Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation Holds Hearing on Aviation Security

FDCH TRANSCRIPTS
Congressional Hearings
Feb. 5, 2003

Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation Holds Hearing on Aviation Security

WYDEN:

Well Chairman Lott, thank you. And I will be very brief. Just two points. One, I'm particularly interested in hearing from Admiral Loy about how threat information is shared. It seems to me that one of the major lessons of 9-11 is the importance of sharing this information. Small bits of information can be like pieces to a puzzle. And if different agencies don't share and communicate, then you can't put the pieces together to see the whole picture. And the fact of the matter is that has happened again and again in the past. And I'm anxious to hear Admiral Loy explain to us how TSA can stay plugged into security information gathered and held by other agencies.

The other points that I want to make deals with transition questions as the TSA moves from the Department of Transportation to the new Department of Homeland Security. I'm concerned that there may be an interruption in oversight in a key area, specifically that the transition may cut short the very valuable investigative work Mr. Mead, who is with us here today, before the Department of Homeland Security has anyone with the expertise and resources to step into his big shoes. We cannot have a vacuum of oversight. I may offer an amendment before long to ensure that that oversight presence is in place. Certainly Chairman McCain has seen over the years as we've looked at aviation issues the value of Ken Mead's work. I want to make sure it is not lost in the transition. And I thank you for letting me make that statement, Chairman Lott.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

WYDEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Question for you, Admiral Loy, with respect to airline contributions to TSA. Now it's my understanding that the airlines originally said that they were paying about $1 billion annually to do passenger security screening. But now that the law requires them to contribute the same amount to the agency, they say they're annual costs were only about $300 million. Now my understanding is they've had some back and forth with Mr. Mead on this particular question. And what I'd like to have you tell us is how do you intend to settle the matter. And in particular, would you be supportive of Mr. Mead's suggestion that independent audits be done? Because it seems to me that that would be one way to really get on top of this question. And frankly, as you could tell from my opening statement, is I don't want to see the airlines duck this issue and in effect, just wait until TSA moves to the Department of Homeland Security and Mr. Mead isn't the cop on the beat anymore. I'd like to see us get this resolved now. And tell me how you would go about dealing with the issue. And particularly, should we have these independent audits to resolve it?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

WYDEN:

I think that this math is fuzzy. I think to get to the bottom of it we've got to have them. I want to work with you and the department on nailing that down because there's a big gap between what the airlines say they're contributing now, what they said they were contributing before. We've got to get to the bottom of it because it goes right to the heart of what those passengers are going to end up paying.

LOY:

Yes, sir. The other thing that I would—just as a point of reference, the projections with respect to the passenger fee are almost on point to the money. In fact, there's a little more being actually collected than was projected to be the yield from the passenger fee. So that we have actually suggested that there's no reason to do any more audits because we know for the airlines that's an expensive proposition in and of itself. So given the sensitivity of the financial circumstances we see them in, we don't believe there's any continuing reason to audit the passenger fee.

WYDEN:

Another question for you, Admiral. I think you've heard me say that I think Mr. Mead does very good work, certainly in the case of this report. He was blowing the whistle on weaknesses, for example, and controls over these contracts with the screener companies.

LOY:

Yes.

WYDEN:

And on March 1st, Mr. Mead's office is no longer going to have, you know, jurisdiction of these kinds of issues. And I'm concerned that for some period of time we won't have tough oversight to deal with these questions. I've got a bill ready to go, in effect drafted to ensure that Mr. Mead keeps these powers until the transition is fully in place. And I would like to have your thoughts as to whether something like that is needed and in effect, how do you intend to deal with these questions in the hand off period.

LOY:

Sir, there is—first of all on the blowing the whistle comment, I never consider him blowing the whistle on me. I call him and ask him to get engaged in our business because I always find the constructive criticism there that enables us to be better at the other end of the day. And I do endorse your notion as well, sir, that Ken does a great job in his IG role. I can also say that my early conversations with Secretary Ridge and Secretary England and Undersecretary Hutchinson, there will be a pent up demand there for them to be recognized as good at what they do early in their term. I do not know the new IG. I look forward to meeting him and working through issues with him as well. But the oversight lapse is something we cannot abide. I tend to agree with you on that regard, sir. And I look forward to whatever might be an ongoing means of keeping our feet to the fire.

WYDEN:

Well, I'm going to send you a copy of this draft bill that I have. I'm open, for example, as to how this gets done. But I just think with all of the cost problems we're having right now, we've got to keep vigorous oversight in place. I appreciate your answer. Last point I wanted to touch on deals with this question of sharing threat information.

LOY:

Yes, sir.

WYDEN:

And you heard me talk about it in my opening statement. And suffice it to say that the real question is is what's going to happen. And maybe you could walk me through, for example, how new threat information is going to be dealt with today. You know, how's it going to get to the airport security guards? How's it going to get to the screeners at checkpoints? Make it clear to us how this new information is going to be used from this point on.