[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 76 (Thursday, June 16, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1994.

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to suggest to the 
managers of this bill--as I understand, it is acceptable to the 
manager; I am not sure about the comanager, but if it is--that it be 
accepted and that we move to reconsider and lay on the table; and, that 
if any Member of the Senate subsequently comes to the floor and is 
unhappy with that result, the opportunity will still be open for him or 
her to move to reconsider the measure.
  I just think sitting here waiting and twiddling our thumbs for 15 
minutes--and actually more than that because we waited prior to that 
time--is a reflection upon the Senate, and I think it is somewhat 
insulting to the managers of the bill. I am prepared to move forward 
and to give whoever might come at a later point an opportunity to 
protect his or her position.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, can we lay the Metzenbaum amendments 
aside and do some others that are ready to go?
  Mr. METZENBAUM. In order to do what?
  Mr. PRESSLER. I have a McCain amendment here ready to go.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. If the comanager were to indicate that the suggestion 
I made is acceptable, after we do that, I would have no problem with 
that.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, if I could suggest something to the 
Senator from Ohio. There is going to be a Republican conference on the 
subject of the Whitewater committee matter and, hopefully, on the fate 
of this bill. I would like to attend that and try to see if we cannot 
get this bill moving forward. I would appreciate it if we could just 
set this aside, rather than adopting it and trying to reopen it and 
maybe having a series of votes at some later time. We can set this 
amendment aside, dispose of these three amendments, and then I think I 
could represent to the Republicans who are about to meet that there may 
be four live issues, including the Senator's three issues, yet to be 
disposed of before the bill is passed. That is what I would like to do 
going into the meeting. So if we could just set this aside, I would 
appreciate it.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I do not really have any strong 
objection; although I do think we ought to proceed forward with this 
amendment. It has been here on the floor for probably a half an hour. 
Nobody has spoken against it, and only one spoke for it. I am, frankly, 
concerned because the first conference on the crime bill will occur at 
2:30 this afternoon, and I want to be present. I have a concern about 
that bill, and I want to know what others are saying about it.
  I am very much concerned that if we do that, I will find myself in 
the embarrassing position that I cannot get to the floor to offer my 
amendment; whereas, I had been advised earlier that this bill would be 
up and I should be ready to go forward, and I am.
  I do not want to be unfair to any Member of the Senate, but it seems 
to me that at least if we took this amendment, to which I understand 
there may be some objection, although none has been voiced so far, I am 
willing to adopt the unusual procedure of leaving the floor open for a 
motion to reconsider. I wonder why that does not make sense.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           faa responsiveness

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments 
during consideration of this aviation measure to bring to my colleagues 
attention a concern that I have raised time and again during the 103d 
Congress. That is my concern with the Federal Aviation Administration's 
[FAA] responsiveness to safety recommendations proposed by the National 
Transportation Safety Board [NTSB]. I will begin with a bit of history.
  As my colleagues may recall, I first questioned the FAA's 
responsiveness following last year's catastrophic plane crash that 
claimed the lives of South Dakota's Governor and seven citizens. I 
learned that the NTSB urged FAA action based on an NTSB investigation 
of a prior incident over Utica, NY, which had not resulted in any 
fatalities. The aircraft involved was the same type of aircraft as the 
Governor's plane.
  Although the NTSB urged an examination of similar aircraft in order 
to prevent what its chairman called ``a catastrophic accident,'' the 
FAA did not act. I have repeatedly questioned FAA officials about this. 
It seems to take a fatal accident to serve as a catalyst for FAA 
action. I have deemed this the tombstone effect. In fact, the FAA 
admitted to me that it took the Iowa crash, not the NTSB 
recommendations, to ground similar aircraft. Troubling, this is not an 
isolated FAA practice. Instead, it appears to becoming the status quo.
  The FAA's responsiveness is being questioned again, and this time, it 
is not just by me. This time, the Department of Transportation is 
taking on the FAA. Indeed, I read with great interest an article in 
Saturday's Washington Post regarding the FAA and its delay in taking 
action on Boeing 757 wake turbulence. I would like to read portions of 
that article:
  This is from the Washington Post last Saturday. ``FAA to Review 
Safety Order; Action on 757 Wake Turbulence Questioned,'' by Don 
Phillips.

