when they are recognized for questions. With that
said, I would like to recognize the Chair of the full
committee, Mr. Thompson, for 5 minutes of questions.
Sir.
Mr. Thompson. I thank the witnesses for their testimony
today. You know, when we had the unfortunate incident on
September 11, we put a lot of things into place. We created
TSA. We did a lot of things.
Mr. Burke, are there some things being put in [inaudible]
maybe should become part of the new protocol in this COVID-19
environment?
Mr. Burke. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. I
think what is happening now is airports are responding to make
certain that they can gain out what it will look like when air
travel is up to 50, 60, 70 percent. For all intents and
purposes, we might have for a long period of time social
separation of 6 feet.
The challenge airports have there, sir, is, how do you do
that in limited space without interfering with other lines and
other gates? The use of Plexiglass, for example, is being used
not only in airports, but in other industries across the
country.
Use of masks. I can't emphasize that enough where we would
welcome regulations on a temporary basis that you should wear a
mask in an airport when you are transferring through it. If, in
fact, you have to wear it on an airplane, you should be wearing
it during [inaudible] mask going through an airport as you
would if you got on an airplane.
So long term, I think what we need is we need more funding
to be able to look at, how do we do this in the future if, in
fact, we have to inspect people outside the [inaudible]
infrastructure change.
Because look at airports. In the middle of January, you are
going to have people standing in lines outside Minneapolis when
it is 25 degrees below zero or 115 degrees in Phoenix in the
sun [inaudible] very complicated. What is required in the end,
Mr. Chairman, if we have to make these changes is we are going
to need money to be able to adapt to a system that was kind-of
thrown upon us since January.
We are willing to work and be able to do this, but we are
going to need the money [inaudible].
Mr. Thompson. Comments on that?
Ms. Nelson. I would just like to reiterate what Mr. Burke
said and also say that we do need the flexibility to be able to
put these things in place. There are a lot of issues to deal
with here, and what we need to do, especially, is that we need
to have these procedures in place before we actually have
people return to travel.
Because if we are trying to put this in place when you have
the back-up of those lines, we are going to have a much harder
time actually planning out properly, putting plexiglass in
place, having procedures for wellness checks [inaudible] having
guidelines around the masks.
All of that needs to be put in place now before we have the
influx of additional travel.
Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you much for both of your
comments. One of the things TSA did, they talked about a
biometric roadmap. As we look toward the future and look at
what opportunities are out there, and there is obviously
enhanced interest, Ms. Guliani, what are your thoughts about
the prospect that TSA expands its biometrics operation beyond
the Known Traveler Program?
Ms. Guliani. I mean, I am very concerned by the proposed
TSA roadmap. I mean, as an initial matter, we don't have clear
legislation or rulemaking around how facial recognition is
going to be used by TSA. I think that is a serious problem.
Second, there still remains serious accuracy concerns. The
most recent in this test noticed demographic differences and
false positives and negatives, and even beyond that, if we look
at the full TSA roadmap, it contemplates integration with other
DHS databases.
So I think that raises serious questions, like, what data
is being collected? Are you going to undergo additional extra
checks that have never been implemented in the domestic air
travel space? How are we going to preserve privacy? I think we
are generally having a bigger National conversation about
whether we want facial recognition used by the Government at
all. So I am troubled by the roadmap, and I am troubled by, you
know, recent stories we have heard of, for example, in Hawaii
where CARES funding is being used to purportedly expand facial
recognition, and there is very little information about what
the report is doing, how the information is being protected,
whether it actually has any efficacy or is tied to a COVID
response at all.
Mr. Thompson. OK. With your indulgence, Mr. Chair, Ms.
Barnes, do you have a comment on that?
Ms. Barnes. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We really do think that
travelers see touchless identification, you know, that could
help really promote the confidence and the health
opportunities, you know. It is proven to be safe, secure, and
accurate. We support strictly opt-in. So make it available for
travelers but not make it mandatory. We think that is something
that could really be helpful and so for those folks who choose
to take that route that will alleviate the lines in other parts
of the airport.
So we think that that is something that should really be
considered, and we do share some privacy concerns, so we need,
clearly, clear guidance, but generally speaking, opt-in
biometrics can really move us a long way to more secure, more
confident traveler.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Chairman Thompson.
I would now like to recognize the Ranking Member of the
full committee, Mr. Rogers, from Alabama.
Sir.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Barnes, you talked about in your opening statement the
need for more or better communication between TSA and CBP. What
are some examples of improved communication techniques or
approaches that we could take?
Ms. Barnes. Sure. So we think that some of the work that
TSA and CBP have been doing to clearly communicate the changes,
for example, on the side of hand sanitizer that you can take.
They did a united communication on that. You know, they talked
very clearly about the need for cleaning and social distancing.
So we think, to the extent that they can articulate the
need for masks, you know, that there are new procedures in
place and that, you know, we in the travel industry are happy
to amplify all of the communications that are being done, but
really what the traveler needs to understand is that there is a
consistency and that their health and safety is being put first
and foremost.
So, to the extent that they can collaborate together and we
can help to amplify and articulate that, that would be really
appreciated.
Mr. Rogers. [Inaudible] the main things that we could do to
give comfort or confidence to the traveling public to start
flying, again, what would you--you didn't get a chance to reply
to his question. What would you suggest are the most essential
things that we can do to invigorate confidence in the traveling
public?
Ms. Barnes. So we really think that, again, clearly
communicating health and safety guidance, really articulating
the things that folks can see consistently across the
ecosystem. We actually worked with 30 different organizations
throughout the whole travel ecosystem to do a base set of what
we would recommend to include, you know, providing touchless
solutions for [inaudible] and payments, enhanced sanitation,
encouraging, you know, that their procedures for testing as
necessary, but really ensuring that we have health and safety
guidance that is clearly communicated.
We also think that the biometric opportunity is really
significant, that opt-in technology and communicating that
there is that kind of option for travelers, we think can really
help, you know, clear up some of the congestion issues that
would otherwise be, but also present a more confident traveling
experience and, quite frankly, a better facilitation of travel.
Then, again, the clear messages that we would like to see
across the Government on what the expectations can be for the
traveler so that, when they come from one State to another,
there is an overarching Federal communication of what to expect
across that travel ecosystem.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Nelson, in your written testimony, you note
that the AFA believes the Government should conduct health
monitoring of passengers, industry, including the possibility
of temperature checks on passengers. You also note that the
lack of Government plan means that the temperature checks are
not occurring and suggest that a new Federal work force the
size of TSA could perform the role of taking passenger
temperatures.
Now, the Chairman Thompson did a very good job in his
opening statement listing a variety of concerns that I share
that go along with this temperature-taking, and you heard Ms.
Guliani [inaudible] civil rights concerns.
How would you respond to Chairman Thompson's expressed
concerns that go along with this temperature taking and Ms.
Guliani's statements?
Ms. Nelson. So we would agree with that. I want to be clear
that we were using temperature checks as an example of wellness
checks but not to be the be-all end-all at all. That what we
would like to have the committee and anyone working on putting
these procedures in place focus on is self-wellness checks.
So walking people through questions that help them self-
identify: Have you been in contact with anyone who has
coronavirus in the past 14 days? Is that possible that you have
been or have you been? Have you had a rise in temperature? Have
you had a cough?
There are a series of questions that could be asked that
are much like, have you packed your own bags? What this will do
is, it will create a deterrent. It will also get travelers
thinking about these issues and take some self-responsibility
for that. What that will do is it will limit the number of
people who are entering the airport who actually may be at
risk.
This is not going to completely eliminate the risk of
coronavirus. That is why you have to have a layered approach
with the masks, the hand sanitizer, and the like, but it is a
step to help have a layered approach to safety and health so
that we are eliminating the risk by taking on all of these
measures.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Rogers. I
would like to recognize for 5 minutes the gentleman, Mr.
Cleaver.
Mr. Cleaver, welcome.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Chairman Correa.
I appreciate you calling this meeting, and actually it is
increasingly important to me as I listen to our great
witnesses. Let me just say, I have a 97-year-old father who we
are probably going to put into a facility. He does have
Alzheimer's, but it is difficult for him to kind of manage
everything right now.
So I was really upset when I got to the facility to find
out that the admittance to the facility was based, first and
foremost, on whether or not you had a temperature. On the
surface it sounds reasonable and, you know, preventive.
However, Black and Brown people in the United States have a
disproportionately higher blood pressure than others as it
relates to hypertension and some other diseases, and the reason
for these disparities remains unclear. There is no definitive
study, but the fact remains that they--when you take
temperatures, you allow people to admit [inaudible] a person
could be a thousand miles from having COVID-19, but because of
the hypertension and diabetes and so forth [inaudible] higher.
So, as these issues are being discussed, my No. 1 concern
would be that I don't think there would be any intentionality
to keep people out, but that is when we talk about systemic. It
would keep more Black and Brown people [inaudible]
unreasonable.
Ms. Guliani. I think that you have identified a real
problem with temperature checks, right? There is the threshold
question of, are these even helpful? There is some suggestion
that actually they are not even that effective for identifying
people with COVID.
