Objection to S.3268, the Pilots' Rights Act
13:01:39 NSP} (MR. INHOFE) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
MR. INHOFE: MADAM PRESIDENT, IN A MOMENT I WANT TO PUT A
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST AND BEFORE I DO, I'D LIKE TO SAY WHAT
IT'S ON SO THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE TIME AND THE EFFORT
THAT'S GONE INTO GETTING LEGISLATION PASSED, AND I'M REFERRING
NOW TO A -- 3268. MADAM PRESIDENT, WHEN JOHN GLENN RETIRED FROM
THIS BODY THAT LEFT ME AS KIND OF THE LAST ACTIVE COMMERCIAL
PILOT. CONSEQUENTLY I END UP GETTING A LOT MORE OF THE -- OH,
THE COMPLAINTS AND PROBLEMS WITHIN THE F.A.A. AND THE WAY
CASES, ACCUSATIONS ARE MADE AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ARE TAKEN.
AND I'VE GONE TO BAT FOR A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE WHEN I'VE FELT
THERE IS REALLY A FAIRNESS PROBLEM. AND IT WASN'T UNTIL I HAD
AN EXPERIENCE, A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE THAT I REALIZED THE DEPTH
OF THE PROBLEM. IT'S VERY HARD FOR PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM TO
UNDERSTAND IF YOU HAVE BEEN AS I HAVE BEEN A PRIVATE PILOT, A
COMMERCIAL PILOT, A FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR FOR 55 YEARS, WHAT IT
WOULD MEAN TO HAVE THAT LICENSE TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU IF THAT
WERE MERELY AT THE WHIMS OF SOME ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THE
FIELD. I THINK ALL OF US KNOW WHETHER IT'S -- I WAS MAYOR OF
TULSA, NOW AND THEN WE HAD POLICE OFFICERS WHO COULDN'T HANDLE
THE AUTHORITY. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. CERTAINLY IT HAPPENS
AND WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT IT WITH ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS BROUGHT
ABOUT BY THE F.A.A. SO WHAT HAPPENED TO ME AND I'LL SHARE THAT
WITH YOU, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, I HAVE PROBABLY MORE
HOURS THAN MOST OF THE AIRLINE PILOTS HAVE AND I'M STILL VERY
ACTIVE IN AVIATION. I WAS FLYING DOWN TO THE SOUTHERN PART OF
TEXAS. THE FURTHEST SOUTH PART OF TEXAS, WAY DOWN BY
BROWNSVILLE. IT'S CAMERON COUNTY AIRPORT. IT'S PAPA INDIA LIMA
IS THE IDENTIFIER FOR IT. WITH SEVERAL PASSENGERS WITH ME, I
WAS GOING BY THE CONTROLLERS AND THIS IS WHAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO
DO BUT I ALWAYS DO FOR SAFETY PURPOSES. AND I WENT THROUGH THE
CORPUS CHRISTI APPROACH CONTROL AND HE HANDED ME OFF TO THE
VALLEY APPROACH CONTROL. I WAS GOING INTO A FIELD THAT WAS
UNCONTROLLED. SO THE ONLY CONTROL IS THE VALLEY APPROACH
CONTROL. AND THEY'RE WATCHING ON A SCREEN AND THEY HAVE ALL THE
INFORMATION THEY NEED TO DIRECT YOU AND AUTHORIZE YOU TO DO
THINGS. AND THEY ARE LOOKING FOR TRAFFIC AND YOU'RE SQUAWKING
SO THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE, HOW HIGH WE ARE AND ALL
THESE THINGS WERE HAPPENING. AGAIN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT.
AND AND ON THIS DAY IN OCTOBER, A YEAR AGO OCTOBER, I DIDN'T
HAVE TO DO IT BUT I DID IT ANYMORE. WELL, AS I APPROACHED THE
WINDOWS ALWAYS OUT -- THE WIND IS ALWAYS OUT OF THE SOUTH DOWN
THERE AND THE RUNWAY IS 1-3, THAT COORDINATES WITH 130 DEGREES.
