[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 1 (Thursday, January 4, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Page S82]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. 
        Feingold):
  S. 65. A bill to modify the age-60 standard for certain pilots and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today, as an experienced pilot over 
age 60, along with my colleagues, Senator Stevens, Senator Lieberman 
and Senator Feingold, to once again introduce a bill that will help end 
age discrimination among commercial airline pilots. Our bill will 
abolish the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) arcane Age 60 Rule 
a regulation that has unjustly forced the retirement of airline pilots 
the day they turn 60 for more than 45 years.
  Our bipartisan bill called the ``Freedom to Fly Act'' would replace 
the dated FAA rule with a new international standard adopted this past 
November by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) which 
allows pilots to fly to 65 as long as the copilot is under 60.
  Since the adoption of the ICAO standard in November of this year, 
foreign pilots have been flying and working in U.S. Airspace under this 
new standard up to 65 years of age a privilege the FAA has not been 
willing to grant to American pilots flying the same aircraft in the 
same airspace.
  This bill may seem familiar; I have introduced similar legislation in 
the past two Congresses and I am dedicated to ensuring its passage this 
year. And it has never been more urgent.
  We cannot continue to allow our FAA to force the retirement of 
America's most experienced commercial pilots at the ripe young age of 
60 while they say to their counterparts flying for foreign flags 
``Welcome to our airspace.''
  Many of these great American pilots are veterans who have served our 
country and the flying public for decades. Many of them have suffered 
wage concessions and lost their pensions as the airline industry has 
faced hard times and bankruptcies. But these American pilots are not 
asking for a handout.
  They are just saying to the FAA; ``Give me the same right you granted 
our foreign counterparts with the stroke of a pen this November. Let us 
continue to fly, continue to work, continue to contribute to the tax 
rolls for an additional 5 years.'' We join them and echo their 
sentiments to FAA Administrator Blakey. As far as we are concerned, 
that is the least we can do for America's pilots, who are considered 
the best and the safest pilots in the world.
  Most nations have abolished mandatory age 60 retirement rules. Many 
countries, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have no upper 
age limit at all and consider an age-based retirement rule 
discriminatory. Sadly though, the United States was one of only four 
member countries of ICAO, along with Pakistan, Colombia, and France, to 
dissent to the ICAO decision to increase the retirement age to 65 last 
year.
  The Age 60 Rule has no basis in science or safety and never has. The 
Aerospace Medical Association says that ``There is insufficient medical 
evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based upon age 
alone.'' Similarly, the American Association of Retired Persons, Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission, the Seniors Coalition, and the 
National Institute of Aging of NIH all agree that the Age 60 Rule is 
simply age discrimination and should end. My colleagues and I agree.
  When the rule was implemented in 1960 life expectancies were much 
lower at just over 69 and a half years. Today they are much higher at 
more than 77 years. The FAA's own data shows that pilots over age 60 
are as safe as, and in some cases safer than, their younger 
counterparts. In the process of adopting the new international 
standard, ICAO studied more than 3,000 over-60 pilots from 64 nations, 
totaling at least 15,000 pilot-years of flying experience and found the 
risk of medical incapacitation ``a risk so low that it can be safely 
disregarded.''
  Furthermore, a recent economic study shows that allowing pilots to 
fly to age 65 would save almost $1 billion per year in added Social 
Security, Medicare, and tax payments and delayed Pension Benefit 
Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) payments.
  I am encouraged by the progress that has been made. In the 109th 
Congress, the Senate Commerce Committee reported the modified bill with 
the ICAO standard favorably and the Senate Transportation, Treasury, 
the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Committee included a version of S. 65 in its bill. The 
FAA recently convened an Aviation Rulemaking Committee to study the 
issue of forced retirement. We have yet to see that report but it is 
our understanding the report was persuasive enough that the 
Administrator is considering a change in the rule now.
  We are encouraged by that, but we also know that legislation will be 
needed to direct the FAA to pursue these changes in a timely manner and 
in a way that will protect companies and their unions from new lawsuits 
that might arise as a result of the changes. Our bill accomplishes 
that. Whether the FAA decides to change the rule on its own or not, 
Congress needs to do the right thing and pass S. 65 to fully ensure 
that our own American pilots have the same rights and privileges to 
work at least until age 65 that were accorded to foreign pilots over 
the age of 60 this fall.
  I urge the rest of my colleagues to support the Freedom to Fly Act 
and help us keep America's most experienced pilots in the air.
                                 ______