James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, there always are at the beginning of a fiscal year when the funding has not been designated, but those dollars will be committed and are already spoken for.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I think that the important work of the aviation security measure that we enacted which is now law can go forward. It is unfortunate that some sky marshals, frankly, have not been paid. I have been made aware of situations where sky marshals have performed their job now for several weeks but have not been paid and that is because the $20 billion fund has not been made available for this purpose because it was not a specific authorization. Now, the bill before us is supposed to have a specific authorization to do these things. It was not our understanding that the Aviation Trust Fund was to be raided for this purpose. In the Aviation Security Act it provided a $2.50 airline ticket surcharge that in the coming years is estimated to raise between $800 million and $1,200,000,000 depending on when that fee is actually put into effect; and in the following year, a full year of operation, that fee would raise $2.65 billion. That is enough money to fund these purposes. But we should not raid the trust fund which is needed now more than ever before for the runway improvements, taxiway improvements and the investment dollars that are needed at this most critical time for aviation to get back on its feet. I appreciate again the very difficult position the chairman was in. I wish that we had been involved at an early stage of this process on this side so some of our concerns could have been taken into consideration. Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Filner

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, that is why we proposed a surcharge. The funds to be taken by this language are already spoken for. They are already spoken for in the FAA, and are needed for the purposes for which they are intended. The additional money to pay for the sky marshals was to have come out of $20 billion. That was our understanding.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I appreciate what the chairman has just said; however, our side was not involved in these discussions, and it is obvious that the chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management was not involved. We could well have worked with the Committee on Appropriations to craft language that would have been acceptable to our committee, and then folded that into the appropriation process. That is the concern that we have.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, the sky marshal program was established by President Nixon by executive order issued on September 11, 1970, with funds appropriated not out of the airport and airways trust fund, not out of an aviation account, but out of a separate account dedicated to fund the sky marshal program. That program ramped up to a few thousand sky marshals, and then gradually dwindled down. When the $40 billion was appropriated in the aftermath of September 11, the Secretary of Transportation made it clear that the funding initially of the sky marshal program, the ramping up of the program would come out of that $20 billion, and we do not see any reason to raid the trust fund in order to do that. The Secretary made a commitment, and I think the purpose is very clear. The Committee on Appropriations has so many demands on the $20 billion, it does not want to exceed its $20 billion, and dipped into the trust fund to do so.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana has made a very powerful and compelling case. Steel is the basic building block of an industrial society. In 1947, author John Gunther wrote that what makes America the greatest industrialized Nation in the world is its ability to roll more steel than the Soviet Union, Germany, France, Belgium and Great Britain combined. That statement is no longer true. We are bombarded by unfairly traded steel, subsidized in foreign countries, to preserve a basic building block of their economy and to dump their excess capacity in the world's largest open free market, the United States. While we have played in the international trade arena by the Marquis of Queensbury rules, other countries are playing with black belt karate and kicking our brains out. Brazil, 27 different tax subsidies for the production and export of steel. Russia, Ukraine, producing steel at a loss in order to keep people working, and dumping their steel in this market and causing unemployment here. The gentleman spoke well and truly about the legacy costs of the domestic steel industry. His amendment is one way, but the best way to avoid those legacy costs is for the administration to conclude the 201 proceeding now underway; impose countervailing duties or tariffs or quotas, and stop the influx of subsidized steel; let the U.S. steel industry continue to work, to hire people, to keep them on the job, to keep those payrolls going. And we will not have to draw down the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation funding to support the retirement funds that are in jeopardy. We will not have to pay unemployment compensation to pay people not to work. We ought to do either what the gentleman from Indiana is suggesting or impose the penalty phase of the injury process underway now in the International Trade Commission.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do so for the purpose of responding to the chairman's question where these funds are going to come from, and the implication that the point of order made by the gentleman from Illinois struck the money. In fact, the point of order struck the source of the funding. It did not strike the $466.5 million in this legislation. When the Congress appropriated $40 billion in the immediate aftermath of September 11, $20 billion was clearly understood to go to New York for its needs and another $20 billion to respond to other needs of the economy. And it was made very clear at that time when the Secretary of Transportation announced that sky marshals would be assigned to domestic flights that the funding for those sky marshals would come out of that $20 billion. That is the basis on which we have proceeded. That in this interim period of time until the surcharge on airline tickets provided for in the aviation security bill is put into effect and the money is raised, that the emergency appropriation of $20 billion in part would cover the cost of the sky marshals. Mr. Chairman, does the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee have a different understanding?

Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman from Ohio will continue to yield, my question simply was, did the Committee on Appropriations understand in crafting this language that they were, in some sense, removing from the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management its responsibility for oversight and for authorization of these actions by the chief administrative officer in order to protect the House's interest in appropriate real estate transactions; protect us against speculative actions?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I share the chairman's great concern, and I appreciate that the Committee on Appropriations wants to give this authority in the emergency circumstances, but it is authority that is not necessary. The chief administrative officer now has authority to sign agreements with executive branch agencies, like GSA, that can supply office space in time of emergency. And I have great concerns about the language used in this provision. Section 801 has terms that are not defined, ``facilities,'' ``such other arrangements,'' and ``other entities.'' Seems to me that broadly worded language of that nature leaves the House open to risk, leaves us open to speculative real estate transactions without the ordinary scrutiny that would be undertaken by the subcommittee which the gentleman from Ohio chairs. I just wonder whether the Committee on Appropriations had given thought to this: whether in providing such broad language they really intended to remove from the committee's appropriate oversight responsibility these actions by the chief administrative officer. Is the chairman prepared to respond to that concern?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the difficult position the chairman of our committee was in in this process, wanting to accomplish the right thing for aviation security, but also constrained by the appropriation process. Now, striking that provision does not strike the money. The money is available. It is just the source of money. Now, when this body moved in the immediate aftermath of September 11 to appropriate the $40 billion, it was clearly understood $20 billion of that was to be set aside for New York and another $20 billion was to be used for other purposes. And it was also made clear by the executive branch and specifically by the Secretary of Transportation that one of the first measures to be instituted in aviation security would be to bring sky marshals aboard domestic flights; and that the funding for those sky marshals would come out of this $20 billion of the initial $40 billion. It does not seem reasonable to me to raid the Aviation Trust Fund, to do that when there was already commitment to take those dollars out of another source. But I understood the difficult position that our committee chairman was in. I want to see if there would be a commitment from the Committee on Appropriations that these Aviation Trust Fund dollars would be restored and in what way and in what time. But our ranking member felt very strongly about this matter that we worked on a bipartisan basis in the last Congress to fashion and enact Air 21 with the firewalls to understand those dollars would not be raided for other purposes. We do not know what specifically those dollars are going to go for from the Aviation Trust Fund. It would have been good to have an elucidation on that. I regret that I was not on the floor at that time. I confess I had a meeting with the Federal Highway Administrator talking about other matters, and I rushed over as soon as I concluded that meeting. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point is that the surcharge is to pay for those acquisitions, and payment of sky marshals is to come out of the $20 billion. We should have had this dialogue long before this moment, before coming to the floor with this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. In the facilities and equipment accounts, yes.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, this morning I attended an important Congressional Steel Caucus meeting with Department of Commerce Secretary Don Evans and Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade Grant Aldonas to discuss effective remedies to combat the illegal importation of subsidized steel products. I was presiding this steel caucus discussion when recorded votes were ordered, and I miss three rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the Journal vote (rollcall Vote 451); I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 77 (rollcall Vote 452); and I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 2722 (rollcall Vote 453).

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes. Today, we conclude consideration of the most important aviation security bill in 30 years. Since the beginning of aviation security in 1970, when President Richard Nixon signed an executive order establishing the Federal Air Marshal Service in response to repeated acts of skyjacking that were occurring at a rate of an average of one every 2 weeks, he signed that executive order on September 11, 1970. Thirty-one years later, an ominous date for us all. With the establishment of the air marshals and 2 years later with the establishment at airport checkpoints of X-ray machines for carry-on luggage and metal detectors for passengers, we did not in the domestic United States experience a skyjacking until this past September but once in 1991, and a minor incident it was. Since then, aviation security has evolved through several iterations. The first was persons skyjacking aircraft. The next was placing bombs aboard aircraft, blowing up Pan Am 103, blowing up TWA on the runway at Cairo, blowing up UTU, a French airliner, over Chad in central Africa. Each time we responded with new initiatives, based on the last terrorist action. The commission established by this House, Pan Am 103 commission, President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism, on which I proudly served with our colleague John Paul Hammersmith from this body, we made numerous recommendations to vastly improve aviation security. We said in the aftermath of 103 that aviation security now will be changed forever; but we also recognized that there was a matter of political will, that is, will of the public to support more intrusion into their lives, delay as they board aircraft, and that we needed to sustain a high level of vigilance in the body politic of America and a high level of vigilance on the part of leaders of this government. With time, just as the commission suspected, that level of vigilance eroded. September 11 has now cast its shadow long over aviation in America, aviation in the Western world; and we are gathered here today to raise the bar of security higher than ever before, hopefully to look beyond the last tragedy, to anticipate what might next happen; and in this legislation, I believe we achieve that objective. I want to express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee, who has done an admirable job of leading us through this thicket of conflicting views, stood for principles, and we have worked successfully together; express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who have worked together with me in a threesome that have contributed extraordinarily great ideas to improving security; to all the Members on the Democratic side of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure who have contributed their good thoughts and ideas to shaping the bill and who shaped the bill that we offered as a motion to recommit, most of which is reflected in the bill that is before us, the conference report that is before us today. We bring to this body a bill that will substantially enhance security and restore airline finances more than the financial package that was passed a few days ago. Again, I express my great gratitude and appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), who has been a leader in the field of aviation and now in aviation security; to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who for 15 years has advocated many of the provisions that are included in this conference report; to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman; to our colleagues in the other body. This is truly a bipartisan product. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).