Ensuring One Level of Aviation Safety Act of 2009

Mr. President, I want to follow up on what my colleague from North Dakota said regarding the financial regulatory issue. This is a huge problem.

In my office, I have a debt clock running. I put it there purposely so people can see what it is, and it is running at $11.5 trillion. At this point in time, it has a dizzying amount of numbers that are running on it. Usually my constituents come in and say: Good, I wanted to get out of the waiting room. That clock is driving me crazy, the numbers are going so fast. It is so huge, the numbers and the rate we are going.

What troubles me as well, as a member of the baby boomer generation, is that I look at this and I feel as though we are following on the heels of the ``greatest generation''--the World War II generation, with all the sacrifices and the things they did to make this country what it is. My predecessor in the seat I am in, Bob Dole, I think epitomizes the ``greatest generation''--the World War II generation--that sacrificed so much so the rest of us could live and do so well, and I am deeply appreciative of that. But I look at my generation, sometimes called the ``me generation.'' I don't know that that is particularly an applauding sort of title, saying it is more focused that way, but I think we need to, ourselves, step up a lot more for the country, for the people in this Nation, and deal with the problems we have.

One of the biggest ones, as far as the legacy we leave, is the mortgage that is growing on this country, this $11.5 trillion I started off talking about. When I first started in Congress in 1994, it was roughly 50 percent mandatory spending and 50 percent discretionary spending. This year, we are looking at 70 percent mandatory spending-- between 60 and 70 percent mandatory spending, depending on what ends up in the final package--and 30 to 40 percent discretionary spending. And of that discretionary, half of that is military. So we have this huge growth in entitlement programs and spending programs that are on autopilot and that are setting that clock to going faster and faster, at $11.5 trillion and up.

We are looking at a $1.8 trillion deficit this year alone. This is unsustainable and it is irresponsible. And it is irresponsible of the baby boomer generation, which has inherited and been given so much, not to step up and to start to deal with this. I feel very strongly about this, that it is something we need to start dealing with as a generation. I am not talking about from a party perspective, or even from a legislative perspective, but I am talking about it from a generational perspective. This is the sort of thing we need to start dealing with for our children's future and our grandchildren's future, so that when future generations come up and they look back and see the ``greatest generation'' of World War II, they don't then look at the baby boomer generation and say: Well, that is the generation that used a lot of it up. Rather, they say: No, that was the generation that used a lot, but then got it together and started to address the problems of fiscal irresponsibility--the fiscal irresponsibility that is taking place in this country and in this government today.

We have program spending that is out of control. Everybody is against waste, fraud, and abuse, but I have not found that line in the budget yet which allows us to X it out. What I am talking about here--and I will introduce at the end of my speech--is a bill that actually does start to get at that, and it does it via a mechanism that is a proven mechanism we have used before in this body which actually reduced government spending. It is called the Commission on Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies, CARFA. We have 20 original cosponsors, and it is a very simple concept that we have used before.

It is based on the BRAC Commission--the Base Realignment and Closure Commission--only it applies to the rest of government, not just military bases. You create a commission, and the commission says 300 bases should be closed. They send that to the administration to check off on that, and then it sends it to the Congress, requiring an up-or- down vote within a limited timeframe, no amendments and a set amount of time to debate. Yes or no, deal or no deal: Are we going to keep the bases or close the bases, which way is it?

That is the only mechanism I have ever seen us come up with in this body to actually cut Federal spending and to do the things we talk about all the time but in the trading nature of the legislative body never gets done. This one has actually done it, the BRAC Commission, on military bases, which is a substantial but certainly not all of our budget. So I am saying, let's take that mechanism and apply it to the rest of the budget, mandatory and discretionary spending, both pockets of this.

I am fully open to suggestions and ideas for amendment on this bill, but I would break the Federal Government into four different categories, to where every fourth year there is a CARFA commission which reviews one-fourth of the budget, and then that recommendation is sent to the Congress to either eliminate these pieces or to keep them.

I have a scorecard up here. It turns out that the OMB does a regular scoring of the effectiveness of Federal Government programs and then they assign a percentage out of 100 to each. I put the grade equivalent on it, and you can see the programs that were reviewed here: State Department has the highest score that I have up here, of C+ for effectiveness, at which the OMB scored it. The Education Department-- and I don't know what that says here--has scored below 50 percent and gets an F--the Education Department--on its scorecard. You can look through and these are the programs that are reviewed: 51 for the State Department; 93 for the Education Department.

