..

extending gps technology and the aviation industry. the house aviation subcommittee is looking at plans to use gps to replace radar and air-traffic control system. this is an hour-and-a-half. >> the committee will come to order. we meet today to discuss a critical part of transportation

infrastructure as a global positioning system commonly referred to as gps. we think the witnesses for their participation in the hearing and would like to say a special welcome to the deputy secretary and the witnesses from the united nations international civil aviation organization. a very important framework for our global aviation industry. your participation in today's hearing speaks to the importance of this issue not only here but around the globe. aviation safety is the top priority. according to the department of transportation the global positioning system served as a critical component of aviation safety improvement that the aviation community has embraced. moreover, gps is critical to the safety and efficiency

improvements planned as part of next-gen that we are in the process of rolling out in this country and other countries as well. our aviation infrastructure and efforts to update with the department of transportation program are a platform for growth in the u.s. economy. next-gen is also a catalyst for job creation in the aviation industry. it's important for the government to avoid constraining that by limiting the efficiency gains and job creation achieved by next-gen which is reliant on gps. as important as gps is to transportation safety and efficiency its signal strength is very weak. therefore gps is susceptible to interference by other transmissions even if those other transmissions are constrained in their own spectrum allocation. over the past years the subcommittee has watched with interest the development of issues related to radio

spectrum. the federal communications commission dillinger rates the issues before it we recognize the potential impact on the transportation community and enhance today's hearing. however, out of fairness to the party involved in the proceedings i would ask the witness is to focus their comments today on the question at hand regarding the importance of gps as an element of transportation infrastructure and public policy consideration of the transportation community to protect that infrastructure. today's hearings serve as an opportunity to hear ideas for the best way forward given what we've learned about gps. where there are good engineers there may be a variety of solutions. and would be helpful for the technology to coexist because given the spectrum demand the problem of interference between the competing uses and various points along the spectrum isn't going away.

so i would encourage the industry to find a way to safely coexist if possible i believe we can and must find a way to continue to encourage innovation in both the broadband and gps industry. finally before i recognize for the opening statements and other members, i would ask them as consent all members have five days to provide and extend their remarks on the record of this hearing. without objection, so of and i will recognize mr. castillo. >> thank you and i want to thank you for calling the hearing today. i will submit my statement for the record and i welcome our witnesses and look forward to hearing their testimony and with that on the yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to thank chairman peachtree and ranking member costello for holding these hearings on an importance of gps on the nation's transportation

infrastructure. i would like to welcome today's witnesses and i look forward to hearing your testimony on the important issue regarding the future of gps. gps is the cornerstone as you know of aviation system that is in our country, and any threats to gps need to be handled with the utmost care and ensure that the skies are safe. one of my key concerns has been the light square project and how it affects the gps device is and i'm very concerned the reliability might be put at risk. i will be interested to hear opinions or solutions to this situation because we need to solve all concerns before they become a problem and put lives at risk. i look forward to hearing from the witnesses and their thoughts on the gps and its role in the aviation system. thank you again and i look forward to hearing from your testimony and i yield back. >> now we turn to the first panel which consists of the honorable john porcari at the department of transportation, mr. vincent galotti the deputy

director of the air navigation bureau international savitt organization of the united nations. gentlemen, thank you very much for coming. thank you for your prepare statements and we would invite you to summarize them if possible in about five minutes and then we will have some questions i suspect. thank you very much. we will begin with mr. porcari. >> thank you, chairman petrie and ranking member costello thanks to the members of the subcommittee i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. the simple fact is the global positioning system applications are vital to transportation safety and efficiency. tens of millions of drivers across america use gps to navigate everyday. in the department transportation for alleviation administration we estimate that by 2013, 60,000 aircraft will be equipped with gps to navigate the skies over america. this is what we refer to

collectively as next-gen. on the ground positive train control relies on gps as well. the intelligent transportation systems will depend on gps for vehicle collision warning and crash avoidance systems. what's more, gps is essential for the operation first responders, search and rescue, resource management, whether tracking and prediction come earthquake monitoring and other critical national security functions. the list goes on and on. as you know the light squared corporation proposed to create a wireless broadband network in the obama administration we believe deeply in love light squared is attempting to do to make the internet more accessible to more people all across the country. this is an urgent national priority. but after comprehensive testing we've concluded the current plan to provide the sub services adversely affect gps signals and i will be happy to delve into

the details of the conversation as i have in my written testimony. a white square's original plans generate considerable harmful interference with gps. our researchers could find no obvious practical litigation's to solve the interference issues. i also like to point out the substantial federal resources including over $2 million has been diverted from other programs in the testing and analyzing light squared proposals. even if these interference issues were somehow resolved, we would still have to design the fixes for the known interference with high precision gps receivers that are vital for the agricultural science and surveying. white square operating plants leaves open the possibility for broadcasting on both bands. as the filings propose only a standstill on broadband use of the upper 10 megahertz. considering all these factors the executive committee of the national space navigation timing

group have now unanimously concluded that flight sq proposals are fundamentally incompatible with gps use and no additional testing more analysis is warranted at this time. going forward, the agencies continue to strongly support president obama's directed to make available a total of over 500 megahertz of the spectrum of for the next ten years suitable for broadband use. we recognize we all have to do our part in spectrum use making it as efficient as possible. we propose to work with the national telecommunications information administration and the commerce to draft new gps spectrum interference standards to read these standards would inform the future potential commercial operators and would let them know in advance what use would or would not be compatible with gps. and we will ensure that national policy protection for gps evolves through clear communications with stakeholders. and that it's implemented

without affecting these existing and emerging uses of space based precision navigation timing services that are vital to economic public safety and scientific and national security needs. in sum, our gps system is one of the most vital if less visible parts of the national infrastructure. with that i will be happy to answer any questions and again thank you for permitting me to testify. >> thank you come administrator galotti. >> thank you and good morning mr. chairman and subcommittee members. it's an honor to testify before the subcommittee and i would like to thank you for the opportunity. my testimony today will focus on the importance of what we call the global navigation satellite systems to international civil aviation. and there are a few other global systems. russia has had some reliability these over the years all of that government is now committed to the next generation system.

the european galileo not yet operational and of course china is in the process of launching its system. because of the reliability and the continued upgrading of the gps and the commitment of the united states government, gps has evolved into the most fundamental and important piece of supporting infrastructure for the global aviation system. and just the beginning i would like to mention that the united states is one of the primary contributors in terms of technical expertise and knowledge and in support of consensus building and excellence in international standards and policy development for which we are grateful. most of the technical work we do is accomplished by groups of experts nominated by the member states. the faa has been a major contributor in this respect and i believe it has served the u.s. interest extremely well the close involvement with the navigation system goes back to the work of the committee on the future air navigation systems

more commonly known as the fan kennedy. the u.s. was a major contributor and a participant of that committee. in adopting the outcome of the committee has 1991 the conclusion was reached the exploitation of the satellite technology appears to be the only viable solution to overcome the shortcomings of the present system and also fulfills the needs and requirements of the foreseeable future and that so land-based systems will be the key to the improvements. in the recognition of turning point in acknowledgement by the committee of the importance of gnss which would hi lady dependent and is on the u.s. gps president clinton formally offered the position service to the global aviation committee through icao to support the international civil aviation. this commitment was reaffirmed in 2007 under president bush as follows, the u.s. government maintains its commitment to provide gps signals on a continuous world wide basis free of the user fees enabling

worldwide civil space based navigation services and to provide open free access to information necessary to develop and build equipment to use the services. even before the work in the committee and the offers above president clinton and bush, the ability of gps to the civil aviation first came about as an sure you are aware when president reagan authorized its use for international civil aviation after the shootdown of the caribbean -- seven. following the use icao developed international standards the satellite navigation systems with the availability of the gps system of globally recognized by the international civil aviation community as the central element of gnss. icao and the entire international civil aviation community now completely are reliable the longstanding u.s. government policy and excitement as the key enablers to international aviation. now i just want to go over a few of the important ways that gps

supports international aviation. there are many areas in the world where the conventional navigation and infrastructure is inadequate. and gnss is often the only reliable source of navigation information. before gnss navigation in the high seas and airspace was crude and inaccurate. subornation of the distance between aircraft used by air traffic control or as much as 100 miles laterally and 15 to 20 minutes in trail. the superior accuracy of gnss especially when integrated with the sophisticated flight management systems has enabled a number of substantial navigation improvements which are the foundation of the concept of the performance based navigation or pbn. it significantly reduced thereby increasing capacity while bringing safety, efficiency and environmental benefits. the united states provides air traffic control services over a vast expanse of high seas airspace. in the north atlantic there are

over 2,000 crossings a day. the trans-pacific is expected to grow by 2.4% between 29 and 2030. the traffic during that period is expected to grow by 5.1% and right now there are approximately 8,000 flights per year to operate on the cross polar routes and they are totally reliant on gps. until very recently the final purchase the land of the major airports were accomplished by the meanings of the landing systems this is okay in the states that able to maintain and that of the infrastructure to support that. in many parts of the world maintaining such systems is prohibited because of the cost and expertise. using the approach procedures based on gps, more and more approaches are accomplished with a means of the comet and the aircraft only with little or no reliance on the ground equipment for the enormous safety benefits and airports that previously had

no issued a purchase now have pbn. in the u.s. airlines fly into nigeria and kazakhstan, mongolia, senegal and ecuador and to name but a few out of hundreds the are assured of safe operations because of gps. gnss is important for next-generation aircraft surveillance and ensure you are aware of automatic broadcast but over the oceanic aerospace automatic dependence surveillance contract allows air traffic control to have surveillance where this was impossible. finally to of the most significant air traffic management improvements that have recently become available or continuous dissent operations and continuous climb operations. this is a major initiative that icao and gps allows this extremely efficient flight route to be enabled. and now, just a few words about the spectrum major issue that

has as much to do with the importance of gps as anything else i am referring to the problem of the frequency spectrum faugh with a radio frequency spectrum is the lifeblood of aviation and the protection of the spectrum used by mediation radio systems as absolute essentials for safety. icao has been supporting the protection of gnss spectrum for decades and all international especially the world review conferences and there's one going on in geneva right now. against that background i would urge you to consider that any decision by the united states that affects frequency spectrum which impacts on gnss will have a critical one pack on the safety record, the investments made in the gnss, the international standards and the recertification of equipment. in summary mr. chairman i would like to appeal to the committee that icao continue to benefit for u.s. leadership and cooperation and in many ways in

putting the dalia will support to the sharing of technical information and expertise, supportive consensus building and excellence and international standards and policy development and concrete products assist the country's in their aviation programs provide u.s. technical humanitarian and political leadership to be dennis relationship and working together. thank you for this opportunity to share the views with this subject. >> thank you for that hearing the subcommittee has been informed that has regained momentum in deploying the next gen technology it will have enormous return on the american government investment and it reduces fuel used for the industry by some 20 or 40% to expand the capacity of the

system without having to build additional runways and improve the safety of the system and shorten the time of the flights and it goes on and on and on. so reduced some footprint planes are able to glide down more of the airports where that's been a problem. a lot of benefits for using this technology in the aviation industry as other industries have found. i do have a couple of questions. first mr. porcari, you mentioned that you proposed the department of transportation work with of the national telecommunications information administration to draft new gps spectrum standards to strengthen existing the national policy protection of the adjacent spectrum.

