James Oberstar: “I do so to address the Civil Aviation Security Review Commission provision of this bill, 13 members, 1 year to report.…”

“I do so to address the Civil Aviation Security Review Commission provision of this bill, 13 members, 1 year to report. While I support the idea of a commission, I think this is too many people, too long a time to report. The Pan Am 103 commission did its job in 6 months. In addition, I have some concerns about the amount of money authorized to be spent on this commission. The Pan Am 103 commission developed recommendations in less time, with a much more conservative budget. The Pan Am commission achieved its mandate with a budget of $1 million. The commission in this bill has an authorized budget of $2.4 million. The cost anticipated in connection with the commission in this bill are excessive. As for what the commission should focus on, I would urge commission members to look closely at the issue of how the financing of improved security equipment and procedures should be handled. Who should be responsible for incurring the cost that are inevitably associated with improving airport security; airports, airlines, the Federal Government? I very firmly believe that when the commission discussed potential rulemaking in the area of airport security, the resulting recommendations should be normative in nature. Cost benefit analyses should not influence the discussions or recommendations of the Commission. The costs associated with improved airport security must ultimately be considered, but I do not think that it is the role of the commission to do so.”