over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs of events from washington directly to you putting you in the room of congressional hearings, white house events, and conferences and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service to private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> next, discussion about whether commercial plane should be equipped with antimissile systems. from today's washington journal, this is 40 minutes. ngton journal continues. our next guest is tim starks. he is a writer for roll call. he covers the intelligence and defense industries. thank you so much for joining us us morning. you're here to talk about the

debate over whether or not commercial airlines should have ini-missile defense systems the wake of the downing of the malaysian airline. no one wants something like this to happen. update us from the state of play in washington. something ofs been a dormant issue. for the last several years, congress has cut off major funding for these kinds of defenses. it is been revised because of those concerns you just cited. you saw senator mark kirk say we need to do something to prevent these kinds of attacks. you've seen people who were pushing it shortly after 9/11 and then revised their calls. not gotten to the point

of major momentum yet. it is starting to percolate again on capitol hill. host: we have a quote from senator kirk. we can't hide. we need to think about how to defeat this threat technically. we should let them make the decision as they are booking. that would restore a lot of confidence in the system. faa toushing the encourage airlines to do this. how much power does the faa have? how much would have to move through congress for any change in defense systems to occur? the question of who would fund it is an issue that has to be resolved by congress. regulations, i do

think the faa could do it on its own and mandate that the airlines do this. to intervene on the money and the regulatory side. host: let's explain how these antimissile systems work. can you explain to us the technology? guest: there are a variety of different technologies. that are not even on the planes. how do you counter these kinds of attacks? we havercial airliners examples of them being used on air force one. infraredirectional countermeasure. it is a laser that jams the guidance system of an incoming missile.

it would send it would send of course. there are heated flares that would distract the heatseeking guidance system of the muscle. those are examples of ones that would defend against against shoulder fired missiles which are not the ones that shot down and make 17. -- the malaysian airline. we have aluminum foil pieces that you dropped from a plane in a cloud. it distracts the radar guided missiles. there is a coded decoy hitched to a wire the distracts the radar guided missile systems. depending on what kind you are talking about, different systems

work than other kinds of systems. there is a different kind of shoulder fired missile that doesn't use radar or doesn't use heatseeking as its guidance system. there are laser beam writers. they's are the harder to defeat. they are the less common out there. the defenses against those are harder. when we are looking at the kinds tothings that would respond radar guided missiles, you he put some of those in place and would be difficult for a commercial airliner to do the next thing to avoid those kinds of missiles. you need to maneuver. in the military are

quite capable of defending against that kind of attack. it is not easy. they are able to outrun the missiles more or less. a commercial airliner cannot do that. that is the major problems. a shoulder fired missile attack is easy to defend against. there are downsides to all of these technologies. host: it sounds like there are multiple threats and systems to defend against them. this is all insanely complicated. how much training with the commercial pilots need in order deployge or deploring -- these? guest: some of them are fairly automatic. it is active and detecting the threat by itself. there are other kinds of systems you would need to have something

on board alerting the pilot what was happening. then they can act by dropping flares. that might be relatively easy. it is not something the airlines are eager to add to their list of responsibilities for pilots. it would be something that would require additional effort them to get up to speed on. all of these systems might affect the maneuverability of the plane. you're adding some into the outside of it. that is another issue as well. host: do these technologies by time? or do some of them the flex the missile altogether? guest: the laser system which you do missile off course. question what happens to the missile after it does at the plane. that is a legitimate safety concern. it the flares would distract away. there would be a what happens

after in some cases. it would not be as much of what the pilot does. and jamssystem reacts the missile or distracts the missile for a shoulder fired missile, there's not much more the pilot has to do. if you're talking about the kind of missile that shot down the pilotian airliner, the would have to maneuver the plane like a fighter jet and a commercial plane cannot do that. host: you can join the conversation. we are going to go for it our first color. that is catherine from ohio on the democratic line. caller: good morning. my question is how would you pay for it?