>> i'd be happy to mr. sherman and one thing i think recent events have shown us is that gps is not only in national asset come infrastructure asset, but that protecting not asset we are going to have to be much more sophisticated in the future and how we deal with that and in layman's terms on both sides of the existing frequency there were mobile satellite applications but also quite as it were that did not interfere with gps ability to hear what is a very weak signal from space basically 50 lots from 22,000 miles off. the spectrum interference standards, and we would take a hold of the government approach to this working through our position navigation and timing executive committee. the idea would be to identify before anyone puts capital press corps major project at risk of

our compatible use is to gps. in general terms, the more precise the gps receiver, for example the avionics and craft a more precise they are, the more that they are likely to have a wide band receiver that in fact needs to be able to listen beyond the gps frequency. acknowledging that in the building a policy amount that would be we think a very good use of staff time and from a policy perspective critical to protecting gps as an asset. >> we are proposing to set interference standards. how was the proposals that in the standards different from setting receiver standards? >> there are currently no

receiver standards and the idea of the spectrum interference standards would be to give everyone involved the industry and others confidence and long-term debt as the build more and more precise gps devices and i know our focus is on aviation and where gps is absolutely critical but will be even more so in the future. but other applications of the precision farming, construction and others, spectrum interference standards would be clear guidelines for all users both within the gps spectrum and adjacent spectrums. we think if we can build the kind of consistency and predictability for both of the gps users and adjacent spectrum users that that will serve everyone's interest. >> i understand there's some

sort of a curve on all about who's interfering and whose turf in this particular area and that in fact it will broad usage spectrum because it didn't interfere with the adjacent use and then when the type of use at the staff level has created the problem is that what you are trying to imply? >> that is exactly it. gps by its very nature is a week space-based signal. it's very faint when it's received by gps receivers in the atmosphere or terrestrial the applications. i think of it in zoning terms because that is the way to think about the compatibility of the uses. gps spectrum was originally put in the quiet neighborhood because it needed a quiet neighborhood with quiet

neighbors to be able to have accuracy and receivers. the adjacent pieces of spectrum work for the mobile satellite service which is another quiet use. what has happened with this specific proposal is essentially went from the mobile satellite service proposal with the limited ground augmentation to the ground based service with limited augmentation and that literally changed the fundamental nature of signals and how they would be received. but i think it's important to point out that gps was put in a quiet piece of the spectrum on purpose because fundamentally it has to have quiet neighbors. >> said this was well known at the technical level that this strategy was put in place. >> yes, i believe the physics and the technical parts have been well known all along. and i would also point out that as mr. galotti had from the perspective harmonizing that use

of the frequency was important as well so that the same kind of safety of flight avionics though we are using today and as we build a larger system of systems can be used around the world. >> mr. galotti, in your testimony you referred to the gps spectrum use being under some threat and it being discussed but past wrote radio conferences and i think some current or upcoming conferences as well. could you elaborate on that and what role is representing the global industry plays in those conferences and how you've been able to work without that how you've been able to work without the resolutions in the past? >> the international telecommunication holds a will radio conference and it's a huge

event that lasts for four weeks. very powerful representation and industry goals with incredible force. telecommunications providers are as you can imagine have the most to gain and they put a lot of pressure in a work around the clock on getting e-mails from my people at 2:00 and 3:00 in the morning. i told you house an observer but during the three years in between, we meet with all of our member states and we develop, we prepare a icao position at least the member states agree to so we get just about unanimous decisions on the icao position for the radio frequency spectrum. it doesn't always pan out that way at the event itself because again there is a lot of lobbying in a lot of pressure, a lot of

jobs at stake. but as of servers, we do have a lot of close contacts with the states and friends in the aviation industry and we have been very successful working with the member states and a strong supporter of protecting the gps spectrum from other uses >> thank you. mr. costello. >> mr. chairman, thank you, to the deputy secretary porcari to fall on the trains to the question he asked the same question naturally i was going to ask, what i'd like to have you clarify a point. mica understanding is that you are proposing d.o.t. work with other agencies to develop a policy. does that mean for the radio transmission standards in the spectrum? is the interference now between the agencies are we talking

about transmission standards or what are we talking about? >> what we are really talking about is more generically and broadly the specter non-interference standards where we could establish by consensus and with input from everyone who has an equity index interested observers and others, the kind of standards that would protect the gps spectrum both today and in the future and if you look at the evolution of gps, just in the last ten or 15 years for example, the gps uses specially in aviation have gotten more and more precise noss d-tn flight issues which requires the spectrum interference protection >> we are talking primarily about transmission standards. >> we are talking about the requirement for the precise navigation devices that use gps

to be able to utilize as broadband as possible, which they have been to date and which was acknowledged in the of original approval of the of sunlight services on either end of the spectrum. so i say this because in fairness to all the potential users outside of the gps them establishing the standards would give them a good sense of what kind of use would be compatible and which would not. >> you also mention in your testimony that the obama administration their goal was to free up the federally owned spectrum and make it available for the mobile broadband special providing access to the underserved communities. i certainly support that goal and i think many of the members of the committee would as well especially for the underserved communities for wireless service and where consumers would benefit from competition between service providers. let me ask if the mobile

satellite service band is not compatible with the high-speed wireless transmissions, then what can the administration do to provide greater access to the high-speed surface cracks >> the administration department of transportation and every part of the administration is again committed to identifying the 500 megahertz of additional spectrum over the next five years. we strongly support what he underlined which is the need for the world broadband and profits and competition. there are some features of the recent proposal that are very valuable from that perspective, but we think that working across the government with our position navigation executive committee with the ntia will be helpful. obviously we would not presume in what actions the federal

communications commission and independent agency would take. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. think you for your testimony mr. porcari, there are many standards for the mother to the gps receivers protect them from transmissions from outside the gps ban. >> my understanding and i believe general shelton testified before this that the house armed services committee is that there are not coming and i do know that in some cases the department of defence aircraft using the commercial off-the-shelf avionics that are certified for commercial use as opposed to military. >> thank you. i wanted to ask another question. what standards are currently in place to make sure that the receivers and equipment purchased pickup only signals using the gps frequency band?

>> there are no current standards in place and that is part of the reason for the discussion, and again, we think going forward having the consistency and the predictability of the spectrum interference standards will help all parties involved. >> i will put this question to each of you. what impact by protections for gps have on the market place radio spectrum and then how does this bear on the question as to whether or not gps warrants protections? >> either of you this fine. we will start with you. >> thank you, congressman. i guess there are various figures that exist as to the number of jobs and the value of

spectrum. and as i said earlier, there's tremendous pressure from the to the commission providers who have significant figures on jobs, but on the other hand deviation globally i believe the number that's out there is worth about $3 trillion to the global economy a year when you consider the economics and the tourism, the aviation industry itself, the business part of goods and other things. so, probably a good case could be made that economically aviation is critical but there will be more and more pressure from particularly the telecommunication providers. >> the telecommunication providers. >> thank you. >> yes, congressman, i don't know the value of the spectrum in a self. i would point out that the

national investment we've made in gps first in the military only perspective and not from the combined mother teresa full perspective has been enormous. it's one of the more precious and important pieces of national infrastructure we have even if you can't see it and feel what it's also a u.s. leadership issue. i would point out in the aviation context i would argue that one of the single best safety of fans as we made in the last 20 years which is the avoidance warning system. from both commercial and recreational aircraft was a leading cause of the accident. the avoidance warning systems that are gps enabled have taken the controlled flight into the terrain from the leading cause of accidents into something that is way down on the list. another example is as of today part of our system is operational in the gulf of mexico, where we have had no

coverage and we have thousands of the flight operations a day for example serving offshore petroleum via helicopter that had no coverage before that are now served. so it's important to make sure we understand the value on both sides of the christian including the enormous national investment that has been made in gps which has gone far beyond the military use and farby of aviation uses and for the precision farming and construction safety of the train systems those are not possible today without gps. >> mr. chairman, my red light is about to eliminate, so i will yield back to the estimates before. mr. duncan. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and this is my first real involvement in this, so there's much i don't understand. but mr. secretary, i have read

this statement from this assessment that says by the deputy secretaries of the department of transportation and the part of defense and i assume that is from you come and it's a very strong statement that you put out about three and a half weeks ago, and you say there that you mention that light squared had a and original proposal and then they modified it. can you explain to me in the lehmans terms how much of the changes made in their original plan? and it also tells an hour briefings that they are disputing your findings were your assessment. >> i would be happy to, congressman. layman's terms is all mine possible love, so i will try to get it in. the original proposal of roughly a year ago, january of 2011

proposed up to 40,000 ground based transmitters that would effectively blank out the gps signal and large stretches of the u.s. and some very critical areas. there's a very early testing done both by the department of defense and the faa. was clear from the testing that there was an interference issue. the forum for this is a relatively obscure position that the navigation and timing executive committee which does the deputy secretary of defense and by co-chair deputies a good reporter representing the mother terrie users and myself representing all the civil users through that committee which includes all the executive branch agencies, which includes

others and putting the federal communications commission as an observer. it was clear that additional testing of a different proposal was in order. we worked with light squared. they were part of developing the particle and they were part of the testing itself. and the results i think are very clear cut. i would point out that those are -- the testing results from both feet in a pf and separate aviation work are currently with ntia and will be transmitted shortly. but those results were independently verified by both the idaho national engineering laboratories and the lincoln laboratory at mit. and from - lehman's perspectives the result is especially with a precision safety of flight avionics that we use in aircraft.

the results were unacceptable. >> let me ask you this. i said it was a very strong assessment, and what i'm talking about is based on the testing and analysis there appears to be no practical solution or mitigation know what permit the light squared broadband services proposed to operate in the next few months or years without significantly interfering. i understand about the dangers are the concerns or problems, but it is a fascinating thing to me that you can say that there's nothing that they could even do within the next few years. it does tell us, and i have no connection whatsoever. i've never even talked to these people, but it says the dispute these findings. how do the dispute them? do you know? >> i believe the light squared representatives can and should better explain how the dispute the findings.

i would point out the statement is strong. i believe it is warranted given the circumstances. when we talk about in the next few months or years remember there's a very large instalment base of gps receivers, just focusing on aviation for a moment occurs about 60,000 gps receivers out there that are used for safety of flights like the terrain avoidance systems. each of those is about $40,000. if you look at the on average if you look at the lifecycle of aircraft and avionics these are for decades. and the reason for that part of the statement is to point out that there is no easy retrofit or filter or any other kind of retrofit that with from the safety of flight perspective make the proposal was currently proposed compatible with aviation. >> i'm not saying it wouldn't

warrant. i'm just saying is a fascinating thing that there would be a statement that nothing could be done even in the next few years when technology advances as fast as it does. thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. lobiondo. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for your testimony today. i can truly tell you as a pilot there is a palpable difference in the cockpit when you have the avoidance systems using the gps. when you are flying in the coming from the east going into salt lake city and you know you are skirting the top of the mountains, it is a comforting feeling to have that gps. but, light squared has agreed to a standstill as i and a stand on the use of the upper portion of the spectrum and it's a portion that is actually closest to the gps signal and stated that it

would like to work on the gps to develop the strategies as they put it in order to initiate the commercial operations in the upper spectrum what two or three years. is in your opinion and understand when your testimony as you said there is no mitigating conclusion and do you think that two or three years to be able to find some type of strategy is in that window? and number two, from what we know, even though we really can identify the mitigating strategy, the cost to the general aviation to implement the strategy as well. >> thank you, congressman. first i would point out why not sure what a standpoint means on the upper 10 megahertz. there are no time limits to that and no technical triggers that i am aware of. there is a fundamental incompatibility between the light squared proposal has proposed and the continued use

of gps as a precision air navigation use, and again i would point out that this has been built over decades now we're more and more we are dependent on gps for a much higher standard of safety than we are able to achieve in the old instrument landing systems without the avoidance warning systems and without the wide area augmentation system. all of those are very significant safety advances. i can't speculate on the cost because i'm not sure that anyone can quantify the cost even if it could be done to of retrofits if they were technically valuable to existing avionics used. >> just to be, there is no plan at this time to retrofit or reconfigure any systems to work

light squared into this practice is that correct? dak that is correct, congressman. i would say in contrast mobile satellite service use on the adjacent frequency which is what they were originally zoned if you will have been and will be compatible. thank you, i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you. i am troubled that you have the potential for interfering with gps. i'm afraid it points out the actual delicate nature of the gps system and its potential vulnerability to be for nothing else an attack. you hear reports of a truck driver with a device degrading the system near the newark airport. suppose someone not friendly to

this country were to intentionally put out high-powered stuff. we would be in trouble historic we and it's been considered a backup to the gps but that is currently being dismantled. i am concerned that we have all of this reliance on the gps and everything from my car to myself alone to landing in the 777 aircraft in the future. it seems to me that we are recreating a vulnerable system with no backups. can you all comment on that? >> yes, congressman. first you brought up a very important point. there are by its denature there are vulnerabilities for the gps you pointed out one specific incident where a commercially bought over the internet $99 a jammer caused real issues at one

of our major airports in the country. one of the things we've done is the national position navigation timing architecture study of the overall system architecture is following on that. the federal aviation administration is committed to an alternate research program where just as today with our terrestrial radar based air navigation system of affordable these and you basically build the in depth backup systems. we know as we move with the implementation as we move forward with that there will be more important to have back up to the gps based system. they will only be short-term backup systems, and it's important point out that we are moving aggressively. >> can you determine short-term backup? >> for short duration. in other words, if we were

