James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Florida, with whom I have worked on travel and tourism issues. One of the reasons that the Aviation Security Act of 1990 was so long in reaching fruition is that the rules required to implement the provisions of law had to go through excruciating cost-benefit analyses. One of the matters in which Members on our side, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and I were agreed upon, and on which the chairman of the full committee and chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), were agreed, was that cost-benefit analysis on rulemaking should be waived in matters of security. The provisions of this legislation are very clear: The Under Secretary shall consider whether the costs are excessive in relation to the enhancement of the security the regulation will provide. The Under Secretary may waive requirements for analysis that estimate the number of lives that would be saved by regulation and the monetary value of such lives if the Under Secretary determines it is not feasible. That kind of cost-benefit analysis has given to the FAA the unfortunate misnomer of ``tombstone mentality.'' It is not because the FAA wanted to do those analyses, it is because they had to. And we are going to take that onerous burden out of the rulemaking process and speed it up in the interest of security and saving lives. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to myself. Mr. Speaker, I too join the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) in acknowledging and with great appreciation the role of the Speaker who repeatedly brought Members together to discuss the content of an aviation security bill and pressed on both sides of the aisle his sense of urgency to get a bill through this body and through conference and to the President. And to our minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), who with equal passion, persistence, and fervor advocated resolution of issues. Many times he appealed to me to find common ground with the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young). And to Senator Hollings, the Chair of our House-Senate Conference, who was a tower of strength, with an unswerving commitment to principle, and to the principle of getting a bill passed, getting a conference report that would work. They together were leaders in the very best sense of the term. Of course, again, our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), who throughout with passion, with vigor, with humor, with his common sense approach brought us to this point of resolution. To the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the Chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation, who has been a quick student of aviation and from his very first year in this body sought service on the Subcommittee on Aviation, participated in the hearings, did our field trips and paid attention to the details of aviation and has proven himself a vigorous and worthy advocate for aviation. I am grateful for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time remains?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, first and foremost among the litany of thanks and appreciation should be the members of the professional staff of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, who worked vigorously over the past several weeks, intensively since September 11, who gave not only weekdays, but week nights, Saturday and Sunday and Monday of this past weekend, in order to bring us to this point with care and skill in working out the language. Often conferees get together and Members discuss principles without specific direction on how to translate those principles into the actual language, and this dedicated staff have done that. I specifically want to mention David Heymsfeld, whose shadow looms long over all aviation legislation in the last 25 years. His fingerprints are on every major piece of aviation legislation. Also Ward McCarragher, Stacie Soumbeniotis, Amy Griffith Denicore, Sheila Lockwood, Dara Schlieker, Rachel Carr, Michael McLaughlin, of the staff of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski); Kathy Weatherly, staff of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio); Lloyd Jones, who has proven a strong leader on the Republican staff; Mike Strachn, Elizabeth Megginson, Levon Boyagian, Fraser Verrusio, David Schaeffer, with whom I have worked for many, many years on aviation; Sharon Barkeloo, Adam Tsao, Cheryl McCullough, Sharon Pinkerton, and Legislative Counsels David Mendelsohn and Curt Haensel. On the Senate side: Kevin Kayes, Moses Boyd, Sam Whitehorn, Gael Sullivan, Kerry Ates, Mark Buse, Rob Chamberlin, Mike Reynolds, Joe Mondello, David Crane, and Legislative Counsel Lloyd Ator. Without their vigorous efforts, we could not have come to this point, especially after the computer crash this morning. We achieve in this legislation something that has been a long-time goal of mine, of the families of the victims of Pan Am 103, establishing within the Department of Transportation at the level of the Secretary an Under Secretary for Transportation Security. When proposed, it was rejected by the administration at the time. They did not want an additional bureaucracy. Now, the wisdom of establishing it, the wisdom of our commission recommendation 11 years ago, is fulfilled in this legislation. I introduced legislation in 1986-87 to establish an Assistant Secretary for Intermodalism in DOT. That never came to fruition. But, effectively, we have it now. And for that I thank the chairman of the full committee for realizing the significance of it, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation for understanding how important it is to elevate security for all modes of transportation to the level of the Secretary himself. If I had my way, I would make one change in this bill, and that is to require on every airline ticket, accompanying the fee that we are going to impose for aviation security, the September 11 fund, so that never again will people forget what happened on September 11 and why we were brought to this legislation, why we are here today, and why we are doing something so substantial for the future of aviation and the future security of air travelers.