James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on our side, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for his splendid statement and full discussion of the subject at hand and for his leadership and, as always, bipartisan cooperation in bringing this legislation to the floor today. I also want to acknowledge the support and cooperation of our chairman of the full committee the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and seeing to it that we move this bill expeditiously through subcommittee, full committee and to the floor today. There is no question this bill is a long time in coming, and it should, when enacted and implemented, bring to fruition the long- planned and sort of haltingly carried out efforts to clean up decades- long contamination of this repository of one-fifth of all the fresh water on the face of the Earth, the Great Lakes. It has been my home all my life, living not on the shore but close enough to the shore of Lake Superior, my hometown of Chisholm just about 90 miles away. I spent a great deal of my time as a young lad near the shores of Lake Superior and my service in the Congress, my District extends from Duluth all the way up to Canada, along that splendid rocky outcrop of the 3 billion year old deposits of basalt that look broodingly out onto Lake Superior, which represents 10 percent of the fresh water on the face of the Earth. My predecessor Congressman John Blatnik was the original author of the first Clean Water Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 that began the Nation's efforts to clean up the waters of the United States and was the one who inspired the research laboratories that now are located throughout the Great Lakes to serve as a beacon for the protection, beacon out on those fresh waters to serve as the protection for the future generations of the Great Lakes, on the purity and quality of those waters. In years past, when I chaired the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, I held extensive hearings on the United States-Canada Clean Water Agreement to push administrations in the past to action on cleanup of the toxic hot spots, or areas of concern as they are called. It is just an unspeakable tragedy that nearly 100 percent of the near shore waters of the Great Lakes and connecting tributaries are under fish consumption advisories because those fish have taken up toxics from bottom feeding organisms, from plants, carried them in their bodies and then are consumed by humans. It was presented in documented testimony in the hearings that I held in the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight and corroborated since then in subsequent hearings. The chairman has conducted a few. If a person lives within 20 miles of the Great Lakes and they eat fish once a week, they have on average 440 parts per billion PCBs in their body. If they live anywhere else in America and eat fish once a week, they probably have only 5 parts per billion per PCBs in their body. I need not go into the adverse health consequences of PCBs. They are well-documented in the medical and scientific literature. We had a researcher, Dr. Waylon Swain, from the University of Michigan testify at the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight hearing who had done tests on his 16-year-old daughter of the fatty tissue in her body and the content of PCBs and then did a computer projection to determine how long it would take for future generations, for PCBs to leave her offspring if none of them were exposed in the future to PCBs. Six generations. This is a persistent toxic chemical that we need to extract from the bottoms of those areas of concern. Of the 43 areas of concern of the Great Lakes, 31 are wholly or partly within U.S. waters, and they are mostly harbors. More than 1.3 million in cubic yards of contaminated sediments have been remediated over the past 3 years. We have just touched the top of the challenge, and remediation is nowhere near completed in any one of the areas of concern. The people of the Great Lakes community, 36 million of them, have lived with this problem that threatens their physical health, the health of their children, and impacts the entire region, both economically and in degradation of the Great Lakes environment. I was heartened when former President Clinton in fiscal 2000 included within the administration's budget a request for $50 million for remediation of contaminated sediments, and I had at the time introduced H.R. 3670 to authorize a program for cleanup of the Great Lakes areas of concern, but neither the bill nor the $50 million came to fruition. But the initiatives then stimulated further attention. I am very delighted to acknowledge the work of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who is a colleague of ours on the Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure, whose scientific mind and appreciation of the challenges has brought considerable expertise and passion for cleaning up these waters to this issue, and I compliment the gentleman for introducing the bill today before us which will authorize $50 million annually for the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out projects to address sediment contamination in the Great Lakes areas of concern. These are going to be prioritized projects. Priority will be given to those that actively address the contaminated sediments that have been identified in the remedial action plans for the areas of concern, projects that promise to implement innovative approaches, new technologies and new techniques to deal with contaminated sediment so as not to, as Chairman Duncan expressed concern, reintroduce contaminants into the water column and thereby reestablish the pollution or distribute it further. One of these innovative approaches is one that has been undertaken by the U.S. environmental research laboratory of EPA in Duluth, the University of Minnesota's Natural Resources Research Institute and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the harbor of Duluth, using mining technologies which we in the iron ore mining country of my district use to beneficiate low-grade, nonmagnetic ores using a process that has a cost in the