AND I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LISTEN AGAIN TO THE VOICE RECORDER,
ABOUT A TWO OR THREE-MILE FINAL TO RUN WAY 13, THE CONTROLLER
SAID TWIN CESSNA, YOU ARE CLEARED TO LAND, RUNWAY 13. WHEN YOU
DO THIS, YOU DIRTY UP YOUR PLANE SO YOU CAN LAND. THIS HAPPENS
TO BE A PRETTY SOPHISTICATED TWIN-ENGINE PLANE, YOU LET THE
FLAPS DOWN AND GEARS DOWN AND ALL THAT STUFF. YOU GET TO THE
POINT BEYOND WHICH YOU CAN'T GO AROUND. WHEN I CAME IN TO MAKE
A LANDING, I SAW -- I DIDN'T SEE AN X ON THE RUNWAY BECAUSE IT
WASN'T PROMINENT BUT NONETHELESS THERE WAS ONE THERE BUT THERE
WERE SOME WORKERS ON THE FAR EAST SIDE OF THE RUNWAY. NOW, THIS
WAS A 8,000 OR 9,000-FOOT RUN WAY, I ONLY NEED 2,000 FEET SO I
WENT OVER THE WORKERS AND LANDED. IMMEDIATELY THEY SAY THEY GOT
UPSET THAT I LANDED. AND A LOT OF PEOPLE BECAUSE I'M A MEMBER
OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, THEY STARTED CALLING "THE NEW YORK
TIMES" AND "THE WASHINGTON POST" AND ALL -- THEY JUST HAD A
WONDERFUL TIME WITH THIS. AND SO I STARTED LOOKING AT IT AND
TALKING TO THE PEOPLE WHO DO THE ENFORCEMENT ACTION, AND I HAVE
TO SAY THAT THEY WERE GOOD BUT THEY WERE RESPONDING TO A LOT OF
HYSTERICAL PEOPLE WHO QUITE FRANKLY DIDN'T LIKE ME. AND SO THEY
CAME WITH AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST ME WHICH MERELY WAS TO
TO GO AROUND THE PATTERN WITH A -- WITH A -- A DPRIEMPLET
FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR AND SO I DID THIS WITH ONE, I'M ALSO A FLIGHT
INSTRUCTOR AND I HAD GIVEN HIM HIS LICENSE, AS A MATTER OF
FACT. SO I WENT THROUGH THIS PROCEDURE AND EVERYTHING WAS FINE.
HOWEVER, THE PROBLEM WAS THIS: I WAS DENIED ACCESS TO THE
INFORMATION THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE AGAINST ME. AND WHEN I
TOLD THEM THAT I WAS CLEARED TO LAND BY A CONTROLLER, IT TOOK
ME, A UNITED STATES SENATOR, FOUR MONTHS TO GET THE VOICE
RECORDING TO PROVE THAT I WAS RIGHT. SECONDLY, THERE'S A THING
CALLED NOTICE TO AIRMEN. NOTAMS ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BE
PUBLISHED, AND YOU LOOK THROUGH YOUR RESOURCES, AS I ALWAYS DO,
TO SEE IF THERE ARE NOTAMS ON THE RUNWAYS. WHEN I GO ON
WEEKENDS, I'LL NORMALLY FLY -- OH, GOSH I'LL BE AT FIVE OR SIX
DIFFERENT TOWNS BUT I LOOK UP THE NOTAMS. I HAD DONE THAT. NONE
AT CAMERON COUNTY AIRPORT, WE CHECKED AFTERWARDS, WE NEVER
COULD FIND ANY, NO ONE SAYS THERE WERE NOTAMS NOW. NUMBER ONE,
WAS CLEARED TO LAND, AND NO NOTAMS THAT WERE PUBLISHED. WHAT
THEY COULD HAVE DONE IS TAKE MY LICENSE AWAY. AND IT DOESN'T
MEAN MUCH TO PEOPLE LISTENING RIGHT NOW BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT
PILOTS. BUT IT MEANS A LOT TO THE 400,000 MEMBERS OF THE AOPA
WHO ARE WATCHING US RIGHT NOW, AND TO THE 175,000 PILOTS,
GENERAL AVIATION PILOTS WITH THE EAA, EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT
ASSOCIATION WHO ARE WATCHING US RIGHT NOW. THEY KNOW THAT THEY
COULD AT THE WHIMS OF ONE BUREAUCRAT COULD LOSE THEIR LICENSE.
SO ANYWAY, I CAME BACK AND DRAFTED LEGISLATION AND I HAVE TO
SAY THIS WAS WAY BACK IN A YEAR AGO NOW, JULY 6 OF 2011,
INTRODUCED A BILL WITH 25 COSPONSORS THAT WOULD CORRECT -- DO
THREE THINGS VERY SIMPLY. NUMBER ONE, IT WOULD LET THE ACCUSED
HAVE ACCESS TO ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE WITHIN 30 DAYS PRIOR TO A
DECISION TO PROCEED WITH AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION. NUMBER TWO, IT
WOULD ALLOW THE -- THE ACCUSED TO GO HAVE ACCESS TO THE FEDERAL
COURTS, AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
BOARD, IT GOES TO THEM, THEY RUBBER STAMP WHATEVER THE F.A.A.
