James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a provision of this bill in the expectation this may become law. We want to make sure we do have a clear understanding. In section 106, is it the chairman's understanding that in the matter of project grants, that grants for the expanded and enhanced security programs provided for in section 106 would be to airport sponsor, just as they are made today under the AIP Program; that such grants would not be made to entities other than airport sponsor, such as airlines or private companies? Is that the gentleman's understanding?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the chairman of the committee. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset during debate on the rule, we on this side may not have been in on the takeoff, because this legislation did sort of take shape and form and get rolling on its own, but we certainly were in on the flight and in on the landing, and have had a role, and I think a very constructive and positive role to play in each stage of the formation of this legislation as far as the aviation security part is concerned. That is our committee jurisdiction. I want to again express my appreciation to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], for his partnership, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] for his very constructive intervention role that he played at very important times in the evolution of this piece of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have had a very long involvement with aviation security, going back to the years when I chaired the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight with our then-ranking member, now Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich]; later, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger]; and I worked very closely on every aspect of aviation security in crafting the basic structural law, the Aviation Security Act of 1990, which was crafted basically by the Pan American 103 commission on which our former ranking member and dear friend, Mr. Hammersmith, and I served. With that perspective, I would just like to review some of the provisions of this legislation before us now. I think, all in all, this is basically a sound piece of legislation. Section 44913 which is amended in title I, dealing with explosive detection equipment, provides authority for the administrator of FAA to certify for deployment explosive detection devices that are now commercially available but that may not necessarily meet the standards we set for the 1990 Security Act. That will provide a measure of enhanced performance while we go through, while we, the FAA and DOT, go through the very time-consuming and technical process of certifying very advanced explosives detection technology. Section 102 deals with criminal background checks for screeners at the Nation's airports. That is not now provided for in current law. I think this is an important step forward. Pan American 103 commissioned in the 1990 Security Act, did not deal with domestic terrorism, it dealt with international acts. This fills an important hole in current security. I do want to emphasize that this section amends the 1990 Security Act, which provides and requires a 10-year criminal background security check for other airport and airline personnel, and that we are simply folding this addition into that basic legislation. Mr. Speaker, the section dealing with passenger profiling I think is a good addition. We have clarified the language on section 106, the use of funds to acquire, improve, deploy, and build the facilities necessary to deploy detection devices. Assessment of cargo I think is very important. The FBI provisions are very good. I do want to point out for my colleagues that the provision dealing with small airports is going to result in some additional cost for small airports from which passenger aircraft of less than 61 operate, that will require costs for x-ray machines, metal detectors, screeners, and installation costs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. In the interests of advancing the cause here, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I do so to address the Civil Aviation Security Review Commission provision of this bill, 13 members, 1 year to report. While I support the idea of a commission, I think this is too many people, too long a time to report. The Pan Am 103 commission did its job in 6 months. In addition, I have some concerns about the amount of money authorized to be spent on this commission. The Pan Am 103 commission developed recommendations in less time, with a much more conservative budget. The Pan Am commission achieved its mandate with a budget of $1 million. The commission in this bill has an authorized budget of $2.4 million. The cost anticipated in connection with the commission in this bill are excessive. As for what the commission should focus on, I would urge commission members to look closely at the issue of how the financing of improved security equipment and procedures should be handled. Who should be responsible for incurring the cost that are inevitably associated with improving airport security; airports, airlines, the Federal Government? I very firmly believe that when the commission discussed potential rulemaking in the area of airport security, the resulting recommendations should be normative in nature. Cost benefit analyses should not influence the discussions or recommendations of the Commission. The costs associated with improved airport security must ultimately be considered, but I do not think that it is the role of