we could be doing. i didn't sign on to be the project manager for every va r an hospital bill.tee they can do better and they will do better. the oversight from our committee will do that. it's a privilege, as i said, to start my comments to serve on this committee, to serve those now who have served my us and i and i will justho -- i have been to afghanistan twice hope to go again. we have the most courageous volunteer and highly trained ession military in the history of this country. it's amazing the professionalism these young- people every time i speak, there are three things i will never ever apologize for soldie spending money on. one, if you're a soldier in the field, i want you to have whatever you need to protect you and your comrades, period, you c whatever you need. number two, when you come home, i want this country to serve youunity

be again again. and thirdly, i'm going to also support my agriculture community because i like to eat. i want to make sure myo re farmers are taken care of. i appreciate you all being here. and closing up i ask unanimous consent that members have five days to extendo or remarks and include material. without objection, so ordered. with that, this hearing is adjourned.

we're going live now to capitol hill where vice admiral peter is testifying this morning at a science and transportation committee confirmation hearing on his nomination to be homeland security assistant secretary and the transportation security administration administrator. the hearing is scheduled to start at 10:15, being delayed due to votes in the senate. we'll join the hearing as soon as it gets underway. until then, an event with the ceo of united airlines who joined forces to speak out against government owned airline in qatar. they alleged that the airline carriers are receiving unfair

subsidies from their respective governments and have asked them to freeze rights to the united states. this event held at the national press club in washington, d.c. as part of its luncheon series. >> i want to welcome our c-span audiences. you can follow this event on twitter. use #npclunch. and remember, the public attends our lunches, applause is not evidence of a lack of journalistic objectivity. u.s. airlines relative to the previous decade at least, are doing well. they have been posted profits on low lower jet fuel prices and awarding investors. yet these three ceos look overseas and they worry. they say three carriers are

undermining fair competition and threatening american jobs. they want the obama administration to look at open skies. they want the administration to seek a freeze on new passenger service by the three gulf carriers during these discussions. several labor unions are aligned with this effort by the u.s. carriers and of course, there's a strong point of view on the opposite side. the gulf carriers say the effort by these ceos is misguide edd. elm rats president tim clark earlier this year called the airline claims, quote bluster and flim flan. qatar's ceo said there are no grounds for denying gulf airlines access to u.s. markets. he said the u.s. airlines were using, quote bullying tactics.

so you lost the coin toss and get the first question. you have been ceo of united airlines since 2010 and you led continental before the merger with united and you were going all the way back to 1995. you now lead the second biggest airline in the world. why are you so worried about three smaller competitors in the middle east? >> first, thank you for inviting the three of us today to talk about this important issue. this is a significant issue. it's a significant threat to the u.s. airline industry. it's a significant threat to our employees employees. it's a significant threat to their jobs. it is a significant issue in u.s. trade policy. u.s. trade policy has a long

history of enforcing rights under trade agreements. predicated on a fair and level competitive playing field free of distortion such as government subsidies. the three carriers that we're talking about are not just airlines. they are arms of the state. they are part of state policy to drive tourism and trade through the middle east and these three carriers are not stimulating demand. in fact, today we released an analysis showing that these carriers are not actually adding travel, they are actually just siphoning travel away from their

foreign partner that's detrimental to u.s. jobs. we're asking to invoke the provisions of open skies agreements with these two nations. we're firm believers in open skies. open skies has been a boon to consumers, to our employees and u.s. airlines. but in this case out of 114 open skies treaties, two are being heavily abused. we have spent a considerable amount of time and money initially led by delta airlines to uncover the degree of proof of massive government subsidies. it is the trade policy of the united states, just as it would be if someone were dumping steel or dumping soy beans or cotton, here it's subsidized by foreign governments as part of the foreign governments policy to grow traffic to and through the middle east. this is an important issue.

it's an important issue that's the harm is accelerating. how this movie ends, it does not end well. we have seen what the gulf carriers have done to the carriers in europe. we have seen what they are doing to singapore. we know how this movie ends. it does not end well for american consumers. it does not end well for the men and women of our airlines and for the american economy. >> doug parker a little bit about you. you became ceo of american airlines in 2013 and that followed the merger with u.s. airways and you had been ceo at u.s. airways. before that ceo of america west. you are seeing these gulf carriers adding new routes and now you want the u.s. government to take really an unusual step of freezing new routes, doesn't sound like what a competitor would do. why are you taking this strange

step? >> we don't think it's strange at all. we think it's exactly what the bilateral agreement calls for. the request is simply to have consultations, to have talks. we have added to that request that until we can get through those talks that we'd like to see a freeze in the flying. that by the way, hasn't happened. we should note that these simply since we have announced or laid out our case in january, those three carriers have increased their capacity by 25%. so they are clearly doing everything they can to win the race against the clock because the reality is we have put forward an extremely compelling case. our government can't ignore it, they won't ignore it and they will have consultations and we'll have action. and those carriers know that. and that's why they are adding so much capacity. that's why they are making

comments such as it took us two years to find the information so they should have two years to respond. those are simply attempts to get in as much flying because they are well aware of the fact they are violating the trade agreement and that indeed there's going to be some action taken. so i don't think -- while it's nothing that we have done before it doesn't mean it's strange. we have never seen anything like this. who would contemplate to countries putting $40 billion in subsidies into. three airlines. behavior like that results in things that you don't see very often. that's what's happening here. we have uncovered the facts, we're responding accordingly and simply asking for consultation to take place and once they do we're certain that we'll get to a place that works for everyone. >> richard anderson you became ceo of delta in 2007 and you

previously ran northwest airlines and you go all the way back to 1987 in the industry when you began with continental. you have cited a figure of $42 billion in subsidies that go to gulf carriers. how do you back up the figure when there aren't public documents that anybody can see that will show that figure? and then assuming that these subsidies are happening down the road, you'll have to show that they are actually harming you and the industry. are you going to be able to show harm? >> first on the evidence, we started a process at delta a couple years ago because just by definition, an a380 from milan to jfq, if you have been in the industry intuition tells you don't need to see a report to tell you that that can't work.

we kept reading that carriers were saying actually in filed statements at dot that there were no subsidies to any of these three carriers but over the time frame of these bilateral relationships, they have added -- they have 24 nonstops, 24 daily nonstops. it was just counterintuitive because those countries have populations the size of north dakota. so normally to have that kind of traffic between two points it just wouldn't support, so we began a process to try to figure out what's going on and we found their financial statements. we found them in places like singapore, but we spread out around the world and actually it's sort of interest inging. those countries all required these airlines to file their financial statements.

odd ly oddly enough in the u.s. we don't require that. but other countries do. these are certified financial statements that showed the subsidies. they are fully disclosed. so the work we did was not only that but we also did research across all the financial documents we could find around the world. airport financings, financings by the government, and we were able to build a really strong case to put it in a legal framework framework, we proved subsidy beyond a reasonable doubt. you can't refute the evidence. the evidence is overwhelming. the harm is the media. the best way to describe the harm is the u.s. carriers essentially, except for two flights a day from united american and delta have exited the india market.

and that's really pretty stark when you think about it. india is a very big country. it has a huge trade relationship with the u.s. particularly for i.t. it has huge agricultural trade between the two countries, but in essence, we don't have any u aviation trade. we have exited the market completely because essentially what these carriers have done is with subsidized government strategies come into the marketplace to basically shift the traffic off of us and take us out of the indian market. you think about it u.s. flag carriers ought to be in the indian market. but it's not sustainable when you have $41 billion worth of subsidy, it's very difficult, if not impossible, for us to be able to compete. and that harm is the median.

we have a good analysis that's part of our white paper. a long haul wide body 777 when we count the professional pilots and professional flight attendants and dispatchers and technicians and ground operations personnel drives about a thousand jobs per flight. so when we put a 777 or 74 or a350 on a daily nonstop across the ocean, it drives almost a thousand jobs for each one of these carriers. and those jobs aren't here. the three airlines that you see here today collectively employ 300,000 people. our collective cap budgets are well over $12 billion a year of investment into airplanes and the infrastructure.

