[Senate Hearing 108-1010]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-1010
NOMINATIONS TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING,
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 4, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-896 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Carolina, Ranking
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine Virginia
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada RON WYDEN, Oregon
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire BILL NELSON, Florida
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
Jeanne Bumpus, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Robert W. Chamberlin, Republican Chief Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Gregg Elias, Democratic General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 4, 2003................................. 1
Statement of Senator Allen....................................... 3
Statement of Senator Lautenberg.................................. 4
Statement of Senator Lott........................................ 63
Statement of Senator McCain...................................... 1
Letter dated November 3, 2003 to Hon. John McCain from Joseph
Leonard, Chairman and CEO, AirTran Airways, Inc.; Doug
Parker, Chairman, President and CEO, America West Airlines;
Jeff Potter, President and CEO, Frontier Airlines Inc.;
David Neeleman, CEO, JetBlue Airways Corporation; Timothy
E. Hoeksema, Chairman, President and CEO, Midwest Express
Airlines; Herb Kelleher, Chairman, Southwest Airlines; and
Jacob M. Schorr, President and CEO, Spirit Airlines........ 57
Witnesses
Courtney, Elizabeth, President and CEO, Louisiana Public
Broadcasting................................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Biographical information..................................... 32
Gallagher, Michael D., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information, U.S. Department of Commerce.... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Biographical information..................................... 7
Halpern, Cheryl Feldman, Nominee to be A Member of the Board of
Directors, Corporation for Public Broadcasting................. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Biographical information..................................... 18
Rosen, Jeffrey A., Senior Partner, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP......... 45
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Biographical information..................................... 47
Van Tine, Kirk K., Counselor to the Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 37
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Biographical information..................................... 39
Appendix
Letter dated October 31, 2003 to Hon. John McCain from T. Peter
Ruane, President and CEO, American Road and Transportation
Builders Association........................................... 71
Letter dated October 31, 2003 to Hon. Ernest F. Hollings from T.
Peter Ruane, President and CEO, American Road and
Transportation Builders Association............................ 71
Letter dated October 31, 2003 to Hon. John McCain from Gloria
Cataneo Tosi, President, American Maritime Congress............ 72
Letter dated November 3, 2003 to Hon. John McCain and Hon. Ernest
F. Hollings from Edward R. Hamberger, Association of American
Railroads...................................................... 73
Letter dated November 3, 2003 from Stephen E. Sandherr, Chief
Executive Officer, Associated General Contractors of America... 73
Letter to Hon. John McCain from Ed Bolen, President and CEO,
General Aviation Manufacturers Association..................... 74
Letter to Hon. Ernest F. Hollings from Ed Bolen, President and
CEO, General Aviation Manufacturers Association................ 74
Letter dated November 3, 2003 to Hon. Ernest F. Hollings from
Joseph Leonard, Chairman and CEO, AirTran Airways, Inc.; Doug
Parker, Chairman, President and CEO, America West Airlines;
Jeff Potter, President and CEO, Frontier Airlines Inc.; David
Neeleman, CEO, JetBlue Airways Corporation; Timothy E.
Hoeksema, Chairman, President and CEO, Midwest Express
Airlines; Herb Kelleher, Chairman, Southwest Airlines; and
Jacob M. Schorr, President and CEO, Spirit Airlines............ 75
Letter dated November 3, 2003 to Hon. Trent Lott from Joseph
Leonard, Chairman and CEO, AirTran Airways, Inc.; Doug Parker,
Chairman, President and CEO, America West Airlines; Jeff
Potter, President and CEO, Frontier Airlines Inc.; David
Neeleman, CEO, JetBlue Airways Corporation; Timothy E.
Hoeksema, Chairman, President and CEO, Midwest Express
Airlines; Herb Kelleher, Chairman, Southwest Airlines; and
Jacob M. Schorr, President and CEO, Spirit Airlines............ 75
Letter dated November 3, 2003 to Hon. John D. ``Jay'' Rockefeller
IV from Joseph Leonard, Chairman and CEO, AirTran Airways,
Inc.; Doug Parker, Chairman, President and CEO, America West
Airlines; Jeff Potter, President and CEO, Frontier Airlines
Inc.; David Neeleman, CEO, JetBlue Airways Corporation; Timothy
E. Hoeksema, Chairman, President and CEO, Midwest Express
Airlines; Herb Kelleher, Chairman, Southwest Airlines; and
Jacob M. Schorr, President and CEO, Spirit Airlines............ 76
Letter dated November 3, 2003 to Hon. John McCain from James L.
Henry, Transportation Institute................................ 77
Letter dated November 4, 2003 to Hon. John McCain from Arnold F.
Wellman, Vice President, Corporate Public Affairs, Domestic/
International, UPS.............................................
Letter dated November 5, 2003 to Hon. John McCain from William W.
Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association.. 77
Letter dated November 5, 2003 to Hon. Ernest F. Hollings from
William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation
Association.................................................... 78
Letter dated November 6, 2003 to Hon. Bill Frist from David N.
Siegel, President and Chief Executive Officer, US Airways...... 79
Letter dated November 13, 2003 to Hon. Bill Frist from William B.
Spencer, Vice President, Government Affairs, Associated
Builders and Contractors, Inc.................................. 79
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Conrad Burns to
Michael D. Gallagher........................................... 80
Response to written questions submitted to Kirk K. Van Tine by:..
Hon. John McCain............................................. 81
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings...................................... 86
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 112
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Ernest F.
Hollings to Jeffrey A. Rosen................................... 113
NOMINATIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE, THE CORPORATION FOR
PUBLIC BROADCASTING, AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
----------
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John McCain,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
The Chairman. Good morning. We meet this morning to examine
the qualifications of several individuals nominated by the
President to serve the American people.
We welcome our first nominee, Michael Gallagher, his family
members and guests. Mr. Gallagher has been asked to serve as
the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information for
the Department of Commerce, and as the Administrator of the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration. If
confirmed, Mr. Gallagher would be the President's principal
advisor on telecommunications policy and would be responsible
for formulating policies, supporting the development and growth
of telecommunications and related industries, providing policy
and management over the Federal Government's use of spectrum,
and overseeing telecommunications facilities and grants.
Our second nominee is Cheryl Halpern. Ms. Halpern has been
nominated by the President to serve on the Board of Directors
for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). The CPB is a
private, nonprofit corporation that distributes funds from the
Federal Government and donations from private entities to aid
the development of programming for public radio and television
stations. Ms. Halpern has been serving on the Board of the CPB
since August 6, 2002, as a recess appointee. We welcome Ms.
Halpern and her family and guests.
Also nominated to serve on the Board of Directors for the
CPB is Elizabeth Courtney. Ms. Courtney is currently the
President and CEO of Louisiana Public Broadcasting, which
includes a statewide public television network. Ms. Courtney
started her career as a capital correspondent, and we welcome
her today----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman.--with her family and guests.
We'll also consider two positions to serve at the
Department of Transportation, DOT. We welcome back Mr. Kirk Van
Tine, who has been nominated to be Deputy Secretary of DOT. Mr.
Van Tine is very familiar with this Committee's work, along
with the many challenges confronting our Nation's
transportation system, from his previous service as DOT General
Counsel, a position that he held for over 2 years. We welcome
Mr. Van Tine.
Finally, we welcome Mr. Jeffrey Rosen, who has been
nominated to serve in the DOT General Counsel position
previously held by Mr. Van Tine. Mr. Rosen is a former Partner
at Kirkland & Ellis.
Before we go further, could we ask each of the nominees to
introduce their family members who are present here in the
audience, beginning with you, Mr. Gallagher.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you, Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
First, I'd like to introduce my mother, Kathy Bennett, and
my stepfather, Fred Bennett, who came here from California to
be here today.
The Chairman. Welcome. I'm glad you got out of there.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gallagher. Next, I'd like to introduce my 89-year-old
grandfather, who, prior to this trip here today, had not been
east of the state of Nevada.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Welcome, sir, glad you're here.
Mr. Gallagher. And then I'd like to introduce my three
children: Alexandria, Daniel, and Madison. Alexandria and
Daniel are natives of Washington State, and Madison is a
Virginian.
The Chairman. Welcome to three wonderful children.
Mr. Gallagher. And, finally, I'd like to introduce the
Chief Executive Officer of my family, my wife Rhonda, who
shares my deep passion for our great country and commitment to
public service.
The Chairman. Welcome to your entire family, and I know
this is a wonderful moment for you. Thank you.
Ms. Halpern?
Ms. Halpern. Much as I would like to have had the
opportunity to introduce my family, they are still in London,
where we all had gathered for a family celebration. So I flew
back alone.
The Chairman. I guess you're saying that we, here at the
Committee, are--screwed up your life.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Is that what you were saying, Ms. Halpern?
Ms. Halpern. No, I just got to go back.
The Chairman. We will quickly go to Ms. Courtney.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to introduce my husband, who's with me, Bob
Courtney, in the front row, from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and
my----
The Chairman. Welcome, sir.
Ms. Courtney.--and my brother, George Hardy, who came from
San Diego, California.
The Chairman. Welcome, George.
And Mr. Van Tine?
Mr. Van Tine. Chairman McCain, I'd like to introduce my
wife Barbara, and I'd like to say that I appreciate her support
very much.
The Chairman. Thank you. Welcome, Barbara.
And Mr. Rosen?
Mr. Rosen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to introduce my wife Kathy and my three children,
Anne, Sally, and Jim.
The Chairman. Welcome to the family. Thank you.
Thanks to all the family members for being here today. This
is an important time, and we're grateful for the nominees'
willingness to serve the United States of America, and we're
grateful for it.
I'd like to ask my friend, Senator Allen, who would like to
make some opening comments about the nominees.
Senator Allen?
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing, even if it did inconvenience Ms.
Halpern----
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen.--because I'm sure they won't--she can go
back and tell great stories to her family.
But I appreciate the opportunity to talk about, in
particular, two very well-qualified nominees to the
Transportation secretariat. They are long-time residents of
Virginia, particularly Northern Virginia, Mr. Kirk Van Tine and
Jeffrey Rosen. Their leadership will be important for the
Department of Transportation, helping lead its direction in
constructive ways. Let me just say a few things about both of
them.
Mr. Kirk Van Tine has been nominated, as you say, Mr.
Chairman, to be Deputy Assistant Secretary of Transportation.
Given the current needs for our transportation infrastructure,
this position really does carry added importance and will
require his strong leadership.
The President's choice of Kirk Van Tine--it's the second
time he's done this. This is the second nomination. He served
as part of the President's leadership team. On September 24,
2001, the U.S. Senate confirmed Mr. Van Tine as Department of
Transportation General Counsel on a 97-to-0 vote. That vote
reflected his accomplishments and his record. He has earned the
trust, obviously, of the President and Secretary Mineta. It's
well founded. He has good common sense advice, and particularly
in regard to the implementation of security legislation enacted
in the aftermath of September 11 disasters.
Prior to joining the Bush Administration, Kirk Van Tine was
a partner in the firm of Baker & Botts, where he specialized in
business litigation for 23 years. I am also pleased to inform,
particularly, the Chairman that Kirk Van Tine served in the
United States Navy from 1966 to 1975. He is a graduate of the
U.S. Naval Academy and also my alma mater, the University of
Virginia Law School, graduating in 1978.
