U.S. Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) Holds Hearing On Federal Aviation Security Standards

Senate Commerce Committee
September 20, 2001

 


SPEAKER:
U.S. SENATOR ERNEST HOLLINGS (D-SC), CHAIRMAN

LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C.

WITNESSES:

NORMAN MINETA, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
JANE GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR AT THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
GERALD DILLINGHAM, DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES AT THE, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
JOHN MEENAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF THE AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION
CAPTAIN DUANE WOERTH, PRESIDENT OF THE AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION
CHARLES BARCLAY, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT, EXECUTIVES
PAUL HUDSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE AVIATION CONSUMER ACTION, PROJECT

BODY:


U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION
HOLDS HEARING ON FEDERAL AVIATION
SECURITY STANDARDS

SEPTEMBER 20, 2001

SPEAKERS:
U.S. SENATOR ERNEST F. HOLLINGS (D-SC)
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
U.S. SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE (D-HI)
U.S. SENATOR JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV (D-WV)
U.S. SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (D-MA)
U.S. SENATOR JOHN B. BREAUX (D-LA)
U.S. SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN (D-ND)
U.S. SENATOR RON WYDEN (D-OR)
U.S. SENATOR MAX CLELAND (D-GA)
U.S. SENATOR BARBARA BOXER (D-CA)
U.S. SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC)
U.S. SENATOR JEAN CARPENTER CARNAHAN (D-MO)
U.S. SENATOR BILL NELSON (D-FL)

U.S. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ)
COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER
U.S. SENATOR TED STEVENS (R-AK)
U.S. SENATOR CONRAD BURNS (R-MT)
U.S. SENATOR TRENT LOTT (R-MS)
U.S. SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R-TX)
U.S. SENATOR OLYMPIA J. SNOWE (R-ME)
U.S. SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS)
U.S. SENATOR GORDON SMITH (R-OR)
U.S. SENATOR PETER FITZGERALD (R-IL)
U.S. SENATOR JOHN ENSIGN (R-NV)
U.S. SENATOR GEORGE ALLEN (R-VA)


*


HOLLINGS: Good morning. The committee will please come to order. Our first order of business as scheduled was the reporting out of certain safety nominees for the National Transportation Safety Board, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and an assistant secretary for aviation.

MCCAIN: Mr. Chairman, I believe all of us would be willing to vote to waive the fact that a quorum is not present at this time. I so move. HOLLINGS: And if that's possible, without objection, and then we'll reconfirm it when we do it. The nominees here: Blakey for the National Transportation Safety Board, Mrs. Blakey; Mr. Joseph Clapp, the administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; Mrs. Read Van der Water to be assistant secretary for aviation for international affairs; are reported.

I thank my colleagues and welcome the secretary of transportation. I must commend you and your associates on your diligence. You all have been working around the clock. And we want to get immediately to the questions. So we'll ask all to try to limit this opening statements.

But mine is a suggestion or question, Mr. Secretary. Rather than Reagan National being a safety problem, why not make it a safety demonstration airport, an opportunity? In the sense that we know about the security of the cockpit, the need for fire marshals and the federalization of security personnel at the airports, so why not immediately tell the -- you don't have to do it all at once -- tell those in the shuttle business out there? That's important to air transportation and the airlines themselves.

Say, "All right, secure the doors on those craft." We got the money to do it. And order it done. And, along with that order, say, "Never shall a door be opened in flight ever again," so that no longer can a domestic flight be used as a weapon of mass destruction.

Once the doors on those shuttle planes are fixed here in the next couple of weeks, by that time, we ought to get enough security personnel to check them in and out for those shuttle flights and put air marshals on all of them coming and going. So that's my question. We've got to move. And we're going to wait on meetings upon meetings upon meetings and consultations.

I think it was Jack Kennedy, years ago, that quoted the Navy captain who said if he waits for his ship to be fit, he never puts to sea. If you get those doors secured, there's no chance of hitting a government building on takeoff or on landing. You can't get inside.

And that's the main thing. There's no difference. After all, we remember the Dulles flight was the one that hit the Pentagon.

I've flown in and out of Dulles since that time. So we have allowed flights to Dulles. For goodness' sakes, don't cancel it. But you can't be absolutely sure. But we can be mostly sure.

Let me yield to our distinguished ranking member.

MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to be very brief because we need to hear from our witnesses very badly.

This is a very serious situation, to say the least. I'm working with you and Senator Kerry, Senator Hutchison and others so we can develop a piece of legislation in order to ensure aviation safety and security. This probably entails federalization of airport security personnel. It requires cockpit security.

It requires better technology. It requires a broad range of activities and actions in order to do our best to see that airport security is at a level that the American people can feel some safety and confidence in.

I'm looking forward to hearing from our director of the FAA and our secretary of transportation. What we need from you is a list of recommendations and priorities. And we need that very badly. And we need it quickly.

Many of these issues have been discussed in this hearing room in the past. So many of them are not new issues. What we need is your priorities and your recommendations as to the actions that need to be taken, both short term and long term, so that we can put it into a legislative package and get it through the Congress as quickly as possible.

And Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and other members on shaping that legislation as quickly as possible. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HOLLINGS: Senator Burns?

BURNS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to associate myself with the words of the ranking member and also the words you said. I think this is not a time for long statements.

We all realize the agenda of this country has changed as of 9/11. And I look forward to working with everybody with regard to security because I think that's going to go a long ways in building the confidence back and get the people back in the air again. Thank you.

HOLLINGS: Senator Wyden?

WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I too will be very brief.

As a member of the Aviation Subcommittee, I've been studying this issue in some depth. And I think it's important to note that there has been a 15-year pattern on this aviation security issue. And that pattern is as follows.

There is a horrible aviation tragedy. Second, there is tremendous outrage in the Congress and in the country. Third, there are various recommendations issued by commissions and blueprint studies. And then fourth, there is slow-motion implementation of those recommendations.

And I think what I've heard from you, Mr. Chairman -- and I'm so pleased to see it -- is that this time, it's going to be different in the United States Congress. This time, we want to make the changes so that in six months or a year, we don't have members of Congress back on the floor in a somber procession, talking about how it was there was another tragedy.

And I would wrap up, Mr. Chairman, by way of saying -- and I outlined this in a floor speech yesterday -- that we ought to have a to-do list, made of the recommendations that the General Accounting Office and the inspector general have issued. Senator McCain is absolutely right in talking about a priority list. And I just suggest, in closing, we've got it. The General Accounting Office and the inspector general have issued these recommendations again and again.

You, Mr. Chairman, were warning years ago that they weren't being implemented. There are a few additional areas we can look at, such as technology and, of course, this general aviation question that isn't really regulated.

But I think you were right, Mr. Chairman, years ago when you said we ought to implement the recommendations of the General Accounting Office and the inspector general. That is, I would submit, our to-do list. And like our colleagues, I'll look forward to getting it done this time and getting the job actually accomplished.

HOLLINGS: Thank you.

Senator Hutchison?

HUTCHISON: Well, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator McCain, as the chairman and ranking member of the committee.

Working with Senator Rockefeller and myself, as the chairman and ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, we're already away down the road on a security package. All of us have talked to Secretary Mineta and FAA Administrator Garvey about the high priorities. I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to our passing a bill by next week and sending it to the president for airport security.

I think we have a short-term issue and a long-term issue. I want to commend all of the executive branch secretaries who are contributing to what I see as an immediate response. I am seeing a supervision at the screeners in airports throughout our country. I am seeing air marshals already on the airlines that are detailed from other law enforcement agencies.

I think we are going to build the confidence of the flying public on a short-term basis because of these actions. But in the long term, I think we need a division of security in the FAA that would have control of the screeners and the air marshals. I think there should be a career track, so that we attract people that want to stay in this business. And with that experience, it will upgrade the quality of the product.

I think we will be able to act together. I just want to say that I think short term, we are in the process. And I commend you for that. But long term, it is our responsibility. And I think we can act quickly because of the chairman and the ranking member's early efforts to get us together and make a team.

Thank you.

HOLLINGS: Thank you, ma'am.

Senator Allen?

ALLEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this committee. Senator McCain, and I also want to commend your leadership and that of Senator Hutchison over the years. I'm a rookie up here, but I've watched over the years and have been researching what has gone on in previous years, similar to what Senator Wyden has talked about.

This is a very important hearing. And I want to thank our witnesses for being here.

I would like the secretary and Administrator Garvey to express our thanks to all -- each and every person in the Federal Aviation Administration who have been unsung heroes, working long hours, diligently, effectively and patriotically, to get the flights down and try to resume, as best we can, safe air travel in this country. People pay attention to those rescue workers and firefighters and police. And they are heroes. So are all the men and women who we don't see, but are working very diligently for us.

Mr. Chairman, we have a duty, of course, to make sure that no plane ever again in this country is taken over and used as a weapon of destruction. I associate myself with all your remarks on the things that we'll need to do, whether that's sky marshals, whether that is using technology. And I have some ideas there, where that could be utilized.

I think that the cockpit has to be as secure as a vault -- never opened. The only people who determine whether it's open or closed are the pilots. We have a new paradigm, obviously, for our pilots.

We also need to understand, as the chairman stated, the economic impact of all of this, the devastating effect of all of this on our very important airline industry. Whether that's general aviation or commercial aviation, that is a part of our economy. It's part of our freedom of travel and our way of life in this country.

We have seen the layoffs of tens and tens of thousands of people. Small businesses, tourism are all affected. General aviation, especially in small markets, have been adversely affected. And I'd like to hear testimony in that regard.

Insofar as Ronald Reagan National Airport is concerned, you are right, Mr. Chairman. We ought to use the nation's capital airport, which is the nation's airport, as a model of security. Put into effect whatever you think the best practices are for security, not just in the cockpits but on the ground and in all the security aspects.

I would say to Secretary Mineta, first and foremost, I empathize with the tough decisions and confluence of concerns that you have. We all care about security. And I know the president is going to address the nation tonight.

First, I'm sure he'll try, to the extent he can, talk about the actions we'll take militarily against those culpable for these vicious terrorist attacks. I know he also has a concern about our economy and making sure that we return, as best we can, to normalcy and make sure America is open for business again.

The nation's airport, Ronald Reagan National Airport, is the nation's capital airport. And I would respectfully suggest it would give, I think, everyone a good boost, a good charge, if he could somehow give us a date, relatively certain, when Ronald Reagan can be opened for business again for travelers, so that they could join us here in the capital more easily, whether as tourists or for business matters. I think that would really mean a great deal to the nation, when they all know that the only airport still closed is the nation's airport, Reagan National. And to the extent you might suggest that sort of effort of security and confidence in the future, I think that would be appropriate for tonight's address. But you all make those decisions yourselves.

So I look forward to working with you all, hearing your recommendations and working with my colleagues in this very important aspect of our economy and our American way of life.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HOLLINGS: Thank you.

Senator Inouye?

INOUYE: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for scheduling these hearings. The outcome of these hearings will have a direct impact upon our economy.

I believe it should be noted, Mr. Chairman, that 92 percent of the cargo that goes to and from Hawaii is by air transport. And 95 percent of the people travel are also done by air transport. Therefore, it's very important to us.

I wish to commend Secretary Mineta and Administrator Garvey for their leadership during these trying moments. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

HOLLINGS: Thank you. For the record, we have now a quorum, so I want to confirm the appointment, without objection, of Marion Blakey to the National Transportation Safety Board; Joseph Clapp, administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; Read Van der Water to be assistant secretary for aviation and international affairs at the Department of Transportation.

Senator Breaux?

BREAUX: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and Senator McCain for so promptly responding to an obvious security crisis in the aviation industry by having these hearings. They are both obviously very timely and extremely important.

I think we all can agree that transportation is the real key to economic security in this country. And that's all forms of transportation, whether by rail or by ship. And, of course, particularly important is the transportation economic benefits of the aviation industry. If we don't have an aviation industry in this country, we do not have a strong and secure country. I mean, it's just very obvious.

And I think that what is also obvious is that Americans obviously feel very vulnerable right now. They're scared to fly. They're scared to use aviation as their means of transportation, both for business as well as for pleasure. And that has a huge economic impact in a very negative fashion on this country.

It is our job, and particularly in this committee, to do everything that we can to reestablish that confidence that Americans used to have in the aviation system that serves us all. And that is not an impossible task. We can do it. And we will do it.

But, you know, talk is cheap. And obviously, now is the time for action. As Senator Wyden has said, we've been studying this for years. And we've always talked about the problems.

But, you know, obviously now is the time to take all of those studies and take them off the shelf and out of the library and start implementing them and doing it as quickly as we possibly can. I think this committee will do that. Thank you.

HOLLINGS: Senator Nelson?

NELSON: Mr. Chairman, I went to two of Florida's major airports yesterday. And I am convinced that it is safe to fly, that the security operations are working. And I saw a number of the things that were confiscated yesterday.

However, that was not the case last Friday. The sheriff of Broward County, at the Fort Lauderdale Airport, in order to test the security, had law enforcement officers go through the security checkpoints to see if they were working. They were not.

And I want to show you what the sheriff has sent me to show this committee what law enforcement officers of the sheriff's department were able to get through security last Friday. I might point out that since then, they have continued to test the system and it has worked. They have been able to detect the items.

But it just underscores the point that the security checks of passengers need to be put in the hands of highly trained, highly skilled people in order to give the public the assurance. Now, I believe that the public should have that assurance. I flew Monday night. I flew again last night. And I believe that it's safe.

But let me show you how the system broke down last Friday at the Fort Lauderdale International Airport. This was able to get through, undetected by the magnetometers.

It is an all-purpose tool. It folds up. The knife blades fold up. The pliers fold up. And it fits into that little case, which is held together by velcro. But you can see.

In addition, the officers were able to get through the box cutters, the very same tool that we have been told has been utilized by the terrorists in last week's terrible tragedy.

HOLLINGS: Of course, senator, that's why we're having this hearing. They were tested on September the 11th. And the committee will take judicial notice that we have not had sufficient security. That's why we're having the hearing.

NELSON: And that's why I thank you so much. But I'll tell you, I was impressed, Mr. Chairman, yesterday, with the security that I saw at two of the major airports. And I thank you for having this hearing and the legislation we're going to do. Because it's absolutely essential to the economy of this country that the airlines, indeed, are functioning and the American public is flying.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HOLLINGS: Senator Boxer.

BOXER: Thank you very much, both you and Senator McCain. I'll be quite brief.

First, I want to thank Secretary Mineta. I want to thank Jane Garvey for shutting down when you did on September 11th. We have every reason to believe we could have been facing more death and destruction had you not acted. And I want to thank you for that.

I also want to note that every single plane that was hijacked was headed for California. I note that only to say we are grieving for our Californians and for every single person who died. And I have been phoning the relatives of the victims.

And it is, indeed, something you just cannot, you know, bounce -- it's hard to bounce back from it. But I am honored that I'm on this committee so I can do something to help you, Mr. Chairman and our ranking member, to be bipartisan and get things done here.

I want to make very quick points. I agree with Senator Wyden when he talked about how many studies have been done. Mr. Chairman, this is just a few of them. They're all filled with recommendations that we never followed. And we need to do that. And I am convinced that we will.

The other point I would make is that there is a role for the FAA. There is a role for the airlines in safety -- safety in the skies, safety in the way the planes are put together, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

But, Mr. Chairman, protection from criminals, it seems to me, is a different question. I may be the only one who feels this way, but I just think we're missing the boat here. I think that the security, we need to look at giving that to our law enforcement people.

I mean, the president has shown extraordinary leadership here, saying, you know, in essence we're at war. There is no declaration of war, but we are at war, figuratively speaking, with terrorism. And if we are, we ought to look at the laws and see if, on a temporary basis, we could fill in sky marshals with people who are trained in the military, at this time, until we've been able to train them.

I frankly feel -- and again, I may be the only one. I think I may be because I've tested it out. I think there ought to be air marshals on every plane, not just random, on every single plane. We've been warned. And I think that's the way to get back the confidence of the people.

Last point, California's number one economic asset is tourism. We're like Hawaii in many ways. We're like other states. We are not going to get back on our feet unless people get back in the planes. That's as simple as it is.

So I think we need to do everything we can. I was hoping some of the funding that we voted for would go to make our airports safe, our airlines safe. I trust that the money is there.

But I just feel, frankly, if we do not do every single thing that we know needs to be done -- not random air marshals but air marshals on every plane -- and something else happens, we'll never get people back in the air. This is our moment. We are being tested. And I hope we rise to the test.

Thank you very much.

HOLLINGS: Thank you very much.

Senator Kerry?

KERRY: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Thank you for having this hearing.

Mr. Chairman, you have been there before on this issue. You started talking about some of the needs to do this several years ago.

Senator Wyden just said to me, just been back through 15 years of proposals, there's no mystery here. I mean, the fact is that every single one of us knows and the airline industry knows and people within the Commerce Department and the FAA and others know there are a whole series of steps that are available, that have been available for a long period of time, which we could take.

And there has been an absence of willpower, an absence of a sense of urgency. And that's why we haven't done it.

There's also been a cost consideration. The airlines have been responsible for the cost. And the airlines, as we all know because we're talking about a major bail-out, are in financial trouble. If your financial bottom line is affected by your security costs, then your security is affected. And it has been.

Every one of us know that. The folks at the security line -- good people, well intended -- are earning less than the folks in the fast food restaurants in those airports. And the training is less. We've got more than 100 percent turnover in airline security personnel in some of our airports, more than 100 percent. And the supervisors are there, many of them, for only a matter of months.

So we have an extraordinary responsibility to make clear to the American people we're prepared to make flying foolproof, essentially. I can guarantee you there is a simple answer to how you prevent ever again having an airplane used as a weapon with a direction.