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to myself. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very thoughtful words of the distinguished majority whip, but I must point out that the bill that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and others offered on the floor that was the product of the other body did cover screening of checked luggage and it did have a citizenship requirement. In fact, it was one of the impediments on this floor. It had a supercitizenship requirement that caused some distress for some Members of this body. But I do appreciate the observations of the distinguished majority whip. Had the chairman and I been able to work things out without overarching influences, I think we would have had this bill on the floor 3 weeks ago. I would also like to observe, Mr. Speaker, that never have I been prouder to stand in this Chamber with a colleague than on the day we debated the security litigation with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), who stood on a matter of principle. He is of a prototype about which President Kennedy wrote in his book ``Profiles in Courage.'' It does take courage to stand against your party, against your President on a matter of principle; and because he took the stand, we are here today with an improved version of that bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, what is the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the enthusiasm of the gentleman from Alabama and his support. I would point out that perimeter security and access to the AOA, operations area, has been a requirement in law ever since the Aviation Security Act of 1990. It just has not been vigorously enforced. This legislation will provide much more vigorous enforcement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I would say while the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is still in the Chamber, the checking of all hold luggage by explosive detection systems has been an objective since before and especially after Pan Am 103. It was achieved with great debate in the course of the conference. It was not an easy victory. We are appreciative of the support we have had on both sides of the aisle to get that goal. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), a member of the Committee, and thank him for his yeoman's service in shaping this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record at this point a summary of the aviation security conference agreement. SUMMARY--Aviation Security Conference Agreement Jurisdiction Airport security will be placed under the jurisdiction of a new Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in the Department of Transportation, headed by an Under Secretary of Transportation. Under Secretary may issue emergency orders or security directives without notice and comment and without a cost- benefit analysis. For non-emergency rulemaking, federal official may waive cost-benefit requirements if such benefits cannot be quantified. Airport Security Screeners All passenger and property screening at all airports will be done by employees of the TSA. The transition from the current system of contract screeners to a completely federal force will be completed within one year of the enactment of this legislation. The TSA will develop a pilot program that will have passenger screening provided by private contractors. The program will involve a total of five airports, one in each security category of airports. The program will begin one- year from enactment (after TSA has certified it has federalized the screening function). The five airports must request participation. Two years after the TSA certifies that all federal screeners are in place, airports will be given the option to request that the passenger screening at their facilities be done by private screeners working under contract with the federal government. Such companies must be U.S. owned and controlled (to the extent that the TSA determines that there are such companies) Passenger Security Charge Federal airport security services will be financed through a passenger fee of $2.50 per enplanement, with a maximum charge of $5.00 per one-way trip. For FY 2002-2004, the airlines will be assessed a fee equivalent to the annual amount the airlines spent, in the aggregate, on passenger screening services prior to September 11, 2001. Beginning in FY 2005, the Under Secretary will assess the fee on air carriers based on market share and other appropriate measures. Airport may use AIP and PFC funds in FY02 to pay for O&M security expenses. A total $1.5 billion over two years (FY02- 03) is authorized to reimburse airports, vendors of on- airfield services and parking lots for direct costs associated with complying with additional security measures. Airports may use AIP and PFC funds to pay debt service on bonds. Screening Passengers and Baggage--All checked baggage shall be screened by explosive detection systems (EDS) no later than December 31, 2002. Until such EDS machines are deployed in sufficient numbers all checked baggage shall be screened by one or a combination of, the following methods: (1) bag- match; (2) manual search; (3) K-9 teams (if supplemented by 1-3 above); or (4) screening by appropriate technology. Secured Area Access--All persons, vehicles, and other equipment shall be screened or inspected before entry into a secured area. Specific requirements shall be established for such screening that will assure the same level of protection as the screening of passengers and property under the Act. Catering companies and others with regular access to secured areas must have a security program in place. Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System--CAPPS shall be used to screen all passengers (not just those who check in at the ticket counter), and procedures shall be adopted to ensure that CAPPS selectees and their carry-on baggage also receive appropriate screening (previously, CAPPS only resulted in screening of checked baggage). Background Checks Employees--All individuals (including current employees) that have access to a secured area shall undergo a background investigation, including a criminal history records check and a review of available law enforcement data bases and records of other governmental and international agencies (if available). Flight School Trainees--Requires background checks for aliens (and other persons designated by the Under Secretary) seeking instruction in flying aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds. Attorney General must conduct the checks within 45 days; if such checks are not completed then individual can begin training. Once training has begun, training shall be terminated if the Attorney General determines that the individual poses a risk. Flight schools to train employees to recognize suspicious activities. other security provisions Airfield Security--Strengthens perimeter security by increasing law enforcement presence. Technical support shall be given to small and medium airports to enhance security. Cockpit Security--Mandates cockpit doors and locks that cannot be opened by anyone other than the flight crew, with no in-flight access, except for entrance or exit by authorized persons. Provides for the evaluation of similar measures to strengthen cockpit doors for commuter aircraft. Arming Pilots--Pilots may carry guns in the cockpit if approved by the air carrier and the TSA, and if pilots have undergone an approved training program. Federal Air Marshals--Air Marshals may be deployed on every passenger flight. Air Marshals subject to background checks and must be properly trained. Enhanced Terrorism Training--Provides anti-hijack training for flight crews. Airline ticket and curbside agents must receive terrorist awareness training. Passenger Manifests--U.S. and foreign airlines on international flights both inbound and outbound (if properly equipped) to provide to Customs by electronic transmission the passenger and crew manifests. Parking Ban--An airport may certify to the Department of Transportation after consulting with appropriate law enforcement officials that sufficient security procedures are in place to end parking restrictions. The Department of Transportation has the right to reverse an airport's decision within a specified number of days, varying by airport size. liability Liability limitations extended to air carriers, aircraft manufacturers, and airport sponsors or persons having a property interest in the World Trade Center. Liability limitations do not extend to security screening companies. Liability for the City of New York limited to insurance coverage or $350 million.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a vigorous advocate for this legislation and a great help. (Mr. Pascrell asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah). (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation. (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2841 is a bill to designate the court of international trade in New York City in honor of Judge James L. Watson. Judge Watson, a native New Yorker born in Harlem in 1922, lived and worked his entire life in New York. He served in the New York State Senate and as a Civil Court Judge before his appointment by President Johnson to the federal bench in 1966. During World War II, he served in the legendary Buffalo Soldiers Division. He was awarded the Purple Heart, the Battle Star, the Combat Infantry Badge, and a U.S. Army commendation. After the war, he began private practice and became actively involved in local politics. In 1963, he was appointed to the Civil Court of New York and hired our Colleague Charlie Rangel as one of his staff attorneys. During his years on the Court of International Trade, he modernized the court system and played a major role in rewriting the court's rules. He was instrumental in introducing computers into judicial activity . Judge Watson was the Nation's most senior African-American federal judge. He enjoyed a national reputation for handling our fair sentences. He was a sought-after public speaker, served on the Board of Visitors of Fordham University, and on the board of the Harlem YMCA. His colleagues, politicians, and even other lawyers, sought his wise advice and safe counsel. Judge Watson's life serves as a model of diligence, hard work, and fairness. It is a well-deserved honor to designate the very building in which Judge Watson