Mr. Jeffrey Rosen will be succeeding--hopefully succeeding
Kirk Van Tine as General Counsel, overseeing the many legal
offices and affairs, advising the Secretary. He has been a
senior partner, is a senior partner, in the firm of Kirkland &
Ellis, focusing on litigation practice on a variety of matters,
from antitrust cases to product liability, information
technology, freight railways, power-plant development
construction, fiber optic communications. It's a great resume
there. He has served even as an adjunct--has served as an
adjunct professor at Georgetown's Law Center for the past 8
years. Currently, he is on the Board of Trustees at
Northwestern University. He's committed to the Commonwealth of
Virginia a variety of community activities, from the Virginia
Historical Society, the Fairfax Historical Society, Arlington
Historical Affairs, and Landmark Review Board in the past. And
I will say, in these biographical reviews, it indicates that he
did support George W. Bush in 2000, but I see, when he was up
in Massachusetts in college, and later in Virginia, he was an
active Democrat in Arlington and in Virginia in the late 1980s.
I overlook all of that since----
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen.--because since 1998 he has been a member of
the Reston Raiders Hockey Club, showing great character and
tenacity. So he does bring a good, strong academic background,
as well, but the fact that he's a hockey player, looking at his
character, shows a certain amount of grit and character. And,
to me, that's a most impressive thing, that we need hockey
players advising----
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen.--the Department of Transportation on how
to--sometimes you get up against the boards and you've got to
get that puck out, one way or the other.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to introduce
these two fine gentlemen, and I look forward to their
confirmation on the floor.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Allen. Thank you for your
personal interest in these nominees.
Senator Lautenberg, do you have any opening comments?
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. I do.
I thank you for holding this important hearing on nominees
that represent a range of agencies under jurisdiction of the
Committee. They're important positions that require leadership
skills and candidates of the highest quality, and I believe,
Mr. Chairman, that we have such folk here.
I want to briefly focus on one of the nominations, that of
Mr. Van Tine, for the Deputy Secretary of the Department of
Transportation. Mr. Van Tine is not a newcomer to the
Department, having served as General Counsel for the last 2
years. He's now nominated to the top policy position in the
Department, and I have specific concerns about the policy
direction of DOT.
With regard to rail, I'm very disappointed in the
Administration's unrealistic proposal for Amtrak. Even the DOT
Inspector General has confirmed that under the President's $900
million budget request, the railroad can't survive.
And regarding aviation, as well, I thought the
Administration's attempt to privatize the air traffic control
system--for reasons that have little to do with transportation
policy, the Administration has vigorously pursued a
privatization agenda, frankly, I think, at the cost of the
safety and security of airline passengers. And even after both
the House and the Senate passed FAA reauthorization bills that
explicitly prohibited privatization of air traffic controllers,
we're now faced with a conference report that's silent on the
issue, clearing the way, I think, for the Administration's
dangerous privatization scheme.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to greet Ms. Cheryl Halpern, who
is a New Jersey person. I know her father very well. He's a
exceptional man who survived the worst that mankind could put
upon mankind and went on to succeed in America, as few have,
because he had the determination to put the past behind him,
build his family, build his business, and build his reputation.
So I welcome Ms. Halpern here.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this Committee
hearing now.
The Chairman. Thank you.
We'll begin with--we'll have opening statements, and we'll
begin with you, Mr. Gallagher. And if you'd pull the microphone
close so that the recorder can get----
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. GALLAGHER, NOMINEE TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
scheduling this hearing to quickly.
It is truly an honor to appear before this Committee. I am
also truly gratified and honored to be the President's nominee
to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Information. I am committed to serving the American people in a
manner worthy of the support and confidence the President and
Secretary Evans have shown in me.
In addition to my prepared statement, I would like to add
the following thoughts. We are truly living in a remarkable era
for technology in our country. The technological progress that
is sweeping our country--from fiber optics to computers,
throughout our radio spectrum, from a.m. radio bands up to now
90 gigahertz bands, marrying nanotechnology with computers--
present us with bold new frontiers and great opportunities.
That technological progress is enriching our lives, boosting
our economy, and making us safer. Though the challenges to
policy may be daunting, I am energized and optimistic to be
here today as an American, a husband, a father, and a public
servant.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr.
Gallagher follow:]
Prepared Statement of Michael D. Gallagher, Nominee to be
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information,
U.S. Department of Commerce
Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, and Members of the Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I have
had the opportunity to work closely with you and your capable staff on
a number of difficult policy issues that have faced our country over
the last two years, including a number of very difficult spectrum
access issues. If confirmed, I look forward to further cooperation and
shared achievement on behalf of the American people.
I am also very grateful for the honor which President Bush and
Secretary Evans have conferred on me by nominating me to be Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Telecommunications and Information.
Telecommunications, technology, and the Internet are key drivers in
our economy and society today. Since passage of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, our country has moved far beyond voice communication over
copper telephone wires. As anticipated by Congress, the forces of
competition, free markets and investment have dramatically improved our
technology and telecommunications foundation. In 1996, the Internet was
relatively new as a consumer phenomenon. Today, it is estimated that
virtually every business, every classroom, and over 60 percent of
households have access to and use the Internet. According to industry
sources, in 1996 we had 38 million analog wireless customers; today we
have over 150 million digital customers projected to use nearly 800
billion minutes this year. DVD players did not exist in 1996; today
they are as common as VCRs and represent a content revenue stream
greater than theater receipts. In 1996 broadband Internet access was a
distant vision; today over 20 percent of American households subscribe
to broadband service offered either by their cable or telephone
provider. WiFi and other spectrum based technologies were theoretical
in 1996; today they are widely available in consumer electronics stores
and are changing the landscape for both wireless and wired services
alike. All of these innovations and new services have enriched our
lives and solidified the U.S. economy as the most productive and
resilient in the world.
However, the correction of the of the technology and telecom
``bubble'' of the late 1990s, a wave of corporate scandals, and an
economy challenged by recession and terrorist attacks have taken a toll
on the technology and telecommunications sectors. These forces have
resulted in hundreds of billions of lost investment, hundreds of
thousands of lost jobs, and scores of bankruptcies. One critical focus
of policy in the coming years must be the fostering of an environment
of entrepreneurship, competition and investment for the technology and
telecommunications sectors of our economy--so they can continue to
enrich our society. If I am confirmed, I look forward to working with
the Congress, the FCC, and U.S. industry in the development of national
policies focused on cultivating that environment.
Many other policy challenges face our telecommunications and
technology sectors as well. While the Department of Commerce has had
great success in working with the FCC on key spectrum issues like the
authorization of ultrawideband technologies, finding an additional 90
MHz of spectrum for advanced wireless services (``3G''), and doubling
the amount of spectrum for WiFi at 5 GHz, the pressure on spectrum
policy will only continue to rise with the invention and deployment of
very small computers that incorporate wireless capabilities. That
pressure will require the NTIA, FCC and other Federal agencies to
redouble their commitment to the technical resources necessary to forge
sharing arrangements that both authorize new technologies, but also
protect our very valuable incumbent systems.
Similarly, the continued growth and adoption of broadband Internet
access and the productivity gains of our economy due to further
deployment of computers and Internet-based technologies are dependent
on the development of sound policies. The Administration, the Congress,
and the independent agencies must work together to develop bipartisan
policies to address the issues posed by a number of issues including,
spam, critical infrastructure protection, privacy, cybersecurity,
piracy, and the protection of children on the Internet. If confirmed, I
look forward to leading NTIA in playing its part in meeting those
challenges.
The march of progress in technology and telecommunications is not
unique to the United States. The deployment of smaller, more powerful
computers, fiberoptics, and wireless technologies have made the world
much smaller and more competitive. NTIA must work together with the
FCC, the State Department, other Federal agencies, and U.S. industry to
continue to open foreign markets to U.S. companies and set the
international policy framework for connecting networks and computers on
terms favorable to both the economic and national security of the
United States.
In closing, let me once again thank you and the Committee for the
opportunity to be here today. I look forward to the opportunity to
continue to serve this Administration and work with the distinguished
members of this Committee to meet the challenges facing our technology
and telecommunications sectors.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have for me.
______
a. biographical information
1. Name (Include any former names or nick names used.): Michael D.
Gallagher.
2. Position to which nominated: Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Communications and Information.
3. Date of nomination: October 14, 2003.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
Residence: Information not released to the public.
Office: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC 20230.
5. Date and place of birth: January 23, 1964; Arcadia, California.
6. Marital status: Married. Wife is Rhonda Lee Gallagher.
7. Names and ages of children: Alexandria Lee Gallagher (12);
Daniel Michael Gallagher (9); Madison Kathleen Gallagher (8).
8. Education:
Saint Francis High School, La Canada, California; high school
diploma awarded June 1982 (attended September 1978 to June
1982).
University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California; BA in
Economics and BA in Political Science summa cum laude awarded
in June 1986 (attended September 1982 to June 1986).
UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, California; Juris Doctor in
June 1989 (attended September 1986 to May 1989).
9. Employment record:
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Information
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, DC
August 14, 2003 to present; and November 2, 2001 to May 26,
2003)
Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Counselor to the Secretary
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington DC
May 27, 2003 to August 13, 2003
Staff Vice-president State Public Policy
Verizon Wireless
Bellevue, WA
April 2000 to October 2001
Managing Director State Public Policy
AirTouch Communications
Bellevue, WA
April 1998 to April 2000
Of Counsel
Perkins Coie, LLP
Seattle, WA
June 1997 to April 1998
Administrative Assistant
Congressman Rick White (WA-01)
Washington DC
January 1995 to June 1997
Senior Associate
Perkins Coie, LLP
Seattle, WA
September 1989 to December 1994
Summer Associate
Allen Matkins Leek Gamble and Mallory
Irvine, CA
August 1988
Summer Associate
Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker
Los Angeles, CA
June 1988 to July 1988
Summer Associate
Allen Matkins Leek Gamble and Mallory
Irvine, CA
June 1987 to August 1987
10. Government experience: None other than as listed above.
11. Business relationships:
Staff Vice-president State Public Policy Verizon Wireless
Managing Director State Public Policy, AirTouch Communications
Of Counsel and Associate, Perkins Coie, LLP
Board Member, United for Washington
Summer Associate, Allen Matkins Leek Gamble and Mallory
Summer Associate, Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker
President, Timberline Park Homeowners Association
President, Pennington Homeowners Association
12. Memberships:
Plateau Golf Club, Sammmamish, WA
Washington State Bar Association
Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle, WA
Catholic Church
University California Berkeley, Phi Beta Kappa Society
Delta Upsilon Fraternity
Pennington Homeowners Association
Ocean Shores Community Club
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held
or any public office for which you have been a candidate: None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services
rendered to all political parties or election committees during
the last 10 years: None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual;
campaign organization, political party, political action
committee, or similar entity, of $500 or more for the past 10
years: Bush for President on June 18, 1999.
14. Honors and awards:
Valedictorian, Saint Francis High School
Phi Beta Kappa Society, UC Berkeley
BA in Economics with Honors, UC Berkeley
BA in Political Science with Honors, UC Berkeley
15. Published writings: None.
16. Speeches:
As Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Information, I have provided public remarks on dozens of occasions.
Attached as Exhibit A are the speeches that have been published by
NTIA.
17. Selection:
(a) Do you know why you were selected for the position to which you
have been nominated by the President?
I believe the President nominated me based upon my experience in
the telecommunications industry, previous work as Congressional staff,
and my direct experience and performance as Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Communications and Information. That experience should provide a
strong foundation for me to meet the challenges of the Assistant
Secretary position.
(b) What in your background or employment experience do you believe
affirmatively qualifies you for this particular appointment?