You may be able to have somebody go in and blow it up. I don't know. I would hope not.

But you can certainly prevent anybody from ever getting into a cockpit. And there's an aerospace company that developed a cockpit door impervious to bullets, knives and axes. The company has yet to sell a single door. But last week, that company got a lot of inquiries from some of the airlines.

The fact is you can have a policy where a hijacker and everybody in the world knows that under no circumstances will there ever be access to a cockpit, unless the pilot wants it to be. There are ways to do this. And if a terrorist decides they want to blow up 100 people, they can walk into a restaurant or any other place, as we all know, very easily today and make that choice.

Mr. Chairman, the other part of the problem is there is a law enforcement component here. I remember when I became an assistant district attorney, the practices were considerably backward. State police didn't talk that much to the locals and certainly not to the feds. And the exchange of warrant information, county to county, let alone state to state, was nonexistent.

If you enter the United States today, your passport goes through a scanner and the customs can tell whether you're in the watch list, how many countries you've traveled to, money spent, so forth. The same kind of capacity of exchange of information must exist in airlines. And there is no way for a private company to manage that kind of effort.

You can't know whether someone has warrants outstanding. You can't know where they've traveled previously. You can't know if they've been on a watch list.

And all of these things, in a virtual world with the computer capacity we have today, is discernible. Look how fast the FBI has discerned it in the aftermath of this event. Much of the kind of clearances and much of the process could be done ahead of time, Mr. Chairman, if we have a federal capacity for airline security.

And we have to be prepared, on this committee and in this country, to guarantee to our citizens that we're going to make flying safe. Everyone knows, if you've flown on El Al, you go through a 45- minute interview. And there is a separation of different folks, based on the various ways in which they do their screening.

Needless to say, it's inconvenient to business. And that's one of the reasons why it hasn't happened -- facility. But I think Americans want to know they can get on a plane and be safe. And I know there are adequate numbers of proposals already made to empower us to be able to make that guarantee to them. And we need to just embrace it and make it happen here soon.

One final thing I want to say, Mr. Chairman. I'm for helping to bail out the airlines. I think all of us are. They were in trouble before this event took place. And we all know that.

But I'm not going to do that without a resolution of the problem of rail. We have been fighting for several years now to help resolve this issue. And we've had some $321 billion invested in the last years into airports. We've had about $15 billion or so -- excuse me, into roads -- about $15 billion into airports. Less than $1 billion, about half a billion, has been put into railroad stock.

And what we learned in the last days, that if terror takes place and if there's terror in the skies, Americans need an alternative transport system. And they turned to rail. And it was there for them. And we need to resolve that issue as we do this bail-out. And I'm going to insist that we do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HOLLINGS: Senator Rockefeller?

ROCKEFELLER: I would hope the senator from Massachusetts would not vote "no" on airline safety and airline aviation financial viability unless he gets what he wants. I have a long list myself. This is a different time in our country.

I think we have to face the fact that we have faced failures. But we have not faced fault. Fault lies with the terrorists. Failures lie with us.

And if there is any silver lining out of Tuesday -- and I can't think of any -- it's that all of the talk that others proceed to talk about over the last number of years on aviation issues in general, I mean, much less security and financial viability. We've been talking about this for a long time. We've been doing nothing about it.

That's because the political will has not been there. And the public demand has not been there. It is now there. This is an absolutely golden opportunity to take enormous numbers of steps to federalize to certain security aspects and to do other things that will put our whole aviation system on a basis that people can come to trust it and get back on to airplanes.

Like Senator Nelson, I flew commercial aviation twice this weekend. I wanted to sort of make the point that it's safe. Unfortunately, I was virtually the only person on the airplane. So my message didn't get very far.

But we have to do these things to create the normalcy, which is the American instinct is to get back to normalcy. So if we act wisely and prudently and quickly, I'm convinced that we can do these things, provide the safety, to return the sense of trust and normalcy, which is so vital for one of the largest economic sectors in our entire country.

I thank the chairman.

HOLLINGS: Senator Stevens?

STEVENS: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being late. I have no questions at this time.

HOLLINGS: Thank you very much. It should be noted that El Al, the best on airline security in Israel -- and around the world, of course -- the safety director was invited to attend. But because of Rosh Hashanah, he begged off, but will be with us at the first of the week.

Otherwise, if some watching are wondering why we're not asking questions at this particular hearing about finances, we have a hearing at 2:00. With that said, we welcome Secretary Mineta, the secretary of transportation; Ms. Jane Garvey, the administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration and Mr. Michael Jackson, the deputy secretary of transportation.

Secretary Mineta?

MINETA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is with both sadness and resolve that Deputy Secretary Jackson, Administrator Garvey and I appear before you today. Let me also, before I start my testimony, thank you for the expeditious handling of our nominees for positions within the department.

Mr. Chairman, I join all Americans in my sadness and anger about the lives that were lost during the heinous, cowardly terrorist attack of September 11. And I also follow President Bush with a firm, unfaltering commitment to help our nation and specifically our transportation system to respond, rebuild and recover.

Though we will never overcome the sorrow we feel for the families and friends who lost loved ones, we will ensure public safety and protect economic vitality. And while it may take time to recreate comfortable competence in travel, let me assure this committee that we can and we will enjoy a transportation system that is safe, secure and stable.

I also want to express my gratitude publicly about the pride I have in the work of the Department of Transportation and all of the employees throughout this crisis. And I would like to call particular attention to the professionalism that was displayed by the Federal Aviation Administration, from Administrator Jane Garvey, Deputy Administrator Monte Belger, on down.

The FAA performed magnificently, as have other crucial players in our department, including the Coast Guard and those who worked with the well-prepared Department of Transportation Crisis Management Center. On the morning of Tuesday, September 11, I was in my office with Isabelle Durant, the deputy prime minister of Belgium, who is also the minister of transport, talking about United States-European noise issues.

I was then interrupted, I guess you might say, by the chief of staff, who came in and said, "Mr. Secretary, may I see you?" So I stepped from the conference room into my office. And on the television was the scene that everybody is familiar with, with the smoke billowing from the World Trade Center. And he said, "I'm not sure. The reports are about an explosion." And so I said, "Well, keep me posted." And so I went back into the meeting.

And within three, four minutes, John Flaherty, my chief of staff, came back in and said, "Mr. Secretary, may I see you?" So I came back out. And so I was watching the smoke billowing out and he said, "It's been confirmed. It's an airplane that went into the World Trade Center."

And as I'm sitting there, watching the television, I see this gray object coming in from the right. And then, all of a sudden, this billowing, orange cloud that comes out of the side of the building. So I went in and told Mrs. Durante that I would have to be excused. And by that time, I had gotten a call from the White House to get over to the White House immediately.

So I went to the White House, went into the situation room and was briefed by Mr. Dick Clark (ph) from the National Security Council. And he said, "You've got to be over at the Operations Center with the vice president." So I went over there.

By this time, of course, we knew that there were two airplanes that had gone into two separate towers of the World Trade Center. And at that time, then we shortly after that heard about an explosion at the Pentagon. And the vice president and I were not sure what that was.

There was some talk about it being a helicopter. And then it became apparent it was a commercial airliner. Well, it's like anything else. When one of something occurs, it's an accident. When two of the same thing occurs, it's a pattern. And when three of the same thing occurs, it's a program.

So I immediately called the FAA, told them to bring all the airplanes down right now. All that we have learned since that fateful morning leaves me convinced that this unusual command or order was the right thing to do. And thanks to thorough preparation, the Department of Transportation's Crisis Management Center took only minutes to kick into action.

The various modal administrations within the department secured thousands of transportation facilities. And the United States Coast Guard secured our harbors and waterways, while also readying its rescue capabilities.

As we look to the future, the administration is already moving to restore public confidence in our transportation system and infrastructure. On September 13, I announced the gradual restoration of mobility within the national airspace system. We took immediate steps to develop heightened security measures to ensure the security and the safety of airline passengers, as well as people on the ground.

As all of you know, all of the country's major airports, with the exception of the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, have resumed air service operations. Now because safety is of paramount importance, I required that heightened security measures, including a thorough search and security check of all airports and airplanes be in place before any air service resumed last week.

In addition, we discontinued curbside check-in at every airport. And passengers are now required to go to the ticket counter to check baggage. We also discontinued off-airport check-in.

Only ticketed passengers are allowed to proceed past airport screeners. Well-wishers must stay out of the secured areas. And there will be no exceptions.

Now, consistent with the strict security measures that have been imposed upon startup last week, I announced on Sunday the creation of two rapid response teams, consisting of FAA employees, to offer specific recommendations for the further improvement of security within the national airspace system. Our one team is focusing on ways to increase security at our nation's airports. The other is focusing on aircraft integrity and security, with specific attention to cockpit access and an expanded federal air marshal program.

Both teams are meeting regularly and with urgency. And their reports are due on October 1 at the latest.

Now these internal teams will have input from a distinguished group of Americans with a wide range of expertise. Now please note the need for a broad perspective as we address both security and commerce.

The events of September 11 have focused media and public attention almost exclusively on aviation, which is understandable. However, our responsibility is to be equally concerned about other modes of transportation. Under authority from the Ports and Waterway Safety Act, we have taken action to control the movement of all vessels in the navigable waters of the United States. All ports and waterways have remained open and secure since September 12. And we put pipeline operators on alert.

And as we restore America's confidence in our ability to maintain the mobility and general freedoms that we hold dear, Congress, the executive branch and the American people must not lose sight of the sobering need for heightened vigilance. We cannot allow this enemy to destabilize our political system, our economy and our way of life. And we won't.

As I am sure this committee understands, the economic viability of United States airlines is now also an urgent and critical matter, as all of you have stated. Given the crucial role of air carriers and the role of the terrorist attacks in this economic trauma, immediate action is mandated.

Today, as soon as we get all of the approvals, we hope to be submitting a proposal that will include: $3 billion for airlines to offset new costs because of heightened, tightened security; $5 billion in economic relief; authorization for use of the War Risk Insurance Program at the president's discretion in the domestic as well as the international arena; and limited modification to certain aspects of collateral liability in order to avert a near-term threat to continued availability of insurance. Now these modifications will provide a brief time in which to resolve that threat for the longer term.

Now, additional recommendations that we made included credits and loan guarantees. Those are details that still have to be looked at and to be worked out.

As all of you have already noted, time is of the essence for these proposals. Therefore, I hope the measures that I have outlined will move forward as soon as possible. We would then have the time necessary to consider and consult with all of you about additional measures that may prove to be necessary.

I would like to close by noting my own firm commitment to working with the legislative leaders here today. You already deserve our thanks for the swift and bipartisan action that you took last week to provide supplemental appropriations that helped get action underway across the federal government. In these traumatic times, I look forward to the honor of working closely with all of you as we face the complex and crucial challenges that lie ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my written statement be made a part of the record. And my colleagues would be happy to answer . . .

HOLLINGS: It will be included.

Ms. Garvey, do you have a statement?

GARVEY: Mr. Chairman, and I will be very brief. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, members of the committee, let me first of all join the secretary in offering our heartfelt condolences and prayers to -- and those of everyone at the FAA -- to the family and friends of all of those victims of last Tuesday's terrible tragedy. And also, if I could take a public moment to express my profound gratitude to the FAA staff, as the secretary has done, and particularly to the air traffic controllers.

One editorial writer who was on a plane that landed safely wrote in an editorial that in a life and death situation that might have been even more catastrophic, the controllers, the system people and management supporting them did their jobs and brought tens of thousands of Americans back to Earth safely. It is, for me, a singular honor to be associated with them in this, in a time that has been extraordinarily difficult.

As the secretary has noted, in the aftermath of last Tuesday, the president called on America to begin to return to normal as quickly as possible. For those of us at the FAA, that's meant that we've needed to focus on two principle areas. First of all, to work with the airports and to work with the airlines to put in place some very stringent security measures.

And we've done that. We've worked very, very closely with all aspects of the aviation community. The secretary has mentioned those in some detail. I will only add that I think when you look at all of those security measures, as some of you have mentioned, you really have to think of them as a series of redundancies within the system.

Some of those initiatives, as many of you know, are very similar to those that were in place during the Gulf War. Others are a further step.

I do want to add a note about the federal air marshals and again to join the secretary in his comments. We are extraordinarily grateful to Congress. You allowed us, in the last several days, to move very quickly on this air marshal program to enhance those numbers, to beef up those numbers. And we've done that, really because we know the money is in place to do exactly that.

We are also extraordinarily grateful to the attorney general, who has added forces from Treasury and Justice so that we can proceed quickly and expeditiously in a program that we believe is very, very important.

The second focus for us at the FAA obviously has been to restore the system. We have done that again in very close collaboration with the airports and with the airlines. We've done it, we believe, methodically and deliberately. The system is still not fully up and operational, but we've done that in a way that I think allows the airlines and commercial aviation to transition in a thoughtful way.

Airlines are moving throughout the system. They're operating at about 60 percent capacity; in some cases, slightly more than that. The load factors are still very light, as some of you have suggested from your own travels. But in talking with the CEOs yesterday, we're beginning to see some increase in passenger numbers. And that's very good news.

Let me just close by also mentioned, as the secretary has mentioned, that the incidents of last Tuesday have caused all of us -- airlines, airport operation and public policy makers -- to rethink the balance of responsibility for civil aviation security. We must simply think differently about this issue. Civil aviation has been forever changed, which really leads me to my last point.

The secretary spoke about the rapid response teams. We are very actively engaged in producing those recommendations. My direction to the staff has been based on my conversations with the secretary.

The actions must be implementable. They must be implementable in the short term, in the long term. This is no time for study. This is no time for review. This is really a time, as the secretary has told all of us, it is a time for action.

And one final last personal note. I will tell you, in the last week, there have been many moments at the FAA when despair has set in. But I will tell you that in every one of those moments, overriding despair has been an absolute resolve and an absolute determination to work around the clock, if that's what it takes, to do everything that we can to restore public confidence in aviation.

I'm really proud to be associated with the people who have done that. And I'm proud to be here today in front of you. And thank you all for your help and your confidence and your support.

HOLLINGS: Mr. Michael Jackson has been heading up for the secretary the task force on security. And I invited him to also join us at the table.

Do you have a prepared statement?

JACKSON: I do not, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to be here.

HOLLINGS: Well, we welcome you.

Mr. Secretary, again, I'm trying to get safety ahead of money. But it looks like this crowd can work quicker on money than it can on safety. What's the matter with Reagan National? When it comes to air operations, there is no difference in proximity than Baltimore or Dulles. And the plane that hit the Pentagon, of course everyone knows, came from Dulles.

In fact, I don't know that the Afghans have got an air operation. But an Afghan plan landing at Baltimore could turn and come and hit the committee room here or going to Dulles could come and turn. So you've got that threat in everything else, but not from the commuters, the shuttle flights. And while I'm pilathering (ph) and dillying, I'm putting them out of business.

So now we've had 10 days. And I suggested last week when I told you of this hearing that let's go with Reagan right now. Tell me why not.

MINETA: Mr. Chairman, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is closed because that decision really is not in our hands.

HOLLINGS: If it's in the Secret Service's hands, it will never get open.

MINETA: It is right now in the hands of the National Security Council and, specifically, the U.S. Secret Service.

HOLLINGS: That's what I was afraid of. Can you explain the facts of life and the reality that we can make it secure, tell those commuters, those shuttle planes to order one of these Kevlar doors and get them in there in the next two weeks. We can move.

And once we secure the cockpit, you've got the marshals, you've got the personnel to federalize it, so what are they going to wait on? Just keep it closed and make sure the airlines go broke.

MINETA: Well, we've made all those points, Mr. Chairman. And I recognize that one of the airlines is in a very precarious state. I even made the statement that if we don't open DCA within 10 days, one of the major airlines will be going under.

But their concern is one of a security issue.

HOLLINGS: Well, I've got the record of the hearing with respect to the federalization of personnel at the airports, the security personnel. That's from Secretary Pena, back five years ago. But rather, my hope is to help and not to nag and prove my point or anything else of that kind. I still can't understand that National Security Council dillying around. Tell them, "Let's move and order the doors and get the personnel out there, get the marshals on those particular planes and let's get this country moving."

If you're at war -- and I'll never forget when we had World War II come, there was a little lieutenant colonel from the Corps of Engineers that broke ground for the most massive manufacturing facility in the world, Building Number One outside of Marietta, Georgia, covering 73 acres. By the end of the war, they were spitting out five B-29s a day.

Ground was broken on February 1, 1942. And by March 1, '43, it was producing planes at that time. This country, if they're really going to war, has got to get us moving up here. we seem to be the problem, studying and continuing to study. But that point has been made.

Senator McCain?

MINETA: Mr. Chairman, I can only speak to my activity since the 25th of January, when I was sworn in to be the secretary of transportation.

HOLLINGS: Well, Mr. Jackson, you've been moving over there. And you used to work with Andy Card. Can't you get Andy moving?

(LAUGHTER)

Tell him let's go. Come on.

JACKSON: I think there is a strong commitment to work through this issue, senator. We have two elements that we are pursuing aggressively, as the secretary has instructed us: first, a series of issues related to air traffic control patterns and how best to insulate the security risk there; and in addition, as you yourself have suggested, a series of extraordinary efforts.

HOLLINGS: It can be done in steps.

JACKSON: And so we are actively engaged in that conversation. This is not an issue that the department or the FAA is at all insensitive to or sitting back on our heels on. So we are absolutely working this with the security agencies, at the secretary's strong urging.

HOLLINGS: Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: Secretary Mineta, I want to say, as regards to Reagan National Airport, I'd like to see it open, all of us, for convenience. But I will not only respect but support whatever decision is made by the experts who are responsible for this nation's security. And safety obviously is paramount. And if that means that Reagan National Airport stays closed forever, I will not only respect it, but support it.

