Copyright 2001 Federal News Service, Inc.  
Federal News Service
September 20, 2001, Thursday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING

LENGTH: 22712 words

HEADLINE: PANEL I OF A HEARING OF THE SENATE COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
 
SUBJECT: FEDERAL AVIATION SECURITY STANDARDS
 
CHAIRED BY: SENATOR ERNEST HOLLINGS (D-SC)
 
LOCATION: 253 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

WITNESSES: NORMAN MINETA, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION; JANE GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
 


BODY:
SEN. HOLLINGS: I thank my colleagues and welcome the secretary of Transportation. I must commend you on -- and your associates on your diligence. Y'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 their 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 it'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 his -- 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 take-off 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 at Dulles. For goodness sakes, don't cancel it. But you can't be absolutely sure, but we can be mostly sure.

And let me yield to our distinguished ranking member, Senator McCain.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): 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. 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 to 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.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Good.

Senator Burns?

SEN. CONRAD BURNS (R-MT): 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 in working with everybody with regard to security because I think that's going to go a long ways in building the confidence back and getting the people back in the air again.

Thank you.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Senator Wyden?

SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR): 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.

TEXT OMITTED

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 bailout, and I'm going to insist that we do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Senator Rockefeller.

SEN. JOHN ROCKEFELLER (D-WV): I would hope the senator from Massachusetts would not vote no on airline safety --

SEN. KERRY: I'm for safety --

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: -- 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, but 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 -- 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 chair.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Senator Stevens.

SEN. TED STEVENS (R-AK): Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being late. I have no questions or statement.

SEN. 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 -- their safety director was invited to attend, but because of Rosh Hashanah he begged off, but he will be with us at the first of the week. Otherwise, if some watch and 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, and Ms. Jane Garvey, the administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, and Mr. Michael Jackson, the deputy secretary of transportation. Secretary Mineta.

SEC. NORMAN 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 attacks of September 11th. And I also follow President Bush with a firm, unfaltering commitment to help our nation, and specifically our transportation system, to respond, to 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 confidence 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 in 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 Monty 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's Crisis Management Center.

On the morning of Tuesday, September 11th, 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 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 or four minutes, John Flarity (sp), my chief of staff, came back in and said, "Mr. Secretary, may I see you?" So, I came back out. So, I was watching this 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. Durant 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 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 was -- 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 airline.

Well, it's like anything else. When one of something occurs, it's an accident. When two of the same things occurs, it's a pattern. And when three of the same thing occurs, it's a program. So, I immediately called the FAA and 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 13th 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 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. 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 curb-side 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-ins. 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 start-up 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. These internal teams will have input from a distinguished group of Americans with a wide range of expertise. 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 the authority from the Ports and Waterways 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 opened and secure since September 12th. And we have 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 the 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 forward. 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 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 and I would be happy to --

SEN. HOLLINGS: It will be included. Ms. Garvey, do you have a statement?

MS. GARVEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, members of the committee. Let me first of all join the secretary in offering our heart-felt condolences and prayers, 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 needed to focus on two principal 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 that 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 deliberatively. 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 are 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 are beginning to see some increase in passenger numbers, and that's very good news.

Let me just close by also mentioning, as the secretary has, mention that the incidents of last Tuesday have caused all of us -- airlines, airport operations 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 am really proud to be associated with the people who have done that, and I am proud to be here today in front of you, and thank you all for your help and your confidence and your support.

SEN. 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? Or --

MR. JACKSON: I do not, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to be here.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Well, we welcome you.

Mr. Secretary, again I am trying to get safety ahead of money, but it looks like this crowd can work quicker on money than they can on safety. What's the matter with Reagan National? I'm -- when it comes to air operations, there's 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 plane landing at Baltimore could turn and come and hit the committee room here -- or going into Dulles could come and turn. So you have got that threat and everything else, but not from the commuters, the shuttle flights. And while I'm collaborating and dillying, I'm putting them out of business. So I -- now we have had 10 days, and I suggested last week when I told you of this hearing, well, let's go with Reagan right now. Tell me why not.

SEC. MINETA: Mr. Chairman, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is closed for -- because that decision is really not in our hands. Frankly right now --

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

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

SEN. 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 (Kerry ?) doors, get them in there in the next two weeks, we can move? And once you've secured 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?

