James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's response. I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, I will insist, and I know we will have the cooperation at the full committee level and subcommittee level, that we explore these matters in the depth and detail to which they are entitled and which you and your colleague from Wisconsin are entitled.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the concern of the gentleman. He presents a unique circumstance and that is that while the Coast Guard has authority for anything on the water or immediately adjacent to the water, the facilities the gentleman refers to are inland, several miles inland. We need a little time to think this through and to see whether the Coast Guard is the truly appropriate entity to have this responsibility and, if so, how we can provide it. I will assure the gentleman that, as the bill moves forward and as we get into conference with the other body, there is always an opportunity to make some adjustments, and I think we should respond, hopefully in that context, but if not, certainly by the time the committee researches the next Coast Guard reauthorization, which will be sometime next spring. We should revisit this matter. I share the gentleman's concern. Our Port Security Act does not deal with a matter of this kind, and we ought to think of a way in which we can provide the protection the gentleman legitimately has concerns about. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3118, a bill to designate the Federal Building located at 800 Independence Avenue as the Orville Wright Federal Building, and the Federal building located at 600 Independence Avenue as the Wilbur Wright Federal Building. Fittingly, these buildings house the headquarters of the Federal Aviation Administration. Wilbur Wright was born on a farm near Millville, Indiana, in 1867, and his younger brother Orville was born in Dayton, Ohio, in 1871. Both boys were excellent students with a love for invention. As young men in Dayton, the Wright brothers owned a now-famous bicycle shop where they sold and repaired bicycles. In a few short years the shop was a huge success, and the men earned a reputation as talented mechanics. The profits from their bicycle shop were put toward their aviation experiments, providing the seeds of what would become our modern aviation industry. Between 1899 and 1903 the brothers had developed five experimental airplanes, including the 1899 Wright Kite and the 1902 Glider. Then, in 1903, with a flight of 120 feet lasting a total of 12 seconds, the Wright brothers launched the world into the age of aviation. These daring experiments laid the groundwork for the American aviation industry, which in 2002 employed 621,000 people, had more than 9 million departures, carried 612,000,000 passengers, flew 25 billion miles, included 5,000 passenger jets, 1,000 cargo jets, and over several hundred propeller planes. The Wright brothers' personal history and amazing achievements are the stuff of American legend. This designation honors the contributions they made to American history. As we approach the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers' historic flight at Kitty Hawk on December 17, 1903, it is a just and fitting tribute to name the Federal Aviation Administration Headquarters Buildings after the ``Fathers of Aviation''. I urge my colleagues to honor the Wright brothers and to support H.R. 3118.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move the House do now adjourn.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I cannot yield. I thank the Speaker. That is the point; there was no such meeting. That, I find extraordinary. In the 40 years that I have served on the Committee on Public Works, now the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I started on that committee as a clerk on the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors in January of 1963, I followed every one of our conferences. I have served on conferences for 24 years. Never have we failed to have meetings, except in a very few instances when a bill was conferenced without formal meeting of conferees, for which I reference the Aviation Noise Act of 1990, in which case the Senate, the other body, failed to call a meeting of conferees, but we did meet. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Clinger, was the ranking Republican on the subcommittee I chaired at that time, and I included him in every meeting. We did not have that courtesy extended to us. The rules of the House clearly were violated, to say the worst; avoided, to say the best. And I will compliment the Chair of the Committee on Rules. Last night when I raised this point, he, too, was shocked and offended and said that he would take this matter up with leadership and see that it does not happen again. But the gentleman from Oregon makes a point of order that is sustained by the rules of the House, and I support the gentleman's call for a ruling by the Chair.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes. I appreciate the very thoughtful comments of the gentleman from Florida about my service during the time I was the Chair of the subcommittee. We have had a very constructive, generally, relationship between the majority and the minority, both prior to the Republican majority and subsequent to it. Generally, on the Subcommittee on Aviation, this has been perhaps the most constructive area of work on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure over the past 9 years. But we have really run aground here on this issue. Had we actually had a conference and had a full, thorough discussion and debate the first time around, and had we been able to discuss the four principal issues. I agree with the chairman of the subcommittee, there are many other matters of great importance: funding of the air traffic control system, F&E account, the operations account, the research and development account. All of those are important, and there are other important measures. But, there are four items on which we should have had a full discussion. And if we had and if we had been able to negotiate back and forth, some give and take, maybe we would win some of it and maybe the other side would win some of it. And this is not Democrat or Republican side. There are ideological differences on this matter; and if it came out this way after full and thorough discussion, we came out with the package now before us, it would have been a different arena. We did not have that discussion. We had it only for the few minutes during the first conference. After the conference report was recommitted, we had no meeting; we had no discussion. I appreciate the gentleman's comments that the minority asked to drop the language. I do not know who was consulted. We never had that conversation, either formally or informally. What we wanted was a discussion of options, of opportunities. The gentleman from Florida has several times referenced the report of the Inspector General of DOT. Now, the actual statements of the Inspector General I quote: ``In addition to limitations on evaluating the rating of contract towers performance,'' he