[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 116 (Tuesday, July 15, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1460-E1461]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 A BILL TO ENHANCE THE SAFETY OF THE U.S. PASSENGER AIR TRANSPORTATION 
                                 SYSTEM

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 15, 2008

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, the bill which Congressman Mica, 
Congressman Costello, Congressman Petri and I are introducing today is 
a first legislative step in reversing the complacency over safety 
regulation that has set in at the highest levels of the Federal 
Aviation Administration, FAA.
  This legislation is not a silver bullet that will produce a 
comprehensive solution to problems that have been developing for years, 
Rather, the legislation deals with several issues that are ripe for 
action, following an investigation by the Office of Inspector General 
of the Department of Transportation, DOT IG, and a rejection of some of 
the DOT IG's recommendations by FAA.
  I expect that we will have additional legislation after completion of 
the comprehensive investigations now underway by the DOT IG, FAA's own 
special committee, and Congress.
  We must also bear in mind that legislation can only go so far in 
solving the problem. What is most needed is a change in attitude by 
FAA. Without that change, there will only be grudging, limited 
compliance with the best designed legislation reforms. If, on the other 
hand, there is a change in attitude, FAA can use its existing authority 
to make most of the improvements that are needed.
  Madam Speaker, on April 3, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure held a hearing that detailed major shortcomings in the 
FAA's safety oversight of the aviation industry. Our investigation 
found that one air carrier, with FAA complicity, had allowed at least 
117 of its aircraft to fly with passengers in violation of Federal 
Aviation Regulations, amounting to the most serious lapse in safety I 
have been aware of at the FAA in the past 23 years. Our investigations 
led to the discovery of other instances in which inspections were not 
properly conducted or repairs were not properly made. To ensure safety, 
it was necessary to ground several hundred airplanes for inspections, 
resulting in thousands of cancelled flights, and raising serious 
questions about whether high-ranking officials in the FAA are carrying 
out their safety responsibilities for the entire industry. Since that 
April 3 hearing, our investigative staff has been contacted by many 
other individuals alleging serious breakdowns in FAA's regulatory 
oversight.
  As a result of our hearing, it was clear to me and many of my 
colleagues that FAA needed to rethink its relationship with the 
airlines and the other aviation entities that it regulates and be more 
active in enforcing regulations. There has been a pendulum swing at 
FAA, away from vigorous enforcement of safety regulations towards a 
carrier-favorable cozy relationship. That opinion is shared by the DOT 
IG, as well.
  On June 30, 2008, the DOT IG issued a report, Review of FAA's Safety 
Oversight of Airlines and Use of Regulatory Partnership Programs, 
noting that it had made several recommendations to the FAA to 
strengthen its national oversight of air carrier safety. Importantly, 
the DOT IG recommended that the FAA periodically rotate its flight 
standards safety inspectors and establish an independent investigative 
organization to examine safety issues identified by FAA employees. In 
its response to the DOT IG recommendations, the FAA stated that it did 
not concur with the recommendation to rotate inspectors and only 
partially agreed to implement the recommendation to establish an 
independent organization to investigate FAA employee complaints.
  On employee complaints, the FAA's response has been to implement a 
Safety Issues Report System, SIRS. This process largely duplicates 
existing hot-lines and does not provide for an independent review 
outside of FAA's Aviation Safety Organization, which has a long record 
of not responding adequately to complaints. I find the FAA's response 
to this very important recommendation to be wholly inadequate.
  As the DOT IG aptly stated in its safety report:

       FAA's response is unacceptable. Although FAA stated that it 
     partially agreed with our recommendation, the actions taken 
     do not demonstrate a commitment on FAA's part to address the 
     root causes of the issues we identified. Our work at SWA and 
     NWA identified serious weaknesses in FAA's process for 
     conducting internal reviews, ensuring corrective actions, and 
     protecting employees who report safety concerns. In our view, 
     SIRS merely adds one more process to an already existing 
     internal reporting process within the Aviation Safety 
     Organization that is unequivocally ineffective and possibly 
     even biased against resolving root causes of serious safety 
     lapses.

  The FAA's refusal to embrace the DOT IG's recommendation in this 
regard demonstrates a ``business as usual'' approach to safety. In 
addition, many FAA aviation safety inspectors have subsequently 
contacted our Committee and provided evidence of retaliation against 
them by their local FAA management when they attempt to elevate safety 
concerns to higher levels of management. FAA is reluctant to 
investigate whistleblower concerns. The FAA management responsible for 
safety appears to face an inherent conflict-of-interest when faced with 
charges of failure in regulatory oversight.
  That is why this bill creates an independent Aviation Safety 
Whistleblower Investigation Office within the FAA, but independent of 
the Aviation Safety Organization. The Director of the new Office would 
be charged with receiving safety complaints and information submitted 
by both FAA employees and employees of certificated entities, 
investigating them, and then recommending appropriate corrective 
actions to the FAA. The FAA is directed to respond to the Director's 
recommendations in writing, including details of any corrective actions 
taken. Importantly, the bill ensures the Director's independence and 
protects the identities of employees providing safety information.
  In addition, the bill addresses the DOT IG's recommendation to 
periodically rotate supervisory inspectors to ensure objective FAA air 
carrier oversight. FAA has not been willing to implement this 
recommendation. This bill would require that the FAA rotate principal 
maintenance inspectors between airline oversight offices every 5 years. 
This will serve as at least a partial countermeasure to ensure that a 
``cozy relationship'' does not develop between the regulators and the 
regulated. In addition, the bill would establish a 2-year ``post-
service'' cooling off period for FAA inspectors and supervisors before 
they are allowed to go to work for the airlines they have been 
overseeing.
  During our April 3 hearing, I was shocked to learn that in its 
mission statement for aviation safety, FAA has a ``vision'' of ``being 
responsive to our customers and accountable to the public.'' This 
suggests that FAA regards the airlines and other companies it regulates 
as its ``customers.'' This approach is seriously misguided. The 
``customers'' of FAA safety programs are the persons who fly on the 
airplanes FAA regulates. FAA's bedrock responsibility is to ensure that 
these ``customers'' travel safely. To ensure that passengers remain 
FAA's number one ``customer,'' the bill directs the FAA to modify its 
customer service initiative, mission and vision statements to remove 
references to air carriers or other entities regulated by the Agency as 
``customers'' and to clearly state that in regulating safety the only 
``customer'' of the Agency is the American traveling public.
  Madam Speaker, there is overwhelming evidence in the recommendations, 
findings and statements of the DOT IG, the Office of Special Counsel, 
and the very brave FAA whistleblowers that brought these critical 
safety lapses to our attention that change is sorely needed at the FAA 
to improve safety. This bill provides a critical first step. We must 
prod the FAA to again make safety the number one priority and to keep 
the American public safely flying.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is just a start. It will not address all of 
the issues, because to

[[Page E1461]]

do so will require substantial leadership and cultural change within 
the FAA. However, it is meant to serve notice upon FAA that we will not 
continue to tolerate the lax environment that has been allowed to 
develop over the last few years. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
working to pass this important legislation.

                          ____________________