DOES IN FISCAL YEAR 10 THERE WERE 61 APPEALS AND OF THAT ONLY
FIVE WERE REVERSED. OF THE 24 PETITIONS IN 2010, SEEKING REVIEW
FOR EMERGENCY DETERMINATIONS, ONLY ONE, ONLY ONE WAS GRANTED.
AND 23 WERE DENIED. IT'S A RUBBER STAMP. ASK ANY PILOT THAT YOU
CAN FIND AND THEY'LL TELL YOU THAT'S WHAT IT IS. AND SO THIS
WAY THEY WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM. IT'S
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT INSPECTOR IN
THE FIELD, ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THE FIELD IS NOT GOING TO PUT
HIS REPUTATION ON THE LINE TO -- TO KNOWING THAT SOMEONE IS
GOING TO BE LOOKING AND A SENSE OF FAIRNESS. THE DISTRICT COURT
DOESN'T HAVE TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT PILOTING AN AIRPLANE. IT'S
JUST A FAIRNESS ISSUE AND IN MY CASE THEY WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT
THIS AND SAID WAIT A MINUTE YOU WERE CLEARED TO LAND BY THE
F.A.A., NO NOTAMS PUBLISHED, WHAT DID YOU DO WRONG?
I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING BE WRONG. THAT IS WHERE THEY COME IN. AND
IT WOULD MAKE SURE THAT FLIGHT SERVICE STATION COMMUNICATIONS
ARE AVAILABLE TO ALL AIRMEN. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE BUT IF IT
TOOK ME FOUR MONTHS AND I'M A UNITED STATES SENATOR TO GET A
VOICE RECORDING TO SHOW I WAS CLEARED TO LAND, WHAT ABOUT
SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT A UNITED STATES SENATOR?
WHAT ABOUT SOMEBODY WHO WOULD BE INTIMIDATED TO THE POINT THAT
WOULD LOSE HIS LICENSE?
THE SECOND THING THIS DOES, IT FORCES THE NOTICE, THE NOTICE TO
AIRMEN, TO BE PUT IN A PLACE WHERE THEY ARE VISIBLE, A CENTRAL
LOCATION, AND THE THIRD THING IT DOES, THERE IS A PROBLEM. IF
YOU TALK TO THE AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION, OF ALL
THE PROBLEMS THAT THEY GET CALLED TO THEIR ATTENTION, 23% OF --
28% OF ALL THE REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE RECEIVED BY THEM RELATE
TO THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATION PROCESS. IN OTHER WORDS, SOMEONE
MIGHT LOSE HIS MEDICAL AND TAKE AND FIND HE'S DIRECT CRECTED
ANY KIND OF PHYSICAL PROBLEM AND WANT TO GET IT BACK AND THEY
GET IT BACK. HOWEVER IF HE HAPPENS TO LIVE IN A DIFFERENT TOWN
AND THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF THESE DOCTORS THAT DO THIS, THERE'S
NO UNIFORMITY BETWEEN IT. IT SETS UP A PROCESS OR HELPS
FACILITATE SETTING UP A PROCESS BY HAVING GENERAL AVIATION,
HAVING THE F.A.A., HAVING THE NTSB, HAVING EVERYONE WHO IS
RELEVANT AND INTERESTED IN THIS TO LOOK AT -- LOOK AT AND
COORDINATE THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATION PROCESS. THAT'S
ESSENTIALLY IT, MADAM PRESIDENT. I'M PREPARED TO GO INTO A LOT
OF DETAIL. I KNOW THAT I NOW HAVE 66 COSPONSORS IN THIS BODY. I
COULD HAVE HAD A LOT MORE, WE QUID AFTER WE GOT TWO-THIRDS, I
THINK EVERYONE KNOWS THAT'S NORMALLY WHAT DO YOU. AND I DO KNOW
THAT WE MAY HAVE ONE OBJECTION TO THIS UNANIMOUS CONSENT
REQUEST. BUT I'M GOING TO MAKE IT NOW AS IF IN LEGISLATIVE
SESSION I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE SENATE PROCEED TO THE
IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION OF CALENDAR NUMBER 422 S. 3268, THAT
THE BILL BE READ A THIRD TIME AND PASSED, THE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER BE LAID UPON THE TABLE, AND THAT ANY STATEMENTS
RELATING TO THE BILL APPEAR AT THIS POINT IN THE RECORD.
{13:12:20 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?
{13:12:21 NSP} (MR. ROCKEFELLER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
MR. ROCKEFELLER: MADAM PRESIDENT?
{13:12:24 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA.