we refuse to pay for everything. how would we pay? with the taxpayer pay for it. i am sure a rich man would never pay for it. he would want a poor person who makes minimum wage to pay for it. it all sounds good. i think we are way ahead of ourselves. if we would as a world leader column down and stop saying that war is the answer, war is not always the answer. sometimes it is best to have a civil conversation. guest: that is the question actually of what we have not done this yet. there are a number of related questions. the biggest one is cost. there was an estimate by the government that doing this would cost $43 billion over 20 years. the cost would eventually go

down as we got the technology better. not decided or put the focus on the budget. funding endedthe for the program. there was a real focus on the cost. some of the companies were saying it sounds like an awful lot of money. you are talking about one dollar extra per ticket. the airlines did not like that idea. they tend to not like the idea of costs they're not impose themselves. that was a real hold. the taxpayer issue would be a big win. it isgress funded this, not funding a lot of programs at $43 billion. that was a huge issue. there are a lot of issues as to

why this did not happen. there are issues of life -- reliability. if you edit the reliability and the cost and the nature of the threat and some say she -- safety issues, that is where it got derailed. not getting into the war issue is much, one of the things people talk about and the best way to not have this situation like this happen is to not have fights -- flights in war zones. there was some backlash when there was a temporary ban on flights to israel. there are some other ways to address this other than technology on airplanes. these are related to policy. we can get rid of them in the field. there are other policy ways

besides the technology question. host: you wrote a story for roll call this week. that the department of homeland security that 60 billion dollars. in 2005.illion there has already been efforts to put a lot of effort toward these defense systems. in terms ofthis go

coming up with something usable in a commercial space? guest: they were field tested. there was some progress. a lot of the systems came over from military applications. the technology has been out there for a long time. the issue was trying to figure out how to get them on commercial airliners in a way that was least distracting and difficult. is not worried about what happens to the missile after it is derailed or what happens to flares that drop or the chaff. systems have been -- in israel they have a system called sky shield. it is very similar to what i just described with the laser

jamming. they also have been using the flares for a while. there was a protest over the safety of that. they've been switching over to this laser guided system since. there are systems like this being used. in terms of what happens to the ones that we were developing, that is basically where they were. host: our next caller is lisa from las vegas, nevada. caller: hi. that we'renteresting still talking about putting missiles on airplanes. are goingoubt there to be as sensational as they were in 9/11. i am more it about what is going on all over the world. look at iraq. they have chemical weapons.

they're going to come over here and do whatever they want. , $43ntimissile systems billion over 20 years? would that be appropriated through the senate or what? in the process of reporting on this, people said are we talking about putting missiles on planes to shoot down other missiles? that is not what is happening. in israel there is the iron dome system that has been in the news. it is a ground-based system that intercepts incoming rockets. it shoots a missile at a missile and destroys it that way. be outfitting the planes with missiles. that is part one.

part two, this is something of a related worry. when you look at how some of these shoulder fired missile systems proliferated in his been because of four. to the these systems rebels and afghanistan who are fighting the soviet union. they stayed up there in the field. have ended up being mixed around and ended up in the hands of bad guys. 2003, there was an attempt to shoot down a civilian aircraft in iraq. overall threats, i think most everyone would say yes.

the likelihood of these kinds of attacks is lower. there have been approximately 40 attempts to shoot down airliners using these kinds of missiles. sorry.i'm there have been 40 hits. there been more attempts. we're not talking about a major number of these attacks happening or being successful. none of those a been successful hits on u.s. airliners. there is a legitimate question about the threat posed by these been severe. the people advocating for them would say you need to look at the damage that has been done to an economy by any kind of plane crash. especially one that was caused by terrorists. economicgive the damage and the $43 billion we would be spending, it is a worthwhile expenditure.

the question about how it would be paid for we talked about earlier. that is not been determined. we are at the idea stage in this. no one has said it would be paid for this way. it might be by the passengers and airline fee. it might be paid for by the taxpayers. aboutwe have a tweet armed airlines are admission that safety is a myth. how concerned should we be about the safety of air travel right now? this is where we have done the most work since 9/11. there are so may ways in which air travel is a significant lycée for them it was after 9/11. you can see it at the airport.

everything is going through bomb detection systems. the cockpit doors are harder to hijack. a creative bomb maker would probably still be able to get an attack through. they have not been able to so far. it is easier to talk about the vulnerabilities, which are real, and to imagine ways that you to a commercial airliner that is to actually pull it off. attempts we have had since 9/11 have failed. don't have to be innovative to the point of bizarre things like an underwear bomb. you can get anywhere. -- as peopleis make fun of that, it was close to successful. air travel is safer but it is not fully safe.