Mr. Secretary, in your list of financial recommendations, you leave out loan guarantees. Have you considered that option? Is that part of your package or what?

MINETA: That was part of our recommendations as we talked out these issues. At the present time, that has not been included in the package by the White House. That has, I think, is still an open question. But let me turn to . . .

MCCAIN: Mr. Jackson.

MINETA: . . . Mr. Jackson on the latest since he was in a meeting as late as 9:10 this morning.

MCCAIN: Mr. Jackson?

JACKSON: Senator, as the secretary has said, the industry came to us and asked for a variety of medium-term recommendations.

MCCAIN: We understand that. What's your position/

JACKSON: We are trying to get a first trenche (ph) of support into the system this week. And we are hoping to work with the Congress to move that. We know that there are a series of second trenche (ph) issues to look at. And we're absolutely prepared to work with those.

MCCAIN: Well, the airlines view this as a first trenche (ph) issue, as far as their financial viability is concerned. I think we need to visit that issue and very carefully. And not 100 percent maybe; maybe only 80 percent. But I've talked to no one in the industry that doesn't believe that loan guarantee is a critical item, first trenche (ph). So I hope we can work on that.

Secretary Mineta, do you believe that we need to federalize the airport security forces?

MINETA: We have looked at that. And I suppose it would be a question of whether or not -- when you say federalize, I assume this is referring to the screening operation at the airports.

MCCAIN: Airport security personnel.

MINETA: And if we are to federalize that, we feel that it would probably take in the nature of about 28,000 FTEs, full-time equivalents. When you take salary, equipment, retirement, all the other costs involved, we're looking at somewhere around $1.8 billion. And so that is an alternative that we are pressing.

MCCAIN: Well, if we don't do that, what are the other options?

MINETA: The other alternative is something that all of you passed, Senator Bailey -- Kay Bailey Hutchison's bill relating to security, giving to the FAA the authority to increase the standards and to increase the training requirements, do things on background investigation. That has already been passed. We have the regulations out on that. The problem is that there was a hold put on the regulations going forward by OMB until our task forces comes back with their specific recommendations on airport security.

MCCAIN: Ms. Garvey, do you have a view on federalization of airport security personnel?

GARVEY: The first point is it has to be fundamentally changed. Federalization is one option. As the secretary said, the cost to it is about $1.8 (billion). But that's certainly one option.

Another option that's been proposed and I know the task force or rapid response team is looking at and that is a not-for-profit corporation with a board of directors, with a dedicated part of the ticket tax or a dedicated part of the PFC. But I think the principle is it must be fundamentally changed. And whether it's federalized or a not-for-profit corporation, those are two alternatives.

MCCAIN: Mr. Secretary, the rapid response task force is going to report to you on October 1. How quick are you going to have a legislative package up for us after that?

MINETA: Even though, Senator McCain, the report or the task force report will come to me, every day we are staying in touch with those task forces, in terms of their recommendations. So it's not that I'm waiting until the 1st of October. But as soon as that report comes in, we will have specific legislative recommendations where they are necessary.

MCCAIN: Ms. Garvey, do you . . .

MINETA: Some of it may be possible, given present law and given the appropriations that was passed last week.

MCCAIN: Ms. Garvey, do you believe that there is anything within reason that the FAA could have done differently to prevent the tragedy that happened last Tuesday?

GARVEY: I've asked myself that every single day, senator. I think we always, whenever there is a tragedy like this, you have to ask yourself that question. Are there things that you could have done differently? I do think, in the face of an individual who was willing to commit suicide, in the face of an individual who was willing to use a plane as a weapon, it was a very difficult situation. It has changed the way we think of our own security.

All of our security directives -- and I spoke with Ken Mead about this at length yesterday -- all of our security recommendations in the past have been geared toward explosives. If you look at many of the recommendations that the IG has put forward and the GAO and our own, it has had to do with combating explosives. This was a whole new world for us.

MCCAIN: Let me point out, in September '96, the Gore Commission asked that security screening companies develop uniform training procedures for all security screening personnel. In its 2000 report, the inspector general for the Department of Transportation discussed a test that it conducted, which the IG sent an armed individual through secure areas in airports, in some cases illegally boarded an aircraft. We've had study after study, commission after commission come before this committee and issue reports and recommendations that called for significant changes.

GARVEY: To the screeners in particular, senator.

MCCAIN: On a broad variety of areas. And in all candor, many of those recommendations were either not taken seriously enough or not implemented.

GARVEY: Senator, just one note on the screeners. As the secretary mentioned, the training requirements are ready to go. Quite honestly, we have pulled all those back and saying, given what we see now, are those really the right requirements that we want to put in place?

MCCAIN: Do you have aviation security equipment now sitting in warehouses because we don't have the lack of funds for installation?

GARVEY: We have had some difficulties with the equipment, yes.

MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HOLLINGS: Senator Burns?

BURNS: I think the administrator has struck upon something because whenever you get a person that's willing to die and use themselves, no matter what kind of screening we have, you're almost faced with an impossible situation. How close does the Department of Transportation work with our intelligence people about the traveling public?

MINETA: Senator, every morning, I get a briefing from the CIA about threats, about things that are going on in the intelligence world. And again, if I were to look back at all the reports since I have been there on the 25th of January -- and I get briefed every day, every morning and I asked the CIA, including our own security people, Admiral Underwood -- if you took all those things that we know now, is there a matrix with that information that we had that would have pointed to anything close to what happened on the 11th of September. And everyone says no. You just can't do it.

For the first time, we had a commercial airliner turned into a lethal weapon. People boarded with plastic knives that can be as sharp as metal knives. They had box openers with a blade this long, razor sharp. And under the then-existing threshold, those passed the security.

And so, that's why the heightened security requirements, the screening requirements. But I do get intelligence briefings every day.

BURNS: Well, I want to submit to you that there is probably something on each one of us here this morning in this room that could be used as a lethal weapon. I sit right next to a man right here that was using one, and that's a regular pen. This is a lethal weapon. It can be used as a lethal weapon. It doesn't have to be a knife or anything like that.

Now I guess, you know, us old farmers, we've always carried a pocket knife. Now, I'm going to have to keep a pocket knife in Montana and one here because I ain't going to get one in between.

But there's nothing, around this table, anything can be used -- this broken glass can be used as a lethal weapon. And that's hard to guard against.

I guess where I'm going with this is that here was an operation that was in the planning process for, I would say, as much as two years. And no one had a clue, not one leak or had a clue that this thing was in process. And I find that really disturbing that somewhere along the line, involved was 50 to 100 people, that there was no indication anywhere that this operation was being planned or incited.

So what I'm saying is that I think we should, number one, look at our intelligence and how we fund it and the information that we collect; and also, in the area of civil defense. World War II taught us a mentality on how to think about how we defend our country. And it gave us the mindset that we survived the Cold War.

This incident now gives us a mentality on what we're going to need as far as civil defense and a mindset to defend ourselves against these kind of actions. So we've got to start changing our mind, our process a little bit on what we fund, how we fund it and the security because if a person wants to be a human bomb, there's nothing we can do about that.

A person can walk into a restaurant. I mean, it goes on around the world. And there's very few things that we can do about it in a free society.

So our equipment, I think we're going to have to have a visible, uniformed security screeners in airports to build the confidence, but to put the confidence back in the American people that it's safe to fly. They want to see some visibility where there is security. And with that, we have to show some signs of -- kind of like, it's the duck on top of the water that looks pretty comfortable and not doing much, but under water, we've got to be peddling like the dickens -- and our intelligence and our security and the way we do business now and the way we watch the movements of people.

And I have no recommendation because it's going to take somebody smarter than I am. But I think we can throw good money after bad if we operate in the same mindset that we thought about security prior to 9/11/01.

And so that's why I say are you in touch with the CIA? Do they brief you on the movements of people? Because I think we're in a different kind of a situation. And I thank the chairman. I look forward to other questions that might be asked by this committee.

HOLLINGS: Thank you.

Senator Wyden?

MINETA: Mr. Chairman, if I might?

HOLLINGS: Yeah, surely.

MINETA: There is no question that what happened on September 11 has changed the world for all of us. Normalcy is trying to restore economic vitality. And part of this whole process, I think, is that all of us, all American people, are going to have to show patience. And that patience is a form of patriotism that they're going to have to exercise because life is not going to be as it was on the 10th of September.

And so the mindset for all of us is vastly different, in terms of how we approach issues, the urgency in which we deal with issues. I know since I've been there, trying to get rules and regulations out of the department, pushing on them to try to reduce that timeline, deal with issues in terms of what we do as a department differently than we have in the past.

And you're absolutely right. That requires a mindset that is totally different from where we have been in the past. And I believe in the agency, in the Department of Transportation and in the Federal Aviation Administration, as well as all of our other modes, we are in a different mindset today.

(UNKNOWN): Well, the hindsight's always 20/20.

HOLLINGS: Senator Wyden?

WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, in recent days, I've outlined the 15-year pattern of inaction on this issue. I mean, even on the certification question. In 1987, the General Accounting Office issued those recommendations to tighten up the screening procedures. And here we are today and it still hasn't been done.

And I will tell you, today I'm not interested in the blame game. There's plenty to go around. But what I'd really like to hear, Mr. Secretary, from you is that this time the government's response is going to be different.

I don't think, for example, that we can wait until October 1. I mean, we're hearing, once again, the pattern of recommendations and various efforts to study this. I think what the public wants to hear is that this time not just our mindset but the government's response is going to be different and you're going to break the spiral of more tragedies, outrages, recommendations and then slow-motion implementation. And I'd like to give you the opportunity to tell the public this morning that this time, you're going to break that 15-year pattern and things are going to be different.

MINETA: I think it was broken at about 9:15 a.m. on Tuesday when I ordered down over 4,500 aircraft and the scale of the air traffic controllers and the pilots and the flight deck crews across the country brought those airplanes down safely in less than two hours. And from that moment on, we have been trying to rebuild the system, including with different rules, new rules. And we did that because the president wanted to restore the aviation system and I said, on Tuesday, that I hoped to have it back in the air by 12:00 noon on Wednesday.

There were a lot of practicalities that prevented us from moving to be able to open up the system by 12:00 noon because there were going to be new procedures that were going to be required right then and there. And we couldn't put those procedures in place to ensure the security and the safety of the system by 12:00 noon.

So the first plane went into the World Trade Center at 8:48. Nine fifteen, 9:20, we were looking at a different world. I apologize if that was too slow. But we are making differences in the system, in rules and procedures.

And so we are not laggards. And I will put my record on the line at this time.

WYDEN: Mr. Secretary, again, I'm a) not interested in any blame game and b) I think what you did in the specific instance you described was very welcome. What I'm interested though is knowing whether the government is now going to be persistent and relentless in making the changes for the long term. For example . . .

MINETA: My answer is yes.

WYDEN: That's what I wanted to hear. That's what we're interested in working with you on.

Second question that I wanted to explore with you, Mr. Secretary, is a matter of general aviation. It's very clear that there are significant vulnerabilities there. They're described in the news media. Apparently, in many respects, you can just put your money down and walk on out and nobody really knows much of anything with respect to the security risks there.

In your view, how serious are the problems there? And what is it that, again, you want to do with a new approach to change it?

MINETA: Well, as you know, general aviation is not just someone getting in a Piper Cub and deciding to fly around. It also includes corporate aircraft and others. It also includes air taxis. It includes charters. It includes a wide range of different aircraft.

And they were not allowed to fly until -- I believe it was on Sunday that we allowed the IFR flying -- the Instrument Flight Rule, which requires a filing of a flight plan. It requires an airplane to have a transponder. And we allowed IFR flying, I believe, to proceed on Sunday.

General aviation, VFR flying, was kept on the ground until last night. And last night, we approved and forwarded to the National Security Council -- or yesterday, we forwarded -- our recommendations on general aviation with VFR flying. The recommendations that we made were modified by the National Security Council. There are some 30 airports around the country, major airports, in which they will not be able to fly. There are a number of general aviation types that will not be able to operate.

And so there have been a number of restrictions that have been placed on the general aviation community by the National Security Council in their condition to approve what we recommended to them.

WYDEN: Let me ask you just one last question, if I might, because I do think on general aviation and cargo, I mean, Federal Express pilots, for example, are asking for changes in rules, with respect to cockpit doors. And I hope that, again, this is something that you'll say with.

And I want to wrap up by asking you a question about technology. We have heard, for example, that there are new technologies out there that could, for example, create a sort of autopilot function that would make it essentially impossible to fly into a building. I'd like to know whether you think that that is credible, whether those technologies are credible and that we should be working with you to promote them.

MINETA: Well, this is an area, I think, in which I'd be very reluctant to see us legislating certain solutions. There have been a lot of suggestions as to how the security of the airplane might be accomplished. One of the things that happened in this instance, the first thing they were ordered to do or if the hijackers, the terrorists, took over the airplane, the first thing they did was turn off the transponder.

The transponder gives us speed, altitude and the iDEN of the aircraft. Question was: should we make it impossible for the pilots to turn off the transponder? Or maybe when it rotates off the runway, it becomes an auto-switch that can't be turned off. The problem is that, as I understand it, if there is an electrical malfunction, they want to be able to turn off the transponder if that's the source of where the malfunction might be, so that it doesn't affect the rest of the aircraft.

You could also do that by pulling the circuit breaker. But in any event, these are items that are being looked at. There is just a whole array of items, technologically. Kevlar doors, there are doors in which when you close it, pins go into the wall of the bulkhead.

A lot of pilots say that one of the reasons that we want to bust out of a door is because if there is fire or even in the case of doors there is the ventilation panel. That's there not so they can breathe in there, but that's so that if in case there is sudden decompression, there is the ability of the cockpit to be a safe environment.

Now there are maybe other ways to deal with putting decompression panels in the bulkhead between the cockpit and the cabin of the aircraft. But you know, the other thing is I suppose someone could go in with a gas and put it up against the vent. But I can't understand why anyone would do that. Knock out the pilots and the plane would go down.

But in any event, we are looking at all of the requirements that might be there. And that's why our team is an internal team with the input from the person who engineered -- the chief engineer on the 777, the person who is a captain of a -- active pilot in the airline. And so we've got people who are advising our FAA people who are trying to put the rules and regulations.

And they're trying to figure out those rules and regulations as they're going along, not waiting until the first of October, so that I can say, "Okay, go." I'm seeing those every day, in terms of recommendations, as to what direction they're going. And they're getting practical, real world life opinions from people who have to deal with these situations.

So sure, too little, too late, maybe. But we're working at this, people in the department, people in the private sector, trying to figure this out as quickly as possible.

HOLLINGS: Thank you.

Senator Hutchison?

HUTCHISON: Mr. Secretary, I am pleased that you said we are going to address aviation security but we're not going to just fight the last war. You are also looking at securing our waterways, our mass transit systems, our buses, our Amtrak trains, which are now serving so many of the traveling public. But today, we're talking about aviation security.

Ms. Garvey, the secretary mentioned my legislation that passed last year that was passed by Congress that would require better training and education for screeners. You just said that those rules probably will not come out because of other things you would like to add.

However, the traveling public is still working within the system that we have. What are you doing to assure that there is better supervision and better screening at the airports of our country?

GARVEY: Well, let me clarify the first point. The rules may still come out. We want to look at them very carefully.

I got a very helpful call yesterday from OMB from the fellow who heads the rules office and said, "Look, I want you to know we've got a team ready." We ought to all take a look at those rules, but we'll make changes. And as the task forces or other recommendations are coming forward, we've got a team ready to spring right into action so we can get whatever needs to be done, done quickly.

In the short term there, and you're absolutely right, even if we put the increased training in place, that's going to take a little bit of time just to train people and get them up to speed. In the short term, right now, just about all the major airports and most of the mid-size airports, as well -- in fact, I think really nearly all of the airports -- are using local law enforcement officials, state police, in some cases, county officials, National Guard.

We have supplemented, in any case where the airport has asked, with some federal forces at those local screening points and checkpoints. The secretary had talked with us the other day about even expanding the use of AIP money. And I think this gets a little bit to Senator Wyden's question as well, that in the short term, you can use those AIP monies, perhaps, to reinforce and to reimburse some of those local officials so in the short term you can beef up those security checkpoints.

In addition, on a conference call on Monday, we asked all of the major airports to pull together at each one of their airports the station managers and the security companies. Again, the security companies are hired by the airlines. But at the local level, bring together the security companies, the station managers, go through the guidance, make sure that if there are questions still remaining, get those answers.

So trying to work it, not just from the national level, but from the local level as well.

HUTCHISON: Will the FAA monitor those local and state efforts at the major airports of our country to assure that there is more being done at the screening than has been done before?

GARVEY: We have directed our security officials to do exactly that. I have to also though be realistic and say that right now there are a number of other security issues. So they're doing a lot of things.

Spoke with the inspector general the other day about using some of his forces as well. So we will do that. And we'll on other federal offices to help us in that.

HUTCHISON: Okay, let me ask you this. When we're talking about aviation security, we're talking about airport and we're talking about aircraft. We're talking about federalizing the screening process and the air marshal system. But there is also the patrolling function at airports, especially outside the screening area.

What is your recommendation about whether it should be a federal role to take over all airport security or leave that to the local law enforcement officials with better coordination?

GARVEY: Well, that is exactly the issue. That is exactly one of the points that the rapid response teams is discussing today. And very early this morning, I met with some of them.

And one of the points was something that you had raised earlier. Might it make more sense, for example, to combine the screeners with the air marshals with other forces at the airport and combine that into one security unit, so that you have a sense of career progression, for one thing, and you have a much more robust force?

I think that's something that we have to look at very, very carefully. And I know that is going to be one of the considerations that will probably be forwarded to the secretary. But I think that is something that is well worth looking at because it may not be enough.