You know, in the travel context, if you take Tylenol or you
take other medication that might suppress your fever. You know,
many people who have COVID are, actually, asymptomatic and
don't exhibit a fever at all. So there are questions about
whether it is an effective screening technique, but even if it
is, we are going to need allowances for people who have a fever
for other reasons, right?
If you are pregnant, if you have hypertension, you have
chronic illnesses. Let's say if you are traveling to receive
medical care and you have a fever for other reasons, the last
thing we want is denying those people their Constitutional
right to travel. So what I would say, if there is a temperature
check, at most it should just trigger further conversation and
further examination of the individual to have, you know, a
conversation about what their other symptoms might be, whether
there are alternative reasons, and whether they are actually
are at risk or do, indeed, have COVID.
Mr. Cleaver. I yield back my time.
Mr. Correa. I am sorry, Mr. Cleaver? I didn't hear.
Mr. Cleaver. That was my principal question. I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much.
I would like to recognize Mr. Bishop, Congressman Bishop,
for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to yield.
Appreciate it.
Mr. Correa. Be safe, sir. Be safe. Drive and be safe.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Correa. I would like to recognize Ms. Watson Coleman
for 5 minutes of questions.
Mrs. Coleman.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
the witnesses that we have had today. I find your testimonies
very interesting. Two things stick out with me. One is that
there is some need for a task force of some sort to bring
together some sort of universal guidelines that make sense
during this period of time.
I believe it was suggested that a number of departments or
department components could be in this, but I also think Ms.
Barnes suggested some outside experts, so I kind-of want to
hear what additional people you think should be considered,
The other one was oversight of the implementation of the
guidelines. So [inaudible] mentioned that and how do you see
that happening? I guess the third thing I want to know, and
this is from Ms. [inaudible] what are the things that are being
implemented during this particular time to try to make people
as safe as possible and give as much confidence to the traveler
as possible that you believe can be permitted now but should
end when the pandemic ends?
Those are my questions, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Barnes. So, Congresswoman, I will start with that.
Thank you so much for the question. I think one of the things
that we have really focused on is the need for a phased and
layered approach, but something that is not so overly
prescriptive that it can't be phased out over time as things
evolve with [inaudible] convened a group of 30 different
organizations and many of us different associations had members
so it was even broader than that working with medical
professionals and infectious disease doctors, as well as
preventive disease doctors and others throughout the community
to really talk through, what are medically necessary options
for helping to stop the spread of COVID and also help to give
the traveler more confidence?
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Ms. Barnes, have you submitted those
findings? Have you submitted those recommendations to any of
the Federal departments? If so, have you gotten any response to
them? Has anything happened as a result of your coming together
and proposing some phased-in safety and health guidelines?
Ms. Barnes. Yes. We submitted it to, actually, to the White
House, to CDC, to all Governors. It was also submitted with my
testimony to the committee. Happy to talk to you all about that
in more detail, but we do think that having that consistency
across the ecosystem is critical, but happy to engage further
as well.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
Ms. Guliani, with regard to those measures that are going
to be or trying to be or should be implemented during this
period of time, including technology to reduce the touching,
interaction of employees and passengers, what are the things
that you think are OK for to be done in screening? What are the
things that you think are OK but need to be eliminated the
moment the pandemic is supposedly ended?
Ms. Guliani. Sure. I mean, there are a variety of things
that can be done, if implemented correctly, to both protect
public health and respect civil liberties, things like mask
requirements. You know, if there is clear information to the
public, there is allowances made for people who may not be able
to wear masks for medical reasons, if it is nonpunitive in
nature, I think that is something that can be done and is
consistent with what public health professionals have
recommended.
Something Ms. Nelson talked about is, you know, efforts to
provide clear communication and ability for people to self-
monitor, right? Giving them lists of symptoms to check for
themselves. The best-case scenario is that somebody who doesn't
feel well or is high-risk doesn't come to the airport at all.
So I think mechanisms to prompt that self-monitoring are things
we can do. Efforts to reduce pat-downs, which Ranking Member
Lesko talked about. We need more information. We need to
understand efficacy, and we need to understand exactly what
information is being collected. But a temporary measure with no
further data collection that, you know, is equitable and that
works could also be something.
But I also want to talk about--you know, briefly you asked
about oversight. I think one of the really important pieces of
all of this is to make sure that there is independent oversight
by an entity like the GAO, right? To make sure that what we are
doing actually works; it is not window dressing. No. 2, that
privacy rights are being respected.
In the past we have seen with programs like CAT 2 or even
SBInet, inspector general and GAO reports have really helped
expose problems that, frankly, prompted discontinuation of
programs that had deep problems.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much, Mrs. Watson Coleman.
I would like to recognize Mr. Van Drew for 5 minutes of
questions.
Welcome, sir.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you. It is good to be here, and it is--
I appreciate all of you being here to testify. Certainly, we
have really got to get to the root of these problems. I guess I
have 2 questions. The one question is--and I guess would be to
Mr. Burke and maybe Ms. Barnes.
Smaller airports--so we are thinking, generally, we are
talking Kennedy. We are talking about obviously Philadelphia,
at least in my area, and some of the very large airports, but
we have smaller airports like Atlantic City International
Airport.
What role do you see for them? Are they all going to
survive? How are the changes going to be different for them
because they are significantly different and especially when I
think of the tourism piece, because that is my area, small
airports [inaudible] for people to get to their destination?
Mr. Burke. Congressman, this is Mr. Burke. Thank you for
the question. Small airports have taken a huge hit in this
crisis, and you are absolutely correct. When air service
returns, they will do much better. Right now, with our
enplanements down 90 percent that is a challenge. However, the
health challenge remains the same for a small airport as it
does for the large airport.
Passengers are going through Atlantic City have to be
treated with the same level of safety as people going through
Philadelphia or JFK or any other large hub or medium hub. The
challenge is getting people back into the airport, making them
feel safe. The only way they are going to get back is if
flights return to those airports and when the airlines make the
decision that they will be able to fly to Atlantic City,
provide aircraft for people who go from, say, Indianapolis to
Atlantic City for tourism and fill the hotels that Tori Barnes
and her members represent.
It is all about when people feel safe to come back out. The
airports will do their job to keep the passengers safe inside
the airport. When it comes to making certain that people
travel, there is a whole bunch of factors there, one of which
is when the airlines decide they are going to increase their
enplanements, the airports will do much better, from the small
to the medium to the large, but right now, you are absolutely
correct. The small airports are having a very, very difficult
time.
Some were helped in the CARES Act, but that money will not
last forever. That is why we have asked for more money in the
next CARES Act provision for another additional $13 billion. A
lot of that will go to the small airports to keep them
functioning.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you.
Ms. Barnes.
Ms. Barnes. Thank you, Congressman. I would echo what Kevin
said. We support and agree with everything that he noted, and I
would just add on to that that the continued need for relief,
as Kevin mentioned, additional dollars for airports, I think
additionally dollars for destinations like the ones that you
mentioned that are so important that will help to draw visitors
back to destinations.
You know, the 501(c)(6) organization is another
Governmental destination marketing organizations that are left
out of PPP. That is really another critical piece of relief
that is necessary.
Additionally, we are also hoping that the fourth phase of
the CARES Act can include some tax incentives to actually help
encourage individual travelers to get back out there and to fly
again.
So happy to work with your team on that, but we really
think it is additional relief in added stimulus that is going
to help to get folks out there. In addition to what we have
been saying here is the need to have that clear, consistent
message communicate [inaudible] when they go to an airport of
any size and get on an airplane or if they go to a hotel or to
an attraction or other destination.
Mr. Van Drew. I thank you for that. [Inaudible] and I have
dealt with them over the years too. It might also be easier to
make them be able to actually abide by whatever the regulations
all finally end up being because they are smaller, they are
quieter, and it is easier to have the distancing and so forth,
actually, in those areas other than the really crowded large
airports.
That is the other question I wanted to ask real quickly as
well. I know [inaudible] and that we all try to maintain that.
However, if you really think it is 6 foot between you and me
and 6 foot this way and 6 foot this way and 6 foot behind, you
know, I have done some air travel in my time, and, again, we
are nowhere near there now. Nobody is in the airport, but even
when an airport is moderately busy, everybody is kind-of moving
together in some way, even the lines, it is tough. I think
that, you know, the masks are much easier and the hand
sanitizer is much easier.
I would think that is going to be really difficult to do at
certain times once we are really back and we are in full motion
here.
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir. If you wear masks, the 6 foot
separation could be changed. That is if everybody is wearing
masks. You are absolutely correct. The geography of airports
were all different. It is very, very difficult to be able to
figure out if 50 percent load factors, 70 percent load factor,
if the load factors go up, those lines are going to get very
close to one another. It is going to be physically impossible
to keep people 6 feet away.
So it is really inherent that people protect themselves by
wearing these masks inside these terminals. So, unless we
expand the size of the terminals where we can separate these
lines, both the TSA as well as at the gates--because, remember,
gates bump into gates and then sometimes load at the same time.
Then they have concessionaires on the other side of restaurants
where these lines will bump in to.