denied the use of gps systems for the air navigation today for an extended period of time it would have severe impact on the national airspace system as it were for ten minutes would be a little bit different. >> a minute as opposed to today. islamic but again you put your finger on the elderly in the system. it seems the vulnerability is easy to exploit. >> it can be, and part of it is the architecture and design going forward of how we design the system of systems that is next-gen we are very focused on this and also i would point out there is an important enforcement side. there is no legitimate commercial use for the gps jamar. >> for my information i have seen press reports about other countries developing their own

gps satellite. do we know where that's going? >> thank you,, to the rest of the federation has that in the 90's, and when the soviet union disintegrated it wasn't maintained, but the understand as of december 2011 they have a full constellation and they've committed to the gps three and they hope to have that in place by 2014. the europeans have galileo which the two satellites are up and the total constellation as i believe 18 and china is putting in place with a call compass. the of two satellites in place and they plan to launch six in 2012 and the full complement by 2020 and that will initially be for any stage of the quad. >> if you will allow me to geek for just a second we have a massive array of transmitters in the cell phone to our network

that can contain the what it to dwinell information. is any research going into tapping into those to create some sort of system as a fallback to gps? >> i don't know. but i would be happy to do this research that and get back to the committee. >> just curious data seems like there's an infrastructure in place that might be able to develop a fallback system. >> i appreciate the question and will find out. >> my time is expired. >> thank you. >> well, i'm sure we all have a lot of other questions, but i will leave it to their for this hearing at this point. thank you so much. it's been very informative. >> thank you. the second panel consists of the senior vice president of the safety security operations airline for america, and

mr. cassidy, craig, president and ceo of the pilots association. john foley, director aviation gnss technology of garmen and come and dr. scott is the record of the space policy institute international affairs george washington university. thank you for making all of you the time to be with us today on this very somewhat technical but very important subject for the secretaries of our economy and the safety and as the country we will begin with captain cassidy.

>> good morning mr. chairman and the members of the subcommittee. i am captain shaun cassidy first vice president of the airline pilots association international and i represent more than 53,000 professional pilots based in the united states and canada. it's an honor to appear before the subcommittee to underscore the tremendous contribution of the satellite based navigation system weeks to ensure the efficient and safe operations in the united states and around the globe. given the vital the importance of the global positioning system as a key component of the country's transportation infrastructure, is appropriate and indeed essentials for the house transportation infrastructure committee and the aviation subcommittee to be fully engaged and protect the system. as the members of the subcommittee know, of more than two decades the navigation information available through gps has enabled the air transportation to the tremendous gains and safety and efficiency.

since 1983 when gps began available to the public at no cost, the system is evolved to become a vital tool for the aircraft navigation, all other approaches and landings, surveillance, required between the aircraft and the pilot situational awareness. gps allows pilots to fly aircraft using the safest and most efficient routes which benefit every flight operation but particularly those over the atlantic and pacific on the transport routes where the diversion rules are very limited. the enhanced accuracy of gps of aircraft on the parallel runways to operate independently in the increasing a rival rate. the major metropolitan areas that are served by several airports gps allows us to analyze the entire aerospace and operate the flights based on the regional strategy rather than the airport by airport. these opportunities to improve the flight operations possible only through gps produce the guitry's to noise and cut co2 and other greenhouse gas emissions while making the industry seaver, more efficient

and better positioned to meet future demands. let me give you an example from my own experience. the airport alaska the state capital is situated on the dais surrounded by high terrain before gps we only a few choices, approach and landing at juneau and they are both very challenging. the approach from the east and the one from the west both require a fairly high cloud ceilings at low altitude lineup for landing. without gps, the terrain and conditions forced many flight cancellations. in 1996 alaska airlines pioneer the gps instrument approach to juneau alaska. the pin planned accuracy of the gps approach allows me to fly directly over the center of the channel as depicted in the photograph on the screen and stay clear of the high transfer in the channel and the airport. the result in the enhanced safety and reduce delays and cancellations. since then the alaska airline has expanded the gps base approach to other airports in the country. in 2011 the airport completed more than 1500 flights would likely have been cancelled and

diverted and the result was $19 million for the revenue and over 210,000 gallons worth of fuel that wasn't burned. across the united states, the faa published more than 11,000 gps approaches to thousands of airports including our own backyard here at the national we are highly accurate tv is a purchase or to reduce flight delays and cancellations to allow them to be based on satellites. however this environment almost also makes them susceptible to interference in the video transmissions for this reason low powered satellite based signals be permitted in the radio frequencies that are closest to the gps bandwidth most recent proposal to deploy 40,000 high-powered grand base transmitters on the radio frequency spectrum that is adjacent to the band as a result of the risk was to deceive the air transportation as well as to emergency services such as first responders rhetoric industry and

governments have demonstrated for the proposal had been allowed to go forward gps would be inaccessible for the large regions of the gps and had a normal operational options for airliners with this proposal or anything like it to people to proceed possible was the tremendous navigational tool that is especially important and to promote areas in that letter and the air transportation system that helps drive the u.s. economy and secure tens of thousands of jobs. looking to the future, gps is critical for the efforts to modernize the u.s. air-traffic control system through next-gen. this launch of the tiffin next-gen because of its enormous potential to enhance safety and increase capacity and efficiency and protecting the environment as a perfect an initiative they are already invested more than a billion dollars in gps based technology that is designed to the radar based surveillance aircraft it can become more important. pilots also commend the aviation subcommittee for holding this hearing in a lawless to underscore the unmatched benefits to provide air transportation system both now and in the future.

thank you very much. >> speaker mr. hendricks? >> lynndie member costello and members of the subcommittee think you for inviting us to appear at this time. in an important hearing and i do apologize for my slight delay and my pushback for my testimony this morning. it's good to speak with you again. the continued integrity of the global positioning system is critically important to the millions of customers we fly every day as well as through the tens of millions of other people in our country who rely on it. gps will be the backbone of the air navigation both domestically and internationally in the coming years. interference with the success of alladi and reliability would be catastrophic for the civil aviation and the communities that depend on air transportation. we deeply appreciate subcommittees' recognition and the faa reauthorization bill for the importance of this technology and advancing of next-gen. we with respect to the life support proposal the uncomfortable fact is that it will create widespread gps

interference which will have the effect on aviation. experts have repeatedly reached that conclusion. the proposal therefore should be withdrawn this matter needs to be put to rest once and for all. we do not oppose the expansion of wireless broadband services. but in the expansion cannot be permitted to interfere with existing or anticipated aviation gps use. many of which will significantly enhance safety. we are dependent on that technology and there is no substitute for it. one obvious lesson i is a convoluted experience with the light squared application is the need for the government-wide policy that protects the aviation gps spectrum. without such and fortitude of policy, the spectrum encroachment will remain a threat. as the subcommittee knows all too well, we have historically relied on the ground-based air navigation system. it is a system that has become increasingly defined by its limitations. users of the system have for the most part had to fly from one

ground navigation to the next often resulting the routings. this inefficiency wastes time and fuel and also restrict the number of reading of the aircraft can use which in turn construct the capacity growth. gps is at the heart of the ongoing multibillion-dollar nextgen program will shift air navigation from that outmoded terrestrial system to a modern satellite based system. this is a transformational change. ..

>> warning systems combine gps information with on board terrain data bases to provide flight zek crews with look ahead warnings of dangerous terrain making air travel far safer than what it was recently. it shows the benefits that gps and other technologies can achieve. the introduction in the coming decades will be the real game changer. it's integration of gps with other technology innovations create the satellite base system of air traffic management we all realize is necessary. gps is the indispensable element of the long needed overhaul. given the central role of gps, the federal government must develop safeguards for aviations use of it. stakes are too high for those who rely on air transportation, the communities and businesses that rely on air service, and airlines and their employees to leave to chance our continued

ability to utilize gps to the greatest advantage. we need a government wide policy guiding federal agency's responses when potential interferningses emerge. that policy has to make clear that interference is prohibited and that other users cannot be permitted to encroach. the most obvious place to strengthen policy is the national executive committee for space based positioning,-and-a-half vaition, and -- navigation, and timing. it's a government organization established by presidential directive to coordinate agencies on manners concerning gps. the organization is chaired jointly by the secretary of defense and transportation and includes equivalent level officials from the department of homeland security, state, interior, agriculture, and commerce. the federal communications chairman participates in the organization as a liaison. at the very least, the fcc

should be required to consult before taking action on any application to operate a trees yal based communications network that may affect the band the gps uses. we express at international conferences at which spectrum issues are considered such as the world radio communications conference held in geneva reflect importance of gps spectrum throughout the world. we appreciate your interest in the vital issue. we're prepared to assist you, and i'll be happy to take any questions you might have. >> thank you. >> good morning, mr. chairman, ranking member, craig fuller, owners and pilots association, a pleasure to be before the committee. i'll start with a statement i don't always get to make which is we are in full agreement with the obama administration on the question before you today. i thought the statements by

deputy secretary of transportation were right to the point. we agree with every point that was made there. indeed, the other members of the administration, other departments and agencies that looked at this are of the same view. there's only one somewhat reluctant regulator out there that seems not to have gotten this message, but, perhaps today's hearing will help, but that could be a topic for another day. i have a statement filed for the record making the points made. i thought i've give a couple comments. we all say gps is extremely important. we certainly believe that, but in a way gps is pretty simple. i took off yesterday from fred rix, maryland -- frederick, maryland in an aircraft, and before it was airborne, a small box in the plane received multiple signals from gps transmitters in space. all the box did initially was identify those signals and determine precisely where it

was. that's gps. the genius of gps is what is enables. the fact that gps has been around for a long time is a technology that can determine precisely where something is in space doesn't mean it's old and not exciting. the excitement of gps is what it enables. the fact that that box, as i traveled, kept determining exactly where the airplane was in space, have two points. the box calculated by air speed. the box calculated my heading. the box calculated that there's towers on hills near maryland that i was within 500 feet of. if i had an emergency of some kind, the box tells me where the nearest airport was, what the route was, and how long it would take to get there simply because it could receive this very small signal from space, from the gps transmitter. i guess i would submit while

some say it's time to look to new technology for greater benefits, we've just begun to tap this genius of gps and what it can enable, and as you've heard today, it is absolutely at the center of next gen technology. we have 5200 public use airports in the country. we couldn't possibly afford to put instrument landing systems in all those airports with equipment on the ground, and yet everyone of those airports can have a precision approach to every runway on the field using gps capabilities. that's what it enables. it enables emergency helicopters to go precisely to the scene of a crime, to a mountain climber who needs rescued and know the closest landing site for the helicopter. they are all enabled by this gps signal, so, i guess from where we sit, my 400,000 members who are flying general aviation airplanes, see this as

absolutely essential. by the way, you heard from two very respected members of the industry who fly large airplanes. the airplane i was in was a two-seater, husky, and it has the same capability that airliners have. when we talked about this issue before, i said there's nothing wrong with the government agency looking forward and seeing an opportunity and letting it be explored, and, indeed, the food and drug administration does that all the time with cures and medicines, but sometimes they don't work. i think what the agencies at the federal government said we embrace the con cement that was -- concept that was being considered, but the approach simply doesn't work, and it puts at risk all that gps enables which is not only what we experienced for the last 20 years we've been using it, but the promise it holds for the future, so we very much appreciate the committee's interest in this. we certainly embrace, as i said, the statements made by the

administration. we strongly urge that the federal communications commission resend waivers that keep this cloud over us on this important topic until further research can be done. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. full jey. >> [inaudible] i'm grateful to be here with the opportunity. the 9200 people at garmin are dedicated to developing devices for million of users worldwide for improving their lives and safety. it accounts for over 30,000 direct jobs. what was once a government only technology is now fully woven into the fabric of our infrastructure. that did not happen overnight. it has taken two decades of hard

work to mature it from a fledging technology into a reliable force for safety and efficiency. yet, unbelievably, what we built together is now threatened. today, virtually all types of aircraft utilize gps for navigation and approaches. a loss of a fraction of gps reliability poses significant danger to aviation safety. four areas are particularly worry -- worrisome. loss of gps would deny coverage at hundreds of airports and helaports lacking knave gages aids. without these, the warning systems would not work. loss of gps means a loss of situational awareness for cockpit displays, weather information, including on the ground to prevent run way incursions. reliable gps is essential for the faa's proposed next gen