I have managed the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration for nearly a year and a half. I fully understand the
challenges, duties and responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary
position. Moreover, I have been a senior member of the Administration
team that has delivered several spectrum policy advancements to the
American people, including the authorization of ultrawideband
technology, the allocation of an additional 90 MHz of spectrum for
advanced wireless services (3G), doubling the amount of spectrum for
WiFi at 5 GHz, and most recently allocating 13 GHz of spectrum for
unlicensed use in the 70, 80, and 90 GHz bands. Each of those policy
advancements required working technically and professionally across a
number of federal agencies to deliver an outcome authorizing a new
technology without impairing critical incumbent systems. By working
closely with Secretary Evans on key Administration policy issues, also
understand the key elements that are required to advance a pro growth,
pro-technology policy agenda.
As a former Administrative Assistant for a member of the House of
Representatives, I have a firm understanding of and respect for the
legislative process. Finally, my telecommunications experience in the
private sector gives me a useful perspective of the impacts of
regulation and government mandates on technology and growing
businesses.
b. future employment relationships
1. Will you sever all connections with your present employers,
business firms, business associations, or business organizations if you
are confirmed by the Senate?
I severed all connections with previous non-Government employers
and business organizations and associations (except for continuing to
maintain accounts in two prior employers 401(k) plans, as described in
my answer to question C. 1) when I accepted my current appointment with
the U.S. Department of Commerce in November 2001.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, please explain: No.
3. Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements after
completing government service to resume employment, affiliation, or
practice with your previous employer, business firm, association, or
organization? No.
4. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any
capacity after you leave government service? No.
5. If confirmed, do you expect to serve out your full term or until
the next Presidential election, whichever is applicable? Yes.
c. potential conflicts of interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers.
I have continued to maintain accounts in 401(k) retirement plans
sponsored by Perkins Coie, LLP and Verizon Wireless, both of which are
former employers. My accounts are invested in diversified mutual funds
and similar assets. Neither I nor either of my former employers has
made contributions to these accounts since termination of my
employment.
It is my understanding that the Office of General Counsel of the
U.S. Department of Commerce (in consultation with the Office of
Government Ethics and the White House Counsel's office) has certified
that my Financial Disclosure Report (which lists my interests in these
plans and the underlying assets) is complete and does not disclose any
financial interest or outside activity that violates or appears to
violate applicable conflict of interest laws or regulations.
2. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
Attached as Exhibit B is the agreement that I have entered into
with the Department of Commerce to resolve any potential conflicts of
interest that may arise. It is my understanding the Office of General
Counsel of the U.S. Department of Commerce has found that this
agreement resolves any potential conflicts of interest.
3. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated: None.
4. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have
engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy.
Since my departure from Congressman White's office in 1997, my
career has been entirely focused on public policy matters. As Of
Counsel at Perkins Coie, I co-chaired the Government Relations practice
group. While at Perkins Coie, I focused on the following public policy
issues:
Electricity deregulation legislation in Washington State
Telecommunications regulation in Washington State
Satellite issues before the U.S. House Commerce Committee
Cable Broadband deployment in Seattle, WA
While at AirTouch Communications (which later merged with Bell
Atlantic Mobile and became Verizon Wireless), I directed all state
public policy legislative and regulatory activity for all 50 states.
The primary issues I directed on behalf of the company included:
Verizon Wireless ``hands-free'' driver safety legislation
State and local taxation of wireless service
Health Effects legislation
Wireless E911 legislation and regulation
State universal service funding
Cell siting
Uniform sourcing of wireless services for tax purposes
Consumer protection legislation and regulation
Numbering
Priority access for wireless service
Rights of way access
5. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items. (Please provide a copy of any trust or other agreements.)
The Agreement attached as Exhibit 8 sets forth specifically how I
intend to resolve any potential conflicts of interest. On a forward-
looking basis, I intend to continue to consult with the ethics
officials at the Department of Commerce and, if appropriate, divest
myself of any new conflicting interests, recuse myself, or obtain a
conflict of interest waiver under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 208(b) if the interest
is not substantial.
6. Do you agree to have written opinions provided to the Committee
by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to which you are
nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics concerning potential
conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to your serving in this
position? Yes.
d. legal matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative
agency, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other
professional group? If so, please explain.
Yes, I was the subject of a complaint to the Washington State Bar
Association. In January 1997, Richard A. Labadie filed a grievance with
the Washington State Bar Association against me and four other fellow
Perkins Coie lawyers (WSBA file No. 9700186) for alleged violation of
conflicts of interest relating to a bankruptcy case we were working on.
Neither I nor any Perkins Coie lawyer was ever found to represent Mr.
Labadie and the complaint was dismissed without hearing later that
year.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance,
other than for a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain.
Yes. In August 1983, I was cited for possession of alcohol on a
public beach, which in Huntington Beach, California, is a misdemeanor.
I paid a small fine by mail and the matter was concluded without any
further proceedings.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or
civil litigation? If so, please explain: No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? If so, please explain.
Yes. In August 1983, I was cited for possession of alcohol on a
public beach, which in Huntington Beach, California, is a misdemeanor.
I paid a small fine by mail and the matter was concluded without any
further proceedings.
5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in
connection with your nomination: None.
e. relationship with committee
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines for information set by congressional committees? Yes.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the committee with requested
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes.
4. Please explain how if confirmed, you will review regulations
issued by your department/agency, and work closely with Congress, to
ensure that such regulations comply with the spirit of the laws passed
by Congress.
If confirmed, I will review each regulatory action taken by NTIA to
ensure it complies with all applicable legislative directives. Should
clarification or interpretation of the regulation be required, I will
consult with the agency's general counsel, the office of the general
counsel of the Department of Commerce, the Office of Management and
Budget, and interested Congressional offices, as appropriate. I intend
to continue my practice of open and frequent communication between NTIA
and Congress.
5. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
f. general qualifications and views
1. How does your previous professional experiences and education
qualify you for the position for which you have been nominated?
I have managed the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration for nearly a year and a half. I fully understand the
challenges, duties and responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary
position. Moreover, I have been a senior member of the Administration
team that has delivered several spectrum policy advancements to the
American people, including the authorization of ultrawideband
technology, the allocation of an additional 90 MHz of spectrum for
advanced wireless services (3G), doubling the amount of spectrum for
WiFi at 5 GHz, and most recently allocating 13 GHz of spectrum for
unlicensed use in the 70, 80, and 90 GHz bands. Each of those policy
advancements required working technically and professionally across a
number of Federal agencies to deliver an outcome authorizing a new
technology without impairing critical incumbent systems. By working
closely with Secretary Evans on key Administration policy issues, I
also understand the key elements that are required to advance a pro-
growth, pro technology policy agenda.
As a former Administrative Assistant for a member of the House of
Representatives, I have a firm understanding of and respect for the
legislative process. In addition, my telecommunications experience in
the private sector gives me a useful perspective of the impacts of
regulation and government mandates on technology and growing
businesses.
My education is a strong foundation for government service. As a
lawyer, I understand the impact and requirements of the law. As an
economist, I understand the micro and macro economic impacts of
government action and inaction. And, as a political scientist, I have a
broad view of government structures, strengths and weaknesses through
history.
2. Why do you wish to serve in the position for which you have been
nominated?
Serving the American people is a privilege and an honor.
Telecommunications is the foundation for our economy, and the power of
free markets and technology drive the United States to its place as the
economic and ideological engine of the world. My previous experience at
NTIA, in the private sector, and as Congressional staff afford me the
opportunity to make a powerful contribution to continue the leadership
of our country in the dynamic fields of telecommunications and
technology.
3. What goals have you established for your first two years in this
position, if confirmed?
If confirmed, I believe the goals of the position are primarily to
be responsive to the needs of the American people as expressed through
their leaders--the President, the Secretary of Commerce, and the
Congress. At the outset, I believe the primary goals of the position
are:
Spectrum Policy:
--Continue to work in partnership with the FCC to manage our
spectrum resources to maximize the dual goals of economic and
national security
--Complete the work necessary to deliver the promise of
ultrawideband, advanced wireless services (3G), and new WiFi
services to the American people
--Deliver the action plan for spectrum policy improvement
called for in the President's Spectrum Policy Initiative
Telecommunications Policy:
--Develop and advocate telecommunications policies that restore
stability and growth to the U.S. telecommunications sector
--Develop and advocate policies that advance U.S. leadership in
the creation and deployment of dynamic new technologies
International Leadership:
--Develop and advocate international telecommunications and
spectrum policies in partnership with the FCC and the State
Department that open up new markets for U.S. technological
leadership around the world
Economic Stewardship:
--Effectively, efficiently, and ethically discharge the
obligations of the office of Assistant Secretary
--Accomplish the goals of the office using the least amount of
taxpayer resources
4. What skills do you believe you may be lacking which may be
necessary to successfully carry out this position? What steps can be
taken to obtain those skills?
Having served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Acting Assistant
Secretary and in a senior position in the Secretary's office, I feel I
have the skills to carry out the position of Assistant Secretary. That
said, in order to excel in the position, I expect to seek the guidance
of senior Administration officials across the agencies, leverage the
expertise of the Department of Commerce leadership team, and to
frequently seek the guidance of leaders and senior staff in Congress.
5. Please discuss your philosophical views on the role of
government. Include a discussion of when you believe the government
should involve itself in the private sector, when society's problems
should be left to the private sector, and what standards should be used
to determine when a government program is no longer necessary.
I believe the role of government is well defined by the
Constitution and its system of checks and balances. The Founding
Fathers designed a system that is at the same time flexible and strong
During times of international uncertainty or war, our system calls for
and accommodates a strong Executive Branch leadership role. During
times of peace and international calm, the legislative branch assumes
the stronger role. And, when the legislative and executive branches are
in conflict or both are acting outside the fundamental rights granted
to the people and the states, the judicial branch provides our
Constitutional safety-net.
The government that governs least governs best. The private citizen
and the private sector are the stakeholders and beneficiaries of our
government. The Federal Government's role is derivative and subordinate
to the rights of the individual. Unless demonstrably harmful to the
fabric of society--and falling squarely within the powers granted by
the Constitution--the government should not interfere with the private
sector. However, where conduct is destructive to society (physically,
economically, and in some cases morally), the Constitution allows the
government to punish, restrain, or direct private sector conduct. In
addition, the private sector has an obligation to fund the necessary
operations of government through the taxation system.
Capitalism and free markets serve consumers and allocate resources
more efficiently than centralized government. That said, markets serve
society-not the other way around. The government should only rarely
intervene in the market mechanism, for that interference will only harm
society by misallocating resources or inhibiting the flow of capital.
The government should intervene where there is market failure
(geographic, externalities, etc.), or when private sector conduct is
directly harmful to others interests (economic, environmental,
physical, etc.). Finally, there is a narrow role for government to
advance national interests and international opportunities through
trade and statesmanship. In many circumstances those interventions are
justified and necessary to meet the call of national security and
intelligence gathering.
Government programs should be created under only the narrowest of
circumstances because our national experience is that eliminating any
Federal program is extraordinarily difficult, resulting in waste of
taxpayer resources and an inability to meet other national needs. That
said, a government program should be eliminated under either of two
sets of circumstances. First, if it has accomplished its mission or
outlived its usefulness (that is, the goals are achieved or
circumstances have changed such that the goals are no longer
necessary). Second, is when national priorities and limited resources
dictate that cuts be made in some programs to fund more critical needs.
6. Describe the current mission, major programs, and major
operational objectives of the department/agency to which you have been
nominated.
NTIA is charged by statute to be the advisor the President and the
Administration on telecommunications matters. In addition, it is the
co-manager, with the FCC of the Nation's spectrum resource. It is the
regulator of the use of the spectrum by Federal users. It also is the
lead agency in administering the U.S. Government's contract with ICANN
to manage the Internet domain name system.
7. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
department/agency and why?
