James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\3/4\ minutes. The manager's amendment deserves our full support. It clarifies various items and addresses issues in fuller fashion on aviation safety, security, capacity and competition than the basic bill did, and adds a few items that I think are of significant importance. We must ensure that firefighting/rescue efforts are sufficient at Nation's airports. The manager's amendment requires FAA to review its regulations to ensure that they are adequate, for airports to have the appropriate firefighting equipment depending on the size of the airport. In addition, we call upon the administrator to form a partnership with industry to improve the curriculum, the teaching methods and quality of persons charged with training our Nation's aviation mechanics. We are facing a huge shortfall of qualified airframe and power plant mechanics in the near future to address the maintenance of our Nation's aircraft fleet. The role of aircraft dispatchers should not be minimized. The FAA is directed here to review the role of dispatchers in enhancing aviation safety and determine whether those operations not using airline dispatchers now should be required to do so in the future. We also address the issue of competition with our amendments to changes in the high density rule. These and other important provisions make the manager's amendment necessary and an improvement to the bill and deserve our support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I complement the gentleman's statement by assuring Members on our side that the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), will also be in support of this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, if I may, in a moment, sum up this debate, the issue is about safety, capacity, competition and guaranteeing a revenue stream, guaranteeing that the air travelers who pay the taxes for the improvements, for the safety, for the convenience, for the security at our airports will see those benefits realized in the investments from the Aviation Trust Fund that will be assured by passage of this legislation. It will also address the issue of collisions between aircraft and other vehicles on the runway surface. We ensure that there is adequate whistleblower protection to FAA and airplane employees who reveal safety problems without fear of retribution. Cargo airlines will be required to install collision avoidance devices by December 21, 2002 to avoid incidents like the recent near collision of two cargo aircraft over Kansas. The issue, though, in this debate comes down to the question we addressed at the outset. Will the Members of this body vote to ensure that the taxes paid by American citizens to ensure safe, secure, timely passage and competition at airports will actually be invested for that purpose? That is the issue today: Fairness and investment in America's future.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher). (Mrs. TAUSCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the Airport Authority at Cleveland can already use its AIP funds for noise abatement under the Part 150 rules of FAA. In addition, as the airport authority is expanding the runway and adding capacity, they will very likely use a PFC to do so, and will be able to use part of that PFC money for part 150 noise abatement. There are at least those two very important tools to reduce noise on airport neighbors. I compliment the gentleman on his initiative.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this is the very kind of project the airport improvement program is intended to nurture and to provide funding for. So I believe, as the gentleman has been such a strong advocate for this project and for this airport and for his community, that it offers significant benefits to rural southern Ohio and the FAA should be able to proceed with the funding necessary to accomplish the objectives.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Cleveland, Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. OBERSTAR. It will affect the country by improving airports, increasing the efficiency of air travel, improving the national economy, keeping America the leader in the world in aviation. Let us vote for the 21st century. Let us vote for this bill, and vote down on this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman on his leadership and concern on the issue of livable communities, and access to airports is one of those livability issues. The gentleman has cited the metropolitan planning organizations and other surface transportation planning entities as essential to the process of airport development. Their role should be included by airport authorities in the planning process. That is one step in achieving the goal the gentleman seeks.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining one minute. Mr. Chairman, let us get this straight. No airport is required to impose a passenger facility charge. Before a passenger facility charge can be imposed by an airport, it must file a plan. That plan must, under this bill, include provisions for the safety, competition, and show how it is going to enhance capacity. That is what the passenger facility charge was intended for in the first place. Of the Nation's 531 primary airports, 161 of them in the last 9 years have chosen not to impose a passenger facility charge. No one is required. It is a local decision. Do my colleagues want their airport to be able to compete in the Nation's airspace? Do my colleagues want their business people to be able to compete in the market in which they are operating? Do they want their passengers to be able to have access to the airport? If the decision is yes, then they put the PFC in and they do the things that the passengers need and they make it a public policy process. That is what this is all about. It could not be fairer. It could not be better. It could not for better for America for now and for into the 21st century. Vote down this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey. This amendment would substantially undermine a basic concept of our airport program: that an airport receiving a federal grant should provide a local matching share of from 10 to 25 percent to demonstrate local commitment to and support of a project. Under the amendment, any airport could escape the requirement for the local share by signing an agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency or a local emergency service, such as a fire department, giving that federal or local entity control over the airport in case of an emergency. We have no information available on