James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, they are a little sparse on the other side.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of my distinguished chairman how many speakers are on the other side?

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

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I share the objective of the distinguished chairman to get to an early resolution. I do have to cite some misconceptions about the number of screeners that would be required in the proposal that I offer on behalf of the Members on our side and the committee. The number of 30,000-some people is just way beyond any imaginable number. The Congressional Budget Office number of 16,200 screeners is followed by a recitation of a whole series of supervisory personnel that totals 7,000 supervisors for 16,000 screeners. Maybe that is what they need in the private sector, but it is certainly not what we need in the public sector. That is simply not necessary. The distinguishing feature of the private sector approach is the profit that those companies have to make on each of those 23,000 or 31,000, whatever the number is. It kept getting inflated last week. Furthermore, this so-called good system, in the private screeners, there are 1,700 civil penalties assessed against the airlines and their screening companies over the last 5 years for a total of $8 million in fines. The system failed. What failed miserably was not the system in Europe of government oversight. They simply shifted to smaller numbers of screeners with more vigorous and heavy, intensive government oversight and involvement and background screening and passenger profiling and positive passenger bag match to a more intensive screening system with fewer numbers of people. Mr. Speaker, we need to move quickly to a resolution of the differences between the House and the Senate bills. The other body should yield on their insistence on the Justice Department, and move to our position of putting this position in the Department of Transportation; and we ought to reach compromises and yield on the screener workforce issues.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and I yield myself 10 seconds to express my great appreciation to the gentleman for his 15 years of effort on aviation safety and security issues and for his leadership in fashioning the legislation that we crafted in committee.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Rush).

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we had a very lively and in-depth debate last week on the aviation security measure pending before us, and I again wish to express my appreciation to the chairman for the distinguished manner in which he conducted the debate on his side, and to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), for the evenhanded manner in which the debate was conducted. I am also very grateful for the kind words that both gentlemen expressed toward me and toward other Members on our side at the conclusion of debate. I think that is the spirit in which this body operates at its best. Last week, it was widely agreed that we needed to act on aviation security. We should have acted on the 14th. We tried. We got a compensation bill to the floor. It was objected to. We came back a week later on the 21st. We should then have, I think it was agreed that it would be ideal to have dealt with restoration of airline finances and security in the same moment, in the same piece of legislation. For other reasons, that could not be done at the time. Now, time has passed, and the issue has become more complicated. In the time since enactment of the Airline Financial Stabilization package, which was necessary, we had to do that, but to get people back on airplanes requires more than financially stable air carriers. It requires travelers who are confident that when they board an aircraft, they will arrive at their destination safely. Those who were white- knuckle flyers before September 11 are now gripping their seats in fear and concern for their lives. We have also seen highly publicized incidents where the private screener work force have allowed guns and knives through security checkpoints. The FAA has had to step in, and in one incident reported in the course of debate last Thursday at JFK Airport, had to take people off airplanes, put them back in the terminal, search the aircraft, review all passengers once again, and delay flights for hours. That is unacceptable, to say the very least. We have assurances from the administration that it was not necessary to pass the bill that originated in the other body and sent to the President, because the House and the Senate both could act quickly to resolve their differences and that we would have a resolution of this issue within a week. Well, that week is nearing its close. Conferees should have been appointed last week before we concluded. I asked the majority leader late in the evening when conferees would be named, and he said, well, it would be done first thing in the week. Well, this is first thing in the week. We have a lot of ground to cover. Conferees need to be named. We have to move quickly to get a bill through conference and through both bodies and to the President, and we have a big mountain to climb. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is on the right-hand side of this Chamber; that is true. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 20 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. I will have two speakers on our side, and we have 3 minutes left.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds. I think we have the same goals at heart, but we cannot ignore what is happening. I realize that the chairman says this is in the past. We can only talk about what is in the past. If we talk about what is going to happen in the future, people will say we are just speculating. But look what happened today. Our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), reported a woman boarding a flight at Dulles Airport was unaware that her boarding pass had been mistakenly issued in a man's name. Her name is Maryann. The boarding pass was issued to Lester, with a different last name. Maryann showed her photo ID at three checkpoints. No screening company employee noticed the difference between the ID and the boarding pass. Mr. Speaker, these things keep happening. The idea of a piece of luggage going on an airplane without the passenger on board is a repetition of Pan Am 103. Unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, the very distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who has so ably led the debate on our side on this rule; and I do appreciate that the rule makes in order the Oberstar-Ganske substitute without playing any parliamentary games with it. In a moment, the manager on the Republican side for the rule will be offering an amendment to substitute a new manager's amendment for the manager's amendment made in order last night, and I call this the weight-and-balance amendment. It is an aviation term used on board small commuter aircraft when they need to shift people and baggage around to make sure the plane does not tilt one way or another or crash. They have so much ballast on board this bill that it is about to sink. So now they are coming in adding parking lots for financial aid with other airport restaurants, shops, concessionaries. They are taking out something which is very embarrassing, preferred, in the gentleman's language, I think it means deferred, compensation for airline employees. That is the well-known Delta amendment, Delta Airlines, and then adds language for hiring airline workers to screeners, and where possible, security companies should be American companies. That is really going to be a fun thing to do. They are going to do an awful lot of negotiating and renegotiating of contracts. They are going to have a fun time with that; but then my good friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, characterized the Senate bill as sloppily drawn, hastily drawn, but there is a lot of haste in the provisions here in this new manager's amendment that are internally contradictory. I just think that it is ditch a little here, add a little there and again it is hastily drawn.