the commission to do so. The commission must develop and recommend optimal security recommendations and let Congress and the administration weight those recommendations against the costs and inconveniences associated with them. One issue that must be considered is whether a positive bag match should be required for passengers traveling domestically, as it is currently required on international flights. Again, while there would unquestionably be a significant impact on aviation in domestic markets should such a bag match be imposed, the commission should, to the extent possible, view a required domestic bag match with regard for potential costs or inconveniences. In closing, there is a question we must pose to the American public, the executive branch, and this body. It is a question of political and personal will. We all want a higher level of airport security. How much is the public willing to pay? How much is the public willing to be inconvenienced? The answer today may be, to paraphrase President Kennedy, ``we are willing to pay any price, bear any burden.'' From experience I know that the answer a year from now will likely be very different. Now is when we must ask the question and formulate the answer. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I thank the gentleman from Maryland for bringing this resolution to the House floor. I think it is very appropriate and fitting for us to name a building in New York in Secretary Brown's hometown for him to carry on the name and the memory of the very distinguished service that he provided to this country in so many arenas, but particularly as a most distinguished Secretary of Commerce whose focus was jobs, tourism, economic growth, expansion of trade, protecting American interests at home and abroad. He was a truly great American, and naming of this building is a modest way in which we can perpetuate his memory.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the ranking member, Mr. Gilchrest, chairman of the subcommittee, and Chairman Shuster for moving this and the previous unanimous-consent request to name these buildings for distinguished Americans and in this case for a very distinguished colleague. All of us will long treasure in our memories the vision of Sam Gibbons striding to the well of the House without a document in hand but only a gifted, able, agile, and retentative mind to instruct us as a moral conscience on the Tax Code of the United States and our trade laws and to instruct and to guide and to shape responsible legislation. He will long be remembered by our Canadian colleagues to the north for his service on the Canada-United States interparliamentary group, for the relations that he cemented, established and broadened with our neighbors to the north and during which service he shaped many of the policies that guide the destinies of our two countries and fostered strong and warm relations between us and our neighbor to the north. He will indelibly be remembered by the French for his landing at St. Mere Egleiese in that Normandy invasion. He was a parachutist, risking life in a manner so vulnerable, none of us can possibly understand it until you have experienced it. None of us can fully appreciate the gratitude of the French until you have seen delegations of French parliamentarians who have been to this country, and I have witnessed it. And Mr. Gibbons talks about that extraordinary experience and the French respond with tears in their eyes, gratitude in their hearts and a grateful memory of a wonderful nation that appreciates the sacrifice and the risk that was taken. The naming of this building is a small token that we can all take and we can all offer for the long and enduring memory of the many gifts that Sam Gibbons has shared with us and the lasting monument, body of legislation and sacrifice that he has offered for this Nation, for its good and for others for all time to come.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] on our side for the splendid work he has done over many, many months in crafting this bill, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] for the work that he has contributed, of course to our full committee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], for bringing about a truly inclusive process to bring us to this point where we can bring this massive bill for the first time in my recollection on the suspension calendar on the House floor. I would also like to express great appreciation to the staff members on both sides, without mentioning names, because I will certainly forget somebody. They have really worked hard and carried the burden of this very complex legislation. Most of the cities, the great cities of our country, are cities because they were ports. They started out as ports. Seventy-five percent of the population of our Nation lives along the water. We are a Nation inextricably tied to the water as a means of transportation, as a means of commerce, as a means of livelihood, and as a means of enjoyment. This legislation dates back to the roots of our history as a Nation and as a committee. The earliest works of the Congress were the works that our committee brings to the floor today, those that the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp], I thought so very warmly and touchingly described in talking about his father's having served in the corps. The corps has done so much to increase the yield of our Nation by the water resources development that it undertakes in the navigation, the locks and dams, the ports, the harbors, the riverways, and we advance that cause with all of the many provisions