So I am saying you would have this CARFA commission go through to do a similar type of review for effectiveness. Those programs that would fail would be put in an overall bill which would say: Okay, Congress, keep this entire package or eliminate this entire package.

If you eliminate them, the same year you can come back and reauthorize that bill and reappropriate the program if you believe it is effective. But this gives you an automatic culling process. It is a culling process that takes place on programs that have been put in the budget year after year and have somehow been sustained or have gotten supporters around them. Most programs have a number of different supporters around them, so they keep going on and on. Even though they are not particularly effective, the supporters like them, so they keep getting in the budget, even when we do an objective review of them and find out these are failed programs by our own standards.

This is something we need to do. It is something I would hope that the baby boomer generation could stand up and

start to say it is time for us to take fiscal responsibility for the situation that is being created and that is unsustainable in this country. We are already starting to see interest rates move up. That is likely to continue. We are seeing people beside themselves when looking at the level of Federal spending, and the waste in it, and saying: What is going on? Can't you guys get ahold of it?

Here is a way to actually get ahold of it and deal with it and be able to say to generations in future years that, yes, we stood up and took ownership and we dealt with the problem.

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal a week ago where a gentleman was saying that the unfunded obligations of the Federal Government today--these are things such as the entitlement programs, whether it is Medicare, Social Security, veterans' benefits, and pension guarantees that we have--are getting close to $100 trillion. Those are unfunded obligations existing on the part of the Federal Government today. That number seems high to me, but I know if you look at Medicare and a couple of other ones, we are looking at nearly $60 trillion in that category. To give some perspective, the total economy is $14 trillion, or thereabouts.

This is irresponsible to the highest degree, and it is irresponsible to future generations, and it is time to put a mechanism in place for us to deal with it. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this bill. I am submitting it now to the desk, with 20 cosponsors. This is an idea whose time has come.

Mr. President, there is a stark choice looming before Congress. It is the choice between enacting a comprehensive reform bill that truly improves our health care system for the American people or enacting a mediocre reform bill that largely maintains the status quo--which is an ineffective and costly health care system run by the insurance industry. I know that most of my colleagues want the former--a 21st Century health care system that provides meaningful and affordable coverage for all, improves health outcomes, and brings accountability and responsibility back into health care.

I am absolutely convinced that the inclusion of a strong public health insurance plan option is the only way to guarantee that all consumers have affordable, adequate, and accountable options available in the insurance marketplace. It is for this reason that I rise today with my good friend, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, to introduce the Consumers Health Care Act of 2009--legislation to provide a strong public plan option in the National Health Insurance Exchange.

One of the most contentious, yet critical, pieces of the national health care reform effort is whether or not Americans should have the option to buy their health insurance from a publicly run organization. In other words, in addition to choosing among numerous health plans run by private insurers, should consumers also have the option of choosing an affordable, stable, and transparent public plan when they are deciding what is best for them and their families? I believe consumers should have the option of choosing a public plan.

Opponents of giving Americans a public option regularly use alarmist rhetoric such as ``big government'' and ``socialized medicine.'' And, somehow, protecting the rights of private health insurers to make profits has become more important to some than offering Americans the choice of a plan that seeks to insure everyone, no matter how sick, that is less expensive, and that is responsible to the American people--not to private profit-seeking stockholders.

I'm not sure when the word ``public'' became such a bad word in the eyes of some of my colleagues. Public means acting in the interest of the general public--which is exactly what we should aspire to in comprehensive health reform.

The private health insurance market has significantly contributed to the broken nature of our health care system, with a long history of cutting coverage off or charging too much for too little. A public plan option--repeat, option--is an effective way to bring competition to the insurance market, hold down costs, and encourage innovation and quality improvements. To deny this option is not only shortsighted, but downright harmful.

Everyone knows the sobering statistics that have highlighted the need for comprehensive health reform. More than 45 million Americans are uninsured and another 25 million are underinsured. Since 1909, the average health insurance premium for a family has increased by 119 percent, from $5,791 in 1999 to $12,680 in 2008. Yet, Americans have seen their benefits decrease and have faced substantially larger out- of-pocket expenses. An estimated 62 percent of all personal bankruptcies involve medical expenses and 78 percent of the individuals who cited medical expenses in their bankruptcy claims had health insurance. Health care costs already consume 17 percent of the United State's gross domestic product, which everyone can agree is unsustainable.