13:12:27 NSP} (MR. ROCKEFELLER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
MR. ROCKEFELLER: RESERVING THE RIGHT TO OBJECT. FIRST OF ALL, I
KNOW THIS BILL IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE SENATOR WHO IS OFFERING
IT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I RESPECT THE SENATOR AND HE'S A
GOOD SENATOR. BUT THIS -- THIS REALLY, MY OBJECTION IS NOT
BASED SO MUCH ON WHAT HE SAID BUT IT'S BASED ON THE WHOLE
CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY. THIS IS ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY. WE
SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WORRY THAT POTENTIALLY UNQUALIFIED PILOTS
ARE IN THE AIR. WE HAVE SO MANY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF AIRPLANES
IN THE AIR EVERY HOUR OF EVERY DAY. THIS BILL WOULD CREATE A
PROCESS WHICH WOULD BE NEW THAT COULD RESULT IN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT BEING UNABLE TO PURSUE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS BECAUSE
OF LIMITED RESOURCES. IT'S A FACT OF LIFE THESE DAYS. F.A.A.
HAS TO CUT WAY BACK. OR HAVING TO ADDRESS OTHER MANDATED
PRIORITIES WHICH ARE PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THIS ONE. AND
THAT COULD VERY WELL MEAN THAT THE F.A.A. AND THE NTSB, THE
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD, WHICH ARE ULTIMATELY
RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT WHETHER PILOTS WHO HAVE
VIOLATED AVIATION REGULATIONS COULD BE BARRED FROM TAKING
ACTIONS TO PREVENT UNSAFE PILOTS FROM CONTINUING TO FLY. THAT'S
HEAVY WATER. THAT COULD HAVE SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCES.
ACCORDING TO THE F.A.A. IN SOME CASES WHICH WOULD TYPICALLY
WARRANT REVOCATION OF A PILOT'S LICENSE, SOME UNQUALIFIED
PILOTS WOULD BE ABLE TO AVOID LOSING THEIR CERTIFICATES BY
AVOIDING F.A.A. PROSECUTION OF THE MATTER BEFORE THE IN THE SB.
THIS BILL -- IN THE SB. THIS WILL -- NTSB. THIS WOULD STAND THE
ENFORCEMENT STRUCTURE ON ITS HEAD AND AS A RESULT I DO OBJECT.
{13:14:19 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: OBJECTION IS HEARD. MR. INHOFE: MADAM
PRESIDENT?
{13:14:23 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.
{13:14:28 NSP} (MR. INHOFE) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
MR. INHOFE: LET ME RESPOND. THIS HAS NO WAY -- IN NO WAY
ANYTHING TO DO WITH SAFETY. THE FIRST ASH TRAITDOR IS --
ARBITRATOR IS THE F.A.A. WHEN WE HAVE A CHANCE TO ALMOST ALL
THE SENATORS IN THIS BODY, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SAFETY, WE HAD A
HEARING AT OSHKOSH ABOUT THE SAFETY. THE AIR TRAFFIC
CONTROLLERS SUPPORT ME IN THIS. THEY'RE THE ONES CONCERNED WITH
SAFETY. I WOULD JUST SAY I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT ARGUMENT BUT I
RESPECT THE SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA.
{13:14:58 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS.
{13:15:00 NSP} (MRS. HUTCHISON) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
MRS. HUTCHISON: MADAM PRESIDENT, I TOO OBJECT,
THAT I HAVE BEEN ON THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD,
AND I KNOW WELL THE KINDS OF CASES THAT ARE PILOTS LICENSE
REVOCATIONS AND THE NTSB PROCESS FOR APPEALS OF THOSE. AND I
UNDERSTAND SENATOR INHOFE 'S EXPLANATION FOR WHAT HAPPENED WITH
HIM THAT IS IN SOMEWHAT OF A DISAGREEMENT WITH SOME OF THE
REPORTING OF THAT INCIDENT. AND I THINK -- I CERTAINLY
UNDERSTAND THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA'S LONGTIME RECORD OF BEING
A PILOT, AND I RESPECT THAT VERY MUCH. BUT I'M AFRAID THAT WHAT
HE'S NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION IS MOST CERTAINLY A SAFETY
ISSUE. WE HAVE TASKED THE F.A.A. WITH AIR SAFETY, AND WE HAVE
GIVEN THEM THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR REVOKING PILOTS' LICENSES
WHEN THERE IS A NEED TO DO THAT IN THEIR OPINION, WHETHER IT BE
FOR VIOLATION OF LANDING ON A RUNWAY THAT HAD AN "X" WHICH
PILOTS KNOW MEANS THAT RUNWAY CANNOT BE USED AT THAT TIME. AS
HAPPENED WITH SENATOR INHOFE'S CASE, HE IS SAYING THAT HE HAD A
CLEARANCE, BUT THE "X" WAS THERE, AND THE F.A.A. CITED HIM FOR
THAT AND DID NOT REVOKE HIS PILOT'S LICENSE AT ALL. BUT YET
HE'S COMING FORWARD WITH A BILL THAT NOT ONLY ADDRESSES SOME OF
HIS LEGITIMATE CONCERNS, WHICH I AGREE WITH, BUT ALSO GOES
BEYOND THAT TO SAY THAT WHEN THE F.A.A., WITH ITS EXPERTISE AND
ITS MISSION THAT IS GIVEN TO IT BY CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR
SAFETY AND REVOKES A PRIVATE PILOT'S LICENSE OR COMMERCIAL
PILOT'S LICENSE OR AVIATION MECHANIC'S LICENSE THAT THEY WOULD
THEN NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE APPELLATE PROCESS WITH THE
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD, WHICH IS THE APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, WHICH ALSO HAS THE EXPERTISE AND THE EXPERIENCE TO
KNOW WHEN A REVOCATION WOULD BE QUESTIONABLE OR IF THE F.A.A.