So that 6-foot separation as people come back to the
airports is going to be very, very difficult to keep and also
to enforce. People will be bumping into each other. So, for
them to remain safe, wearing masks is important.
Mr. Van Drew. We pray that wearing masks is as good as they
think it might be. Because we have all heard various doctors
say various things about the value of the mask. You are only
protecting the other person, or it depends which mask you are
wearing, how you are wearing it.
You know as well as I do, so many people wear the mask only
on half of their face, their nose [inaudible]. So it is
interesting [inaudible] yield back, Chairman, and thank you.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Van Drew.
I would like to recognize the gentleperson, Ms. Barragan,
from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this
really important hearing. We are going to be [inaudible] all
this week. We are still in the first wave, and this is still
very real. We are seeing increased numbers across different
places in the States, and there is nothing more than we hear
from the own House Physician how the highest risk for Members
of Congress and for travel, really, is the airplane and the
airport.
So that is why I think it is so critically important that
we get this right and do what we can to make sure we are
protecting passengers and employees.
Ms. Nelson, thank you for starting your comments today by
recognizing the two very important Supreme Court decisions and
your comments there. I want to echo those. I also want to say,
Ms. Nelson, I can relate to a lot of your concerns and those of
flight attendants. I have a sister, I have 2 sisters who are
flight attendants, and I hear a lot [inaudible] among flight
attendants and the concerns that flight attendants are having.
It is, No. 1, about public feeling safe and coming back, but we
need to make sure flight attendants are feeling safe.
From what I have heard, [inaudible] flight attendants that
they are not getting the support that they believe they should
be getting. So let me turn to my first question for you, Ms.
Nelson.
Social distancing has been one of the most important
recommendations as we have heard from public health officials.
Airlines have aggressively pushed against leaving a middle seat
open for economic reasons behind that, and I can understand
that.
From your perspective, how does the absence to a limit on
load factors and limited change and cancellation flexibility
during this pandemic affect flight attendants and passengers?
Ms. Nelson. Well, we have--thank you for that question, and
we have pushed for change fees to be waived during this time.
Much like we have said, it needs to be very clear that if
anyone is calling in sick, they are not disciplined, and they
are able to get sick leave and paid for that when they are an
essential worker and coming in and putting themselves at risk,
but then also if they are not taking proper precautions, they
are also adding to the problem at work.
On the social distancing, there is no way to properly
social distance on the plane. That is why we need to have clear
Federal requirements for the masks. Mr. Van Drew brought up the
issue of people not knowing how to wear the masks. This is part
of what we are talking about.
When you don't have those clear guidelines and you don't
have clear instructions and you don't even have proper training
for the crews to be able to instruct passengers or give those
instructions, then you are not practicing all of the layers of
safety that are necessary to make up for the fact that you are
working in a space that you cannot properly social distance in.
So it needs that layered safety and security approach. I
should just note also for this committee that it is very, very
important to continue those job protections as well. The
continuation of the CARES Act through the end of January so
that the airlines have the ability to implement these policies
like paying people for the sick leave and being able to do
that. Also this committee would be concerned about the security
credentials that are in place.
So all those airport workers and the people who work at the
airlines also have to have security clearance. As they are let
go from their jobs, then it makes it that much harder to start
up the economy again.
So we need proper PPE. We also have had a problem with the
supply chains and getting the proper PPE for the workers on the
front lines, the gate agents, the flight attendants, who are
coming most in contact with the passengers, but all of these
issues are necessary to be addressed by the Federal Government
because the airlines are not well-enough equipped to take all
this on and to put the proper procedures in place. There are
the financial strains, too, that are getting in the way of
making good safety and health decisions.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
The other concern I keep hearing is, what is going to
happen after September 30? What is going to happen to flight
attendants? A lot of concern there. As Congress passed the
CARES Act and provided funding to airlines, of course, I think
the ability for them to lay folks off is only through September
30.
When October 1 comes around, how do you think airline
employees will fare? What is your estimation?
Ms. Nelson. If Congress does not act to extend to do a
clean extension of the payroll support system, this is only
about jobs now at this point. The airlines have essentially
stabilized themselves. All that will happen is that pink slips
will be signed, and they will be in the hundreds of thousands
on October 1 if there is not an extension of the payroll
support system.
We believe that that needs to go through the end of January
to get us through the worst of this and to get policies and
procedures in place that give people confidence in flying, get
us through the holidays, that will get us through the worst of
it we believe, but if we do not have that in place there will
be massive furloughs in October.
Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you for your service. Many times
people don't realize that our flight attendants are public
safety professionals. They think something else. So thanks for
pointing that out in your testimony today.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Ms. Barragan.
I would like to recognize Mr. Katko for 5 minutes of
questions.
Welcome, sir.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I miss seeing you and
everybody on Homeland. I wanted to touch base to wish you all
well and hope to see you all soon in person.
As this hearing went on today, I started thinking--and I
apologize if I missed this part of the testimony if this was
discussed, but I want to talk about the use of technologies at
the checkpoints and the impact that can have on a travel
experience.
For years I have been particularly interested in the next
generation of scanners and what they would do for the travel
experience, No. 1, and now because of COVID, what that would do
for safety and the health of the TSOs.
We appropriated a small amount of money, relatively small
amount of money, to start the next generation of 3D scanners.
Now the 3D scanners, as you all know, allow the TSOs to have
much less physical contact with bags and individuals because
the scanners will identify the anomalies for the person, and
then only those bags that have anomalies that the machine finds
will be taken aside.
I just think, from a safety standpoint, from an
antiterrorism standpoint, but now from a health standpoint, it
is really important. I think the more you can do to [inaudible]
checkpoints and to the planes and all of the other discussions
we have been having, talking about keeping the planes safe and
healthy is important, but I think that is really about keeping
the masses moving and keeping them apart as much as possible,
is really going to be important.
As air travel goes back up, I don't know how you can keep
people 6 feet people apart. So keeping the throughputs is going
to be very important. So, with that, I just want to know, what
do you all think about it? I think in the next package
[inaudible] I say to tell my colleagues in Homeland Security
and try to get full funding for all the next generation of
scanners once and for all.
Because at the rate we are going, we are not going to get
them for 10 years, and by that point, they will probably be
obsolete and we will have to replace those. So I would argue
that we need to work on getting the scanners now and getting
them moving now from a health and safety standpoint.
I would like to just open it up and see what you think.
Mr. Burke. Mr. Katko, the airports totally agree with you.
We have been supportive of getting more money to TSA to
increase throughput even prior to the pandemic. I can remember
2 to 3 years ago when there were less TSOs, transportation
security officers, long, long lines [inaudible] and the
technology not working.
The technology exists to make people get through quicker
and safer. As I mentioned in my testimony, we are looking at a
touchless technology----
Mr. Katko. Correct.
Mr. Burke [continuing]. Where people go through and they
don't have to touch anything. They would have to look into a
camera. From what I understand is, when you look into the
camera and the information that the TSO looks at, once you go
through, my understanding is that information is deleted
because if TSA kept that information, that would be enormous
amount of information to hold on any given day.
So there are 2 things here. No. 1, at this juncture, it is
the safety of the passenger going through, the confidence that
they are going to go through and not have to have any
interaction other than looking at a TSO, scanning their own
ticket, scanning their own license, and having the ability to
be able to walk through and look at a camera or walking through
a scanner.
The scanning technology is far better than it was 2, 3
years ago, and we would welcome more funding for that through
TSA. It would make the travel experience faster and, frankly,
safer as we move forward.
Mr. Katko. Yes. Several years ago, I got off the plane in
London on my way to Ireland for something for the Government. I
get off the plane before I went through Customs and did a
facial [inaudible] human contact. Before I got on the plane,
you had to stand in front of a camera. They did the facial
recognition software. You got on the plane. They didn't look at
many other documents.
So the technology is there, and the biometrics is a way of
decreasing human contact considerably and moving people through
quicker. So I would argue to all of my colleagues it is
something we should continue going forward just from a safety
standpoint, from a health standpoint, and just from
[inaudible].
Ms. Barnes. Yes, Congressman, we absolutely agree with you.
This is from the U.S. travel perspective. We think that we
would love to see a greater investment in CAT-C, CT screening
technology. We absolutely support the idea of touchless
security screening and opt-in biometrics and could not agree
with you more that it is a vital tool to facilitate a safe and
secure return to travel.
It is so important for travelers to have that confidence as
they come back into the travel environment, and we fully
support that [inaudible].
Mr. Katko. You should use your considerable clout, Tori, to
get American Airlines flights back going from Syracuse to D.C.
because I have none right now. I used to have 4. So come on
now. All right?
Ms. Barnes. We are on it.
Mr. Correa. While you are, get some from Orange County
directly to Reagan Airport, OK.
With that being said, I would like to recognize the
gentleperson from Florida, Mrs. Demings.
Welcome.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, Chairman Correa, and thank
you to all of our witnesses who are with us today. It is good
to see everybody, and I, too, miss you, but we need to continue
do some of the things that we are talking about here today to
make sure that we are safe and others are safe as well.