(1) Financial, technical, and regulatory instability. Our
telecommunications sector has moved from monopoly regulation to
competition -the groundbreaking policy shift set forth in the 1996
Telecommunications Act. In that time it has also incurred tens of-
billions-of dollars in new debt and seen an equity explosion that
turned out to be the tech and telecom bubble. It is also the laggard
sector coming out of economic recession. On top of those challenges,
the pace of technological change in the computing, fiber-optic, and
wireless industries continues to exponentially increase the efficiency
of legacy and new equipment alike. Policy vision and advocacy are very
difficult in the face of so many obstacles to clarity and uncertainty
regarding the parameters of technical and financial equilibrium.
(2) Ability to focus resources on efforts to determine technical
truth. We have made great progress in the management of the spectrum in
the last two years. But, continued progress is fully dependent on
technical, engineering truth and expertise. NTIA (and the FCC) must
endeavor to ensure that available resources are sharply focused to
fully test and develop models to answer the questions posed by recent
technological breakthroughs.
(3) Lack of understanding. Many current NTIA personnel are not
aware of lack full understanding of the technological and market forces
that are daily impacting telecommunications and technology sectors.
NTIA will be required to overcome resource, experience, and technical
limitations, to render the policy judgments it will be called upon to
make. To complicate matters, it will need to be particularly focused on
retaining many of its most knowledgeable employees are eligible for
retirement in the next 5 years.
8. In reference to question number six, what factors in your
opinion have kept the department/agency from achieving its missions
over the past several years?
As an initial matter, one has to acknowledge what has worked well
in the past few years: spectrum policy. The strength of those efforts
have flowed from leadership from the President, the Secretary of
Commerce, and the Chairman of the FCC. In turn that leadership has been
fostered by technical support and professional staff work. With that in
mind, the following are the factors that limit NTIA's effectiveness:
Labor inflexibility. NTIA is very limited in its ability to
hire the expertise necessary in a rapidly changing environment.
A need may be immediate (and the hiring system does not
accommodate those needs) or short term (largely incompatible
with the civil service system).
Misallocation of resources. NTIA is not allowed to shift its
resources to meet current demands because the resource focus is
driven by historic demands (e.g., grant programs versus
spectrum testing).
The plight of the telecommunications sector. The financial,
technical, and regulatory instability of the telecommunications
sector have limited policy vision at the same time that
political acrimony has been at its height.
9. Who are the stakeholders in the work of this department/agency?
The primary stakeholders are the American consumer, the American
investor, private sector spectrum users, Federal agency spectrum users,
technology companies, and the all users of telecommunications services.
10. What is the proper relationship between the position to which
you have been nominated, and the stakeholders identified in question
number nine?
The stakeholders are the primary generators of information and
support for decisions. However, because decisions often impact some
stakeholders favorably and others unfavorably, the Assistant Secretary
must be impartial, technical and fair in resolving policy conflicts. If
confirmed, I will be an impartial decisionmaker who takes the views of
all stakeholders into account.
11. The Chief Financial Officers Act requires all government
departments and agencies to develop sound financial management
practices.
(a) What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to
ensure that your department/agency has proper management and accounting
controls?
If confirmed, I will work to ensure NTIA complies with all of its
financial obligations, including the Chief Financial Officers Act. My
responsibility is to provide the leadership that prioritizes sound
financial management, and to make sure adequate resources are provided
to make sure NTIA meets its departmental goals.
(b) What experience do you have in managing a large organization?
I have run NTIA as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 18 months,
including the last 3 as Acting Assistant Secretary. I have also served
as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy to the Department of Commerce.
Prior to joining the Administration, I was a senior executive at
Verizon Wireless and ran an organization responsible for state
regulatory and legislative public policy for all 50 states. And, I ran
a Congressional office and managed its budget.
12. The Government Performance and Results Act requires all
government departments and agencies to identify measurable performance
goals and to report to Congress on their success in achieving these
goals.
(a) What benefits, if any, do you see in identifying performance
goals and reporting on progress in achieving those goals?
Setting goals and reporting on progress achieves several sound
management benefits including: focus on efficient use of resources;
measurement of progress toward goals; and accountability.
(b) What steps should Congress consider taking when a department/
agency fails to achieve its performance goals? Should these steps
include the elimination, privatization, downsizing, or consolidation of
departments and/or programs?
Ideally, an agency and Congress are in close enough communication
that failure does not occur. However, it if does; them Congress must
determine the reasons for the failure (e.g., lack of leadership, lack
of resources, change in circumstances, etc.). Typically those
determinations are undertaken through the oversight process. And, yes,
the steps of privatization, downsizing, and consolidation are certainly
tools. However, given the obligation to make the government as
efficient as possible at all times and high deficit levels, those tools
may be appropriate at any time, including failure.
(c) What performance goals do you believe should be applicable to
your personal performance, if confirmed?
If confirmed, I believe that my accountability should be measured
by the effectiveness of my management of the spectrum in partnership
with the FCC, the timeliness and the quality of my policy advice to the
President and the Administration, my compliance with applicable laws,
and my ability to effectively lead NTIA to meet the President's call to
be ``one united Administration serving the needs of the American
people.''
13. Please describe your philosophy of supervisor/employee
relationships. Generally, what supervisory model do you follow? Have
any employee complaints been brought against you?
My philosophy of supervisor/employee relationships is one of
leadership, trust and accountability. It is the supervisor's job to
lead the agency. That means setting the course, providing the
resources, setting priorities and making decisions. The employee's
responsibility is to trust and support the directions of the
supervisor, and to discharge their obligations in a professional and
timely manner. And, if either fail, they stand accountable. I follow a
supervisory model that fully empowers an employee to make all decisions
within their authority, competence and experience requiring hands-on
direction only when necessary. And, when initiatives are achieved and
progress is outstanding, the employee is fully recognized for their
role in bringing it about.
14. Describe your working relationship, if any, with the Congress.
Does your professional experience include working with committees of
Congress? If yes, please explain.
I believe my working relationship with Congress is very strong. I
have worked on a number of issues including spectrum policy, Internet
policy, and telecommunications policy with Members and staff. I have a
strong appreciation for the importance and challenge of legislative
work. Prior to joining NTIA, my primary source of Congressional
experience was as Administrative Assistant to Congressman Rick White
(WA-01), who was a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. In that
capacity, I worked extensively with House Commerce, House Leadership,
and with Senate Commerce Committee staff on many legislative matters.
15. Please explain what you believe to be the proper relationship
between yourself, if confirmed, and the Inspector General of your
department/agency.
If confirmed, I would support the Inspector General and require all
personnel in my organization to cooperate with any activities of the
Inspector General's office.
16. In the areas under the department/agency's jurisdiction to
which you have been nominated, what legislative action(s) should
Congress consider as priorities? Please state your personal views.
If confirmed, I look forward to being responsive to the
Administration's and Congress's legislative priorities. As a personal
matter, several telecommunications and Internet issues should be
priorities to Congress, including:
--Passing the Spectrum Relocation Trust Fund Legislation
--Passing legislative initiatives proposed as part of the
President's Spectrum Policy Initiative (including
authorizations to agencies to share in the benefits of improved
spectrum management practices)
--Giving the FCC authority to levy market-oriented, efficiency
enhancing spectrum fees on licensed spectrum users
--Passing legislation removing regulatory uncertainty in the
wireline voice and broadband service markets
17. Within your area of control, will you pledge to develop and
implement a system that allocates discretionary spending in an open
manner through a set of fair and objective established criteria? If
yes, please explain what steps you intend to take and a time frame for
their implementation. If not, please explain why.
Yes. If confirmed, I will effectively participate in the Department
of Commerce system that allocates discretionary spending based on
national priorities, determined in an open manner and objective
criteria. As required by the General Performance and Results Act, I
will provide Congress, the Department of Commerce and the Executive
Office of the President the data and analysis required to determine the
appropriate allocation of resources to NTIA. Those efforts are already
well under way for the 2005 Administration budget proposal. If
confirmed, I intend to timely and professionally meet the information
demands of the Administration and Congress in finalizing the 2005
budget, and developing the 2006 budget.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Halpern?
STATEMENT OF CHERYL FELDMAN HALPERN, NOMINEE
TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING
Ms. Halpern. You'll forgive me if I'm not quite that
succinct.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today and discuss my
nomination to the Board of Directors of the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting. I am deeply grateful to the President for
nominating me.
The Public Broadcasting Act, CPB's governing statute, sets
a high standard for public broadcasting's performance. It
charges CPB with providing universal services to all Americans,
especially those underserved audiences, including children and
minorities, with ensuring that program content be balanced,
objective, and free from editorial bias, and with developing
quality programmings reflecting the diversity, creativity, and
accomplishments of American society and culture.
Recent technological developments, together with the
financial and demographic changes that have impacted the media,
have also created new challenges and opportunities for public
broadcasting. Public television competes today in a broad,
multichannel environment, while public radio faces an
environment seeking increased consolidation. However, the
technological advances, especially the Internet services, offer
public broadcasting a new opportunity with which to reach and
serve the American audience. The challenge to finance the
production of programming that can be delivered effectively,
using all methods of transmission, remains and expands when
embracing these new technology advances.
Our Nation's commitment to education at a time when we are
initiating what will be a prolonged war on terrorism reinforces
the need, perhaps now more than ever, to broadcast the
fundamental values and ideals that define America--freedom, the
rule of law, tolerance, and respect. These are messages that
commercial broadcasting does not prioritize. For commercial
broadcasters, the audience is perceived as the advertiser's
targeted consumer. For public broadcasters, the audience is
perceived as citizens with a right to access news and
information, as well as culture and the arts.
Much of the work in which I have been engaged has focused
on communicating and educating children and adults, both
domestically and abroad, about America and our way of life. As
the national co-chairman of the character education program
``Words Can Heal,'' I've introduced children, most recently in
Los Angeles and Chicago, to the power or words. ``Words Can
Heal'' effectively integrates school administrators, teachers,
parents, and students, K-through-12, in a program that teaches
not to verbally abuse one another and encourages the use of
language that is civil, even when disagreeing.
Through my service on the board of the International
Republican Institute, I have been privileged to visit and
observe countries trying to build democracy. The establishment
of working democratic systems is a slow and potentially painful
process. The goal of democratic political stability continues
to be challenged by the problems resulting from economic
recession and from ethnic and national tensions. The free flow
of information, together with education, is essential to the
process. There exists a thirst for knowledge about democracy
with an abundance of questions to be answered.
As a member of the board for International Broadcasting
and, later, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, I was proud to
be a part of an organization that effectively reaches and
provides the meaningful answers about freedom and democracy to
audiences around the world. I have learned much from my
experiences with international broadcasting, and am grateful
for the opportunity to have served. I will always remember the
appreciation, expressed time and again, for the news and
information that our U.S. Government-funded international
broadcasting entities provided.
My year of service on the CPB board has made me aware of
how important the dissemination of information is to our own
young people. A recent survey of students at our Nation's top
colleges found significant gaps in their knowledge of American
history. Only about a third knew what the Emancipation
Proclamation granted. Less than two thirds were able to say
when the Civil War was fought, even within a 50-year time
spread. This ignorance is unacceptable and needs to be
addressed. We cannot successfully present America's case to the
world unless we can define who we are, where we come from, why
we believe as we do, and what we value.
Public broadcasting, with access to nearly a hundred
percent of American homes, can reach these young people and
educate them. Our goal is not merely to develop interesting
programs, but to provide a meaningful impact so that many more
young Americans will understand our Nation's history, learn to
appreciate its principles, and assume civic responsibility.
This is a way not only to perpetuate what we most treasure
about America, but to assure continuity for the future.
As America faces the new challenges of today and looks
toward the future, we are engaged in a debate over how America
will define itself with respect to the rest of the world.