SEC. MINETA: Well, we've made all those points, Mr. Chairman, and so -- and I recognize that one of the airlines is in very precarious -- a precarious state -- 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.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Well, I've got the record of the hearings 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 the 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 are at war -- and I'll never forget when we had World War II come on there was a little lieutenant colonel from the Corps of Engineers which 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. The ground was broken on February the 1st 1942, and by March the 1st, '43, it was producing planes at that time. This country, if they are 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 --

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

SEN. 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.

MR. 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 risks there. And, in addition, as you yourself have suggested, a series of --

SEN. HOLLINGS: That can be done in steps.

MR. JACKSON: -- extraordinary efforts. 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 agency, at the secretary's strong urging.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Senator McCain.

SEN. MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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. Safety obviously is paramount. And if that means 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. Is that -- have you considered that option? Is that part of your package, or what?

SEC. 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 --

SEN. MCCAIN: Mr. Jackson.

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

SEN. MCCAIN: Mr. Jackson?

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

SEN. MCCAIN: I understand that. What's your --

MR. JACKSON: -- and we are trying to get a first tranche 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 tranche issues to look at, and we are absolutely --

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

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

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

SEN. MCCAIN: Airport security personnel.

SEC. 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 of the costs involved -- we are looking at somewhere around $ 1.8 billion. And so that is an alternative that we are pressing. And --

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

SEC. MINETA: The other alternative is something that all of you passed, Senator 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 come back with their specific recommendations on airport security.

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

MS. 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, whether it's federalized or a not-for-profit corporation. Those are two alternatives.

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

SEC. MINETA: Even though -- Senator McCain, the report or the task force report will come to me. But 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 first of October, but as soon as that report comes in --

SEN. MCCAIN: Ms. Garvey, do you --

SEC. MINETA: -- we will have specific legislative recommendations where they are necessary. Some of it may be possible, given present law and given the appropriation that was passed last week.

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

MS. GARVEY: I've asked myself that every single day, Senator. I think we always, whenever there's 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, it has had to do -- and our own -- it's had to do with combating explosives. This was a whole new world for us.

SEN. MCCAIN: Well, 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 his 2000 report, the inspector general for the Department of Transportation discussed a test that it conducted in 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 --

MS. GARVEY: To the screeners in particular, Senator.

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

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

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

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

SEN. MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Senator Burns.

SEN. 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?

SEC. 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've 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.

SEN. BURNS: Well, I want to submit to you that there's 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.

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 gonna 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, but there was no indication anywhere that this operation was being planned or -- (inaudible).

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

So -- 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? And, of course, 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.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Thank you. Senator Wyden.

SEC. MINETA: Senator, let me just -- Mr. Chairman, if I might just comment.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Yeah, surely.

SEC. MINETA: There is no question that what happened on September 11th 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 time line, to 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.

SEN. BURNS: Well, hindsight's always 20/20.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Senator Wyden.

SEN. WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, in recent days I've outlined a 15-year pattern of inaction on this issue. 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.

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 till October 1. I mean, we're hearing once again the pattern of recommendations and various efforts to study them.

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.

SEC. MINETA: I think it was broken at about 9:15 a.m. on Tuesday when I ordered down over 4500 aircraft. And the skill 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. At 9:15, 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.

SEN. WYDEN: 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 --

SEC. MINETA: The answer is yes.

SEN. 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?

SEC. 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 -- it includes a different -- 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 -- 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 recommended to them.

SEN. WYDEN: Well, 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 stay 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 would 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.

SEC. 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 -- 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 ident of the aircraft. The 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 and auto switch that can't be turned off.

The problem is that, as I understand it, if there's 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's 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 the door is because if there is fire, or even in the case of doors there's a ventilation panel. And that's there not so they can breathe in there, but that's -- so if in case there's sudden decompression, there's 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 -- between the cockpit and the cabin of the -- 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 that would go -- the plane would go down.

So -- 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 --from the person who engineered -- chief engineer on the 777, the person who is a captain -- an active pilot in the airlines.

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 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.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Thank you. Senator Hutchison.

SEN. HUTCHISON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I'm 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 securing our waterways, our mass transit systems, our busses, 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?

MS. 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 your -- as the task forces or other recommendations are coming forward, we've got a team ready to -- to go right into -- 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 as 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 to -- 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 -- you can beef up those security checkpoints.