We have focused on screeners. We started the discussion around screeners. But it may be important to go a little further.

I am anxious to hear from some of the experts, airport officials as well, on that.

HUTCHISON: Well, of course, we want to put that in a bill that would be going through Congress this week and next week. And I think a career track could really enhance the qualify and experience level of the screeners and also, of course, the air marshals.

Also, Ms. Garvey, I wanted to ask you, we've been talking about our aviation system in our country. Are you considering it to be a requirement of any foreign carrier that would have access to our airports, that if we require an air marshal, that they provide the space and allow an armed peace office of our -- if we request it, to be given a seat on their aircraft?

GARVEY: Yes, we are. Yes, we are, senator.

HUTCHISON: Let me just ask . . .

GARVEY: Just add one other note to that? In the past, our whole focus with the air marshals has been much more international because that's been a concern. So there have been discussions and similar arrangements with foreign carriers in the past. But of course, we're redirecting some of them.

HUTCHISON: Well, I think, certainly we're giving them the permission to land. We should have the ability to set certain requirements.

My time is about up. But I just want to say one other thing. I've talked to all the airline CEOs with Senator Rockefeller. All of you have as well.

But I do not want to forget the airports and their role in this, their concerns, their loss of revenue, as we are talking about shoring up the aviation system because it is so important to our economy. We must also include the role of the airports in that security and in the financial help of the overall industry.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HOLLINGS: Thank you.

Senator Allen?

ALLEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Garvey, I wanted to thank you for last Thursday afternoon meeting with so many people in this entire region concerned about Reagan National Airport. And I think you're well aware that this is a concern to our area.

We, every member of this committee understands and shares security concerns. And I think you recognize that there are over 10,000 people who are now applying or can apply for unemployment benefits now just from Reagan National Airport and the multiplier effect is five to seven times greater, as far as jobs lost with the economic implications being tremendous in this region.

I would also add that while everyone looks at it as Reagan National Airport, it is also really managed with Dulles Airport. And to the extent that Reagan National Airport is closed, that has a direct impact. It's part of Dulles Airport in the way that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority handles it, including not just paying off the $1 billion in bonds for the renovations a few years ago, but also for the even more significant improvements being made at Dulles Airport.

So that needs to be considered. And we know that millions of dollars are being lost every single day. And as Secretary Mineta had mentioned, there is a particular airline that may go under. And we all know in what trouble they were in based upon your statements and obviously the chairman's as well.

I would ask you, Secretary Mineta, whether you have an update for us as to when -- when a decision will be made by the FAA and the Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation and the Secret Service regarding this airport, Reagan National Airport? What date or when, do you have any idea when you will all make a decision?

MINETA: I can't give you a date.

ALLEN: Do you have a range?

MINETA: We are working every day with the National Security Council on this issue, come up with variations. One of the conditions for reopening National or Reagan National Airport is that there would only be approaches from the south and departures to the south, which is fine to say. But there are laws of airlift. You can't fly if the wind isn't coming into you.

And so something like, I've forgotten the exact percentage, but it was somewhere in the range of 35 percent of the flights. If you restricted it to south approach and south departure, there would only be about 30, 35 percent of the flights that had previously been operational at DCA that would be able to continue on in the future.

So there are requirements there that from a practical airport- airline operational perspective that we're working every day with the National Security Council about. What about this? What about this?

But I cannot give you a date as to when an approval might be coming. Let me turn to Administrator Garvey and see if she has got a crystal ball.

GARVEY: Wish I did have a crystal ball. I can tell you that yesterday, the air traffic staff was with the NSC all day long, working on what some options are. And I really do believe that they want to see a resolution on this as quickly as possible. But as Senator McCain said, we want to make sure we're addressing all the security issues as well.

I do understand that they have brought in some additional outside threat experts and so forth. And I think that's welcome. We can use all the help, of course, that we can get.

MINETA: One of the suggestions I had made was that we put an air marshal on every departure out of DCA and every arrival coming into DCA. Now that takes alone something like 830 flights. That's a lot of air marshals just to tie up just for an airport.

ALLEN: That's with the reduced demand for air travel and some of the flights that have been cancelled.

MINETA: But, you know, every day, we have something like, let's say, 5,000 air carrier operations. That's not including general aviation. A lot of air marshals.

ALLEN: If some of those ideas are what it will take, I think it may be -- there are many of us who are saying, "All right, if that's what it's going to take." We actually, what I'd like to see and I think the general public, is some factual or technical or operational case to be advanced why you would distinguish Reagan National Airport compared to other urban center airports, whether it's Logan or LaGuardia -- and clearly, New York City was a target -- and have some factual basis why there is a security threat.

MINETA: Let me turn to Deputy Secretary Jackson.

JACKSON: Senator, I would just volunteer that we understand the importance of this issue and particularly your ability to bring together the community in the Northern Virginia area to focus on these issues is most welcome. And we would volunteer to meet with you on an ongoing basis as these plans evolve and discuss options with you.

We've tried to stay in touch with the head of the airport authority as well in this regard. But I would personally be happy to make certain that we stay very closely with you as we explore these options.

ALLEN: When you talk to the Secret Service folks, do you bring up the concept -- in light of what you've just said -- the concept that was advanced at that meeting Tuesday afternoon of say, a phased- in, gradual approach towards . . .

MINETA: Yes, sir. That has been an integral part of the discussion.

ALLEN: Well, that would be a good first step if you can get them to agree to that.

MINETA: The question about, you know, flights within 500 miles or 300 miles. And all of those options have been talked about in terms of expanding the operation so that, you know, the shuttle might be the first to be reinstituted. But we recognize that this is not just a Reagan National Airport issue because if you don't operate out of here, you don't operate in Martinsburg, West Virginia and you don't operate in Charlotte and you don't operate in a lot of places.

So it's not just National. It is national in scope, but it's more than just Reagan National Airport.

ALLEN: My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have further questions but will wait for the second round.

HOLLINGS: Senator Inouye?

INOUYE: Thank you very much.

Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask a few parochial-type questions. The state of Hawaii is a rather unique state. It is separated from the mainland by an ocean. The state itself is made up of seven inhabited islands.

When your order was issued grounding all aircraft, several things happened that would not happen elsewhere. For example, we were not able to carry two donated kidneys for kidney transplants from one island to another. There are other similar-type emergencies that we were not able to cope with.

Would your agency favor any sort of special waiver for the state of Hawaii?

MINETA: Well, I think in all instances now, flights for instance like that would be able to proceed today. Even after we had the order to have no aircraft operations, we must have granted -- I don't know, I'd be guessing -- a couple of hundred exceptions last Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday until Sunday when we opened up general aviation VFR.

We had requests for exceptions. And we looked at those on a one- on-one basis. And we did grant them.

Today, I think that there is pretty, except for again the specifics on general aviation as they relate to flight schools, civil aircraft, VFR flight training operations, banner towing operations, sightseeing flight operations, traffic watch flight operations, airship and blimp operations, news reporting operations. In the 30 major airport areas, those are excluded.

And I think, to the extent that the kinds of -- I think now, most are now considered. And in thinking about Hawaii, except for, I guess, except for Honolulu, general aviation would be able to operate. And let me turn to Administrator Garvey because I think those are the only exclusions, as it relates to Class B air space.

GARVEY: Senator, in terms of -- the secretary is right. Most of the general aviation restrictions have been limited or lifted, rather. Many have been lifted. But I would underscore that in the case of a medical emergency, even last week, waivers were given.

So I apologize if you made a request and it wasn't honored. It absolutely should be. Medical emergencies should be absolutely honored. There were some specific issues in the state of Alaska, that is also dependent on aviation too, that we had to deal with in those early hours and first few days.

INOUYE: On the VFR operators, there is some uncertainty as to certain types of activities. We have been told, for example, that the scenic tour helicopters are still grounded. Why?

GARVEY: Senator, we are working very closely with the NSC as we sort of phase in the elements. And that was one that there was still a level of discomfort about it. There have been some difficulties, I think, from their perspective.

But again, we're working this every day. That noted, that lift of the restrictions was put in place last night, so many of the other operations that people have been clamoring for will be able to resume or did resume as of last night. We will continue to work those issues with the Security Council, continue to work those issues among the aviation communities and just will keep in very close touch with your office to make sure that you know as those restrictions are lifted.

INOUYE: I realize that these matters are not of great concern when you look at the problems of this nation, but I hope you'll also look at hang gliders. I can't see the national security concerns for hang gliders. But that's restricted, isn't it?

GARVEY: You know, that one I'm going to have to go back and check. I actually thought that one was all right.

MINETA: I think that would be permitted outside of what we call the enhanced Class B air space. So if someone's over in Kona wanting to do ultralights and hang gliding . . .

INOUYE: The only place you can do hang gliding, as of this moment, I believe, is Nehow (ph), Lanai and Molokai.

MINETA: I would say that under what we have authorized and given the fact that it is not Class B air space, it would be allowed to fly.

INOUYE: I'm grateful if you'll look at all these little problems for us.

MINETA: I will look at that specifically and get back to you, sir.

INOUYE: Thank you, sir.

HOLLINGS: Thank you.

Senator Breaux?

BREAUX: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank the panel for being with us. Senator Kerry and I were talking early on when the hearing first started that while today we concentrate on aviation problems, you know, if we were in a terrorist group, it would probably be the last area that we would go to for a second hit on this country. We'd be looking at other ways to create havoc on the American public.

And I think that other areas of transportation obviously also have to be considered. Railroads, for instance, which with the security getting on a train is almost nonexistent, is an example. Or passenger ships that have thousands of passengers that leave every day from ports in Miami and New Orleans and on the West Coast as well.

These are all areas that I think, under the umbrella of the Department of Transportation, we're going to have take a look at. And with the chairman's permission, the Surface Transportation Committee is going to have a hearing on security at railroads, in particular, and also on ships, which carry thousands of people.

I'll tell you what I'm for. I'm for the government doing the inspections at the airports -- inspecting the passengers when they come on, doing the security at the tarmac and around the airport. We should not be concentrating on how cheap we can do it, but how good we can do it.

And not only I think it gives us a better result, it goes a long way to bringing about the confidence that the American people need to regain in order to start flying again. So I think the government should do it.

I think we should consider arming the pilots, not necessarily with pistols, but certainly at least with stun guns that are capable of incapacitating a potential hijacker. I think we ought to have sky marshals on planes that are going from vulnerable airports, potentially vulnerable, that also are at least armed with stun guns to disable hijackers if one should happen to try and take over a plane.

And finally, I think that clearly we ought to secure the cockpit. I mean, whether it's with metal or steel or titanium. I mean, we make tennis rackets and golf clubs out of titanium. Certainly, we could make a cockpit door out of something that can't be pried open with a fork or something even less strong as a fork.

We talked about what could have been done. Had we had a secure cockpit door, the chances are those hijackers could have never gotten into the cockpit. And I think that the science today certainly is capable of providing us a secure cockpit door that can be opened from the inside by the pilots when they have to get out or other emergencies, but cannot be opened by passengers.

Does that put the passengers at risk? Maybe so, but at least the pilot could get the plane down and they wouldn't have the ability to crash it into the World Trade Center.

So I think those are things that I'm for. And you know, talking about the security, I mean, I've always been sort of mystified. And maybe you can give me just a rationale. I'm not asking this question to be a Monday morning quarterback.

But when we have passengers going through all of the security to make sure you don't have a pen knife or a pocket knife or a gun or the tool that Senator Nelson pointed out, it's interesting that after you get on an airplane, certainly if you're sitting up front in first class, when they serve you the meal, they give you a napkin and wrapped in a napkin is a metal fork, a metal spoon and a metal knife. We actually give passengers knives on airplanes.

I mean, what's the rationale? I've always been mystified. Why do I have a knife? I mean, you just told me I couldn't bring one on the plane. Then when I get on the plane, they give me one.

MINETA: Senator Breaux, have you been on the airplane since . . .

BREAUX: No, not since Monday. But I mean, up until the time.

MINETA: You won't get it.

BREAUX: I understand. But for years, we've allowed that. I mean, what was the rationale for that? I mean, it's our fault, it's your fault, it's all of our fault. We gave knives to passengers.

MINETA: You will not get a knife. I don't know how I'm going to eat that steak or whatever, but there ain't going to be a knife there.

BREAUX: The other point is, in looking at all of these options, you know, there's an article, Mr. Jackson -- and Norm, maybe you can answer this, too -- in the front page of "USA Today" on one of the sections, I guess the "Money" section. It says an official at the General Services Administration says that the very task force that you all have set up is illegal because it doesn't supply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of being diverse in the makeup of the committee. It says that the Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that membership of an advisory committee be fairly balanced, in terms of the points of views represented.

Is that a problem? Is that what we're talking about?

MINETA: I don't know. Why would GSA even get into that, for one thing? We cleared this?

BREAUX: Well, the guy that says it is Jim Dean (ph), General Services Administration. His job is to ensure that government advisory groups comply with federal laws. I mean, I'm glad you got it. I support what you're doing. But I'm concerned that this thing is illegal.

MINETA: Senator, we checked this with our general counsel. This does not come under FACA, the Federal Advisory Commission Act. That's why this is an internal employee rapid response team with our ability to talk to experts from the private sector. And we cleared this to make sure that we didn't have a FACA problem.

BREAUX: Well, GSA says you do. And I just hope that you . . .

(LAUGHTER)

MINETA: I hope I made that clear.

BREAUX: I'm concerned. I support you on this thing. I mean, I think you ought to have the advisory committee that can give you the advice that's helpful to you. But General Services is challenging you on that. And I hope that we take steps to make sure.

MINETA: They'd better stick to dredging buildings.

BREAUX: Mr. Jackson, you have a comment on that?

JACKSON: The secretary is right. We have worked with our counsel and the government counsel on this one. We're certain that we're operating effectively. And we will double back with the individual . . .

BREAUX: Because if you need help from Congress, I'm sure that there would be people willing to try and make sure that you're all right on that particular issue.

JACKSON: Thank you, sir. We'll obey the law and get the job done fast.

BREAUX: Okay. Good. Thank you all. Thank you very much.

HOLLINGS: In deference to the members of the committee, Secretary Mineta has to leave at 12:00. So let's try to shorten the questions.

Senator Nelson?

NELSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary, Madame Administrator.

I certainly embrace the recommendations that have been made here. And on the basis of what I learned yesterday, I want to give you a couple of more recommendations.

At both Orlando and at Tampa, with the aviation directors, they both made the case to me that we should reopen curbside check-in because they felt that it was as safe as the at-the-counter check-in because those employees, the skycaps at the curbside, go through all of the security checks and the training with regard to the bags, as much as do the counter personnel of the airlines. That was what was stated to me yesterday. And that was at two major airports. So I wish you would consider that.

Secondly, the question of airports being put into different categories. Category X, which Orlando is. Tampa is a Category 1. Fort Lauderdale, that I mentioned about the weapons coming through, is a Category 1. If, by virtue of an administrative decision about a different categorization of the airport, that there is a lessened security, which the implication to me yesterday was that there was, then -- and I'll give you an example.

Anybody going to the ramp in Orlando had a badge that had a computer chip that, in order to get access from the terminal out to the ramp, for example the baggage handlers, that badge was swiped and up came the employee's image, their picture, on the computer screen. That was not the case in the Tampa airport, which was the Category 1.

So if there's a difference on the security, particularly with regard to, for example, catering personnel. Monday night on the flight to Florida, the flight attendant said to me, "Look, I've been here 25 years with this airline. They've done checks on me completely. What about the catering employee that has been hired for two weeks that has access to the airplane?" And so the question of the security there.

And then, furthermore, I would respectfully ask that the committee and you all consider that, as we federalize the security people that allowed that knife to come through that I showed you last Friday. And I can give you the details.

And by the way, it didn't happen just in one terminal. It happened in several terminals. They were ticketed. The law enforcement people of the sheriff's office were ticketed passengers. They did it at several checkpoints. All of the security failed Friday, after the Tuesday disaster.

Since then, however, things have gotten tighter. But the question is, who ought to perform that function? What we have heard here today is that it shouldn't be the airlines contracting for that function. That, in order to get to a greater security degree, everybody here has talked about federalizing.

Well, what about the aviation authorities themselves who have a security force in place with high standards that they monitor from a central control room? What about possibly them doing it instead of federalizing it? The idea is to get the greater degree of security to catch those kind of lethal items that I showed you a few minutes ago.

MINETA: There's no question. I cited an example to Administrator Garvey of an airport where the crews did not go through security on Sunday. And so I said tell your FSMs, your federal security managers -- see, one of the concerns I had as we were implementing this is, just as when I was chairing the Aviation Subcommittee on the House, we had airplane mechanics who were pencil whipping as to whether or not they checked something on the aircraft. They'd go right down the line. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Well, I said to Administrator Garvey, "Make sure, because your FSMs are good friends of airport directors, that they don't just sit there and pencil whip that those airports were doing certain things, that they were adhering to the new security measures." Because when I saw or heard about this example of a person who phoned me and said, "Norm, I never went through airport security."

It's a requirement that everybody goes through airport security. And so, yes, there are some of those things that we've got to plug the hole to make sure that our own people are adhering to these standards. And you know, we're trying to monitor those and stay on top of them as much as possible.

On the earlier example, this is what Tampa does. Does Tampa also have a fingerprint machine or a retina examination procedure? No, because that's determined by the airport.

Each airport determines what they're going to use as a screening device. And so there are standards that we establish. The question of how those standards are done at each airport is the responsibility of each airport and then it is the responsibility of our federal security manager to make sure that the airport is adhering to those standards.

So I wouldn't say -- and we don't have these security standards by Category 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, whatever. Security standards are uniform across the board, except for maybe just general aviation airports. And even that has become a concern to me.