how many airports already have these agreements. Nor do we have any indication that any response unit feels that these incentives are necessary to encourage airports to cooperate with them. I am concerned that under this amendment large numbers of airports would enter into agreements with emergency response units to gain a waiver of the requirement of a local match for AIP grants. In the absence of a strong showing that this incentive is needed to ensure the protection of human life and safety, I do not think we should undermine the requirement for a local match for AIP funds. I urge Members to oppose the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment rolls back the clock on noise abatement. In 1990, this was a major issue: noise at America's airports. As chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation, I held 50 hours of hearings on this subject, along with my good friend and former Member Bill Clinger. In the end, in the legislation of that year, we crafted a requirement that all Stage 2 aircraft, 2,340 in the Nation's fleet at that time, would, by the end of this year, comply with Stage 3 requirements. We are there. By the end of this year, all aircraft in the domestic fleet will meet that requirement. This amendment deals not with whether aircraft meet that requirement, but how they meet that requirement. The point is that all aircraft will meet Stage 3 requirements by the end of this year. That should be sufficient. That was the standard. That was set so that we would not have each individual airport a patchwork quilt of regulations all across America; one aircraft could fly into this airport, but not into another one. That is nonsense. That is chaos. The reason we put on a standard is that we would have all airports on the same ground. However, National Airport has a stricter requirement on its curfew. Mr. Chairman, a 757 with a Pratt & Whitney JT8D cannot land at National Airport after 10 o'clock. They have to go to Dulles. How much more does the gentleman want to do? How much more chaos do we want to put in the aviation system? When there is a storm in the Midwest and aircraft are coming in, do we inconvenience passengers because this one aircraft with that engine does not meet this airport's stringent requirements? If we do this all across America, we will again be Balkanized in our aviation system. The point of Stage 3 was to set the standard: 288.3 decibels. Hush- kitted aircraft meet that standard. Reengineered aircraft meet that standard. It is good enough for all of America, and it ought to be good for this airport as well. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me set the stage for this issue. We have a national aviation system, not a collection of individual airports around America. We have a national integrated system of airports. Aviation depends on all of them functioning together. They are linked by the FAA with the full control center out at Herndon so that at times of stress, as we had yesterday, when there are weather patterns moving around the country, that central flow control can coordinate among all those airports and prevent aircraft from congregating in areas where they may be exposed to unacceptable levels of weather and, therefore, delays and possible accidents. We have large hubs, medium hubs, small hubs, general aviation airports, reliever airports. The 29 large hubs in America account for 67 percent of all passenger boardings in this country. O'Hare is the largest of the hubs. It is not just the largest, it is the largest in the world, the largest airport, the most important airport in the world. Without O'Hare, small towns like Des Moines, Iowa, find their business community drying up. If they cannot get into O'Hare, they cannot conduct business. Small towns like Duluth, Minnesota, need access to O'Hare Airport. We have to be able to access our business community to that marketplace. Why is O'Hare important? Because Chicago is the hub of mid-America, agriculture, business, jobs, exports. Within 300 miles of O'Hare are 40 percent of all of America's exports. Within 500 miles of O'Hare is 45 percent of the Nation's agriculture. To be competitive in the Nation's and the world's marketplace, one needs access to O'Hare. Eight years ago, I worked with my dear friend for whom I have enormous respect for the courage and leadership that he has taken on the right to life issue, and we made right to less noise an issue. We have got this country on a downward spiral on noise. From 7\1/2\ million people 9 years ago, or 8 years ago, exposed to unacceptable levels of noise, we will be down to 115,000 all over America; 115,000 total. That is all. We have got all aircraft in the Nation's fleet down to Stage 3. Now, what about this high density rule? It was imposed because FAA in the 1960s could not manage the traffic. Today they have the air traffic control tools to manage that traffic. I have met several times with the career professional chief of air traffic control at the O'Hare TRACON; that is the terminal radar control facility which manages approach control. ``We will never allow safety to be compromised,'' he said. ``We will hold to the 100 per hour arrival rate. We can do better throughout the day. We can distribute those aircraft throughout the day on a better basis and accommodate more communities, but we will never allow safety to be compromised.'' That is the real issue here. Secretary Slater has said the high density rule was never designed for safety purposes. Administrator Garvey of the FAA, says, ``There are no safety reasons for continuing to maintain the high density rule. There are no competitive reasons for maintaining the high density. We will increase competition without necessarily increasing unacceptable levels of noise,'' as the gentleman rightly is concerned about, but we will increase competition. Why should airlines that received free the right to serve O'Hare, LaGuardia, Kennedy, National Airport, received that free, have been permitted to convert a public good into a private right with value that they can now sell for as much as a million dollars apiece for arrival and departure? That is unacceptable. If I had my way, we would eliminate the high density as of the enactment of this legislation, but we are accommodating people all across this country, accommodating various interests and various concerns and doing it in a fair way. This amendment is unnecessary. It is unwise. It is counter to competition, counter to fairness, and counter to those people who wish to be protected from noise. We should defeat this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation.