Air Medical Service Safety Improvement Act of 2008

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to ask for my colleagues' support for the Air Medical Service Safety Improvement Act of 2008, a measure that redefines our commitment to improving the safety for the flight crews, flight nurses, and passengers aboard emergency air medical service helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.

These EMS aviation operations provide an important service to the public by transporting seriously ill patients or donor organs to emergency care facilities. Each year, on average, air medical companies transport about 350,000 patients by helicopter and 100,000 by fixed wing aircraft.

Providing emergency air medical service is dangerous work. Unfortunately, we have been reminded of this fact all too many times this year, most recently by the tragic crash in Arizona.

I first became involved in the issue of emergency air medical service safety when an EMS helicopter crashed near my hometown in Washington state. On September 29, 2005, an Airlift Northwest EMS transport helicopter crashed into the waters of Puget Sound at Browns Bay, just north of Edmonds, Washington. On board were pilot Steve Smith, and nurses Erin Reed and Lois Suzuki. There were no survivors. Over time, I have communicated with both Erin's mother and sister about their loss.

The cause of the crash remains unknown as EMS transport helicopters are not required to have a ``black box'' or flight data recorder on board, and only part of the helicopter could be recovered from Puget Sound. Some in the area think the wind, rain, and heavy fog were to blame. Others claim that the helicopter sounded like it was having engine trouble.

All we do know is that three people dedicated to saving lives were lost in the ocean that night. And sadly, their story is not uncommon.

According to a study by Johns Hopkins University, one in four medical helicopters will crash during its 15 years of service. In just the last six months, there have been nine medical helicopter crashes and 16 deaths.

This alarming epidemic of accidents has opened the eyes of the Federal Aviation Administration, National Transportation Safety Board and policymakers in recent days. But the recent spike in accidents is not a new trend. In fact, between January 2002 and January 2005, there were 55 crashes of medical helicopters. On January 25, 2006, the NTSB released a report identifying recurring gaps in safety that must be addressed, including: Less stringent requirements for emergency medical operations conducted without patients on board; a lack of aviation flight risk-evaluation programs; a lack of consistent, comprehensive flight dispatch procedures; and no requirements to use technologies such as terrain awareness and warning systems that have the power to enhance flight safety.

At my request, Section 508 of S. 1300, a bill to reauthorize the FAA incorporated the NTSB recommendations for addressing these gaps. Subsequent to that bill's introduction in the spring of 2007, I had the opportunity to discuss with stakeholders how to improve upon the language. The bill I am introducing today is essentially the amendment I filed this May when the FAA reauthorization bill was on the floor. Given the uncertain status of that legislation, and in light of the recent events, I felt the urgency to transform the amendment into stand-alone legislation.

This bill will implement new procedures and improve standards already in place through strengthened safety requirements, comprehensive flight dispatch and flight following procedures, improved situation awareness of helicopter air crews, and better data available to NTSB investigators at crash sites.

It is time to put black boxes in these helicopters.

It is time to require the same safety standards regardless of whether or not a patient is on board.

It is time to evaluate potential risks before take-off.

It is time to improve the situational awareness of air medical flight crews.

If not, we are bound to witness more tragedies.

I am committed to these changes and I ask my colleagues to lend their support in making the skies safer for the men and women who dedicate their lives to getting critically injured patients the medical attention they need.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to ask for my colleagues' support for the Air Medical Service Safety Improvement Act of 2008, a measure that redefines our commitment to improving the safety for the flight crews, flight nurses, and passengers aboard emergency air medical service helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.

These EMS aviation operations provide an important service to the public by transporting seriously ill patients or donor organs to emergency care facilities. Each year, on average, air medical companies transport about 350,000 patients by helicopter and 100,000 by fixed wing aircraft.

Providing emergency air medical service is dangerous work. Unfortunately, we have been reminded of this fact all too many times this year, most recently by the tragic crash in Arizona.

I first became involved in the issue of emergency air medical service safety when an EMS helicopter crashed near my hometown in Washington state. On September 29, 2005, an Airlift Northwest EMS transport helicopter crashed into the waters of Puget Sound at Browns Bay, just north of Edmonds, Washington. On board were pilot Steve Smith, and nurses Erin Reed and Lois Suzuki. There were no survivors. Over time, I have communicated with both Erin's mother and sister about their loss.

The cause of the crash remains unknown as EMS transport helicopters are not required to have a ``black box'' or flight data recorder on board, and only part of the helicopter could be recovered from Puget Sound. Some in the area think the wind, rain, and heavy fog were to blame. Others claim that the helicopter sounded like it was having engine trouble.

All we do know is that three people dedicated to saving lives were lost in the ocean that night. And sadly, their story is not uncommon.

According to a study by Johns Hopkins University, one in four medical helicopters will crash during its 15 years of service. In just the last six months, there have been nine medical helicopter crashes and 16 deaths.