I certainly enjoyed the discussion about the touchless
technology. I would believe that every worker and every
passenger would appreciate us pursuing that. So I look forward
to further discussions along those lines.
Ms. Nelson, there was a discussion earlier about the
absence of clear guidelines as it pertains to wearing a mask
and, you know, practicing social distancing and all of that.
You talked about some of the challenges around flying and being
able to do that, but we still should do what we can do. I
certainly appreciate the efforts of the airlines to make sure
that we are traveling as safely as possible.
I know the last few flights that I had been on, masks, for
example, were required. I thank God for that. Yet we had some
passengers for some reason who still resisted that. So I would
just like to hear a little bit more--I know we have had a great
discussion here--but about the self-wellness checks and are we
seeing zero-tolerance policies because, while we want as many
people to be able to fly, flying is still a privilege, and we
all have an obligation to do what we can.
So could you talk a little bit more about that? How it is
enforceable? Is it done electronically like when we say, like
you mentioned earlier, did you pack your own bags? So just talk
a little bit more about that for me, please.
Thank you.
Ms. Nelson. Sure. Thank you [inaudible] of a corps of
trained individuals who are able to recognize symptoms
themselves and also be able to identify that, but also prompt
travelers to be able to ask questions so that they can self-
evaluate their own well-being. We--actually, this conversation
here today has been a great example of why you need to put
together a task force with all the different stakeholders so
that you can make sure that when you are implementing these
policies, you don't have any unintended consequences so that it
is implemented fairly and without bias.
So this is really about having a work force that could be
in the airport that could help to do this first assessment that
would be a health assessment, but would be run through a really
self-assessment with the individual and that can relate also to
what is happening with the employees.
We are seeing some concerns right now about the airlines
putting in place some of this health monitoring, and they are
asking employees to input that data, and there are concerns
around privacy concerns for the employees that we are
addressing right now.
There is also potentially discipline lobbied against those
employees for reporting that they actually have these symptoms
as opposed to encouraging them then to stay home and be well.
So we have some issues to work through here, and the reason
that it is not perfect is because we don't have the kind of
leadership and Government oversight that we need to be able to
put this in place in a way that puts the health and safety
first and isn't really putting it on the backs of the airlines,
who are worried about the viability of the airline and taking
into consideration their financial concerns.
Mrs. Demings. But, of course, the airlines does have, you
know, in the absence of guidelines kind-of like we are seeing
right now with civil unrest in our country, the airlines does
have the primary responsibility to do what it can to protect
the traveling public and its employees until those guidelines
come down. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Nelson. 100 percent. I don't want to leave you with the
wrong impression because, actually, I want to really applaud
our airlines for doing more than I have ever seen them do
before in any situation like this. The self-initiative that
they have taken to try to address these issues and, more
recently, talk about making it a requirement that people are
wearing masks and not just a suggestion and actually taking--if
someone doesn't do that, putting them on a no-fly list for the
airline.
Those are all really important steps, but we really believe
that there needs to be backing from the Federal Government, a
Federal regulation that everyone understands that we are all
communicating together and actually standards to train the
employees on the front lines who are implementing that and
guidelines that would include things like it is on the back of
the ticket or it is a requirement when you are checking in and
getting your ticket that you are acknowledging that you will
wear a mask.
These types of things could be put in place through clear,
coordinated guidelines that are communicated across the board
that everyone understands, and we know in aviation that it is
certainly possible: You have to wear a seat belt. You have to
put your tray table up. You have to stow your bag. These are
all things that we do to have the ability to have the magic of
flight.
Mrs. Demings. Just as we made the adjustment after 9/11, I
was assigned as a police captain at the Orlando International
Airport during 9/11, and just like we all had to make that
adjustment, I think we will never really fully--of course,
until we develop a vaccine, return back to flying as we once
knew it. Hopefully, in the mean time, we will get technology to
assist us in making it a smoother transition.
Thank you so much, Ms. Nelson, and thank you to all of our
guests once more.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Correa. Mrs. Demings, thank you very much, and I am
glad Orlando finally got it right and made you a chief as
opposed to just keeping you----
Mrs. Demings. Yes. Yes. Take care, everybody.
Mr. Correa. Any other Members wish to ask additional
questions?
Seeing no hands raised, I want to thank the witnesses for
their valuable testimony today and the Members for their
tremendous questions. I am going to ask unanimous consent to
insert the following documents into the record.
First, a statement from the gentleman from Hawaii,
Representative Ed Case; second, a letter from the Airline
Pilots Association; third, a letter from the Blue Sparks
Technologies Group; and, fourth, an Op-Ed from the Consumer
Reports and [inaudible].
No objection. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Letters From the Honorable Ed Case
June 18, 2020.
The Honorable Lou Correa,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security, House
Committee on Homeland Security, H2-176 Ford House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Debbie Lesko,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security,
House Committee on Homeland Security, H2-117 Ford House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Correa and Ranking Member Lesko: Thank you very much
for the opportunity to submit a statement for the record of this
subcommittee hearing titled ``Climbing Again: Stakeholder Views on
Resuming Air Travel in the COVID-19 Era.'' I appreciate your efforts to
accelerate consideration of the best way forward for air travel as our
country confronts this pandemic and its aftermath.
As U.S. Representative for Hawaii's First Congressional District, I
write to this subcommittee because, far more than most States, Hawai'i
has vital interests in pursuing a safe restart of passenger air travel
for the duration of this COVID-19 pandemic and after. I am proud that
Hawai'i has achieved relative success in containing the spread of
COVID-19, reporting one of the nation's lowest rates of infection since
the start of this public health emergency. At the same time, achieving
such a low rate during this pandemic has caused a precipitous decline
in our No. 1 industry, tourism, which is virtually wholly dependent on
air travel. That has severely damaged Hawaii's local economy, among the
worst-hit in our country, with one of the highest unemployment rates
and most severely impacted government and business revenue results.
Air travel is essential to Hawai`i as the primary means by which
residents and travelers can enter and leave our State or travel between
our islands. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, daily incoming passenger
counts to Hawai`i easily exceeded 20,000 passengers a day and could
reach nearly 40,000 passengers a day during peak travel periods. In
2019, over 10 million visitors arrived in Hawai`i. On any given day,
visitors and tourists averaged about 250,000 people, or close to 20
percent of our de facto population when aggregated with our resident
population of about 1.4 million people.
Unfortunately, air travel has been a significant way to spread
highly communicable diseases such as COVID-19. Passengers who have been
infected and are contagious present a serious public health risk not
just to their fellow passengers but to all who come into contact with
them at their destinations.
One of the biggest challenges to recovery for the travel and
tourism industry and to air travel overall is restoring public faith in
the safety of travel. According to the U.S. Travel Association, most
travel in the United States in the immediate future and aftermath of
this pandemic is expected to take the form of road trips, as most
Americans feel safe driving in their vehicles. Because travelers cannot
simply take a road trip to Hawai`i, it is essential to the recovery of
Hawaii`s travel and tourism industry that steps be taken to make air
travel as risk-free as possible and restore public confidence that
people can safely fly and safely visit without fear of contracting
infectious diseases like COVID-19.
One of the best and most common-sense approaches to restoring
public faith in the safety of air travel is to ensure that all intended
passengers aboard an aircraft have tested negative for COVID-19 prior
to boarding and departure. This would allow passengers to fly with the
knowledge that their fellow passengers are not likely carrying COVID-19
and also allow arriving travelers to disembark at their destinations
without having to comply with a mandatory 14-day quarantine, as
currently required in Hawai`i, which can be difficult to enforce and is
undesirable for travelers in the first place. Implementing this
approach would require coordination that extends beyond State
boundaries, raising jurisdictional issues at the Federal level.
To address these issues, I wrote to Administrator Steve Dickson of
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on May 13, 2020 requesting
clarification of the authority of States like Hawai`i to impose and
enforce conditions on air travel to protect public health, including by
requiring COVID-19 testing of all intended passengers prior to
departure. In his response dated May 27, 2020, Administrator Dickson
wrote that the FAA ``has no authority to either grant permission or
prohibit a local of State unit of government to pursue such a policy.''
Unfortunately, this narrow interpretation of FAA authority does not
clearly allow for actions focused on the broader public health
consequences of passenger air travel, especially in a pandemic. That is
why I have introduced H.R. 7128, the Air Travel Public Health Emergency
Act, to explicitly confirm FAA's authority and responsibility to
consider public health necessities and require reasonable guidelines
and restrictions by States to protect public health. The bill would
also require airlines to pay for any restrictions, such as a pre-
boarding testing requirement, and ensure that Federal airport funding
would not be affected by any State's reasonable guidelines or
restrictions.
I have also written to the Health and Human Services Secretary Alex
Azar, as recommended by FAA, as FAA suggested that HHS has wide-ranging
authority during public health emergencies that may be utilized to
authorize pre-board testing as a condition of boarding. I am awaiting
his response, but also believe that if HHS answers that it does not
have such authority or declines to exercise its authority, a similar
approach as my H.R. 7128 should be taken to provide legislative
authority.