that we bring together in this legislation. For flood control we raise a minimum non-Federal share from 25 to 35 percent. And to help communities in the transition, we applied the new minimum only prospectively. I think that is a reasonable and responsible prudent step to undertake. We also deal with the matter of dredged disposal material from the Great Lakes by providing for cost sharing and confined disposal facilities vitally important for this one-fifth of all the fresh water on the face of the Earth to provide this protection. There are many other provisions in this legislation. Suffice it to say, this is one of the finest bills our committee has ever brought forward. I urge its adoption by the House and express my fervent hope that the other body will concur with us and bring this legislation to the President's desk for signature as soon as possible.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, several years ago a book was written entitled, ``We've Been Down So Long, It Looks Like Up.'' It described much of Appalachia during the 1970's and 1980's. It described much of rural America that is benefiting from the Economic Development Administration. The previous speaker talked about 90 percent of the country being eligible for EDA. That is a figment. That is a fiction. The bill that we have repeatedly passed in this House from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure revamps the whole EDA program, but we have never been able to get it enacted into law. But the program is administered so that not 90 percent but a vastly smaller number of the country, only those most distressed areas are actually eligible and benefit from the program. Several years ago when I chaired the Economic Development Subcommittee and Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, we conducted hearings on the effectiveness of the EDA program. In the first 15 years of EDA, $4.7 billion was invested. That leveraged $9 billion in non-Federal funds, creating 1.5 million jobs, and from those jobs every year $6.5 billion in taxes are being paid to Federal, State and local governments. Every year the taxes generated by EDA are greater than the total investment in this program in 31 years. Those jobs are still there, they are real, people are still working. Take the Fort Holabird Industrial Park in Baltimore, abandoned by the military, re-created into an industrial park, $11 million from the city and a total investment of $42 million, an EDA grant of $11 million, 4,000 new jobs created, 1,000 jobs retained. Take the Mohawk Valley Economic Development District in New York, 1,600 jobs created at a cost per job of $1,500. Good jobs, real jobs. Let us keep EDA. It is a locally controlled program.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation for the reasons already explained. Because it is important, I regret that it does not go a step further and include, along with Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, Slovenia. Let me explain why. With only 8 percent of the population of former Yugoslavia, Slovenia accounted for 19 percent of the country's gross domestic product, one-third of its exports, one half of its dairy production, 40 percent of all of its taxes. The Slovenes, post election, have been a model of parliamentary democracy. Local government has been expanded; 158 new municipalities have been created, local elections held. They have received the highest human rights respect status awarded by Amnesty International. Inflation in the postwar, and it was only a 9-day war imposed by the Serb Army, only 68 people died, the Slovenes let the Serb Army return to its land without killing anyone, inflation was at 1,200 percent. It is now down to under 9 percent. They have a $3 billion positive international balance of payments. They have the 20th largest per capita exporting country record. Ninety percent of the former socialist economy has been privatized. The banks have been privatized. They have balanced their budget. Unemployment rate is down to around 7 percent. Slovenia, in short, is Europe's best kept democratic secret. When our Secretary of Defense, Mr. Perry, was in Slovenia recently, he said, Slovenia has done very well in all standards for NATO membership and is a strong candidate. Slovenia, he continued, can be a model to other Eastern Bloc and Central European countries because of its successful implementation of a democratic government, market economy, and resolving disagreements with its neighbors. I have discussed this matter with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and with our ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton]. I appreciate their willingness to give consideration to Slovenia at an appropriate time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the chairman's interest, understanding and support for this initiative.