and we create huge positive trade surpluses for our country. and our aviation policy is being violated. the state the aviation policy of this country is we will act vigorously through all our appropriate means to defend our rights and protect our airlines to ensure that competition is fair and the playing field is level by eliminating marketplace distortions such as government. subsidies. end of case. it's time to get on with understanding what the appropriate remedies are to create a level playing field. >> i have a lot of questions so i'm going to combine some along themes where i can. so what reaction have you had from the obama administration to your complaints? why would they want to poke their finger in the eyes of key allies at a time like this? and then the other one is it did

this issue come up with the camp dade meeting with leaders of gulf states? if not, how do you feel about it being left off the agenda? >> let me answer at least one of those questions. it is the long standing practice of the united states government with respect to trade disputes to buy fer indicate from matters of national security or defense. let me use the boeing and airbus dispute. by the way, the amount of subsidies here dwarf the size of the boeing/airbus dispute. that was a dispute with clear allies in the european union. they are members of nato and yet our government sit down and can understand there are different swim lanes for a trade dispute

and matters of national security or defense. we would expect nothing different from our own government in connection with with discussions. in terms of the reaction of the administration we have visited with the department of commerce, the department of transportation we visited with the white house, we visited with ustr we visited with department of state and we have gotten serious interest from serious people about a serious issue. there clearly are a lot of issues involved and this is complex. our government has asked us in addition to the white paper and the considerable documentation we have provided initially back in january, they ask us additional questions, which we responded to and filed with them a stack of paper when printed o out is about that high in response to their questions. they have very good information. we expect them to act on it.

the concern that we have is that we need them to act on it with urgency because as doug mentioned, the gulf carriers are taking advantage of this time period to add 25% more flights than they have as of january 28th. and that's a serious issue a because the harm is current, it's present, it's happening and now it's accelerating. we also know this harm accelerates to the point it can threaten the existence of carriers as it has in europe. this is a serious issue. our government is taking it very seriously. >> should this have been on the agenda yesterday in president obama's meeting with the gulf state leaders? >> i don't know the content of those discussions. i would have no way of knowing that. my understanding from the press is those are matters relating to defense. and as such, i would not expect these to be discussed because this is not a defense issue.

>> very practically, these are the sorts of issues that should be handled in the normal course separate and apart from those kinds of defense meetings because in a mature trade relationship, just like we have with europe and the example that jeff gave with boeing/airbus there's regular give and take in the state department. we have 114 open skies agreements around the world that are administered all the time, all of which we support. by the way, we also support open skies in the instance of these three carriers. we just have to have actions taken to level the playing field. and in the normal course and scope, we interact with governments around the world to work through these issues and with state department to work through these issues and would expect through those normal channels this would be something that would be managed consistent with the open skies policy and

the signed trade agreements with these two countries. >> i mentioned in the introduction the three of you are together on this and labor unions are supporting you but there are some who are not with you. so the travel industry association, which includes lowes, expedia has an opposition. the cargo airline association was out this week, including fedex and ups not with you. jetblue is a co-chair partner of elm rats, not part of this. does the fact that it's not a broader coalition give some indication that this is an issue that if it hurts parts of the industry and those parts of the industry are not happy, but there's other parts of the industry in u.s. that is perfectly happy with the status quo, is it an issue of where you sit is where you stand on this one? >> let me try that one.

the issue is we care the most because it effects us the most. our employees are here because they understand the effect it's going to have on them. the short answer to that is the other organizations you described either don't understand the situation or have a view u that it doesn't concern them. it certainly isn't better for them. here's the reality. today, as richard described, we're already experiencing some damage. the india example. that's real damage but as jeff described what we have seen in europe and what will happen here if our government allows these flights to continue into our country, we'll see more of the jfk type service into the united states. from points not into the gulf. that has a material potential impact on this industry. that's why our employees are so concerned. because once that happens, the

three of us, the reason we're so concerned is while this sometimes is inside baseball to people, everyone pretty much understands if you're flying international flights from philadelphia to europe those flights aren't full of people flying nonstop from philadelphia to europe. there are people flying from all over the united states on to europe. if we can't fly philadelphia to that flight anymore, we're not going to have as many flights to the united states. it starts to unwind. once those hubs start to unwind, the entire aviation business is materially different. we need many less employees and it's not right. that's what's going to happen if this goes unchecked. that's why the three of us are so concerned. those other organizations you mentioned either don't understand that or don't care about u.s. commercial aviation. and none of what we're saying is meant to harm the cargo

business, for example, and wouldn't. this is simply about commercial aviation and passenger carriers. so look, we may have some more education to do with them. they clearly don't understand the impacts to the united states or they wouldn't have those views. >> what i was going to say i didn't mean to interrupt you, with respect to car ego carriers. they do understand our issues. they, however, have a set of traffic rights they rely on through the middle east which are different than our sets of traffic rights. this is an issue for passenger carriers. it's not an issue for cargo carriers carriers. they are concerned that our issue could bleed over through some kind of retaliation to their rights under the open skies agreements. so that they have that concern but they do appreciate the damage and harm that is occurring here but their concern is retaliation by the gulf governments.

>> so boeing sells airplanes to you and to the gulf and as far as i can tell, they are staying on the sidelines in this. is that where they should stay because it's a no-win situation for them or do they need to see the concerns that you see and get involve edd? >> well boeing has been very straight forward in its neutrality on this issue. and that's appropriate for them to stay neutral on this issue. we are obviously -- these three carriers here on a combined basis operate more boeing airplanes than any three airlines that would sit on a stage together. between what we operate and what we have on order is probably approaches over 2,000 airplanes. so from that point it's appropriate they stay knewneutral. >> there are two sets of large customers so that's

understandable. i don't think if someone were to ask do you have a problem with them enforcing trade policy they would say no. because that's all we're asking for here. enforce the policy. >> if you go and look at the filings that were done in the case by boeing against airbus on the launch subsidies, you can take the words boeing and substitute american, united and delta and the issue is exactly the same and our position with respect to subsidies is identical in every respect to the position that boeing took in the wto subsidy case. the main difference is ours is twice as big. it's the largest subsidy case that's been proven by documents when compared to any wto case. so from that standpoint you have

a worst case and the worst case is our case is identical to the boeing case in front of the wto. if you go research the boeing quotes and statements made in the docket, they are identical to what we're saying here. >> i have several questions that are just for doug parker and that must be why you're sitting in the middle seat. >> i wrote all of them. >> so doug likes the combined question. one of the questions is along the lines of this. american is part of the one world alliance. british airways is a key partner in the one world alliance. british airways partner is supportive of the middle eastern carriers position on this. qatar is a member of the one world alliance and you supported their entry into the alliance a

couple years ago. and maybe i just won't combine, i'll leave it at that because it's enough, but it certainly makes for a peculiar get together when one world gets together all-in-one room. how do you figure all this out? it doesn't seem to make sense the way that i just laid it out. >> let me try to explain. it makes sense to me. we're part of the one world alliance because that's important to our customers. we have customers that want to get to parts of the world that american doesn't serve such as the middle east. so we have relationships that allow them to get that. and that is the right thing to do for american airlines customers. that doesn't mean that we should sit and watch subsidized travel flying to the united states and allow our u.s. government to not

enforce the policy with the countries of the uae and qatar. to us this is much less about individual airlines and about public policy. and the policy is the u.s. government. working with the governments of the uae and qatar and they should enforce that policy. so as it relates to british airways, they have a different view. they also have a different network dynamic than most of us do. great airline, great partner, british airways and very well run and managed. e we work extremely well together, but the reality is their global hub is constrained and they don't face these same issues that the rest of us do because it's not possible to add subsidized capacity in enormous tranches to their hub, but it is

to ours. >> it's perfectly fine to keep qatar in one world and you can be their alliance partner on that front but have this issue with them on this other front? >> it's a public policy issue versus a marketing relationship. they are competely different. >> another questioner says traditionally this has been a fight led by delta and both the old american and u.s. airways were mostly on the sidelines. why has the new american take an strong part in the campaign at this time? >> because we saw the data. i like richard have been in this business a long time, and when i saw the amount of flying added by these carriers, my intuition was to say, well, we have seen this stuff before. airlines come and go and they do uneconomic things and you hate to see it because it costs us all money, but they go away eventual eventually. don't worry about them because they are going to be gone because you can't fly that much capacity to the middle east and