served with distinction for over three decades as the ``James L. Watson United States Court of International Trade Building.'' I urge all Members to support this bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I join Chairman Young in introducing (by request) the Administration's bill to reauthorize the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) hazardous materials program. Given the recent threats to our nation's security, it is particularly important that we have in place a program that strengthens the Department of Transportation's inspection and enforcement authority over hazardous materials movements. To address the threats to the security and safety associated with the transportation of hazardous materials, DOT inspectors need clear authority to open and inspect packages they believe might contain hazardous materials and to issue emergency orders to stop unsafe practices that pose an immediate threat to life, property, and the environment. The bill also addresses the problem of undeclared hazardous materials shipments by mail. The bill authorizes the United States Postal Service to collect fines and recover damages for violations of hazardous materials regulations. The proposal calls for substantial increases in penalties for those who would violate Federal hazardous materials laws and regulations. However, I have a number of concerns with the Administration's proposal that I hope we will address during consideration of any hazardous materials legislation. This is not the time to compromise on the safety and security of hazardous materials transportation. The risks from serious hazmat releases to employees of hazmat transporters and the public-at-large are simply too great to allow for legislation that offers anything but the highest level of protection. I look forward to working with the Chairman, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Administration to craft a hazardous materials reauthorization bill that will best meet the needs of hazardous materials transporters, their workers, and the American people.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, we are a nation of immigrants, most of whom arrived on the shores of the United States by ship. We are a country in which 95 percent of our imports from noncontiguous countries are brought to us by ship. Yet, less than one percent of our imports and exports are transported on U.S.-flag ships. The Baltimore Sun recently published two articles that accurately described the decline of the U.S.-flag fleet. As the article states, vessels don't fly the U.S.-flag anymore ``because American cargo ships are also the most expensive in the world.'' The first article was titled ``Merchant marine's demise endangers war readiness''. Not only will we not have sufficient ships to move our war materials, but we won't have enough trained sailors to operate the laid-up fleet of Government-owncd ships that the Department of Defense is depending on to transport our tanks and heavy equipment when they are mobilized. In 1991, the United States needed more than 200 cargo ships to support Operation Desert Storm. To get those vessels operating, we called up retired seamen who had sailed during World War II. Today, we have fewer ships and fewer trained personnel. President Franklin Roosevelt recognized the need for a privately owned and operated merchant marine. Without the U.S.-flag merchant marine, Great Britain would not have had the supplies to survive the onslaught of Germany. Today, the world would be a very different place had it not been for the men who served our nation during World War II in the U.S. merchant marine. President Roosevelt proposed, and Congress passed, the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. This program established the Operating Differential Subsidy program to help pay U.S. shipowners for the higher cost of operating their vessels under the U.S.-flag. By 1951 there were 1,238 privately owned U.S.-flag vessels sailing on the oceans of the world. Unfortunately, it has been all down hill from there. Today, there are 94 U.S.-flag vessels in the U.S. foreign trade and seven U.S.-flag vessels ``in trade between foreign countries. The question is: Why has this happened? The answer: The higher cost of operating a vessel under the U.S.-flag due to various Federal requirements. Today, shipowners can buy quality ships from many countries in the world. Containerships, tankers, and cruise ships all must be built to high standards established by the International Maritime Organizations. However, which country the owner chooses to register the ship can significantly affect the cost of the operating the ship. Shipowners change their vessel's registration every day to avail themselves of lower costs offered by different flags. If you choose to register your ship in Panama, you don't have to pay any income taxes on your shipping income. You can hire low cost crews from countries like the Philippines and Malaysia. And, if you register in these countries you don't have to worry about the cost of being sued when a seaman is injured or killed. All of the European countries have seen similar declines in their flag fleets, because shipowners choose to transfer their country of registry to lower cost countries. However, in the past several years, countries such as Norway, Germany, and Great Britain have changed their laws to make their fleets more competitive in the international market. In the past 18 months, the size of the British fleet has increased by 40 percent due to the changes in their tax and maritime policies. It is time for the United States, once the greatest maritime power in the world, to make similar changes. Instead of proposing a subsidy program like the one proposed by President Roosevelt, it is time to look at the underlying laws that increase the cost of operating under the U.S.