If I go down somewhere and get on a charter, am I going through security? Are my bags checked?

So anyway, we're looking at that now. And maybe I could have Administrator Garvey expand on that whole issue about security by categories of airport.

Again, catering personnel, you mentioned. Absolutely. There are a lot of people who are on the ramp. But we're making, under the new stringent measures, saying they've got to be properly badged. And if they're not badged, they ain't on the ramp.

But again, those are the rules and regs we set out there. Is anyone observing them? Well, we want to make sure that our federal security managers are on top of those kinds of things so that you don't come to me and say, "Well, guess what happened? Here's a leather man that got through," as you did here.

I carry a leather man. I don't anymore, but I used to, in my briefcase, have one all the time.

Jane?

GARVEY: Three very quick points. One is that the secretary is right. We have basic standards and then airports can add to it if they'd like. We've always felt Category X was a higher risk. Those airports were higher risk, so therefore, we have a security manager at those airports.

But you're right. I heard from Fort Lauderdale yesterday and said, "Could you consider putting a security manager there?" We are looking at that because we do believe that's important.

The issue of the caterers, anyone who is in the secure area must have an approved badge. We are asking -- more than asking, we are requiring -- airports and airlines to validate those badges. I won't get into a lot of details because of the security implications. But let me simply say they are validating those badges. If you have access to the secure area, you must have a badge that's been validated by the airline or the airport presently.

HOLLINGS: Senator Boxer?

BOXER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, Madame Administrator, I know you both really well. I guess I have one strong request that I want you to keep in your mind. You don't have to write it down because it isn't a specific improvement because I agree with so many of them that have come out. And I have talked to you about them.

It's an attitude and a mindset that I think Senator Wyden is trying to get at. I want to know, when you are sitting across from the president, when you are sitting across from the vice president, that there's only one thing in your head: what happened on the 11th and how to make sure it doesn't happen again. I don't want you to think about well, what will it cost?

And Norm, I know you well enough that when you talked to Senator Allen and said, "Well, one idea is to put a marshal on every flight going in and out of Reagan National." You kind of rolled your eyes because I know you and I know how you are. And you sort of said, "Gee, that's 800 flight marshals."

Please, we voted. I never saw a vote as strong. Forty billion dollars as the first vote, putting all other concerns aside. How much of that money is going to go to make our airports safe? I was voting for it, believing that a lot of it would do that.

It will cost $2 billion to put an air marshal on every plane. That's what we've calculated. Maybe it's three (billion dollars), maybe it's four (billion dollars).

And I believe we're going to see fewer flights. I think Senator Allen is right on that. Once this thing all gets around, we're going to see fewer flights. And I think that's okay, as long as our airlines could be healthy and run fewer flights and run them full.

But all I want to know from you -- and I'm not even asking a question. I'm asking you to think about this, that those people will have died in vain if some bureaucratic mentality takes over or some budgetary consideration. Let someone from OMB yell about it. But I want you both to be there, saying, "I've calculated this. I know it's a lot, but I can't look the American people in the eye unless I know that it's going to take me X billion a year and I'm going to spend it right. And here is how I'm going to do it."

I need to know that you'd do that. I want to get into something we could -- I want to talk about Reagan for just a second because I hear the frustration of my chairman because his people are left in the lurch. And that is an economic nightmare. And I understand it.

And I'm wondering whether you have looked at ways to put some of those shorter hops out of other airfields around this area? I'll tell you the reason. I don't think you need to be a genius to know what these terrorists did to us. They hit an economic symbol in the World Trade Center.

And Jay (ph), you and I, you remember -- and John -- where we were when we watched it happen. They hit a military symbol at the Pentagon. And I believe they wanted to hit a political symbol. I could be wrong. I don't know. I'm thinking that may be it.

So I understand why there is a great concern around the NSC for air traffic right over our heads. I understand that. Frankly, I'm glad they have control. But I differ a little bit with my esteemed chairman on the point because I think you're under a lot of pressures that they're not under, frankly.

But I would love to see us do something pretty soon to save the people who are relying on Reagan National. And I'm wondering if you've looked at how to get some more gates up and running for those people who rely on Reagan National.

Have you looked at that issue?

MINETA: Well, first of all, US Airways has, I believe, transferred seven flights of the shuttle from the DCA operation to Dulles. Part of the problem is we don't have enough gates right now at Dulles. But airlines are looking at what alternatives they have.

BOXER: Are we helping them?

MINETA: Pardon?

BOXER: Are we helping them look?

MINETA: Helping them in . . .

BOXER: Yes, in trying to figure out how to do this.

MINETA: Oh, absolutely.

BOXER: Okay.

MINETA: Absolutely.

BOXER: All right. Well, I want to stress that.

MINETA: In terms of airspace allocation, in terms of gate space allocation, whatever. You know, we're not in a command and control system where we can say, "Delta, move over here."

BOXER: No, I understand. I'm glad you're helping them.

MINETA: Whatever their needs are, we are helping. I mean, this is what the president said to me.

BOXER: I only have time for just one. I want to get to one other area and then I'll stop. I just feel so bad for those people who rely on -- it's not people, but it's people, a lot of people. And so I hope we can help.

The last question, I want to deal with the cockpit issue because I feel the frustration, but I won't get into the past. Right now, today, while we wait, figuring out if we can use a new type of door, et cetera, we could put a heavy bolt. It won't cost that much.

And yet, I read, Mr. Secretary, that you didn't want to put out any rule because you're waiting to hear and so on and so on. I would encourage you. We need to take action today to secure that cockpit.

So I hope you'll think about a cheap and simple way. A heavy bolt door would -- whether the bolt will cost $1,000 or $5,000 or $500 is something I don't know. That ought to be coming down from you. And I'd like to comment on that.

And last, do we have video cameras in the cockpit that give the pilot a chance to look at what's happening in the cabin? And if not, maybe this is an inexpensive way to do something tomorrow to buy an inexpensive type of machine that, if somebody in the -- if there was a disturbance or somebody took out that camera, the pilots would have a sense that something's wrong.

Could you comment on those rather inexpensive ways to act now, rather than wait for your commission and your committee and your task force, et cetera?

MINETA: It's not a commission. It's not a committee. These are FAA employees. I don't know what I have to do to explain this.

BOXER: Okay. Wait until -- it isn't funny because I think we could do something today.

MINETA: Of course it's not funny.

BOXER: I think we could put a bolt in there today.

MINETA: Of course it's not funny. I'm the one who ordered these planes down.

BOXER: I wasn't talking about you. I'm talking about the people out there. I complimented you for doing that.

MINETA: And so in terms of the cockpit and the video camera, these again -- we're looking at every plausible alternative. And we're not the only ones involved. Airlines are involved in this process. Airline pilots are.

BOXER: Have you looked at a video camera and a bolt that you could order that without it being any extraordinary expense?

MINETA: A video camera used to be in the American Airlines cockpit.

BOXER: Looking at the passengers?

MINETA: Oh, no, no. They had their eye on the runway.

BOXER: No, no. I'm talking about -- let me just repeat the question. Maybe I should ask Mr. Jackson.

Have you looked at -- or Jane Garvey -- doing this right away? A heavy bolt to go on the door and a camera in the cockpit that looks out at the passengers and at what's happening in the cabins?

GARVEY: A bolt is one of the issues that the pilots and flight attendants have suggested. And that is under consideration. And frankly, it's just looking at what the logistics are, how you do it and so forth.

MINETA: How long would it take to get a certificate to do that? And to retrofit?

GARVEY: That's what we have to figure out.

MINETA: And one of the things we're doing is saying that whatever the airlines do, out of that money that you appropriated last week, those are eligible expenses for reimbursement.

BOXER: Well, that's exactly what we wanted.

MINETA: Well, you got it.

BOXER: Good.

MINETA: We're just waiting right now for someone, whether it be an airline or for -- as I said, I'm not waiting until October 1 to come with these actions. I'm waiting for . . .

BOXER: And the answer, have you considered a camera that looks out at the passengers?

MINETA: Yes.

BOXER: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I took so much time.

HOLLINGS: That's all right.

Senator Kerry?

KERRY: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Mr. Secretary and Madame Administrator, let me begin by complimenting you. I think the decision you made was an extraordinary decision. It was the right decision. You executed it effectively. And there is some evidence that there may well have been other mischief that was averted because of it. And you deserve our thanks for that.

And I wish you would convey, Madame Administrator, to all the controllers and those in the system how proud we are of the job that they did. It really showed a discipline and a capacity, I think, was exceptional. I think, for better or worse, this kind of situation obviously has a lot of people afraid. There is even a little panic in the air. And there shouldn't be.

No question in my mind. It's safer today to fly in the United States of America than it has been in months, if not years. And clearly, the events of the 11th and the steps that you've taken since have heightened security levels. And I don't think any American should fear, in the current construct, getting in an airplane. I just don't believe that.

Terrorists always seek out the next weakness. And they will. And the greater concern for the United States is going to be thinking about the things we haven't thought about.

We have a terrible way of fighting the last war, fighting the last campaigns. And it's always the next one that comes to bite you.

To that end, I think you have no choice but to federalize. And there are ways we can clearly make it safer, even as I say I believe it's safe to fly today. And I absolutely believe that. But we can make it foolproof. We can make it safer.

We certainly can guarantee that never again will an aircraft be used as a weapon, directable, into a building. And the doors are obviously one component of that. And I understand and appreciate the certification issues and the need to do that correctly.

But it can be done, I think, relatively fast. And with respect to Reagan Airport, you know, one of the strongest responses to terrorism is defiance. And I think we need, as an act of defiance, not to consider shutting Reagan Airport. I also think as a matter of safety.

I agree with what Senator McCain said. If there is an issue of safety, I'm with Senator McCain, as we all would be. But most of the pilots flying those aircraft, the aircraft in the United States, are ex-military, U.S. military pilots: United States Air Force, U.S. Navy. And the concept that you have a pilot risk is inconceivable. There isn't a pilot in America in the last days who hasn't said, "They'd have to kill me, tie me up," -- as they did -- "in order to take control of a plane."

If you don't have access to the cockpit, you can't make it a weapon. And if the pilots control that, it may be tough, as a matter of policy, but we have to be tough. If a terrorist knows there's no access, no terror in the cabin is going to open that door, then they'll start thinking about different things.

Does that mean the plane could go down? Yes, it does. But so could the restaurant explode. So could this Capitol, under certain circumstances. And we all know that.

The next thing I'd say about Reagan is that the screening. If you combine the lack of access to cockpit with a significantly augmented capacity in screening and even marshals, whether it's on every flight or not, to be determined, then the north river route fears that we all understand really disappear. And there is no reason to panic and not recognize our capacity to provide security.

You could even have a preferred pilot system. You can have all the pilots who are eligible to fly out of Washington pre-cleared. I mean, there are all kinds of ways to approach this.

Even on charters, fixed-base operators become part of the system. Fixed-base operators even might be considered to be licensed. Certainly, clearance checks, they become part of the process. I don't know many charters in America where the people who get on the charter don't know each other and where, in many cases, they aren't U.S. companies that are pre-clearable and so forth and so on. All of this is manageable if we kind of stay with common sense and thoughtfulness.

Now, with respect to the real issue here, airport security and the clearance issue, it's true, isn't it, that the companies that currently are utilized bid? Do they not? And the bid process encourages low bid, does it not?

Is there an audible?

MINETA: That's correct. You are correct.

KERRY: So if you have a low-bid bid process, which is hiring minimum wage employees with minimal training, we're not providing the kind of screening, are we, that we are potentially capable of?

MINETA: We recognize that all, as well.

KERRY: Okay. Having recognized that and recognizing that it is also a law enforcement issue, I mean, this is not just a matter of screening somebody. If an airport has information about potential people on a watch list or certain kinds of people or screening, that's an FBI-shared information. It's a CIA-shared information. It's a process of intelligence which is perhaps the single biggest gap in the United States today, with respect to any war on terrorism.

And I don't know how one can contemplate an adequate screening process that allows us to get on with the business of moving the country forward economically by making the airways safe without having a standardized system, with accountability, with capacity to share information between law enforcement agencies, with procedures that apply at every single airport and with accountability and a chain of command that gives the American people confidence. Now isn't that a fair statement of the benefits of federalizing?

MINETA: It is, sir. And in terms of standardization, levels of training, all of these issues are paramount with us, in terms of standards to be met, as a screener.

KERRY: And final question: is it not fair to say that if you have that level of screening and you have a cockpit impregnability, a plane cannot become a weapon again?

MINETA: I would like to think so.

HOLLINGS: Senator Rockefeller?

ROCKEFELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank all three of you very much.

I agree that flying is safer than it's ever been. I'd also agree that, in a post-last Tuesday psychology, this country and its people and all of us, to some extent, focus exactly on what happened at the World Trade Center and tend not to think about all the other things that might happen in the way of terrorist attacks.

I mean, I happen to believe that one of the, again, silver linings of -- if there were any -- of last Tuesday were the two great unknowns, one hidden and one simply ignored. That is, aviation security, aviation as an important factor in our national economy, financial viability on the one hand and intelligence, particularly human intelligence. You know that that attack did not go through a series of human discussions, not conducted on the Internet, between people, had we had people penetrating in there, then we could have known this.

So that all of a sudden, these two issues, one taken for granted, the other simply not understood, rose to the top of the national agenda, along with national security as a whole. Now having said that and having said that I think aviation is safer than it ever has been, we're talking about improvements.

In the conversation that Senator Hutchison and I had with a number of the CEOs and a number of other people, there was this feeling that, for example, on the doors, on modifications within the cockpit, do you put a lavatory, for example, within a cockpit so that the pilot doesn't have to come out or that there's a warmer inside so that the lunch or dinner doesn't have to go in and people don't see that, that there are some 7,000 commercial airlines in the air -- or potentially in the air -- and that this can't be done at all quickly.

I would like to get your sense of how quickly do you think we can begin to move, once we have made the decision between -- you have made the decision between -- Kevlar and whatever else it might be, adequate cockpit aspect security, that we can proceed to make those changes, pay for those changes, see them happen because that will directly affect, because it will be reported on extensively, public confidence, which in turn will put people into airplanes which, in turn, will satisfy some of the problems we're going to be discussing this afternoon, financial viability.

Seeing the improvements happen, as opposed to saying 7,000. That's too much. We can only do that on new airplanes that we build later. We can't reconfigure now. I welcome your thoughts.

MINETA: Well, first of all, when securing the cockpit, there is in this legislation that will be coming up to the Hill, a certain amount of money that will be able to go to the airlines for the retrofitting of their aircraft for the heightened security requirements, including things like a hardened door, including maybe modification of the electronics to deal with the transponder or to deal with the communications system so someone doesn't come in and say, "Turn off your radio on your transponder." It's going to be out of their control.

Those modifications will have to be done. And I would have to defer to Administrator Garvey as to what the time schedule would be. I think we can compress that schedule as quickly as it practicable. But you know, everyone sort of cites El Al as the example of an airplane that may be the least vulnerable. But I believe their door does not meet FAA standards or it's not certified by the FAA.

So even if we were to put, say, "Hey, man, that El Al door is really good," and say, put it in every U.S. aircraft, I don't believe it's certified by the FAA as an acceptable approach right now. Now, I believe -- and I'll have to defer to Administrator Garvey, but she'd have to talk to the timeline on how quickly we could do this -- but our direction from the president on down is whatever has to be done, get it done as quickly as possible, as it relates to, again, safety, security and the stability of the aviation industry.

ROCKEFELLER: Not waiting for the convenience of new airlines to be built. In other words . . .

MINETA: Right.

ROCKEFELLER: Okay, second question -- last question, so that everybody gets a chance to talk with you both -- and that is on technology. I know that there is a lot. You have your explosive detection system. There are a lot of other types of technologies, which could be enormously rapid in terms of airport safety, passenger safety, check-in and getting on. Biometrics, for one, eye or facial recognition, fingerprints, things of this sort.

What I wanted to get was that we're not, when we look at what we're going to do, in terms of inspecting people as well as baggage, that it isn't simply going to be the best of what we currently have, but that there is an ongoing sense of research and development now, much enhanced, to make sure that we have rapid -- more rapid -- ways of data collection, data comparison, face, eye, all the rest of it, so that you can match things together much more quickly and resolve matters more quickly.

MINETA: We are exploring all of those possibilities. I mean, whether it be a person putting in their hand for fingerprinting that then gets run through FBI in a very short period of time, whether it be explosive devices, whether it's a retinal examination, what kind of technology might be there, all of those are being explored. And some of them are already available off the shelf for utilization.

And for the airlines, it may mean cost. So then they get very, you know, they may take a look at it, take a second look at it.

But again, under the legislation that we're looking at, those kinds of heightened security measures, I'm quite sure, would fit for reimbursement from the monies that you folks have appropriated.

ROCKEFELLER: And it should be.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HOLLINGS: Thank you.

Senator Stevens?

STEVENS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Each of you, Mr. Secretary, Ms. Garvey, have brought us experience from the past administration. And we're proud of you. As a matter of fact, we wouldn't be sitting here, based on information that I received when I was in New York, we wouldn't be sitting here today, Norm, if you hadn't said, "Pull them all down."

So I think any implication here from anyone that might think that you haven't already thought about all of the things we've discussed so far, I think is wrong. We know you and we trust you. And I want you to know that I personally am grateful to you for what you did to try and recognize the situation in Alaska and Hawaii as quickly as you did.

I do have a couple of questions, though, about that, so I'd like to get right to it.

First, there is no relief been suggested for the Part 135 operators. Their losses are small compared to the others. But they're enormous compared to their size. And I would hope that we would, somehow or another, catch up with them before this is over.

For the benefit of some of my colleagues, the president doesn't have $40 billion. He's got $10 billion. The next $10 billion comes 15 days after we have received a plan. The next $20 billion comes as individual bills are passed to make it available.

