[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 129 (Thursday, September 24, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10866-S10867]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WENDELL H. FORD NATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF
1998
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to S. 2279 which the
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2279) to amend title 49, United States Code, to
authorize programs of the Federal Aviation Administration for
fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002, and for other
purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Inhofe amendment No. 3620, to provide for the immediate
application of certain orders relating to the amendment,
modification, suspension, or revocation of certificates under
chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code.
Amendment No. 3620
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
There are 10 minutes equally divided on the Inhofe amendment. Who
yields time?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that because of
his eloquence, the Senator from Oklahoma be allowed 7 minutes and I
will take 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there is a process that is used by the FAA
which is known as the emergency revocation process. This process will
allow an inspector in the event of an alleged violation by a licensed
pilot to take away the pilot's certificate. He would take away the
certificate under the emergency revocation clause declaring that an
emergency exists.
The problem with this is that many times when you have an inspector
do this, or an examiner take away a certificate, there is not even an
emergency nature to the revocation. Consequently, we have many, many
cases where the individuals have been abused.
I would like to suggest that Ted Stewart, who is an American Airlines
pilot, has been a pilot for over 12 years and presently flying Boeing
767s. In May of 1995, there was an emergency revocation. He was not
guilty of anything. There was not an emergency attached to this. There
was never any hazard to anyone's health or safety.
However, it was 2 months until he was able to get his certificate
back. Then an examiner went back to him in June of 1996 and again
revoked his certificate under the emergency revocation. Consequently,
for another 2 months he was unable to earn a living. Fortunately, he
worked for American Airlines; they were good enough to keep his
paychecks coming, but in many cases that is not the case.
I happen to be a very close friend of a man named Bob Hoover. I think
most of you can remember who Bob Hoover is. He is considered to be the
best performer in the circuit of airshows. In fact, I have flown
airshows with him. In 1992--and I was there at the time--an inspector
came in, an examiner for the FAA, and said to him, We think you have a
problem. We think perhaps there is a mental problem or something--they
didn't really define it--and they revoked his certificate. It wasn't
for another 4 years he was able to get his certificate back. In the
meantime, he was flying his airshows but outside the United States.
Now, very simply, what my amendment does is set up a process whereby
if you lose your certificate, you have 48 hours to take it to the NTSB
and let the NTSB make a determination as to whether or not there is any
kind of an emergency nature to the revocation. After they have looked
this over and decided there is no emergency involved to the nature of
the revocation, then at the end of 7 days the pilot will get his
certificate back. If there is, then he would not get it back. They can
go ahead then and go through the normal adjudication of the violation.
This is something that has been going on for quite some time. We have
been concerned about reforming this process. This is a compromise,
because this makes it very clear if there is any hazard out there, if
there is any risk to anyone's safety, the flying public or the pilot
himself, the pilot is not going to be able to fly. It is as simple as
that.
A lot of people say that there are only 300 emergency revocations a
year. Therefore, it is not really a problem; it doesn't really affect
that many people. I suggest to you that if you take 300 people, there
might be 20 or 30 of those who make their living flying airplanes for
American Airlines or one of the other airlines, in which case that
takes them out of their occupation.
The other problem we have is there are 650,000 pilots right now
licensed in
[[Page S10867]]
the United States and they all live in mortal fear that something like
this would happen to them.
At this point let me yield 1 minute to Senator Frist.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Inhofe amendment.
Clearly, the FAA will be against this amendment because they will not
voluntarily relinquish anything in terms of regulatory authority. I
believe this amendment is reasonable. It provides, in essence, due
process for pilots who do have their privileges revoked, with attention
given to safety. It really assures accountability within the FAA.
As a pilot who has been witness to the potential abuses--and the
Senator from Oklahoma has demonstrated several well-documented examples
of how the FAA has really unfairly used a necessary power to
prematurely revoke certificates--this amendment will address the issue
while assuring accountability.
I rise in support of the amendment, a more reasonable approach which
assures accountability and assures due process.
Mr. INHOFE. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I, of course, respect very much the views
expressed by Senators Frist and Inhofe, both of whom are pilots. The
FAA has objected to this amendment. I believe it goes too far. I
understand Senator Inhofe's concerns. They were voiced a couple of
years ago on a similar measure when we were doing another bill, the
aviation bill. The fact is, we need to address this issue.
I believe this goes too far. I look forward to working with Senator
Inhofe and Senator Frist on it, but I am very hesitant to take a
measure which could, at the end of the day, possibly endanger safety.
That is why I have to oppose this amendment at this time.
I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I have to oppose this amendment, also. The
FAA must have the ability to act when it believes safety is at risk.
The FAA is often criticized for not acting quickly enough on safety
matters. Here they revoke a certificate for safety purposes and we want
to make it harder for them to act. Right now the court of appeals has
upheld the FAA actions in every case. They do not second guess the
agency charged with the regulation of safety, so let's be sure we give
the FAA the authority for safety in the air.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The
Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President just a few years ago we went through the
same thing with the civil penalties of the FAA Act, so there would be
someone other than the FAA involved. Prior to that time, the FAA was
the judge, the jury, and the appellate court. They made all the
decisions and they were protecting their own, because every bureaucracy
does this--EPA, IRS, FDA and all the rest of them.
We changed the regulation so the NTSB, then, would be the appellate
court for civil penalties, and it has worked very well. The junior
Senator from Texas served on the NTSB, and I yield her whatever time
she needs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute 20
seconds.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I do support the Inhofe amendment.
Having served on the National Transportation Safety Board, I can tell
you that the NTSB normally does not overturn the FAA revocation of
pilots' licenses. But they do, after they go through the process and
look at all of the evidence. I think it is quite fair to say if someone
is going to be disadvantaged by having a license revoked, that the NTSB
could very easily, and quickly, look at the type of evidence that they
are going to hear and, without making a final adjudication, determine
that this person would or would not be eligible to fly during the
pendency of the proceedings.
I think it would introduce a new level in the process. It would be
the emergency level. I think the NTSB can handle this. I think they are
competent to do it, and I think their record shows that they have done
it in the past.
I do support the amendment.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 seconds.
Mr. INHOFE. I will conclude by saying this in no way impairs the
flying safety of the flying public or the pilots. The fact that the
average time between the alleged violation and the revocation is 132
days pretty much tells you it is not really an emergency problem in
most of these cases. I urge you to join the 625,000 pilots and myself
in supporting the Inhofe amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from Arizona has 1 minute 30 seconds.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. If he
does not prevail on this amendment, which I oppose, I want to pledge to
him that I will work with him. There have been abuses. He pointed out
the case of Mr. Hoover, who was respected and admired by all of us, who
was mistreated by the bureaucracy. Unfortunately, there are always
cases where these things happen. But I think we have always to keep
safety as the paramount concern, and I believe this amendment
possibly--I am not saying absolutely--but possibly could endanger the
FAA's ability to carry out their primary responsibilities.
I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his deep involvement in this
and other aviation issues. I look forward to working with him in
addressing what is clearly a problem.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) and the
Senator from Illinois (Ms. Moseley-Braun) are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) is
absent attending a funeral.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) would vote ``no.''
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 286 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Grams
Grassley
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--51
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mack
McCain
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Thompson
Torricelli
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Glenn
Moseley-Braun
Wellstone
The amendment (No. 3620) was rejected.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Inhofe. I intend to work
with him. We are going to take this bill to conference. He has a
legitimate concern here and the closeness of the vote indicated that. I
will work with him on this. He has clearly identified this as a serious
problem, and I thank him for the spirited debate and the ventilation of
a very important issue.
____________________