James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, that is under way, but it is proving very difficult to manufacture this equipment in the time frame envisioned. We knew that a year ago. We knew very well it was going to be difficult to comply with, but this House, with an overwhelming vote, supported that legislation, supported those deadlines, because the public insisted on security in our aviation system. The protection for the flight deck, there was an interim measure that has now been in place for securing all flight deck doors, as an interim measure. There is under way with Boeing and Airbus a development of the ultimate flight deck secure door that has yet to be certified by the FAA, although the FAA is in the process of final evaluation, and hopefully yet by the end of this summer they will be able to certify that the flight deck doors proposed by the two aircraft manufacturing companies will be able to withstand all of the assault measures envisioned on board an aircraft. So that piece of the web security is not in place. We do not have positive passenger bag match required on all flights in the domestic service. We do not have a universal biometric system for identifying potential problem travelers. I think that, too, needs to be put in place. Absent all of those measures being put in place to provide the ultimate security for aviation that we envisioned in the Transportation Security Act, this bill before us does provide the next logical and responsible step of a test program to arm and to train pilots in the use of those armaments on board aircraft. I hope that the amendments offered will be rejected. They are not in conformity with the spirit of the legislation. If they are not rejected, I will be constrained to oppose this bill. I do not want to oppose it, but if these amendments or if any one of them is adopted, except the one on which we have agreed, then I feel the bill and the bipartisan spirit will have failed and I will not be prepared to go forward with this legislation. I know that the chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee have expressed their opposition to all but this one amendment, and we anticipate that there will be a satisfactory outcome, that the amendments will be rejected, and that the underlying bill can then be adopted by the House and be sent on to the other body, and hopefully to the President.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), as further amended in the version just read by the Clerk, is acceptable. I did not think it was necessary to take this step, but I think we have agreed on both sides of the aisle to accept the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, on the overall measure before us, since this is apparently the last amendment, and hopefully we will vote in the next 10 or 15 minutes, it is a good time to reflect back on where we are and where we have come with this legislation. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) has already referenced the strong support of the commercial airline pilot community for this legislation, and that certainly has become evident in the months since the tragic events of September. When first approached with the idea of arming flight deck crews, I was opposed to the idea. I have mentioned this in my opening remarks on the legislation. But as I weighed the progress being made by the Transportation Security Administration in putting in place the many provisions of our Transportation Security Act of last November, it became very clear that the interlocking web of security measures that we envisioned in that legislation is not in place. Secondly, pilots are concerned about the order of the President to NORAD to scramble, whether active Air Force units or Air National Guard units, to intercept a plane on which there may be a skyjacking of the September 11 type. Pilots rightly have said if that occurs, the pilot in command of the attacking jet could well be my right-hand pilot on the weekday, and on the weekend he would be ordered to scramble to shoot down my aircraft and my passengers, and I do not want that to happen. I want to be, if that is the case, the obstacle of last resort. Now, in aviation security, as in aviation safety, the entire structure is dependent upon a web of redundancies. We have backups for virtually every aviation safety system, and so we have done in crafting the Transportation Security Administration Act to establish a web of redundant security measures that back up and overlap one another. Those measures are now being put in place with great vigor by the Department of Transportation, by Secretary Mineta, Under Secretary Jackson or Deputy Secretary Jackson and Under Secretary McGaw, but it is a huge and daunting task. They have gone through spring housecleaning and they have cleaned out the old system while still keeping its structure in place and preparing to replace it. They have established a training curriculum for the instructors of the security screeners. They have established a system to recruit screeners who comply with the requirements of our law. They are in the process of training those security screeners, and have already put the first increment in place at Baltimore-Washington International Airport to test out the training curriculum, the operation of the new Federal security screeners, and to take those lessons into the classroom for the next wave of security screeners. They have moved vigorously at TSA to work with the industry producing explosive detection systems, the two companies that produced the two versions of explosive detection systems, and are encouraging them and are helping, with all the resources of the government, to have multiple production of these units by other companies.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for explaining the circumstances which caused a great deal of consternation on the floor and caused us to debate this amendment twice. As I said in debate the first time the amendment was offered, it goes contrary to the underlying principle of this entire bill, which is armed pilots. Because they have previous military or law enforcement experience, they know how to handle guns, they know how to handle a turbulent situation that clearly would be the case in the attempt of a hijacking of a lethal nature and, therefore, one of the principal motivating factors for this legislation. Now the gentleman proposes to strike the preference in the bill which emerges from that underlying premise. I find it a contradiction in terms. Furthermore, the language that the gentleman seeks to strike is a preference. It is not a prohibition, as I discussed in exchange with the gentleman from California. It is not an exclusion of anyone else, any person other than those in the two categories of previous military or law enforcement experience. So it just seems to me to be a puzzlement as to why we would. Notwithstanding the gentleman's explanation, I find it contrary to the amendment, contrary to the purpose of this legislation; and I urge my colleagues to defeat it.