So we've got a lot of time ahead of us to review some of the things that you can do. I do hope you get access to as much as possible of that $10 billion. That was our intention.

As a matter of fact, we wanted to make the full $20 (billion) available, but there were some people that wanted to review plans and take time. It will take time. But I certainly don't think you ought to be criticized for taking the time you've taken so far.

I do have a little problem about one reg, and that is you have now really totally prohibited our Combe (ph) operations in Alaska. A combination of cargo and passenger, aircraft such as the 737-200s serve our regional hubs. That means that they can go from Seattle and go out to Bethel or out to Nome. Without them, we can have intra- Alaska hubs, but we can't have the large hubs.

I think it's going to increase the cost to our rural areas. So I would urge you to take a look at that.

MINETA: I will.

STEVENS: I don't ask your comments about that now, but I would urge you to take a look at it.

Secondly, the FAA now requires, Ms. Garvey, background checks for pilots, but not for students. I would urge you to take a look at that.

GARVEY: We are, sir.

STEVENS: I knew you would. But it does seem to me that we ought to be doing more about that. I want to get to that also. You've got another order, I don't know how extensive it is now, about pilot training. In my state, as you know, more than 75 percent of all travel is by air.

Our average age for pilots is in excess of 50 years now. As a matter of fact, we believe that of those who are flying twin engine planes, more than 60 percent of them are over 55. Unless we have a pipeline of trained pilots coming at us, we're going to be in real trouble.

I would urge you to look at that restriction on pilot training. It makes no sense, in view of the increased demand now from the Air Force to call up the reservists. They're going to disappear from our commuters and our intra-state flights here within days. I would urge you to take a look at that.

Lastly, and I'm not going to take all my time. I'm going to see you again this afternoon, as a matter of fact, when we're talking on the joint House and Senate hearing, some of us are.

But I would urge you to consider one thing. I've had to both you two and some of your assistants so many times the last few days here since the 11th. Can't you give some of the regional people a little bit more discretion to deal with the exceptions, such as Senator Inouye mentioned?

We had organs in the air that were put down. We had medivacs that were grounded. We had problems of getting the schoolteachers out to the schools.

We had to get exemptions for so many things. And the regional people know us. And we're dealing with flights from Seattle north. I don't think Hawaii has a similar situation for intra-state that we do, but I would urge you to give those people more discretion to make the common sense exemptions on the spot, for emergencies, for traditional uses of aircraft, such as medivacs. They are our ambulances.

My last comment would be, I don't if there has been any restrictions on taxis in New York. There haven't been any restrictions on buses in New York. There haven't been any restrictions on planes going in and out of New York. But guess what? We don't have any of those.

We're totally dependent, in a state one-fifth the size of the United States, on air. And we just need a little bit more understanding of that as we move forward, particularly in terms of some of the costs that people seem to think can be easily absorbed by airlines. We have people still flying World War II planes on a daily basis. They can't be modernized that fast.

And I do think that when we're intra-state and we're dealing with planes that obviously cannot become a bomb, that we ought to have some greater flexibility without coming to your desks. But I thank you for each one of you for what you've done to help us.

And again, I congratulate you, Norm. I think that decision you made saved more lives than most people will ever, ever know. When you called and said, "Bring them down," you made the decision that saved a lot of us. And I thank you again.

MINETA: Appreciate it.

HOLLINGS: Mr. Secretary, let me associate myself with the praise and the thanks of Senator Stevens. But can you give us time for Senator Edwards, Carnahan, Cleland and Brownback? That's four times five is 20.

MINETA: Yes, sir.

HOLLINGS: I'll ask them to cut it to four minutes apiece.

MINETA: Can we take a little break here before we proceed?

HOLLINGS: Yeah. Yeah, we can take a little break.

MINETA: Three-minute break?

(LAUGHTER)

HOLLINGS: Let's take a little break. The committee will be at ease just for a minute. Thank you.

MINETA: The question now is where is it?

(LAUGHTER)

HOLLINGS: Come on.

(RECESS)

HOLLINGS: All right, folks. The secretary is back. And let's have quiet as quickly as possible here.

And where is Senator Edwards? You'd better get in your place.

Thank you very, very much, Mr. Secretary.

Senator Edwards? Let's have quiet please.

EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you, too. I want to join those who have thanked you before. We appreciate very much the service you provided -- the important service you provided -- for us over the course of the last 10 days.

The truth of the matter is that we have collectively, all of us, let our guard down. And I think it's important that we not just address this attack, but that we prepare for the next attack. And it seems to me that we ought to have some basic principles, broad, comprehensive basic principles in preparing for that.

One is to have the right people in place. Two is to have the right technology, the right and best technology in place. And three is to be forward looking.

One of the concerns that I have is we have had lots of discussion about some very important measures, some of which you've already taken, some of which are being discussed. Improving the security of the cockpit being one, putting marshals on planes being another. But the reality is we have to prepare for the next creative attack that these terrorists are working on right now.

And whether, in terms of getting the right people in place, whether we federalize it or not, which a lot of my colleagues seem to support and I think makes some sense, it's critical that those people have proper education and training. No doubt about that.

Second, it seems to me we ought to take advantage of the best cutting edge technology that's out there in this process. But third, and the thing that I think concerns me the most, is that we be forward looking. I think many of us have been concerned not about this specific kind of attack but about attacks of this kind for some time.

And for example, chemical and biological weapons is one example of a mode of attack that I think we need to be prepared for. I'd like to first get your comment on those principles, on making sure that we take a broad look at this issue and not be overly focused on the specifics of what happened last Tuesday, although obviously we need to prepare for that too, but that we also be creative and forward thinking about what may happen in the future, which I think is a critical component of whatever policy we develop as a response.

I'd like your response to those issues first. And then I want to ask you a couple of specific questions about potential attacks that have not yet occurred.

Mr. Secretary?

MINETA: Well, first of all, as it relates to your three basic principles about the right people in place and the right technology in place, there is no question that that's what we're trying to do. When you're talking about in terms of forward looking.

EDWARDS: Yes.

MINETA: Again, I think that would have to really be done in the context of a closed secured hearing, in terms of what and where because again, as I said earlier, with all the information we've got, could we have built a matrix, even to hint about what happened last Tuesday? Everyone says no. Everyone has got bits and pieces of information. But to try to focus all those elements and have it pointing in one direction, in terms of mode of what would happen, how it would happen, very little.

And so, the very question you're asking is something that, because we have pipeline, rail, all these other modes, we're thinking about what is it, you know, in terms of getting someone to patrol pipelines with a helicopter or whatever, those things are getting done right now. Those things started last Tuesday.

Coast Guard, in terms of checking on passenger cruise vessels, checking on bulk ships, chemical, oil, whatever. But this whole issue about forward looking, you know, is the part that's probably the most difficult. And it's something that Admiral Underwood in our shop, working with the CIA and all the intelligence agencies, FBI, we keep probing and thinking about these.

I get the same, you know, I'm looking at these reports day in and day out. Jane Garvey is, as well as her security person.

So in terms of forward looking, we're trying to make sure that all the modes are thinking about these things, in terms of what's the best way to deal with it. Dealing with the railroads, dealing with the oil companies, dealing with pipeline companies, dealing with ports, whomever. And so we've got all . . .

EDWARDS: Do you agree, though, that the notion that those basic principles make sense? Making sure we've got the right people, making sure we've got the right technology?

MINETA: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.

EDWARDS: And making sure that we are engaging in forward looking.

MINETA: As you say, federalizing may be . . .

EDWARDS: It may be the answer.

MINETA: It may be part of that.

EDWARDS: Yeah. Okay.

Ms. Garvey?

GARVEY: I would absolutely agree both with your statements and with the secretary. And I believe that we are doing exactly that, focusing on those principles.

HOLLINGS: Very good.

Senator Carnahan?

CARNAHAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think clearly the goal of the terrorists last week was to instill a crippling fear in America. They wanted literally to bring us to our knees, economically and politically. We have had others who have tried to do the same.

They did not succeed. And nor will these.

I think our response needs to be twofold. We must act quickly to see that these attacks never happen again. And we must act quickly to restore public confidence.

Mr. Secretary, obviously the new security measures are important to protect the safety of the flying public. But these measures are also important so that Americans regain confidence and continue to buy airline tickets.

I understand that after the Gulf War, that Barbara Bush took a ceremonial commercial airline flight to instill this kind of reassurance. Are there things you think that we can do today, such as to have perhaps a much publicized celebrity flight or to have a professional sports team take a flight, to demonstrate their confidence? In fact, perhaps you could take a highly publicized flight and perhaps come to Missouri. We would enjoy that.

MINETA: In fact, I don't know if I have it with me, but this is something that Administrator Garvey and I had talked about, taking what I called a whistle stop, barnstorming commercial flight, just boom. Coming in somewhere, having a press conference, talking to the local air traffic controllers, to the local press, getting on another plane, going on to somewhere else and doing the same thing and just barnstorming.

CARNAHAN: Well, let me know when you do that. I'd like to join you.

MINETA: Pardon?

CARNAHAN: Let me know when you do that. I'd like to join you.

MINETA: In fact, we were thinking about having members of the House and Senate accompany us, as well as press. And we haven't finalized those plans. But somewhere in my stack of stuff is the series of airports and things we might consider doing.

CARNAHAN: There is one other question, Mr. Secretary, I want to address, if you would? It's sort of an auxiliary question because you will not be here this afternoon.

MINETA: For the appropriations, the joint House and Senate Appropriations Committee meeting, I will be.

CARNAHAN: You will not be here for our Commerce Committee meeting, though.

MINETA: No, ma'am.

CARNAHAN: As you know, we are currently considering providing financial relief to assist the nation's airlines with their efforts to overcome their financial troubles associated with last week's terrorist attack. I'm convinced that we must pass a comprehensive financial stabilization measure for the airline industry that would address the liability question in a meaningful way.

But I also believe that any relief package for the airlines must include an additional component to provide assistance to displaced workers. This Congress must demonstrate that while we stand ready to bolster the airline industry, we are also committed to supporting the men and women who are the heart and soul of the industry. I'm working with a number of my colleagues to craft a proposal that would provide trade adjustment assistance benefits to these displaced workers from the airline industry.

News reports this morning indicate that the administration has come out with a proposal for an airline relief package, but I have not heard mention of aid for any of the displaced workers. What are your thoughts, or the thoughts of the administration, on including such a provision in an overall stabilization package?

MINETA: As a result of what happened on Tuesday, a DCPC was set up, a domestic consequences policy committee, because there are a lot of consequences that impact on a domestic basis, rather than the foreign policy or military policy issues. The president has very clearly talked about making sure that present programs relating to unemployment compensation, trade adjustment assistance or retraining programs be part of the whole consideration of what we're doing.

Now that's not in the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation. But those are on the president's menu of things that the domestic consequences policy committee is doing.

CARNAHAN: Thank you very much. I appreciate hearing that.

HOLLINGS: Senator Cleland?

CLELAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, distinguished panelists. I've been listening to what our colleagues have been saying here, trying to think how I could add to the discussion. I will say that I took my own whistle stop tour. It was on a train, on Friday, going back to Atlanta. But I came back on Delta Tuesday afternoon.

I spent a good deal of time at Hartsfield, talking to the management there, the security people there, passengers there. This is my conclusion.

I think we have to dramatically upgrade our technology and our people to do the screening at our airports, or else we will basically fail in our main mission here, and that is to increase the confidence of the flying public in our commercial aviation system. The clock is ticking on our airlines, as we well know. The phrase that FDR had a number of years ago in '33 comes to mind. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- blind, unreasonable fear."

And there's blind, unreasonable fear out there in American hearts today about flying on an American commercial airliner. We have to address that fear. We have to do some confidence-building measures.

And I think there are two that we ought to zero in on, two that have to do with what the GAO has really called our weakest link. The GAO called our x-ray process at the screening points our weakest link. But I think we have another weak link. Before I get beyond the question of technology, I'd just like to point out that Senator Edwards is correct, Senator Kerry is correct and Senator John Breaux is correct. We need to think about maybe the next attack.

In that regard, we can think about biological-chemical warfare. Georgia Tech has invented a sensor just that large that can detect chemical and biological residue. This is the kind of technology that I think we're going to have to instill in our screening process.

Secondly, I think we're going to have to dramatically upgrade our people. Sadly enough, according to the National Academy of Sciences, there are about 18,000 screeners that work in the United States. They cover some 700 security checkpoints. But the DOT IG has reported high turnover rates, anywhere from 100 percent to 400 percent. And that 400 percent is at the busiest airport in the world, Hartsfield, I'm sad to report.

What do they make? Anywhere from $5.25 to $6.75 an hour, without benefits. The sad news, as I have discovered here, Mr. Secretary, is that our screeners look at going to work for Cinnabon as a promotion.

We can't have that kind of culture now as our first line of defense. I favor, as would Senator Kerry, Senator Breaux and some others, the federalization of our screening process. I think that's the only way we're really going to get at this problem of instilling some confidence in the American people, providing the technology, providing the capability to really get the job done.

I asked our security people at Hartsfield exactly what they recommended. And that seemed to be the unanimous opinion.

What do we have now? Unfortunately, we have a security company that covers 17 of the 20 largest airports in the country, where two of the four hijacked planes originated. That company pled guilty to allowing untrained employees, including some with criminal backgrounds, to operate checkpoints in Philadelphia. The parent company was fined over $1 million.

It has also pled guilty to falsifying test scores for two dozen applicants, hiring at least 14 security screeners with criminal backgrounds, ranging from aggravated assault and burglary to drug and firearm possession. And the highest advertised job paid $8 an hour.

Now we can do better than that. We are going to have to do better than that. Congress, the presidential commissions, the GAO, the inspector general, the DOT, all over the last number of years have indicated that we have to do better on that screening process. The GAO looked at five other countries that do screening at airports. And they found all of those five had more extensive qualifications and training for screeners, had higher pay and benefits for screeners, assigned responsibility for screeners to the airport or to the national government and had in place more stringent screener checkpoint operations.

As a matter of fact, the British, in the wake of the Lockerbie, Scotland airline disaster, where the plane was blown up in flight, have installed very highly sophisticated x-ray machines. And I think this kind of upgrade in technology, upgrade in people, is a tangible way to begin reinforcing the view that it is safe to fly on American commercial air.

Mr. Secretary, do you favor, are you prepared to share with us today your view that you favor this kind of federalization of the screening process?

MINETA: I haven't come to a real determination in terms of federalization because there are various meanings of that. If these are civil service employees or does federalization mean making sure that private operators still are going to be required to meet new standards?

CLELAND: I'm thinking like a domestic customs service. I mean, we have the Customs Service to look at people coming into the country. How about people flying . . .

MINETA: As I said earlier, yes we have looked at that. It is on part of the things that we're looking at. It would be the equivalent of, as I said earlier, 28,000-plus full time equivalents at a cost of close to $1.8 billion. If the Congress is willing for us to do that, of course we would do that.

But again, there are a number of items on that menu about how to deal with the screening. And the ultimate answer is civil service of that screening operation. And I haven't come to the conclusion yet that that is the best way to go.

CLELAND: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

HOLLINGS: Thank you.

Senator Brownback?

BROWNBACK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to add my statement of thanks to the members of the panel for the work that you've done here recently in a very, very difficult atmosphere. And thank you for taking aggressive action and taking it quickly.

Administrator Garvey, if I could, I'd like to direct questions to you, if you might, on general aviation. You've been to my state. You've been to Wichita, I think, even twice.

GARVEY: Three times, actually.

BROWNBACK: Three times? That's even better. To the manufacturers, you know the concentration of general aviation manufacturing is taking place there. Boeing is also there. It's now 30 percent layoffs, so there's a major impact.

I understand your concern on visual flight, limiting those flights right now. I can see the tension that you've got about should we allow some of these or shouldn't we, given the potential problems. I'm wondering, in particular, what your thinking process is that you're going through on flight schools.

Those are the largest users of general aircraft, general aviation aircraft. And as I understand, generally they operate under visual flight rules. And they have not been released, as I understand.

Have you got a timetable that you're thinking of in viewing this because obviously, at some point in time, these need to get going again so that we can train pilots?

GARVEY: Well, senator, as you know, last night -- yesterday, actually -- we worked through a number of these issues with the NSA. And with the secretary's approval and go-ahead last night, we lifted many of the restrictions that we had in place for general aviation. But you're absolutely right. Flight schools was still an issue where the regulations or the restrictions had not yet been lifted.

I heard an excellent suggestion today that perhaps if we looked at some of the -- or did a background check on some of the students. I think given some of the history of the hijackers, there has been some concern. But I took note of that recommendation and that suggestion and would like to bring that back. Perhaps if we could do something like that, we might be able to lift that restriction.

And again, this is in consultation with the NSC, who are of course looking at some of the security issues involved. But I know of the concern, not only in your state but in a number of other states as well. The flight schools are very important. And a number of them are very small businesses. And this has an enormous impact.

So it was a good suggestion. We'll look at it and see what we can do.

BROWNBACK: Well, if we can put those students through some sort of test or screening so that we can see, maybe, and that might give us clues or leads on future problems as well. But I think this is one that we need to try to work out together because clearly there is a tension here. I don't want to get people in training that could be potential terrorists or use a general aviation aircraft for some sort of a bomb delivery device as well.

So we need to look at that very carefully. And I agree with doing that. It's just we're also going to have to find a way that we can train pilots. And we're going to need to get some of these general aviation aircraft back up in the air.

Do you anticipate then that you will be doing this within the next week or two?

GARVEY: We are continuing to look at these issues every day with the NSC. There are a whole series of issues that we are working through every day. And I'm going to go back and talk to staff.