       Transportation Secretary Federico Pena yesterday ordered a 
     review of the Federal Aviation Administration's handling of 
     allegations the Boeing 757 produces unusually strong 
     turbulence in its wake that can be dangerous to following 
     small aircraft.
       The review, on a broader scale, will examine the speed of 
     the agency's reaction to to safety-related information as 
     well as its procedures for providing full information to the 
     public.
       There were disputes in the agency whether the 757 produced 
     greater wake turbulence than any other aircraft its size. But 
     reacting to recommendations from the National Transportation 
     Safety Board, the FAA in May increased required separation 
     between the 757 and following aircraft from three miles to 
     four miles. The agency earlier directed air traffic 
     controllers to inform smaller aircraft when they are 
     following a 757.
       Pena's review was prompted by Los Angeles Times articles on 
     757 wake turbulence, including one last weekend alleging 
     former FAA chief scientists Robert Machol's warning the 757 
     could cause a ``major crash'' was ignored.
       The review, to be completed by July 22, also is to 
     determine whether the agency properly followed procedures 
     under the Freedom of Information Act in providing documents 
     to the Times and whether some documents were withheld 
     improperly. The paper said the FAA fought release of the 
     documents.

  Let me add, Mr. President:

       Wake turbulence is suspected in two recent crashes of small 
     aircraft following 757s in Billings, Mont., on Dec. 18, 1992, 
     and in Santa Ana, Calif., Dec. 15, 1993, involving loss of 13 
     total lives.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print this Washington Post 
article in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       FAA to Review Safety Order

                           (By Don Phillips)

       Transportation Secretary Federico Pena yesterday ordered a 
     review of the Federal Aviation Administration's handling of 
     allegations the Boeing 757 produces unusually strong 
     turbulence in its wake that can be dangerous to following 
     small aircraft.
       The review, on a broader scale, will examine the speed of 
     the agency's reaction to the safety-related information as 
     well as its procedures for providing full information to the 
     public.
       There were disputes in the agency whether the 757 produced 
     greater wake turbulence than any other aircraft its size. But 
     reacting to recommendations from the National Transportation 
     Safety Board, the FAA in May increased required separation 
     between the 757 and following aircraft from three miles to 
     four miles. The agency earlier directed air traffic 
     controllers to inform smaller aircraft when they are 
     following a 757.
       Pena's review was prompted by Los Angeles Times articles on 
     757 wake turbulence, including one last weekend alleging 
     former FAA chief scientist Robert Machol's warning the 757 
     could cause a '``major crash'' was ignored.
       The review, to be completed by July 22, also is to 
     determine whether the agency properly followed procedures 
     under the Freedom of Information Act in providing documents 
     to the Times and whether some documents were withheld 
     improperly. The paper said the FAA fought release of the 
     documents.
       FAA Administrator David R. Hinson said in a statement FAA's 
     actions ``appropriately address safety issues relating to the 
     wake vortex matter. I nonetheless believe strongly that the 
     public is entitled to be assured that the FAA has acted, and 
     can act in the future, with appropriate speed when the facts 
     warrant.''
       Hinson also directed an agencywide review of responses to 
     FOIA requests.
       The Times FOIA request, agency officials said, was handled 
     at a low level and Hinson's office was never informed. The 
     officials indicated they believe bungling, rather than 
     deliberate withholding of information, may be involved.
       ``It looked like we had something to hide, and that was not 
     the case,'' said FAA spokeswoman Sandra Allen.
       The 757, a twin-engine narrow-body jetliner, has flown for 
     more than a decade. The question of whether it has a worse 
     wake turbulence than other similar aircraft has become a 
     contentious issue, with various experts disagreeing.
       Wake turbulence is suspected in two recent crashes of small 
     aircraft following 757s in Billings, Mont., on Dec. 18, 1992, 
     and in Santa Ana, Calif., Dec. 15, 1993, involving loss of 13 
     total lives.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I also would like to read some of the 
L.A. Times editorial referenced in the Post article. This is from the 
L.A. Times editorial ``Accountability Within the FAA'':