WAS RIGHT. THEY HAVE THE PILOTS, THEY HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO
MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. AND THEY THEN, AFTER THE NTSB APPEAL HAVE
THE RIGHT TO GO TO FEDERAL COURT IF THEY SO CHOOSE. WHAT
SENATOR INHOFE'S BILL DOES IS TAKE AWAY THE NTSB PORTION OF THE
APPEALS PROCESS. NOW LET ME SAY THAT I HAVE OFFERED TO SENATOR
INHOFE, BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT I OBJECTED TO THIS BILL, TO DO
EVERYTHING IN HIS BILL THAT HE HAS ADDRESSED. THE OPENNESS, THE
REQUIREMENT THAT AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION THAT THE F.A.A. WOULD
GRANT THE PILOT ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN 30 DAYS PRIOR TO A
DECISION, THAT IT WOULD CLARIFY THE STATUTORY DEFERENCE AS IT
RELATES TO NTSB. NTSB IS NOT A RUBBER STAMP AT ALL. I THINK
THEY HAVE BEEN FAIR WITH THEIR EXPERTISE. F.A.A. HAS THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR AVIATION SAFETY. REQUIRING THE F.A.A. TO
UNDERTAKE A NOTICE TO AIRMEN IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, I THINK IS
CERTAINLY LEGITIMATE. MAKING FLIGHT SERVICE STATION
COMMUNICATIONS AVAILABLE TO ALL AIRMEN IS A LEGITIMATE PIECE OF
THIS LEGISLATION. WHAT I OBJECT TO AND HAVE ASKED SENATOR
INHOFE TO LET US WORK TOGETHER TO DO IS NOT TO BYPASS NTSB, BUT
TO LET THE APPELLATE PROCESS GO FORWARD AND THEN AT THE END, IF
THERE IS STILL A FEELING OF UNFAIRNESS ON THE PART OF THE
PILOT, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE FEDERAL COURTS. THEY
CAN DO THAT NOW. SO I THINK THAT SENATOR INHOFE INSISTING ON
BYPASSING NTSB IS HOLDING UP THE GOOD PARTS OF HIS BILL BECAUSE
IT IS VERY IMPORTANT, IN MY OPINION, THAT WE KEEP THE KPER
TEASE FOR THE SAFETY -- EXPERTISE FOR THE SAFETY IN THE SKIES
WHERE IT IS IN THE F.A.A., THE IN THE IT BE AND THEN THE
FEDERAL COURTS IF RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED. IN 2011, THE NTSB HAD
350 APPEALS CASES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES, AND THE NUMBER
WAS SIMILAR IN 2011. CASES ARE TYPICALLY DISPOSED OF IN 90 TO
120 DAYS, SO THERE'S NOT A LONG LAG TIME IN WHICH THE PILOT
DOESN'T HAVE THE ACCESS TO HIS OR HER LICENSE. THE NTSB HELD 62
APPEALS HEARINGS IN 2011 AND 36 CASES WENT TO THE FULL BOARD.