system. we can sum up the last year in four words, "grant first, test later." grant first, test later seems to stand the process of decision making on its head. it placed a severe burden on everyone's time, attention, and resources, a burden that should have been placed on those seeking something from the fcc. everybody concerned about gps reliability devoted six mornts last spring and millions of dollars of constantly changing proposals. the tests revealed extensive interference. anyone aware of the tremendous difference in signal strength between gps and a high powered network could have predicted this result. yet, despite all of this, another round of extensive government testing occurred last fall. they concluded in a recent letter that various plans for a high powered trees yal broadband

network would cause harmful interference to many gps receivers. it noted that such proposals are not compatible with several gps dependent aircraft safety systems, and that no solutions exist to prevent significant interference to gps. they stated no further testing was necessary. there's many developments found to be troubling. why did the fcc make a far reaching decision without conducting tests or evaluating already done test results? should they demonstrate market readiness? why were objections from the department of transportation and defense ignored? we hope you are asking these same questions too. where do we go now? we believe that the pnt has the right structure, the right stake holders including a liaison role for the fcc, and on paper, should be effective. however, future coordination

must be improved. the fcc should have signoffs when proposals could potentially interfere with gps reliability, the reliability our customers have come to expect. if the creation of a post something akin to a chief gps officer would help ensure that coordination, we could support that. such an officer should come from the departments of defense and transportation. in their recent later to ntia, they proposed a draft new gps interference standards. we know that in the last year, parts of our government seemed unaware of that at least for gps devices. the faa and department of defense standards already address interference. any analysis in the future should build upon that work. they had businesses disrupted by the failure of government to effectively coordinate costing

millions of dollars and thousands of hours that could have been better spent improving gps products. if anything, this year has been a trial run. we learned a lot, but the threat is still there, and we need your continued vigilance to help. thank you, and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. dr. pace. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to this committee for an opportunity to discuss this topic. as you heard, gps is global utility that is important to all modes of our nation's transportation infrastructure. what i'd like to do is provide maybe a little historical policy per special circumstancetive because -- perspective because some of the threats to gps are not new. there have been and continue to be many policy and legal risks for gps from funding con straints, transition to signals, trade barriers, and domestic regulations. the most serious threats, however, are not gps itself, but to the spectrum environment upon

which it depends, the foundation on which all applications reside. every type of threat from band sharing e segmentation, noise increases, reallocation of adjacent bans have been attempted in 15 years. to date, all threats have been removed or mitigated through government cooperation and bipartisan support in multiple administrations who saw to protect the spectrum in which gps operates. four presidents, two republican, two democratic, issued statements regarding gps recognizing the dual use of gps as more than a military system, crucial to a broad range of u.s. interests. similarly, congress has passed numerous bills related to the protection of gps and federal statutes found under title 10 armed services and title 51, national and commercial space programs. regulatory processes for rule making are well defined to the procedures act and the united states has sufficient law and

policy on the books to protect gps. what's missing at times is a willingness to enforce laws and procedures and follow good government. given the high stakes involved in preventing risk to gps is attempts to look for a special policy fence automatically preventing problems from arising. given the fcc is an independent regulatory commission, however, that does not report to the president, any specialties require congressional action in a very complex area. receiver standards have been mentioned as a possible way of allowing higher power emissions and bans adjacent to the spectrum or creating a regulatory environment for new entrance. i don't believe it's a useful approach and suggest focus on gps inspection criteria, a subtle difference, but an important one. the creation of government driven design standards outside of those necessary for public safety can stifle innovation. receiver standards can be a subtle regulatory means of sacrificing some categories of

users and applications in rammedly evolving markets -- rapidly evolved marketings, oanders, it can provide better service. finally, i'd like to mention two areas of risk not related to spectrum. in today's fiscal environment, it's tempting to slow or cancel the acquisition of gps satellites or hope to rely on foreign systems to fill the gaps. this is a dangerous idea given our nation''s reliance on gps and the lack of reliability on foreign systems. there could be disruptions as an unintended use of modernization. there's a need to confirm that changes to gps or backwards compatible with the installed base. if not, there could be a transition plan developed -- there needs to be a transsix plan developed with the relevant stake holders in government, industry, and even non-government organizations like advisory committees and scientific societies. we have a precious resource that

needs to be protected. finally, the neighborhood in which gps resides should be preserved as you heard from other witnesses. as gps modernization proceeds, the u.s. government should ensure the base suffers no disruptions as new gps capabilities come online. for the aviation community, it's not an overstatement to say vigilance is, in fact, the price of safety. thank you for your time, and i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you, and i thank the entire panel for your contribution. craig fuller talked about the simple technology with thousand and anymore permutations and advantages, and in my own area we have a manufacturer now that has a bolt hook, gps, you push a button, and the bolt stays still without an anchor in the ocean, and, of course, john deere and

these people know and can do -- apply fertilizers to fields base the on the characteristics with that spot on the field and have a huge return for additional investment, make agriculture more productive, less wasteful, and all of the rest. it's all gps, and this is only the beginning of how we can refine the application of technology for changes in circumstances on practically six inch by six inch basis across our country. you've heard the testimony of the previous panel, and i really wonder if in particular, mr. fulley and mr. pace would care to comment on it. you have in your prepared remark, but we found ourselves 234 a rather peculiar situation in that i'm sure good meaning people who see a business

opportunity spent some billions of dollars to help achieve the national objective, which is a good one, of making broadband available, high speed broadband across our country, and yet we had a gps system set up and elaborated for a number of years that needed to be in a quiet area was testified, and well known, and evidently the price of that spectrum reflected that to some extent, and yet then that spectrum was acquired and the previous purpose was broadened at the staff level, at the fcc. evidently, leading people to think they could do something, and that's going to ruin a lot of savings of people who invested in all of this technology. is this a staff failure, or are people leading someone down the

prim rose path? i mean how -- we need a clearing of fences here to explain why? evidently, the spectrum price reflected some knowledge at the investor level as to what was going on, but was it a failure of the technical advisers of the investors? you know, do you have any -- i guess it's speculation, but looking forward, how can we avoid this waste of resources in the future or rescue the situation that we find ourselves in? either of you have any ideas? >> well, thank you. i think the main thing, and i think we've all kind of highlighted on that is that we need to make sure that we protect the spectrum that we have and looking kind of backwards, i think, at least from my perspective as a gps

manufacturer, there are standards in place for quite some time back to 1996 i believe, so it was a bit of a surprise for us to see that when this new proposed system came up, it was actually putting out signals far in excess of their receiver or interference protection limits so any future plans we'd want to build on existing limits, and i think that's what the pnt said, and dot said, and so to the extent that we do that, i think that's the best way to move forward, and just more generally as i stated in my testimony, improve coordination between the pnt and fcc and the rest of the government to ensure all stake holders are represented when new policy decisions are made. >> i think, mr. chairman, looking back at it, the fundamental error was in not really applying maybe the intent or the best practices of the administrative procedures act,

notices of proposed rule makings that have reallocation of spectrum. it was known that this was not reallocation from mobile satellite services to a high broadband mobile service, but just a relaxation of outdated constraints and waivers could be applied and maybe new efficiencies could be found. i think in retrospect that was too clever by half. that it was a reallocation, and a noticeable rule making should have been done, a notice of rule making would have generated the technical data necessary to understand what was involved, and that one would have fairly quickly seen it was a non-starter. when this originally started back in about 2003, the idea of an ancillary terrestrial component was considered kind of a fill in, a gap filler, a relatively low power system. no one was talking about 40,000, you know, high powered cell

towers covering the country or having an independent terrestrial service sprat from the satellite -- separate from the satellite services. the fcc was clear they would not allow a separate service. in fact, it always had to be tied to the satellite service and no interference. these broadband systems would interfere with mobile satellite services in their own band which is a big sin, so i think that the position of people at the time was to try to find some way to make sheas ancillary systems work m i think there was good faith technical effort. there was no technical data offered, and then people gradually got into trying to turn it into something else, a reallocation, and they did not do a noticeable proposed rule making, hence, i think people were surprised when they found out that when they actually got the data, that it was a much different situation than what they had intended, so i don't

know what to say if how do you prevent people from making bad decisions? i don't know that that's possible. i think we have rules and procedures, if followed, would have protected us. >> any other comments? >> mr. chairman, i just have a quick one. i -- one of the reasons, seriously, for my enthese yasm about the -- enthusiasm about the obama administration comment today, it should send a clear signal to any agency, even independent agencies. we don't have to speck cue late. there's no one, no one who's done the hard work, there's been press releases, plenty of representatives making cases, but no one's done the hard work of testing that's come to any other conclusion than this won't work. i would hope that the administration who had to clear the testimony today out of omb at the executive office of the president, i would hope the administration would provide an

equally clear message to its appointees and independent agency to say if you have some special knowledge that none of us have been able to uncover, then bring it forward, bring it tots congress, bring it to the industry, but so far, there's been press releases, but we've had not nearly the kind of certainty that experts in this field have, and i think the process that led to the testimony today is sound and solid representing the best clear thinking of this administration that the project should not go guard as proposed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for the great testimony. there was so much information that you just gave us. i really appreciate it. one of the things you said, mr. fuller, i don't want to -- i want to make sure that the committee understands it. with the gp system, there needs

to be no terrestrial navigation systems at an airport. you can have -- you can be flying and have an emergency as you eluded to, and you can go into an airport that does not have navigational devices to it. can you expand upon that? talk about the minimums you can bring the aircraft down to if you needed to. >> dangerous ground because i can talk about flying all afternoon. the interesting thing is that, and they speak for themselves, but this is a topic on which we're in absolute agreement throughout the aviation community. the community is e contained with gps aviewonnics for years and they are equipping more with the prospect of the next gen

technology being more fully utilized, and all of it gives us the ability, whether i'm in the two seater husky or the citation jet or a commercial airline, we have the technology to take us from the altitude or en route altitude down to a couple hundred feet above the center line of the runway using nothing but the satellite-based technology above the earth and the gps box in the related computers in the aircraft. furthermore, it allows them to know where i'm at and me to know where they are at so it provides separation of aircraft, and that's going to be an increasingly important feature with the technology. it makes it possible to do this whether you're flying to your destination airport that you go to all the time or you have an emergency, and you have to suddenly find a suitable runway nearby.

as i said, the -- this basic principle of being able to define precisely where you are in space continually over time provides all kinds of enhancements. >> mr. chairman, i'm slower, i have a sailboat, but it helps us in case the anchor is slipping, the alarm goes off because it shows the boat is moving. there's all kinds of possibilities. >> thank you. >> as a pilot, can you tell me in regards to next gen and interference maker, what's the nightmare scenario? what do you see that the effects of you flying your commercial aircraft with light square that could affect you as a pilot navigating down that gulf there? >> well, i suppose the nightmare scenario would be that i anticipated i was putting myself

back up in june -- juneau, but if they flipped a switch on it, and i had to go back to the old procedures, i would be concerned about the safe conduct of flight because now i'd have a lot less ability to have a very good estimate at what my arrival fuel needs to be at missed approach point in order to get to the divert. that tailors on what mr. fuller said. one of the big safety aspects of gps technology is it allows you to be more pro-active and anticipate contingency situations further down the road. in this case, i would -- based upon what the arrival weather would be, i would estimate what a safe arrival fuel would be that allows me then to divert and go to an alternate and also have the coordinates of the alternate and also have approaches built into the alternate in the flight management system, so it's all there, and i have a one-stop

shop, and that is an incredible safety benefit that is clearly, purely at the benefit of satellite base navigation. >> thank you. .. primarily operating on that upper 10 megahertz frequency closest to gps all of the testing that's been done so far all of the analysis has shown

that would be catastrophic. you will have widespread outages of gps. the majority of the receivers we tested just did not work at those types of power levels that close. moving to the lower ten help sluve ball the analysis be done so far says that doesn't get a clean bill of health either. there's significant problems with that proposal as well specifically the awareness of the warning systems we've talked about the operations at the low altitude. it poses a lot of problems for aviation. specs before and with that i will yield back thank you for your indulgence. >> thank you, gentlemen all for your prepared testimony and for being here and you're enlightening testimony today. this hearing is adjourned.

