[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 208 (Wednesday, December 10, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8631-S8632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

  Ms. CANTWELL. I would like to turn now before I get to healthcare, 
Mr. President, to come to the floor to speak about the National Defense 
Authorization Act. I see it was just delivered here from the House. I 
was hoping that our House colleagues would have stopped that 
legislation and actually made a fix to it. That is section 373, of this 
year's Defense Authorization Act, which really undermines our critical 
commercial aviation safety and it exposes the gaps that we saw when we 
had the January 29 DCA air collision.
  So I hope that my colleagues here will help us make changes to this 
section of the Defense Authorization Act. We know how important this 
is, the Flight 5342 passenger families, the Lilley family, along with 
myself and Senator Cruz, have been trying to sound the alarm bells 
around the Capitol in the airspace about why we shouldn't let the 
military fly without this important broadcast system, so that people 
know when they are in the region and can translate that communication, 
so that air traffic controllers and other aircraft in a busy airspace 
know when the military is there.
  We know what happened when a Black Hawk involved in the January 29 
collision wasn't actively transmitting its location. We know what 
happened. We know that we have seen since then much from the NTSB. In 
fact, tonight, a letter from the National Transportation Safety Board 
is expressing their strong opposition to the inclusion of section 373, 
in the National Defense Authorization Act. It basically is saying that 
it significantly reduces the safety of the airspace around Reagan 
Washington National Airport by allowing the Secretary of the military 
Department to operate, transmitting its missions to the DCA airspace in 
a manner that is basically how we got in to the collision to begin 
with--basically with it not transmitting.
  So I don't know why we have to have a letter from the NTSB telling us 
what we are doing in the National Defense Authorization Act is making 
the airspace less safe. I don't even know how this got in the bill 
because I guarantee you, Senator Cruz and I didn't approve of this 
being in the bill. I am pretty sure my colleagues in the House, 
Congressmen Larson and Graves, didn't approve of this being in the 
bill. So how is it that this is now in the bill that we all have to 
respond today, including the National Transportation Safety Board, 
basically saying this language should not be there.
  It is so important, that the families that have had to come together 
to support legislation that Senator Cruz and I do support, had to put 
out their own tweet. They basically said that it doesn't fix the failed 
system that produced the accident in January. So the families are 
having to lobby.
  So who is not listening? Who is not listening to the ranking members 
of committees? Who is not listening to the NTSB? Who is not listening 
to the families of the victims? Who is jamming this into a bill just 
because they think that DOD still deserves to fly in a crowded airspace 
without people knowing that they are there?
  So I hope my colleagues will take this issue seriously. I hope my 
colleagues will understand that this is not the way to fix legislation. 
I mentioned my colleagues, Senator Cruz, and I have passed the ROTOR 
Act out of committee, important legislation that does fix the problem, 
that is endorsed by the families, that is endorsed by the NTSB, that is 
endorsed by other groups. And yet we couldn't get that into this 
legislation. But yet, somehow, mysteriously, without anybody knowing 
how or why, this language is stuck into this bill. Listen to the Lilley 
family, who lost their son, First Officer Sam Lilley in the crash. They 
recognize this provision creates another loophole and stated: ``Safety 
that depends on exemptions cannot be the foundation of [a secure] 
airspace system.''

  So not only does this provision fail to rein in the training flights 
properly, it will keep making it more difficult for commercial aircraft 
to see military training flights flying so close to the flights around 
DCA.
  Now, I will say it is astounding to me that in this last big bill, 
other stuff was stuck in there, my colleague from the Commerce 
Committee might realize, that some of our colleagues wanted to be able 
to sue the Federal Government because the Department of Justice had 
looked at their phone records. Have we struck that provision?
  I am pretty sure these families who have lost loved ones would like 
to be able to sue the Federal Government, the DOD or the FAA, who 
basically make it hard to have safety provisions and have somebody in 
the dark of night put another exemption in for DOD, which is what 
caused the accident in the first place.
  So we don't allow these families to have any recourse with the 
government, but we are still here with a provision that some Senators 
thought was

[[Page S8632]]

important enough that they get off and can basically sue the government 
for millions of dollars. And yet this kind of behavior that makes it 
more dangerous for the flying public, they get no recourse. We don't 
even know who stuck it in. People should be asking: Who stuck in this 
language? Who is standing by it? Who is committed to it? Who thinks it 
is a good idea? Because none of the safety advocates think that it is a 
good idea. I hope my colleagues will be as outraged as I am, over this 
provision, outraged, along with the families, with the NTSB 
Administrator and help us fight this issue.

                          ____________________