Jim Inhofe: “first of all, I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from North Dakota, and some of the things he says certainly…”

“first of all, I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from North Dakota, and some of the things he says certainly do make sense. I would have to say this, though. There is not a bureaucracy out there that, now and then, does not have to be prodded a little bit because it is the very nature of a bureaucracy not to change. They do not want to change. Not long ago, I had a bill, on which I believe the Senator from North Dakota supported me, called the emergency revocation bill. It took 3 years before we got the votes to pass it. It was something that should have been done, I believe, by the FAA; and I think most of them would agree. Many of them in the field have told me since then that it was something they should have done. They are very busy, they have their hands full, and probably the furthest thing from their minds is making a change. When it gets down to age, when you talk about 60, age 60, when this rule was put in, is the same as age 72 today. Everything that is tied to an index--whether it is retirement, Social Security--they all have increased in age, except this one issue. As far as safety is concerned, I do not think the FAA would tell you the arbitrary age of 60 or 65 is going to relate to safety. But what they relate to safety is the medical and proficiency requirements, which are very stringent. And the older you get, I suggested to my friend from North Dakota, the more stringent they become, because I have had to live through this myself.…”