range of $2 to $3 a cubic yard versus $400 to $600 a cubic yard for other technologies, have successfully remediated large volumes of toxic-substance-containing sediment so that this cleansed sediment now can be used in parks and reclaiming areas along the waterfront in Duluth for other environmentally friendly activities. These are the kinds of innovative approaches this legislation will support and stimulate in the future. The legislation before us also has clarifying language to ensure that the new program will have no effect on existing Federal and State authorities to address contaminated sites. The IJC report recently found that all sediment remediation completed to date has been funded as a result of enforcement action, or the threat of enforcement action, against polluters. While that still would remain, we would hope ideally that there would be a cooperative approach to cleanup. The aptly named ``orphan sites'' will be one of the targets of this legislation. I expect EPA and the States to continue to pursue and to hold accountable polluters responsible for contamination of all the areas of concern. Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for his persistence in pursuing this issue, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for his diligence in bringing the legislation forward, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his participation, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for his active support on our side as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for her very thoughtful, as always, constructive and scholarly presentation and I am particularly touched by the gentlewoman's reference to the mall as perpetual, yet evolving. The arts, more than the Kennedy Center, the arts are perpetual. They are what lift a Nation's spirits. I think history records more what our poets and our composers have to say than what our generals have to do. We, especially in the aftermath of September 11, need the arts to lift our spirits and to design the future and to refocus our aspirations. Kennedy Center is part of that. It was one of the very first cultural institutions in the United States to have a response in art form to the events of September 11, and just as important as it is to make the Kennedy Center accessible as the National Cultural Performing Arts Center to all those 20 million plus visitors who come to this Nation's capital, it also must be accessible to the residents of the District of Columbia themselves, and connecting the Kennedy Center through this plaza to monumental Washington will make it far more attractive and far more available to the residents of the District of Columbia themselves, and that is my fond hope. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank my colleagues the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their very moving tributes to the Kennedy Center and also to the beloved District of Columbia. I appreciate their hard work on this. I too believe the Kennedy Center is a jewel of our District of Columbia, and to have access to the arts, the very vibrant programs that are brought there daily, not only to the citizens of the District and those of us who are here on a regular basis, but for the many, many visitors I think is a wonderful project that will make generations to come be able to enjoy all the many fine programs that the Kennedy Center has put forth now and in the future.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a fallen hero. Captain Kim Granholm, a member of the Esko, Minnesota Volunteer Fire Department, was tragically killed in the line of duty while fighting a car fire on Interstate 35 near Duluth on July 1, 2002. Captain Granholm was only 28 when he died, but his legacy will continue for years to come. For four years, he was a dedicated member of the Esko Volunteer Fire Department where he was loved and respected by his fellow firefighters. In the outpouring of grief for Kim Granholm, more than 1,000 people attended his funeral, including hundreds of firefighters and emergency workers from across the state of Minnesota. Captain Granholm was a caring man who put his wife Aliina and their children Robyn and Alyssa above all else. Captain Granholm's caring and compassionate spirit guided him throughout his short life and his kindnesses are lasting tributes to all he touched. Kim Granholm died doing what he loved to do, serving his community. He was a father, a husband, a friend and a firefighter. Most of all, he was a hero to all of us. Most troubling of all is the brutal reality that Kim Granholm was killed when a motorist failed to slow his vehicle at the fire scene. I am encouraged that Esko Fire Chief Jeff Juntunen and his Minnesota fire fighter colleagues are working with the Minnesota State Legislature to enact legislation that will impose severe penalties on drivers who speed through an emergency scene. I commend Chief Juntunen for this important initiative which, when enacted, will serve as a lasting tribute to Captain Kim Granholm. Since September 11, we have witnessed throughout the land a heightened awareness of the public service and dedication of those first responders who answer the call. All Americans should go further and demonstrate our profound appreciation of these brave men and women by exercising caution at emergency scenes to enable these fire, police and emergency workers to do their job in a less hazardous environment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. If this is war, as the President has repeatedly said, then I am astonished by the repetition of the cannot-do attitude that I have been hearing so far. At the outset of World War II, we took on a million men in one year. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), fearless champion of aviation security.