[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 141 (Monday, October 3, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    CONCURRING IN HOUSE AMENDMENT TO SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2440, 
            INDEPENDENT SAFETY BOARD ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1994

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the resolution (H. Res. 558) providing for the concurrence by the House 
with an amendment in the amendment of the Senate to H.R. 2440.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 558

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the 
     bill (H.R. 2440) to amend the Independent Safety Board Act of 
     1974 to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994, 1995, 
     and 1996, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment 
     thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the 
     Speaker's table to the end that the Senate amendment thereto 
     be, and the same is hereby, agreed to with an amendment as 
     follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
     amendment of the Senate, insert 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.

       Section 1118(a) of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     for the purposes of this chapter $37,580,000 for fiscal year 
     1994, $44,000,000 for fiscal year 1995, and $45,100,000 for 
     fiscal year 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 40102(a)(37) of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
       ``(B) does not include a government-owned aircraft--
       ``(i) transporting property for commercial purposes; or
       ``(ii) transporting passengers other than--
       ``(I) transporting (for other than commercial purposes) 
     crewmembers or other persons aboard the 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) transporting (for other than commercial purposes) 
     persons abroad the aircraft if the aircraft is operated by 
     the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United 
     States.

     An aircraft described in the preceding sentence shall, 
     notwithstanding any limitation relating to use of the 
     aircraft for commercial purposes, be considered to be a 
     public aircraft for the purposes of this part without regard 
     to whether the aircraft is operated by a unit of government 
     on behalf of another unit of government, pursuant to a cost 
     reimbursement agreement between such units of government, if 
     the unit of government on whose behalf the operation is 
     conducted certifies to the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration that the operation was necessary to 
     respond to a significant and imminent threat to life or 
     property (including natural resources) and that no service by 
     a private operator was reasonably available to meet the 
     threat.''.
       (b) Authority To Grant Exemptions.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration may grant an exemption to any unit of Federal, 
     State, or local government from any requirement of part A of 
     subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, that would 
     otherwise be applicable to current or future aircraft of such 
     unit of government as a result of the amendment made by 
     subsection (a) of this section.
       (2) Requirements.--The Administrator may grant an exemption 
     under paragraph (1) only if--
       (A) the Administrator finds that granting the exemption is 
     necessary to prevent an undue economic burden on the unit of 
     government; and
       (B) the Administrator certifies that the aviation safety 
     program of the unit of government is effective and 
     appropriate to ensure safe operations of the type of aircraft 
     operated by the unit of government.
       (c) Investigative Authority of Board.--
       (1) Accidents involving public aircraft.--Section 
     1131(a)(1)(A) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: ``or 
     an aircraft accident involving a public aircraft as defined 
     by section 40102(a)(37) of this title other than an aircraft 
     operated by the Armed Forces or by an intelligence agency of 
     the United States''.
       (2) Duties and powers.--Section 1131 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Accidents Involving Public Aircraft.--The Board, in 
     furtherance of its investigative duties with respect to 
     public aircraft accidents under subsection (a)(1)(A) of this 
     section, shall have the same duties and powers as are 
     specified for civil aircraft accidents under sections 
     1132(a), 1132(b), and 1134(b)(2) of this title.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (c) shall take effect on the 180th day following the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. RELEASE OF RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN 
                   PROPERTY LOCATED IN RAPIDES PARISH, LOUISIANA.

       (a) Release.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     and except as provided in subsections (b) and (d), the United 
     States releases without consideration all reservations, 
     restrictions, conditions, and limitations on the use, 
     encumbrance, or conveyance of certain real property (together 
     with any improvements thereon and easements appurtenant 
     thereto) consisting of approximately 1,991.53 acres of land 
     and located in Rapides Parish, Louisiana, the location of 
     Esler Field, as identified in the deed of conveyance from the 
     United States to the Parish of Rapides, Louisiana, dated 
     January 23, 1958, to the extent such reservations, 
     restrictions, conditions, and limitations are enforceable by 
     the United States.
       (b) Exceptions.--The United States reserves the right of 
     reentry upon or use of the property described in subsection 
     (a) for national defense purposes in time of war or other 
     national emergency without charge. The release provided by 
     subsection (a) does not apply to any conditions or assurances 
     associated with (1) the continued nonexclusive use without 
     charge of the airport and use of space at the airport, 
     without charge, by the Louisiana National Guard, (2) the 
     nonexclusive use of the airport by transient military 
     aircraft without charge, or (3) the nonexclusive use of the 
     airport by transient military aircraft without charge during 
     periods of maneuvers.