[inaudible conversations]

might portend point on who should run into the conservative leader is we can't tell them. i think it would be better if a month before the election we announced the we are running for president. [applause] i mean, the media's obsessive desire to know who is your leader is it michael steele, is it rush limbaugh, is it sarah palin? they want us to tell them to our leader is so taken ferociously fixate on that person and destroy him or her. [applause]

tsa administrator john pistole says his agency is on likely to renew a program that allowed several airports to hire private companies to provide security screenings. he testified on capitol hill for an hour. >> the committee on transportation security will come to order to examine the transportation security administration's screening partnership program. and i apologize for the delay,

but they don't have any say so when votes are called on the floor but i do appreciate your patience and participation i recognize myself for an opening statement. i want to thank the administrator pistole for being here and the time it takes to prepare for this. today the said committee will examine the partnership program and the willingness to work with the private sector to improve transportation security. let me first state first and foremost i'm a strong supporter of this partnership program or sttp ander is applied with tsa decision last january not to expand the program beyond the 16 airports utilizing private screening services to a i'm aware that last week that tsa approved one airport and not to letters from the spirit of limiting the truth is a long approach in my opinion especially since both tsa and the gao have determined that the the performance of the federal screeners and private screeners are roughly the same and that the security standards set for the spp and airports are completely identical. rather than trying to insulate a

giant of the work force tsa should be working to strengthen and improve the private screening program and make it more cost-efficient some u.s. businesses can take on a more meaningful role. then tsa can country implementing the management oversight and contract in procurement and training reforms they desperately need. last april the committee chairmen and i introduced h.r. 1586, the secure enhancement jobs act of 2011. the bill requires them to approve any application that would not compromise the security and provide a written explanation to congress and their part concerned in the application is denied. i am pleased language similar to our bill was included in the reauthorization conference report which recently passed the house. in addition, the huge number of personnel working in the airports that do have the private screeners troubles me. recent data provided to the committee certain airports were contractors to screening and tsa is over screening this process. they are upwards of 50 employees

on the payroll. while we can agree the strong oversight in this area is critically important, having 50 plus officials in a single airport where they are not responsible for conducting the screening is just plain over cal and is costing the taxpayers huge amounts of money. we will get this issue and other contract in advance what issues throughout the hearing, and i look forward to all the witnesses and now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, my friend, the gentlelady from texas for any opening statement she may have to read >> thank you very much mr. sherman and we are working on this committee because we both have been providing commitment to the security of the nation and to the administrator pistole and thank him before he even starts for his leadership. this is a time for tough choices, tough decisions and strong commitment to secure this nation. i would offer to say that because of this committee and the leadership of the ranking member and chairman that in not

too well the the united states has been through some very difficult times managed to secure itself inside a horrific act no one will ever forget throughout history of the nation. it was on that day that the security of the nation through the airport's was privatized, and was on that day that private security entities allowed individuals who ultimately sent planes into the towers of new york to kill thousands of persons. so i have a vigorous disagreement, and i am hoping that the administration will courageously hold the line. this is not a time for publicizing and making people happy, and it's not time for humouring small businesses. and i am, in my mind and the work that i have done,

considered an avid supporter of small businesses, medium-size businesses, large businesses, and the work that is done in procurement to assure that the american business has an opportunity to serve its nation. but on this 1i believe in one point of the chairman he is right that we need to be fiscally responsible. we need to access our need and ensure that individuals are pleased and utilized in of the tsa structure and the transportation security office structure in the most efficient, appropriate and secure manner that is appropriate. you were right about question. here to announce the reform that would provide for an expansion of the screening partnership program without the appropriate

limitations are presently in place today. so i would like to thank the witness and witnesses for joining us today to discuss the screening partnership program commonly referred to as spp. airports may opt out of using federal screening work force. john reid in 2011, based on of the review of the administrator, administrator pistole decided not to extend the spp beyond the 16 currently participating airports unless there was a clear and substantial benefit to doing so, and i might add there should be a security analysis in this as well and i hope my keywords substantial benefits in his testimony or questioning we will discern that benefit of clear and substantial benefit does not ignore the security ramifications. according to tsa operating the taxpayers are using more than the screw federal screening were

forced to read in light of that fact and the tight budgetary times that would be reason enough to support the administration to expand the program of the list goes on. the privatized screening he burst the ability to push of intelligence information to the front line workers, and it ads to inconsistency that mix changing procedures based on the threats more complex. that means you not only have to bet the front-line officers who got to that the company that the executives of the company, the ownership, the financial structure of this, the bank's private company goes to, who is paying whom to turn their head into overlook from some act that is prepared to attack the american citizens as they travel skies of america. there's been much discussion as to whether the screening is performed rather do to better than counterparts and i'm always supportive of making sure it is

respected and there is no conflict with assisting on excellence in performance to the idea that i have not prejudiced screeners are not adequate make the federal employees excellent that has been done many places. we certainly don't criticize our first responders in terms of their service, and we have no criticism of the young men and women who've come into our military service on privatized who offer themselves to serve. we would expect no less from the transportation security officers. they are on the front line. tsa and for assess the privatized screeners is comparable to that of the federal work force and a lot of hours to better than privatize workers. and i believe our focus should

be how we achieve that. we don't need equals in this business. the federal government is always expected to be better than. we are the irresponsibility of millions of americans all across this nation. they look to us, this great nation uses the terminology great to be great and to the excellent. the reality is security has occurred both privatized federalist screenings. under the watch of the predators screen as the san francisco international airport, a woman pushed through a close check port leyna, boarded a plane and flew to baltimore without ever being screened. the statute established in the spp didn't endeavor to the micromanaged decision to include or exclude an airport participation. was to show the sense of openness. 16 is enough. rhetoric gave proper deference to the of minister of judgment by seeking they may approved an application. i know from this very hearing we

will see the potential of the amendments coming in from the administrator to try to demand to say that you shall just as we have seen in the language of the faa a bill that is unfortunate, and i am sorry that we are having this hearing after the fact. but i will live to rise again and i will find a way just like others did to undo that because i think it's wrong. despite having never been debated by this committee the committee of jurisdiction and no members being appointed the conferees on behalf of the committee, in the reauthorization act which will soon become law that's called midnight legislating in the dark no transparency and adhering to the voices of one tomb. the limit that he is a flexibility to improve or deny the application from an airport to opt out. places with a television of the 120 days on tsa to determine

whether to approve a application and provide a waiver for the requirement that a private contractor screening company be owned and controlled by the united states citizen. just a few years ago everyone was up in arms about the potential reports being owned by the foreign entities. we have resolved and or studied the issue and i assume it is still being studied. but there is no doubt that aviation still remains one of the most attractive entities for individual franchised tariffs to read and now we suggest we verse even if the company is owned by the airport or for an entity how outrageous like for you and from the administrative views on the changes to the statute and how we intend to continue to develop tsa into the federal counter was a network envisioned. it comes with years of experience with the fbi to why understand and he knows full

well are the ticket was in the responsibilities assuring the security. we can do no less when it comes to this nation's sky is and as well for those who travel internationally on our soil and into our areas. as we look forward to one hope will be a productive year, mr. chairman, let us not forget the lessons of the past one of which is a system of privatized screenings failed us on 9/11. there is no further census that i need to make. the 9/11 date of porter was partly on the watch. the wisdom of the united states congress and the immediacy of those to come together and find a way to ensure tsl as a federal system of which we had the opportunity to provide intelligence training oversight and security for the american people. i see nothing has changed today and i would hope we change

nothing in spite of the legislation. i would ask the administration to reject the premise of that legislation. even as i yield back. >> i thank the gentlelady and we are going to be called for votes between 3:45 and 4 o'clock so we will try to move quickly. >> i recognize the gentleman from mississippi, the ranking member of the full committee mr. thompson for any statement he may have to it stomachs before mr. sherman. i'm pleased that the administrator can join us today to discuss the tsa screen partnership program. i would also like to extend a welcome to our second panel of witnesses. it is my hope that some of the myths and rhetoric surrounding the program can be put to bed today. by this hearing, my colleagues on either side of the aisle have implied that the current use of federal screenings impedes job growth. there is no proof and the wall or the fact for that assertion. the number of screeners there and airports is determined by an

analysis of the risk, threat and william that airport. these factors will not change based on whether the screeners or private contractors are federal employees. but the number of jobs will not change based on whether the screeners are public or private sector employees. under the republican suggestion, the only thing that would change is whether the jobs would be public or private. we know that both types of screenings are effective and face challenges. follow the same rules and we will see the same training. we also know that private screeners cost up to 9% more than federal screeners and we know private and public screeners join unions so the only real difference is cost. what we know is why the republicans seem to be willing to pay more for the same service

help doing so will create jobs. if the at a cost to taxpayers feel to convince you that this program should not be extended, consider that it takes us back to a model similar to the ones in place on 9/11. administrator pistole performed a full review of the tsa policies and practices and determined that the spp should not be extended unless the of a clear and substantial advantage to doing so. contrary to the claims made it the time, the administrator is not shut down the program. rather, he said a reasonable standard for the expansion. that standard was met last week by a lower risk seasonal airport in montana and tsa approved the application. tsa did so because the net impact was advantageous to

government. on the same date tsa denied the applications of the two airports because they failed to demonstrate and operational security cost advantage over the federalist screening applications. both of these directions are perfectly logical to ecological. this hearing comes a day late and a dollar short for the committee. last week the reauthorization act was passed by the house and soon will be signed into law as described by the subcommittee ranking member jackson lee that aviation safety deal contained a security provision within this committee's sole jurisdiction offering of the law controlling that spp. in summarizing this profession, it amounts to a congressional attempt to micromanage the spp by stripping the administrator of his discretion. without this committee having

the one hearing marked or debate on the changes proposed, homeland security members will deny a seat at the table by the speaker and the provisions will enter congress to return and king and i sent a letter to the speaker just two weeks ago requesting jurisdiction be consolidated. apparently under the leadership even when you have jurisdiction you get left out with that mr. chairman i yield back. >> i thank my colleague from mississippi and other members are reminded that the opening statements may be submitted to the record we are pleased to have two distinguished panels with the witness with us today. we would like to welcome the honorable john pistole he's been the administrator of the tsa at the department of homeland security since 2010 and as administrator he oversees the management of approximately 60,000 employees, the security operation of more than 450 airports in the u.s. and the

highways, railways, ports, mass-transit systems and pipelines. welcome, mr. pistole, the floor is yours. >> thank you mr. chairman, jim rogers and ranking members jackson in the and thompson and members of the committee good to see you. appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the transportation security administration position to protect the freedom of movement to people and commerce and also appreciated over to nettie to update the committee on the progress we continue to make on the first to develop and employ a range of risk-based intelligence driven initiatives to prevent terrorist attacks while facilitating the movement of people and goods across the u.s. and internationally. our goal in the number one priority is to provide the most effective security and the most efficient way. tsa accomplishes this national security mission through a series of public-private partnerships. for example, last year alone, tsa invested nearly $2.5 billion in the private sector in

critical services, technologies and equipment across all transportation rhodes. since 2002 our experienced work force screened for than 5 billion passengers through the multilayer security system. throughout 2011, we began to evaluate the benefits of several risk-based security screening and putting tsa check initiative which many of you know and some have experienced began last fall and is currently operating in seven of the country's busiest airports. participation is currently open to the u.s. citizens who are members of the customs and border protection, trusted traveler programs as well as certain airline suppliers. in a few months we began this over 310,000 passengers who've gone through the pre-check and feedback we've been receiving from the participants has been consistently positive. as a result we of plans to other airports and other u.s. airlines throughout 2012. there is much more than just the tsa project. other efforts reasonably develop

and deploy with over 300,000 airline pilots in the ten airports, changes and screening procedures for the 60,000 or so children and 12 and under traveling by air every day and the detection techniques into airports. additionally we are taking steps to further develop our earlier approach to security through a state of the art technology, additional k-9 teams, better passenger identification techniques and other actions which strengthen our capability to keep terrorists of the aircraft. by continuing efforts to move away from one size fits all approach to risk based securities holding of towards a high performing organization of the counterterrorism focus. the goal behind all of this is to look for ways to conduct the most effective security and in the most efficient way. doing so allows us to focus our resources on those travelers we know the least about or those on the terrorist watch list thereby reducing the size of the haystack in which a terrorist may hide. combine the focus of the more comprehensive use of classified