In addition, in 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 manager, go through the guidance, make sure that if there are questions still remaining, get those answers. So, we're trying to work it not just at the national level, but from the local level as well.

SEN. 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 is -- has been done before?

MS. 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. I spoke with the inspector general the other day about using some of his forces as well. So, we will do that, and we'll draw on other -- other federal offices to help us in that.

SEN. 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?

MS. GARVEY: Well, that is exactly the issue. That is exactly one of the points that the rapid response team is discussing today. When I -- when I -- very early this morning I met with some of them, and one of the -- 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 -- 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 -- one of the considerations that -- that the secretary will -- will probably be forwarded to the secretary.

SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, at --

MS. GARVEY: And I think that's a very interest -- I think that's something that is well worth -- 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'm anxious to hear from some of the experts -- airport officials as well on that.

SEN. 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 quality and the 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 officer of our -- if we request it, to be given a seat on their aircraft?

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

SEN. HUTCHISON: Let me just ask --

MS. GARVEY: Let me 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 --

SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, I think certainly --

MS. GARVEY: -- redirecting some of them.

SEN. HUTCHISON: -- 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. We have talked. I have 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 health of the overall industry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Thank you. Senator Allen.

SEN. ALLEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Garvey, I want to thank you for the last Thursday afternoon meeting with so many people in this entire region concerned about Reagan National Airport. And I think that you are 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 billion dollars in bond 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 everyday. And as Secretary Mineta mentioned, there's a particular airline that may go under. And we all know 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's -- Reagan National Airport -- what date or when -- do you have any idea when you will make a decision?

SEC. MINETA: I can't give you a date. We are --

SEN. ALLEN: Do you have a range?

SEC. MINETA: We are working every day with the National Security Council on this issue to come up with variations. Remember, 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 -- 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 flight. If you restricted it to south approach and south departure, it would only be about 30 or 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 are working every day with the National Security Council about -- What about this? What about this? -- and so -- 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's got a crystal ball.

MS. GARVEY: I 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 are -- they want to see a resolution on this as quickly as possible. But as Senator McCain said, we want to make sure we are addressing all the security issues as well.

I do understand that they 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.

SEC. 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 -- of air marshals just to tie up for a airport.

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

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

SEN. ALLEN: Well --

SEC. MINETA: A lot of air marshals.

SEN. 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.

SEC. MINETA: Let me turn to Deputy Secretary Jackson.

MR. 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 try 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.

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

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir, that has been an integral part of discussion.

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

SEC. MINETA: The question about flights within 500 miles or 300 miles -- and all of those options have been talked about in terms of expanding the operation so that 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, you don't operate in Charlotte, and you don't operate in a lot of places. So it is not just National. It is -- it is national in scope, but it's more than just Reagan National Airport.

SEN. ALLEN: My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have further questions, but --

SEN. HOLLINGS: Senator Inouye.

SEN. 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's 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 were 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?

SEC. MINETA: Well, I think in all instances now flights for instance like that would be able to proceed today. Even after we had the -- ordered to have no aircraft operations, we must have granted -- I don't know -- I would be guessing -- a couple hundred exceptions from 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 --

SEN. INOUYE: In the case of Hawaii --

SEC. MINETA: Today I think that there is pretty -- except for again the specifics on general aviation as they relate to flight schools and there's just a -- civil aircraft, VFR, flight training operations, banner-towing operations, sight-seeing 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 operator.

And let me turn to Administrator Garvey, because I think those are the only exclusions as it relates to Class B airspace.

MS. GARVEY: Senator, in terms of -- the secretary is right -- most of the general aviation restrictions are lifted -- many have been lifted. But I would underscore that if there -- 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.

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

MS. 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 -- I think from their perspective.

But, again, we are working this every day. 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'll 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.

SEN. 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 restrictive, isn't it?

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

SEC. MINETA: I think that would be permitted outside of what we call the enhanced Class B airspace. So if someone is over in Kona wanting to do ultra lights and hang gliding --

SEN. INOUYE: The only place you can do hang gliding as of this moment I believe is Niihau, Lanai and Molokai.

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

SEN. INOUYE: I am grateful if you will look at all these little problems for us.

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

SEN. INOUYE: Thank you, sir.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Thank you. Senator Breaux.

SEN. BREAUX: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 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, and we would 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 the security getting on a train is almost nonexistent as 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 are going to have to 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 -- the inspection of 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 to 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 can 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 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 that 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 am for.