said, ``and due to the low number of operational errors at both places,'' that is both contract and FAA, ``I would caution you against concluding that either group has a safer safety record than the other. It is just not fair to draw that conclusion.'' The Inspector General's report goes on to show that, or the gentleman says that the IG's report says, the contract towers are two times safer than FAA towers. The IG specifically cautioned against this interpretation of the study. So I asked the General Accounting Office to evaluate the IG report, and that is what the General Accounting Office came back and said: ``We identified several potential limitations with FAA's data on operational errors based on our review of GAO and DOT reports and application of best methodological practices. Due to the way data are recorded, the severity of many errors cannot be determined or is misleading. Further, comparisons of operational errors among types of air traffic control facilities such as FAA staff versus contractor staff cannot be used alone to provide valid conclusions about safety, due to three factors we identified based on standards of methodological practices and our understanding of FAA's data. The determination,'' quoting further, ``of real differences in the rate of operational errors is difficult, and comparisons of operational error rates alone are not sufficient to draw conclusions.'' The point is, there has never been a thorough, full discussion of this issue. We should have that. We should have had an extended hearing on the subject matter. We should have had a discussion of what policy this administration plans to bring to the privatization of air traffic control facilities. We have not had it. When the Clinton administration came up with this idea in 1993, I vigorously opposed it, with great support from our colleagues across the aisle; and we sent them in full flight retreat on this subject. We ought to do the same. We ought to join forces today to do the same, to put this issue in full flight retreat. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order. Mr. Speaker, surely the gentleman from Florida speaks about a supposititious meeting and a supposititious participation, because none such existed. Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman to explain what he meant by ``full participation.''

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. I appreciate the statement of the gentleman from New York. This provision to which he refers is another example of egregious special interest legislation that was advocated by one airline. It was done without any consultation, without any discussion. It vitiates a signed agreement between an airline in Minnesota and the Metropolitan Airports Commission. It is wrong. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to again fill out the record, if I may. It is not towers that bring aircraft down. At altitude, at 29,000 feet, the en route center steps aircraft down to 15,000 feet to a point where they are 40 miles out from the airport, at which point the terminal radar control facility takes over and brings aircraft to within 3 miles, at which point the easy part is done by the controllers in the towers. That is the real story. Let us not embellish this event of September 11. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. I respect the statement of our chairman of the full committee, but this again is an example of the discussion we could have and should have had in a real House-Senate conference. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. In its present form I am.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for his conscience-stricken statement and for his ever-conscience-driven conduct in the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, safety is not just one issue. Safety is a multiplicity of overlying redundancies. Safety depends on the interaction of the human and the technological. What I object to in this proceeding is the lack of process, a lack of opportunity for debate on the future of the air traffic control system. Make no mistake about it, this debate is about the future of air traffic control in America. This is about how our air traffic control system will be managed in the future and by whom. It should be done in the public interest, not in the private interest. All that stands between the traveling public and a failure at seven miles in the air or on the ground is our air traffic controller and the equipment he will or she operates. We must keep it in the public sector. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, again to correct the record. The gentleman said there was no outcry when the Clinton administration moved to privatize air traffic control. That was an initiative that came out of the Gore ``reinvent government program.'' I was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation. I took it on head-on, with the help of decent-thinking Republicans, who supported our effort to stop it dead in its tracks, and we did. And when they began to move one by one to privatize air traffic control towers, some of which were already Federal towers, I moved against that. Every time I objected, and finally, finally, when we no longer had the majority in this body, the administration backed down and the President issued his executive order. There are some functions government performs that can be done by the private sector, and this body has given authority to the executive branch to do that, but I submit that separating aircraft is not one of those functions that should be contracted out. There is a vast difference, a vast difference between a tower with a D-BRITE, a rudimentary means of controlling air traffic, a tower that handles 10 to 15,000 general aviation aircraft in a year in Van Nuys, California and one which has 498,000 operations, complex air space, complexity of operations and is under the control of the southern California TRACON which handles two-and-a-half million operations a year. That is the radar that supports the tower that this proposal once would have subjected to privatization. That is wrong. There is no policy behind it. I kept telling the Clinton administration, you come up with a policy, let us have a discussion of it, let us have a debate. This is a debate I am sorry we are having here that we should have had in the conference, and we never had. I am offended on process and on substance, and as for allegations made just a moment ago by the Chair of the subcommittee, let me go back to the testimony of the Inspector General at our committee. In addition to limitations he has already cited about the report that the gentleman has cited, and due to the low number of operational errors at both of these places, I would caution you against concluding that either group has a safer safety record than the other. It is not fair to draw that conclusion. That is the conclusion of the Inspector General. I rest my case.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for a commendable job of maintaining order in the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Aviation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.