expect to be profitable. it will go away. then we saw that they weren't playing by the same rules. so they were playing by unfair rules, they were subsidized. if you allow that to happen the rules are completely different. so once we saw the data, we were all nin. up until then, we were skeptical because we had seen no proof. frankly we zeus assumed over time this would go. away. unfortunately, the we saw the data and couldn't be more supportive. >> given that your three airlines have just two daily head to head overlaps with the gulf carriers, isn't this about protecting passenger flows and connecting opportunities for your european alliance partners? and what is the u.s. government national interest in demanding that the government protect your european partners by forcing

passengers to connect in frankfurt, amsterdam and london on to aircraft of air france, british airways? >> let me start. this is not protectionism. this is about enforcing trade policy. this is about what our nation stands for in the united states, which is fair competition free of distortion. particularly subsidized distortion. this distortion is off the scale. this is orders of magnitude far beyond anything that i have ever seen in my career. this is a significant issue to o us to our employees, to the u.s. airline industry. does it affect our foreign partners of course, it does but we compete on a global scale. just at united alone, we fly over 5,000 flights a day to 6 continents. we fly in city pairs either

directly or through star alliance in competition with the gulf carriers every single day. in fact, if you take the entire network of all three gulf carriers, there are only three destinations not served by a member of star lines. this is a competitive situation. and we are more than happy to we compete globally. we are ready willing and able to compete against any airline, but you cannot compete against a national treasury. you cannot compete against an arm of a state. you cannot compete with an infinite supply of oil. it can't be done. and it's never been the trade policy of the united states of america since we have escaped mercantilism, there's never been the policy to accept subsidized goods into the united states because of the long-term damage to jobs and the economic health of the united states.

>> there was a study out today saying that you have received $70 billion in subsidies since 2000 and they put bankruptcy process and i think the pension in that. so i want to get your response to that, but also there's some other questions similar -- >> we all want that response. >> you're going to have to hold us back. >> i want to take that one right now, and i'm going to turn it to the audience and i would like the airline employees in this room who lost their pensions in bankruptcy or had their pension frozen to please stand up. now i'd like them to tell these people about whether chapter 11 has subsidies in it. it doesn't. it didn't have subsidies.

there were no government subsidies and it was the employees and the creditors in a legal process that wept through a reorganization. it's just simply not a subsidy under wto law or under u.s. law. >> it's not a subsidy. it's just nonsense to suggest. there was no government support that provides support to those carriers and they couldn't meet their obligations. the people that immediate commitments to those airlines had found that they weren't -- airlines couldn't meet their commitments and they ended up with pensions lost, jobs lost, not being paid back the money they had loaned, all sorts of horrible things. that's what bankruptcy is. but look if this is their

defense, fantastic. because we disagree. . but let's sit down and talk about it. if their defense is we're subsidized, but so are you we'd like to talk to them about what bankruptcy really means and help them understand what bankruptcy is versus the subsidies they are having. that would be a great conversation to have. if the argument is it's okay for us to be subsidized because you have bankruptcy come on. >> in fact two of the three carriers in their audited financial statements that we were able to uncover and some fairly obscured jurisdictions have going concern footnotes for those who were not schooled in the wonders of accounting, what that means is the auditors are basically saying this is not a going concern. this eptty does not have sufficient cash flow and profitability to survive. therefore, needs to be liquidated. but the government stepped in

and shovel edled in more subsidy to keep these carriers afloat. so it is absurd not only from a wto perspective or any definition of a subsidy to argue that bankruptcy served as subsidies because the people that paid for those were our fine employees, our creditors shareholders, that's a devastating thing to occur. certainly not a subsidy. but two of those three carriers but for massive government subs subsidies, $17 billion a year in the case of qatar. but for those subsidies, those carriers wouldn't exist today. >> but you have received government subsidies over the years, whether it's guaranteed loans or atc to some degree,

subsidizing your business? >> no. we pay for every penny. >> general taxpayer dollars go into that? >> we can have a conversation about that, but that's not correct. >> but you're not saying you don't get any government subsidies. >> we do not receive subsidies thp this industry is the leading tax payer in the united states. we pay a 21% national sales tax. when you add up to the 15 to 17 taxes that we pay, our airport systems are self-fund eded. we do not receive subsidies from the united states. that was part of the airline deregulation act of 1978. we do not receive subsidies. that's just false. >> so tax cuts loan guarantees, you wouldn't call those subsidies? >> if you look theed a what our book tax rate is and what our tax rate is on our financials we're a full taxpayer at the

highest corporate tax rate. plus we pay some of the highest book taxes that is the kind of taxes you pay for fuel passenger facility charges segment fees, tsa fees, cbp fees, our expert is here i think there's 17 taxes we pay on a ticket. >> over all. >> so we're going to do one last question on this skpsh then we're going to move to general airline issues. anything you want to say, you have to say it on this question. but do you think the government will do something at the end of the day? "the washington post" was out with an article earlier this week. they quoted a government official that said they were hesitant. they made it sound like the government wouldn't take action

on this front. do you really expect the government to take action and if not, are you just going to shut this down and move along? or is there another way to win on this? could you see something on export/import or some other area of benefit that would stem from arguments on this matter? >> i'll start and have this gentleman join in. it should take action. it's taken action in other major trade disputes. it's enforced consistently the trade policy of the united states. there's major trade agreements in front of congress today. it's very important that this administration take action on a significant trade dispute a clear violation of the underlying trade agreement on these treaties between the u.s. and uae and qatar. we're confident that they will take action. should they not take action for some reason there are other avenues that we will need to pursue. >> i'm highly confident they will take action because the

evidence is so compelling. it can't be ignored. we provided the information we asked a series of questions, we gave them the answers that made the case even more compelling as you read through those. it's not as if anyone could look at that information and say i don't see enough here to act. the government will have to act. we're concerned about urgency. from the time we presented the information, again until now, already 25% more capacity. and we are concerned that there isn't enough urgency in the process that we are trying very hard to highlight the need for urgency. i can't imagine the government doesn't act because the evidence is so compelling. that's what our government has to do. and lastly, what i would say is the other reason, we're not going to let them get away with not acting. the people in this room have worked too hard to get to a

place where this it business can stand on its own feet, where people can know if they show up and work for our airline, they can have a career at those airlines. that's been a hard fight by a lot of people. they are not going to let that go away because the u.s. government ignores the fact that two other countries are subsidizing flights into this country that's going to take their jobs away. we're not going to let that happen because our people aren't going to let that happen. >> we have been at it two years and we aren't going to stop, so the investigation is going to continue. it's just going to keep going. it's not going to stop. we have huge support in congress. we just circulated one letter. i think we had 260 members sign it and we have avenues of relief through congress but we're

going to continue the battle because it's about the future of an industry that's vital to our country. and it's our responsibility as the stewards and leaders of these organizations to do what's in the best interest of the aviation industry. >> moving to some other topics. this questioner asks why haven't savings from reduced fuel cost been passed on to consumers. i think they are talking about air fare relief. >> first, i will do this and colleagues with legal degrees can do it better. we have to be a little careful pricing. we'll try and answer all these but the fact that the three of us are together is an oddity and it only happens because we're so focused on this one issue. >> there's no other reason we'd ever do it.