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those very kind remarks. Mindful of Adlai Stevenson's injunction that it is all right to hear praise of oneself as long as they do not inhale it, the two aviation leaders in this Congress are the gentleman from Tennessee, the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], ranking members of the subcommittee, and I am very grateful for the splendid work they have done in carrying on the bipartisan tradition of our subcommittee on aviation. This legislation plugs a hole in the aviation safety system to insure that we take every step to make that system as safe as it can possibly be. Again our two leaders on this aviation subcommittee have worked in a bipartisan fashion, very carefully and with great legislative craftsmanship to address, as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] well put it, a measure and an issue that does not please either the pilot community or the airline community. It will please, and it should please, the traveling public. This is an issue that we have dealt with in the aviation subcommittee over a period of 3 or 4 years, drawing upon a recommendation several times issued by the National Transportation Safety Board that the transfer of training and employment records of pilots should be done and should be made available from one airline to another airline when a pilot is being considered for employment, changing employees, and it should seem like a very straightforward and simple action. But in fact it is not. It has taken us quite a long time to get to this point. It is actually a very thorny thicket of issues that requires a balance of interests while insuring that the safety benefits of transferring those records are achieved, and the issues that have arisen over a period of several years are privacy for the pilots, liability for pilots and for airlines, the employer employee relationship. But I think all of those questions are met very responsibly and very effectively in this legislation. The National Transportation Safety Board has found in a number of accident investigations that the pilot involved had been dismissed from previous employers for poor performance. But that history, those records, Mr. Speaker, were not known to the current employer. Had it been known, the pilot who caused or contributed to such accidents would not have been hired, in all likelihood, or at least the airline doing hiring would have been able to know about the background and do further checks and do further investigation of the qualifications of that applicant, and in some situations, very likely, accidents could have been avoided. I expect that upon enactment and enforcement of this legislation, that another category of accidents will be eliminated, specifically accidents caused by pilots who have previously been judged to be such poor pilots that they had to be terminated by their airline employer. The chairman has thoroughly described how the bill establishes a system of record sharing with protections for pilots. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] has elaborated on it. But I just want to emphasize how important it is that the pilots have the ability to correct their records, that they will know under this legislation when their record are being transferred and that they will have the ability to seek damages against a person in their former employer airline who may falsify a pilot's records. Those are very important privacy and personal protections for pilots. They were right to be concerned about those matters. Our committee has been right to address those issues and has addressed them very effectively and soundly in this legislation. Section 3 of the bill directs a rulemaking to establish new minimum standards for pilot qualifications, another issue that pilots were concerned about. Hiring in the airline industry is very cyclical, given the economics of aviation. When there is low demand for travel, there is low demand for pilots. Airlines can be choosy about who they select, and they can and do pick pilots with more experience and more training. When demand is high, the airlines, on simple supply and demand purposes, hire pilots for less stringent criteria. This bill will require the initiation of a regulatory proceeding to determine the appropriate standards, to screen pilots for psychomotor coordination, general intellectual capacity, instrument and mechanical comprehension, physical fitness. The bill will also establish minimum standards for pilot training facilities to ensure that pilots will meet the new preemployment standards. The bill also requires a study of whether existing minimum flight time requirements are sufficient to ensure safety in today's increasingly sophisticated and complicated aircraft. This bill is far greater than just transfer of records and the very important issue of one airline knowing a pilot's complete history. It sets standards for a range of issues that I just described, it will elevate the whole quality of airmanship in today's highly complicated pilot and cockpit environment, and I think this legislation, I say to my two colleagues, does a great service to the traveling public and to all of aviation for the future. It is a quantum leap forward, and I commend both the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] on the splendid job they have done in bringing this matter forward. I urge its enactment, and I hope the other body will act quickly upon it.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 3159, to reauthorize the National Transportation Safety Board. I appreciate the very thorough, complete explanations provided by the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], on the details of this administration. I just want to address the issue about the NTSB, about which I have had such very deep and strong admiration for many years. In the end we have worked it out. I am very appreciative of the consideration Chairman Shuster has given to this issue, the work that Chairman Duncan has done and the digging in of my good colleague from Illinois who has worked so hard to achieve the resolution that we came to in this legislation today that will increase the work force to 370 employees. If ever there were a question about the value, the significance, the objectivity, and the meticulous workmanship of this small, effective agency, the National