this is an example of a way where you could imagine a terrorist attacking the united states and being successful. it is not easy. planes withese these kinds of missiles, you are talking about landing a very narrow window in which these planes could be edible. that is difficult. it is difficult to get these weapons into the united states. it is difficult to get them near airports. there are other systems out there that might defend against even that threat. maybe they're not use that much. just getting into the vicinity of an airport with one of these missiles would not be the easiest thing. is much harder to attack a plane

that was before. host: ronald is only independent line. caller: what we do this. instead of spending all this money to equip a commercial jet, it is not going to out run a missile. it would cost a fraction of what it would cost to equip a person -- commercial jet. they are causing the pilots more problems. you have to draw a line somewhere. they cut the snakes head off and that would and the problem. terroristssed these

with these weapons. guest: that is a very good point. it is something that we are trying to do. it's another one of those things that is hard. the state department and defense department all have programs aimed at helping countries secure these weapons. once they get out into the field, the numbers are difficult to depend on how many may be out there. between 500,000 to 700,000 that are unsecured. if you look at the number that we are gotten back, talking about thousands that we have been able to take out of the field. these things are very cheap relative to other kinds of estimates of terror.

they're on the black market. it is certainly the kind of thing that everyone agrees they should be doing. they should be keeping them out of the field. as of right a valid policy point. i would've enough of it? frank is from illinois. caller: i am wondering if i am going nuts. you are talking about equipping defensive airlines. i think you are crazy. worry.uld we our satellites will tell where they came from into seconds and then you level the whole area with 26 bombs and that is the

whole problem. does that make sense to anybody? guest: not a whole lot. finding out who is firing them off and whether we can detect them. we are generally able to find them. in terms of dropping 26 bombs on the area where it is shot from, these are areas near airports where there might be people. that would be the real concern with that kind of approach. hard and that makes it make a targeted are you are talking about one person. what makes this an effective you canl weapon is that fire the missile and begun. it is not easy to find you after that. these things are happening in the war zones.

we have some a lot of visibility where we are aiming our satellites and amy our surveillance distance on them. things that is being , there is a project that would have drones hovering overhead and monitoring with a laser the potential for attack around an airport and then jamming them from high up in the sky. be purposelywould reasonable. it is not easy to just say we're going to bomb that area betrayed it might be near where there are civilians. about not talking commercial airliners in the united states. placese going to obscure that might not have as much

security as we do. that would be another real issue. seewe going to be able to from a satellite someone fire one of these and be able to do silly respond. person would already be gone and we would be bomb in an area where they are no longer at. host: this was not a new idea. there were calls for this after 9/11. the anniversary of the 9/11 report. there were several lawmakers resting for this back in 2003.

they held a new conference in which they showed one. outdid this effort die really asleep? -- previously? how will it move forward this time? effort ande was an the 9/11 commission was worried. in 2004 passed a law the took on a wide variety of recommendations. this is one of them. congress and we're going to do something about these shoulder fired missiles and this bill. issue that talked a little

that cost was the big impediment. this is not something that and decided itt wasn't worth the cost. there were issues of muirfield testing the systems. you had to replace the systems every 300 hours. that was other problem. the reliability never got to a level where people wanted them to be. we are mored, concerned about the budget in 2014 than we were in 2010 or 2003. we are not going to be any more inclined than we were then.

the threat then was much more real. there was an attempt in 2002 on the an israeli airliner in kenya. it raised a lot of attention to the subject. fromaw a big push senators. that was when the big push happened. that is when everybody was really thinking about it and worried about it. --colin powell said it was a threat to commercial airliners. we have had more concerned about the budget. congress in the house has moved more toward an anti-regulatory stance. they don't want to them pose new rules on businesses. likely -- unless are aing happens -- we reactive culture.

likely toe much more mandate this kind of thing you if there was a successful attack on a u.s. airline. the other issue is even if we do put commercial airline defenses on these planes, you're not going to be able to address the kind of thing that happened with the malaysian airliner. that makes it even more unlikely. your only addressing part of the threat. maybe it is most likely, nationstates usually have these types of systems unless they wind up in the hands of separatists. you're not talking about that kind of threat happening to these commercial airliners. you're talking more about the lower-level threats.