And you know, talking about the security, I mean I have always been sort of mystified -- and maybe you can give me just a rationale -- I am not asking this question to be a Monday morning quarterback. But when we have passengers going through all of the security to make sure that you don't have penknife or a pocketknife or a gun or the tool that Senator Nelson pointed out, it's interesting that after you get on an airplane, certainly if you are sitting upfront in first class, when they serve you the meal they give you a meal, and wrapped in the napkin is a metal fork and a metal spoon and a metal knife. We actually give passengers knives on airplanes. I mean, what's the rationale? I am always -- why do I have a knife -- they just told me I couldn't remiss bring one on the plane -- then when I get on the plane they give me one.

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

SEN. BREAUX: Not since Monday. But I mean --

SEC. MINETA: You won't get it.

SEN. 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 faults -- we gave knives to passengers.

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

SEN. BREAUX: Well, the other point is in looking at all of these options -- you know, there is an article, Mr. Jackson -- and, Norm, maybe you could answer this too -- I mean, on the front page of USA Today in 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 comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of being diverse in the make-up 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 are talking about?

SEC. MINETA: I don't know -- why would GSA even get into that for one thing? But --

SEN. BREAUX: Well, the guy that says it is Jim Dean, General Services Administration. His job is to ensure that government advisory groups comply with federal laws. I mean, I am glad you've got -- I support what you are doing. But I'm concerned that --

SEC. MINETA: Senator --

SEN. BREAUX: -- is illegal.

SEC. MINETA: We checked this with our general counsel. It does not come under FACA, the Federal Advisory Commission Act. That is why it 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.

SEN. BREAUX: Well, GSA says you do, and I just hope that you -- (laughter) --

SEC. MINETA: I hope I made that clear! (Laughter.)

SEN. HOLLINGS: A what problem?

SEN. BREAUX: FACA problem. Well, I am concerned. I support you on this thing. 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 mean I hope that we take steps to make sure -- Mr. Jackson, do you have a comment on that?

MR. JACKSON: The secretary is right: We have worked with our counsel and the government counsel on this, and we are certain that we are operating effectively, and we will double-back with individuals --

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

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

SEN. BREAUX: Okay, good. Thank you all. Thank you very much.

SEN. HOLLINGS: In deference to the remaining members of the committee. Senator -- I mean, Secretary Mineta has to leave at 12 o'clock, so let's try to shorten the questions. Senator Nelson?

SEN. NELSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary, Madam 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 curb-side check-in, because they felt that it was as safe as the at-the-counter check-in, because those employees, the Sky Caps at the curb-side, go through all of the security checks and the training with regard to the bags as much as to the counter personnel at the airlines. That was what was stated to me yesterday, and that was at two major airports. 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 have done checks on me completely. What about the catering employee that has been hired for two weeks that has access to the airplane? 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 not board the plane. 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've heard here today is that it shouldn't be the airlines contracting for that function; that in order to get to 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.

SEC. MINETA: There's no question that -- 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 in 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."

I told 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 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 one, two, seven, eight, 10, whatever. Security standards are uniform across the board except for maybe just general-aviation airports, where -- 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. Maybe I could have Administrator Garvey expand on that whole issue about security by categories of airport or -- again, catering personnel you mentioned -- absolutely.

There are a lot of people who are on the ramp, but we're, 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? 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 the 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.

MS. 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 a 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.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Very good. Senator Boxer.

SEN. BOXER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, Madam 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've 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 are you 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 -- 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 -- and you sort of said, "Gee, that's 800 flight marshals." Please, we voted -- I never saw a vote as strong -- $ 40 billion 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 $ 3 (billion), maybe it's $ 4 (billion). 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 going to ask you 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's 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 a lurch, and that is an economic nightmare. And I understand it. And I'm wondering whether you've 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, 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's 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 pressure 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?

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

SEN. BOXER: Are we helping them?

SEC. MINETA: Pardon?

SEN. BOXER: Are we helping them look?

SEC. MINETA: Helping them in --

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

SEC. MINETA: Oh, absolutely.

SEN. BOXER: Okay.

SEC. MINETA: Absolutely.

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

SEC. MINETA: In terms of air-space 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."