And this suggestion that was made here at this committee today may be something that would sort of break that one loose. But we'll aggressively pursue it. I do understand it's a real concern.

BROWNBACK: And I thought maybe Senator Stevens' thought about giving some discretion on other general aviation work to more regional administrators in some of these calls might be worth taking a look at. We cannot breach security issues. I think those have to be the top and paramount one for us.

But situations do differ in differing areas. And general aviation is a very important thing in my state and many regions of the country.

Secretary Mineta, have you had particular thoughts about this as well?

MINETA: Sir, many of the things that we do have to be cleared through the National Security Council. So even if we delegate it to a regional office, it would still have to be cleared through the National Security Office -- Security Council. And that's why we've held it here because we're -- you know, these ideas that or things that we're doing right now are not engraved in marble. We go back every day and say, "Well, okay, now what about this? You know, yesterday we banned this. But can we lift it today?"

So it's an ongoing process.

BROWNBACK: If I could, before my time is up, are you going back through lists of pilots or people that have taken flight training? I presume everybody is going through those now to see about potential other problems.

MINETA: The FBI is doing that primarily.

BROWNBACK: Do we have good records on individuals that have gone through flight training? Or do those records need to be upgraded of what we're asking to people when they take flight training?

MINETA: Okay. We could give you a classified briefing on that issue, if you need it.

BROWNBACK: All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HOLLINGS: Very good.

Mr. Secretary, and thanking you on behalf of the committee and Administrator Garvey and Deputy Secretary Jackson.

One, with respect to the affording the federalization of security personnel, I could take a bill out here this afternoon and whip it through both houses with almost a majority vote. Why? Because in Europe, they afford the federalization. Those security personnel at all the airports are government employees. If they can afford it, we can. And in fact, after 9/11, we must.

Point two, with respect to Reagan, I wouldn't allow any plane to fly off of Reagan unless that cockpit was secured. But what you're saying, in having opened up the experts -- Dulles and Baltimore -- it's safe enough to hit the White House from Baltimore and Dulles. Or specifically, with respect to New York, we're really concerned about the safety of the government down here in Washington, but not about the people of the government because you can fly off LaGuardia and hit the Empire State this afternoon.

So let's get with it and get telling to make some decision and quite dillying around. And finally, since you're secretary of transportation, nine out of 10 containers. We've had it and we've been trying to get the bill passed. Nine out of the 10 containers coming into the ports of the United States of America come in at New York, bail (ph) New Jersey and taken right down to Times Square with up to 40 tons of anthrax. Boom. And you don't have to send them to driver's school to get that done.

So we've got a lot of work to do. And we've got to get serious about it. But we can't while we're dillying around with the Secret Service. The president would still be down there in Louisiana. You know what I mean?

NELSON: Mr. Chairman, if you will . . .

HOLLINGS: So let's get realistic about it. Make sure you secure that cockpit. But once that cockpit with the marshals and the security personnel, but particularly with the cockpit secured, then you can open up Reagan.

NELSON: Mr. Chairman, may I just add that we have been hit with the issue of the flight schools in Florida so much. And I would just add to that the simulators because these were people that just didn't go out and learn to fly a two-engine airplane. These were people that had pinpoint accuracy at high rates of speed, accounting for wind direction. And a lot of that has got to come from either the aircraft itself or a simulator. And that's where we need the background checks as well.

HOLLINGS: Senator Rockefeller and then Senator Wyden. And then we've got to go, unless -- George, you got . . .

ROCKEFELLER: Mine is real fast. Everybody at the hearing this morning and virtually all who consider this matter have made it an article of faith and assumption that screeners will be federalized. It was unanimous.

When the senator from Georgia asked you what your view was, Mr. Secretary, you said you hadn't made up your mind. And I was stunned by that. I'm asking for a response.

MINETA: Well again, we've got all these items on the menu. And even though I may be the secretary of transportation, I'm also still the assistant to the president. And to that extent -- or staff to the president -- and there is OMB and NSC, things that we still have to clear it with.

So to that extent, I'm going to be talking about these at the DCPC, as we have. And I'll do that.

ROCKEFELLER: I hope you'll mention to them your discomfort at not being able to ask -- answer on national television something which the American people, I think, feel very strongly about -- and surely we do -- because of the usual processes of clearance.

HOLLINGS: Senator Wyden?

WYDEN: I'll be very quick.

Mr. Secretary, the point that the chairman and Senator Rockefeller have made is absolutely key. And the point is that the Congress wants to work with you, so that quickly we can federalize this function and we don't have a situation that 15 years from now, we're having more GAO reports. We want to work in partnership with you so that quickly a bill that comes with Senator Hollings and Senator Rockefeller actually gets done.

And I think that has been sort of the seam of this hearing, to work with you in partnership so we don't have 15 years of these reports once again.

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HOLLINGS: Senator Allen?

ALLEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our next panel will be good for asking questions on remote guidance of aircraft and so forth. And I would say to Senator Wyden, hopefully our subcommittee can have a hearing on the use of automatic ground control systems.

Let me follow up on the issue of general aviation. I'm glad that, but for 30 areas, VFR is now open, at least as of last evening. That means a great deal to underpopulated or smaller areas. It's also, whether it's in West Virginia, Virginia or virtually any state.

How do you envision -- I'm asking Administrator Garvey -- how do you envision this industry changing in the future when it gets back to where you might consider relatively normal? How do you see general aviation changing in the future after this tragedy?

GARVEY: Well, I think we're already starting to hear from officials of the associations in general aviation and from members of general aviation as well, that they want to look at their own security, look at the issue of security with us. I give a great deal of credit to the fixed-base operators who, in a number of occasions over the last several days, have stepped forward with some very specific ideas on security. And I think that's good.

I think we're going to see the industry and that part of the community as engaged with us on security measures as they have been on safety measures in the last several years. So they are thoughtful. They are deliberative. They are smart. They care a lot about aviation. And I expect we'll be working closely with them on ways that we can make general aviation, which has a lot more challenges, even more secure.

HOLLINGS: Senator Boxer?

BOXER: Thank you. Let me just very quickly pick up on Senator Rockefeller's point. And it gets back to what I said about your being at the table, looking at OMB and telling them this is what you want. I am sad that today you can't say, in my view, after all these studies and all the stuff that Max Cleland told you, I'm sure you know about, people checking our bags who are criminals, who look at it as a step up to work in the doughnut shot, that you could say to us you are intent upon making sure that, as in other countries in the world, that these screeners have steady jobs, get the respect and the training.

And your answer is, basically, at this day, "Well, you know, I work for the president and I've got to sit around with OMB and everybody else." What I want you to tell me -- and you haven't and you won't and that's just the way it is -- is, you know, I would sacrifice my whole future if I felt we weren't doing every single thing we could do. And this screening issue is absolutely crucial here.

So I just hope after this hearing, if you take away anything, it's that colleagues here are really ready to go. We want to work with you. We want to make sure that the flying public is safe because I could tell you, if they aren't, then we'll try to re-roll this tape. And we'll all say at that moment, did we really rise to the occasion?

Mr. Chairman, I feel so strongly about this because I think it is the turning point -- today, right now, what we all do together. And I just want you to be strong in those meetings, Norm.

And I say the same to Administrator Garvey. If you're not, if this isn't your only concern, the safety, then we haven't done much today. And that's what I'm worried about.

HOLLINGS: Norm will be strong.

MINETA: Mr. Chairman, let me just again, I don't want you to have the feeling that I am for the status quo. It's going to be enhanced. It's going to be a hell of a lot better than it is right now. But I can't guarantee you, sitting here, that these are going to be civil servant employees doing the job, if that's the definition of federalization. If it is the definition of federalization, I can't -- I don't think Jane is ready to or Michael is ready to say, "Let's make it a civil service program."

BOXER: But aren't there federal standards now?

MINETA: No, there are not.

BOXER: There are no federal standards for the screeners?

MINETA: That was Senator Hutchison's bill that gave to the FAA the ability to come up with new training requirements, new screening requirements. As Senator Cleland said, we know the company.

BOXER: And you would call that federalization?

MINETA: What's that?

BOXER: Having better standards in place and then leaving it up to the airlines to decide who those people are?

MINETA: Based on our standards. We can still do the screening, the making sure that . . .

BOXER: That sounds to me more like the status quo. But I've taken up too much time.

MINETA: It is absolutely not.

BOXER: Too much time. Sorry.

MINETA: I'm sorry. To think about the screeners as we know them today, absolutely not. This is going to be substantially different. But if you're saying, asking me, is it going to be a federal civil servant doing this work, I can't give you that answer right now. But it will be enhanced. It will be a hell of a lot better than it is right now.

HOLLINGS: Making them civil servants is the only way to really get competent personnel and get the pay up and everything else.

But that having been said, thank you, all three of you, very, very much. And we ask panel number two to please come forward as quickly as they can. HOLLINGS: Mr. Gerald Dillingham, the director for physical infrastructure issues at the GAO; Mr. John Meenan, the senior vice president of the Air Transport Association; Captain Duane Woerth, president of the airline pilots association; Mr. Charles Barclay, president, American Association of Airport Executives.

And Mr. Paul Hudson. We want to note him as the executive director of the Aviation Consumer Action Project.

Now gentlemen, the committee apologizes, but you can understand the interest. And that's what we have every time when we organize a committee. We tell the leadership, "Wait a minute." We used to have eight and seven and 15 on the committee. And that's the only way to get thoroughly into the questioning and finding out from the panel or from the witnesses.

And they've given us 23. And we have got plenty of other questions that I wanted to ask and others. And of course, the record is open.

That being the case, we're going to ask you to file your statements here with the committee and let me yield for the questioning of the members there and then any add-ons that you gentlemen would wish because you're under pressure, too.

Senator Rockefeller?

ROCKEFELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, gentlemen. And again, I also appreciate your patience.

Duane, let me start with you. We've been talking about federal air marshals. And we want them. Federal air marshals can sit in two places, in fact, on an airplane. They can sit aft or they can sit in the cockpit. We've divided those two very distinct parts of the airplane, trying to secure one in absolute terms to make sure this cannot happen again in the form that it has.

I saw you on national television say that nothing is not on the table. And I forget whether the question was in terms of a stun gun or in terms of a firearm. But in any event, there was nothing sort of off the table. And I was pleased about that and happy for that.

The federal marshal aft, with only 32 available in the country right now and with lots of money there can be a lot of training. But if the person isn't yet up to speed in experience, if in training he might be -- or she -- the shooting of a gun in the wrong place is catastrophic. So knowledge of the plane and its systems is crucial.

I cannot help but think that from a tactical point of view, from a visual point of view, from a psychological point of view, that there is no -- obviously -- greater symbol of control than the pilot. There is also the additional advantage that the pilot has his back or her back to whoever it is hopefully cannot enter into the reconfigured cockpit as soon as that can be effectuated.

My question to you is what do you see as the pluses and minuses of pilots with their back to the intruder, should that ever happen? And remember, with all of the rural places we're talking about and the turbo props, you're talking about folding often, folding doors, as opposed to much more secure ones that you have on the larger airplanes.

Your sense as to pilots' willingness in view of other responsibilities they have and pilots' effectiveness, in terms of having either a stun gun or other form of protection to dis-enable somebody who might get in.

WOERTH: Well, senator, if I can make a simple statement? We can't be sky king and Wyatt Earp at the same time. I mean, our principal duty is to fly the airplane. But we're left with a situation right now, until all the adequate additional security measures of keeping bad guys off the airplane, if we're already to the point where there's a bad guy on the airplane, we've failed most of the system to that point.

So we are advocating in our testimony that we have submitted to you here, that we would at least like those non-lethal tasers or stun guns installed in the aircraft. We believe we could use those.

But obviously, the federal marshal program is going to be much more effective. We want law enforcement taking care of security. Pilots are trained to fly airplanes, not be law enforcement agents. And so we're looking, as our first priority, other people in security and law enforcement to take care of firearms and take care of that form of security, sir.

ROCKEFELLER: In that there are two sections to the airplane, would that -- and again, this is a matter of money and as yet untrained, completely untrained, unavailable personnel. Would that include having a marshal in the cockpit itself in the event of the failure of a door system and understanding that that's going to take some time to put that into 7,000 airplanes?

WOERTH: So our anticipation of the federal marshal should be an incognito passenger inside the passenger cabin.

ROCKEFELLER: But not the cockpit?

WOERTH: But not the cockpit. A lot of it is a practical question. We know that, even with the rapidly increasing number, hopefully of these federal marshals, that the incognito aspect of it, the uncertainty on how many of them there are, where they are, will be better use of them for a deterrent if perpetrators or hijackers are never quite sure which flight, where this agent is.

So that is for that reason. If he walks in the cockpit and sits down, they know where he is. I'm not sure how effective he will be inside. He'll help us defend the cockpit, but it can cause a lot of havoc in the cabins.

HOLLINGS: If the distinguished senator yield? That's what Glick and Bingham proved on that plane that was downed in Pennsylvania because if they had been up in the cockpit or recognizable as marshals, they would have been done away with, with the card cutter, long since. But that Glick was a judo expert and old Bingham was just as big.

And they decided -- and they said so on the telephone -- we're going to take them. And that's why you and I were saved or the White House was saved, one or the other. But definitely have them incognito.

ROCKEFELLER: I'll conclude with that, Captain Woerth. The control center, in absolutely all psychological sense, is in the cockpit. And short of the installation of the best possible door or the fail-safe door to protect the pilot and therefore the cockpit and therefore the passenger and therefore the sense of confidence of the traveling public. I think the cockpit has to be a very, very secure place.

WOERTH: I agree with you, senator.

ROCKEFELLER: And I think that the pilots have to believe that it's a very, very secure place.

HOLLINGS: Very good.

Senator Allen?

ALLEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is going to be focused on technologies. And I was reading very quickly, as well as I could, through Captain Woerth's recommendations here, near-term and long-term. And I think all of us, as I have said and other senators and I think the pilots clearly understand that we need to make sure that never again can an aircraft be used as a weapon.

And there are quite a few ideas, many of which you have in your recommendations here, to make sure that the cockpit, as I like to say, to analogize it to a vault that is only opened from the inside. Long haul flights may need lavatory services somehow in it or a double door that closes the lavatory if a pilot needs to use it.

And there is all these ideas about air marshals. And I think that the air marshals are going to be a part of our life on commercial flights in the future. And in fact, one of the members of this committee, Senator Hutchison, has a bill to look into that.

Now it seems to me, in the area of technology, that we do have the technological capacity on modern day aircraft to permit a pilot to turn over control of the aircraft to some remote site under a matter of duress. I was looking at your recommendation 17, where you're talking about biological-chemical matters. That means you need to know what's going on.

There needs to be sensors. There may also need to be ways that you can knock out, not kill, but immobilize people in the back.

You also, in recommendation 18, say that the FAA should immediately develop and implement air traffic control communication code for advising all pilots, as far as radio contact and so forth. Now I've heard of some research that would effectively limit where a flight may travel.

There is a topographic computer model for the route that any flight could be built and to designate areas that are off limits. The limits could be an altitude floor or a ceiling.

It could be a virtual fence around a city, whether that's Washington, D.C. or Manhattan or the Loop in Chicago, even have a virtual dome put into place over a building, if that were the concern. Now, it's my understanding that such a system of this kind would be very possible, especially on our newer, Fly-By-Wire aircraft.

So I would ask you, Captain Woerth, although I would be interested in Mr. Meenan's views as well, but do you feel that such a concept, since you represent pilots, do you feel that such a concept of these control authority transfer or automatic ground control avoidance technologies are feasible and practical?

WOERTH: They may be feasible, but I do not believe they are practical, certainly in any of the near-term answers that the nation is looking for. They would mostly likely be used in the most sophisticated new fly-by-wire aircraft, whether that be Boeing or Airbus. But that still leaves 5,000 other airplanes that would have to be retrofitted and may not be capable of employing that technology.

So I would think the amount of money that we would spend on that project, sir, I think, into the security elements up front, avoiding the problem, have to direct an airplane, would be better spent. I do believe it's possible. But I think as the Congress and the administration prioritizes its resources and where they're going to put the money first, that's probably why it was farther down on our list of recommendations, senator.

ALLEN: Well, since September 11, costs are obviously still a concern, but safety is primarily a concern. And when you see certain airports, such as those around here, being shut down, in the event that any of this could be retrofitted into commercial airlines, it would seem to me that that, when the flight plan is set.

Again, we'll have to explore it, but I'd like to see this use of technology as a way of helping pilots, that they can somehow push a button, make a communication that if there is distress, the flight -- the rest of that flight is taken over remotely so that the hijackers, even if they do somehow get in, that that airplane cannot be used as a weapon. And we'll have to explore this. Hopefully in our subcommittee with Senator Wyden, we'll explore it.

Mr. Meenan, are your views similar to those of Captain Woerth?

MEENAN: I would concur fully with Captain Woerth. I think many of these avionics and control solutions are something that need to be looked at. But I think we need to focus much more immediately on the things that we know we can do in the very near term.

ALLEN: Which is securing the cockpit.

MEENAN: Well, securing the cockpit is one of them. Sky marshals, as we have all discussed, is another. And generally upgrading the security at airports through a federal program to take control of that.

ALLEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HOLLINGS: Very good.

Senator Wyden?

WYDEN: Just a couple of questions. If the government was responsible for security, wouldn't it be possible to move more quickly when it came to dealing with these issues? I mean, right now, as I understand it, you've got a regulated entity. You've got regulated companies. And that's a big part of the problem with respect to the process of getting these matters out more quickly.

Do any of you have an opinion?

(UNKNOWN): Very much so. Our view is very strongly that dealing with terrorism, there are seven tools at your disposal: diplomacy, economic sanctions, military action, court action, intelligence gathering, law enforcement. And the last line of defense, not the first, is counter-measures, security systems, things like we're talking about here.

