Nick Rahall: “I oppose this amendment because, for me, it raises two key concerns. First is that the amendment would basically create…”

“I oppose this amendment because, for me, it raises two key concerns. First is that the amendment would basically create a liability shield for airlines and airports that are negligent and cause airplane crashes. Last year, Congress directed the FAA to require airlines to implement safety management systems. Using these systems, airlines will use data to identify risk and improve safety. The FAA is likely to require airports to adopt similar systems. Under this amendment, adoption of a safety management system would give airlines and airports a total ``pass'' on liability for their ordinary negligence. It would deprive passengers and their families of the right to seek compensation for damage caused by airline crashes. The right to go to court and seek compensation for damage caused by the negligence of another person, including an airline or airport, is an intrinsic part of our law. This amendment would take that right away, and I cannot support it. My last concern is about a provision in the amendment dealing with lithium batteries. The transport of lithium batteries without appropriate safety checks has been proven to present hazards that could bring down an airplane. This amendment would lock the United States into following international standards on transporting lithium batteries that set the floor, not the bar that we should aspire to.…”