and other intelligence and we are in a better position to inform the security screening process. as is mentioned, congress also carried the means to assess the effectiveness of the privatized screening through the program beginning in 2002 with fighter parts. currently among the more than 550 airports with the security overseen by tsa, there are as has been mentioned the 16 airports in the spp triet towns you may know and as was noted by one replication and yellowstone and as a contract for a private screening award there will not be 17. rebels recently designed to applications that did not provide a clear substantial lead vantage to the taxpayers and the ability to achieve the mission. given the senate passage of the fa a bill last night and some in the president's signature, we have the implication of the law and corporate diprete resources engaged to carry out the nation with this and other oversight committees. thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. >> i thank the gentleman and i will recognize myself first for

questions and alternate side to side with members that have arrived. mr. pistole, about four months ago i sent a letter to you, and by the way i would like to ask unanimous consent to offer that for the record. without objection, so ordered. i sent a letter to your expressing concern over the ruling of the u.s. court of federal claims in the case of the first line versus the u.s. and the security of i would like to submit a must for the record but the curious thing about the spp of kansas city is the timing of it. specifically it can on the shelves of your public statement spp does a bit into your vision for a federal work force. my concern is whether the decision made in kansas city could have been effective in some way by the fact that tsa didn't want spp to be successful and in any part of its operation. we have the director of the kansas city aviation here today who will offer his perspective on the second panel. but before we hear him, i would

like for you to address this concern, why did the kansas city contract goes along? >> thank you mr. sherman. there are several issues that we filed in the court federal claims decision where we could have done a better job, and part of that was in our assessment of not only the best value, but the cost and the security aspect that were inherent, and of course this is a spp a per that was continuing as a spp airport. the discretion of which private screener was the best were the best value to the taxpayers to provide the best security. another finding that the court made is that we didn't do as good a job as we could have, and i agree with this and documenting our findings, both between the force selection of the board that reviews this and then to a source election of 40. i do note that the court ruled in our favor on six of the eight issues but he take away where we could have done a better job on our analysis and our

documentation and then the question became how should we move forward. so clearly we are in support of kansas city. it's had a good provider there in terms of its private screening and the whole intent as evidence is questioned which private company is best suited to provide those services. >> the former federal secure dirty of the kansas city airport mr. richard greasy was working as an adviser for the security of the time the company submitted the proposal and wanted to be a detective screening service of the kansas city airport. were you aware of that? >> i was not to be inspected anyone at tsa who was involved in making the award have direct contact with him starting from the time that he was issued until the contract was awarded? >> not to my knowledge. >> are you concerned about the employment of the former senior tsa employee could have had the head of the contracting progress and his connection to the

agency? >> welcome given that it was not aware of that, obviously there is always going to be the appearance that we need to be mindful of was assured in terms of the review of this and looking at the court decision that there was no improper influence according to the procurement, the acquisition process, but with the findings in terms of our, both our assessment and our documentation of our findings we could have and should have done a better job. so as a result of the decision i changed the procedures to ensure that does happen and that we don't repeat the mistakes that we made in that instance. >> and the same for postponing kansas city until the subcommittee can conduct the necessary oversight. understand that tsa intends to issue a full kansas city spp contract. why did you decide to go back to square one on that contract? >> i've looked at the court

opinion, mr. chairman, and in that, the noted that the injunction was in the public interest because, and i quote, it will promote full and open competition in the procurement process. that is based on the decision, and given that and the belief that we by opening it up again we would have the opportunity to look at perhaps another contractor that could come in and direct least as good if not a better job than dhaka to that have competed. that, coupled with several changes in the work from 2010 added to my belief that we should open back up and as i would also note in the court decision, they concluded, the judge concluded what course of action they choose to pursue after the contract is canceled an order to maintain the security screening services at nci kansas city is not for the court to decide, to cut discretionary function exercised to respect you know how much it has cost so far for this freakin' peaden how much it will

cost? >> i don't know the details. we have to get back to you on that. >> i see my time is expired. the chair now recognizes the ranking member ms. jackson lee for any questions she may have to read >> mr. chairman, thank you so much and thank you all the members. mr. pistole, went to be speaking quite quickly so i can get some answers from you. thank you first of all for your testimony and your service. administrator pistole, you state in your prepared testimony that tsa is a u.s. counterterrorism agency. but other domestic counterterrorism agency outsource the work of their front-line employees at an extra extant to the taxpayers; you know of any? >> none that i'm aware of. >> as i addressed my opening statement -- thank you very much -- as i addressed the position fundamentally altering your discretion to approve or deny an application to participate in the spp double soon become law if fielder faa authorization act. since this committee never debated the changes and was shut out of the conference by the republican leadership i would like to take the time to use the

teaching made and get your response and i also want to join my colleague mr. thompson and indicate the emphasis of the lack of employment when obviously people who work in the federal government you might have answered this mr. pistole. are they people who are not unemployed? if they are working for you they are not employed; is that my understanding? if someone is working for the program they are not in the unemployment line. and so they are in essence we are creating this is real jobs. is that -- connect yes, ma'am. >> of the language of this specific legislation requires you to approve their replication to the spp of the approval wouldn't compromise the security of the detrimental the affect the cost efficiency or effectiveness of the screening of passengers and airport. what impact will this likhachev

on your decision not to expand the spp unless there is a clear and substantial benefit to do so? >> let me first say we are just discussing this at this point of this is just an initial response and obviously it is changing the burden of you will on the discussion that i have in terms of making the decision which is to be in the tax payers interest in the cost and also obviously the bottom line is to provide that security. so if i am required to accept something unless i can prove affirmatively that it doesn't meet that criteria because the changes of standard. >> and that burden i think makes your job more difficult, not that you are opposed to difficulty but more securing the country. spec obviously the congress passed this law and the president is intending to sign it i believe, and so i look forward to working with the committee to carry out the best

way forward on that. >> i would argue to say the bonds to the commission passed the bill cuts and so i would think that point. for administering the spp for the increased oversight and management. >> clearly if there is application to come and we will have to increase our headquarters staff to handle those as we have a small staff now to handle the 16 and now 17, potentially 17 airports but yes now. if every airport and all 450 or the remaining came in we would have to increase our staff to the >> now the process opens up to all 450 airports in the united states; is that correct? >> that's my understanding colin yes. >> we are looking forward to returning to 9/11. the language requires you to approve or deny an application, it for publication within 120 days does that pose a stressful

time frame? is that adequate for you to conduct the review of the security implications? >> there's a lot of aspects to that but yes that is a compressed time schedule. and, for example colin if there is an application it's easier to comply with that. >> i want to go back to the thoughts that i raised in my opening statement to read the language contains a provision raising the requirement that any company contracted with the screening services be owned and controlled by the united states citizen. thankfully that language contains a clause that affords you complete discretion to reject any application that requires this waiver. as you know, administrator pistole, we live in a complex world where shifting allegiances and a dynamic free environment one need look no further than

some of the activities that are going on with our neighbors in the middle east and the pending complexity of iran and its nuclear weaponization. some of the individual franchise act have occurred over the last decade even after line 11 although the station has been very fortunate to to read and of course the concern about as you mentioned the idea of sharing intelligence. my question to you, will you commit to us today that during your tenure as administrator you will not approve any application that requires a waiver of the requirement on the basis of the need for the secure and intelligence and security of this nation. >> well, clearly i would need to review any application and the fact it would be a foreign-owned company i would need to look at

the intent of congress but that does concern about the potential concern about the issue that might be inherent in that business. but again i say this language for the first time, so i need some time to assess that. >> let me just follow up. >> mr. chairman, we have 15 minutes until we are supposed to have a vote. there are four members who would like to ask questions a week to the to can we proceed. estimate let me do this, mr. lungren, and mr. chairman, i will defer to you but let me just put this question on the record. and mr. london, you are not the chairman at this time. >> the time is expired. >> we have four other members -- excuse me, mr. lundgren you one of the chairman and i'm asking to this question on the record. i will not ask for an answer. mr. lundgren is not the chairman. >> i would ask you to submit it for the record and go to mr. thompson for any questions he may have.

>> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. pistole, i am concerned that the comments by some lobbying extension by the privatized screening has resulted in as understanding of what this would mean for the flying public. we've created this entity, tsa, after 9/11. if a similar incident occurred today, would you have the authority to direct private screening to other locations? >> under the existing contract, no. they would be limited to the later part to which they are assigned. >> so basically, the ability to respond based on incident is hampered by your inability to move private screening where the

situation could potentially be? >> yes, that is one of the limitations on the process we could address a contract under the existing contract would be a voluntary aspect so i cannot direct them. >> thank you. >> in your experience in the negotiating public and private contract has it been experience that private contracts cost more than federal contract screen nurse? >> under the existing spp contracts, the of all except one cost more than it would have cost for the federal government to have the tso. the instance last week where i approved the application from yellowstone is another exception because i believe they will be able to come in and they will be

less than because we are sending people in the temporary duty once yellowstone is open to that would be another exception. >> can you clarify for us with the screening must be followed by the privatized screening? >> it's the same for all of their federalized airports. >> and do the privatized screeners in your experience perform better than the federal counterparts to reform properly to the federalist work force both in terms of security and in terms of customer engagement. >> again, all things being equal at this point you experience other than the cost associated with the private screening federal contract screeners are pretty much on par.

thank you. >> now, one other issue. this meeting the next private model screening costs taxpayers more or less if the entire system is federalist? >> so it cost us slightly more to have both the federal and the spp reports. >> yes, it does. >> and what you're testimony basically one system what allow the taxpayers a greater saving of and managing the two parts. >> the taxpayers are paying even more than the federal or to the privatized screeners who also have overhead for the private company. >> in the past we've driven that down the in the past it's been anywhere from three to 9% more than the federal contracts. the federal approach to the estimates before. >> would the gentleman yield?

>> we need to go on. >> if they have a question can put on the record. >> the gentleman yields back and the gentleman from minnesota is now recognized. >> mr. chairman, if i could i would like to deal -- i will not yield at this time. mr. pistole, thank you for coming to it i appreciate it. in the spirit of i believe what the committee should be all about is finding solutions to the problems. i would like to yield 30 seconds of my time to answer ms. jackson lee's question; would that be all right? >> that's fine with me. >> thank you very much. mr. pistole, thank you very much. i appreciate it. tsa has a veteran's preference and privatizing would you be able to ensure that there would be a veteran's preference for the private company? >> we would be able to negotiate as a part of the contract and i think that you are aware of the 24% of the overall work force

are veterans. >> would it be an extra cost for privatized? >> i don't know that. >> we appreciate yielding to the gentleman and i will pursue that with the administration and i think him for his time. >> i reclaim my time. for something to for everything you've done to the right on through that check and its slick. what it does is fantastic. it concentrates are limited resources on the known and unknown threats and it's just awesome. i commend you on that to be one of the things i want to bring up, too come is there is a big difference between pre-9/11 and post 9/11 to whether you are privatized or a federal employee to be as an airline pilot pre-9/11, i can dramatically see the difference. so, it's a completely different ball game. much more professional, much more adherents concentrating on security.

as an airline pilot 17 years i can see the big difference to the estimate given to bring out relatively quickly is as the applications and february 2011 tsa denied the application for the six indicated it not allow the expansion for the program. in 2011 we walked it back a little bit and said there had to be clear and substantial advantage to the airport like you had said. how does tsa determine the threshold for the airport participating in the spp in the the airport must demonstrate that there is a clear and substantial advantage in order to create that determination? >> thank you, congressman, for your comments about the preacher and the women of tsa are excited about it because the service they are able to provide which frankly had been hampered on previously. so, thank you for that. so, obviously the process is an airport applies to and thus far in the ten years plus that the tsa has been in existence we

have 30 or so airports actually five for the spp status. some of those a couple of times because they were denied to riss only 30 out of the 450 plus imports. so when they apply we evaluate that and under the new criteria, it would be a substantial advantage to the taxpayer so is there a cost benefit that is improved in some way that we can show there is a savings to the taxpayer and then they have to comply with the security particles and regimens so it really boils down to unless there is a great advantage and what benefit is there in a changing if it would cost more and simply provide the same level of security. >> do you have a copy, can you forward those metrics to us? >> i basically outlined what they are in terms of the cost and do we assess the cost as being in the than the security protocol should be absolutely

the same if not better than the current standard operating procedures for tsa. that is really what it comes down to. >> for the private organizations that did apply to the spp program, did you get back to them on telling how they are approved if the applications can be approved by they were deficient? >> what they ask them to do is come in and provide what they believe would be the clear and substantial additional information that would indicate why they would be a better proposition. so we then go back and say abc, address these issues of that is what you are asking. >> i am running quickly out of time. i guess the big thing for us is every bit here in this panel wants to make sure we have an effective and efficient tsa. >> that is my goal so. >> it's a bipartisan issue. we worked on a lot of different

issues regarding the transportation as well. the big thing i think we want to make sure we have public is that there is a beneficial cost associated with the privatized if there is one. and that we have an effective system that you are able to manage. with the volume out of time and i yield back. >> thank, gentleman. we are called to vote soon but understand mr. mica has joined is to determine a committee of transportation infrastructure. and i would like to ask unanimous consent that he committed to the to be to do so. welcome to the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you mr. kernan. first mr. pistole continue for the pre-check program it think it is moving in the right direction. having said that, you know my consternation with respect to the program. let me ask you, is there any statutory language that breeds that you must find clear and substantial but that is before you can approve a private contractor? >> none that i'm aware of to the estimate it's not part of the statute that you have put as your additional requirements?