As the subcommittee is aware, the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) has been leading interagency discussions about
potentially launching a pilot program to require pre-board COVID-19
screenings for passengers. Such an effort would be an important step
toward allowing for a Nation-wide infrastructure and standards for a
testing regime. However, it appears these discussions have been going
on for months and there has been little public information on the
status of these efforts. When I have asked about such plans, no real
information has been shared. As the subcommittee engages with TSA or
the Department of Homeland Security, I would urge you to ensure they
are actively pursuing this course of action.
In conclusion, the Federal Government must take a more active role
in adapting air travel to the demands of COVID-19 and the post-pandemic
era. Clearly many Federal agencies could play a role but appear to be
reticent to take the actions necessary to allow for regular air travel
to resume. This can only be successfully done in close coordination
with stakeholders across the board, including States, the airline
industry as well as public health officials, airport operators and
more. The current approach in which States are left to determine their
own policies on air travel once a passenger has landed is inadequate,
and they have thus far been denied the authority to implement policies
that will in fact adequately allow for the reopening of safe air
travel. In that case, then States must be clearly given the authority
to impose whatever restrictions and standards as may be reasonable and
necessary to protect public health, and I ask for the subcommittee's
support of H.R. 7128 and related proposals.
Thank you for your consideration of these views. Please call upon
me for any questions or assistance in your important work.
Sincerely,
Ed Case,
Member of Congress.
Enclosure: May 13, 2020 letter to Administrator Steve Dickson, Federal
Aviation Administration
May 27, 2020 response from Administrator Steve Dickson, Federal
Aviation Administration
Text of H.R. 7128, the Air Travel Public Health Emergency Act
June 2, 2020 letter to Secretary Alex Azar, Department of Health and
Human Services
ATTACHMENTS
May 13, 2020.
The Honorable Steve Dickson,
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591.
Re: Protecting Hawai`i Public Health; Required COVID-19 Testing of All
Passengers Prior To Boarding Direct Flights to Hawai`i
Dear Administrator Dickson: As we all continue to address the
COVID-19 global pandemic, I write to request your cooperation in
confirming Hawaii's ability to impose and enforce conditions on air
travel to Hawai`i which are critical to ensuring (a) the health of
Hawai`i residents and visitors and (b) the safe recovery of Hawaii's
economy and in particular our travel and tourism industry.
These conditions would be as reasonably determined by the State of
Hawai`i as necessary to protect public health. This could include
requiring testing of all intended passengers (including in this letter
crew) on any direct air travel to Hawai`i before boarding. Such testing
could include at least fever testing and, as available, on-site rapid
COVID-19 testing, as now required by international airlines such as
Emirates on some flights. The requirement for enforcing these
conditions would be borne by the airlines as a condition of accepting
any intended passenger on any direct flight to Hawai`i, and any airline
would be required to deny boarding to any intended passenger with a
fever which, under Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
guidelines, indicates potential COVID-19 infection or who tests
positive.
By way of background, almost all passenger transportation into
Hawai`i, both domestically and internationally, is by air. In 2019
there were some: (i) 13,620,000 total air seats operated to Hawai`i,
(ii) 10,280,000 visitor arrivals; (iii) 7,250,000 domestic visitor
arrivals; (iv) 3,030,000 international visitor arrivals; and (v) an
average daily visitor count of 250,000 (against a resident population
of 1,400,000). In short, prior to the COVID-19 crisis, the great
majority of passenger air arrivals in Hawai`i were non-resident,
discretionary visitors (tourists), who arrived at a rate of close to
30,000 per day, and on any given day they constituted close to 20
percent of our de facto population.
This is, of course, a recipe for the rapid spread of COVID-19 among
Hawaii's population (and, for visitors returning to their homes and
residents exiting elsewhere, back to their destinations). And, in fact,
in the stages of the spread of COVID-19 to date in Hawai`i, a major
contributor (especially in the first few weeks of the pandemic, when it
was virtually the sole contributor) has been travel-related from both
returning residents and visitors.
Hawaii's response has been among the most restrictive in the
Nation. A State-wide work-at-home, stay-at-home order except for
essential services has been in effect since March 26. And a mandatory
14-day quarantine for any air passenger arriving in Hawai`i has been in
effect since March 26 as well.
As applied to returning residents and visitors staying in resident
homes, the quarantine requires them to remain in those home for the 14
days. As applied to non-resident visitors not staying in residences but
instead in hotels or other transient accommodations (tourists), the
mandatory 14-day quarantine requires such visitors to stay in their
hotel or accommodation rooms for the full period.
This and the other impacts of COVID-19 have had the effect of
significantly reducing air travel to Hawai`i. From institution of the
air passenger quarantine on March 26 through April 30 there were 23,302
arrivals, of which 8,224 were returning or intended residents and 4,508
were visitors.
However, these numbers have been increasing rapidly in May,
especially the visitor count, reflecting that the quarantine is not
operating as any real deterrent. Moreover, it is very evident that
these air passengers, especially the visitors, are generally not
honoring the 14-day post-arrival quarantine.
These air passengers arrive from various destinations with widely
varying efforts to mitigate the public health effects of COVID-19. Some
jurisdiction are just as stringent as Hawai`i, if not more so, while
most others are not. Their continued arrival in Hawai`i, at increasing
numbers, with an ineffective post-arrival quarantine, constitutes an
unacceptable risk, and it is reasonable for Hawai`i to seek to
institute pre-boarding conditions to minimize this risk wherever and
however possible.
In my discussions with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
personnel to date, I understand that FAA does not question restrictions
imposed on air passengers once they arrive in Hawai`i as an exercise of
Hawaii's general police powers. But that is a far more cumbersome,
unworkable, resource-intensive effort (diverting critically stretched
and needed first responders to tracking and enforcement efforts), with
far more public health risk, than straightforward pre-screening of
intended passengers for compliance with reasonable restrictions before
they board airplanes and denial of boarding for non-compliance.
I further understand that FAA has expressed some concerns as to who
would enforce airline compliance with reasonable pre-board
restrictions. I believe most if not all airlines would take the
restrictions and their responsibility for enforcement very seriously,
and do not in any event see a requirement that each intended passenger
submit to a basic test as imposing any significant requirement on the
airlines (in the same way as is true currently for many international
airlines and travelers to Hawai`i or other domestic destinations). The
first domestic carrier, Frontier Airlines, has announced it will
implement a similar restriction requiring temperature screenings for
all passengers and crew prior to boarding flights beginning June 1.
Airlines for America, the industry trade group for the largest American
passenger carriers, has endorsed requiring temperature screenings as
well.
I further understand that the State of Hawai`i imposed the 14-day
incoming quarantine requirement in large part because it understood
from the FAA, in its March and April guidance and otherwise, that the
imposition of such pre-board conditions was not authorized by existing
statutes and regulations and would jeopardize Federal funding. I also
understand from my discussion with the FAA to date that in fact the FAA
is focused on the safe and efficient use of the Nation's airspace (with
safe not generally including protection of general ground populations
from COVID-19 and efficient generally referring to maximum use), that
the protection of the general public health in addition to air-related
risks is not within FAA's mandate, and that absent superseding
authority in other Federal agencies such as the CDC, the FAA is
unwilling or unable to authorize the State of Hawai`i to impose
reasonable public health-related restrictions on travelers as a
condition of travel to Hawai`i.
I ask and urge you to revisit these issues and assist me, the State
of Hawai`i, the people I represent, the visitors to Hawai`i and the
destinations to which they will return in finding a solution allowing
the State of Hawai`i to impose reasonable public health pre-board
conditions on intended passengers to Hawai`i. This could include
flexibility within existing statutes and regulations, identification of
superseding authority in other Federal agencies, and proposed changes
to existing regulations and statutory authority. In the latter case, I
ask that you initiate any required rule changes under expedited
authority, and propose to me specific statutory amendments which would
provide you with the necessary authority.
I ask that you do so on an emergency basis considering the
continued public health threat to Hawai`i from our inability to impose
and enforce effective mitigation requirements. But I also ask that you
do so because these questions will have to be answered and the
necessary changes will have to be made for Hawai`i to reopen to any
great extent to air travel. Simply put, if passengers do not feel safe
coming to Hawai`i because they fear contracting COVID-19 on the flight
or in Hawai`i, or if Hawai`i residents do not feel safe with passengers
getting off planes in Hawai`i, air travel to Hawai`i will not recover
leading to many consequences to include FAA and airport-supportive
revenues. The same is true throughout the country and so the necessity
of safe travel is in all respects a National one which FAA should
better face now.
Considering the urgency of protecting Hawaii's current and future
public health, I ask for your specific response by no later than
Wednesday, May 20. I stand ready, together with the State of Hawai`i
and other interested parties both in Hawai`i and Nationally, to work
with you on fashioning an effective solution to this critical matter.
I appreciate your prompt and full attention. Please call on me for
any questions or needs.
Sincerely,
Ed Case,
Hawai`i--First District.
______
May 27, 2020
The Honorable Ed Case,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Case: Thank you for your May 13 letter regarding
the imposition of health screening requirements on all Hawai`i bound
passengers and crew members prior to boarding.