SEN. BOXER: No, I understand. I'm not -- I'm glad you're helping --

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

SEN. BOXER: I only have time for just one more. 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 my people, but it's 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 and so.

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 you 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 --

SEC. MINETA: It's not a commission. It's not a committee.

SEN. BOXER: -- and your task force, et cetera?

SEC. MINETA: These are FAA employees. I don't know what I have to do to explain this.

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

SEC. MINETA: Of course it's not funny.

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

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

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

SEC. MINETA: 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 --

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

SEC. MINETA: Cameras used to be in the American Airlines cockpit.

SEN. BOXER: Looking at the passengers?

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

SEN. 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 what's happening in the cabin?

MS. GARVEY: The 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.

SEC. MINETA: How long would it take to get a certificate to do that?

MS. GARVEY: We'd have to do that very quickly.

SEC. MINETA: And to retrofit.

MS. GARVEY: That's what we have to --

SEC. 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.

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

SEC. MINETA: Well, you got it.

SEN. BOXER: Good.

SEC. 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 --

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

SEC. MINETA: Yes.

SEN. BOXER: Thank you.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Thank you very much.

SEN. BOXER: Sorry I took so much time.

SEN. HOLLINGS: That's all right. Senator Kerry.

SEN. KERRY: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Secretary and Madam 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, Madam Administrator, to all the controllers and those in the system how proud we are of the job they did. It really showed a discipline and a capacity, I think, that was exceptional.

I think, for better or worse, this kind of situation obviously has a lot of people afraid. There's 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 or fighting the last campaign, and so is 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 fool-proof. 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's 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-U.S. military pilots -- United States Air Force, U.S. Navy. And the concept that, you know, 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 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's 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 into 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 --

SEC. MINETA: That's correct. You're correct.

SEN. 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?

SEC. MINETA: We recognize that.

SEN. KERRY: Having recognized that, and recognizing that it is also a law enforcement issue -- and 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?

SEC. MINETA: It is, sir. And those are -- 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.

SEN. 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?

SEC. MINETA: I would like to think so.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Senator Rockefeller.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank all three of you very much. The -- I agree that flying is safer than it's ever been. I 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 of all the other things that might happen in the way of terrorist attacks. I mean, I happen to believe that one of the silver linings, if there were any of last Tuesday, were 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 was not -- 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 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.

Having said that, and having said that I think aviation is safer than it ever has been, we are 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 this can't be done at all quickly.

I would like to get your sense of how quickly do you think that we could begin to move once we have made the decision between -- you have made the decision between kevlar, whatever else it might be -- adequate cockpit aspects, 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 are 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'd welcome your thoughts.

SEC. MINETA: First of all, on 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 requirement, 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 and 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 is practicable. But, you know, everyone sort of sites 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 put it on every U.S. aircraft -- I don't believe it's certified by the FAA as an acceptable approach right now.

Now, it -- it -- I believe, and I'll have to defer to Administrator Garvey, but she'd have to talk to the time line on whether -- how quickly we could do this. But, our -- 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.

SEN. KERRY: Not waiting for the convenience of newer airlines to be build, in other words --

SEC. MINETA: Right.

SEN. KERRY: Yeah. Okay. Second question -- last question, so that everybody gets a chance to talk with you both -- and that is on technology. I know that -- I know that there's a lot -- you have your -- you have your explosive detection -- detection system. There's a -- there are a lot of other types of technologies which could be enormously rapid in terms of airport safety, passenger safety, checking, 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 that quickly.

SEC. 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 -- retinal examination -- what kind of technology might be there -- all of those are being -- 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 a second -- take a second look at it. But again, under the legislation that we're -- we're looking at, those kinds of heightened security measures, I'm quite sure would fit to be -- for reimbursement from the monies that you folks (may ?) appropriate.

SEN. KERRY: And it should be. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Thank you. Senator Stevens.

SEN. STEVENS: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Each of you, Mr. Secretary and 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 I have received -- (inaudible) -- 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 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's no relief that's 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 available, but there were some people that wanted to review plans, and take time, and 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 (comby ?) operations in Alaska -- our combination 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, or they can -- they can -- without them, we can have intra-Alaska hubs, but we can't have the large hubs. I think it's going to increase the costs to our rural areas, and I would urge you to take a look at that. I don't ask for 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.

MS. GARVEY: We are, sir.