>> trying to understand what i believe in terms of creating a the tsa after 9/11 and other federalist work force with the exception of the spp, you know, the initial five and then the assistant of the privatized airports could act out treat stomach so it's not part of the statute. >> not to my knowledge, no. >> would you think it unreasonable for an airport such as the one in my district to not have applied for this yet because they believe this is disfavored by you and by tsa? >> i would hope that each airport with a business decision to assess what would be best for their passengers. >> i understand that but let me ask if you were told they had to provide clear and substantial but and it's even though everything must be equal, if you observe that the tsa chongging to make a comparison of the cost initially said they were double digit, but the government

accounting office when they looked at is that, you know, tsa, you forgot about the cost of the federal retirement. and then you brought in and you brought i think a difference down to about 3% to date and if you saw what happened in kansas city where i would be embarrassed if the court said this about me or my client it was an 81 page decision that reversed in the port towards a fundamentally flawed source by the tsa. the tsa did not conduct a proper value analysis. they said the court found them are maternally deviated from their own procedures that they had put in place. it said that tsa didn't document its evaluation and decision. is it that the evaluation schema was irrational and the only way you could overturn something like this is if you find it

arbitrary and capricious. they found frankly them to be arbitrary and capricious, and then its extended out over time and a fine man operator of an airport that doesn't suggest to me that tsa is going to be objective. sounds like tsa is going to make it extremely difficult for me to this but i have an airport in my district and want to do it. the haven't applied to you at this point in time but i want to set for the record that is not because they do not wish to and so you keep quoting this number of the 400 assault airports only so many have applied and then you tell me you don't want to approve -- you just approved west yellowstone. how many flights did they have? >> i don't know. >> have you ever been to yellowstone? i have been to west yellowstone. it wasn't one of the large metropolises of america all the way did get a good ice shaving their onetime if you ever want to find some good on his shaving

and you are coming out of yellowstone you'll find that works very well. there's been things that have been said on this today that don't insult the federal employee and i do not wish to install the federal and leave it to insult the private employees i think is your responsible to read to suggest the private and we cannot do a good job are you suggesting to us that the security at san francisco international airport, the largest airport that has a private contractor is less than what it is at any every part? would you allow that to be the case? stupak absolutely not. if they didn't do the job, it would be another company or what other options. islamic i do not understand why we have to stand here and suggest or sit here and suggest if you have a private employee that private employer he is less than a public employee. frankly we ought to federalize

the entire american work force and a half 138 million people all working for the federal government. if that happens to be the case. i know that you opposed the proposition that was in the wall. but you have said that he would work to enforce that. and i know from your record that you will do that. i just hope you will not add any additional things such as the clear and substantial but vantage or whatever else you would come up with to undo the intent of congress as you suggest we are trying to. and i see my time is over and i thank the share. >> i thank the chair. we've been called for a vote and i want to recognize mr. micha for his of questions. you are recognized for five minutes. thanks for joining us. >> thank you mr. trash, mr. thompson and the county for affording me a few minutes and applicable law exceptionally we will finish within my time, but i am pleased to have the administrator pistole. he has probably one of the toughest jobs in washington.

it's very difficult. of course, you know, my history having been involved i was the chairman of the aviation subcommittee, the good lord gave me that tasked in 2001 and the president wanted a bill on his desk by thanksgiving after the attacks in september. and of course we don't have jurisdiction. i try to conduct oversight. i'm also on the government reform and try to do our, you know, a good job in protecting the taxpayer and the flying public. it's an important mission. but that being said, we are here now and there is great frustration as you know, you probably heard some of it today. and we have talked and i think we need to get to a brisk pace -- risk-based system. i wasn't here but i heard of your willingness to work with

the committee to implement the new language, and that's important. and i will work with you. we want this to be successful and want to work with you and try to work with members of the homeland security committee in that regard. but, you know, i've got the most recent meltdown honolulu was a meltdown, charlotte douglas, liberty international. it's not just a couple. it's quite a few of the employees you have problems. every time you pick up the paper it is because eight tsa worker and arrested for stealing and ipad. that is a couple from last week. in the recruitment and training. we spent $2.4 million on the recruitment and training and trade 147,000 people and we need to find a more efficient way and if we can incorporate that and

the spp model i think we can have a greater savings. >> and then, you know, you free sorted -- i know the difficulty of hiring people, you got an advertisement on top of pizza boxes, and this is pizza boxes. this is a little -- i saw this on a national -- i went to a discount gas station and actually took that picture. i was stunned to find this washington reagan national but almost probably and indeed to be secure airports is now hiring transportation security officers and tells all the benefits above the chief of staff. you've grown to a huge number of screeners by 51,000, pretty substantial administrative staff somewhere between 12 to 14,000. but right now we are looking at

everyone in the administrative rell we are looking at about 30 people or i will say 25 people because you've got marshall and others we don't want to count overseeing this. we've looked at all the models. i've looked at them before. i've looked at them around the country. the united states is now one of only a few western countries polling rumania, bulgaria and the united states. libya didn't have the all federal screening force. but you went and saw all the models. i met before. i went back after you and the u.k. which had huge incidence of care probably face terrorism far worse than we did. they all retain private screening and no one is saying do away with the federal government. no one is saying federal employees to a bad job. but i want to get you out of the personal business and into the security business. and i think that is important as

we do have a threat. so you can focus. again, in the union issue, you know, the spp joined the unions before the federal employees. and those in san francisco and other places we look at some times the private screeners pay more money to retain people. the turnover is great, and maybe we can submit this comparison if it has it between san francisco and los angeles there's room for that. my only question, sir, is you stated to the committee that he would work with us, and i hope he will work with me to try to improve and implement the law that the president we expect to sign in a few days. >> absolutely. >> i would like to ask you open-ended leave before we go to vote where do you see this going? do you envision a time in which

you see the expansion of the spp or is this something you really don't want to see? >> it's hard to forecast mr. chairman and it's a good question because we frankly don't know. before my decision last year not to expand was clear and substantial benefit. as i mentioned, they're had only than the handful, less than the three dozen that have applied. so even before the decision, they are knocking down our doors and maybe there was a believe except i frankly don't know what will look like. but obviously we have to prepare for any substantial number. if i could comment you raise a number of good points and the troubles of local differences i don't know, i don't have the ability to enter the private work force but just as there are outstanding security officers within the government and i assume the same in the private sector. what we don't hear about from some of the great stories for simple the officer in the 5,000

was and another officer saw the lead to a second officer to can the 5,000 reported that. and just last week in harrisburg pennsylvanian a security officer who's apartment he was caught on fire and she went back and saved the lives of ten people, so those things are out there but it just demonstrates that be of great people within the federal government and create the private sector but -- >> i don't argue the great employees in the federal system but we do have some good examples like some francisco where the private contractors are working wonderfully. so i am anxious to see the next few months and fold if more people to pursue it and i don't want to close the door i think there's some great opportunities out there for us to transition as long as we can maintain that it's being done well. there is a concern on my part so

that we have seen the ratio of the supervisors the programs would be pretty high with 40 or 56 supervising the airport can you speak to that with the ratio is? >> for example with over a thousand security officers t.s. so i don't know exact but the private company is simply doing the front line workers would recall the weeds and the supervisors but all the managers and the as congressman micha refers to the administrative staff those things still have to be done and the companies are paying for that, we are paying for that. estimate is that because you contracted that you want to keep those responsibilities so the company can do it and you chose to maintain that authority? >> i don't know the specific contract on that so i have to cut back and look at that but that is the model whether that is by design or deputy in all

the airports are still tsa employees that there's a certain efficiency of doing that and for example whether when of the small there has to be some presence in order for us to oversee and make sure the particles are being followed accordingly. so i will look into that. >> and i probably need to get back with you in a classified setting because i have got some pretty glaring examples that there may be legitimate, they may be wrong but they may also have some security reasons. i would like to know more about this ratio of the tsa personnel to contract personnel and airports as well as some tsa folks that are in other rules and the airports. i don't want to bring that up in a hurry fit to become public sitting and compromise anything that might be inappropriate from your perspective.

i hate those have been called. i have a lot of things about to talk about and these other guys and gals did, too but we don't have control and i don't want to inconvenience you any further. and i would hate to believe the second panel, but i've got to go vote, and as soon as we get back we will have our second panel. so with that, thank you and we are in recess. [inaudible conversations]

shouldn't your president have the highest moral and ethical standards and be an example to our children and

young people in this country? ask yourself that question, please. shouldn't his life make him a role model for your future children? should anyone you elect for this office always keep his promises? >> owls candidates campaign for president this year we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website, c-span.org/contenders. >> do they not have the right to protest against a government that they feel doesn't serve their interest? who appointed us of the sacrifice of young americans trying to weigh in on the side of a government that represents perhaps 15% of the people of lebanon and has little or no apparent support from the other 85%?

>> c-span.org/thecontenders to the history that one of the laws pass after the terrorist attacks, the safe port act, requires the homeland security department to scan all u.s. bound cargo by this july. up next, a two hour hearing on whether the department will be able to accomplish that mandate. >> good morning, everybody did the committee on homeland security, the subcommittee on border and maritime security will come to order. and the subcommittee's meeting today to hear testimony from congressman jerry nadler, assistant secretary david heyman, the part of a massacre the office of policy acting assistant commissioner kevin mcaleenan come office of operations customs and border protection admiral paul zukunft -- i never pronouncing that correctly. assistant, not for marines to the security and stewardship of the u.s. coast guard and

mr. steve caldwell, director of maritime security from the gao. and today, our very important topic is the global supply china and i would recognize myself for an opening statement. .. >> i've actually had the opportunity recently, really, to visit some of our nation's largest ports and see firsthand the hard work that the men and women of customs and border prerks in --

protection and the united states coast guard to to protect our nation. it's clear more work has to be done. whether it's coming into the ports or travels by trucks coming through el paso or what have you or coming from train from the canadian border, we have to ensure we understand the risks posed by shipments in order to secure the entire global supply chain. the logistics involved are incredibly complex. security solutions we propose should cognizant of the reality. in today's hear, we'll examine how we balance maritime security and the needs to facilitate trade and not place a burden to the flow of goods that are vital to our life. delays in shipping can cost millions to our economy and facilitating commerce is not easy, but risk based systems and trusted bissed programs help companies who play by the rules and make extra efforts allowing the border protections to focus

on less secure shipments. we have to ensure we push the borders outside by conducting as much as cbp's cargo section and screening work before potentially dangerous cargo arrives on the shores. we have to do a better job of rev of leveraging work of our trusted allies to help screen and if necessary scan high risk cargo. it's no secret the nation faces a difficult financial situation. we have limited taxpayer dollars requiring that the government make smart decisions to use those resources in the most effective and efficient possible manner. we should be under no illusion that we can eliminate every single risk certainly that there wases pose to the nation, and that all we need to do is just to spend more to make the risk completely disappear. a clear eyed assessment of risk should inform how we allocate scarce homeland security dollars as well. i think this is an especially important to remember when considering the 9/11 agent mandating 100% scanning of cargo

prior to it arriving in america. certainly, that is a very, very worthwhile goal and should be the goal; however, we have to look at the -- how we implement this law, whether it's possible, the potential costs and benefits as well, and we currently scan 4% to 5% of all containerized cargo entering in the country based on the data screening system and the current threat environment. it certainly is far from clear that the investment required to scan the rest of the 95% of the cargo is possible and again we'll talk about based on risk, is it grounded in a proper understanding of a threat posed by containerized cargo. the secretary, herself, department of homeland security, mentioned on numerous occasions including in front of this committee and a number of times that she wants to work with the congress to modify this requirement. i would say certainly i stand, and i know this committee stands