>> that is proof positive of how serious this issue is. >> i'll try and you guys can chime in. the view of american airlines is fuel price the drop in fuel prices is being seen by consumers. the revenue in the united states and throughout the world is down year over year despite the economies improving. much of that is due to capacity additions, but had fuel prices remain high, you wouldn't see as much capacity. i think it's incorrect to disconnect the drop in fuel prices with the drop in revenue and say it's just capacity. capacity wouldn't have been added had it not been the fact fuel has fallen. that's what i think. >> does the u.s. face a pilot shortage? >> i believe it does.

i believe it does because you have several factors that were because of what happened after 9/11, we had a decade in this country where the industry essentially declined in size pretty dramatically. the events of 9/11 were devastating to the industry. so there was a whole period of time when there was no hiring that really went on. the industry actually slunk a fair amount because you had 9/11. then you had fuel prices go from what we had all lived in a world of $20 a barrel. and in 2005 we got to $60 and in 2007, march of 2008 we got to $150. then you had the financial meltdown. so during that timeframe, there wasn't any hiring. so now we have demographics that

are catching up with the industry and there's a huge wave of retirements. at the same time, we're back adding airplanes. all carriers are -- a lot of investment is going into fleets. airports facilities and technology in the u.s. now that the industry is healthy. and as a result, there's a pretty significant demand in the industry. i think in the case of delta we're hiring -- we'll hire 1,000 pilots this year. >> it's not an issue for the main line carriers. everybody wants to work for a main line carrier. they are terrific jobs. we treat people very well. we are a very solidly profitable industry at this point. and people recognize they can join and have a terrific career. it really effects regional carriers.

part of that is the history of the pay structure of regional carriers which is what historically has been. and that is why you have seen carriers over time united, for one, dial down the dependence on regional carriers and dial up the mainland. very good for our employees to do that. it's better for our customers as well. because in general the main line is a superior product. regional jets are good airplanes but the 145s like that those are a product that we're retiring. and so from the perspective of main line carriers, we have no problem hiring pilots but the regional carriers do. >> there have been conversations going on in this town about privatizeing air traffic control. the new buzz word is commercialize.

in other words, have it run by a nonprofit, perhaps not a profit-making venture and air traffic controllers are favorable or looking favorably on this idea as i understand. could this ever get done -- could it ever get through congress because a lot of members of congress like the control they have over the system now including some individual towers where you'll see congress members worried about the staffing at a tower in their district. is this this group ever going to want to give up control of the a atc? >> i'm happy to take a crack at it and have these gentlemen join in. the issue with the u.s. atc system is not the minimum leadership. they are doing a very good job certainly from a safety perspective given the resource constraints and the governance constraints that they have. they have start and stop budgeting. they can't borrow long-term to make the appropriate

infrastructure investments. they have a great deal of difficulty managing the transition to next gen because of the budgeting problems and the massive and that is a problem. what our nation needs and deserves is a modern, efficient, air traffic control system. such as, for example, our neighbor to the north, canada which does a superb job. very safe, very sufficient very modern and progressing at a rapid clip. so we are keenly interested certainly at airlines for america, which i'm chairman currently, of supporting a reformation of the nation's air traffic control system which you have to separate out from the faa. right now the faa is in a conflict of interest position. it both regulates the air traffic control system and it operates it. so it's self regulating, self

operating. and it would be much better if it's split off. the safety regulation certification agency and the air traffic control system was operated separately. i would not, myself, be supportive of a for-profit system. it's a natural monopoly and would require a tremendous amount of regulation were it a for-profit enterprise. but a not for profit enterprise would be exceedingly successful is something that this nation should give a great deal of consideration to. this is a very complex issue and it is not without risk. we do know the current system does not work well at all in terms of efficiencies. when i started the business we would schedule a flight from here to newark for an hour. now we schedule it for an hour and a half. think of the fuel burned alone of the technology. the very cutting edge technology

we use today. right? most of you have better guidance on your hondas than we have for our nation's atc system. so we need reform. and we need transformation. there are considerable risks involved without question. there are transition issues. there is complex stuff. but just because it's difficult and just because it is complex and just because many issues have to be thought through including the funding of it and the implementation of it other nations, many other nations around the world have done this. this great nation can rise to this challenge. and we should do so. >> anybody else? so the airline industry has made tremendous gains in safety over the decades. and one of the reasons you've become so safe is when something would happen you would look at what happened and make adjustments. and the industry made tremendous adjustments over the years. so we had this horrible situation with the air wings

crash in germany and the pilot deliberately bringing it down. has that unveiled any safety crack that needs to be addressed, or was that such a far flung off the radar sort of event that there's no action that the industry needs to take? >> well, they're just very different. these airlines require incredible experience and education and education in order to become a part 121 atp holder in the u.s. number one. number two. we had post 9/11 the perks in cockpit rule all along. so there's not that situation and i believe actually the europeans are adopting the u.s. you know, always two people in

the cockpit. so i think our systems are just different. but we should wait and see, you know, what tr the rules that you always follow in the circumstances. if it's the ntsb or the investigative agency that you always want the process to run the course through the recommendation. recommendation. >> and just to add to your question. safety is everything. so indeed richard is right. we think our business is different enough for a number of reasons that it doesn't cause for any immediate issues. but the faa is now formed an arc on this. it's going to study this the way it should with the right people involved, the airlines pilots. you know, people that understand this to go do it the way we do things and make sure we're doing

everything we possibly can to ensure we don't have an incident like that. because we never look at anything and say that's just such an anomaly we're not going to worry about it. our industry makes sure we cover all the bases. >> before we get to the final questions, and i'm running short of time, i just wanted to mention the national press club is the world's leading organization for journalists and we fight for a free press worldwide. for more information about the club, go to the website, press.org, and to learn about our nonprofit or to donate, visit press.org/institute. i also want to remind about upcoming speakers. one week from today, the author and host of the prairie home companion will address the press club, and on july 8th we just have barry trotts o, the coach of the washington capitals who unfortunately his season is done for now but he's still coming to

the national press club. and i would like to present each of our three guests with the national press club mug. >> thank you very much. these are the extremely valuable artifacts that people come and get when they speak at the club. >> i'm just really glad we didn't have to follow garrison keilar. >> but we are all three slightly above average. >> i think you're good looking, too. >> i don't think so. so we have a tradition of ending these lunches a little bit more on the lighter side and we've mentioned how unusual it is to have three airline ceos together in one place taking questions from the press. we don't know when this will happen again. but while we have this

opportunity, i want to give each of you -- would you be interested in saying why your airline is better than the guy sitting next to you? >> how much time do you have? >> let me jump out first. i'll say something that i think may surprise you all. i think post consolidation the u.s. airline industry is so much better than it's ever been. and candidly i think reality is far out ahead of perception. i think eat of our carriers delta and american united, offer today a better product than they've offered in their history. better customer service than they've offered in their history. better technology. better facilities. better fleet. better route networks. better customer convenience.

better scheduling utility than we've ever had. the reason that we compete together so well and so fervently, is because we are now in a position that we are making the kinds of investments in you, our customers, and in our employees, that we have never been able to make, not because we were stupid but because we were poor. >> and we are finally making sufficient money and we have sufficient cash flow to invest in our businesses, invest in our employees, invest in our fleet facilities and technology, and return cash to our shareholders, our ultimate owners. so i think each of us runs a good airline. i think each of the airlines offers different things. but we've all are offering an ever increasingly better product for the american consumer. and that's why it's so important, so important for us, and ast doug put it. we're not giving up.

because this subsidized capacity will end up devastating this industry. as i tell our own employees, this isn't necessarily for me. this is for the next generation of leaders at united airlines. this -- what's happening with the gulf carrier invasion here using as arms of the state is so damaging to the future of our own employees and our airlines and the united nations and the economy of the united states that we, despite our very tough competition, and i hate these guys i will tell you, and hate me too, we're here together because this is such a serious and important issue. i just want to thank you for the opportunity for us to be here and for us to address this very important crowd. thank you.

u. that was very diplomatic of you. competing for product is where this industry is headed. it's a dramatically different industry. we're proud in america of what we're doing. we do have a great product. even better than -- if we don't already. what i really should is just look at the the sox for god's sake. we at american are professional carrier. carrier. >> look, we talk about how big a deal it is. it is a big deal. it somehow unfortunately gets turned around to be a personal

ceo, airline versus airline thing. and that's not what this is about. this is about poll lick policy between the u.s. government and two countries. those ceos are doing what i imagine we would do if we have subsidies. they're flying where they can and doing the best they can with what they're given. and they're given a lot. the three of us are petitioning our government. the u.s. government. that's where our case is, is to the u.s. government. please act. it has to do with u.s. trade policy and it's being violated. >> we have 30 seconds left. mr. anderson, do you want to defend your sox? >> no but i think doug should defend his. >> i'm so happy to do that. >> i'll yield.