SEN. STEVENS: I think -- and I knew you would. But it does seem to me that we ought to be more about -- when I get to that also, I believe we'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 -- 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 for 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 of my time -- I'm going to see you again this afternoon, as a matter of fact, when we're talking on a joint House and Senate hearing, some of us are -- but I would urge you to consider one thing. I have had to bother you two, and some of your assistants so many times in the last few days here, since the 11th, can you get some of the regional people a little bit more discretion to deal with the exemptions, such as Senator Inouye mentioned? We had organs in the air that were put down. We had med- evacs that were ground. We had problems of getting the school teachers 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 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 users of aircraft such as med-evacs. They're our ambulances.

My last comment would be -- I don't know if there's been any restrictions on taxis in New York. There haven't been any restrictions on busses in New York. There aren't 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 -- 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 'em down," you made the decision that save a lot of us, and I thank you again.

SEC. MINETA: I appreciate it.

SEN. 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 twenty.

SEC. MINETA: Yes sir.

SEN. HOLLINGS: I'll ask them to cut it to four minutes a piece.

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

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

SEC. MINETA: Three-minute break.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Yes. Let's take a little break. Maybe -- (inaudible) -- at ease now just for a minute. Thank you.

SEC. MINETA: The question now is, where is it?

SEN. HOLLINGS: Come on. Come on here, Norm. Hey, no slowing down. Come on.

(Three-minute break.)

SEN. HOLLINGS: All right folks. The secretary is back, and let's have quiet as quickly as possible here. And where is Senator Edwards. You better get in your place.

Thank you very, very much, Mr. Secretary.

SEC. MINETA: Thank you very much.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Senator Edwards. Let's have quiet, please.

SEN. EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you too. I want to join those who have --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've had lots of discussion about some very important measures -- some of which you've already taken, some of which are being discussed, including 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.

SEC. 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's no question that that's what we're trying to do. When you're talking about in terms of forward-looking --

SEN. EDWARDS: Yes.

SEC. 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's got bits and pieces of -- you know, 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 pipelines, rail, all these other modes, we're thinking about what is it -- you know, in terms of getting someone to patrol pipelines with helicopters 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, 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 --

SEN. EDWARDS: Do you agree with the notion that those basic principles make sense, making sure we've got the right people --

SEC. MINETA: Oh, absolutely.

SEN. EDWARDS: -- making sure we've got the right technology and making sure that we are engaging in forward-looking --

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

SEN. EDWARDS: That may be the answer.

SEC. MINETA: -- may be part of that.

SEN. EDWARDS: Yeah, okay. Ms. Garvey?

MS. 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.

SEN. EDWARDS: Yeah.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Very good. Now Senator Carnahan.

SEN. 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've had others who have tried to do the same. They did not succeed, and nor will these. I think our response needs to be two-fold. 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, 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. (Laughter.) We would enjoy that.

SEC. 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 whistlestop, 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.

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

SEC. MINETA: Pardon?

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

SEC. MINETA: Well, 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.

SEN. CARNAHAN: There's 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. As you know, we're --

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

SEN. CARNAHAN: But you will not be here for our Commerce Committee meeting, though.

SEC. MINETA: Oh, no. No, ma'am.

SEN. 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?

SEC. 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.

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

SEN. HOLLINGS: Senator Cleland.

SEN. 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 and trying to think how I could add to the discussion. I will say that I took my own whistlestop 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 that do the screening at the 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 or 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've discovered here, Mr. Secretary, is that our screeners look at going to work for Cinnabun as a promotion. We can't have that kind of culture now as our first line of defense. I favor, as do 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 a million dollars. 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, presidential commissions, the GAO, the inspector general of 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 screen or 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?

SEC. 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 are going to be required to meet new standards?

SEN. CLELAND: I'm thinking like a domestic Customs Service. I mean, you have the Customs Service to look at people coming into the country --

SEC. 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.

SEN. CLELAND: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Thank you. Senator Brownback.

SEN. 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 you've been twice.

MS. GARVEY: Three times, actually.

SEN. BROWNBACK: Three times; that's even better -- to the manufacturers. You know the concentration of general-aviation manufacturing that's 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 it. Have you got a timetable that you're thinking of in doing this? Because obviously at some point in time these need to get going again so we can train pilots.

MS. GARVEY: Senator, as you know, last night we -- well, yesterday, actually, we worked through a number of these issues at 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 look 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.