Transportation Safety Board, surely any concerns were put to rest by its work on the tragic ValuJet crash in Florida. Although we do not have as yet a probable cause, I am certain that the workmanlike job of the NTSB investigators, that the continuing meticulous metallurgical studies that are being done and other work will lead NTSB to a determination of probable cause from which can come regulatory action to prevent such tragedies in the future. We gather this afternoon in the aftermath of another unspeakable tragedy. Again we see the professionalism and the integrity of the NTSB managing the investigation of this tragic accident. We have come to rely upon NTSB as the front line of defense in aviation safety. They are the first ones who deal with the families of the victims of tragedies. They are the first ones on the scene with the expertise to sift through the wreckage and come to an understanding of how it came about, what caused it, and then what should be done to prevent future accidents. I have such enormous respect for all those who are the first on the scene who have to deal with the grisly results of an tragic accident. We should give them our total support. This legislation is a very strong move in the right direction. I greatly appreciate again the work of Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Lipinski, and our staff who on both sides of the aisle have worked together very hard to come to a resolution of issues so that we can bring to this body a truly bipartisan piece of legislation that must be enacted.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I also strongly support the Child Pilot Safety Act, H.R. 3267. It is regrettable that we should even be here discussing such legislation, but out of necessity we are. The bill was drafted in response to a tragic accident that took the life of Jessica Dubroff, a precocious 7- year-old who was attempting to be the youngest person to manipulate the controls of an aircraft across the North American Continent. As the committee heard in the hearings that the gentleman from Tennessee, Chairman Duncan, called and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, participated in and help craft, we have to keep in mind that Jessica was not the pilot in command of the fatal flight. The decision to take off in foul weather was not hers. The decision to fly in aircraft that was reportedly overweight was not the child's. The decision to allow her to manipulate the controls of that aircraft at any time during that flight and prior to the tragic accident was not the child's decision. It was a decision of the pilot in command, an experienced pilot, a flight instructor who should have known better. As we have discussed and Chairman Duncan and ranking member Lipinski have said again and again, we cannot legislate good judgment into the minds and hearts and soles of pilots, but we can erect some very strong barriers. That is what this legislation does. To the extent that we legislate in this arena, we must legislate with the right objective in mind. The pilot in command, the flight instructor, not the child who is on board that aircraft but the pilot in command, to make that person doubly, triple aware that at all times, regardless of circumstances, regardless of societal pressures or other social pressures, they have to think first of safety. That is what this legislation does. The child's interest in and enthusiasm for flying should be nurtured. It ought to be stimulated, as it has been from the dawn of civil aviation. For that purpose, there are junior aviation clubs all across America. The Young Eagles, I think of in my own district in Minnesota, Young Eagles Club at Mora, directed by, coached by Judy Rice, who is a very enthusiastic pilot herself, was appalled that a child would be in an aircraft under such weather conditions with the pressure of trying to create a record of flying across America for a child of that age. The Young Eagles Clubs, the Civil Air Patrol, the Aviation Explorer Scouts Groups, all give plenty of opportunities for young people to become enthused about aviation to become our future pilots, but never should they be exposed to such questionable and dangerous conditions as preceded that single tragic accident, nor should all those program be sacrificed because of one tragic accident. I believe that, as a result of the good judgment that Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Duncan have exercised in crafting this legislation, that it is unlikely that flight instructors will participate in any such questionable record setting activities in the future. Again, we are not trying to legislate good judgment, but we are trying to send up very strong signals to the flying public and to the most experienced of instructors, instructor core throughout this country, stop, take stock, think carefully; lives are in your hands. I commend the gentleman from Illinois, and I commend the gentleman from Tennessee for this legislation. I urge its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, earlier today during the consideration of H.R. 3755, the Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997, I missed two votes on amendments to this legislation. At the time those votes were ordered, I was giving important testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management concerning legislation regarding the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the Pelosi amendment, rollcall vote No. 301; and I would have voted ``no'' on the Lowey amendment, rollcall vote No. 302.