-flag. Today, I have introduced H.R. --, the ``Merchant Marine Cost Parity Act of 2001''. This legislation, which Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young has cosponsored, addresses four areas that significantly increase the cost of operating a vessel under the U.S.-flag: tax costs, wage costs, insurance costs, and vessel inspection costs. This act will help to decrease the tax liability for operating a vessel under the U.S. flag. Currently, a shipowner must pay a traditional ``income tax'' on his profits if the vessel is registered in the United States. H.R. -- is modeled after the British Tonnage Tax system that replaced its tax based on income with a flat tax based on the tonnage of the ship. For example, under H.R. --, if the container ship Regina Maersk (43,399 net tons) were registered under the U.S.-flag it would pay a flat tax of $17,476 a year to the U.S. Government. This is computed by the shipowner being allocated a daily income for the ship based on the tonnage of the ship at a rate of $.40 for each ton up to 25,000 net tons and $.20 for each ton over 25,000 net tons. Therefore, the owner of the Regina Maersk would have a daily income of $136.80. When multiplied by 365 days, this totals an annual income of $49,932. This amount is taxed at the 35 percent U.S. corporate income tax rate to establish a total tax liability of $17,476 a year for the shipping income of the Regina Maersk. This is comparable to the tax liability that would be due if this ship were registered under the British flag. What is ironic is that this provision should not cost the Federal treasury much money because with fewer than 100 ships currently operating under the U.S.-flag in the foreign trade, there will be a minimal amount of tax revenue lost. In addition, most foreign-flag vessels don't have to pay the treasury any income taxes on their shipping income today. Therefore, if they transfer to the U.S. flag and pay $17,000 in tonnage taxes, it's certainly more than the amount they're paying in income taxes now under a foreign flag. Federal law requires seamen employed on U.S.-flag vessels to be U.S. citizens. We in the United States have the benefit of a much higher standard of living than many of the countries that supply seafarers for foreign-flag vessels. However, U.S. tax laws do not treat U.S. seamen the same as we treat other U.S. citizens working overseas. If a U.S. citizen is working overseas for any other industry, such as a bank or oil company, he or she do not have to pay any U.S. 'income tax on their first $80,000 in income. While seamen are working overseas, they do not get any similar tax break. H.R. _ helps to decrease the cost of operating on a U.S.-flag vessel by granting seamen working on U.S.-flag vessels in the foreign trade the same exclusion from taxation on their first $80,000 in income as we grant every other U.S. citizen working overseas. H.R. _ also seeks to address the higher vessel design costs imposed by complying with U.S. Coast Guard standards. My bill exempts the vessel from Coast Guard standards as long as the vessel meets the safety standards established by the International Maritime Organization. This provision will allow U.S.-flag vessels 'in the foreign trade to meet the same standards as their foreign-flag competitors. The cost of buying insurance for U.S.-flag vessels engaged in the foreign trade is also higher than the costs for foreign-flag vessels. H.R. _ allows the shipowner and the employee representative to agree upon an ``insurance policy that will adequately compensate seamen when they are injured or killed onboard these vessels. To ensure that the shipowner does not force the policy limits too low, the Secretary of Transportation win establish a minimum amount of coverage that must be provided, such as the amounts provided in the Longshore Act. Mr. Speaker, capital investments go to where you can make money. For more than 100 years, the United States Government has placed financial burdens on the U.S.-flag vessel shipowner that has driven these vessels from our shores. I cannot accept the United States Government continuing to allow the decline of our fleet until there are no privately owned U.S.-flag vessels engaged in our foreign trade. The United States must develop a long-term and integrated strategy that will adequately address all of the cost issues that drive capital investment away from the U.S.-flag shipping industry. I believe that H.R. _ can provide the foundation for that strategy. I look forward to working with the Administration, shipowners, and labor to ensure we can truly put U.S. merchant marine on a cost parity with their quality foreign-flag competition. When Great Britain announced its intention to develop the tonnage tax system, P&O Nedlloyd Lines announced that they would bring at least 50 ships to the UK register. Today, I would like to challenge the maritime industry to make a similar commitment to the U.S. flag. With the help of the Administration, maritime industry, and labor, we can ensure that Old Glory is raised on the sterns of hundreds more U.S.-flag vessels.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), a member of our committee.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking member of our Subcommittee on Aviation.