Americans need to understand the evolving challenges to
freedom, democracy, and the American way of life. The CPB hopes
to present these and so many other timely and important issues
with in-depth discussions by respected thinkers representing
diverse points of view. The goal of this initiative goes beyond
creating interesting and engaging programming. It will endeavor
to inform and, thereby, encourage the inquiry and debate that
is fundamental to our democratic process.
As President Madison so wisely noted, what spectacle can be
more edifying or more seasonable than that of liberty and
learning, each leaning on each other for their mutual and
surest support?
Mr. Chairman, I believe that public broadcasting has a
vital role to play in equipping Americans for their ever-
changing role in the world. I look forward to being a part of
this enterprise committed to communicating, educating, and
sharing the precious messages embodied in the American
experience.
Many thanks again for your invitation to appear here today.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Ms.
Halpern follow:]
Prepared Statement of Cheryl Feldman Halpern, Nominee to be a Member of
the Board of Directors, Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss my nomination to the
Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I am
deeply grateful to the President for nominating me.
The Public Broadcasting Act, CPB's governing statute, sets a high
standard for public broadcasting's performance. It charges CPB with
providing universal services to all Americans--especially those
underserved audiences, including children and minorities--with ensuring
that program content be balanced objective and free from editorial bias
and with developing quality programs reflecting the diversity,
creativity and accomplishments of American society and culture.
Recent technological developments together with the financial and
demographic changes that have impacted the media have also created new
challenges and opportunities for public broadcasting. Public television
competes today in a broad multi-channel environment while public radio
faces an environment seeking increased consolidation. However, the
technological advances, especially the Internet services, offer public
broadcasting a new opportunity with which to reach and serve the
American audience. The challenge to finance the production of
programming that can be delivered effectively using all methods of
delivery remains and expands when embracing these new technology
advances.
Our Nation's commitment to education at a time when we are
initiating what will be a prolonged war on terrorism reinforces the
need-perhaps more than ever-to broadcast the fundamental values and
ideals that define America: freedom, the rule of law, tolerance and
respect. These are messages that commercial broadcasting does not
prioritize. For commercial broadcasters the audience is perceived as
the advertisers' targeted consumer. For public broadcasters, the
audience is perceived as citizens with the right to access news and
information as well as culture and the arts.
Much of the work in which I have been engaged has focused on
communicating and educating children and adults, both domestically and
abroad, about America and our way of life. As the National Co-Chairman
of a character education program ``Words Can Heal'', I have introduced
children, most recently in Los Angeles and Chicago, to the power of
words. ``Words Can Heal'' effectively integrates school administrators,
teachers, parents and students--K-12--in a program that teaches not to
verbally abuse one another and encourages the use of language that is
civil, even when disagreeing.
Through my service on the Board of the International Republican
Institute, I have been privileged to visit and observe countries trying
to build democracy. There exists a thirst for knowledge about democracy
with an abundance of questions to be answered.
As a member of the Board for International Broadcasting and later
the Broadcasting Board of Governors, I was proud to be part of an
organization that effectively reaches and provides answers to audiences
around the world. I will always remember the appreciation expressed by
so many for the news and information that our U.S. Government funded
international broadcasting entities have provided.
My year of service on the CPB Board made me aware of how important
the dissemination of information is to our own young people. A recent
survey of students at our Nation's top colleges found significant gaps
in their knowledge of American history. Only about a third knew what
the Emancipation Proclamation granted. Less than two thirds were able
to say when the Civil War was fought-even within a 50 year spread.
This ignorance is unacceptable and needs to be addressed. We can
not make America's case to the world unless we can define who we are,
where we came from, why we believe as we do and what we value. Public
Broadcasting, with access to nearly 100 percent of American homes, can
reach these young people and educate them. Our goal is not merely to
develop interesting programs, but to provide a meaningful impact so
that many more young Americans will understand our Nation's history,
learn to appreciate its principles and assume civil responsibility.
This is a way not only to perpetuate what we most treasure about
America, but to assure continuity for the future.
As America faces a new and uncertain future, we are engaged in a
debate over how America will define itself with respect to the rest of
the world. Americans need to understand the evolving challenges to
freedom, democracy and the American way of life. The CPB hopes to
present these and so many other timely and important issues with in
depth discussions by respected thinkers representing diverse points of
view. The goal of the initiative goes beyond creating interesting and
engaging programming. It will endeavor to inform and thereby encourage
the inquiry and debate that is fundamental to our democratic process.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that public broadcasting has a vital role
to play in equipping Americans for their ever changing role in the
world. I look forward to being part of this enterprise. My thanks again
for your invitation to appear here today. I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Cheryl Halpern
Cheryl Halpern was appointed to the CPB board by President Bush in
August 2002. She holds a B.A. degree in political science from Barnard
College of Columbia University, and an M.B.A. in finance from New York
University. While living in New York City, she was associated with
WKCR-FM, where she produced both news and classical music programs.
Additionally, she has held an F.C.C. radio engineer's license.
In 1990, Halpern was confirmed as a member of the Board for
International Broadcasting and as a director of Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty. She is currently serving as a member of the Broadcasting Board
of Governors with oversight responsibility for Voice of America, Radio
and TV Marti, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Worldnet, Radio Free
Asia, and Radio Free Iraq.
Halpern's wide range of civic involvement includes participation on
the boards of the International Republican Institute, the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, and the Lexington Institute. She is the
chair of the UN Advisory Council of B'nai B'rith International. Halpern
is also the national chairperson of character education program for the
Words Can Heal organization.
Halpern resides in New Jersey with her husband Fred.
______
a. biographical information
1. Name: (Include any former names or nick names used.)
Cheryl Miriam Feldman Halpern.
2. Position to which nominated: Member of the Board of Directors
for the Corporation For Public Broadcasting.
3. Date of nomination: On August 22, 2001, the President announced
his intent to appoint. Recess appointment: August 6, 2002.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
Residence: Information not released to the public.
Office: Corporation For Public Broadcasting, 1401 Ninth Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004.
5. Date and place of birth: November 20, 1954; New Haven,
Connecticut.
6. Marital status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married. Husband: Frederick Michael Halpern.
7. Names and ages of children: (Include stepchildren and children
from previous marriages.)
Yonina Halpern, age 23; Maeira Halpern, age 20; Alexander
Halpern, age 17.
8. Education: (List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received)
Beth Chana Academy, 1968-1969.
Richard C. Lee Public High School, 1969-1971.
Barnard College, 1971-1975, B.A. 1975.
NYU Graduate School of Business Administration, MBA Finance,
1980.
9. Employment record: (List all jobs held since college, including
the title or description of job, name of employer, location of work,
and dates of employment.)
Member, Corporation For Public Broadcasting (08/02 to present)
401 Ninth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20004
Member, FCYMA/H, LLC (09/00 through present)
42 Rockledge Drive, Livingston, NJ 07039
Member, Peppermint Spice, LLC (1998 through present)
42 Rockledge Drive, Livingston, NJ 07039
Manager, Mountain Ledge Investors, LLC (11/99 through present)
42 Rockledge Drive, Livingston, NJ 07039
Partner, Integrated CFH Associates, G.P. (04/92 through
present)
42 Rockledge Drive, Livingston, NJ 07039
Member, Broadcasting Board of Governors (09/95 through 12/02)
330 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 3360, Washington, DC 20036
President, CFYM Associates, Inc. (1984 through 1997)
42 Rockledge Drive, Livingston, NJ 07039
Secretary-Treasurer, Porcupine Enterprises, Inc. (05/88 through
1996)
42 Rockledge Drive, Livingston, NJ 07039
Partner, Then As Now, L.P. (12/88 through present)
42 Rockledge Drive, Livingston, NJ 07039
Member, Board for International Broadcasting (10/90 to 08/95)
1-21 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036
10. Government experience: (List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State or
local governments, other than those listed above.)
Member, NJ-Israel Commission.
11. Business relationships: (List all positions held as an officer,
director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or
consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.)
Corporation For Public Broadcasting--Member of Board
International Republican Institute--Member of Board
Integrated CFH Associates, G.P.--Partner
Joseph Kushner Hebrew Academy--Member, Board of Education
Washington Institute for Near East Policy--Trustee
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith--Regional Board Member
Community Relations Council, Metro West Jewish Foundation--
Board Member
NJ/Israel Commission--Board Member
Then As Now, L.P.--General Partner
Fred Halpern Children's Trust--Trustee
Fred Halpern Irrevocable Trust--Trustee
Mountainledge Investors, LLC--Manager
Republican Jewish Coalition--Honorary Chairman, Vice Chairman
Bionexus Foundation*--Director
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Inactive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lexington Institute--Trustee
F.C.Y.M.A./H., LLC--Member
Peppermint Spice, LLC--Member
B'nai B'rith International--Chairman, UN Affairs Committee,
B'nai B'rith Center for Public Policy
Words Can Heal--National Chairman, Character Education
12. Memberships: (List all memberships and offices held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.)
International Republican Institute--Member of Board of
Directors
Republican Jewish Coalition--Honorary Chairman, Vice Chairman,
National Chairman
B'nai B'rith International--Chairman, UN Affairs Committee,
B'nai B'rith Center for Public Policy
Joseph Kushner Hebrew Academy--Member, Board of Education Board
of Trustees
Anti-Defamation League--Member, Regional Advisory Board
Beaver Creek Club--Member
Capitol Hill Club--Member
Carnegie Club--Member
N.J. Israel Commission--Member
Lexington Institute--Board of Trustees Member
Words Can Heal--National Chairman, Character Education
Washington Institute for Near East Policy--Lifetime Trustee
Business Executives for National Security
National Committee on American Foreign Policy
American Horse Shows Association--Life Member
Central N.J. Home for the Aged--Life Member
AMIT Women--Life Member
Interparliamentary Council Against Anti-Semitism--International
Advisory Board
Yemenite Federation
Metrowest Federation--Community Relations Council
Holocaust Resource Foundation at Kean College--Young Leadership
Simon Wiesenthal Center--Member
Synagogue of The Suburban Torah Center
Congregation B'Nai Vail
B'Nai B'rith International--Life Member
Essex County Ritualarium
Barnard College Fund
Congregation B'nai Joseph DME
Institute of Semitic Studies, Princeton University
Vail Valley Foundation
A.I.P.A.C.
J.I.N.S.A.
Jewish National Fund
A.R.M.D.I.
Albert Einstein School of Medicine
Yeshiva University
CLAL
Dorot
Yad Vashem
Rabbinical College of America
N.C.S.Y.
Orthodox Union
Empower America
Bikur Cholim of Rockland County
Freedom House
Stem College for Women of Yeshiva University, New York, New
York
United States Dressage Foundation
United Jewish Appeal
Jewish Policy Center
Robin Hood Foundation
The Actors Fund
Broadway Cares/Equity Fights Aids
United Cerebral Palsey
UMDNJ Foundation for MS
Children of Chernobyl
Hillel Foundation
Creative Coalition
I believe that the above accurately lists current memberships.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
I have never run for public office. I have, however, served as the
following:
Coalitions Chairman--N.J. Republican Party
Member, Finance Committee--N.J. Republican Party
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 10
years.
Finance Committee--Whitman for Governor
Advisor--Haytaian for Senate
Commission for the Future of Republican Party N.J.
