Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman from Louisiana. Mr. HAYES. I want to congratulate Mr. Mineta's staff. I have been looking over his statement. The fact that it contains so many complete sentences means they worked diligently. Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman from California, Mr. Packard. Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman from New York. Mr. BOEHLERT. No. Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Lewis. Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to also thank you for holding this hearing. The matter before us today is very important to the people in the greater Atlanta area—the machinists and all the workers at the Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. Let us begin with the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos. Thank you for being here. We have a very distinguished panel here of colleagues, but we will begin with Mr. Lantos. TESTIMONY OF HON. TOM LANTOS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I want to thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak first because I am seeing Secretary Kemp in a few minutes. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate you on being named chairman of the subcommittee. I look forward to working with you in the future on this and other important issues affecting the aviation community. In addition, I want to commend you strongly for scheduling today's hearings. I would also like to commend my good friend, neighbor, and colleague from California, Congressman Norm Mineta, for his longstanding leadership in the House and commitment to issues affecting the aviation community. I strongly support his legislation H.R. 145, which will terminate FAA amendments to the foreign repair stations rules which permit expanded use of foreign repair stations. H.R. 145 would also prohibit foreign maintenance and repair of U.S. aircraft. I hope that Congress will move swiftly, Mr. Chairman, in enacting this bill. The FAA's decision, FAR 145, to permit expanded use of foreign repair stations raises serious questions, both of air passenger safety and the loss of American jobs, legitimate concerns of the Congress. Undoubtedly, the government's primary responsibility to assure that maintenance standards are being met is best accomplished when the U.S. Government retains oversight over a domestic maintenance program as opposed to a system which is international. But in December 1988, new FAA regulations took effect that permit repairs and maintenance on U.S. airline aircraft to be conducted overseas. The new regulations permit U.S. aircraft operated domestically to be completely maintained at foreign repair stations. The FAA's unilateral decision to permit U.S. aircraft to be routinely maintained abroad puts the jobs of thousands of trained American machinists and mechanics at risk without any conceivable safety benefit to the American public. The Congress must, and I feel confident will, oppose the FAA's effort to loosen airline main tenance practices by permitting wholesale maintenance of U.S. aircraft abroad. A liberalization of these rules will have an adverse impact on safety and would be unfair both to U.S. business and to American workers. Mr. Chairman, you will be hearing testimony today from a wide range of groups and people from around the country, all experts in their fields with unique backgrounds and perspectives on a very important topic, the use of foreign repair stations by U.S. carriers. I would like to introduce two of these people that have come to Washington from the San Francisco Peninsula, the area which I represent. Mr. Chairman, I take great pride in introducing to you and other Members of the Aviation Subcommittee Mr. Wayne Gallimore. Wayne Gallimore is the chairman of the Flight Safety Committee, District 141, local Lodge 1781 in Burlingame, CA. He has been a great asset to the machinists in Burlingame, CA. He has been a great asset to the machinists. In addition, I would like to introduce Dr. Peter Donohue, director of labor studies and a professor of economics at San Francisco State University, where I used to teach economics for 30 years. Wayne will testify on how the implementation of FAR 145 will affect those most individually affected-machinists and workers who stand to lose their jobs and their livelihood. He will address the safety consequences and implications of FAA's ill-conceived rulemaking. Professor Donohue completed a major report on the economic impact of FAR 145 rule change and will present his findings to us. I applaud him on his report and concur with his findings. Mr. Chairman, let me express my gratitude to you for scheduling today's hearings. We in the Congress can best perform our duties when we have all the facts. What better testimony can be received than from those most intimately involved in the day-to-day operation of our Nation's airliners? I look forward to hearing all of today's witnesses. After facts are in, Congress will conclude FAR 145 must be repealed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. I appreciate your very thoughtful, generous comments. I understand you have a time constraint. Do the members have questions of Mr. Lantos? Thank you for your introduction and background on Mr. Gallimore and Mr. Donohue. I didn't realize the gentleman had taught Economics for such a long period of time at a very distinguished university. Mr. LANTOS. Hate to admit it. It is such a long period of time. Mr. OBERSTAR. Not very long in a life span. I thank the gentle man. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Mineta, the former chairman of the subcommittee who for 8 years provided distinguished leadership and guidance in so many aspects of aviation, crossed some new thresholds and chartered new courses in the early years of deregulation. Mr. Mineta. TESTIMONY OF HON. NORMAN Y. MINETA, A REPRESENTATIVE Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, if I might also indulge on asking your liberal view of the 5-minute rule, given the fact that I have the privilege of authoring H.R. 145. I would like to thank you very much for scheduling these hearings on the changes in the Federal aviation regulations governing the use of foreign repair stations by U.S. airlines. I am very, very proud to be able to have a very strong core of colleague support on this bill, especially on the introduction when I had the likes of you, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Wheat, Mr. Synar, among others, who were the original cosponsors of H.R. 145. This is a topic of great interest, as you know, and I am pleased to be able to join my colleagues here to discuss this issue. Legislation such as H.R. 145 would reverse the negative course these changes have set in motion. When the Congress looked originally into the foreign repair station issue, I had deep reservations about liberalizing the regulations to the extent being proposed by the U.S. airline industry and foreign concerns. When the Aviation Subcommittee held hearings on this issue, it became apparent to me that regulations governing foreign repair stations did require updating and revision. The rules on the books were there for nearly 45 years and were developed during an era in which foreign aviation manufacturing and operations were insignificant in comparison with the post-World War II predominance of the U.S. air transport industry. The aviation world is