However, representing the great state of West Virginia has shown me that the need for health reform is far more essential and personal than frightening statistics could ever show. I have listened at roundtable discussions where West Virginians described how the current health care system has failed them. One woman was really struggling to care for both herself and her son. She was uninsured because her son, who had a serious brain disorder, needed 24 hour a day, seven day a week, assistance. Another family wrote to me because their son, who was born with serious congenital heart defects, had reached the $1 million limit on his mother's insurance policy within the first nine months of his life. They were unsure of how to obtain lifesaving treatment for their son, now that the insurance company would no longer pay for his care. I have heard from countless other West Virginians who have been unable to find affordable health care, or have figured out too late that the health insurance they had was inadequate for what they needed.

As Congress works to achieve the transformative reform necessary to create a sustainable health care system, a vital component of this reform is the inclusion of a strong public plan option like the Consumer Choice Health Plan included in the Consumers Health Care Act. A public plan will help establish a new insurance framework, one that compels insurers to provide Americans with the best value for their health care at the best price, rather than the current insurance framework, which is focused on avoiding risk and increasing profits. The Consumer Choice Health Plan will be available for all individuals and small businesses, regardless of health status, and will not be concerned with paying a CEO salary or broker commissions.

The Consumers Health Care Act will increase transparency and accountability throughout the health insurance market, as well as give individuals guaranteed access to health care coverage should they be denied or priced out of affordable private insurance coverage. Currently, insurers are allowed to operate in a black box, with little oversight of their coverage and payment decisions. Individuals with pre-existing conditions are routinely denied access to affordable care. For years, United Health was able to underpay providers and overcharge patients for out-of-network services. The Consumers Health Care Act will address this and other issues by bringing greater transparency to the private health insurance market.

Consumer Choice Health Plans will serve as a vital safety-net of coverage for individuals and families that have been unable to obtain affordable and comprehensive health care coverage through the private market. A private insurance company's desire to earn greater profits will always trump over the need to make health care coverage affordable and accessible to all Americans, and greater insurance regulation is not enough. The Consumers Health Care Act is necessary in order to achieve the sustainable change that the health care system in this country needs.

I trust the good sense of the American public to choose the health coverage they want, and they deserve the choice of a public plan with lower costs and the guarantee of always being there when they need it. The American people trust us to get this right and deliver the best coverage options that will keep their families healthy and safe. The days of packaging half-baked legislation into a bill and calling it transformative reform when it is not have to end now, or the shame is on all of us:

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague, Senator Boxer, to introduce the One Level of Safety Act. We have all become familiar with the events surrounding the terrible tragedy near Buffalo, New York--an accident that the National Transportation Safety Board categorized as the worst such incident since late 2001--that cost fifty lives, and shattered countless others. In the wake of the crash of Flight 3407, we have identified failures on a multiplicity of levels. For an agency that has consistently cited its commitment to ``one level of safety'' for all carriers as far back as 1995, this accident showcases that when it comes to regional carriers, the Federal Aviation Administration has done a poor job of enforcing that philosophy.

During its preliminary investigation of Flight 3407, the National Transportation Safety Board pointed out a number of issues specific to this accident that could be directly attributable to fatigue, with many pilots traveling all night over great distances just to reach their base of operations. For example, almost a quarter of Colgan Air pilots who operate out of Newark, New Jersey travel over one thousand miles simply to reach their designated duty station. At the same time, as we've witnessed with a number of regional carriers, pilots are often paid meager salaries--the first officer in Flight 3407 made barely twenty thousand dollars annually.

With such low pay, it is difficult for these pilots to provide for themselves and their families, much less afford a restful place to spend an evening; at a hotel, or an apartment in close proximity to their base of operations--as a result, they doze in airport lounges-- technically against most airline regulations--and subsequently are getting into the cockpit fatigued, with insufficient rest and, potentially, reduced situational awareness. With little oversight concerning the amount of rest these pilots receive, we face the terrible potential for another incident in the near future.

I was greatly encouraged by the efforts that the new Federal Aviation Administrator Babbitt undertook on Monday; his announcement to initiate rulemakings on fatigue management, the relationship between major and regional carriers, and training discrepancies, were all positive, proactive steps to help remedy a situation that for too long has gone ignored, and I commend his willingness to take the reins so early in his tenure. Unfortunately, as a recent series of hearings at the Senate Commerce Committee has shown us, rulemakings are typically long, drawn- out processes that in some cases are never completed. Simply put, this is insufficient.