Specifically you stated the desire to find a solution, ``allowing
the State of Hawai`i to impose reasonable public health pre-board
conditions on intended passengers to Hawai`i.'' The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) is unaware of an authority that would allow
individual States to effectively institute the type of pre-boarding
screening you described within the jurisdiction of another State. As
you noted, the FAA has stated the agency has no authority to either
grant permission or prohibit a local or State unit of government to
pursue such a policy.
As previously communicated by FAA counsel, the most productive
conversation may be between your office and the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, which is provided many authorities under the
Public Health Service Act to combat the spread of communicable disease.
While the FAA does not prescribe public health rules and
requirements, the agency shares your desire to see air travel return as
a common manner of transportation. To that end, the FAA has
consistently emphasized to air carriers that they should implement
public health guidelines established by the Centers for Disease
Control. The U.S. Government is currently working to develop a set of
public health risk mitigation measures for aviation to support the
reinvigoration of healthy passenger air travel. We believe a
comprehensive and consistent set of guidance to airports and airlines
is the most effective and efficient way to protect travelers, crews,
and the public from risks associated with COVID-19.
Thank you again for your letter. If I can be of further assistance,
please contact me or the Office of Government and Industry Affairs [.]
Sincerely,
Steve Dickson,
Administrator.
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
June 2, 2020.
The Honorable Alex M. Azar II,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200
Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20201.
Dear Secretary Azar: I write to request your Department's
assistance in ensuring that Hawai`i can require pre-boarding COVID-19
testing of all domestic passengers seeking to board direct flights to
Hawai`i.
I enclose copies of my recent correspondence with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) making the same request. My letter to the
FAA outlines Hawaii's efforts, as an isolated island State virtually
completely dependent on air travel for incoming passenger
transportation and further largely dependent economically on high
volume travel and tourism, to ensure that intended passengers with
indicated COVID-19 be screened out before they board planes rather than
addressed after arrival. This is critical not only to ensuring the
public health of Hawai`i residents and visitors but to creating the
public confidence in safety without which our travel and tourism
industry will not recover.
As you can see, the FAA has responded that the FAA is not able to
authorize Hawai`i to impose such a requirement under its existing
statutory authority, essentially because protection of the public
health other than for the safe operation of air transportation itself
is not within its statutory mandate. However, FAA recommended engaging
with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as FAA believes
HHS does have the appropriate authority to allow Hawai`i to implement
such conditions.
Accordingly, I ask that you review my request to determine whether
and how HHS may authorize Hawai`i to impose such conditions or, in the
alternative, to impose those conditions itself. This could include
flexibility within existing statutes and regulations, identification of
superseding authority in other Federal agencies, and proposed changes
to existing regulations and statutory authority. In the latter case, I
ask that you initiate any required rule changes under expedited
authority and propose to me specific statutory amendments which would
provide you with the necessary authority.
I ask that you do so on an emergency basis considering the
continued public health threat to Hawai`i from our inability to impose
and enforce effective mitigation requirements. As an island State, we
were able to keep our infection rate very low, and increased travel
increases the risk of infection in our State.
I also believe that as the country reopens, the question of the
health and safety of commercial aviation will play a major role in
whether we can fully return to pre-COVID-19 rates of travel globally.
Our Government must take active steps to ensure the health and safety
of communities, passengers and crew arising from proposed resumption of
any major airline travel.
I appreciate your prompt and full attention. Please call on me for
any questions or needs.
Sincerely,
Ed Case,
Hawai`i--First District.
______
Letter From Captain Joseph G. DePete, President, Air Line Pilots
Association, International
June 18, 2020.
The Honorable Lou Correa,
Chairman, Transportation and Maritime Subcommittee, 1039 Longworth
House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Debbie Lesko,
Ranking Member, Transportation and Maritime Subcommittee, 1113
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Correa and Ranking Member Lesko: On behalf of the Air
Line Pilots Association's (ALPA's) 63,000 professional airline pilots
at 34 U.S and Canadian airlines, we would like to thank the committee
and subcommittee for holding the hearing ``Climbing Again: Stakeholder
Views on Resuming Air Travel in the COVID-19 Era,'' and for its
leadership during the pandemic, which has taken a significant toll on
the global aviation industry. This hearing comes at a pivotal time for
commercial airline operations as we work to ensure the health and
safety of our returning crews and passengers. Steps are being taken to
stabilize the financial health of our airlines, as we continue to
welcome back an increasing number of passengers.
We applaud Congress for taking swift and decisive action early in
this crisis to pass the CARES Act, which provided a major financial
lifeline for the airlines and included strong worker protections. We
believe that additional steps must be taken to ensure the aviation
industry recovers and front-line workers are not harmed to include the
following:
Extending the CARES Act worker support program or other
financial instruments directed toward worker payroll and
benefits beyond October 1 to ensure the stability of the
airline industry and a robust rebound to passenger travel,
Ensuring health care coverage for front-line workers,
including COBRA subsidies for airline workers displaced as the
result of the industry downturn due to the pandemic,
Hazard pay for essential workers,
Reforming the bankruptcy code to provide protections to
workers' collective bargaining agreements should companies seek
to reorganize as a means to shed labor costs, and
Extended sick leave, unemployment benefits, and furlough
mitigations related to COVID-19.
We believe that the key to restoring public confidence in air
transportation is taking the necessary steps to protect passenger
health, safety, and security. While the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have issued
strong guidance on protecting the health of our passenger and crew
members, these protocols are simply guidance.
Compliance with that guidance is currently voluntary and non-
standard. A recent article on this subject sums up our concerns quite
well: ``Each of the country's major airlines has taken a different
approach to reconcile ways of increasing revenue with peace of mind for
flyers . . . Some carriers have gone to the extreme by blocking middle
seats and flying extra flights to keep passenger loads light. Others
are continuing on with business almost as usual, not requiring so much
as a face covering for passengers.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Business Insider, June 15, 2020 (https://
www.businessinsider.com/us-airline-new-coronavirus-travel-rules-
comparison-american-united-delta-2020-6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As recent data demonstrates, airlines have made positive strides in
promoting a safer environment, but absent a Federal requirement for
standard safety and health requirements, there will continue to be a
patchwork system, which will be increasingly under strain as more
people return to flying.
And returning to flying is exactly what must happen because it is
essential for the economy, the airlines, their employees, and the
millions of others who rely on a safe and interconnected travel
industry.
We are also concerned that complacency will be a factor without a
mandate.
Shortly following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) established the
Council Aviation Recovery Taskforce (CART). The goal of this body was
to provide practical, aligned guidance to governments and industry
operators in order to restart the international air transport sector
and recover from the impacts of COVID-19 on a coordinated global basis.
CART offers guidelines for airports, aircraft, crews, and cargo and
were guided by the following considerations:
1. Remain focused on fundamentals: safety, security, and efficiency
2. Promote public health and confidence among passengers, aviation
workers, and the general public
3. Recognize aviation as a driver of economic recovery.
ALPA believes that this hearing and the participation of all of our
industry partners in the ICAO CART measures is an essential step toward
our Nation's successful recovery effort.
While our energy and resources are focused on fighting the global
pandemic, the need for an enhanced, risk-based, and efficient approach
to aviation security at our Nation's airports has not diminished. This
aligns with ICAO CART's position of ``remaining focused'' on safety,
security, and efficiency concurrently. ALPA continues to push for
necessary changes in aviation security, and we encourage the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to seek improvements of
their screening processes. These improvements must ensure we maintain
the level of security required at airports to address the everchanging
threats our industry faces, while simultaneously ensuring passengers
and workers are able to quickly and efficiently traverse secured areas
is unaffected. U.S. ingenuity and innovation has led to significant
improvements in individual and cargo screening technologies that will
significantly improve the screening process well into the future. Our
nation's leadership in aviation demands that we embrace these
technologies and continue to pursue still undiscovered ones. This has
been an on-going strategy of TSA Administrator Pekoske and ALPA
supports his efforts.
ALPA believes that this pandemic offers the opportunity to move
forward with science-based safety and security initiatives and
improvements.
no-touch safety and security screening
With the need for social distancing ranking high on the COVID-19
mitigation and prevention spectrum, any initiative which will remove
the need for close interaction between Transportation Security Officers
(TSOs) and individuals to be screened should be encouraged. The Known
Crewmember (KCM) program and CBP's Global Entry program are two
examples of resources which can efficiently screen individuals with
very little physical contact. TSA PreCheck also reduces the contact
between TSOs and those being screened. CBP and TSA should be encouraged
to maximize the use of these programs for the safety and security
benefits which they offer during this pandemic and beyond. ALPA has
long supported biometric technologies to expedite the security
screening processes. TSA should implement biometrics for KCM and
PreCheck program participants, and for all those who work at airports,
to reduce the potential of physical contact.