vastly different today. Our regulations should reflect that, as you have indicated. But I take great exception to the FAA's approach to updating these rules. On December 22, 1988, new Federal aviation regulations took effect. These regulations permit U.S. airline aircraft to be repaired and maintained overseas to a far greater extent than previously allowed. Prior to the regulatory change, U.S. aircraft could only be maintained at a foreign repair station if the aircraft were used in international service. In addition, the previous regulations limited overseas repairs to those necessary to move the aircraft in a safe airworthy manner. Routine and periodic scheduled maintenance had been regarded as outside the scope of what was permitted at a foreign repair station. The December revisions permit U.S. aircraft operated in U.S. domestic service to be maintained at foreign repair stations and do not limit the scope of work that may be performed. Any and all types of maintenance are permitted. Now, with regard to safety, my principal concern with FAA's proposal has more to do with the FAA's ability to monitor, understand and evaluate what is going on in the industry with respect to maintenance rather than with the capabilities and the quality of specific foreign maintenance facilities. The FAA's air carrier safety inspector work force continues to be understaffed. Though the FAA has made good strides in recent years in hiring additional inspectors, more are needed. The new rules will certainly require more inspectors. Therefore, if there are not enough inspectors now, we will be any worse off under a new regulatory scheme that adds a new dimension to the inspector's current responsibility. To permit U.S. airlines to routinely have maintenance performed abroad could result in a significant loss or weakening of airline management's ability to directly control one of the most significant aspects of the airline operations; namely, maintenance of aircraft. I recognize that in today's environment, the contracting out of maintenance domestically is quite common. But extending this practice abroad represents a major substantive change that I do not believe would be a positive one. FAA safety inspections have revealed that airlines which fail to maintain adequate management controls are the ones likely to have deficiencies with respect to safety. While the responsibility for maintenance would continue to rest with the new-with the airlines under the new rule, I see no reason to encourage through regulations any lessening of the practical control and direct authority. The FAA's proposal should be evaluated against the one question, will this change improve and enhance safety? Today, I do not believe that we can hear an honest, strong and unqualified yes in response to that question. Now, I recognize that some changes to the current rules on foreign service stations are needed. Foreign manufacturers of aircraft and equipment should be able to conduct repairs and maintenance on their own manufactured equipment, even if that equipment is operated solely within the domestic United States. Similarly, foreign base subsidiaries of U.S. aeronautical firms should have the ability to conduct maintenance on U.S. aircraft without the need for an individual regulatory exemption. Beyond such situations, however, I believe that allowing maintenance of U.S. domestic aircraft by foreign concerns raises both problems of accountability and serious question of FAA's ability to stay on top of a rapidly changing industry. In short, FAA inspectors and flight standards people already have their hands full without creating further burdens on their already thin-stretched resources. So for these reasons, I believe the FAA needs to go back to the drawing board with respect to these regulations. H.R. 145 will force the FAA to do so, and so I urge the subcommittee to move quickly on this legislation and commend you again, Mr. Chairman, on holding these hearings and my pride in joining my colleagues on this panel. Thank you very much. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Mineta, for your unique perspective on this issue, one born of some 800 pages of testimony delivered at hearings last year on this, the very same issue. Next our colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Watkins. TESTIMONY OF HON. WES WATKINS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA Mr. WATKINS. I thank the chairman and members of the distinguished subcommittee here. I'd like to ask unanimous consent that my complete testimony be made a part of the record. I will also ask to be able to revise and extend my remarks. Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I will be brief because I think a lot of remarks from testimony you will hear are probably redundant. But I am happy to be here to, as a cosponsor of H.R. 145 and also of the pending bill introduced, H.R. 1741 dealt with this matter to give testimony on my concern about it. I have had a long-time concern about the erosion of jobs and also of industry overseas and the trade imbalance that we have for this country. This is another step that would add to that along the way. Our bill really would be to overturn, as we all know, the ridiculous FAA ruling that was made last year. Mr. Chairman, the FAA rule, as far as I am concerned, equates to the wholesale export of American jobs, jobs badly needed by the U.S. economy, both in quantity and quality. I would like to request that this subcommittee take the action and then the full committee and then our colleagues in the House to literally repeal this ruling. Let us not permit this foolish action to drain yet another area of our economy of our high skilled jobs and capabilities of this particular industry. An expanded foreign role in airline maintenance is not needed. The entire demand for air carrier repair can be met domestically. Literally, as you have indicated, we have a threat from three-fold purpose, a three-fold area. One threatens our safety. It threatens our job security. It threatens our job security of many of our thousands upon thousands of workers in the repair work. Also, it threatens the existence of a domestic aviation industry. So I think it behooves all of us to work to try to maintain these jobs in the United States and do what we can to continue to build the economy of this great country, not to add to the erosion of the economy and the jobs that we so badly need. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for allowing me to come by. The FAA ruling, when we are on an airline, lots of times they announce this is a Federal law about different things dealing with the air. Just as this one, it is a Federal regulations, not a law. Maybe we can kind of put that in there to make sure they clarify that a lot of these are bureaucratic laws, bureaucratic regulations that come out, not something that has been passed by this Congress. Mr. OBERSTAR. Not a statutory law? Mr. WATKINS. That is right. Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Synar. TESTIMONY OF HON. MIKE SYNAR, A REPRESENTATIVE OF CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA Mr. SYNAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous consent to have my remarks entered into the record. Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. SYNAR. There are really two issues here. The first is the economic dislocation that this rule poses, but more importantly than |