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I would like to inquire of the offerer of the amendment, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), why he withdrew the amendment in the first place, Mr. Chairman, and I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. OBERSTAR. It is only a preferential consideration.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, yes. The intention of the language in the bill is to give a preference to pilots who have previous military experience or law enforcement experience, but it is a preference only.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, once again reclaiming my time, I rise in opposition to both this one and the previous amendment withdrawn and do so because both are mistaken. To delete the preference for pilots who are former military or law enforcement personnel is a blow at the underlying premise of the entire concept of arming flight deck crews. It has been said time and again in advocating the legislation that pilots should be armed because they are former military, they have experience, they know how to handle a gun, and we ought to provide arms for them in the flight deck. This is simply a preference. This is not a mandatory requirement, but because of that argument, that pilots have prior military experience, know how to handle a gun, we should therefore arm them. The bill goes on to say that we should then give them preference in the hiring scheme. It does not make sense to strike that preference for those personnel who are the ones most likely to have experience and would probably need the least amount of training. The present pending amendment by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), we have already debated the issue of whether we ought to limit or remove the limits, the 2 percent cap on a number of pilots that can be sent through the experimental program. We have had an extensive debate on that issue already. It was defeated on a voice vote. We will have a recorded vote on it later. This simply is another amendment masquerading under different terms, but it is essentially the same amendment that we have already debated and I hope put to rest. But to expand the program to an unlimited number of commercial pilots goes against the compromise that we reached, against the concept of a pilot program, an experimental program where we work out all the issues and then decide whether or not to go ahead. I cannot support an unlimited program. I cannot support just go full bore ahead. We must address the issues that have already been discussed at great length, and I need not repeat them, of assuring the type of gun, type of bullet, the accidental discharge in the flight deck, shooting through navigational equipment. Those issues all have to be resolved before we can go through with a permanent program, and just for reasons I have already expressed, the costs and the burden on the Transportation Security Administration to train 70,000 to 85,000 pilots in a relatively brief period of time, when we have not got the security screeners trained yet, defies the imagination. It just does not make sense at all. The amendment should be defeated.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the other amendment proposed by the gentleman from Indiana to strike the preference for pilots, that amendment has been withdrawn?

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, again, just to be clear on what we are voting on here, because there is some great uncertainty, this is a very different amendment from the one on which I had an exchange with the gentleman. The gentleman from Indiana characterized his amendment as striking the preference for pilots. The amendment just read by the Clerk strikes the provisions of the underlying bill and would replace it with a different percentage of pilots and other requirements. I just want to make sure. Is this the amendment the gentleman intends to offer? Is this the amendment the gentleman proposes to offer, the amendment that deals with the percentage of pilots who volunteer to participate in the program, et cetera?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has already addressed that subject, and we have had some discussion on it. This is, apparently, further debate on the amendment previously offered and withdrawn and then offered again because of a technical mistake. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. Is the gentleman's amendment the one that would strike the preference for pilots or the amendment that would strike the 2 percent cap?

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I am puzzled, however, by the gentleman's amendment. It apparently proposes to strike the 2 percent cap and establishes a new accelerated time line and requires the Transportation Security Administration to deputize 20 percent of pilots that volunteer in the first 30 days. Is that the gentleman's amendment?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise without reluctance with great concern about this amendment in opposition to it. I have no hesitation at all in opposing this amendment, with great respect for the sincerity with which its authors come forward. But the road to destruction is paved with good intentions and sincerity, and we would be on a road to very serious problems with this amendment. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) has said and as the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) officially in his remarks has said, the bill before us today is the product of a very carefully thought through, debated, negotiated compromise, like most legislation that passes this House. In this case we have the benefit of the best ideas from both sides of the aisle coming together in support of a bill that both sides of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure can support this far and no farther. Now, the idea of creating a permanent program to arm pilots as compared to the bill which has a 2-year experimental program would totally undo this agreement. I could not support the bill should this pass. Then the bill, I think, would not pass because I think there is great reluctance among Members on both sides of the aisle about the issue of arming pilots. There is, as was expressed by a previous speaker, the gentleman from Illinois, the public is not at all sure about this idea of arming pilots. In fact, time and again travelers aboard aircraft have asked me with some trepidation in their voice about having guns in the cockpit. We have achieved a balance between those in this body who are vehemently opposed to arming flight