THE BREAKDOWN OF THE CASES WAS PRIVATE PILOTS, 48%. MECHANICS
-- AIRLINE MECHANICS OR AVIATION MECHANICS 13%. COMMERCIAL
PILOTS 6%. AIR CARRIERS 8%. AND MEDICAL WAS 25%. NOW MADAM
PRESIDENT, I -- SENATOR ROCKEFELLER AND I, AS THE RELEVANT
CHAIRMAN AND RANKING ON THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE, HAVE AGREED TO
HAVE A HEARING ON SENATOR INHOFE'S BILL SO THAT THIS COULD BE
FULLY VETTED. AND MOST CERTAINLY I HAVE ON MANY OCCASIONS
OFFERED TO WORK WITH SENATOR INHOFE TO GET THE NOTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS, THE OPENNESS REQUIREMENTS, EVERY PART OF HIS BILL
THAT WOULD REQUIRE REFORMS OF THE PROCESS FOR FAIRNESS TO THE
PILOTS, I WOULD AGREE WITH AND WORK TO HELP HIM PASS. BUT
TAKING OUT THE NTSB AND GOING DIRECTLY TO FEDERAL COURTS I
THINK IS NOT NECESSARY, AND I THINK IT WILL RURT AVIATION
SAFETY. NOW I ALSO BELIEVE THAT A DIFFERENT EXTRANEOUS ISSUE IS
THAT OUR FEDERAL COURTS ARE PRETTY CLOGGED ALREADY AND THE
FEDERAL COURTS DO NOT HAVE PILOTS LICENSES ON THEIR STAFF
CLERKSHIP ROLLS TO A GREAT EXTENT. MAYBE THEY HAPPEN TO BE, BUT
THEY DON'T HAVE THE FAMILIARITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF F.A.A.
AND THE ISSUES THAT F.A.A. LOOKS AT. SO -- AND THEY DO HAVE
ACCESS TO FEDERAL COURTS IN THE END, ANYWAY. BUT THE NTSB PART
I THINK IS IMPORTANT SO THAT THE EXPERIENCED PILOTS IN THE NTSB
HAVE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS THEY DO NOW TO DECIPHER WHAT
HAPPENED WITH THE F.A.A. AND DETERMINE IF FAIRNESS WAS GIVEN TO
THE PILOT. BUT ALSO TO HELP DETERMINE IF THAT PILOT'S
REVOCATION WOULD ENDANGER AVIATION SAFETY, WHICH IS NOT A ROLE
FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS. SO, SENATOR ROCKEFELLER AND I DO
OBJECT. I HOLD MY HAND OUT TO SENATOR INHOFE TO WORK WITH HIM
ON THE NOTIFICATION AND FAIRNESS ISSUES IN HIS BILL, WHICH I
SUPPORT. I JUST DON'T THINK BYPASSING THE EXPERTISE AND ADDING
ANOTHER BURDEN TO THE FEDERAL COURTS, WHERE THEY DO NOT HAVE
THE EXPERTISE IS IN ANYONE'S BEST INTEREST IN THIS COUNTRY. AND
I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH ANYONE INTERESTED IN THIS ISSUE AND HOPE
THAT WE CAN RESOLVE IT.
{13:23:54 NSP} (MR. INHOFE) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
MR. INHOFE: MADAM PRESIDENT?
MR. INHOFE: MADAM PRESIDENT, I THINK IT WOULD BE REDUNDANT OF
ME TO GO BACK AND REPEAT WHAT I SAID BEFORE, BUT THE SENATOR
FROM TEXAS TALKED ABOUT THE "X" ON THE RUNWAY. I HAVE MADE IT
VERY CLEAR THAT BY THE TIME YOU CAN SEE THE "X" ON THE RUNWAY
WHEN YOU'RE CLEARED TO LAND AND YOU HAVE A SOPHISTICATED PLANE
WITH FULL PASSENGERS, YOU CAN'T -- THERE IS A POINT BEYOND
WHICH YOU CAN'T GO IN TERMS OF AFTER YOUR PLANE IS DIRTIED UP
MAKING A GO-ROUND. OBVIOUSLY IT WASN'T NECESSARY ANYWAY BECAUSE
I HAD 7000 FEET OF EMPTY FEET TO GO AROUND. THAT'S NOT THE
POINT. THAT'S NOT THE POINT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. I
RECOGNIZE, AND I RESPECT SENATOR HUTCHISON AND THE FACT THAT
SHE WAS ON THE NTSB, AND I KNOW THAT THAT OBVIOUSLY IS
MEANINGFUL TO HER. AND CERTAINLY SENATOR ROCKEFELLER. WHAT
WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE IS WE HAVE A COMMITTEE -- AND I HAVE A
LOT OF RESPECT FOR THE COMMITTEE. SENATOR ROCKEFELLER IS THE
CHAIRMAN. SENATOR HUTCHISON IS THE RANKING MEMBER AND THIS
COMMITTEE IS THE COMMITTEE OF JURISDICTION. WHAT DID I DO?
I INTRODUCE THIS HAD BILL A YEAR AGO. I TALKED ABOUT THAT. WE
HAD 25 COSPONSORS AT THAT TIME. WE HAD ENDORSEMENTS FROM ALL
OVER THE COUNTRY. WE HAD THE NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
CAME IN. WE SENT OUT DEAR COLLEAGUE'S AND TALKED TO PEOPLE. WE
SENT A LETTER TO THE COMMITTEE, THE CONGRESS COMMITTEE THAT
SENATOR HUTCHISON WAS ON AT THAT TIME REQUESTING A HEARING.