Finance Committee Zimmer for Congress
Member--Team 100
Co-Chairman--National Jewish Campaign Committee--Bush '88
Chairman--N.J. Jewish Campaign Committee for Bush '88
Consultant--Peter Dawkins for Senate
Consultant--James Courter for Governor
Consultant--James Courter for Congress
Member--Kemp Associates
Member--N.J. Bush for President--Voter Inclusion Program
Campaign Volunteer Joseph Lieberman for State Legislature
Consultant--Assemblyman Bob Franks
Consultant--Bob Franks for Congress
Co-Chairman Jewish Americans for Franks, Senate Campaign
Co-Chairman--Victory Planning Group, N.J. Republican Party
Trustee--N.J. Governor's Club
Honorary Chairman--Republican Jewish Coalition
Advisor--Congressman Mike Ferguson
Advisor--Congressman Eric Cantor
Member--National Republican Senatorial Committee
Finance Committee--Bush for President 2000
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past 10 years.
1992
Friends of Bruce Herschensohn $1,000.00
Friends of Lee Solomon $1,000.00
AIPAC $1,000.00
Friends of Dean Gallo $1,500.00
Victory '92 $2,000.00
AIPAC $1,000.00
Lieberman Committee $500.00
AIPAC $1,000.00
Friends of Bob Franks $2,000.00
Jack Kemp for President '88 Debt Retirement $1,000.00
Friends of Christie Whitman $3,000.00
(together with spouse)
RNSEC $2,400.00
Convention '92 RSC $590.00
N.J. RSC $250.00 + $250.00
N.J. Republican Party $1,370.87
1993
Friends of Bob Littel $500.00
Friends of Christie Whitman $600.00
Bob Martin Election Fund $500.00
Assembly Republican Majority $1,000.00
Friends of Clayton Fong $500.00
Friends of Bobbie Kilberg $1,000.00
Garden State PAC $500.00
Linsenberg for Controller $500.00
AIPAC $1,000.00
Franks for Congress $1,000.00
Friends of Bob Bennett $1,000.00
Friends of Trent Lott $1,000.00
Zimmer for Congress $1,000.00
N.J. Republican State Committee $1,000.00
1994
Friends of John Ashcroft $1,000.00
Friends of Olympia Snowe $500.00
Friends of Pete Wilson $1,000.00
Friends of Bill Brock $500.00
Friends of Bob Franks $500.00
(together with spouse)
Friends of Spence Abraham $1,000.00
Friends of Chuck Haytaian $500.00 + $ 200.00
NATPAC $1,000.00
1995
Friends of Bob Dole $2,000.00
Friends of Bob Franks $1,000.00
AIPAC $500.00
Friends of Dick Zimmer $1,000.00
Friends of Pete Wilson $1,000.00
Forbes for President $1,000.00
Friends of Al D'Amato $1,000.00
Friends of Arlen Spector $500.00
1996
NJRSC (State Account) $12,500.00 + $ 200.00
Victory '96 $500.00
Gary Polland $500.00
NY Salute '96 Non-Federal $10,000.00
Friends of Nancy Mayer $ 500.00
Friends of Jesse Helms $500.00
Friends of Phil Gramm $500.00
Friends of Larry Pressler $500.00
Franks for Congress $1,000.00
Friends of Frelinghuysen $1,000.00
Friends of Rudy Boschwitz $1,000.00
Fox for Congress $1,000.00
Schiff for Congress $1,000.00
Alexander for President $1,000.00
RNSEC $10,000.00
NAT PAC $1,000.00
Victory '97 $1,000.00
Franks for Congress $1,000.00
Friends of Kit Bond $1,000.00
Fox for Congress $1,000.00
Whitman for Governor $1,000.00 + $200.00
RNSEC $25,000.00
1998
RN SEC $25,000.00
Missouri Republican Party $1,000.00
Gisele Stavert for Congress $1,000.00 + $1,000.00
Lundgren for Governor $1,000.00
Friends of Rodney Frelinghuysen $1,000.00 + $1,000.00
Friends of Bob Franks $2,000.00
Joel Weingarten Election Fund $500.00
Mike Ferguson for Congress $500.00
Americans for Hope, Growth & Opportunity $1,000.00
Republican Leadership Council $500.00
Sam Brownback for Senate $1,000.00
Voinovich for Senate $1,000.00
Ensign for Senate $1,000.00
Coverdell Good Government Committee $1,000.00
Citizens for Arlen Spector $1,000.00
1999
Friends of Joe Lieberman For Senate $1,000.00
Celebration 2000 $1,000.00
Whitman for Senate $1,000.00 + $1,000.00
Bush for President $1,000.00
Bush-Cheney 2000 Compliance Committee $1,000.00
Weingarten for Congress $1,000.00
Bob Franks for Senate $1,000.00 + $1,000.00
Zimmer 2000 $2,000.00
1999 NJ State Republican Victory Fund $5,000.00
New Republican Majority Fund $1,000.00
Trent Lott for Mississippi $1,000.00
2000
Ferguson for Congress $1,000.00
Zimmer 2000 $1,000.00
New Birth Freedom PAC $1,000.00
RN SEC $28,600.00
Friends of Olympia Snowe $1,000.00
Cantor for Congress $1,000.00
Friends of Jim Saxton $1,000.00
Burris Governor 2000 $1,200.00
Friends of Senator Kyl $1,000.00
2001
Senate Republican Majority $1,000.00
Senator Kyrillos Committee $1,000.00
Election Fund Paul DiGaetano $500.00
Di Francesco for Governor $5,200.00
(together with spouse)
NRSC Non-Federal Account $10,000.00
Friends of Bob Franks $5,200.00
(together with spouse)
AIPAC $500.00
Friends of Tom Kean, Jr. $2,200.00
Friends of Sam Brownback $2,000.00
Friends of Mike Ferguson $1,000.00
N.J. Republican State Committee $5,000.00 + $5,000.00
2002
Soaries for Congress $1,000.00
Friends of Mike Ferguson $1,000.00
Friends of John Cornyn $1,000.00
Friends of Bob Martin $200.00 + $500.00
Republican Party of L.A. $500.00
N.J.R.S.C. $1,000.00
Friends of Diane Allen $2,000.00
Friends of Joe Kyrillos $1,000.00
Friends of Gary Polland $500.00
Friends of Forrester for Senate $4,000.00
(together with spouse)
Friends of Joe Biden $1,000.00
American Spirit--PAC $1,000.00
America's Foundation f/k/a Fight--PAC $5,000.00
Friends of Linda Lingle $6,000.00
14. Honors and awards: (List all scholarships, fellowships,
honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals and any
other special recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.)
State of Connecticut Scholar; Mortgage Bankers' Association
Award for Graduate Study;
NYC Police Department Auxiliary Police Scholastic Achievement
Award.
Certificate of Appreciation and Achievement, Broadcasting Board
of Governors.
15. Published writings: (List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.)
``Energy Security Is Our National Responsibility'', by Cheryl
Halpern and Michael Epstein, Washington Jewish Week, on-line
edition 3/17/02;
``Our Energy Security Is Our National Responsibility'', by
Cheryl Halpern and Michael Epstein, New Jersey Jewish News, 3/
14/02
``Azerbaijan's Support The Kind That Muslim States Should
Emulate'', by Cheryl Halpern and Jason Epstein, New Jersey
Jewish News, 11/08/01
``Encouraging Muslim Moderation'', by Cheryl Halpern and Jason
Epstein, Forward, 11/16/01
``Bush, Goldsmith And The Faith-Based Policy'' Letter to
Editor, Forward (2/16/01)
``Bush Offers Fresh Start, New Promise For Education'', by
Cheryl Halpern and Matthew Brooks, N.J. Jewish News (2/1!01)
``50th Anniversary Of Voice Of America Transmission From
Tangier, Morocco'' Speech (3/8/00)
``Put Syria Back On Drug List'' Letter to Editor, Jewish Voice
(December 1997)
Testimony before N.J. State Assembly Committee on The
Judiciary, in capacity as National Chairman of National Jewish
Coalition regarding the N.J. Religious Freedom Restoration Act
(11/16/97)
``School Vouchers Give Parents More Power To Choose'', by
Cheryl Halpern and Matthew Brooks, N.J. Jewish News (10/16/97)
``Look Again-President Clinton Is No Friend Of Israel'', by Max
Fisher, Cheryl Halpern and Matthew Brooks, The Jewish News (4/
3/97)
``The Republicans' Actions Speak Louder Than Words'', by Max
Fisher and Cheryl Halpern, Washington Jewish Week (10/11/96)
Salute To The Republican Congress-Speech (8/14/96)
``Nevertheless'', Letter to the Editor, Washington Jewish Week
(1/26/96)
``In Congress Jews Should Trust The Republicans'', by Richard
Fox, Cheryl Halpern and Sheldon Kamins, The Jewish News (10/17/
96)
Women's Rights: A Perspective On Beijing Conference (11/15/95)
``Jewish Community Should Effect Change'', ``Swing To GOP?'',
by Max Fisher and Cheryl Halpern (10/94)
``Reflections On The Accord'', NJC Bulletin (9/93, 10/93)
``Convention Was A Great Success In Eyes Of Jewish
Republicans'', by Cliff Sobel and Cheryl Halpern, The Jewish
News (8/92)
``George Bush Kept Promises, Has Been Tested In Crisis'', by
Max Fisher, George Klein & Cheryl Halpern, The Jewish Standard,
The Jewish News (10/92)
``In Praise of Quayle'', by Cheryl Halpern and Elliot Felig,
Letter to Editor, The Jewish News (5/89)
``Dodd & Weicker Should Stop Meddling In The Israel Issue'',
Letter to Editor, New Haven Register (4/88)
16. Speeches: (Provide the Committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated.)
Excerpt from transcript--''International Broadcasting: Its Mission,
Budget And Future'' (attached as Exhibit ``A'')
17. Selection:
(a) Do you know why you were chosen for this nomination by the
President?
I believe that I was selected for this position because of my
experience over the last 11 years in government funded broadcasting.
(b) What do you believe in your background or employment experience
affirmatively qualifies you for this particular appointment?
In 1990 I was nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the
Senate to serve on the Board for International Broadcasting (the
``BIB''). In 1995, when the BIB ceased to exist due to congressional
1egislation, I was the only carryforward to serve on the Broadcasting
Board of Governors. I was subsequently renominated by President Clinton
and confirmed by the Senate. I am confident that my experience with the
board responsible for providing non-commercial programming for diverse
international audiences, especially youth, for the past 11 years will
be beneficial to the board serving the multi-cultural American
audience.
b. future employment relationships
1. Will you sever all connections with your present employers,
business firms, business associations, or business organizations if you
are confirmed by the Senate?
Not Applicable. Appointment is for 60-day Board position.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, explain.
Not Applicable. Appointment is for 60-day Board position.
3. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements after
completing government service to resume employment, affiliation or
practice with your previous employer, business firm, association or
organization?
Not Applicable. Appointment is for 60-day Board position.
4. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any
capacity after you leave government service?
Not Applicable. Appointment is for 60-day Board position.
5. If confirmed, do you expect to serve out your full term or until
the next Presidential election, whichever is applicable? Yes.
c. potential conflicts of interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients or customers.
I have no ``financial arrangements'' other than my employment
listed in A(9) and (11) above and my assets (and the financial benefits
therefrom) listed in response to G(1) below.
2. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
None to my knowledge.
3. Describe any business relationship, dealing or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated?
None to my knowledge.
4. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have
engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy.
As National Chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition I
encouraged and supported legislation that was of concern to the Jewish
community. As a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors I
encouraged support for international broadcasting.
5. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items. (Please provide a copy of any trust or other agreements.)
If I become aware of a potential conflict of interest, I
immediately will consult with the counsel to the Corporation For Public
Broadcasting and any other assigned ethics officer and will take
appropriate steps to address the conflict issue in a manner completely
satisfactory to counsel and the ethics officer.