deck crews and those who are vigorously in support of it, those who are in between. There are reservations on both sides. I think the bill before us balances the equity. Expanding the basic program to an unlimited number of commercial pilots within such a short time frame would frankly undermine aviation security in general. This would mean, passage of this amendment would mean training tens of thousands of commercial pilots to carry guns. The Transportation and Security Administration already is having a difficult time training the airport security check point personnel. They have not been deployed at airports around this country. How in heaven's name are they going to take on the additional task of training tens of thousands of commercial pilots? They have not fully trained the Federal air marshals necessary to put them on board all flights. There just simply is not going to be enough personnel. There is not going to be enough time or money to train such a vast number of personnel. I listened with great interest as the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, addressed the issue of costs. Based on Congressional Budget Office estimates of some 70,000, their estimate is 100 percent of the 70,000 pilots. That is a low number. I think there are more like 85,000 commercial pilots. If you do 100 percent training, the cost estimate is $560 million a year. Well, we do not have unlimited dollars to address this issue. There is not enough money in the aviation security charge that we have imposed upon air travelers to cover that cost. There is not enough money to do all the other things that we are attempting to do that I think have a much higher priority than training flight deck crews. We have a solid approach, sensible approach, a step-by-step approach. Let us take this 2-year pilot program, make sure that it works, make sure that under the circumstances we have set forth it will be effective, and let us not go beyond that point. Oppose this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment. Mr. Chairman, we worked long and hard to negotiate the terms of this manager's amendment to complement the work done in subcommittee and in full committee to respond to a number of concerns that were raised subsequent to subcommittee action and during full committee consideration of the bill. The same bipartisan spirit that characterized the crafting of the bill that we considered in subcommittee and full committee characterizes the manager's amendment. The bill requires the Transportation Security Administration within 2 months of enactment to conduct a study of the risk that a misfire in the cockpit will result in a catastrophic event. By that, I understand and intend, firing a bullet into the autopilot or firing into the navigational guidance system or any of the other on-board equipment that is essential to the navigation of the aircraft. We need to know before launching this program what will be the effects of such an accidental misfire. The manager's amendment requires the Transportation Security Administration, should they have determined that there is a significant risk to the aircraft, to take necessary actions to minimize that risk. That is another, I think, important caveat and protective step that we must take in this process. The amendment also provides authority for the Under Secretary for Transportation Security to suspend the program if an accidental discharge results in injury or death of a passenger or a crew member and requires the Under Secretary to revoke the deputation of the pilot who is responsible for that accidental discharge. TSA must also report all incidents where a gun is discharged on an aircraft, including accidental discharge, and provide a report to the Congress within 3 years. Issues were raised in subcommittee and full committee about the storage of weapons. The manager's amendment requires TSA to specifically address whether the storage of weapons at airports between flights would enhance security. It requires the under secretary to respond to requests from carriers to arm flight crews with nonlethal weapons within 90 days of each request. It also addresses in detail that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) has already covered the provisions for training of flight attendants, including establishing a single contact person within TSA to oversee that training program; and it makes that training mandatory, as is evacuation procedure training mandatory and other safety measures mandatory for flight attendants. I think the way we have crafted the training for cabin crew is very thoughtful and effective and should be carried out, if this legislation is enacted, with vigor by the Transportation Security Administration. As I think virtually every Member of the House does, I fully sympathize with the concerns raised by flight attendants. They are the first line of safety on board an aircraft. They also now are the first line of security, along with Federal air marshals, on board an aircraft; and the legislation we are presenting today makes the pilots the last line of security aboard an aircraft. So I think we have covered all the concerns and enhanced the legislation with the manager's amendment, and I support its adoption.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to correct some misimpressions that were left by previous speakers, talking somewhat enthusiastically about guns in the flight deck prior to this legislation. The actual history is that under general authority of the FAA to protect security aboard aircraft, it was permitted for pilots to carry guns. There is no record of the actual number of pilots who were armed prior to 1981. In 1981, there was a specific regulation issued by FAA under its security authority to allow arming of pilots provided the airline company permitted the arming, and the pilot voluntarily chose to do so. Again, the FAA can produce no records of the number of pilots who were so armed. It is ironic, however, that it was last year, last summer, in fact, the summer of 2001, that the authority for armed pilots in the flight deck was repealed by FAA. This is new authority, new legislation. I just want the record to be clear on this point that we are charting a very new course, and doing so, I believe, in a very responsible, thoughtful and careful manner. This is a much bigger undertaking, much greater initiative than ever conceived of in the past. As previous speakers have said, there clearly is a case to be made, I believe, now for arming flight crews. It ought to be done in this careful, thoughtful manner to a point where the 2- year demonstration is undertaken, the questions are resolved, and then a further determination made on whether to proceed with a permanent program which, again, we can revisit in this body and enact should it be necessary to do so. Meanwhile, I think we have crafted here a very fine piece of legislation that stands on its merits and ought to be adopted by this body. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, initially when this legislation was introduced and the idea proposed of arming the flight deck crew, I was very much opposed to the idea. I just felt this was not a good idea, that the flight deck crew under any circumstances ought to be paying its full attention to the very complex job of managing and integrating systems in the flight deck and managing the flight itself, a full-time job. You should not have to be distracted by the details of worrying about a gun and where it is going to be and how it is going to be used and under what circumstances. But, as I discussed the matter further with the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member on our side, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), and with the Airline Pilots Association and with individual pilots, I came to be persuaded that the case was being made that under the current circumstances of an incomplete aviation security system that the appeal for arms in the flight deck had at least some limited viability and an underlying rationale. And that rationale is that not all of the protective measures that we have authorized in the Transportation Security Administration Act of last fall have been fully implemented. We do not yet have explosive detection systems deployed at all commercial airports. The trace technology for a backup system, a supplemental system of detecting explosives in checked luggage and carry-on luggage, is in its testing phase. It has not yet been authorized for full deployment. We did not have positive passenger bag match for all checked luggage. We do not have deployment of the Federal security screener workforce at all security checkpoints at the Nation's airports. We do not yet have a biometrics system for frequent fliers or for detection of terrorists known to our intelligence systems. We do not yet have a program of training the cabin crew onboard aircraft against terrorist actions. And furthermore, the pilots have said that in the ordinary course of events, the pilot in command and the first officer flying side by side, on the weekends that first officer is likely a member of the National Guard or Reserve and will be having flying duty on the weekend and could be ordered by the President of the United States under an executive order issued lasted year to NORAD to scramble military jets and shoot down that very aircraft that during the week the pilot now flying for the National Guard was co-pilot on. The pilot said to me, I do not want to be in that position. I do not want the last resort to be U.S. National Guard aircraft shooting down, or active military aircraft, shooting down my aircraft when I could be the force of last resort. That is a compelling argument. In the process we have worked together, and I appreciate the forbearance of the Chair in the full committee and the participation of the Chair of the subcommittee, and particularly the splendid work that the ranking member on our side, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), has done bringing the Democratic Members of the subcommittee and full committee together to discuss on numerous occasions concerns with the bill and changes to that legislation which have now been incorporated, and I can say this truly is a bipartisan piece of legislation. And amongst the most significant changes are that there will be training for the pilots, significant training, comparable to that for flight sky marshals. There will be extensive review by the Transportation Security Administration of the type of weapon to be used in the flight deck, not just any gun, but what type of gun, and more importantly, what type of bullet. Not all bullets are appropriate for the flight deck. For example, armor-piercing bullets. We would not want those to be used in the flight deck. Third, there will be testing done of an errant discharge into the control panel. I want to know what will happen, what will happen if the gun is accidentally discharged into the onboard computer, into the altimeter, into the glass cockpit of a 757, where all the controls are in one single panel; what will happen and how will you counteract the destabilization that will occur. Those questions have to be answered before you go ahead with this program. And under this legislation, those issues will be addressed and assessed and alternative measures taken. We have also, I think, perhaps the most important factor for me is that instead of a permanent program from the outset, we have a true test. This is a 2-year initiative. At the end of that period of time, it will be up to the Secretary of Transportation on the advice of the Under Secretary for the Transportation Security Administration whether to go ahead and make this a permanent program. Now, if in the meantime the Department of Transportation does what it is directed to do under the Transportation Security Act of 2001 and puts in place all of the other protective measures that I have already cited, positive passenger bag match, explosive detection systems, training of cabin crew and trace proves to be an effective technology and can be deployed and we have the security check points administered by Federal security crew and we have the strengthened flight deck doors that have been designed, not yet certified, hopefully will be and also being put in place, when all of those protective measures, the interlocking web of security is deployed, then guns will no longer be necessary in the flight deck. That has been the example of El Al, which initially armed flight crews, but after all the other protective measures were put in place and they were satisfied that a complex web of security was in place in the flight deck, then guns were removed; and that I think should be our example and our objective. The legislation we have crafted and which we bring to the floor today is, I believe, a balanced responsible measure that takes into consideration the concerns of those who are in charge of the flight, the flight deck crew. I do not think that we should have any amendments to this legislation either. We have gone about as far as I think we need to go. I think we have taken into account all the many concerns expressed. It is a fair and balanced bipartisan compromise, and I appreciate the work that our colleagues have done on both sides of the aisle. I particularly want to express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois for his splendid work and the many hours of time put in on this legislation and also, again, to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for their cooperation throughout this very long process. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.