This alarming epidemic of accidents has opened the eyes of the Federal Aviation Administration, National Transportation Safety Board and policymakers in recent days. But the recent spike in accidents is not a new trend. In fact, between January 2002 and January 2005, there were 55 crashes of medical helicopters. On January 25, 2006, the NTSB released a report identifying recurring gaps in safety that must be addressed, including: Less stringent requirements for emergency medical operations conducted without patients on board; a lack of aviation flight risk-evaluation programs; a lack of consistent, comprehensive flight dispatch procedures; and no requirements to use technologies such as terrain awareness and warning systems that have the power to enhance flight safety.

At my request, Section 508 of S. 1300, a bill to reauthorize the FAA incorporated the NTSB recommendations for addressing these gaps. Subsequent to that bill's introduction in the spring of 2007, I had the opportunity to discuss with stakeholders how to improve upon the language. The bill I am introducing today is essentially the amendment I filed this May when the FAA reauthorization bill was on the floor. Given the uncertain status of that legislation, and in light of the recent events, I felt the urgency to transform the amendment into stand-alone legislation.

This bill will implement new procedures and improve standards already in place through strengthened safety requirements, comprehensive flight dispatch and flight following procedures, improved situation awareness of helicopter air crews, and better data available to NTSB investigators at crash sites.

It is time to put black boxes in these helicopters.

It is time to require the same safety standards regardless of whether or not a patient is on board.

It is time to evaluate potential risks before take-off.

It is time to improve the situational awareness of air medical flight crews.

If not, we are bound to witness more tragedies.

I am committed to these changes and I ask my colleagues to lend their support in making the skies safer for the men and women who dedicate their lives to getting critically injured patients the medical attention they need.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to provide a residential and commercial tax credit for the installation of green roofs. I am pleased to have my colleague Senator Cantwell join me in this effort by serving as original cosponsor of this bill.

The bill creates a tax credit for the installation of green roofs on residential and commercial property. On the residential side, the credit is 30 percent of the cost of installing a green roof, with a cap of $2,000. On the commercial side, the credit is 10 percent of the cost installing a green roof, without a cap. In my home state of Oregon, the city of Portland utilizes green roofs extensively. To date, the city has installed or plans to install over 100 green roofs.

Green roofs provide many environmental and cost benefits. One of the more significant benefits provided by green roofs is stormwater management and energy savings. When it rains, water washes over roofs, streets, driveways, sidewalks, parking lots, and other surfaces. Rain water picks up pollutants, such as oil, pesticides, metals, chemicals, and soil. The polluted stormwater then drains into the storm system that eventually makes it way into our rivers and streams. The pollutants can endanger water quality of lakes, rivers, streams and waterways, making them unhealthy for people, fish, and wildlife. During rainstorms, green roofs act as a sponge, absorbing much of the water that would otherwise run off. The roofs serve as a natural rainwater filter by utilizing the vegetation root system's natural filtering processes. The benefit of this process increases as the vegetation on the rooftop matures.

In addition to the storm water benefits, green roofs also absorb air pollution, collect airborne particulates, store carbon, provide living environments that provide habitats for birds, insects and other small animals, reduce outside noise transfer and insulate buildings from high temperatures.

I believe that we have a responsibility to encourage efforts to conserve our natural resources. Oregon continues to build on a long history of innovation in environmental policy and practice. We urge our colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the 21st Century Energy Technology Deployment Act to begin to address our need to accelerate the deployment of advanced, clean energy technologies and help establish the United States as a leader in these technologies that will be in great demand in the coming years.

The Energy Committee has had numerous hearings on the challenges we face in the coming decades regarding new energy. Meeting our energy security needs while diverting from our current pathway towards catastrophic climate change will require significant investment. I'm convinced that making this investment is not only the right thing to do for future generations, but that it will pay real dividends to the U.S. economy if we can position ourselves to lead the rest of the world in this necessary transition.

There have been many good proposals advanced to begin our journey down the path towards a more sustainable energy policy. Some of these proposals have even been enacted into law through energy bills in 2005 and 2007, but I think there is general agreement in this body that much remains to be done.

The missing ingredient that this bill seeks to supply concerns traversing the so-called ``valley of death.'' This is the part of the development cycle of a new technology when the technology has been demonstrated at a lab or pilot scale and is ready to be demonstrated at a commercial scale. It is here, we are told, where new technologies, and particularly capital-intensive energy technologies, often languish for want of funding. Banks traditionally aim for moderate risk and predictable returns and simply have very little incentive to bet on unfamiliar technologies with speculative returns. Venture capitalists, who are more comfortable with technology risk, simply can't supply the billions of dollars necessary to push these technologies forward at the pace we need.

This bill can help fill this financing gap between the venture capital community and the banking community and I hope it will act as a catalyst for continuing conversation on this vital topic.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.