6. Do you agree to have written opinions provided to the Committee
by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to which you are
nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics concerning potential
conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to your serving in this
position? Yes.
d. legal matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct by, or been the subject of a complaint to
any court, administrative agency, professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, provide
details. No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or held by
any Federal, State or other law enforcement authority for violation of
any Federal, State, county or municipal law, regulation or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details. No.
3. Have you or any business of which you were an officer ever been-
involved as a party in interest in an administrative agency proceeding
or civil litigation? If so, provide details.
I was a plaintiff in the C.F.Y.M. Associates, Inc., a New Jersey
Corporation and Cheryl Halpern v. Andrew Philbrick d/b/a Hunter Farms,
Ltd. and Cynthia Webber matter, Civil Action No. 87-2713 (REC), United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, commenced July 8,
1987; resolved by entry of Stipulation and Order of Settlement on
September 25, 1987 and Supplemental Stipulation and Order of Settlement
on October 23, 1987.
I was a defendant in Ernest E. Pell v. RFE/RC, Inc., et al, Civil
Action No. 94-2290 JR, United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, dismissed as against me by Order filed March 26, 1995.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including please of guilty or nolo
contendre) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? No.
5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with-your nomination.
I believe that my international broadcasting experience and my
proven ability to work on a bipartisan basis over several
administrations (Bush, Clinton and now Bush) is worthy of this
Honorable Committee's attention.
e. relationship with committee
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines set by congressional committees for information?
Yes. If confirmed, I will work with the Board and CPB staff to
ensure that all CPB reports, and other requests for information, are
delivered in a timely fashion.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures?
Yes. If confirmed, I will work with the Board and CPB staff to
ensure that any congressional witnesses and whistleblowers are
protected from reprisals.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the committee with requested
witnesses, to include technical experts and career employees with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the committee?
Yes. If confirmed, I will work with the Board and CPB staff to
ensure that Committee requests for witnesses are honored.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
f. general qualifications and views
1. How have your previous professional experience and education
qualifies you for the position for which you have been nominated.
I believe that I was selected for this position because of my
experience over the last 11 years in government funded broadcasting. In
1990, I was nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate to
serve on the Board for International Broadcasting (the ``BIB''). In
1995, when the BIB ceased to exist due to congressional legislation, I
was the only carryforward to serve on the Broadcasting Board of
Governors. I was subsequently renominated by President Clinton and
confirmed by the Senate. I am confident that my experience with the
board responsible for providing non-commercial programming for diverse
international audiences, especially youth, for the past 11 years will
be beneficial to the CPB board in serving the multi-cultural American
audience.
2. Why do you wish to serve in the position for which you have been
nominated?
I believe that there needs to be a balanced, non-commercial public
broadcasting presence on both radio and television that will provide
programming for the entire spectrum of American society. It will be an
honor to serve on the Corporation For Public Broadcasting and help to
continue to bring this to fruition.
3. What goals have you established for your first two years in this
position, if confirmed?
I look forward to working together with my fellow Board Members
towards providing greater programming for children and towards
integrating digital technology.
4. What skills do you believe you may be lacking which may be
necessary to successfully carry out this position? What steps can be
taken to obtain those skills?
Digital technology is ever changing. I would hope to continue to be
brought up to date by professionals, as was the case on the
Broadcasting Board of Governors.
5. Please discuss your philosophical views on the role of
government. Include a discussion of when you believe the government
should involve itself in the private sector, when society's problems
should be left to the private sector, and what standards should be used
to determine when a government program is no longer necessary.
In the context of broadcasting, government should serve to foster
and support accuracy and balance in content, and innovation and
integrity in format. Government should err on the side of restraint in
its dealings with the private sector, balancing its policy goals with
the ideals of a free society. A government program which fails
consistently to achieve its objectives in a cost-effective manner
should be the subject of review.
6. Describe your department/agency's current mission, major
programs, and major operational objectives.
CPB is not a Federal agency, but its mission is based in its
authorizing statute: ``to encourage the development of public radio and
television broadcasting including the use of such media for
instructional, educational, and cultural purposes,'' and ``to encourage
the growth and development of non-broadcast telecommunications
technologies . . .'' for similar purposes. CPB distributes Federal
funds and provides a variety of other support to more than 1,000 public
television and radio stations throughout the country. CPB is committed
to funding programs and services that inform, enlighten and enrich the
public. CPB is dedicated to encouraging the development of programming
that involves creative risks and addresses the needs of unserved and
underserved audiences, including children and minorities.
7. What do you believe to be the to three challenges facing the
board/commission and why?
The CPB faces significant challenges as it continues to meet the
goals set by the Public Broadcasting Act. Among these are:
(i) Strengthening the Public Broadcasting System's financial
situation. Ensuring a firm financial footing is critical if
Public Broadcasting is to offer the programming and services
that our Nation deserves and demands.
(ii) Realizing the tremendous potential afforded by the new digital
technologies.
(iii) Ensuring that public broadcast programming is responsive to
local needs and addresses national concerns in an objective and
balanced manner without compromising its editorial
independence.
8. In reference to question number six, what factors in your
opinion have kept the board/Commission from achieving its missions over
the past several years?
While I do not agree that the CPB has failed in achieving its
missions, it has faced obstacles limiting its success. No factor has
proven a greater constraint than the lack of adequate funding. This is
a time of dramatic technological change.
(i) Television stations are struggling to raise the funds needed to
meet the Government mandate to convert to digital transmission
technology, and radio stations will soon face a ``marketplace
mandate'' of their own.
(ii) Television's interconnection system--the backbone of the
distribution network--is due for replacement, and should be
upgraded to take advantage of the opportunities offered by new
technology.
(iii) Both TV and radio will need to develop programming to obtain
the full benefit of these new capabilities.
At this time of increasing cost demands, stations have found
raising funds from sources other than the Federal Government
challenging. Public Broadcasting competes with a range of other non-
profit community service organizations for support from charitable
foundations, individual contributors and corporate underwriting dollars
that have become less available in the current environment. State
governments, another major source of funding, are struggling with their
own budgetary problems.
In this context, the Federal appropriation becomes more important
than ever. Although Federal dollars account for only about 15 percent
of the total system revenues, they are a vital and stable source of
funding. Preservation of CPB's advance appropriation is particularly
crucial in providing broadcasters and producers the certainty they need
to plan award-winning programming and to attract non-government
funding.
9. Who are the stakeholders in the work of this agency?
The stakeholders are the American people, including the Congress,
educators, public broadcasting stations, parents, students, and the
unserved/underserved audiences such as children and minorities as
prescribed by the statute.
10. What is the proper relationship between your position, if
confirmed, and the stakeholders identified in question number nine?
If confirmed, I will hold a position of trust. I would represent
the interests and needs of all stakeholders. When those interests and
needs conflict, I would do my utmost to look objectively at all sides.
11. Please describe your philosophy of supervisor/employee
relationships. Generally, what supervisory model do you follow? Have
any employee complaints been brought against you?
The position for which I have been nominated is one of oversight,
not direct personnel management. In general, however, my philosophy is
that we are all responsible for our actions within our scope of
authority. I believe a Board Member's role is to provide vision, goals
and priorities for supervisors to carry out. Open lines of
communication, and accountability ensure successful relationships.
12. Describe your working relationship, if any, with the Congress.
Does your professional experience include working with committees of
Congress? If yes, please describe.
As a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors I have worked
with both the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House
Committee on International Relations.
13. In the areas under the department/agency's jurisdiction, what
legislative action(s) should Congress consider as priorities? Please
state your personal views.
One of the most pressing legislative needs facing the public
broadcasting community is efficient and timely transition from analog
to digital broadcasting. Other priorities include ensuring universal
access for all Americans as the various technologies and platforms
evolve. Congress should continue to provide adequate funding to insure
that the Corporation's technological capability keeps pace with the
digital age, so that the public may be served.
14. Please discuss your views on the appropriate relationship
between a voting member of an Independent board or commission and the
wishes of a particular president.
I am very grateful to be given this opportunity to serve the
American public. If confirmed, I will be guided by the provisions of
the Public Broadcasting Act in carrying out my responsibilities.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Courtney, Senator Breaux wanted to be here to introduce
you. As you know, he's a friend and supporter, and his
statement will be included in the record as support for your
nomination.
Welcome.
[The prepared statement of Senator Breaux follows:]
Introduction of Beth Courtney by Hon. John Breaux
It is my great pleasure to introduce Beth Courtney, nominee for the
Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Ms.
Courtney currently serves as President and Chief Executive Officer of
Louisiana Public Broadcasting, where she has been a skillful leader.
Her extensive broadcasting experience, along with the support she
enjoys from Louisianians will be a great asset to her as a board
member. I enthusiastically support Ms. Courtney and urge the Senate to
swiftly confirm her.
After graduating with a Bachelor's degree in History and Speech,
Beth earned her Master's degree in European History and Government from
Louisiana State University. She also received an Honorary Doctorate
from Southeastern Louisiana University.
Ms. Courtney is Past Chairman of the Board of America's Public
Television Stations (APTS) and former Vice Chairman of the Board of the
Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). She is co-chairman of a PBS/APTS
initiative to negotiate carriage of public broadcasting channels on
digital cable and direct broadcast satellites. Ms. Courtney has also
chaired the PBS education, membership and common carriage task forces.
Beth Courtney started her career in broadcasting as a Capitol
Correspondent. She was named Communicator of the Year in 1984, elected
Broadcaster of the Year by American Women in Radio & Television (AWRT)
in 1988, and was one of the YWCA's Women of Achievement in 1991. Ms.
Courtney was inducted into the Louisiana Center for Women in Government
Hall of Fame in 1999.
Ms. Courtney has testified before Congress on numerous occasions,
including the House Appropriations and Commerce Committees. She has
shared her expertise as a broadcasting professional on numerous
telecommunications technology advisory committees on local, state and
national levels.
Beth is a highly regarded and admired individual in Louisiana. She
has earned the respect of her colleagues in the broadcasting industry,
not only in Louisiana but throughout the country. She is very active in
her community, which has made her well respected both personally and
professionally. She is married to Bob Courtney, President of Courtney
Communications. Her daughter Julia is an attorney.
I commend the President for putting forth her nomination and
believe she will make an excellent board member.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH COURTNEY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, LOUISIANA
PUBLIC BROADCASTING
Ms. Courtney. Thank you, Senator.
Good morning again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. It's an honor to appear before you today. I'd like
to thank the President for nominating me to serve on the Board
of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
I would also like to express my gratitude for all those who
supported my nomination, especially those from my home state of
Louisiana. It has been my privilege and pleasure to work most
of my adult life in public broadcasting. Growing up in a
military family, we moved frequently, but we always knew that
Louisiana was home. And when I had the opportunity to help
start a new public television network in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, I enthusiastically agreed. We began in the basement
of the State Department of Education in 1976, and today we
operate multiple analog and digital stations across the state.
New technology that has been spoken of in earlier testimony
today has allowed us to provide Internet services to schools as
well as direct satellite instruction.
I remain committed to the incredible power of this medium
to teach. I have seen it make a difference in the lives of our
citizens. My colleagues in public television have afforded me
the opportunity to represent them on numerous boards. I have
served as Vice Chairman of the Board of PBS and Chairman of the
Board of the Association of Public Television Stations.
The people involved in this enterprise are passionate and
dedicated public servants. We are not perfect. This is a
difficult time for all of us. The digital conversion costs are
staggering, especially in a nonprofit world. But we have
managed to chart a course that will combine both public and
private funds to meet that challenge. We also operate in a
multichannel environment that was not there when I began in
1976, but I will say, with great conviction, that we are needed
more than ever in each community we serve.