MADAM PRESIDENT, WE HAD 32 COSPONSORS SIGNING THAT LETTER
REQUESTING A HEARING, SOME OF WHICH ARE THE ON THE COMMERCE
COMMITTEE. NOTHING HAPPENED. SEPTEMBER 20, AS THE MONTHS GO BY,
WE'VE MADE MORE AND MORE REQUESTS. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS. AND
EVERY TIME THEY SAY WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING THIS. YOU FINALLY
GET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND GET IT DONE.
AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A RULE 14. AND I'M NOT A
PARLIAMENTARIAN. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THINGS WORK. I
REMEMBER I HAD EXPERIENCE WITH THEY WHEN -- WITH THIS WHEN I
STARTED HERE. WHEN SOMETHING IS BOGGED UP -- IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
BUSINESS DAILY. AS THE GREATEST-SINGLE REFORM IN THE HISTORY OF
THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. AND ADDRESSED THIS
SAME THING. IT WAS A WAY OF BOTTLING UP BILLS IN COMMITTEES SO
THEY COULD NEVER HAVE HEARINGS, TO NEVER BE ABLE TO GET ON THE
FLOOR FOR A VOTE. THAT DISCHARGE PETITION REFORM BECAME A
REALITY. AND NOW THE LIGHT IS SHINING AND EVERYTHING IS GREAT,
BUT WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN TRYING AND TRYING TO GET A HEARING
BEFORE A COMMITTEE FOR A YEAR AND YOU HAVE 66 COSPONSORS, YOU
HAVE TO RESORT TO WHATEVER IS OUT THERE AVAILABLE TO YOU FOR A
REMEDY. THAT REMEDY HAPPENS TO BE RULE 14. RULE 14 WILL ALLOW
ME TO DO THIS. IN THE EVENT THEY CONTINUE, TWO PEOPLE ARE
HOLDING THE BILL UP. THAT'S SENATOR ROCKEFELLER AND SENATOR
HUTCHISON. IN THE EVENT THAT THEY CONTINUE TO DO THAT, I WILL
HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO FILE CLOTURE AND TO GO AHEAD AND GET A
VOTE ON THIS BILL, RECOGNIZING IT TAKES A SUPERMAJORITY WHEN
YOU FILE CLOTURE. I WOULD DO THAT. I HAVE A LOT OF THINGS, I
GUESS, I DIDN'T THINK WE WOULD GET INTO THIS. ONE IS THE --
GIVE ME THE ARTICLE FROM THE AOPA. THAT'S BY JOHN YOUTIS. I
HAVE AN ARTICLE WHICH I WILL FIND HERE IN A MINUTE AND WE'LL
SUBMIT THIS FOR THE RECORD. I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.
{13:27:51 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
{13:27:56 NSP} (MR. INHOFE) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
MR. INHOFE: IT GOES INTO DETAILS DOCUMENTARY CASES WHERE THEY
HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO GET FAIRNESS THROUGH THIS SYSTEM. HOW MANY
CASES WOULD ULTIMATELY GO TO THE DISTRICT COURT?
I THINK VERY FEW: IDEA THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR A PILOT TO TAKE WHAT HE'S ACCUSED OF TO THE DISTRICT COURT
TO SEE IT IN A SENSE OF FAIRNESS, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW
MANY PILOTS ARE SITTING ON THAT DISTRICT COURT. IT'S A SENSE OF
FAIRNESS. THAT'S WHAT THEY DEAL WITH. IN THE DISTRICT COURT
SYSTEM THESE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE EXPERTISE IN ALL THESE AREAS.
BUT IN MY CASE, IF THEY LOOKED AT THAT AND SAID IF THE F.A.A.
LOOKED AT THAT, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG. HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING
WRONG. IT FINALLY GETS TO THE POINT. I'VE BEEN VERY PATIENTED.