ALPA supports mandatory temperature checks for passengers and crews
as a means of mitigating the risk of spreading COVID-19 and in order to
provide some level of reassurance to the traveling public. The TSA has
been recognized as a possible agency to perform this function. If this
proposal were to be implemented, we would urge the agency to use
additional TSOs who are not engaged during that shift in security
screening activities to perform that function. A TSO should not be
distracted by any additional, unrelated duties while conducting
security screening. Another consideration is to have medically trained
staff accomplish these functions. Those engaged in temperature
screening should have appropriate training and be provided with
personal protective equipment. We would also recommend that temperature
screening be conducted in advance of the baggage checking process, to
limit the exposure to others by an individual with a temperature and
preclude the need for retrieving the bags of such an individual.
In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic has pushed our once thriving
industry to the brink of destruction. Airlines which just a few months
ago were purchasing new aircraft and enjoying record-low fuel costs are
now exploring cost-cutting strategies to remain solvent. For our
industry to fully recover, all stakeholders must work together to
develop a plan that restores the public's faith in flying.
We appreciate the opportunity to offer these comments and we look
forward to the hearing.
Sincerely,
Captain Joseph G. DePete,
President, Air Line Pilots Association, International.
______
Statement of John Gannon, CEO/President, Blue Spark Technologies, Inc.
June 18, 2020
Blue Spark Technologies, the manufacturer of TempTraq a wireless
remote body temperature monitor, is respectfully submitting this paper
to the Homeland Subcommittee on Maritime and Transportation Security
relative to its June 18 hearing on Stakeholder Views on Resuming Air
Travel in Covid-19 Era.
It is universally recognized that 80 percent or more of those who
contract COVID-19 show early signs of the virus through an increase in
their body temperature. Protecting employees and business operations
from disruption by simply taking an employee's temperature as they
arrive at work only insures a reading at that particular moment in
time. To effectively protect the total system, employees need to be
constantly monitored during the entire workday so if an employee's
temperature should rise on the job, they can quickly be removed to
determine if it is COVID-related or another issue.
TempTraq, the first FDA-cleared single-use, wireless, continuous
temperature monitor available was originally developed for hospital
patient use. TempTraq is a soft, comfortable, and disposable patch the
size of a Band-Aid that integrates state-of-the-art ultra-thin printed
batteries based on technology originally licensed from Energizer
Corporation. TempTraq is a one-time-use disposable device that is
placed in the armpit and continuously measures and records body
temperature and sends the information in real time to a remote
dashboard where the wearers' patch is centrally monitored or to the
wearer's smart phone through an app. TempTraq Connect is the HIPAA-
compliant cloud service supported by the Google Healthcare Cloud
Platform that enables those wearing the patch to monitor body
temperature from anywhere even to their smart phones.
During the pandemic, TempTraq was approved by HHS and FEMA to be
utilized to monitor front-line health care providers and other critical
essential workers. This included use within command centers of nuclear
power plants where critical personnel entering these command centers
are monitored throughout their shift to make sure they are not
experiencing a fever rise. This protects not only the wearer but also
helps to eliminate disruption of the critical facility.
We believe that the uninterrupted operations of our airports and
especially that of our air traffic control system is vital to the
safety of air travel and to rebuild confidence with the flying public.
To safeguard the integrity of our air traffic control system, we
suggest that each air traffic control employee be issued 24-Hour
TempTraq Patches at the beginning of their shift. The unique ID of the
TempTraq patch would be aligned with the employees profile in the
TempTraq dashboard. The dashboard continuously updates the temperature
of all employees from the time they enter the operation to when they
leave and flags an alert if there is a fever incident. A COVID-19
outbreak in this highly critical industry could be catastrophic due to
the lack of qualified backup personnel.
As for large- and medium-hub airport facilities, we believe all
employees should be monitored in the same fashion as the air traffic
controllers using the TempTraq patch during the entire time they are
present at the airport facility. This would include all TSA staff,
airport staff, and those companies that operate concessions. The
airport management could easily monitor all employees at a common
command center and should any one of the staff on-site show a spike in
temperature, that individual would be immediately removed to a secure
place to determine if they have the virus. Utilizing the patch for all
those non-fliers at an airport would protect not only the employees and
the facility but also provide additional confidence to fliers that
those facilities are taking all the precautions needed to safeguard
their travel.
TempTraq has been successfully used to identify infected personnel
mid-shift in front-line health care applications. Operations that
simply check the temperature of the workforce as they enter the
facility, fail to fully safeguard both the employee and the facility
after that initial test. TempTraq's continuous monitoring is the only
way to guarantee real-time full coverage of the workforce and facility.
Last, although the cruise line industry is not the subject of
today's hearing, we have also reached out to that industry to utilize
the patch on both their staff and the customers while on-board the
ship. This would provide an early sign for all so the impacted wearer
could be isolated until such time the cause of the rise was determined.
Once again, this would provide all with a sense of protection and
overcome many of the fears associated with taking a cruise.
By submittal of our statement we hope it will provide the committee
with a better understanding of this modern technology that currently
exists which could greatly help fight the spread of COVID-19. We
appreciate the time of the committee.
______
Article From USA Today
opinion.--secretary chao has authority to require airline refunds,
covid safety. she should use it.
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao could be doing more to protect air
travelers amid COVID. Refund and safety decisions should not be
up to airlines.
Anna Laitin and William J. McGee, Opinion contributors.
The COVID-19 crisis has dramatically impacted the lives of
Americans--their health, their economic outlook and much more. Air
travel is one area of life that has been completely turned upside down.
For months, very few Americans stepped onto an airplane. As more and
more people start to think about flying again, concerns about the
layouts of airports and airplanes make them problematic transmission
risks for travelers.
This situation demands an attentive and consumer-focused Department
of Transportation. Unfortunately, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao
has stepped back from her duty to protect passengers. She has not taken
the actions needed to assist the thousands of consumers who can't get
their money back from airlines after canceling flights. And she has
failed to set guidelines for airline and airport safety measures that
protect travelers and employees. Instead, she is deferring to the
airlines to do this work for her.
Use authority to protect passengers
In the face of a record number of complaints from consumers seeking
refunds, Secretary Chao has called on airlines to treat passengers
fairly during the pandemic. While we heartily agree with her that
consumers should be entitled to refunds for travel disrupted by the
COVID-19 crisis, we urge the secretary to recognize and act on her
authority to resolve this problem for consumers.
Since the COVID-19 crisis began, Consumer Reports has heard from
nearly 3,500 consumers who were denied refunds for canceled travel.
We've heard from people whose scheduled events--graduations, weddings,
reunions, conventions, conferences--have been canceled with no
expectation that those trips will ever happen again. Some have told us
they're afraid to fly now, because of age or medical conditions. Many
are in desperate need of cash to replace lost wages and have no use for
a voucher for future travel. These consumers resent giving interest-
free loans or total write-offs to airlines they just bailed out with
billions of tax dollars.
Secretary Chao has the authority to fix this. If she truly agrees
that consumers are not being treated fairly, she can declare the
airlines' refusal to provide refunds to be ``unfair''--and unlawful.
And on that basis, she can require the airlines to refund consumers'
money.
More broadly, as States begin to open and travelers begin flying
again, it is incumbent on the secretary to use the authority of her
position to ensure that consumers are safe and healthy when they fly.
Rather than merely urge the airlines to act fairly and with travelers'
health in mind, the proper job of the Transportation secretary is to
protect consumers when the airlines fail to do so.
Secretary Chao can do this using the same authorities used by past
Transportation secretaries who required airlines to include all fees in
advertised fares and adopt stronger security measures following 9/11.
Just as flyers are looking to the Department of Transportation to help
them secure refunds when their travel is canceled, they are counting on
the DOT and the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure that their
health is not unreasonably put at risk when they do travel.
Uniform health and safety standards
The secretary must work with other key administration officials and
take an active role in establishing requirements for airlines,
airports, and travelers to protect against the transmission of COVID-19
during air travel. Among the key areas where expert guidance is needed:
How and whether to screen passengers and employees for
COVID-19 before travel.
Appropriate social distancing in airports and airplane
cabins.
Use of face masks and other personal protective equipment
for passengers and employees.
Appropriate airport and airplane cleaning procedures.
Effectiveness of airplane cabin air circulation systems.
These decisions should not be made in a patchwork. Individual
airports and private sector airlines should not be left to fashion
these critical yet delicate health, safety, and privacy policies on
their own. And consumers should not be left to evaluate which airlines
and airports are ensuring adequate precautions for the health and well-
being of travelers and their families.
Our view: Airlines got coronavirus aid, so why are they stingy on
flight refunds and safety?
The most critical responsibility of the DOT and the FAA is to
secure the safety and well-being of all passengers and of everyone
working in commercial aviation. Secretary Chao says she recognizes that
U.S. airlines and airports need to do more. But we urge her to also
recognize that it is her own department that needs to provide the
leadership to see all air travelers safely through this COVID-19
crisis.
Anna Laitin is director of financial fairness and legislative
strategy for Consumer Reports, and William J. McGee is an aviation
adviser for Consumer Reports. Follow them on Twitter: @AnnaLaitin,
@WilliamJMcGee.
Mr. Correa. The Members of the subcommittee may have
additional questions for the witnesses and, we ask that the
witnesses respond expeditiously in writing to those questions.
Without objection, the committee records shall be kept open
for 10 days.
