[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 140 (Wednesday, October 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12192-S12193]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, with the conference report on S. 1994, the 
FAA bill, is still pending before the Senate, I want to take a moment 
to run through the provisions dealing with air safety. Having authored 
these with Senators McCain and Ford, I want the legislative history to 
be clear about how we got here and what we expect.
  When we began the process, this was a relatively modest 
reauthorization bill, no safety measures to speak of. But we have come 
a long way: with this legislation, we are going beyond all the talk 
about safety.
  The conference report includes two central provisions on air safety; 
the first eliminates the FAA's so-called ``dual mandate'' to make 
safety paramount at the FAA; the second requires the NTSB to make 
airline safety information available to the public.
  Just as the American public relies on the FDA to assure that the food 
supply is safe, the flying public relies on the FAA to make sure 
aviation is safe. This is the FAA's most important and fundamental 
mission. Building an infrastructure for an ever-increasing demand for 
air travel is not.
  The problem is that until today, the law gave the FAA a dual mandate. 
It said to the FAA, go out and promote air commerce but keep an eye on 
safety as well. Mr. President, that simply isn't acceptable.
  The dual mandate created a dilemma for the Agency. If, for example, 
an FAA official believed new safety equipment, like better flight data 
recorders, would greatly improve safety, but it carried a huge price 
tag, what should that official do? That official would have to decide 
whether the safety benefits outweighted the costs to the aviation 
community. That is not the type of cost-benefit analysis I find 
acceptable.
  That is why I sponsored the amendment, adopted unanimously by the 
Commerce Committee, to eliminate the Agency's dual mandate and make 
safety paramount. The FAA should not have to choose between safety and 
promotion of the industry.
  The genesis for second provision on aviation safety information is my 
long-held belief that one thing Government can and should do is give 
American consumers access to good, unbiased information. It is time to 
adopt new policies that empower the consumer, to make it possible for 
consumers to get critical information about aviation safety in our 
country.
  Everyone who flies should be able to make informed choices about the 
airlines they fly and the airports they use. This legislation will 
enable consumers to do that.
  Right now, it is possible for consumers to find out if their bags may 
be crushed and whether their flights will arrive on-time. But it is 
pretty darn hard for consumers to find out if the airline they are 
flying on has been fined for violating a major safety law.
  Back in July, Senator Ford and I wrote the FAA asking them to work 
with the NTSB, industry, labor and others to come up with a way to make 
aviation safety information available to the public.
  I have talked to people in all parts of the aviation community--the 
FAA, NTSB, airlines, labor, manufacturers, pilots, and consumer 
groups--about the best way to do this. While there are certainly 
differences over how to do it, everyone agrees that it should be done. 
And I agree with those in the industry who say that anything involving 
safety should not be part of competition. But by having uniform 
definitions, standards, and public access to this information, I 
believe we will move safety out of the shadows and into the sunshine.
  To get this kind of information today, consumers have to go through 
the legalistic torture of the Freedom of Information Act. I do not 
think that's good enough.
  In addition, the kind of safety information gathered by the FAA and 
the NTSB is also a problem. It is pretty tough to figure out what's an 
accident and what's an incident. It is certainly unfortunate if a 
flight attendant trips and breaks a leg during a flight, but that 
shouldn't be recorded in the same way as an engine losing power in mid-
air.
  The intent of the provision in this bill is to have the NTSB make 
accurate information available to the public about aviation safety, 
including accidents and violations of safety regulations. This 
particular provision focuses on the NTSB, and I expect the NTSB effort 
to parallel the FAA's ongoing project of looking at how to make its 
information on accidents as well as violations of its regulations 
available to consumers.
  In a few weeks, the FAA will be reporting back to Senator Ford and 
myself on the best way to handle a broader task: getting the FAA's more 
comprehensive safety information on accidents and fines for violations 
of safety regulations out to consumers. I look forward to this report.
  Mr. President, there are many other important elements in this 
legislation, but I wanted to take this time to explain in greater 
detail those relating to aviation safety. These are critical components 
of this bill. I hope my comments will provide some guidance to the NTSB 
and the FAA as they proceed to put them into practice.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I wish to congratulate Senator Pressler on his efforts 
and those of the other Senate conferees to work out a beneficial 
aviation bill in conference. The conference report before us covers 
airport grants for the fiscal year beginning yesterday, as well as a 
continuation of FAA programs, new aviation security measures, and other 
matters. The bill also establishes a process by which Congress can get 
recommendations from outside experts on how much funding FAA will need 
in future years for FAA programs, including airport grants, and who 
should be paying greater or lesser user taxes or fees. In this respect, 
I had hoped the conference report would have made clear that this blue 
ribbon commission should look at the issue of user taxes or charges 
from the viewpoint of the metropolitan areas where they are generated 
as well as indicating which user