In fact, a National Transportation Safety Board recommendation concerning pilot fatigue--clearly an underlying cause of the Flight 3407 crash--has been outstanding for nearly 2 decades! This recommendation was no small suggestion; it has been on the NTSB's highest profile publication, their Most Wanted List, for nineteen years! Given that four of the last six fatal accidents involving commercial carriers included fatigue as a contributing cause, I am stunned that this issue has not been addressed. But only one effort to tackle this issue has been made in the past 2 decades, and after encountering some resistance, that proposed rulemaking was shelved in 1995, and no second attempt was forthcoming. So, while the Federal Aviation Administration's comments yesterday were laudable, there are no guarantees when it comes to rulemakings. I believe it is incumbent on Congress to act and act now.

That is why Senator Boxer and I joined together to develop legislation that we believe will close many of the loopholes that jeopardize safety, those same loopholes spotlighted by the findings of the National Transportation Safety Board, the Department of Transportation Inspector General's office, and the victims' families of Flight 3407. Requiring the Federal Aviation Administration to complete a number of long-overdue rulemakings on issues as wide-ranging as fatigue management, minimum training standards for all carriers, and remedial training for deficient pilots is the first step. Ensuring the Federal Aviation Administration will perform adequate, unannounced inspections to guarantee these new rules are enforced, and requiring more rigorous inspections of flight schools like the Gulfstream Academy--whose parent company was recently assessed a civil penalty of $1.3 million for safety violations, and where many regional pilots receive their training--will go a long way towards closing the loopholes that still exist in our aviation safety network. In my view, these are all positive steps that will prevent another incident like the crash of Flight 3407.

Before I close, I would like to say a word to the families of the crash victims. I deeply empathize with your loss, and in large part, your efforts have been essential in the drafting of this legislation. Thank you for all your perseverance and invaluable contributions during what I know must be difficult times for all of you.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague, Senator Boxer, to introduce the One Level of Safety Act. We have all become familiar with the events surrounding the terrible tragedy near Buffalo, New York--an accident that the National Transportation Safety Board categorized as the worst such incident since late 2001--that cost fifty lives, and shattered countless others. In the wake of the crash of Flight 3407, we have identified failures on a multiplicity of levels. For an agency that has consistently cited its commitment to ``one level of safety'' for all carriers as far back as 1995, this accident showcases that when it comes to regional carriers, the Federal Aviation Administration has done a poor job of enforcing that philosophy.

During its preliminary investigation of Flight 3407, the National Transportation Safety Board pointed out a number of issues specific to this accident that could be directly attributable to fatigue, with many pilots traveling all night over great distances just to reach their base of operations. For example, almost a quarter of Colgan Air pilots who operate out of Newark, New Jersey travel over one thousand miles simply to reach their designated duty station. At the same time, as we've witnessed with a number of regional carriers, pilots are often paid meager salaries--the first officer in Flight 3407 made barely twenty thousand dollars annually.

With such low pay, it is difficult for these pilots to provide for themselves and their families, much less afford a restful place to spend an evening; at a hotel, or an apartment in close proximity to their base of operations--as a result, they doze in airport lounges-- technically against most airline regulations--and subsequently are getting into the cockpit fatigued, with insufficient rest and, potentially, reduced situational awareness. With little oversight concerning the amount of rest these pilots receive, we face the terrible potential for another incident in the near future.

I was greatly encouraged by the efforts that the new Federal Aviation Administrator Babbitt undertook on Monday; his announcement to initiate rulemakings on fatigue management, the relationship between major and regional carriers, and training discrepancies, were all positive, proactive steps to help remedy a situation that for too long has gone ignored, and I commend his willingness to take the reins so early in his tenure. Unfortunately, as a recent series of hearings at the Senate Commerce Committee has shown us, rulemakings are typically long, drawn- out processes that in some cases are never completed. Simply put, this is insufficient.