The government controls all of the first six. We have been asked in the past to control the seventh. We think the evidence is clear that that is not the way to go. This has to be under a unified, single point of control for the kind of speed you're talking about, Senator Wyden.

WYDEN: All right. My time is short. Do any of you disagree with what that answer entailed?

(UNKNOWN): Let me just -- among our members at the moment, we're still trying to come up with a position on the screening issue. And the only difference, we agree that it should come from the airlines. Some airports out there -- Orlando and Tampa are two of them that Senator Nelson visited -- think it would be best if they used their local law enforcement people under a federal set of standards. But still, you'd have law enforcement there. Most of our members agree that it is a federalization of the process would be best.

WYDEN: Mr. Dillingham, Mr. Hudson, I want to ask about one other matter.

DILLINGHAM: Yes, Senator Wyden. We believe too that the less levels that you have in between control and action, the more rapidly you can get things accomplished.

WYDEN: Mr. Hudson, any disagreement?

HUDSON: I would agree. The fact that we have private contractors, we have airlines and we have a government and we have airports. There is a communication problem. There is a confidence problem.

We don't think the system is going to improve significantly. We have proposed a federal aviation security agency be created so that it can be brought up to the same standard as we have for other specialized federal law enforcement and national security agencies.

WYDEN: Mr. Dillingham, a question for you. I have been reading on the floor of the United States Senate, in this committee this morning, essentially from 15 years of reports that you all have issued, literally going back to that 1987 report on certification of screeners. And again and again, you have documented the delays and inaction.

And as I have said as well, now is not a time for a blame game. And there is plenty to go around for various presidents and various Congresses and various interest groups.

What's your counsel to this committee today so that now, on this set of key questions -- not just the screeners, but the other issues that we're looking at -- what's your counsel for this committee so that 15 years from now, we're not going through essentially the same drill? For example, do you think it ought to be the role of this committee to cut through some of the political turf battles, which clearly held up some of the actions, are warranted?

Should we step in at some point with respect to resolving some of the cost questions? What's your counsel so that 15 years from now we're not just going through this once again?

DILLINGHAM: Senator Wyden, I think that I'd like to think that we have a sea change from what happened a week or so ago and that we won't be here six years from now or 15 years from now in the same situation. But clearly, we must understand that no security system is 100 percent safe. And there is no guarantee that something like this or from another dimension will happen again.

But it seems to me that everybody is on board now. And the issues are at the margins. But it's clear that everyone says that we have to move now and not later.

WYDEN: I guess I will tell you, I'm still concerned because I went back and looked at all those reports. And people were on board before. When those recommendations were issued, they were almost always unanimous recommendations.

And I think my feeling is -- and I want to talk to my colleagues, particularly the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee -- is that if the administration doesn't come back on this question of federalizing security functions with specifics pretty quickly, I hope that Senator Hollings and Senator McCain and Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison, the bipartisan leadership of this committee, will work with all of you and the interested parties so that it is resolved.

I mean, I don't see any other kind of path. We made it clear today that we're anxious to work with the administration. And I would only say my only non-negotiable point at this point, only one non- negotiable point, is to let this thing drag on as it has in the past, where you've had plenty of well-meaning people but the vulnerability slipped between the cracks. And in order to do it, we're going to have to work closely with all of you.

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HOLLINGS: Senator Boxer.

BOXER: Yes, I apologize for having to go out and meet some constituents. I have two questions, one of them is specifically to talk about pilot training. And I don't know how many of you want to address that.

And then the second is I'm going to ask each of you if you were us and forgetting any money concerns, as if that wasn't a question, what would the top one, two and three things be? If you've only got one, that's fine. But just give me about those ideas.

I was thinking, Mr. Chairman, that I have supported with many of my colleagues, a check when people go to get a gun. And it used to be a three-day check. We check on them before they can get the gun.

Now we got it to a 24-hour check -- we're using computers -- before they get a gun. Now, we have a situation where American planes have been used as missiles, weapons. And I am just thinking. Pilots come, you know, potential pilots come from other countries. And they go in. And it doesn't seem to me there is much of a check.

So I would like to know how you feel -- and again, depending on if you have expertise on this -- what's an idea? I would think we ought to have a check on each and every person who comes. I mean, I wouldn't profile anyone. I would just say this is now a whole other ball game.

Could you support something like that, where we have a pretty good check and then, if there is any reason to believe a problem, we would hold it off indefinitely until we cleared the individual to go to pilot school? Any of you want to talk about that?

Captain, do you have a feeling on that?

WOERTH: Well, I think this will probably demonstrate my lack of knowledge in security and law enforcement, which is why I want law enforcement agencies or a new agency we recommended be created to deal with law enforcement and security. I don't think the FAA is competent to do it and I don't think the airlines are competent to do it. And I know I'm not competent to do it.

But I want the intelligence community and all those involved in law enforcement to be able to find these type of individuals so they do not get to the airport and so, if they do get to the airport, they don't get into my aircraft. And if they get to the aircraft, they never get into the cockpit. So that's how I approach it.

BOXER: Well, I couldn't agree with you more. I think this is something for law enforcement. And I think, you know, when the airlines are going to come before us later, one of the things I want to do is take that whole part of it away from them.

WOERTH: Yeah, I agree.

BOXER: And frankly, my own view, away from the FAA. It is a law enforcement issue we're dealing with. And I personally think the FAA has not done well. Witness all these reports.

And I hope, Mr. Chairman, when you're looking at this whole issue of airport security, when we think about who these screeners would work for, let's think about what their function is. Their function isn't keeping the skies clear and doing air traffic control. It's keeping criminals away from innocent people.

So I hope you'll think about that. It may be a difficult thing because it's a new way of thinking.

But captain, I agree.

Anybody else have thoughts on this pilot question? Yes?

(UNKNOWN): Senator, we recommend that steps need to be taken to secure the entire U.S. aviation system against infiltration by terrorists. There is over 40 trained pilots on the FBI's wanted list now as of the last terrorist incident. We know that half the hijackers, of the 19, had at least some pilot training.

In addition to the people that work in the airports and the airplanes, we think that passengers, pilots, aviation security, airport, airline employees and contractors must all be screened to ensure that suspected or wanted terrorists are not infiltrating our aviation system. Part of what happened last week is, I think, a lack of communication.

Supposedly, at least two of the hijackers were on a U.S. government terrorist watch list. I don't know if that's true, but that's been in the news reports.

But none of them were flagged, as far as we know, of the 19. There is technology.

BOXER: But I'm just getting at a different point. I'm getting at a point in keeping them out of the flight schools. I mean, for example, when someone comes in and says, "I don't want to learn how to land and I don't want to learn how to take off, I just want to know how to steer," we ought to now know that that's something that we need to think about.

But frankly, some of these people we know that would never have gotten into these flight schools if they had to go through some kind of law enforcement check. And just could I ask that last question?

Could each of you give me? Don't pass the buck here, please.

What do you think? And this is just a personal opinion. I'm not asking you to speak for anybody else. What could we do in this bill? Because frankly, Mr. Chairman, you're going to have to lead us. I'm sad to say, that's what I think is going to have to happen.

Why do I say I'm sad? Because what I heard before is -- and I love them -- a lot of holding back. I don't think we can hold back. I talked to too many people who were directly affected. I'm worried about them dealing with this, coping with this. And I'm worried about our economic future.

So you're going to have to do this. So I wonder if each of you could give me your top issue that you think we could do to make things safer, to restore confidence in the public? Top one, top two, top three or just top one.

Let's start with Mr. Meenan.

MEENAN: Senator, I think, first of all, as we've said, we think that federalizing the system is the place to start.

BOXER: Federalizing the safety?

MEENAN: The safety and the security system. That probably needs some further exploration because rather than creating a traditional new federal organization, maybe there's a way to do it through some kind of government corporation, other kinds of mechanisms that might make more sense. But we've got to deal effectively with that safety issue in order to assure the public that it is safe to fly.

I think the second two things are, while somewhat off the subject and more pertinent to this afternoon, we've got to assure the stability -- the financial stability -- of the airline industry because if they start falling, we're going to have even more problems on our hands. And therefore, there is a dying, crying need for a major cash infusion and loan guarantees, as well as steps to be taken to deal with the liability concerns and the insurance issues that have arisen out of the incident of last week.

BOXER: Okay, very good.

Captain?

WOERTH: I think the most important thing we can do to install public confidence and have a secure system now is to have the public believe -- and have it be true -- that the cockpit is a fortress, that the cockpit door is going to be so secure and designed so well that it cannot be penetrated and, with the additional federal marshals on the airplane, that there's somebody that can take care of the cabin. When the public knows that, believes that and it's true, we're going to have our airline system and we're going to have our economy back.

BOXER: Thank you.

Mr. Barclay?

BARCLAY: I think I've got to give you four.

BOXER: Good.

BARCLAY: We need to put more security on the airplane. And I'll leave that to Duane to figure out. We need to professionalize the screeners in some federal sense or local law enforcement. We need to harden the perimeter of airports, both the perimeter of the entire airport and the perimeter around aircraft. That's my members' job.

And I think finally, there is a fourth one that hasn't been talked about too much. You know, the failure of our system was that we set up a system to catch criminals and rational people and one individual crazy. We didn't set up a security system in aviation to catch a special ops team of suicide pilots, trained to do this and trained to try to get around anything we were doing.

So that's why it's a new day. We are now in almost a semi- military operation of defense. And we have to account for that.

Part of that will be, we were -- in any system, we were out there on Monday and out of 670 million passengers, we were looking for 18 suicide pilots who were trying to hide from us. And they got on as regular passengers, with the crudest of weapons. And they wanted to use the airplane as a bomb.

It was an almost unimaginable scenario. We know now it's imaginable. Knowledge is one of the most powerful weapons that they carried on that airplane with them, what they were going to do.

The fourth airplane showed that once everybody knew what they were going to do, it wasn't going to work. So of that, we need to narrow that pool of 670 million. Of the 670 million, about 90 million people who travel in the system are foreign nationals. We need to, in a military operation, we need to, if we're going to fish for some of these folks, we need to make the ocean smaller.

And I think there are a number of things where we can use technology. We can use screening one time, for people who want to volunteer for it because they travel a lot. And then biometrics, to make sure they are who they say they are when they're going through, so we can focus our resources on the people we don't know traveling in the system and the people who are more dangerous, potentially.

BOXER: Good.

Mr. Dillingham?

DILLINGHAM: Senator Boxer, I think the initiatives that have been put in place since September 11th are sort of the immediate. And we should maintain those as we move towards a different paradigm for aviation security -- and aviation security beyond just screening. Our work has shown that there are many gaps in the aviation security system, from the outside, to the ATC system, just across the board.

I think, from that point, the point was made earlier on, that once the bad guys are on the plane, you've almost lost the battle. There is a system in place, computer-assisted passenger. CAPS is what it's called. And what it does is it, based on certain characteristics, it triggers extra scrutiny for a passenger. There are a number of criteria that can't be spoken about.

But to my knowledge, that database is not linked to law enforcement databases. It is not linked to those lists that other law enforcement agencies have, so that a bad guy can get an airplane ticket and no one knows who that person is. It doesn't have to be that way. That needs to be done right away.

And last . . .

BOXER: I've not heard that before.

DILLINGHAM: It's clearly something that can be done quickly. There are some issues that have to be worked out. But like I said, we're in a sea change now.

And again, we support a new paradigm for aviation screening and security all the way around.

BOXER: Thank you.

Mr. Hudson?

HUDSON: Senator, I have a number of things in my testimony. But I'll boil it down to just one thing. Secure the cockpits. Do that in a matter of days, not weeks or months.

BOXER: I agree.

HUDSON: And if you do that, other things will start to fall into place and the system will recover. If you don't do that, Lord knows what is going to happen. We need, in our estimation, 30,000 temporary air marshals.

We have approximately one million law enforcement and peace officers in this country, two million in the military. I'm told by the FAA, it would give them one to three days of training to do this.

We need to do it now, not talk about, well maybe in the future, maybe on some random basis, et cetera, et cetera. The passengers will start to come back. If you don't do that, I fear that we're in a very bad spiral.

BOXER: Mr. Hudson, I could not agree with you more. Matter of fact, God bless you for saying that. I just think this panel has given us the roadmap. And I hope that we'll be able to convince our colleagues to take it, follow it. Because I think if we follow them, we're going to be okay.

HOLLINGS: Senator, I agree 100 percent. And I thank also Mr. Hudson and each of the panelists. When I invited the secretary of transportation last week, I said, "Now don't wait for hearings." I said, "I'm not trying to get hearings. I'm trying to get results."

Some of the things are obvious. For one, the federalization. I want the panel to know I've been fighting a rear guard action to keep them from privatizing the controllers. And you're not going to hear anybody put in a bill to privatize the controllers anymore. And I've been fighting.

We had Secretary Pena. We had all these other secretaries, Secretary Card, all of them, come up and say, "Federalize it."

BOXER: I remember. I remember.

HOLLINGS: That's right. And I've been fighting it for years. And Mr. Barclay, yes, they have thought of it. Tom Clancy, a famous mystery writer, he wrote a book five years ago. I think, "A Rising Sun," or something. They went right straight into the Capitol during a joint session.

And the president, the vice president, the entire Congress was gone. So a certain fellow took over the government and that kind of thing. I don't speak fancifully. The truth of the matter is that this is the greatest intelligence failure we have ever had in the history of our government.

Terrorists took and blew up the World Trade towers eight years ago, killed six or eight people. I know they injured thousands. Thereafter, we had the Mogadishu and the same fellow tells us about it in Somalia.

We had the proposition of the air barracks in Saudi Arabia. And bin Laden bragged about it. Then we had the embassies in Kenya and in Tanzania. And he said, "Whoopee," then.

Then he blew up the Cole, the USS Cole, just last October. And he says, all year long, the year 2001, he had been saying, "Just wait. We've got coming events. It's going to be a greater thing happening, a greater thing happening." And no, I don't know how you ever get the attention of that crowd.

And don't get me started on it. They want analysts now. I want cold intelligence. You've got to infiltrate.

This war has got to be fought, not in uniform, but in raggy clothes and without publicity. How you root them out and everything else like that. It's not a military action.

But in any event, you folks have been very patient. You've favored the committee. And I want to give you a chance, going down the list, just somewhat like Senator Boxer, if you've got anything you want to comment about that you've heard here this morning or that we ought to know about. We've got your statements, so anything else.

Mr. Meenan, did you want to make any comment? I don't want you to go away and say, "Lord, we waited all morning long and the fellow wouldn't even allow me to say what I wanted to say."

MEENAN: Senator, I think we've covered the issues pretty thoroughly this morning. As I said to Senator Boxer, I think the important things to do now are to deal with these security issues, the whole panoply of issues we've heard about. And the best place to start that is with the federal government inserting itself because we need the majesty of the United States to deal with this issue.

Secondarily, we need to save the airline industry because if we don't, it's not going to be around to have any of this make any difference.

HOLLINGS: There isn't any question. And that's why we've got a hearing here in less than an hour. And it's very important.

You've got to make a judgment, really up front, that we're going to save the airlines. And we're going to cap it off for the airlines at a certain level, otherwise we're going to get into a limbo of everything that's coming up. Well, you've got to save that. We've got to just save them in the first original instances.

Not just trial lawyers, there's corporate lawyers subrogated. Two big towers full of business executives, Mr. Barclay. With those lawyers? I know I can give you a personal story about it.

But in any event, they're not going to think they're worth their pay unless they start bringing claims and everything else. So we've got to cap it off.

But Captain Woerth, do you have a comment?

WOERTH: I would like to emphasize, if it wasn't obvious in our testimony and the questions here. We talked a lot about passenger aircraft. And you made a point that it's not just passenger aircraft.

I want to emphasize that that was on United flights and American flights. It could have just as easily been Federal Express or UPS or DHL. And our cargo pilots and our cargo system and everything to do with cargo needs the same level of scrutiny if this threat is going to be stopped with aviation.

So cargo is every bit as important as the passenger aircraft.

HOLLINGS: Very good.

Mr. Barclay?

BARCLAY: Well, thank you. And the security and safety have got to come first.

Second, I would just ask the committee that since you're moving right into the other hearing, please keep in mind that airports and airlines have symbiotic relationship and the same thing that's happening to the airlines is happening out there at the airports. The costs have shot up to meet emergency regulations. The revenues are down.

And those local governments are struggling with trying to provide the new security. So if you would keep that mind in the bills you put together, we'd appreciate it.

HOLLINGS: You're right. We've taken the poor skycap at the curbside check-in and put him on the bread line.

Mr. Dillingham?

DILLINGHAM: Mr. Chairman, again, security is more than screeners. And we also would like to suggest that now that we're going to be considering, in your next panel, finance related to airlines, that this is an opportune time to think about the financing of the security aspect of it as well.

And again, as so many people have mentioned, if we can break the cycle and not come back again, it would be a good thing.

HOLLINGS: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hudson?

HUDSON: Mr. Chairman, I would just ask you to remember, when you hear, as we did a little bit this morning, the calls to return to normalcy, the calls to relax security over what we've had in the last week, normalcy in the past has always meant return to complacency and vulnerability. We cannot let that happen again.

Secondly, I would ask you to keep in mind that normalcy in wartime is very different than normalcy in peacetime. We are essentially in a wartime situation. And we have to change our mindset to reorient to that.

Thank you.

HOLLINGS: Well, let me thank the panel very, very much on behalf of the committee. And the committee will be in recess, subject to the 2:00 call at the hearing this afternoon.

END

NOTES:
???? - Indicates Speaker Unknown
-- - Indicates could not make out what was being said. off mike - Indicates could not make out what was being said.


Copyright 2001

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.