       (c) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to affect the disposition or 
     ownership of oil, gas, or other mineral resources either in 
     or under the surface of the real property described in 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Federal Aviation Administration.--
       (1) Nonapplicability of release to grant agreements.--The 
     release described in subsection (a) does not apply to any 
     conditions and assurances associated with existing airport 
     grant agreements between the Rapides Parish Airport 
     Authority/Esler Field and the Federal Aviation 
     Administration.
       (2) Agreement.--Notwithstanding any other provisions of 
     law, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall enter into an agreement with the Airport Authority of 
     Rapides Parish, Louisiana, to provide for the terms and 
     conditions under which the real property described in 
     subsection (a) may be used, leased, sold, or otherwise 
     disposed. The agreement shall be concluded not later than 180 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the 
     180th day following the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] will be recognized for 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, this bill first passed the House on 
November 8, 1993, and has gone through a long review in the other body 
from which it was most recently reported, and we now consider slight 
adjustments and amendments to that bill.
  There has been a compromise between the House and the Senate versions 
of the NTSB reauthorization bill. The compromise does include the 
funding levels provided in the bill originally passed in the House, 
funding levels that will allow the NTSB to cover their automatic cost 
increases, acquire badly needed equipment, add three employees to cover 
new responsibilities, to handle appeals of the FAA, civil penalties 
against pilots' actions, that authority we gave to the NTSB a year ago, 
and funding levels that will enable the board to continue its vital 
work of investigating accidents involving all modes of transportation, 
and making recommendations for changes needed to promote safety.
  Mr. Speaker, I consider the NTSB to be the premier watchdog oversight 
in all modes of transportation in the United States. Their actions have 
saved countless thousands of lives, millions of dollars, made our 
airways, roadways, bridges, pipelines safer. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania and I worked together in the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight several years ago on aspects of safety in 
which the NTSB was regularly involved, and we found their work to be 
detailed, factual, thorough, responsible, defensible, and also 
preventive, and what I would only urge the NTSB to do is a little more 
of their work of looking ahead, gathering all the information they have 
put together through their various investigations of accidents and to 
develop a concept of safety that can be preventive rather than simply 
reactive.

          Summary of House Amendments to NTSB Reauthorization

       Section 1. Short Title: Independent Safety Board Act 
     Amendments of 1994.
       Section 2. Authorizes appropriations for NTSB of 
     $37,580,000 for fiscal year 1994, $44,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1995, and $45,100,000 for fiscal year 1996.
       Section 3. Amends the provisions of existing law which 
     provide that the aircraft operated by federal, state, or 
     local governments for non-commercial purposes (defined as 
     ``public aircraft'') are not subject to most FAA regulations.
       The amendments in this bill provide that:
       (a) An aircraft is no longer a ``public aircraft'', and 
     therefore is subject to FAA regulation, if the aircraft is 
     used for transporting passengers. However, the aircraft 
     remains a public aircraft if the crew members or other 
     persons transported are performing a governmental function 
     such as fire fighting or search and rescue, or if the 
     aircraft is operated for noncommercial purposes by the Armed 
     Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States.
       (b) Authorizes the FAA to grant an exemption from any legal 
     requirements to an aircraft which has lost its status as a 
     public aircraft as a result of this bill, if the 
     Administrator finds that granting the exemption is necessary 
     to prevent an undue burden on the unit of government 
     involved, and if the Administration certifies that the unit 
     of government has an aviation safety program effective and 
     appropriate to ensure safe operations of the type of aircraft 
     operated.
       (c) Provides that an aircraft does not lose its status as a 
     public aircraft because one unit of government reimburses 
     another for use of the aircraft. (FAA had ruled that in these 
     circumstances the aircraft would be operated for a commercial 
     purpose and would meet the requirements for a public 
     aircraft.) To remain a public aircraft, the unit of 
     government on whose behalf the operation is conducted must 
     certify to the Administrator that the operation is necessary 
     to respond to a significant or imminent threat to life or 
     property, and that no service by a private operator was 
     reasonably available to meet the threat.
       (d) Requires NTSB to investigate accidents involving public 
     aircraft, other than those operated by the Armed Forces or an 
     intelligence agency of the United States.
       Section 4. Releases Esler Field in Rapides Parish, 
     Louisiana from restrictions in a deed of conveyance of the 
     Field from the United States to the Parish. The provision 
     limits the releases to protect the interests of the United 
     States in use of the field for military purposes, and to 
     ensure that there are no changes in mineral rights in the 
     property. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration is directed to enter into an agreement with 
     the Airport Authority of Rapides Parish to permit the field 
     to be used, leased, sold, or otherwise disposed of.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CLINGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, the House passed this bill reauthorizing 
the National Transportation Safety Board last year. At the time, the 
bill was a simple 3-year reauthorization. Since then, it has passed the 
Senate and gone through several changes. These changes require this 
body to consider the legislation once again. Despite the changes, I 
still support this bill.