>> i would like to ask the audience to give a round of applause to our speakers. i would also like to thank the national press club staff including the journalism institute and broadcast center for organizing today's event. if you would like a copy of today's program or to learn more about the club, go to website, press.org. thank you. we are adjourned.

we return live to capitol hill where the senate has advanced the fast track trade authority bill. that vote was 62-38. this committee is running late due to that vote. the nominee for homeland security assistant secretary will testify at his senate confirmation hearing and if confirmed, he would be in charge of the transportation security administration. while we wait for the hearing to get under way, here is some discussion about u.s. strategy fighting the the terroristist advances. looks like we're -- the hearing is just about to get under way so we're going to stick with it. be live shortly.

this nomination hearing will

come to order. i apologize to our nominee for the tardy start. we had some things going on the floor that we were trying to -- business we were trying to take care of over there. we're delighted to have you with us today. today we're going to consideration the nomination for the next transportation security administration. tsa administrator position has been vacant since last december. in january i along with ranking member nelson, ayott and fisher called on president obama to send us a qualified and dedication official to serve. while i'm disappointed a @ length of time it took for if president too send us an employee, i'm encouraged by admiral neffenger. he currently serves as in the united states coast guard and had a long and distinguisheded career serving over 33 years in

a wide range of position, each with more responsibility and importance than the last. during assignment in mobile, alabama, he helpeded lead the 1993 zun set train derailment into a remote waterway in the moe bile river delta which killed 47 people. this is a particularly significant experience in light of philadelphia. also sub substantial experience serving in the senate having been a coast guard fellow and detail yn ee at the senate appropriations committee. admiral neffenger also serves on the deep water oil horizon spill. he coordinated and led 50,000 people from state and local agencies, nongovernmental organizations and the private sector throughout five gulf coast states in the cleanup and response efforts. and the tsa has an agency in need of strong leadership. he deserves credit for improving

the use of risk base approaches to security and implementing programs to streamline the travelers who pose little or no threat to the public. just last week the department of homeland security's inspector general testified in the house, and i quote, unfortunately although nearly 14 years have past since tsa's inception the ig's office remains deeply concerned about the ability to execute its important mission end quote. his unusually blunt testimony from a government witness underscores the need to get a qualified and capable leader in place. this committee will do its part to make that happen. i look forward to a meaningful exchange with admiral neffenger today as well as written questions following the hearing. then if members are satisfied with the nominee's responses, we will hold a markup to consider the nomination during the first week back after the memorial day recess. that will be followed by a previously agreed upon referral to the senate homeland security and affairs committee, as has

been done for the the last several nominees to lead the tsa. admiral neffenger will have a chance to address important policy issues and how he will address the challenges addresses tsa if confirmed. with that, i want to get us going here. our ranking member senator nelson i assume will be here moment hairly. in his absence, we have janis hunn here to introduce our nominee. congressman hahn very nice to have you here. welcome. please proceed. >> thank you very much, chairman. it's very nice to be with you today. mr. chairman, i appreciate being invited to speak in support of the nomination of peter neffenger to be the administrator of the transportation security administration. i understand the importance of the tsa at a time when our nation continues to face

potential attacks on our homeland and therefore the need for an administrator who has demonstrated the highest standards of excellence in leadership roles. i enthusiastically support him for this position. as the commander of the coast guard sector, los angeles long beach, the largest port complex in the country, vice admiral neffenger served as the captain of the port when i was on the los angeles city council and represented the port at that time. peter and i worked closely together on port security in the years following the tragic terrorist attacks of 9/11. before 9/11 the federal government did not have an agency or administration specifically responsible for securing our transportation systems. and as you know this very committee created tsa which now has the role of securing our

transportation system while ensuring the free flow of goods and services. ranking member nelson, good to see you. vice admiral neffenger has the right experience and abilities to implement tsa's mission, as demonstrated by his professional and personal qualifications. over the years i've found him also to be very even keeled. i think this is crucial for the person at the helm of our nation's transportation security. we need a person in charge who can decide with congress where limited resources should be spent. and to balance security and commerce while at the same time protecting america's public. since i've come to serve in congress as a representative of our nation's largest port complex and the the cofounder, and the cochair of the port caucus in the house of representatives, vice admiral neffenger has continued to brief

me about security at the nation's port and to be ea a resource for me on port security. i this i the president has selected the right person to lead our nation's transportation security administration. vice admiral neffenger brings the right set of experiences to tsa. his qualifications are exemplary. his knowledge, his character and strategic thinking are first rate, and his unique experiences which are broodader than aaviation, will help tsa complete the mission of protecting the transportation system, to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. our ports, i think are still a vulnerable part of our transportation system. and i can see the port of los angeles from my backyard. and that security gap sometimes keeps me awake at night. that's why i think more than ever we need someone with vice admiral neffenger's background that understands and knows our

ports as well as the entire transportation system. knowing such a highly qualified person is protecting our nation's protect transportation system will give us all great comfort and confidence. i urge you to confirm his nomination. thank you so much for letting me be here. >> thank you, congresswoman hahn very much for the testimonial. i'm sure our nominee very much appreciate the great words, and we appreciate you coming over. thank you for being here and sharing that with us. and senator nelson is here. i'm going to turn to him before we turn to vice admiral neffenger and let him make his opening remarks. senator nelson. >> thank you for your comments. in the interest of time since we've had the delay because of the trade vote, i will submit my statement for the record. let me just say that the admiral worked very hard in a major

disaster that we had, the oil spill deep water horizon in the gulf that has had such long lasting effects. he obviously is skilled. he is obviously experienced with his 34 years. he takes over an agency that if we make a mistake, it could be fatal and we need the strong leadership. you look at some of the vulnerabilities in the airports last december, they discovered for a six month period, people were getting on airplanes in the atlanta airport and transporting guns on commercial airliners to new york.

just last week talk of a drug related gang among baggage handlers. it's unacceptable. so admiral, you have a real job. and we appreciate you offering yourself for your continued public service. >> thank you senator nelson. admiral neffenger please proceed. >> thank you, and i have a written statement for the record with your permission. good morning distinguished members of the committee. i am deeply privileged to appear before you as the nation's nominee to head the security administration. i'm honored by the president's call to serve in the this position by the support of secretary jeh johnson who has provided leadership. i wanted to thank my frent, representative janis hahn, who graciously gave up her time to work with me today. i had a great privilege of

working with her in long beach. she directly helped me as we brought together leaders in industry, government, and the local community to tackle the daunting challenge. this experience reinforced my belief in the critical importance of partnerships in protecting the nation's transportation systems. thank you again janis. i would also like to thank the 50,000 men and women of the united states coast guard and the 30,000 members of the coast guard auxiliary from whom i've learned important lessons about leadership and service to nation, commitment to excellence, and duty to people. and to the dedicated men and women of tsa i want you to know i'm deeply honored to potentially join your ranks and securing the nation's transportation systems. during my nearly 34 years of service, i've been assigned to -- second in command of the

coast guard. the nation's fifth armed service in the premier maritime law enforcement agency. each assignment has brought greater and more complex responsibilities and challenges, and if confirmed, i will apply the leadership skills i have gained as well as my extensive experience in law enforcement, maritime transportation security, and management of a large, complex agency to ensure the nation's transportation systems. nearly 14 years after 9/11 we must recognize the global terrorist threat has evolved. today this threat is more decentralized and more complex. certain terrorist groups remain intent on striking the united states in the west and we know some of these groups are focused on commercial aviation. moreover, we see a growing threat from global factors. the threats are persistent and evolving and tsa's most pressing challenge. workforce training retention and accountability are a second challenge facing tsa. if confirmed, i will pay close attention to the development of the tsa workforce. i will examine how to use the

tsa academy established by john pistol to further improve performance and to instillen ever greater sense of pride in the agency and the critically important mission. i will continue to focus on customer service. travelers expect sufficient and effective screening and deserve to be treated with republican. a third challenge is the tools they need to address the the persistent and evolving terrorist threat. we must question ourselves. we must evolve our capabilities. we must adapt faster than those who wish to harm us. we must envision what comes next and direct appropriations appropriately. i will commit myself to ensuring tsa remains a highly -- that tsa employs multilayered intelligence operations. that tsa recruits and retains a highly skilled workforce while placing a premium on professional values.