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I compliment her on her management of the time on our side and on this whole process, and for her splendid work on the Select Committee on Homeland Security. For whatever valid reasons there may be to extend liability to other functions, as have already been discussed and debated and without entering into those merits, I cannot, for the life of me, imagine a reason, a valid reason for extending liability to the screener companies. We debated this issue at length last October and November in consideration of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act that is now law. We discussed it in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We debated it in the House Senate Conference Committee. We discussed it at great length and rejected any suggestion, and there were suggestions, any proposals for extension of liability limitation and immunization for the airport screening companies. It is their possible negligence that may have contributed to the September 11 attack. Why would you want to excuse them? In the amendment offered by the gentleman, buried in this amendment is what I might call mirage language. Whether by design or by inadvertence, Mr. Chairman, I do know and I do not want to ascribe motives, it is just that here it is. The language intends to on its face exclude any screening company that is debarred under Federal contracts. However, the infamous Argenbright Company's debarment is over in October, 2002. It then becomes eligible for liability protection under the gentleman's en bloc amendment. Furthermore, the parent company of Argenbright, Securicor, is not debarred from any Federal contracts. So they are now covered by this immunization protection. And look at Argenbright. Someone last fall in the debate, and I think it was a Member on the Republican side, said Argenbright is the poster child for why we need to have a Federalized screener program. They were in October of 2000 put on a 36-month probation, ordered to pay $1,600,000 fine for failure to conduct background checks on their employees and hiring convicted felons to staff security screening checkpoints at the Philadelphia Airport between 1995 and 1999. A month after September 11, Argenbright's probation was extended by 2 years because they continued to hire convicted felons and improperly train workers in violation of their probation terms. In the 5 years before September 11, FAA prosecuted 1,776 cases for screening violations with $8.1 million in civil penalties. The en bloc vote furthermore extends liability protections, put Argenbright aside, to other airport security firms. Globe Aviation Services and Huntleigh USA Corporation, the security companies responsible for checkpoint security at Logan Airport on September 11 and which continue to hold a contract with the Transportation Security Administration, why would you want to exclude them? These are the same groups whose lobbyists argued last October against the Federal screener program. It does not make sense to now exempt them. In May of this year, Huntleigh Security Screeners were fired for allowing a man to go through a security checkpoint with two loaded semiautomatic pistols. In February of this year, a Globe security screener fell asleep at a checkpoint. The whole terminal had to be evacuated at Louisville because of that failure. Why in heaven's name do you want to exclude them? This defies imagination. It is the wrong policy. If we could move to strike this provision, I would; but in lieu of that, we ought to defeat the entire en bloc amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), a member of our committee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds to point out to the gentleman from Arizona, whom I have great respect and affection, that the explosive detection system is certified to detect explosives in all checked luggage. The question is the throughput rate. If we have a high throughput rate, we may have a higher number of false positives but it works. It is certified by the FAA and the TSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, all of the amendments we debated last night and so far today have had important consequences for the future of the country, for the operation of the Department of Homeland Security, for various aspects of our domestic life. The one I propose at this point is quite possibly the only life or death vote we will consider in this legislation. Because whether or not explosive detection systems are installed at airports and whether or not complete screening of checked luggage is accomplished at the Nation's domestic airports will determine whether a terrorist can get a bomb aboard an aircraft and blow it out of the sky, as happened with Pan Am 103 over Lockerbee, Scotland. Make no mistake about it, there are serious consequences, life or death consequences for what we do in this piece of the legislation. Previously, on the en bloc amendment of the majority leader, I said I cannot understand why anyone would want to protect the security company providers from liability. In this amendment, in this the provision of the committee bill, I can understand why Members are confused and why there was an attempt to extend the deadline for compliance with the law that we enacted a year ago, 8 months ago in this body, 410 to 9. I understand that airport authorities have badgered Members of this body. Airlines have lobbied many Members of this body to extend the time for compliance with that law. They are wrong. The law provides alternative means if we cannot get explosive detection systems in place by December 31. The law specifically provides for alternative means of screening checked luggage. There is no excuse for removing the pressure upon the Transportation Security Administration to comply with that law that virtually everyone in this body, everyone seated on this floor voted for. Why would we vote for airline security, tough airline stick measures and then turn around and undo it? Do not do it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), a member of the select committee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington.) The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, we have all come to this issue with good will and those who advocate the extension of the deadline have come genuinely inspired by their airports or airlines out of a concern, as repeated speakers have said, We can't meet the deadline. I have always thought of America as a can-do Nation, not a can't-do Nation. In World War II, we put a million men under arms in 1 year. In World War II, we produced