James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman would further yield, it's a legitimate concern, and we will address that concern--I assure the gentleman--as we move forward to hopefully conference with the Senate. I would like the distinguished ranking member to give us some further elaboration of these issues. We will address those.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. It was unclear to me what the gentleman was proposing. His amendment deals with whistleblowers, but his conversation rambled all over the lot on other provisions of the bill, and I was simply going to ask the gentleman if he was ever going to get to his amendment. And eventually he did. We accept the whistleblower amendment. However, the gentleman is misguided about the passenger facility charge. We do not require airports to impose passenger facility charges, Mr. Chairman. It is a local option. They either do or they do not as airport needs require. If they want to expand airport runway capacity, taxiway capacity, parking apron capacity on the air side of airports and need, in addition to the airport improvement funds, additional revenues to do that, they will have to justify to their board, to their community, to those who use that airport, they have to justify their proposal to increase the passenger facility charge, show how it is going to be used, show how the revenues will contribute to improvement of aviation service and do it all in a public process. I'm puzzled as to the gentleman's concerns about that provision and many others. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, the Chair of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I think I do not intend to oppose it.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I just want to make it clear that the language of the amendment is general in nature. And Mr. Chairman, I ask of the offeror of the amendment, although he referenced sitting Members of the House and Senate, he does not intend this language to apply to any specific Member, is that correct?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The language is not intended to apply, my question is, to any specific Member?

Mr. OBERSTAR. It was a few years ago, quite a few years ago, 1996 to be exact, that the Republican majority foisted upon the Washington Airport Authority a requirement to designate, redesignate the name of the airport serving the Nation's capital. They started out this amendment by the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr, to name it ``Reagan National Airport.'' We pointed out that is renaming the airport. It is named for the first President of the United States. That language was changed to call it the ``Washington-Reagan National Airport.'' Not only did the amendment require the Washington National Airport Authority to change the name of the airport, but it was made very clear to me that if they did not do that, and if they did not change the signs at their expense, that funds would be withheld from Washington National Airport. That was mean. That was vicious. It was done because there was the power to do it. And it was the wrong thing to do. Now we should not be naming facilities for sitting Members of the House or of the other body. The plain language of the amendment is right, and that is the practice that we have followed. And I accept that. But I would just point out, as I did in that debate in 1996, that when the question of naming the new airport in Loudoun County came up, Senator Dole offered the amendment to give the Washington National Airport Authority the authority to designate a name for that airport. He did not say what name it should be. The airport authority named it. I was of a mind to include such language in this bill, but I withheld doing it, to reestablish the power of the Washington National Airport Authority to rename that airport, should they choose to do so. It is their authority. It is not ours. And the then-majority ran roughshod. And I said to the gentleman from Georgia, you would scream to high heaven if the Congress tried to do this to an airport in your community, in your district. You would scream to high heaven if we told you what name to give it and to change the signs around the airport at your expense. But you are doing it out of harshness to the Nation's capital. That's the wrong attitude, and the gentleman's amendment is in the right spirit. But I just want to say for some of the interventions that I've heard on this floor that I've had it a little bit with posturing. This is not posturing. This is right. This is fair. We ought to do it, and we accept the amendment, but just know that there is a painful history and a wrong history about naming facilities. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, though I do not intend to oppose.

Mr. OBERSTAR. We accept the gentleman's amendment, if the gentleman is prepared to yield his time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, though I do not intend to oppose.

Mr. OBERSTAR. We accept the amendment. If the gentleman is prepared to conclude his remarks and yield back, we can proceed. I yield back.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman, and want to commend him for pursuing so vigorously this issue, and I deplore the lack of response from the FAA, as we heard earlier in the day on the rule from the gentleman from Florida, who appealed many times to the FAA, and got no response to his concerns. This process of redesign of the east coast airspace has been going on for 9 years, this particular plan. There are other plans that have been going on for 20 years. They should have been adequately discussed in the public domain. The Members of Congress should have been engaged in the process, and we're going to change that. We're going to make this happen. And I want to assure the gentleman that we will work hand-in-glove with the gentleman, the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, the ranking member of the full committee. I would just like to inquire of the gentleman about Atlantic City airport. Is that in the gentleman's district?