#. and the tsa continues to strengthen integration in the intelligence community with the private sector and stake holders with the state and local partners. if confirmed i will follow the strategy, engage and lead the workforce and adapt and invest appropriately. i believe i have a proven record of leading people and extensive background in applying risk based security to maritime threats. principles that relate to other transportation modes and i have a proven record of leading through crises. finally, throughout my career i have remained aware of the need with the the protection of the rights we cherish. i look forward to partnering with this committee on a range of initiatives to enhance the safety of the traveling public and to achieve this balance. in closing, i thank president obama and secretary johnson for r their confidence in my ability

mr. chairman, ranking member nelson, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, admiral, for those opening remarks. and i'll start with a couple of questions and then turn to our other colleagues here. as i noted in my opening remarks. dhs inspector general testified before the house oversight and reform committee last week regarding tsa. and he said, and i want to quote, i'm deeply concerned about tsa's ability to execute the important mission. among other things, mr. ross' testimony highlighted vulnerability and challenges related to precheck, passenger and baggage screening, access controls to secure areas, workforce integrity, and operations that you as tsa administrator will have to confront should you be confirmed. specifically he testified that tsa did not conquer with the the majority of the oig's 17 recommendations to address vulnerabilities in the precheck program. he said this represents and

again i quote, tsa's failure to understand the gravity of the situation. end quote. that testimony raises serious questions. my question is how will you seek to ensure the core mission of the sa to protect the nation's transportation systems will be carried out effectively in light of the concerns that have been identified by mr. roth. >> thanks for that question, senator. i met with mr. roth earlier this week because i read the the testimony. and i have read the ig reports that were the basis of the testimony. i told him i saw great value in the oversight of the inspector general and the great value of the entity outside an agency looking hard outside the actions and purposes. i see that a see a great work list of issues to attend to.

i think that the inspector general has raised exactly the kinds of questions that if confirmed, i would ask going into tsa irrespective of a respecter general report out there. when i look at the world of security, i think in terms of first of all, what is the threat that we're facing and how is that threat evolving over time? there's a big intelligence component of that. and then what are the risks or vulnerabilityies in the system that create the the risk. and what are the capabilities we have to address the vul nerkt vulnerabilityies and finally, how does a workforce field the tul tools? how do you train the workforce? and how do i ensure that stays trained and continuely adopts and evolves. so the questions raised by the inspector general are questions

about ability to adapt to threat ability to understand the intelligence behind the threat, ability to understand vulnerabilities in the system, and more importantly, an understanding of a security system as a whole and the various layers and pieces associated with that. so if confirmed, i intend to look at those very seriously. i take the ig's report very seriously. i promised the inspector general i would be back to talk with him many in more detail if i had the opportunity to do so. >> if you're confirmed, would you pledge to a follow-up meeting with senator nelson and me and other interested members of the committee to talk about some of the concerns that have been raised regarding the certain tsa policies? >> mr. chairman, i would very much look forward to working with this committee on those issues. >> a bipartisan group of committee members including myself ranking member nelson, senators ayotte and cantwell

sent a letter involving the noose of secure identification display area or site of badges. the incidents range from a delta ramp agent in atlanta using his badge to facilitate a gun smuggling operations that were unaccounted for. just yesterday we learned about criminal charges brought by the fbi, the irs, and the u.s. attorney's office against 14 baggage handlers and coconspirators in california for using their badges to bypass to tsa check points and illegally transport drugs across the country over a three-year period. tsa's response to our march letter indicates the agency does not maintain record of lost or unaccounted for badges leaving the airports responsible for the maintenance of such records. should you be confirmed, what will you do to confirm tsa does more to oversee and enforce the

the regulatory requirements and security directives regarding badges so we do not continue to discover these abuses? and follow up to that how do you hold them accountable for these very serious security lapses? >> senator, i appreciate the fact that your staff shared with me the correspondence that you have had with tsa on this matter. and i had a chance to read your letters as well as the response from tsa. and i share your concern with with the breaches of security discovered over the past months. i'm encouraged by aviation security advisory report that looked at this issue, and i think there are a number of recommendations that came out of that that bear some attention. and with a population that is supposed to be known, vetted and

trusted, comes a responsibility to ensure that you hold that population, that you take that trust, but that you verify periodically that that trust is warranted in those individuals. i know there are a number of airports out there two in mr. nelson's states that are doing 100% security. i believe it's miami-dade and orlando. i would like to visit the airports and understand what 100 100% screening of a trusted population looks like. how is it do en? how is it done in a way that encouraged us that it's effective? i think there's a lot to be said for reducing the number of access points to airports. and randomize the screening of employees so there's an expectation you might get screened when you go there. i want to look at how this is currently being done. understand truly what tsa's authorities are with respect to oversight of the badge issue.

what are the airport authorities' responsibilities, and how are those being overseen and enforced? what are the standards nationwide that are being set for that? but -- and then what is the insider threat, what are the processes to try to identify insider threats in the future so that you don't discover after the fact that you've had an operation like what was happening in atlanta? >> you mentioned the advisory committee report. obviously you're familiar with it. do you believe that it offers a good blueprint of actionable items that could be undertaken to enhance security? >> i think it does, senator. >> my time is expired. i'll turn now to senator nelson. >> again in the interest of brevity, i'll submit most of the questions for the the record. i'm delighted to hear you say

that you'll come to my miami and orlando so you can see how practically speaking it was implemented and has worked in miami since 1999. in orlando since 2001. and it was bearing a cost. 245 is developing a screening of all the airport employees coming onto the premises. by taking hundreds of entry points and boiling it down to a handful. and then checking them like you would be checking a passenger. when you check it out, then the question is for example on the magnotometer, how much do they tune it up? do they tune it up to the point

at which you're screening airport employees to the same degree that you are screening passengers? and what other checks and balances are there? swiping the card? having the employee enter an identification number so it's another check. make sure that the employee is who they say they are going into the secure space. which of course was the problem in atlanta. the employees could get in, and then they had this prearrangement whereby then they would go up into the sterile area of passengers. and in the men's room, switch out the guns into an empty backpack of the prearranged passenger, who then carried these guns just unbelievably including a car, and the last

time they arrested him he had 16 handguns in his backpack. thank goodness he was a criminal and not a terrorist. but it again shows a whole airport security is one thing. tsa security is another. but this is clear and case where one affected the other. so thank you for offering to come and i hope that you can learn something that can be applied to the other 448 airports in the country that are not doing it. >> >> thank you, senator. i look forward to a visit and look forward to learning what the best practices are. >> okay. is the chairman -- all right. i'm going to turn to the senator from connecticut. >> thank you. thanks for being here admiral.

thanks for your service to our nation. i want to focus, if i may, on security in rail and transit. our country's transportation and passenger rail systems are used by tens of million of people every day, and they are the backbone of economic activity throughout our nation. we have only to look to the consequences of philadelphia tragedy. to see the losses that can occur when the rails are shut down over $100 million a day to the northeast region alone. our rails carry five times as many people a day as the airlines do. pen station and new york city handles half a million passengers a day, making it busier than all of our airports. and new york city regional airports combined. it's the busiest transportation hub in our country.

the special commission investigating 9/11 urged parts of the security transportation, like rail and transit, just as much as we protect aviation. and that commission said quote, surface transportation systems, such as railroads and mass transit remain hard to protect because they are so inaccessible and extensive. end quote. i posed some questions during one of our hearings in fact, back in march, on the tsa. i asked tsa in a question for the record when the mandates from the 2007 law, it's called

implementing recommendation from 9/11 act 10153, when the mandates would be approved. i received a very broad, nebulous statement in response. i want appreciate a commitment from you that you will answer specifically about those mandates when they will be implemented. and the mandates, for example include approving security plans for all railroads considered vulnerable, high-risk targets for terrorist attacks and training standards of potential security threats. provide a framework for conducting name base security background checks and immigration status checks. these recommendations ze were due within one day of that year. but it's now may of 2015. approaching eight years since the deadline, and we still have no final action on the requirements. i'm asking you for a commitment

to give me specific time lines. senator, i share your concern for the security of our transportation systems. this is the area i spent most of my time in. the rail connections and the like. and the fact that the surface transportation systems i'm familiar with are directly connected and colocated with the large population centers. so there's -- i understand the concern with respect to that. service transportation is much more diverse and dispersed set of elements and you have many different types of elements in the world, from buses and trucks and the like to light rail, heavy rail, passenger rail. and so i think it's important to understand what the various threats are out there. i go back to the concern about the intelligence.

