[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 58 (Thursday, May 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
            INDEPENDENT SAFETY BOARD ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1994

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 294, S. 1588, 
the Independent Safety Board Act Amendments of 1994.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1588) to amend the Independent Safety Board Act 
     of 1974 to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1994, 
     1995 and 1996.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.


                           amendment no. 1706

     (Purpose: To make an amendment in the nature of a substitute)

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Ford, I send to the 
desk a substitute amendment and ask for its immediate consideration; 
that the amendment be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider laid upon 
the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 1706) was agreed to, as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Independent Safety Board Act 
     Amendments of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Sec. 309(a) of the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (49 
     App. U.S.C. 1907(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) There are authorized to be appropriated for the 
     purposes of this Act not to exceed $37,580,000 for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1994, $44,000,000 for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1995, $45,100,000 for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1996. Such sums shall remain 
     available until expended.''.

     SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 
                   TO THE OPERATION OF PUBLIC AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Definition of Public Aircraft.--Section 101(36) of the 
     Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1301(36)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``persons or'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``persons, or engaged in carrying'';
       (2) by inserting ``(A)'' immediately after ``For purposes 
     of this paragraph,''; and
       (3) by striking the period at the end of the second 
     sentence and inserting in lieu thereof'', and (B) `engaged in 
     carrying persons' includes the provision of passenger 
     transportation but does not include (i) the carriage of 
     crewmembers or of other persons aboard an aircraft whose 
     presence is required to perform, or is associated with the 
     performance of, a governmental function such as firefighting, 
     search and rescue, law enforcement, aeronautical research, or 
     biological or geological resource management, or (ii) the 
     carriage of persons (for other than commercial purposes) 
     aboard aircraft operated by the Armed Forces or an 
     intelligence agency of the United States.''.
       (b) Exemptions.--Notwithstanding the provisions of section 
     610(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 
     1430(a)), the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration may grant exemptions pursuant to section 
     601(c) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 
     1421(c)) to a governmental entity with respect to an aircraft 
     which, before the date of enactment of this Act and while 
     owned or operated by such governmental entity, was engaged in 
     carrying persons. For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``engaged in carrying persons'' has the meaning given that 
     term under section 101(36) of the Federal Aviation Act of 
     1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1301(36)), as amended by this Act.
       (c) Investigative Authority of Board.--(1) Section 
     304(a)(1)(A) of the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (49 
     App. U.S.C. 1903(a)(1)(A) is amended by inserting '', or any 
     aircraft accident involving a public aircraft as defined 
     under section 101(36) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 
     App. U.S.C. 1301(36)) other than an aircraft operated by the 
     Armed Forces or by an Intelligence Agency'' immediately 
     before the semicolon at the end.
       (2) Section 304(b) of the Independent Safety Board Act of 
     1974 (49 App. U.S.C. 1903(b)) is amended by redesignating 
     paragraph (12) as paragraph (13) and by inserting immediately 
     after paragraph (11) the following new paragraph:
       ``(12) The Board, in furtherance of its investigative 
     duties with respect to public aircraft accidents under 
     subsection (a)(1)(A), shall have the same duties and powers 
     as are specified for civil aircraft accidents under sections 
     701(a)(1), 701(c), and 701(d) of the Federal Aviation Act of 
     1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1441(a)(1), (c), and (d)).''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (c) shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. ADVANCED LANDING SYSTEM.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, 
     the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall consider for approval under subpart C of part 171 of 
     title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, the new generation, 
     low cost, advanced landing system being developed by the 
     Department of Defense. The charter for approval of such 
     system shall be considered and acted upon expeditiously by 
     the Regional Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration in the region where such system is being 
     developed.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today, we are considering a 3-year 
authorization of the National Transportation Safety Board. The 
amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 1588, the Independent 
Safety Board Act Amendments of 1994, will provide sufficient funds for 
the NTSB to continue its work protecting the traveling public. As we 
attempt to address safety problems, Congress and the executive branch 
could not begin to adequately review all of the issues without the 
painstaking work of the NTSB.
  This year I anticipate a large turnover in the members of the NTSB. 
Earlier this year, a good friend, Jim Hall, joined the Board and I 
welcomed him to the agency. Susan Coughlin, after serving as the vice 
chair, recently left. Her efforts and dedication will be missed. Carl 
Vogt has provided steady and thoughtful leadership as Chairman, and his 
term as Chairman expires later this year. Finally, to my good friend 
John Lauber, who is recognized as a world leader in human factors, his 
humor, dedication, and thoroughness will be greatly missed. Together 
those folks leaving the board have left a tough act to follow. The 3 
year authorization should be provide the next set of board members 
ample time to focus their energies in making transportation even safer.
  It is interesting to note that the last 3 years have been the safest 
on record. I know the NTSB played a significant role in the record and 
those efforts are greatly appreciated.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today we are considering S. 1588, a 
reauthorization bill for the National Transportation Safety Board 
[NTSB] for a three-year period.
  The NTSB serves as our Nation's primary safety investigative agency, 
mobilizing teams of investigators wherever and whenever there is a 
major transportation accident in the United States. NTSB experts 
thoroughly examine every conceivable aspect of an accident scene to 
discover the causes of these tragedies. Although it is a time-consuming 
and often frustrating process, accident investigation is critical to 
the safety of our transportation system. The work of the NTSB helps to 
ensure that safety hazards which may have caused one tragedy will not 
cause another.
  In this year of deficit reduction and fiscal restraint, each Federal 
agency is feeling the squeeze of a tighter budgetary belt. The NTSB is 
no exception. In the early 1980's, staff levels were as high as 401; 
today, there are fewer than 360 full-time equivalent [FTE] employees. 
The NTSB's budget follows President Clinton's order for a slimmer 
federal workforce, with a significant reduction in staff size schedule 
for fiscal year 1994.
  Our transportation system is the safest in the world, thanks largely 
to the tireless efforts of the NTSB. The bill ensures that the NTSB 
will continue its unparalleled work in the area of transportation 
safety.