Mr. OBERSTAR. If service were routed to Atlantic City, would that divert noise from the gentleman's constituents?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, I think there is additional capacity. This is the world's busiest airspace. The New York TRACON handles more aircraft movement than all of Europe combined. Finding places for those aircraft to approach and depart is extremely difficult. But there is capacity at Stuart Air Force Base, which is a joint use facility, and there is capacity at Atlantic City. All it needs is a surface rail line. And that would allow ocean approaches that would take noise away from the gentleman's constituencies, and from those in New York and from elsewhere. I'm going on way too long because we want to conclude this debate and get to the final votes. But I know that the gentleman's colleague, Mr. LoBiondo, is very strong in support of service from Atlantic City. It would relieve noise from the gentleman's airport to move aircraft in that facility. It has a 10,000 foot runway. It has a taxiway. It has unused capacity. And it could relieve the New York airport situation, relieve the noise from the gentleman's constituency. So let's work together. Let's have the FAA in for some discussions and pursue this matter further. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. We are prepared to accept the gentlewoman's amendment. It's a reasonable and thoughtful approach, and it will work. And we will support the gentlewoman.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. This is a surprising amendment. This is the first negative earmarking that I have witnessed in Congress. It is no less than an assault upon essential air service to rural America. To those on the other side, Mr. Speaker, who are laughing now, I wonder what their reaction will be when another amendment comes to deny funding for essential air service to an airport in their communities. They won't be laughing. This is essentially a harsh amendment. It's aimed at an airport named for a sitting Member of Congress. The airport was not named by action of the Congress. It was not named by a Federal agency. It was named by the county commissioners of Cambria County. This airport serves 1,000 military personnel. It serves the Pennsylvania National Guard. It serves the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve and the U.S. Army Reserve, and these units have been deployed 28 times in the last 10 years in service of the United States abroad. The amendment provides that no amount authorized under paragraphs 1 and 2, meaning paragraphs 1 and 2 of the essential air service act now in law, may be used. That's funding for airports in small communities and their residents who had commercial air service prior to deregulation in 1978--I'm the author of that provision in the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978--to ensure that small towns in rural areas would not be cut out of America's national system of airports and airport service and airline service. It has worked effectively. Congress has trimmed it back where it's been necessary. These contracts are awarded by the Department of Transportation for 2 years at a time, revocable, subject to termination at the end of the 2- year period, and reviewed again by the Department of Transportation. If the airport, the airline, the community are not using the funds effectively, DOT can and has terminated EAS service where that service does not meet the standards of their contract. By act of Congress to say we're going to terminate essential air service funding to a rural community in this America, 150 of us are at risk. If by legislative fiat you can say no to funding this community, no to the people in rural America who want access to greater America, then we're all at risk. This is wrong. This is mean-spirited. Vote it down. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 915, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, cross-references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to accurately reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the Inpatient RehabCare team at the Virginia Regional Medical Center for their safety education and outreach to Minnesota's youth. In addition to their outstanding work at the Medical Center, the RehabCare team educates elementary school students throughout Virginia of the tremendous health risks associated with riding a bicycle without a helmet. They recognize the importance of educating our youth during their formative years--at the age when they are most receptive--of the possible life-altering brain injuries that could result from not wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle. In particular, Madam Speaker, I wish to laud the Inpatient RehabCare team in their most recent outreach to fourth grade students at Roosevelt Elementary School in Virginia. Each fourth grade class participated in a safety awareness session where they learned about the lasting consequences of brain injuries and the importance of wearing bicycle helmets. Students received real-life simulations of what their lives would be like with such brain injuries, demonstrating the difficulty of everyday tasks and making a lasting impression on the students on the importance of taking safety precautions when riding a bicycle. Such hands-on scenarios--combined with the team's helmet safety information and their direct experience with assisting patients who have suffered brain trauma--provided these elementary students with invaluable life lessons in bicycle safety and the severity of brain injuries. It is vital that we teach our children about the many benefits of active and healthy transportation and recreation through cycling; and safety education must go hand-in-hand with these lessons. The RehabCare team's effective outreach to children is noteworthy and ought to be replicated throughout the nation. Their work--and the work of similar groups in the United States--is deserving of our recognition and continued support. I thank the Virginia Medical Center's Inpatient RehabCare team for their inspiring leadership and dedicated work to instill in our children a lifetime of bicycle safety habits.