and then more importantly, i think that that the initiatives that are outlined in public law 11053, as you noted, are fairly straight forward. security plans. you do need to understand how you're going to respond to something if you have an event. you need to have a common set of standards across the systems. those standards may differ from mode to mode, but they should be consistent within the mode. they should be based upon what we understand of the threats and they should evolve over time. the easiest security system to defeat is the one that assumes that you have the answer right. and then there are a lot of partners involved with this as well. what is the connection to your private sector partners and how are those connections and how are those partnerships maintained overtime? i intent to look very hard at this, if confirmed. >> well, i'm asking for a commitment that you'll give us some time lines as to when there

will be compliance with the law. that seems like a basic request. can i interpret your remarks as a yes? >> i will look hard at this law and how tsa has addressed the commitments and concerns and responsibilities under the law. and what i will tell you is that i believe very strongly in applying the law of the land as it was intended. >> well, i hope you do. because you're going to be taking an oath of office to faithfully execute those laws. >> yes, sir. >> and you've done that repeatedly as a member of our armed services. so i'm -- i know you take them very seriously. >> yes, sir. these measures were approved by this congress eight years ago. they still haven't been implemented. i'm asking you for a commitment to develop time lines for implementing. i'm not asking them to be done on your first day in office. i'm asking for a commitment to take them seriously and provide a time line.

>> senator, i will look hard at the current time lines. i assume you've been given some indication to date. i would like to find out what that is and if we have -- >> i will give you an opportunity to respond in writing, if you will. >> i would do that. yes, sir. >> i don't mean to hit you cold with a request of this nature but i do think it's important to your confirmation that you commit to providing some sense of when there will be compliance with the law. i think that's a reasonable response. >> i will look at what it takes. >> i'm sorry. a reasonable request. >> yes yes, sir. and i really do look forward to working on you to making sure i answer that question. >> in that spirit, i would like to ask you whether you would be willing to come to one of our rail stations and/or airports in connecticut to give us some idea of what you think the security threats are, either in new haven, stanford or hartford?

>> senator, i would be happy to do that and if confirmed i look forward to getting out quite a bit to understand is what -- not only to talk about what the current threats are, but to see how individual components of the system are addressing those threats and working collectively to ensure the security. >> i appreciate your commitment to come to connecticut. i will be in touch with your office if you are confirmed and i look guard to receiving more information in writing about implementation of public law 11053. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you senator blumenthal. >> thank you so much mr. chairman. thank you. and congratulations on your nomination. obviously you have a very important job, and it's often said it's one of the hardest jobs in washington. i think that's reflective in some of the questions you have today. in my home state, as you

probably know, we've had several people charged with november since traveling or attempting to travel to the middle east to join isis. and before that we had a number indicted and a number convicted for trying to join al shabaab, and that continues to be an issue for both groups. if you're confirmed, how will you ensure the information such as no-fly list be disseminated among allies for someone boarding a plane to head toward the u.s. and how will you ensure that tsa works with domestic agencies and international partners to respond to threats? >> i apologize. senator, thank you for your question. you're at the heart of the challenge with respect to understanding the threat and disseminating that. so it's about information sharing and sharing it appropriately and expeditiously and to the right people at the the right time so that if you

have somebody attempting to travel unlawfully through the system or worse that you know about them before the attempt happens. i've had some briefings. there are a lot of players in the world. not the least the other law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies of this nation. as you know, the coast guard has been a member of the intelligence community for quite some time. and i've is worked closely in that world. i'm familiar with the ways you have to take national intelligence and turn it into intelligence that could be shared with your local partners and your overseas partners. so if confirmed, what i would like to do is take a deeper dive into how that's currently -- how that information is currently moving in the transportation security world particularly how it p gets processed into tsa and out of tsa and more importantly how it gets sent to the very people who need to moe it the most, which are the front line

agencies and officers who have to mag make a decision on the spot if somebody is a threat. >> and one other thing related to flying, i wanted to make sure you're aware of. in 2012 we passed and signed into the law the no household flying act. a rescreening for luggage by u.s. customs and border protection at a foreign amptirport that meets our standard such as canada that has preclearance. i just want to let you know i hope it will continue under your leadership. >> thank you, it sounds like a good program, senator. >> yep we worked hard on that one. another error related thing. kous toms, i head up the travel caucus and do a lot of work in tourism. senator blunt and i got the brand reauthorized so i

understand the security protection as well as trying to make the experience for travelers as we look at bringing people in. so many foreign tralvelers want to follow our laws and how important that is the economy. custom and border protection has worked with private sector company like disney and there's been a number of airports that have partnered with different private sector partners to improve travel per exspeerns and efficient experience and efficiencies at the port of entry. it's how they're treated wh enthey get there and the possibility of having videos of the country that play while they're waiting in line and other things. i just wondered about your views on that. this is completely outside of just the security portion, which of course has to be respected. but that doesn't mean when people come to the airport that we don't want them to have a good experience so that they want to come back again. could you talk about your ideas or what you know habitabout this subject? >> i will, senator. the coast guard has a very

public face to it as well. we interact quite a bit with the public. sometimes the the interactions are probably not what the public wants. i can remember as a junior officer boarding a recreational vote to determine if they were operating in a safe manner. i'm sure i interrupted the a family's enjoyable afternoon on the water. it was up on the great lakes, as a matter of fact. so i think customer service is important to me, and the twa in which you interact. and you know, every -- so in the coast guard. every single member of the the coast guard who comes in the read a letter. sent to the first ten skippers of the revenue cutter system. the first commanding officers. so it's a precursor to the modern day coast guard. and there's a long letter that laid out all sorts of, you know

duties and responsibilities. these revenue cutters were designed to do something for the first time for the brand in united states of america that had never been done, to stop merchant vessels at sea. something that was probably not expected or welcomed by the people bringing them in. so in that letter, the most important line, there's one line in there that says always keep in mind your country men are free men and as such, impatient of everything that bears the least mark of a domineering spirit. and then he goes onto explain because you have the law on your side, and he also goes onto explain, and if i find out that you mistreated people then you'll have me to answer to. so that's always in the back of my mind. and over the years, every time i've advanced somebody in rank or promoted them i always read this letter to them after the oath of office. i read this section. i remind them that first and foremost our job is to protect and safeguard the public that we serve, but that the public that we serve put us in our job.

and they expect to be treated with respect and dignity. that's the approach i bring to if i get confirmed to tsa and i look to try to instill that same sense -- >> and the idea is maybe to work the commerce department and you have to figure this out when you get in the job, but to work on some of these issues, because i think there has been improvement. it's not as much my issue as much as looking at how we can mag things efficient but also how to partner tw the private sector actually make them look better. because they're entering our country for the first time. and this may be a bit of a luxury we have now because the the economy is improving. but we're having more and more foreign visitors on our shore. we're finally advertising in other countries, and we want them to come back and spend money in the u.s. because that means jobs in u.s. so thank you very much. appreciate it. >> thank you, senator.

let me just do one more follow-up question regarding the issues directly under your jurisdiction. we had a 2010 appearance before the committee tsa administrator rate the effectivens of the program as a three out of ten. in addition, they have issued harsh criticisms of the program. this committee repeatedly addressed concerns with the delays in issuing cards to individuals and a long delay in the readers. yesterday this committee passed legislation to provide an outside review of the program with the goal of developing a corrective action plan to make improvements. your role in the coast guard working on port security issues provides you with unique insight into the value of the program. could you please provide us with your thoughts and your plan for improving the management of this program? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll start by saying there's great value in having a known,

trusted and vetted population moving out of areas that we think may have vulnerabilities or security challenges. and a port environment is one of those, very dynamic and open environments and there's a lot of moving in and out. so i think the goal is a laudable one and a good one. the program itself has been challenging over the years and although i've not been directly involved i've had oversight responsibility for aspects of it. the reader rule, as you know as a coast guard owned rule and that's in the process of coming to fruition now. which would allow us to actually read the biometric on the chip. i'm in favor of independent reviews on a periodic basis because i think they can raise issues that you might become blind to over time as you're

working through the implementation of a project. this was a challenging project i know, over time, because it was, in some senses maybe the largest issuance of a federal i.d. it will be privately enforced at multiple locations around the nation and so there are challenges associated with that. i'm interested in delving deeper into the gao concerns and meeting with the gao. i've not had a chance to sit down with the general accountability office as of yet but i intend to do so over the coming weeks and in particular take a harder look at the status. i know that in the briefings i've had with tsa they've done a lot of things to improve the turnaround time. but ultimate plily you want an i.d. card that can be trusted and verify the individual presenting it is in fact that individual.