       The Federal Aviation Administration's mishandling of the 
     problem of turbulence caused by the Boeing 757 passenger jet 
     warrants some kind of internal disciplinary action.
       Last Dec. 15 a twin-engine jet crashed in Santa Ana, 
     killing all five people aboard, including two executives of 
     the In-N-Out hamburger chain. The plane was about two miles 
     behind a Boeing 757 en route to John Wayne Airport, and 
     investigators linked turbulence from the big jet to the 
     crash. Such turbulence was also linked to an eight-fatality 
     crash in Montana in late 1992.
       The FAA was told twice in 1991 and twice two years later 
     about problems associated with turbulence in the wake of the 
     757, but it did not formally warn pilots.
       Now The Times has learned that the FAA's own top scientist, 
     Robert E. Machol, predicted to FAA leaders that a 
     ``catastrophe'' could occur due to 757 turbulence. The 
     warning came 11 days before the Montana crash, and a year 
     before the Santa Ana crash.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Not until after the two fatal crashes did FAA Administrator 
     David R. Hinson draw nationwide attention to the turbulence 
     problem, telling air traffic controllers to warn pilots of 
     the threat. Only last week did the FAA require planes 
     following 757s to stay back four miles rather than three. 
     Even that may be too little distance. The National 
     Transportation Safety Board recommended a six-mile 
     separation.
       It is understandable that the FAA is concerned about the 
     effect on the nation's commercial airlines of fewer revenue-
     producing flights if planes have to be spaced farther apart. 
     But safety must come first. Hinson and his aides should have 
     broadcast the information as quickly and widely as possible. 
     Heeding the warning signs would have served the public better 
     and might even have saved lives in Montana and Santa Ana.

  This is an editorial from the Los Angeles Times, and I ask unanimous 
consent to print this editorial in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                     Accountability Within the FAA

       The Federal Aviation Administration's mishandling of the 
     problem of turbulence caused by the Boeing 757 passenger jet 
     warrants some kind of internal disciplinary action.
       Last Dec. 15 a twin-engine jet crashed in Santa Ana, 
     killing all five people aboard, including two executives of 
     the In-N-Out hamburger chain. The plane was about two miles 
     behind a Boeing 757 en route to John Wayne Airport and 
     investigators linked turbulence from the big jet to the 
     crash. Such turbulence was also linked to an eight-fatality 
     crash in Montana in late 1992.
       The FAA was told twice in 1991 and twice two years later 
     about problems associated with turbulence in the wake of the 
     757, but it did not formally warn pilots.
       Now The Times has learned that the FAA's own top scientist, 
     Robert E. Machol, predicted to FAA leaders that a 
     ``catastrophe'' could occur due to 757 turbulence. The 
     warning came 11 days before the Montana crash, and a year 
     before the Santa Ana crash.
       The FAA has acknowledged that it may have violated 
     disclosure statutes by not releasing the latest information 
     in January and February, when The Times sought the records 
     involved. If there was a violation, it too is a matter for 
     disciplinary action.
       Not until after the two fatal crashes did FAA Administrator 
     David R. Hinson draw nationwide attention to the turbulence 
     problem, telling air traffic controllers to warn pilots of 
     the threat. Only last week did the FAA require plans 
     following 757s to stay back four miles rather than three. 
     Even that may be too little distance. The National 
     Transportation Safety Board recommended a six-mile 
     separation.
       It is understandable that the FAA is concerned about the 
     effect on the nation's commercial airlines of fewer revenue-
     producing flights if plans have to be spaced farther apart. 
     But safety must come first. Hinson and his aides should have 
     broadcast the information as quickly and widely as possible. 
     Heeding the warning signs would have served the public better 
     and might even have saved lives in Montana and Santa Ana.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I congratulate the Secretary of 
Transportation, Federico Pena, for taking on this important review. 
While I would prefer an independent review were being conducted--and 
have even pushed legislation to establish an independent commission to 
study the relationship between the FAA and NTSB--I am pleased that the 
DOT's investigation is underway. I have often said that the press and 
media can be of powerful persuasion.
  I am hopeful the DOT's findings will provide the Congress with useful 
insight into the FAA's responsiveness and am one Senator who will be 
reading with great interest these findings. I am eager for the Senate 
Aviation Subcommittee to consider any and all conclusions that may be 
drawn from this very necessary review. After all, it is the 
responsibility of Congress to conduct proper oversight of our Federal 
agencies. The FAA is no exception. Increased oversight of the FAA 
needed, and it is needed now.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________