I'VE WAIT ADD YEAR, A WHOLE -- I'VE WAITED A YEAR, A WHOLE YEAR
FOR THIS. FINALLY I'VE COME TO THE POINT WHERE I'VE GIVEN UP. I
DECIDED WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT THIS WAY. IT'S CLEARLY THE
WILL OF THE SENATE TO PASS THIS LEGISLATION. WITH THAT, I DO
HAVE SOME THINGS I WANT TO PUT INTO THE RECORD. I HAVE, FIRST
OF ALL, THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, THE REQUEST THAT WE MADE OF THE
COMMERCE COMMITTEE TO HEAR THIS LEGISLATION. I HAVE A, AN
ARTICLE THAT WAS IN "PILOTS" MAGAZINE BY JOHN YOUTIS WHO IS
CONSIDERED TO BE THE SINGLE FOREMOST LEGAL AUTHORITY IN THESE
AREAS. IF THE PRINT WERE A LITTLE LARGER, I WOULD READ SOME OF
THIS. IT TALKS ABOUT THE DECISIONS THE CURRENT NTSB CAUSES US
TO QUESTION ITS FAIRNESS AND IMPARTIALITY IN PILOT APPEALS. HE
TALKS ABOUT THE NOTICES THAT HAVE GONE OUT AND THE PROBZ THEY
HAVE HAD WITH THIS -- AND THE PROBLEMS THEY HAVE HAD WITH THIS.
{13:29:52 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
{13:29:56 NSP} (MR. INHOFE) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
MR. INHOFE: WITH THE 400,000 PILOTS INTERESTED IN THIS --
ACTUALLY WELL OVER THAT -- JUST THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THIS
PRO SET RIGHT NOW, THEY HAVE HAD CUMENTARY CASES WHERE THE FAIRNESS IS NOT THERE. THAT'S ALL
THAT WE'RE ASKING, JUST TO BE TREATED FAIR, LIKE EVERY OTHER
CITIZEN IN THE UNITED STATES. I YIELD THE FLOOR. MS.--
{13:30:21 NSP} (MRS. HUTCHISON) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
MRS. HUTCHISON: MR. PRESIDENT, ON THE POINT OF THE HEARING,
SENATOR ROCKEFELLER AND I HAVE AGREED CERTAINLY WITH SENATOR
INHOFE TO HOLD A HEARING, WHICH WE NOTIFIED SENATOR INHOFE THAT
WE WOULD. I WOULD EXPECT IT TO BE NEXT MONTH FOR THE HEARING
SCHEDULE. I JUST HOPE THAT w -- AND I JUST HOPE THAT WE CAN
PASS A GOOD PART OF HIS BILL, WHICH I'D LIKE TO WORK WITH HIM
ON. BUT I THINK THAT THE MOTIVATION HERE SHOULD BE SAFETY AND
ASSURING SAFETY, AND I KNOW THE PERSONAL CONFLICT THAT SENATOR
INHOFE HAS WITH WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM, AND I'M SYMPATHETIC, BUT
I DON'T THINK THAT PASSING LEGISLATION THAT COULD HURT THE
AVIATION SAFETY COMMUNITY IS THE RIGHT APPROACH TO MEET THE
OBJECTIONS THAT SENATOR INHOFE HAS. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A
HEARING AND HAVE ALL OF THE WITNESSES THAT HE WOULD PUT
FORWARD, AND LET'S GET THE OBJECTIVE LOOK AT WHAT THIS WOULD DO
TO TAKING THE EXPERTISE AND THE MISSION FROM F.A.A. AND ALLOW
IT TO BE BYPASSED AT NTSB LEVEL AND GO TO FEDERAL COURTS, WHERE
THERE IS NOT THE EXPERIENCE AND THE AVIATION SAFETY MISSION
THAT IS, I THINK, WELL-PROTECTED TODAY. SO I HOPE THAT WE CAN
WORK TOGETHER ON THIS, AND I UNDERSTAND HIS FRUSTRATION, BUT I
DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT SOLUTION FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM
WITH ONE INCIDENT. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
{13:32:13 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.
{13:32:15 NSP} (MR. INHOFE) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
MR. INHOFE: FIRST OF ALL, I'M NOT AWARE THAT I WAS OFFERED A
HEARING. BUT LET ME JUST MAKE SURE I HAVE IN THE RECORD A
LETTER, SEPTEMBER 15 OF 2011 -- THAT WAS, WHAT, NINE MONTHS AGO
-- SIGNED BY 32 MEMBERS OF THIS SENATE, INCLUDING THE OCCUPIER
OF THE CHAIR RIGHT NOW, THE SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA. AND I
DON'T THINK ANYONE IS GOING TO SAY THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE
EVERYTHING WE COULD TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, THE COMMITTEE
PROCESS, TO GET A HEARING. I JUST FLAT GAVE UP. AND THAT'S WHY
WE HAVE THIS RULE. AND SO I WILL BE LOOKING FORWARD TO TAKING
THE NEXT STEPS, AND I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE
THAT WANT TO HAVE THIS TYPE OF JUSTICE AFFORDED THE PILOTS OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE SAME AS EVERY OTHER CITIZEN
ENJOYS. WITH -- I APPRECIATE THE PATIENCE OF THE COMMITTEE
BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE OTHER BUSINESS. AND I YIELD THE FLOOR.