  The most significant change involves public aircraft. These are 
aircraft owned by government agencies and used for official purposes. 
The Senate bill changed the definition of public aircraft to exclude 
those carrying passengers. The effect could be the imposition of 
expensive FAA regulatory requirements on local governments.
  In order to prevent this provision from turning into another unfunded 
Federal mandate, I suggested the addition of an exemption provision. 
That provision permits FAA to exempt public aircraft from FAA 
regulations if necessary to avoid an undue economic burden on local 
governments and if the FAA certifies that the government has an 
effective safety program. I appreciate the willingness of the chairman, 
Mr. Oberstar, to work with me on this.
  This legislation also contains another provision on public aircraft 
that will enable government-owned aircraft to be used for fighting 
fires and other emergencies without having to comply with the full 
panoply of FAA regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, the public aircraft matter is the issue in this bill 
that has gotten the most attention in the aviation community. However, 
my focus on it should not take away from the importance of the original 
purpose of this bill--to reauthorize the NTSB. Despite its small size, 
that agency does a good job of investigating accidents and being a 
safety watch-dog.
  Therefore, I am pleased to join with the chairman in urging support 
for this 3-year reauthorization of the NTSB.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], chairman of the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2440, the 
independent safety board act amendments of 1994. I want to commend the 
chair of our subcommittee on Aviation, the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Oberstar], as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger], the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Aviation. They 
have worked very hard and very diligently over a long period of time 
through hearings, as well as in writing this legislation.
   Mr. Speaker, This bill, which reauthorizes appropriations for the 
National Transportation Safety Board for fiscal years 1994-1996, has 
full bipartisan support. The House passed this bill on November 8, 
1993, by a vote of 353 to 49.
  The National Transportation Safety Board is unique within the Federal 
Government. The importance of its safety mandate transcends politics. 
The highly skilled NTSB work force investigates accidents to determine 
the probable cause in five transportation modes: aviation, highways, 
rail, pipeline, and marine. The safety recommendations made by the 
Board directly translate into lives saved. Every person in this room 
and in this country has benefited from the fine work done by the Board. 
It is a tribute to the reputation of the Board that more than 80 
percent of their recommendations are accepted voluntarily.
  This bill would enable the Board to continue its vital work at 
current staff levels. It is important that we ensure that fair funding 
levels are established in order to prevent any deterioration in the 
invaluable services provided by the National Transportation Safety 
Board. This bill establishes fair funding levels that have received 
bipartisan support in both the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

  The Senate amended the bill to include a provision that addresses the 
issue of public use aircraft. This provision was included as a result 
of the tragic accident that took the life of the Governor of South 
Dakota. It is intended to require, for the first time, that the Federal 
Aviation Administration regulations apply to aircraft operated by 
government entities. This requirement does not apply to certain 
governmental functions, such as firefighting, search and rescue, and 
law enforcement. Rather, it is intended to apply to all operations in 
which government officials or other individuals are transported on 
government-owned aircraft. It is expected that if public use aircraft 
are required to adhere to the Federal Aviation regulations, the safety 
of these operations will be enhanced.
  On a separate issue affecting public use aircraft, the House has 
added an amendment to the bill to address the narrow issue of public 
use aircraft used in emergency situations. This amendment permits cost 
reimbursement for the operation of public use aircraft between 
government entities if the aircraft is needed to address a significant 
and imminent threat to life or property, including natural resources, 
and no service by a private operator is reasonably available to meet 
that threat. This amendment merely permits government entities to take 
advantage of available government-owned aircraft in emergency 
situations when aircraft owned by private operators are not available. 
As the language of the amendment makes clear, government entities 
should not be competing with private companies to provide commercial 
services. However, in the event that private aircraft are not available 
in an emergency situation, and government-owned aircraft are, the issue 
of cost reimbursement should not prevent the utilization of available 
aircraft.
  Finally, the bill includes a noncontroversial land transfer 
authorization in Rapides Parish, LA.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] who speaks for the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce in their joint jurisdiction over this issue.
  (Mr. SWIFT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to support this reauthorization 
of the National Transportation Safety Board. The Safety Board is an 
independent agency that comes under the joint oversight of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee and the Public Works Committee. H.R. 2440 was 
passed out on a voice vote by the Energy and Commerce Committee in 
October of last year.