ready to work with her, and we are waiting for her legislative proposal that will help move the country into a more risk-based system as the secretary has been saying now for over two years. as part of the discussion today, i'm eager to hear the witnesses' thoughts on the custom trade partnership against terrorism, the pack program, the private sector has a role to play in helping secure their supply chains, and it's important to spend customs and border protection officers' times on shippers of concern rather than on trusted and vetted companies willing to make security enhancements, and that, you know, i think is a wonderful example, that program of of how government and the private sector can partner together to help increase security and ensure the smooth flow of goods, and we want to explore ways to improve and explore the program to additional companies willing to improve the security of the supply chain and finally, i'd like to note the safe port acts

of 2006 calls for a strategy to be released, and it was due in october of 2009, but it was not released until just a few weeks ago. i think it's interesting to note that many times this subcommittee has been having hearings on particular issues, and then the agency, the department responds, which i think is a very good thing. in fact, we had a hearing in july on maritime cooperation, and then the department released their maritime coordination plans right at that time. then we held a hearing on visa security in september, and the department released an announcement on visa security on the day of our subcommittee hearing. i don't know if it's intended or what, but it's great. the congress is doing its job as oversight, and the agencies respond, and i think that tells us to subcommittee is focused on the right issues, matters of security for our nation as well. however, i will mention as well that even though we just received this a couple of weeks

ago, the document that was produced by the white house was only six pages long, and the first page was the management executive's summary, so i'm looking forward to hearing the department here's plans an implementation details with a complete strategy to better secure the supply chain. with that, i recognize now the ranking member of the subcommittee, gentleman from texas for his opening remarks. >> thank you so much, madam chair, for holding this meeting and also i'd like to recognize our ranking member of the full committee, and, again, thank you for holding this meeting. madam chair, before i move forward with the statement, i'd ask for unanimous consent to allow the gentle lady ms. richardson and ms. con to sit in. >> without objection. >> thank you so much. as you know, this subcommittee has previously examined cargo security and facilitation issues at our land borders.

some of the busiest land port entries are located in my district making facilitation legitimate commerce a key issue for me and my constituents. they are great importance to the lady from michigan given her location on the northern border, and i appreciate all the work she's done there facilitating the balance between security and, of course, commerce moving as quickly as possible. today, we're examining another important part, which is the maritime cargo security that has certain parallels. indeed, the fundamental issue is the same. how can we have legitimate cargo while keeping instruments of contraband from terrorists entering the united states. given the amount of cargo entering and crossing the country every day, it's no easy task. we were hearing testimony today regarding dhs programs and initiatives to secure maritime

cargo through programs such as the container security initiative, secure freight initiative, and the ct pap. i had the opportunity to visit a csi port with mr. thompson, and i've also been to the national targeting center where the customs for protection cargo security work is done. while i appreciate the hard work of the men and women of cbp and dhs colleagues on this challenging issue, more remaining to be done. many of the cargo security programs have grown stagnant in recent years in part due to lack of adequate funding, and many of these programs are carried out by cbp officers who are in short supply. we have greatly expanded the ranks of the border patrol, the men and women in green since september 11, 2001, but we have not kept base with cbp officers, the men and women in blue, and we have to do better to ensure we get the men and women in blue because also the ones that man our airports, our sea ports, and

our land ports. without adequate personnel, our sea and land and airport security and facilitation will both suffer. finally, i'd like to bring also the issue that madam chair also brought up which is my dismay at the recently released long overdue national security and supply chain security. this was due in 2009. 2009. it just got released this last month in january, and, again, not that weight counts or number of pages counts, but six pages is, i think, is not sufficient for such a very important issue that we have here, and i'm hoping that we'll get a little more substance from the administration on the path forward for supply chain security and facilitation. i know we can do better than this. it is my hope that the witnesses today will be able to speak to dhs mission for its role in this very important mission. i thank the witnesses for

joining us here today. i look forward to your testimony. with that, madam chair, i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson. >> thank you very much, madam chair, i appreciate you calling this hearing, and i appreciate our witnesses for their participation also. today's hearing comes as a critical juncture in a department of homeland security's efforts to secure maritime cargo entering our nation's ports. later this year, july 12, 2012, marks the deadline for achieving 100% scanning of maritime cargo before it arrives in the u.s.. pursuant to the implementation recommendations of the 9/11 commission act of 2007. in other words, the law requires all u.s. bound cargo be scanned either through non-intrusive scanning machines or receive a

physical examination. today, it is widely acknowledged that dhs will not meet this deadline. i'm a person, and i understand fulfilling these requirements are no easy task. those of us who supported the precision hope to spur cargo security at this point even if the initial 2012 deadline was not met. instead, the end of nearly five years since the law was enacted, dhs failed to make an honest effort to implement the mandate. we've heard a litany of reasons that 100% scanning cannot or should not be done. in testimony before this committee, secretary napolitan expressed opposition to the mandate saying 100% requirement

is not achievable by 20 # 12 instead advocated for a risk-based support to maritime cargo security. of course, the sure surest way to fail is not to try at all. equally troubling is the fact that in recent years some of dhs's existing cargo security programs have become stagnant, have been scaled back. for example, the container security initiative, csi, is operational in the same 58 ports that were active before the enactment of the 9/11 act. over the past five years, csi has not been expanded despite the fact that at least 700 ports ship goods to the united states, and a number of overseas personnel deployed to the 58 ports has plummeted. specifically, in 2009, there were 167csi officers in overseas

ports. today, there's only 79. similarly, while a few years ago, the secure freight initiative included six ports, today, the program has reduced to a single low volume port. last month, the administration released a long awaited national strategy for global supply chain security. you've heard my ranking member talk about the size of the six page document. it's hard to see how this document can offer a comprehensive blueprint for enhancing the security of the supply chain especially given the enormity of the task and the number of stake holders involved. nevertheless, i expect to hear testimony today from dhs witnesses about how successful the department has been at creating programs to ensure that shippers can be trusted,

manifest or analyzed, and ports are protected. these programs play an important role in maritime security; however, they do not take the place of having an active partnership where cbp personnel work with overseas counterparts in ports to examine high risk cargo containers before they arrive in u.s. ports. after all, what good is identifying a high risk container if it does not get examined until it's arrived in the ports of new york, houston, los angeles, new orleans, or any of the other hundreds of ports across america? by then, it very well may be too late. i hope to hear from our witnesses today, not only about the successes, but also about what remains to be done to secure maritime cargo and how we can get there.

meaningful homeland security will only be achieved when we know who and what is coming into this country, not only by air and land, but also by sea. i thank the witnesses for joining us today. madam chair, i look forward to their testimony. >> i thank the gentleman. i remind all the other committee members as well that opens statements you may have can be submitted for the record, and we're pleased to have two distinguished panel, but first a congressman jerry nadler who represents the 8th district of new york including the west side of manhattan, financial district, and neighborhoods in southwestern brooklyn. began the political career serving for 16 years, and then in 1992, elected to the u.s. house of representatives in a special election, and he's been here ever since. with that, the floor is yours, sir, and, again, we appreciate you taking time to give us your testimony and up sight on this

issue today. >> thank you very much, chairwoman miller, ranking members, members of the cube committee. thank you for inviting me to testify today on the issue of maritime security and trade facilitation. i speak today not as a cargo security expert, but as a member of whong long advocated we, as a nation, have to do a better job of ensuring cargo arrives safely every day. i have the honor of representing manhattan and brooklyn. the world trade center site is in my district is as of many of the ports in new york and new jersey. i believe my district is an example of why we have to secure our nation including our ports and waterways while also ensuring the flow of legitimate commerce. as you might recall, i was the author of many of the port provisions of the implementing recommendations of the 9/11 commission act of 2007. i worked closely with chairman thompson and representatives to

push for inclusion of the 100% scanning provision into the measure, and we were successful. section 17.01 of that act states by july 12, 2012, all cargoes have to be scanned by detection technology before being loaded on a vessel bound for the u.s. unless the secretary of homeland security extends the deadline by certifying it is not currently feasible. in short, this requires scanning up all maritime cargo containers before they arrive in this country. we understood we must not wait to impose security measures until containers reach the united states. scanning containers in the u.s. port is not sufficient. if there is a nuclear bomb inside a container, and it is detected by radiation port monitors in newark or miami or los angeles, it may very well be too late. leading the cargo manifest is not enough. trusting shippers is not enough. we've to verify the contents in the containers at the point of

origin before bound on a ship to america. the law is designed to do just that. when i sphwro deuced the free -- introduced the bill on this topic pushing for inclusion on the 9/11 act, i understood achieving the 100% scanning mandate would be neither easy nor cheap. i was told of a potential terrorist attack on our soil. the area is home to approximately 19 million people and the effects of a weapon of mass destruction or dirty bomb would be catastrophic. similarly, several of the nation's other major ports are located -- in fact, all of them located near population centers that could make attractive targets for terrorists. the threat is not exclusive to major city areas however. there's approximately 160 sea and river ports throughout the u.s. making the issue of concern to communities across the country. aside from the potential human cost, the economic cost of maritime terrorist attack would

be devastating. ports are a vital component of the supply chain moving the overwhelming majority of cargo into and out of the u.s.. 99.4% by weight and 64% by value, and a value of $3.8 billion each day. in 2010, the dollar value of cargo that moved through the port of new york and new jersey alone is worth more than $175 billion. anything that threatens this commerce would not just affect the ports themselves but disrupt the supply chain with widespread effects across the country and around the world. i might adhere that when i first introduced this legislation, someone said to me that demanding 100% scanning might slow the flow of commerce. i replied that one nuclear bomb going off in an american port would eliminate the flow of commerce for a good long time. given the very serious nature of the threat we face, i'm dismayed that the department of homeland security has not made a

realistic effort to implement the 100% scanning mandate, nor offered alternative proposal to achieve the same ends. i'm aware that department opposed the original legislation has never thought this was a good idea, but it must make a realistic attempt to implement the will of congress. i urge dhs to aggressively move forward on implementing the 100% cargo scanning mandate. it's one thing to say we can't achieve it this year, but another to say it's not worth pursuing, which is something i heard said. that would be a huge mistake. we have to continue to take steps towards 100% scanning as the ultimate goal and not relent in the pursuit of security. we must not allow gaping holes in the system to be unaddressed. remember what's at stake here. it seems absurd we would entertain the notion we'd allow a nuclear weapon to be smuggled into the country in a container that's never been scanned and if detonated in o city, it would

kill millions of people in a flash. however, we can and must make progress to ultimately get us to the 100% standard while making cargo, ports, and waterways more secure. we owe the american people no less. i thank the subcommittee for inviting the people to participate in today's hearing and i look forward to continue to work with the colleague, the department of homeland security and other state and local agencies and private stake holders on this very important issue. >> thank you very much, congressman. we appreciate, again, you taking the time, and we're going to dismiss you and ask for the next panel to come, but i talked to you before we started, and i recognize your passion on the issue, and that's going to be -- that was the imptous and crux of the questions here today of how we can either achieve the mandate of congress or if not, as you say, a realistic way to implement and where we go with all of this as well. it will be an interesting hearing. >> well, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> also, mr. nadler --

>> certainly. >> just want to have no questions, but i know you worked hard with mr. thompson on this, and i appreciate the hard work you put in on this. i appreciate your good work. >> thank you too. >> thank you. we'll ask the second panel to come forward. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> okay. we're going to -- all suited up, ready to go here. i think what i'll do for the panel, looking forward to the testimony, i'll introduce you all sort of at once, and then we'll start with mr. hayman, but

i'll read your bios a bit here. first, delighted to have david hayman, the assistant secretary for policy at the united states department of homeland security. previously, he served as the senior fellow and director at the csis, homeland security program, leading the research and program activity and homeland security focusing on developing strategy and policies to help build and transform federal, state, private, and local sector institutions. kevin -- how do you pronounce that? >> [inaudible] >> got it. the acting assistant commissioner at the office of field administrations, customs and border protection. he's responsible for overseeing kbp's antiterrorism, immigration, anti-smuggling, trade compliance, and agricultural protection operations at 20 major field officers, 331 ports of entry, and over 70 locations in over 40