an average of 60,000 war planes a year, starting from zero. Why can we not do this now? We can do it, is the point. I have heard the argument about long lines. The question you have to ask yourself is which do you fear more, long lines or a bomb aboard an airplane? I also read the language proposed very carefully. Many are not aware that the language of the amendment proposes to give the airport the decision on whether to demand a delay, not the Transportation Security Administration who is paying the cost, and also vests with airports the authority to develop a plan to the maximum extent practicable to do certain things. This is a change in the fundamental way the program is operating. I was not aware of that until late last night, early this morning, reading this language more carefully. That should not be done. We have provided authority in the basic law that was enacted 410-9 for alternative means to check luggage, to screen luggage checked aboard aircraft if you cannot meet the December 31 deadline for explosive detection systems. It includes authority for the TSA to certify, or to verify the use of explosive trace detection systems if they cannot deploy the explosive detection systems. There is ample authority to use other means. We are all human beings. That is why the leadership here keeps us till late at night, because we work against deadlines. The distinguished whip knows that. But I come for another purpose. Twelve years ago, as a member of the Pan Am 103 commission, I stood at Lockerbie, Scotland, at the abyss of Pan Am 103 where a trench 14 feet deep, 40 feet wide, and 120 feet long was dug by that airplane, and 259 lives aboard that plane and 11 on the ground were incinerated because a bomb was aboard that airplane in a piece of luggage that did not have a passenger accompanying it. And we members of that commission, two of us from the House, John Paul Hammerschmidt, a distinguished Member from Arkansas, and I, looked in the abyss and said, ``Never again will we allow this to happen. We are going to pass tough legislation to make aviation security the best in the world.'' And we passed it. Now we stand on the abyss again. Never again do I want to confront families and say, We didn't do enough. Please, do not let that happen. Do not extend that deadline.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reaffirm for the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), majority leader, that Argenbright's debarment expires in October of this year. Why would you not extend a prohibition on coverage?

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the gentleman's enthusiasm, I do not think that that is a fair characterization of our amendment. It is not a slap in the face to firefighters. Our amendment is not a slap in the face to firefighters, with all due respect to the gentleman.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, here we are crafting the first new department of government in many years and I am a little surprised. It is Alice in Wonderland. It is verdict first, evidence later. A provision in this legislation would extend a deadline for screening of checked luggage aboard aircraft by explosive detection systems out off into the future after last year, just eight months ago in this very Chamber, we voted 410 to 9 to set a deadline of December 31, 2002 to do that very job. Where is the evidence that we need to do that? Where is the evidence that should precede the verdict that this great Nation cannot accomplish that task that we have set forth by an overwhelming vote in this body? I frankly am offended that we would hardly, as the ink dries on the Transportation Security Administration law, hardly is the President's pronouncement of a need for a Department of Homeland Security than this body will become and begin to undermine that very security. I am not a newcomer at this business of aviation security. I have spent about 20 years at it in the Committee on Public Works, and then the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I am proud to say that I held the very first hearings on aviation security as Chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. And in the aftermath of Pan Am 103, as Chair of the Aviation Authorizing Committee with my then-ranking member, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), fashioned the legislation requested by President Bush to create a Presidential Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism and served on that commission with our distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Mr. Hammerschmidt. We wrote a report that made 64 recommendations to improve aviation security, drafted those recommendations into legislative language, to them enacted through this body and the other body and to the president and signed them into law. And I said then, oh, there is such a willingness in the body politic and in the Nation as a whole to strengthen security that never will we have to worry. These provisions will be implemented, and yet we saw the airlines lobby against 10-year criminal background checks for screeners. It took 10 years to get that provision of law implemented by rule. And positive passenger bag match and deployment of explosive detection systems. That then came September 11 and the new Transportation Security Act, and I said then, This time we will not make a mistake. We will write provisions in law and make them applicable by action of law, not by bureaucratic rule making so that the will of the people and of the Congress cannot be frustrated. And here we are 9 months later, frustrating that will of the Congress and of the people of this country to raise the bar of security. We raised it in law and in this bill it is being lowered again. And lowered to create a one year, at least, window of vulnerability for aviation security. We ought to remove that provision and I will propose the amendment tomorrow to do so.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman impugns to me an action that I did not take. The gentleman impugns to me an action that I did not take that was initiated by an administration and an action that I was not in support of.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.