                         public aircraft safety

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the Senate is considering S. 1588, the 
Independent Safety Board Act Amendments of 1994. I strongly support 
passage of this bill to reauthorize the National Transportation Safety 
Board [NTSB]. S. 1588 includes a provision I authored that is designed 
to advance the safety of travel on government owned or leased aircraft. 
I had intended to offer my provision as an amendment to the Airport 
Improvement Program temporary extension bill. That bill had particular 
importance for me because it was passed by the Senate on April 19, 
1994, a sad date in South Dakota history.
  One year ago on that day, a tragic plane crash claimed the lives of 
South Dakota's Governor, George Mickelson, and seven other South 
Dakotans: Roland Dolly, Ron Reed, Angus Anson, Dave Birkeland, Roger 
Hainje, Ron Becker and David Hansen. These men were killed in a 
Mitsubishi MU-2B-60 aircraft while returning to South Dakota from a 
meeting to help advance economic development in our State. In part, I 
have pushed my public aircraft safety provision as a tribute to those 
eight outstanding citizens.
  I am pleased the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee has agreed 
instead to include my provision, which is derived from a bill I 
introduced during the first session of the 103d Congress, in the 
committee substitute to S. 1588. I thank the subcommittee chairman, 
Senator Ford, for his assistance with this important aviation safety 
matter.
  Mr. President, the purpose of my provision is to advance the safety 
of travel on public aircraft; that is, aircraft used exclusively in the 
service of Federal, State, and local governments. Under current law, 
public aircraft are not subject to Federal Aviation Act [FAA] safety 
regulations to the extent imposed on civil aircraft. In my view, this 
inconsistency could jeopardize the safety of persons traveling on air 
carriers currently defined as public aircraft.
  I first became aware of the regulatory exemptions for public aircraft 
soon after last year's tragic plane crash. Reports surfaced of a 1991 
incident involving circumstances similar to those in the Governor's 
crash that resulted in the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] 
issuing safety recommendations to the FAA. As disturbed as I was that 
the FAA had not acted on the NTSB's recommendations, I was even more 
concerned to learn that even if the FAA had acted, the State of South 
Dakota would have been under no obligation to enforce the FAA 
requirements. I find this very troubling.
  Let me be perfectly clear. I am confident the State transportation 
officials responsible for maintaining South Dakota's planes do their 
utmost to ensure its planes are properly maintained. In fact, the NTSB 
determined the probable cause of the South Dakota MU-2 plane crash to 
be generally related to manufacturing, completely exonerating the State 
government and its pilots. Nevertheless, as ranking member of the 
Senate Aviation Subcommittee, I think Congress is obligated to do its 
utmost to advance air travel safety wherever a problem exists. 
Narrowing greatly the areas in which public aircraft are exempted from 
FAA compliance is one way we can advance this goal.
  Mr. President, my provision would amend the definition of public 
aircraft to mandate that FAA safety regulations, directives and orders 
issued for civil aircraft be made applicable to all government-owned, 
nonmilitary aircraft engaged in passenger transport. The Administrator 
would, however, be allowed to waive FAA requirements for public 
aircraft provided an equivalent level of safety has been established by 
the governmental entity responsible for the aircraft. Finally, my 
provision would grant the NTSB authority to investigate accidents 
involving all public, nonmilitary aircraft. I consider this last point 
to be extremely important because it will allow for an accurate data 
base to be established, which should enable us to more conclusively 
assess public aircraft safety.
  Originally, I introduced legislation to mandate that all FAA 
regulations issued for civil aircraft relating to airworthiness, and 
other safety related orders, be made applicable to all public, 
nonmilitary aircraft. I agreed to alter my original provision only 
after the FAA and several other Federal agencies raised concerns that 
merited consideration.
  For example, according to U.S. Forest Service officials, aircraft 
owned by that agency are used to perform special governmental 
functions, such as fire fighting missions. These missions require 
unique equipment that would not meet FAA certification standards. That 
is not to say that this agency is not flying safe aircraft. Rather, its 
operations require specialized equipment that deviates from FAA 
certified civil aircraft.
  Because it is not my intent to obstruct necessary governmental 
operations--such as fire fighting, law enforcement and search and 
rescue missions that require specialized equipment or perform functions 
that would require exemptions from Federal Aviation regulations--I 
agreed to revise my original legislation in order to prevent the 
grounding of such government aircraft. At the same time, however, my 
provision would require all government-owned, nonmilitary aircraft 
engaged in transporting persons to meet FAA safety regulations.