SEN. 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's 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 bomb delivery devices 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?

MS. 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 the 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.

SEN. BROWNBACK: And I thought Senator Stevens thought about giving some discretion on other general aviation work to more regional administrators, and some of these calls might be worth taking a look at. We need -- 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 in many regions of the country.

I don't know if Secretary Mineta, if you have had particular thoughts about this as well?

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

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

SEC. MINETA: The FBI is doing that primarily.

SEN. BROWNBACK: Do we have good records on individuals that have gone through flight training? Or do those records need to be upgraded? What we are asking people when they take flight training?

SEC. MINETA: Okay, I'll tell you -- we'll -- we could give you a classified briefing on that issue if you need it.

SEN. BROWNBACK: All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Very good. Mr. Secretary, thanking you on behalf of the committee -- and Administrator Garvey and Deputy Secretary Jackson -- (Norm, only one ?) -- with respect to the folding 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 are for 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 are seeing 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, it's -- 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 of LaGuardia and hit the Empire State this afternoon. So let's get with it and tell them to make some decisions and quit dillying around. And, finally, since you're secretary of transportation, nine out of ten containers -- we've had it and we have been trying to get the bill passed -- nine out of the 10 containers coming into the ports of the United States -- coming in at New York, Bayonne, New Jersey, and taken right down to Times Square with up to 40 tons of anthrax blown -- and you don't have to send them to driving school to get that done. So we have got a lot of work to do. And we have 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?

SEC. MINETA: Mr. Chairman --

SEN. HOLLINGS: So let's get real. Let's think about it, make sure you've secured 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.

SEN. NELSON: Mr. Chairman, may I just add, you know, 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 who 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.

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

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Mine is real fast. Everybody at the hearing this morning, and virtually all who considered this matter, have made it an article of faith of 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 haven't made up your mind. And I was stunned by that. That's -- I'm asking for a response.

SEC. MINETA: Well, again, we have got all these items on the menu. And even though I may be the secretary of transportation, I am also still the assistant to the president, and to that extent -- or staff to the president. And there's OMB and NSC -- things that we still have to -- that we have to clear it with. So to that extent -- and, you know, I am going to be talking about these at the DCPC as we have, and I'm -- and I'll do that.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: I hope you'll mention to them your discomfort about 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.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Senator Wyden.

SEN. 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 are 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 theme of this hearing, to work with you in partnership so that we don't have 15 years of these reports once again. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Senator Allen.

SEN. 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 that Senator Wyden -- hopefully our subcommittee could have a hearing on the use of automatic ground control systems.

Let me follow up on the issue of general aviation. I am 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 it relatively normal -- how do you see general aviation changing in the future after this tragedy?

MS. GARVEY: Well, I think we are already starting to hear from officials of the associations in general aviation, and for 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-based operators who on 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 are 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're 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.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Let's go to Senator Boxer.

SEN. 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 am sure you know about -- people checking our bags who are criminals, who look at it as a step up to working the doughnut shop, 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'm the president's -- I work for the president and I've got to sit around with OMB and everyone else.

What I want you to tell me -- and you haven't and you won't, and that's just the way it is, and I -- 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, is 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 reroll 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 are not -- if this isn't your only concern, the safety, then we haven't done much today, and that's what I am worried about.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Norm will be strong.

SEC. MINETA: Mr. Chairman, let me just -- again, I don't want you to have the feeling that I'm 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 -- and 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.

SEN. BOXER: But aren't there federal standards now?

SEC. MINETA: No, there are not.

SEN. BOXER: There are no federal standards for the screeners?

SEC. 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 --

SEN. BOXER: And you would call that federalization?

SEC. MINETA: What's that?

SEN. BOXER: Having better standards in place. And then leaving it up to the airlines -

SEC. MINETA: -- form of federalization --

SEN. BOXER: -- and leaving it up to the airlines to decide who those people are?

SEC. MINETA: Based on our standards, we could still do the screening, making sure that --

SEN. BOXER: That sounds to be more like the status quo, but I have taken up too much time --

SEC. MINETA: It is absolutely not.

SEN. BOXER: Too much time, sorry.

SEC. MINETA: I'm sorry to think of the -- to think about the screeners as we know them today, absolutely not. This is going to be substantially different. But if you are 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.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Making them civil service 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.

END

LOAD-DATE: September 21, 2001