  The mandate of the Safety Board is to investigate transportation 
accidents, including those involving railroads. The Board must 
determine probable cause and make recommendations designed to prevent 
such accidents from recurring. Since its inception 26 years ago, the 
Board has undertaken over 50,000 accident investigations and has issued 
more than 9,000 safety recommendations covering a wide range of 
transportation safety issues.
  The Transportation and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee has oversight 
responsibilities for the Safety Board's investigations and 
recommendations in rail accidents. The Safety Board has also undertaken 
a number of rail-related special studies, including studies on tank car 
and locomotive fuel tank integrity, collision avoidance and work/rest 
cycles on train crews. The Safety Board is held in high esteem by those 
who know of its work, and the bill before us ensures that such work 
will not be impaired.
  I urge Members to pass this bill, H.R. 2440.
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend our committee chairman 
[Mr. Dingell], our subcommittee chairman [Mr. Swift], and the 
subcommittee's ranking member [Mr. Oxley] for their bipartisan efforts 
to reauthorize the very important activities of the National 
Transportation Safety Board. Until recently, the NTSB was identified in 
the public's eye almost exclusively with aircraft accident 
investigations. However, in the wake of the unfortunate Amtrak accident 
last September near Mobile, AL, I believe many more Americans now 
realize that the NTSB's safety investigations cover virtually every 
form of transportation. This is a highly respected and expert agency, 
and as such deserves to be reauthorized under the authorization 
ceilings provided in this bill. I strongly support this bipartisan bill 
and urge its prompt approval by the House.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend our subcommittee chairman, 
the gentleman from Washington, for his very diligent and constructive 
efforts to enact this reauthorization of the National Transportation 
Safety Board. I also want to recognize the efforts of our committee 
chairman, the gentleman from Michigan, and our ranking committee 
member, the gentleman from California, as well as the efforts of the 
leadership of the Public Works Committee, with whom we share 
jurisdiction over the National Transportation Safety Board.
  The NTSB performs an important safety function: it is capable of 
conducting an expert investigation of virtually any type of 
transportation accident. After such an investigation, the agency can 
then make recommendations aimed at avoiding similar accidents in the 
future. Because NTSB is not an enforcement or regulatory agency, it 
often can call the shots as it sees them, without some of the 
inhibitions that might apply within the Department of Transportation.
  I strongly support this bipartisan reauthorization bill and urge its 
prompt approval by the House.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Transportation and Hazardous Materials, Mr. Swift, for his 
leadership regarding this legislation. I also want to thank the ranking 
Republican member, Mr. Moorhead, and the ranking Republican member of 
the subcommittee, Mr. Oxley, for their help in this matter.
  This legislation authorizes appropriations for the National 
Transportation Safety Board. The NTSB was created by the Department of 
Transportation Act of 1966 and was established as an independent 
Federal agency by the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974. The NTSB is 
a small but important agency. It is responsible for investigating and 
determining the probable cause of accidents in five transportation 
areas: rail, aviation, highways, pipeline, and marine. Following its 
investigations, the Board makes recommendations to Federal, State, and 
local agencies to prevent the recurrence of accidents. The Board also 
conducts special studies and investigations on transportation safety 
and reviews and evaluates the performance of other transportation 
agencies in achieving safety.
  Our committee is well acquainted with the NTSB. Officials from the 
Board have testified on a variety of transportation legislation 
considered by our committee. For example, the NTSB recently testified 
on rail safety issues and specifically track safety. I believe that our 
committee, the Congress, and the American public benefit from the 
Board's technical expertise in addressing railroad transportation 
safety issues. However, there is one troubling issue which I would like 
to mention at this time. A recent General Accounting Office report 
which I requested has brought to light the possibility of some abusive 
training practices and contracting violations. On September 19, 1994, I 
wrote James Hall, the NTSB Acting Board Chairman, to investigate 
whether these charges are true and to respond within 45 days. I 
consider this a serious matter and I will include my letter for the 
Record.
  By passing this legislation today, we can ensure that the Board has 
adequate funding and authority to continue its work. I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 2440.
                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                   Washington, DC, Sept. 19, 1994.
     Hon. James Hall,
     Acting Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hall: Enclosed is a July 26, 1994 General 
     Accounting Office (GAO) letter provided to the Subcommittee 
     on Oversight and Investigations pursuant to Rules X and XI of 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives. The letter 
     concerns a series of training courses provided to employees 
     of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) by a firm 
     called ``Miller and Friends'' during fiscal years 1990 
     through 1993. The GAO found:
       The Director of one of NTSB's major offices, Mr. Timothy 
     Forte, decided in fiscal year 1990 to initiate a series of 
     leadership and management courses using the services of 
     Miller and Friends.