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I greatly regret the $110 million cut in Amtrak capital funding for fiscal year 1997, from the $230 million level for the current fiscal year. It is clear that this Congress and this administration want Amtrak to be free of operating assistance by fiscal year 2002. The budget resolution passed this year for fiscal year 1997 and the one passed last year put Amtrak on a glide path of operating support declining to zero. Our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee brought a bill to the House to reauthorize Amtrak last year, which passed by a vote of 406 to 4. This legislation also constructs a gradual phaseout of Amtrak's operating support by 2002. Amtrak's own business plan also eliminates the need for Federal support by 2002. In other words, with the funding plan in our budget resolution and passage of reform legislation, we have made a pact with Amtrak. We have told them to do what no other national passenger railroad in the world has been able to do: Be free of operating support. This is a major accomplishment and one that Congress should encourage. In exchange, we offered a structured funding phaseout and passage of cost saving legislation. The fact is that from 1995 to 1997, Amtrak's funding levels are $1.2 billion less than what they requested and what they said was necessary for operating self-sufficiency. We cannot expect them to continue to operate a national system with such deep cuts. Instead, with this funding level for Amtrak, Congress has moved away from the blueprint envisioned in the budget resolution. Without adequate capital funds during this critical transition period, Amtrak cannot make the essential investments necessary to survive once Congress has provided it with its last dollar of operating support. Also, while the House did pass reauthorization legislation, the Senate has failed to do so. Therefore, Amtrak does not benefit yet from any of the cost savings contained in that bill. It is clear, and we all agree, that Amtrak should be free of operating support and should have less dependence on Congress for its funding. However, without adequate capital funds now, Amtrak will forever be dependent on Congress to meet its operating deficits. A railroad is a capital intensive enterprise. It's fair to say that Congress has kept Amtrak on a Slim-Fast capital investment diet for the better part of its 25-year existence. As a result, Amtrak has not been able to modernize its locomotive fleet by purchasing more reliable and fuel-efficient engines. Their maintenance shops date, in many cases, to the steam era and need to be upgraded. The electric wires that are used on the Northeast corridor are the same ones the Pennsylvania Railroad first strung in 1993. If we don't give Amtrak the ability to reinvest now, we will never get them to a legitimate point of self-sufficiency. This is a pivotal time for a national passenger rail policy. It's like the old saying: ``Pay me now or really pay me later.'' Should Amtrak become insolvent, the liability to the Federal Government is going to be a far greater cost to the taxpayers than giving Amtrak the funds needed to successfully transition to self-sufficiency. Literally, it will cost more money to put Amtrak out of business than to keep it in business.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Another maintenance inspector responsible for overseeing air carriers and repair stations that operate 737s, 757s, 767s, and McDonnell Douglas MD-80s said he had not received a course on maintenance and electronics in 5 years. There are rampant training deficiencies that exist because they do not have enough money to do that training. This $1 million is only a part of the $8 million that GAO said is needed to meet the unfunded training needs for the FAA. All of us fly in this body. All of us take aircraft, whether major airlines or commuters or regional carriers. We all want to know that those carriers are being inspected carefully, responsibly and effectively and that those aircraft are safe and that they are being maintained in a safe manner. Members who believe that ought to support this amendment, to shift the money where it will do a great deal of good into the training function, provide adequate training and recurrent training for maintenance and avionics inspectors in the FAA to oversee those air carriers, especially the new entrant carriers. That is where the need is. That is where the contracting out of maintenance is being done and where it is not being adequately supervised with people who have adequate training. A modest $1 million out of this excess amount in the office of IG will address this vital funding deficiency. I urge support for my amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would take $1 million from the $40 million appropriation the bill provides for the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Transportation and transfer that $1 million to the Operations account of the Federal Aviation Administration to increase the funding for FAA training of its inspector work force. This amendment responds to concerns expressed by the Inspector General herself, it responds to concerns and alarms expressed nationwide in the aftermath of ValuJet and to concerns that I expressed over 2 years ago about the adequacy of FAA's inspector work force in inspecting new entrant carriers. The President's budget for the Inspector General's office included $1.9 million for that office to contract out with other government agencies to conduct audits of DOT programs. The Appropriations Committee bill cut the President's request for the Inspector General by $321,000 