>> this is a little bit off topic, but at least with your nomination for tsa, but would you like to share with the committee your understanding of the coast guard oil spill near santa barbara? >> that's an ongoing spill response, as you know. it happened over the past -- it was a pipeline spill a pipeline rupture, and it's put a fair amount of oil into the the water. i forget the exact number of gallons. it's significant enough to cause shoreline impacts. the response is fairly straight forward in terms of the techniques that are used, and i think from the response response standpoint, i think the responders are doing everything they can do at this point. the real challenge is in the long-term cleanup as well as the long-term mitigation efforts that might follow as a result of that. and then holding the company accountable for the cost associated with the spill. i know that we've got a number of responders, i don't know the

exact count of the local federal coordinator, coast guard captain in that region is responding to that. but we're quite concerned there's highly sensitive areas along the california coast there, and we want to make sure that we've addressed the potential for any follow-on spills that come out of that. i can provide the committee with a detail on that and be happy to do so for the record. >> you were the onseen coordinator for the bp oil spill, which this committee just had a hearing on, on its anniversary. could you give us maybe a sense of the coast guard response with state and other partners there? >> well, that was as you know, the bp oil spill was the largest oil spill in our history, and what made it particularly challenging is it was an ongoing spill for 75 consecutive days. so we had the equivalent of a spill the size of the "exxon valdez" every single day for 75 days, and it was -- and so no matter what you did one day you

were looking at a huge volume of oil the following day. that one taxed all the resources available. at one point we had 2,500 miles of boom stretched out. stretched out. i think given the scope, given the complexity of that oil, it stretched across five gulf states and impacted many different types of wildlife and shoreline and habitat, it -- we put to bear pretty much every time of oil cleanup technique and equipment type that you could have, over 50,000 people responding. i think in retrospect, given the severity of the spill and given the fact that any time you have that much oil spill you're going to have damage and an environmental impact i think the responders did truly a remarkable job of limiting the

amount of damage done. that's not to say that there isn't damage and isn't going to be some ongoing assessments with respect to how severe the damage was. i think when you look in retrospect at how much was done and how much had to be done. it's remarkable that we didn't see even more damage from the spill. >> all right. i think we've exhausted people who want to ask you questions. maybe not. the senator from alaska has arrived. while he's getting organized, we'll give him a minute. i think you may be on the hot seat for a few minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i don't know how efficient he's in asking questions. senator sullivan? >> mr. chairman, thank you. thank you. sorry for the tardy arrival here. one thing i wanted to start with, first, thanks for your

outstanding career in the coast guard. i always like to ask candidates or nominees for these important positions the basic question of why you want the job. tsa, if you get confirmed, you'll come back to this committee. there will be hiccups and things that you'll have to answer for. you're probably going to have the cameras rolling. and some senator beating the living daylights out of you on tv. why do you want to do this? >> senator, thank you. that's a great question. a question i ask myself. but it's -- i wound up with the same answer that had me join the coast guard in the first place. as corny as it may sound i was 5 years old when john kennedy was inaugurated as president. and so i grew up with the ask what you could do for your country tag line. and it was drilled into us by

every teacher i had throughout my grade school and elementary school experience. my parents reminded me of that repeatedly. i grew up with the idea of public service. i really believe in public service. i believe that it's an important -- there are important missions to serving the public. so some of this is when your country asks you for something, i think that you owe it to your country to consider it. and to consider it. and then i looked at the agency itself. i thought well, how would i fit into the transportation security administration -- and there are remarkable number of similarities between the coast guard and tsa in terms of -- in these terms. it's a mission-focused agency. it has a really really important mission. and in many respects it's a no-fail mission. so i'm impressed by people who have already raised their hand and taken an oath and said i want to do that, i want to do the hard jobs that this nation

has to offer. i know it's going to be tough. it might not even be a job withhere i'm well liked. i look at men and women on the front line of tsa every day and think that is a tough job, they deserve somebody who respects and admires them for the work they do. i like that idea. i like the idea of building an agency culture around mission. i like the idea of reminding people the important of those missions. and then i -- i'm familiar with these geographically diverse and dispersed work forces. it's a relatively junior work force in terms of their relative place in the organization. how do you engage a work force like that, and how do you get them to feel part of something. i think we've got some pretty remote coast guard -- you know the history yourself, we've got remote history locations in alaska. a great story about a guy who got sent to st. paul once and thought it was minnesota and found out it was alaska. told his family he wasn't coming home -- >> i was just in st. paul

yesterday. great -- great americans. >> he spent most of the time moving rocks from one side of the other to the other to try to get home. i look and think how do you trust people to do the job they're very young junior. you're giving them in many respects the most -- some of the most challenging missions they could have and tell them you can't fail. then you leave them all alone on their own. and i think that all of that looks like a way of thinking that applies directly to the transportation security administration. and as i said, it just looked -- it looked more and more intriguing, and i believe in public service. >> great. thank you for that. i appreciate that heartfelt answer. good to hear. i want to talk about emerging

threats and how you believe tsa is keeping ahead of those threats. do you think they are? what do you think we need to do? there's been a lot of criticism of the agency that if you're confirmed will be leading. i think that any time you stand up a brand new agency particularly in the circumstances that we stood up tsa after 9/11, there's going to be hiccups, there's going to be bump in the road. i always, always go out of my beltway in alaska to compliment our t -- my way in alaska to compliment our tsa agents who are doing a good job. not perfect. there are some issues that a lot of alaskans have concerns about. i had an address to our state legislature, one of the leaders in the state legislature had concerns about the tsa becoming much more kind of law enforcement as opposed to security. but how do you mix those and stay in front of these emerging

threats? as you say we can't afford to fail until that mission that you -- that tsa has. >> that's -- that is the challenge facing tsa. as i think about security i think about what make for an effective security system, clearly there have to be a number of layers in that security system. no one single layer could be expected to stop all threats from getting through. but then you have -- how does that system evolve over time? we know that those who would exploit or do harm those who would try to bypass the system or gain the system will do so if it's static over time. how do you -- how do you evolve that system, how do you understand how the threat is changing? as i look at the threat streams and i've had a number of briefings on the current threat to the transportation system

particularly aviation systems. and we know that that threat is evolving. it evolved immediately after 9/11. you saw richard reid shoe bomber not -- very shortly after 9/11. and the underwear bomber case. all of those thing tell us that you have a learning enemy. we say the enemy does get a vote in this, as well. i think it's important that you have a clear and strong connection to the intelligence community. that your intelligence community is understanding the threat and how it might be evolving. that you pay attention to what the intelligence community is saying, that you disseminate that. somehow you have to get that trained into the work force. you have to have a system that adapts to the threat so that if for example, you have some element of your security system that no longer addresses some specific threat, one of the layers of the system that can compensate until you can get that element back to where it

needs to be. so if confirmed, i intend to ask lots of questions about that. i really want to make on this evolving adaptable nature. i think that has to be built into the culture of the organization. has to be a learning organization adapting organization. one that never thinks it got the question right. so the security system today has to be -- doesn't necessarily mean it's the security system of tomorrow. as a matter of fact, i want to know what the security system of tomorrow looks like, next year, and the year after so it stays ahead of the enemy that would exploit the system. >> let me ask one final question. a little bit more alaska and then regional specific. you know, after nevin congress mandated that airports install explosive detective systems, and there was a promise of federal cost sharing, that 90 to 95% of

federal cost sharing. i think most parents have abided by that, have implemented that i also think that most airports have not received in return the promise of reimbursements. i think in alaska the anchorage airport, about a $20 million reimbursement for an airport our size. that's a significant amount of money. it's obviously much larger in some of the bigger airports. would you consider making sure that these outstanding reimbursements are part of the president's budget request if confirmed? because right now i believe that that's an issue that hasn't come up in the budget even though there was a reliance by many airports throughout the country on that promise. >> as i understand, i think you're referring to inline baggage systems, in particular in airport and the program that