       That firm was selected without competition on the 
     suggestion of Mr. Forte because he ``was personally familiar 
     with Mr. Miller's abilities'' and had attended other courses 
     taught by Mr. Miller. The GAO states that Mr. Forte's prior 
     experience with the firm did not constitute a valid basis for 
     a sole source selection.
       The cost of the courses always exceeded $2,500.
       Federal procurement regulations require, in the case of 
     procurements over $2,500, but less than $25,000, a reasonable 
     number of bids or quotations from qualified vendors, unless 
     there is appropriate, documented justification for a sole 
     source selection. The GAO found none in this case.
       With regard to a 3-day team building course conducted in 
     February 1993, the NTSB issued an $8,000 purchase order to 
     the firm for the course, a $3,000 order to Miller's wife, Ms. 
     Athena Kaye for implementing a pre-course self-assessment, 
     and a $2,489 purchase order to Mr. Richard Brungraber who is 
     a ``management training associate'' of the firm. The NTSB 
     ultimately realized that such separate billing was not 
     proper, but apparently has not done anything about recovering 
     the improper payment.
       In reviewing the qualifications for this firm. the GAO 
     found that the experience and education referenced in the 
     firm's brochure for Mr. Miller could not be verified and that 
     the NTSB failed to pursue questions about the firm's 
     qualifications. In fact, the University of California Medical 
     Center at Davis had no record of Mr. Miller as a clinical 
     instructor and the GAO never located the education facility 
     where Mr. Miller allegedly was completing his doctorate.
       In addition, the GAO report indicates that despite Mr. 
     Forte's assertions to the contrary, the course appeared to be 
     mandatory for employees of his office, and Mr. Forte told GAO 
     that it was his ``goal to have everyone at NTSB attend 
     Miller's training classes'' (emphasis added). The allegations 
     of ``abusive'' tactics, says GAO, also appeared to be valid.
       The Subcommittee is unclear as to the nature and purpose of 
     expensive training courses of this kind. Please provide a 
     detailed description of each course, including a copy of all 
     questionnaires, syllabi, training materials, and other 
     documents used in each course, and their cost. Why were the 
     courses established? What need were they intended to serve?
       I am concerned about allegations of abusive tactics. I 
     consider them serious and request that the Board determine if 
     they are true, in light of the GAO comments, and provide a 
     report to the Subcommittee. If true, I request that you 
     explain what actions the Board will take to apologize to the 
     offended employees or take other appropriate action.
       The GAO report states that the NTSB had a $760,000 training 
     budget for fiscal year 1993. What is that budget for fiscal 
     years 1994, 1995, and 1996? What training is provided 
     annually? To what extent is the training mandatory as opposed 
     to voluntary? Why were Miller and Friends' courses mandatory 
     or made to seem to employees to be mandatory? Is all such 
     training provided by contractual arrangements? Are all 
     contracts subject to federal procurement regulations? What 
     was the role of the contracting officer in the Miller and 
     Friends contract? Did that person approve a sole source 
     award? If not, who did? What was the justification for 
     such award, taking into account the GAO's findings? Did 
     the person approving the award have the authority to make 
     the award? Finally, what actions has the Board taken to 
     investigate whether Mr. Forte has or had any business, 
     professional, or personal association with Mr. Miller or 
     Ms. Kaye that would account for his efforts to have NTSB 
     pay for their services?
       Please review the information provided to the NTSB by 
     Miller and Friends about the firm's qualifications. Was that 
     information accurate and truthful? If not, did the firm 
     violate 18 U.S.C. 1001 or any other applicable provision of 
     law?
       Also enclosed is a questionnaire which is entitled ``Men's 
     Awareness Workshop Questionnaire'' by Arola Enterprises, as 
     well as related correspondence which also refers to Mr. 
     Richard Brungraber. The questionnaire provided to us by the 
     GAO is obviously also used for women. One document calls the 
     course an ``education seminar.'' Please provide the details 
     of this course. What is the role of Arola Enterprises in the 
     training for NTSB employees? What is the NTSB's need for such 
     a questionnaire, which appears to ask rather personal 
     information of federal employees? Is it a violation of the 
     Privacy Act? Who has the responses to these questionnaires?
       I request your response to the above matters within 45 days 
     after receipt of this letter.
       With every good wish.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John D. Dingell,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of California). The question is 
on the motion offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] 
that the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, House 
Resolution 558.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule 
I and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this 
resolution will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________