and, concurrently, prohibited the Inspector General from contracting for audits. The Appropriations Committee instead directed DOT's various operating units to pay the cost of these contract audits out of their own funds. The result is that the Committee on Appropriations has relieved the IG of expenses totaling $1.9 million for audit contracts but they reduced the IG's funding by only $321,000. The net effect is that the office of the IG has $1.6 million in excess funding over what the administration requested. This excess amount, $1 million of it, is what I target in this amendment to be transferred to a function that the IG's office itself, the General Accounting Office, and our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in our hearings in this Congress and the previous Congress have identified as crucial. I was astonished when I looked closely at the IG's office to find that they have 440 full-time equivalent employees. That is more, by almost 100 employees, than the entire National Transportation Safety Board has. I question the need for such a large staff when DOT and its various modal administrations are already under scrutiny and oversight by the National Transportation Safety Board, by the General Accounting Office, and by the Congress. An internal watchdog agency certainly is necessary within the Department to keep all modal administrations on the straight and narrow. We need to have adequate funding for that function, and provide effective oversight. But in these times of fiscal constraints, when money is being shifted very tightly among accounts, where we have to come in, we in the authorizing committee, and identify needs that require more funding and then take it from the existing pot, here is a piece of the existing pot that has an excess amount of money, no purpose for it has been identified, and shift that money to where it will do an enormous amount of good. The committee has already made a number of increases in the funding for the account, the operations account of FAA, but not for this training function. The need is real. I want to take a moment to just explain how real and how important. Over the last 10 years, GAO, the Inspector General's office, internal FAA groups, and our own Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have focused on needs for technical training within the FAA, training for its inspectors. In 1989 and in 1992, GAO and the IG respectively reported that inspectors who did not have appropriate training or current qualifications were doing flight checks of pilots. An operations inspector asked for Airbus 320 training when a carrier he was responsible for training began using that aircraft. He did not get that training until 2 years after that air carrier went out of business.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for cosponsoring this amendment, for initiating it, in fact. Mr. Chairman, I was very interested and pleased to hear that the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee mentioned the Sioux City, IA crash. People walked away from that crash for a couple of reasons: The seat strengthening that was required on all aircraft, to 18 G forces, that kept those seats in place and saved 110 lives; and for the skill of that pilot in managing this aircraft when he lost all control surfaces. Capt. Al Haynes, who flew that aircraft, is very strongly in support of the age 60 rule. I do not think it was the intention of the chairman to imply that he was opposed to the age 60 rule, but it is very clear that Capt. Al Haynes supports the age 60 rule and wants it to remain in place. This issue has been studied to death. We do not need to waste more dollars and the precious resources of the National Transportation Safety Board on another study. In 1979 Congress directed NIH to study the age 60 rule. The Institute on Aging, the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences conducted the research, prepared the report, completed it in 1981, and recommended keeping the age 60 rule and extending it to commuter pilots--1981. It took until this year, under the one-level-of-safety rule issued by the FAA, to extend that rule to commuter airlines and to standardize the age 60 rule for all of aviation. The Academy of Sciences, the FAA, and the Civil Aeromedical Institute have conducted extensive studies on this issue. They all have come to the same conclusion after thousands of comments, after extensive review, public hearings, extensive debate over the 37 years this rule has been in place. Every entry pilot knows that age 20 or whatever it is when that pilot enters that cockpit, that at age 60 they are going to have to retire. They live by it and they know it. 0000 This is a safety issue. Every entity that has studied it has come down on the side of retaining age 60 as a safety measure. Do not mess with something that is working, that is safe. Keep it in place.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, on that score, it was the Subcommittee on Aviation and prior to that the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation that uncovered the bogus parts issue in great depth and had documentation on it, brought it up with the IG who said, ``Oh, we are on to this issue also. We have some criminal investigations underway.'' This is over 2 years ago. Three years ago prior to that our committee was onto this issue. I cast no aspersions on the IG, but much of what the IG's office has uncovered and has taken credit for the appropriate and responsible committees of the house and the Senate have already been focused on.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?