  Again, I had hoped to apply FAA safety regulations to all public 
aircraft. However, I have agreed to an alternative approach in light of 
the agencies' operational concerns and the pressing need for action. 
This need for action was clearly illustrated in the April 13, 1994 
Washington Post article regarding the cause of last year's fatal crash 
of an FAA agency plane near Front Royal, VA. The first paragraph reads 
as follows:

       The federal agency that polices commercial airlines for 
     safety is not nearly as careful with its own operations, and 
     that laxness helped cause a recent plane crash that killed 
     three of its employees, the National Transportation Safety 
     Board said.

  In short, the NTSB faulted FAA management. The NTSB's director of 
aviation safety, Tim Forte, is quoted: ``What we're [NTSB] really 
saying is, `Apply the same standards to yourself as you do to the 
industry.''' That quote accurately describes the purpose of my 
provision. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Washington Post 
article be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1).
  Mr. President.
  Mr. President, my colleagues also may be interested to learn the 
General Accounting Office [GAO] conducted a study of the Federal 
regulation of public aircraft. This was not an easy task because the 
current regulatory exemptions for public aircraft mean there is no 
historical data base on which to conclusively assess public aircraft 
safety. For example, The FAA does not know how well public aircraft are 
maintained or operated because it has no responsibility for inspecting 
or otherwise overseeing them. However, the GAO was able to make some 
very important determinations.
  According to the GAO, owners and operators usually adhere voluntarily 
to most FAA safety regulations for aircraft operations. That is 
certainly the policy of transportation officials in the State of South 
Dakota. However, the GAO also cited exceptions to voluntary compliance. 
In my view, these exceptions could jeopardize the safety of persons 
traveling in Government-owned aircraft.
  The GAO study went on to say the following:

       Subjecting public aircraft to additional FAA safety 
     regulations is appropriate because:
       1. This will enhance the likelihood of [safety regulation] 
     compliance;
       2. Aircraft owned or used exclusively by the government 
     should set an example and follow the same basic safety rules 
     expected of private sector aircraft; and
       3. A public aircraft that crashes can cause as much bodily 
     injury and property damage as a similar civil aircraft.