[[Page S12193]]

groups provided them. I believe that this blue ribbon commission should 
generate information as to the annual amount of Federal aviation user 
taxes that are collected or attributable to aviation activity within 
each metropolitan area in the United States and to compare these 
metropolitan area totals to the annual amounts of Federal airport 
grants that are annually received within each of these metropolitan 
areas.
  This data would be highly useful to airport sponsors and metropolitan 
planning organizations for assessing the probable impacts of any 
recommended changes to the existing aviation user tax structure. The 
data which I wish to have developed would be for the latest year for 
which the information is available, and could involve estimates when 
actual data about the geographic source of specific aviation user taxes 
can't be determined precisely.
  When the next FAA authorization bill is presented to us, this 
information would be useful in helping us make important judgments as 
to the equity of user taxes or fees in comparison to the airport grants 
our metropolitan areas have received.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I agree with the Senator. The information you request 
should have been included within the charter of the blue ribbon 
commission that will be looking into these matters under this 
legislation. After this legislation is enacted, I will talk to the 
Secretary of Transportation to make sure that the Senator's request is 
satisfied and that the data he requests is assembled and timely made 
available to all of us. I appreciate his bringing this oversight to our 
attention.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator. I very much appreciate his efforts 
to follow through on this matter and I look forward to voting in favor 
of the conference report before us.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, when the Federal Government enacted laws 
regulating the trucking industry, it created the Interstate Commerce 
Commission [ICC] to administer regulations pursuant to these laws. 
These regulations were repealed during the Carter administration. 
However, it was not until last year that Congress finally got around to 
eliminating the ICC.
  The purpose of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 was simply to 
eliminate a bureaucracy that had outlived its usefulness. By its 
express terms, it was in no way intended to change the labor law.
  Unfortunately, a technical error in the act--if left uncorrected--
could have a serious impact on labor law.
  Since 1934, the interests of employees of express carriers such as 
FedEx have been protected under the Railway Labor Act.
  Unfortunately, the ICC Termination Act inadvertently dropped the term 
``express carrier'' from the Railway Labor Act.
  This was not a deliberate change of law. In fact, the ICC Termination 
Act expressly states that its enactment ``shall neither expand or 
contract coverage of the employees and employers of the Railway Act.''
  The provision included in the FAA Reauthorization Act that has become 
the target of such rhetoric and controversy is nothing more than a 
technical correction.
  If this technical flaw in the ICC Termination Act had been detected 
before its enactment last year, Congress would have corrected it 
without fanfare.
  The debate today is not about being pro-union or pro-management.
  The debate today is not about wages in America.
  The debate today is not about anything except making a technical 
correction to clarify that express carriers are in the same position 
today with respect to the Railway Labor Act as they were last year 
prior to enactment of the ICC Termination bill.
  We are not plowing new ground here. We are simply clarifying that 
what was law for over 60 years continues to be the law of the land.
  All the heat and bluster of this debate cannot change this simple 
fact.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in bringing this debate to a close, 
passing the FAA reauthorization bill and righting a technical wrong.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if the Senator from Massachusetts has 
completed, then I have completed.

                          ____________________