host: who gets the contracts? what companies work in the space? guest: it is almost entirely the traditional defense contractors. as the department of homeland theyity moved ahead, solicited five bids. they took it down to two. there were others involved. one of the companies that bid and made it further along was united airlines teaming with a more traditional defense company.

it's not like they were all defense contractors. the vast majority were. yes. they do want to expand their business in this area. there was a gold after 9/11 where people thought homeland security was going to have an enormous budget. it has got to be a pretty big budget. it it never quite materialized. host: carl is calling from colorado. you say complex safety issues. the european airlines used to prevent people from tampering with their airliners.

if a good offense is the best solution all the way around. i wasn't aware of what you were talking about. airlines have said we think the best way to deal with this is to go out in the field. we need to keep them of the hands of people who can use them against us. destiny is coming from texas. i think that is true. i can gradually the decision on sending these aircraft.

we should attack the perpetrators were shooting down airplanes and being a threat. own the attack people. ishink prioritizing defense very important. --hink the perpetrators interested with the pilot knew he was targeted. i understand that he wasn't aware, or was he? don't think we know that for sure yet. it might be something that they would know. unless we are talking about an

israeli airliner. we don't have a good strong sense about what happened in this incident entirely. most lanes are not equipped with that candidate action system. they might've been able to visually spot that there was a missile fired from the ground. they might have seen it coming. they would not have received a warning by any kind of mechanism on board. most planes are not equipped with that kind of missile warning system. are there any pushes to adopt a commercial missile defense system that would prevent against the type of attack that brought down the malaysian airliner? that is what senator kirk was talking about. .he chaff would help it would be more of a buying

time. the problem becomes what do you do after. stages ofthe early starting to talk about this. we are a week after this attack. typically, you don't get the best ideas at the moment of the crisis. there might be some technologies out that we have not heard about so much. there might be ideas that we have not heard about much. obscure kind of threat we can face. the best idea would be to not fly over a war or one that might want to shoot us down. think that is the more obscure of the kinds of threats we are talking about. thereht not know how much is to deal with it.

host: we will hear now from charles on the independent line. caller: i was wondering about of a missiled attack happening here in the united states versus going overseas. ob the likelihood of flying over the united states and there being a missile attack? it would seem to me less likely than there be an attack on u.s. soil. over whatre control happens with our airliners. less control overseas. that doesn't mean that it is not

theoretically a possibility. it means that somebody would have to figure out how to get this kind of technology into the united states. neither of those things are particularly easy. they will need to learn how to get in the proximity. some kindhave to have of training. aboutis some concern passport holders becoming trained fighters in syria. that is not outside the realm of possibility. the could smuggle technology and or steal it and be good enough to use it. they would deal with a lot of problems. likely that this would happen in the united states. it is unlikely that it would happen to a u.s. flight overseas.

liz is in florida on the republican line. i flew a lot of admirals and foreign dignitaries. we did not have any kind of defense system. what does air force one? have some sort of inboard radar they can tell you are alerted and about to get hit , they would not let us carry guns. what does the president do. they are not all military. guest: air force one has a laser jamming system. there were some details that

leaked out back in 2006. they had this kind of laser system. said arprised what she significant >> on the next "washington journal" a discussion of how european countries are responding to conflicts in the middle east and ukraine. then a look at veteran health

care and what's expected from new leadership at the v.a. and what remains on the legislative agenda before congress ajurns for the august recess. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. next, fox news analyst k.t. mcfarland on president obama's foreign policy. then james clapper on the state of national security. after that, a discussion about congressional oversight of the department of homeland security. >> we crafted an amendment that said this -- under 702 of the act, you can collect data and we now know from the snowden disclosures that it's a lot of

data. nd they also include the >> the basic premise of the dot-com act is when the nation puts its last control oversight over the do main system that we know what we're getting ourselves into. >> monday night at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span 2. >> fox news national security analyst k.t. mcfarland says

president obama's foreign policy unmitigated disaster. or about 25 minutes. >> alyssa, i've got to tell you that when you wrote that column about president obama's west point speech and compared him to a krispy kreme dough nut. krispy kreme doughnuts wrote back to say no way. my dear friend introduced me. i got up and i said right. [laug] news has now started hiring brunettes.