  Further, the GAO found no reason why public aircraft accidents should 
not be reported to and investigated by the NTSB. Given these and other 
considerations, I am spurred to push my provision to expand FAA safety 
regulations to government-owned aircraft engaged in the transport of 
passengers.
  Mr. President, I continue to advocate that all aircraft, whether 
civil or public, be maintained to the highest level of aviation safety. 
In that regard, proper governmental oversight is critical to promoting 
a national aviation safety enforcement agenda. I am confident that upon 
enactment of S. 1588, with the provisions I have pushed, we will 
advance one step closer to achieving this goal.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, April 13, 1994]

            FAA Management Faulted In Crash of Agency Plane

                          (By Debbi Wilgoren)

       The federal agency that polices commercial airlines for 
     safety is not nearly as careful with its own operations, and 
     that laxness helped cause a recent plane crash that killed 
     three of its employees, the National Transportation Safety 
     Board said yesterday.
       Federal Aviation Administration officials failed to address 
     repeated complaints from employees that the pilot of the FAA 
     plane, Donald J. Robbins, had shown poor judgment and taken 
     unnecessary risks on earlier flights, the safety board said.
       Robbins also was not punished when he failed to notify the 
     FAA immediately after being convicted of drunken driving 
     several years ago, the board said, and the agency did little 
     to monitor his conduct or that of other pilots while they 
     were on the job.
       ``I think we're all a bit astounded that [the crash] 
     happened inside the FAA,'' said board Chairman Carl W. Vogt. 
     ``The same professionalism [the agency requires of private 
     aircraft] has to apply.''
       The board met yesterday to discuss the Oct. 26 crash of the 
     twin-engine Beech King Air on a fog-shrouded peak in the Blue 
     Ridge Mountains near Front Royal, Va., about 75 miles west of 
     Washington. Robbins and his two crew members, all based at an 
     FAA flight inspection office in Atlantic City, died in the 
     flaming fuselage.
       The board attributed the crash to Robbins's attempt to 
     navigate in poor weather without flight instruments, but 
     added that the FAA also was responsible because it had failed 
     to monitor pilots and remove the ones whose work was 
     substandard.
       Board members called on the FAA to strengthen oversight of 
     its own flight operations; ``retrain, reassign or dismiss'' 
     employees who perform poorly; and furnish its 55 small 
     aircraft with recording equipment and a warning system that 
     lets pilots know when they are too close to the ground. The 
     planes are used by FAA inspectors who test airport equipment 
     across the country.
       ``What we're really saying is, `Apply the same standards to 
     yourself as you do to the industry,''' said Tim Forte, the 
     board's director of aviation safety.
       An FAA spokesman said the agency agrees with the board's 
     recommendations and already has taken several steps to 
     improve safety. After the accident, we took a very hard look 
     at our operations,'' spokesman Pat Carasio said. ``We are 
     basically making some real major changes so that this doesn't 
     happen again.''
       Those include a new organizational structure, in which 
     pilots and co-pilots report to the same supervisor; beefed-up 
     inspection programs; and the creation of a high-level office 
     charged with overseeing aircraft operations.
       ``They're going to start treating their own fleet as if it 
     was an airline . . . to receive the same type of scrutiny a 
     private airline would receive,'' said David Traynham, a staff 
     member on the House subcommittee that oversees the FAA.
       The crew aboard the Beech King Air had successfully tested 
     a radio beacon at the Winchester, Va., airport and was headed 
     for an overnight stop at Newport News, Va., when it crashed.
       After the crash, safety board investigators interviewed 
     dozens of personnel at the Atlantic City office. Several said 
     Robbins had sometimes communicated through cryptic hand 
     signals and refused to tell fellow crew members where flights 
     were headed or whether he had checked weather conditions. 
     Supervisors said that some co-pilots had refused to fly with 
     Robbins and that the schedule had been adjusted accordingly.
       Many of those interviewed by the safety board said they had 
     complained to management about Robbins in vain, or had kept 
     quiet because they were afraid of retribution.
       Although the Atlantic City office seemed particularly 
     troubled, the safety board found similar problems at other 
     flight inspection offices, its staff said yesterday.
       ``There are organizational deficiencies . . . starting in 
     the cockpit and going all the way up the chain of command,'' 
     board member John K. Lauber said.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2440, the 
House companion, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate 
consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the 
text of S. 1588, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill 
be advanced to third reading, passed, and the motion to reconsider laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the bill (H.R. 2440), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that S. 1588 
be indefinitely postponed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________