In fact, a National Transportation Safety Board recommendation concerning pilot fatigue--clearly an underlying cause of the Flight 3407 crash--has been outstanding for nearly 2 decades! This recommendation was no small suggestion; it has been on the NTSB's highest profile publication, their Most Wanted List, for nineteen years! Given that four of the last six fatal accidents involving commercial carriers included fatigue as a contributing cause, I am stunned that this issue has not been addressed. But only one effort to tackle this issue has been made in the past 2 decades, and after encountering some resistance, that proposed rulemaking was shelved in 1995, and no second attempt was forthcoming. So, while the Federal Aviation Administration's comments yesterday were laudable, there are no guarantees when it comes to rulemakings. I believe it is incumbent on Congress to act and act now.

That is why Senator Boxer and I joined together to develop legislation that we believe will close many of the loopholes that jeopardize safety, those same loopholes spotlighted by the findings of the National Transportation Safety Board, the Department of Transportation Inspector General's office, and the victims' families of Flight 3407. Requiring the Federal Aviation Administration to complete a number of long-overdue rulemakings on issues as wide-ranging as fatigue management, minimum training standards for all carriers, and remedial training for deficient pilots is the first step. Ensuring the Federal Aviation Administration will perform adequate, unannounced inspections to guarantee these new rules are enforced, and requiring more rigorous inspections of flight schools like the Gulfstream Academy--whose parent company was recently assessed a civil penalty of $1.3 million for safety violations, and where many regional pilots receive their training--will go a long way towards closing the loopholes that still exist in our aviation safety network. In my view, these are all positive steps that will prevent another incident like the crash of Flight 3407.

Before I close, I would like to say a word to the families of the crash victims. I deeply empathize with your loss, and in large part, your efforts have been essential in the drafting of this legislation. Thank you for all your perseverance and invaluable contributions during what I know must be difficult times for all of you.

Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I was shocked and saddened by the commuter plane crash last February outside of Buffalo, NY. Sadly, Clay Yarber, a resident of Riverside, CA, was one of the 50 victims of this tragic crash.

I would like to offer my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Yarber and to all of the families dealing with such horrific loss.

The crash of Continental flight 3407 has had a significant impact on how Americans across the country view air travel and has raised serious questions about the safety and oversight of our Nation's aviation system.

Initial hearings held this past May by the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, brought to light many unsettling revelations about pilot training, hours of experience, fatigue, and the FAA's oversight role of regional airlines.

I was greatly disturbed by what appeared to be a lack of proper training for the pilots on how to recover from a stall, how to proceed in icing conditions, and reports of the crew commuting cross country without proper rest prior to the flight.

Although regional airlines account for one-half of all of the scheduled flights in the U.S., five of the last seven fatal commercial plane crashes involved these airlines.

As more Americans rely on commuter airlines for air service, the FAA must take aggressive action to ensure that there is no difference in the level of safety provided by these air carriers.

The National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, hearings also made clear that the FAA must be more proactive when it comes to safety. We must not wait until the next disaster to make long overdue changes in safety regulation at the FAA.

It is unacceptable that the NTSB recommendations designed to address some of the most serious aviation safety deficiencies continue to go unaddressed by the FAA today.

Last May, I joined Senator Snowe in sending a letter to the Department of Transportation urging the agency to take immediate action to address NTSB recommendations that languished on its Most Wanted list for years and other pressing safety concerns.

In some instances, recommendations such as those meant to address pilot fatigue, have been on the NTSB Most Wanted list since its inception 19 years ago. We must take immediate action to ensure that no other family must endure a similar tragedy because of unmet safety recommendations and a lack of agency oversight.

I was encouraged by recent announcements from the FAA about the agency's initiative to revise work hour rules to address pilot fatigue and to conduct emergency inspections at pilot training facilities. I believe this is a step in the right direction, but we must do more.

That is why I am proud to join Senator Snowe in introducing the Ensuring One Level of Aviation Safety Act of 2009, to address some of the more egregious aviation safety deficiencies. Our bill requires the FAA to implement unfulfilled NTSB recommendations and to do more oversight of regional airlines and pilot training academies. The bill also requires the FAA to update minimum training standards and hours of experience requirements for pilots.

Finally, this legislation mandates continuing education training for pilots, requires the development of airline fatigue management plans, and allows carriers immediate access to pilot performance records.

I look forward to working with my colleagues and the FAA to implement this legislation and to take additional steps to ensure that there truly is no difference in safety between major carriers and regional airlines.

We cannot wait for the next airline tragedy to take action. The flying public must be assured that the FAA and the airlines are doing their part to make safety the No. 1 priority.