Hearing no further business before this committee, this
subcommittee stands adjourned.
Thank you, everybody.
[Whereupon, at 5:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Honorable Dina Titus for Kevin M. Burke
Question 1. How is restoring consumer confidence in air travel
critical to districts like Nevada's 1st Congressional District that
rely on millions of visitors from around the world to come work, play,
and stay?
Answer. Restoring public confidence in air travel is absolutely
critical to ensure the economic vitality of cities and towns across the
United States that rely on travel and tourism. In support of this
initiative, ACI-NA in April 2020 established the Airport Industry
Recovery Advisory Panel (AIRAP) comprised of airport representatives
from many of our association's committees to provide guidance and
direction as the industry navigates restart and recovery. The advisory
panel issued a report outlining 42 immediate industry recommendations
and priorities for ACI-NA to move forward on as the industry prepares
for the future. The initial recommendations focus on legislative policy
changes, new regulatory efforts, and instituting good practices. ACI-NA
also launched a ``Ready for Every Journey'' campaign to help educate
passengers and local communities about the steps airports are taking to
protect health and safety as travel resumes following the coronavirus
(COVID-19) pandemic.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. airports were powerful
economic engines in their local communities, generating more than $1.1
trillion in annual activity and supporting over 11 million jobs. They
have since been reduced to mere shells of their former selves, with
passenger traffic down--at the peak--by over 90 percent from the levels
we saw this time last year. As a result, airports and tenants are
struggling to survive. ACI-NA estimates U.S. airports face at least $23
billion in operating losses as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, based
on preliminary data about air service reductions to date.
Question 2. Air travel is picking up, even though the virus
continues to loom large. Can airports continue to meet cleaning and
sanitation standards as passenger volume grows?
Answer. Airports responded quickly to COVID-19 by implementing
measures to provide for the health and safety of their passengers,
employees, and tenants, through the establishment of enhanced cleaning
and sanitation protocols, with an intense focus on ``touch points.'' In
addition, airports have deployed additional hand sanitizer in airport
public areas for passengers and employees, and enhanced communications
to raise awareness about measures--including social/physical
distancing--to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
The cleaning and sanitization reimbursement program established by
TSA through the CARES Act has helped ensure that airports are better
positioned to support increased cleaning and sanitization in response
to the COVID-19 National emergency. We encourage Congress to fully
authorize and appropriate funds for this program so it can be sustained
in the future.
Question 3. Currently the security fee the Government collects on
each airplane ticket goes to the general fund to pay down the National
deficit. I cosponsored a bill led by our Chairman and the Chairman of
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that would
change that. Especially in light of this pandemic, does continuing to
allow this diversion make sense, or is it time for those funds to go
toward aviation security?
Answer. ACI-NA has long called on Congress to end the diversion of
user fees designed to enhance security. Each year billions of dollars
from the 9/11 Passenger Security Fee (and CBP user fees) are diverted
from their intended purpose to subsidize other Federal programs. In
this time of National emergency, it is critical to stop these budgetary
gimmicks, end the fee diversion, and ensure the revenue is restored to
its proper use of funding and enhancing crucial transportation security
programs. In particular, the 9/11 Passenger Security Fee should be used
for its intended purpose, to fund civil aviation security services,
including the salary, benefits, and overtime for Transportation
Security Officers, as well as the acquisition, operation, and
maintenance of screening technology. In ending the fee diversion,
however, it is critical to ensure the agencies are fully funded to
support existing and new programs.
Questions From Honorable Dina Titus for Sara Nelson
Question 1. Have you heard of your members being furloughed or
having pay or benefits reduced? When October 1, comes around how do you
think airline employees will fare?
Answer. As of July 31, none of our members have been involuntary
furloughed because of the CARES Act's Payroll Support Program (PSP).
Only PSP has protected the jobs and health care of our members during
this unprecedented crisis for aviation, including a near-total collapse
of flight volume and passenger demand in the months following the
pandemic. While compensation varies across carriers and positions, many
carriers have reduced payroll to the level of the contract minimum for
members who aren't working flights. Many flight attendants have
experienced a 30 percent reduction in take-home pay, a direct
consequence of the drop in flight volume across the industry. Only PSP
has kept us on payroll and health care and protected our members
against massive furloughs, permanent layoffs, and further dislocation.
If the Payroll Support Program is not extended immediately,
hundreds of thousands of airline workers will be laid off on October 1.
Major airlines and regional carriers Nationally have already begun
sending WARN Act notices to thousands and thousands of flight
attendants and other aviation workers. The result will diminish the
industry for years to come, eliminate regular air service to
communities across the country, and undermine aviation's role in
economic recovery for the broader economy.
Question 2. Keeping in mind that aviation workers have shown up to
work every day, have airline employees received hazard and sick pay
since this pandemic began? Should they?
Answer. Flight attendants have not received any hazard or sick pay
since the pandemic began. We are deeply grateful for the Payroll
Support Program (PSP), which has kept us on the job, on health care,
and off unemployment. Without an extension of the PSP program, hundreds
of thousands of front-line aviation workers will lose their jobs
starting on October 1.
Question From Honorable Dina Titus for Victoria Emerson Barnes
Question. How is restoring consumer confidence in air travel
critical to districts like Nevada's 1st Congressional District that
rely on millions of visitors from around the world to come work, play,
and stay?
Answer. Restoring Confidence in air travel as well as confidence in
the travel experience broadly is absolutely critical: 38 percent of all
jobs lost due to COVID-19 are travel-related jobs and without restoring
consumer confidence throughout the travel ecosystem, quite frankly, the
economy will not recover in the short term.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 1 of every 10 American jobs
represented the travel and tourism industry, 15.8 million American
jobs. These jobs were supported by $1.1 trillion in traveler spending
in 2019 that generated $2.6 trillion in total economic output. As a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the industry, and the economic
impacts, have been decimated. While the rest of the economy is in
recession, the travel industry is in a depression. Nearly 40 percent of
all jobs lost through April represent the travel industry, that's more
than 8 million jobs or 51 percent of the pre-COVID-19 workforce. Travel
spending is expected to lose $519 billion causing $1.2 trillion in
economic loss. For perspective, these figures are 10 times worse than
the economic impacts of September 11, which took the industry 2 years
to recover.
U.S. Travel and our partners have been closely monitoring travel
economic data and traveler sentiment. After shrinking below 100,000 for
much of April (down 96 percent year over year), TSA has steadily seen
increased screening throughput, peaking at 764,000 just before the July
Fourth holiday.\1\ Unfortunately, it seems traveler sentiment has
recently begun trending negatively. After many weeks of improving
sentiment, recent spikes of new COVID-19 cases seem to be having an
impact. An increasing number of travelers now report changing plans (76
percent up from 69 percent 2 weeks ago), and 40 percent now say they
will delay air travel for at least the next year. Domestic air and
hotel bookings for future travel is down 70 percent over the same
period last year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.tsa.gov/coronavirus/passenger-throughput.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reversing this trend and accelerating recovery will take two
primary steps. These steps will take a mutual effort between government
and the private sector. First, implementing health and safety protocols
to protect aviation workers and customers is essential. While all risk
cannot be mitigated, applying a consistent, phased, and layered
approach to health and safety will help give travelers confidence in
what they can expect throughout the travel experience. U.S. Travel, in
coordination with 30 industry trade groups including airports and
airlines, has developed guidance that aims to provide consistency in
the approach to safety employed by travel brands and destinations
during the customer experience. The guidance includes using
transmission barriers, enhanced sanitation and promoting touchless
solutions.
Second, clearly communicating the health and safety operations of
businesses and expectations of travelers will provide clarity and
confidence to travelers. Destination marketing organizations (DMOs),
which already have tools for communicating directly with travelers,
should be activated to communicate health and safe travel throughout
the country. To maximize effectiveness, Congress should provide DMOs
the resources they need by passing the STEP Act (S. 4299) which was
introduced in the Senate this month. The STEP Act would allocate up to
$10 billion in Economic Development Administration (EDA) grants for
promoting safe and healthy travel practices and marketing destinations
that have safely reopened for business. By providing DMOs the resources
to clearly communicate health and safety protocols, Congress can safely
boost travel confidence, demand, rehiring.
Implementing industry-wide National marketing campaign and Federal
grants to DMOs, will help restore demand for travel that is critical to
State and local economies. Without assistance from the Federal
Government, the travel industry is not expected to reach 2019 levels
until 2024. According to Tourism Economics, these 2 relief efforts,
coupled with consumer tax incentives, will generate $71 billion in
additional travel industry spending by the end of 2021.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.ustravel.org/toolkit/covid-19-travel-industry-
research?utm_source=-
MagnetMail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=7%2E28%2E20%20%2D%20-
COVID%20Weekly%20%2323&utm_campaign=ust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The top priority of travel businesses is helping to keep travelers
and employees healthy and safe. When we all do our part, which includes
individual responsibly for wearing masks, following sanitation
recommendations, and staying home if you're sick, we can all travel
confidently. Thank you and please don't hesitate to reach out to me or
my team to follow up and provide more details about our proposals for
stimulating air-travel by instilling confidence in the traveler.