arrangement. that i stipulate, but just as machinery in some way has to be compatible, so does information. at a level to satisfy us. >> what the europeans do not have right now is if a flight is flying into europe from outside of europe, they do not have the same advanced passenger information that we do. they lack the kind of tools to do the kind of screening we do, which they would find quite useful. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you for holding this hearing on international aviation screening standards. regrettably, recent terrorist attacks against the united states have once again highlighted the risks that we face in our aviation system and also our dependence on our international partners. in this case, we were alerted by our allies, and the process

shows that there are some good things happening in terms of the sharing of a information, but there is clearly more work to be done. i want to start on a point that chairman rockefeller discussed, and that is the issue of canada. it is a requirement -- i have discussed this with secretary napolitano, above the -- of the re-screening of passengers arriving from canada. their baggage must be physically transported to a facility in the united states. i see you nodding your head. it causes a lot of delays on our end for passengers who have already flown in from canada. could you discuss if there is any progress on that issue because of the delays it is causing in the united states? >> senator, i believe that we

have answered in a couple of your letters. we continue to work with the canadians on this. as you are aware, the aviation transportation security act is very specific on what kind of screening has to be done on those checked bags. we continue to encourage canadians to purchase the same kind of explicit protection systems or checked bag screening that we use, in accordance with the agreement, however, given space constraints, given financial constraints, they have not been able to move forward. once they purchased the equipment installed it and begin using it as we do, we anticipate we will be able to move forward very quickly in eliminating the need for the re-screening upon arrival in the united states. >> we have canadian members too. at the minneapolis-st. paul airport, there is no airport

with higher costs to qualify for this particular requirement. vendor is rising quickly. -- denver is rising quickly. if you go from montreal to denver with your bags screen, you are fine. but for two-thirds of the country, you have to have your back screened again and your bag may not make it with you. i have two thoughts. number one is that maybe we can predict -- maybe we can deal tsa, that provision at nas because it just does not make any sense. perhaps we can work with tsa and others to do a pilot to show that this might work. >> very good.

thank you. on the issue that we have been focused on here, the partnership with our international partners on cargo screening. can you talk about what is happening with that in terms of the international partners and, i guess, specifically, if you have worked with private industry on this, on getting detection systems to strengthen security? >> we have a number of activities under way. one is following the events of october 28th. the state department and the number of different actors are involved in making sure that we have in place a regime that is but operationally effective and maintains the security that we

need. that will continue to evolve over the next weeks-month peri. in terms of the specific requirement the we have for 100% screening of air cargo, as you know, we have continued doing screenings within the united states and we are now incrementally moving toward 100% internationally. that will be achieved by 2013. we have done that in two ways. one is to increase requirements to our standard security programs. two, to develop national cargo security programs that are commensurate with screening programs we would have, that is to say, third party delegation or screening of cargo in advance. there are quite a few challenges associated with that, at

different systems, different laws and regulations throughout the world, but we are making steady progress on that. >> what steps is tsa taking to offer guidance to partners in other countries, ridiculously high risk nations? can you talk about the training efforts going on when it is so clear that this is a global issue? >> as far as the cargo outreach, we are working on the national cargo security program. there are a number of countries, in fact, the top 20 exporters to the united states, the majority of them have very robust security programs. we are receiving their programs, evaluating them, going to the countries, looking at the actual process from the point at which the shipper hands into the point at which it gets on the aircraft to determine if they are meeting

our needs as far as the 100% screening requirements. we have a comprehensive cargo training program. we have two approaches with it. one is looking at cargos screening with requirements focus on security controls. it does not dictate the use green the cargo. with the men and 12, it opens the door -- that you screen the cargo. with the amendment 12, it opens the door to more stringent activities regarding cargo. but our cargo training has been buzzing very much on using actual technology, not -- has been focusing very much done using actual technology -- often actual technology.

we have been using traced detectors board passengers with a checked baggage. we have been using portable machine -- machinery. we have been identifying locations that pose the greatest concern to us, and in some cases doing long-term loans of the machinery. >> does anyone want to add anything to that? >> ok, i do wonder one other thing. i was talking to some of our tsa people when i came home from holiday to come back here. i will talk about the good work that they do. they go through quite a public bruhaha, and i understand the concerns raised by the people who called me, but i think that these employees are doing their job. what they told me was that

passengers were appreciative of their work, but i think they went through the wringer and appreciated the support they got from the department. i'd just want to put my appreciation for their work, whatever the policy changes may be. >> thank you very much. i think that is an important statement to understand. the people at our airports doing the day-to-day screening, they are working under orders of process and procedure and supervision. they by and large to a really outstanding job. like everyone else, you can find one that has had a bad day and may not be doing quite as well as you would hope, but by and large, i have traveled a lot, and i think they do a pretty good job. given the pat down issue, given the advanced imaging issues and the 24/7 news about --

>> and the saturday night live commercial. >> yes, all of that. it is pretty tough times. i know your department wishes you had done more advanced work to explain to people what you are doing. if the passenger could possibly have an explosive device, i think most passengers would choose the screening, by far. here and around the world, we're trying to keep people and luggage off of airplanes that would be containing a bomb or a weapon. it is not easy to do,

especially when in recent years, what has happened is that there are people now perfectly willing to kill themselves while they commit an act of terror. that is a change. that is different from what we have seen in our lifetime. it seems often to be a race to defense. who are the terrorists? how'd you identify them? they wanted to kill people. we want to protect people. it is that simple and it is that complicated as well. the purpose of this hearing is to once again establish where we are, what we are working on trying to do, and as i said at the outset, not just with respect to airports in fargo or minneapolis or somewhere else in this country, but the network of airports, and the network of screening around the world by which someone could enter the

system and move around the world. the process of providing security in those circumstances is enormously complicated. one thing i do not quite understand for sure is, the good fortunes we have experienced, being able to see the prevention of the bombs that we have been aware of, they did not detonate. we have seen other acts. is that good government or is it just good fortune? i do not know the answer to that, but i know a lot of work has gone into it, and a lot more work will be necessary to give the public the kind of protection it deserves. i want to thank you for being with us this morning. thank you for giving us your status reports on the work that you are doing. press is very much. this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> sunday on "newsmakers," james bullard talks about what to expect from the economy based on the jobs report. >> find a great holiday gift for the c-span fan in your life from the c-span holiday store online. it is all available at c- .pan.org/shop

>> this week, reaction to a draft proposal on net neutrality that is set to be voted on in december. jenna kowsky an gen macao's t has made a strong proposal about net neutrality. we will explore the proposal and the reaction this week on the quota the communicators -- on " the communicators." >> communicators and have a right to note basic informations about broadband service. we have a minimum transparency obligations of the consumers and innovators have