In Louisiana, we've just completed a six-part series on the
history of our state released this year to coincide with the
200th anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase. It includes a
book, teacher's guide, website, many outreach activities,
including a statewide history bee. This was the last project
that Dr. Steven Ambrose was involved in before his death. He's
the on-camera host and we've captured for all time his
excellent teaching. He does the introduction of the book, and
this is something, I think, that will be a treasure for our
citizens. It's not a one-time television program or a series
broadcast from a remote location across the country. This is a
local service for a local community. My effort is repeated
every day by the public television stations in your
communities.
On the national level, we can share our best efforts with
audiences across the United States. My inspiration for our
history series came from a young producer who visited me in the
early 1980s. We helped him produce a documentary on Huey Long.
That producer was Ken Burns, and, of course, he went on to
present on PBS his landmark series on the Civil War, baseball,
and jazz. We remain in touch, and I look every day for that
next young producer who can so enrich our lives. Local public
television stations have a responsibility to nurture that
creativity.
We also tackled difficult subjects that should be explored.
This week, NOVA presented ``The Elegant Universe.'' I'm a
history major, but even I tried to understand String Theory and
the theory of everything. This is science and continuing
education at its very best.
It's in the area of news and public affairs that I think we
can make an even greater contribution. This past Sunday--in
fact, I was on C-SPAN last night, I think--I moderated a
statewide debate between our gubernatorial candidates. This was
just one program in an ongoing series of debates and political
forums taking place across this country on public television
and public radio stations, intelligent discourse and in-depth
reporting sorely needed in the political process.
Louisiana has had its share of colorful politics, and
Louisiana public broadcasting has always had the reputation of
fair, balanced, and accurate reporting. Public television and
public radio should be an oasis for complex and difficult
stories in a complicated world.
We should also guard jealously our safe haven for children.
This commitment to noncommercial and nonviolent children's
programming is at the heart of our mission. I can testify
firsthand about the measurable differences made in the lives of
children because of programs such as Ready to Learn. Arthur,
Clifford, and Big Bird are familiar names to your children and
grandchildren, but a lifeline for the many children living in
poverty in my state.
Thank you for allowing me to share a few of my thoughts on
an institution that I feel is vital to this country. If you
give me the privilege of serving on the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting's Board of Directors, I will do my best to see
that we are good custodians of public funds and public airways.
I will welcome your suggestions and gladly report our progress.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm a fortunate
person to be able to serve in a job that I love and be given
the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of those
around me. My 90-year-old father, who's a retired Air Force
general, and my brother, who is an assistant U.S. attorney in
San Diego, and here with me today, have both taught me much
about the importance of public service. I hope you will
consider giving me the opportunity to offer my service to the
Corporation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Ms.
Courtney follow:]
Prepared Statement of Elizabeth (Beth) Courtney, President and CEO,
Louisiana Public Broadcasting
Good Morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. It is an
honor to appear before you today. I would like to thank the President
for nominating me to serve on the Board of Directors for the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I would also like to express my
gratitude for all of those who supported my nomination, especially
those from my home state of Louisiana.
It has been my privilege and pleasure to work most of my adult life
in Public Broadcasting. Growing up in a military family, we moved
frequently, but we always knew that Louisiana was home and when I had
the opportunity to help start a new public television network in Baton
Rouge, I enthusiastically agreed. We began in the basement of the State
Department of Education in 1976 and today we operate multiple analog
and digital stations across the state. New technology has allowed us to
provide Internet services to schools as well as direct satellite
instruction. I remain committed to the incredible power of this medium
to teach. I have seen it make a difference in the lives of our
citizens.
My colleagues in public television have afforded me the opportunity
to represent them on numerous boards. I have served as Vice Chairman of
the Board of PBS and Chairman of the Board of the Association of Public
Television Stations (APTS). The people involved in the enterprise are
passionate and dedicated public servants. We are not perfect. This is a
difficult time for all of us. The digital conversion costs are
staggering in a nonprofit world, but we have managed to chart a course
that will combine both public and private funds to meet that challenge.
We also operate in a multi-channel environment that was not there when
I began in 1976. But I will say with great conviction that we are
needed more than ever in each community we serve. In Louisiana, we have
just completed a six part series on the history of our state. Released
this year to coincide with the 200th anniversary of the Louisiana
Purchase, it includes a book, teacher's guide, website, and many
outreach activities including a statewide history bee. This is not a
one time television program or series broadcast from a remote location
across the country. This is a local service for a local community. My
effort is repeated every day by the public television stations in your
communities.
On the national level, we can share our best efforts with audiences
across the United States. My inspiration for our history series came
from a young producer who visited me in the early 80s. We helped him
produce a documentary on Huey Long. That producer was Ken Bums and of
course he went on to present on PBS his landmark series on the Civil
War, Baseball, and Jazz. We remain in touch and I look every day for
that next young producer who can so enrich our lives. Local public
television stations have a responsibility to nurture creativity. We
also tackle difficult subjects that should be explored. This week NOVA
presented The Elegant Universe. I am a history major but even I tried
to understand String Theory and the theory of everything. This is
science and continuing education at its very best.
It is in the area of news and public affairs that I think we can
make an even greater contribution. This past Sunday I moderated a
statewide debate between our gubernatorial candidates. This was just
one program in an ongoing series of debates and political forums taking
place across this country on public television and radio stations.
Intelligent discourse and in depth reporting is sorely needed in the
political process. Louisiana has had its share of colorful politics and
Louisiana Public Broadcasting has always had the reputation of fair,
balanced and accurate reporting. Public television and public radio
should be an oasis for complex and difficult stories in a complicated
world.
We should also guard jealousy our safe haven for children. This
commitment to noncommercial and nonviolent children's programming is at
the heart of our mission. I can testify first hand about the measurable
differences made in the lives of children because of the reading
program, Ready to Learn. Arthur, Clifford, and Big Bird are familiar
names to your children and grandchildren, but a lifeline for the many
children living in poverty in my state.
Thank you for allowing me to share a few of my thoughts on an
institution that I feel is vital to this country. If you give me the
privilege of serving on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Board
of Directors, I will do my best to see that we are good custodians of
public funds and public airways. I will welcome your suggestions and
gladly report our progress. I thank you for the opportunity to testify.
I am a fortunate person to be able to serve in a job that I love and to
be given the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of those
around me. My ninety year old father who is a retired Air Force
General, and my brother who is an assistant U.S. Attorney in San Diego
and here with me today, have both taught me much about the importance
of public service. I hope you will consider giving me the opportunity
to offer my service to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Thank
you.
______
Beth Courtney
Beth Courtney is President and CEO of Louisiana Public Broadcasting
(LPB), which includes a statewide public television network with
stations in Shreveport, Monroe, Alexandria, Lafayette, Lake Charles,
Baton Rouge and an affiliated station in New Orleans. LPB is also
responsible for the support and development of public radio throughout
Louisiana and serves as the state's educational technology resource
center.
She is Past Chairman of the Board of America's Public Television
Stations (APTS) and former Vice Chairman of the Board of the Public
Broadcasting Service (PBS). She is co-chairman of a PBS/APTS Board
initiative to negotiate carriage of public broadcasting channels on
digital cable and direct broadcast satellites. Ms. Courtney has chaired
the PBS education, membership, and common carriage task forces. She
currently serves on the Board Satellite Educational Resources
Consortium (SERC), the Board of the Organization of State Broadcasting
Executives (OSBE), the National Forum for Public Television Executives
(NFPTE) and the National Educational Telecommunications Association
(NETA).
Ms. Courtney has testified before Congress on numerous occasions,
including the House Appropriations and Commerce Committees, as an
advocate and spokesperson for public broadcasting. She has appeared on
William F. Buckley's Firing Line, CBS' Sunday Morning, CNN's Crossfire,
and the Freedom Forum. She shared her expertise as a broadcasting
professional on numerous telecommunications technology advisory
committees on national, state and local levels.
Ms. Courtney has a BS in History & Speech and an MA in European
History and Government from Louisiana State University, an Honorary
Doctorate from Southeastern Louisiana University, and she completed UC/
Berkeley's course in public broadcasting management. Prior to her
appointment as CEO of LPB in 1985, she was LPB's Executive Producer.
During her tenure numerous award-winning programs were produced and
aired statewide; some aired nationally and internationally.
Ms. Courtney started her career in broadcasting as a Capitol
Correspondent, reporting on state government and moderating numerous
political debates. She was named Communicator of the Year in 1984,
elected Broadcaster of the Year by American Women in Radio & Television
(AWRT) in 1988, and was one of the YWCA's Women of Achievement in 1991.
Ms. Courtney was inducted into the Louisiana Center for Women in
Government Hall of Fame in 1999. She is active in many community and
civic organizations, including Rotary, the Public Affairs Research
Council of Louisiana, Inc. (PAR), Baton Rouge Local Organizing
Committee, Inc. Senior Olympics (BRLOC), Jr. League Advisory Board,
Leadership Louisiana and is Vice-Chairman of the WLAE Board. She is a
member and past president of the Baton Rouge Press Club, a member of
the State Technology Advisory committee and a member of the Women's
Network.
In addition to her administrative duties, Ms. Courtney hosts the
Annual Louisiana Young Heroes Awards, is the emcee of the Louisiana
Legends Gala and recently co-hosted an award winning call-in program on
breast cancer.
Ms. Courtney was also honored by the National D-Day Museum for her
work both behind the scenes and as co-host of the three-hour live
program ``Louisiana Honors Its Veterans'' which celebrated the
contributions of the state's World War II veterans and the opening of
the National D-Day Museum.
Ms. Courtney is married to Bob Courtney, President of Courtney
Communications. Her daughter, Julia is an attorney.
______
a. biographical information
1. Name (Include any former names or nick names used): Elizabeth
(Beth) Hardy Courtney.
2. Position to which nominated: Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, member, Board of Directors.
3. Date of nomination: March 20, 2003.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):
Residence: Information not released to the public.
Office: Louisiana Public Broadcasting, 7733 Perkins Road, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana 70810.
5. Date and place of birth: May 15, 1945; Shreveport, Louisiana.
6. Marital status (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name):
married to Robert Louis Courtney.
7. Names and ages of children (Include stepchildren and children
from previous marriages):
Julia George Moore (33) daughter; Audrey Courtney (33)
stepdaughter; Jason Courtney (31) stepson; Joel Courtney (26)
stepson; Christopher Courtney (24) stepson.
8. Education (List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received):
Louisiana State University--B.S. 1966
Louisiana State University--MA. 1973
Southeastern Louisiana University, Honorary Doctorate 1996
9. Employment record (List all jobs held since college, including
the title or description of job, name of employer, location of work,
and dates of employment.):
Louisiana Educational Television Authority--President & CEO of
Louisiana Public Broadcasting--7733 Perkins Road, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana 70810--May, 1982 to present.
Louisiana Educational Television Authority-News Director for
Louisiana Public Broadcasting, May 1976 to May 1982
Free Lance Reporter 1972-1976
Graduate Assistant LSU 1967-1970
Stars and Stripes Newspaper 1966-1967
10. Government experience: (List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State or
local governments, other than those listed above.)
Governor's Taskforce on Telecommunications
State Technology Advisory Committee
Chairman of the Board, the Association of Public Television
Stations (APTS)
Mayor's Taskforce Smart Growth
Mayor's Taskforce Children's Coalition
Chairman of Louisiana's Film & Video Archives Commission
11. Business relationships: (List all positions held as an officer,
director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or
consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.)
Vice Chairman Public Broadcasting Service
Chairman Satellite Educational Resources Consortium
Chairman Organization State Broadcasting Executives
Chairman SECA
Chairman of Forum of Public Television Executives
University Pointe (Chairman of the Board, non-profit retirement
Community)
Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center (Board of Directors)
First Benefit Capital Insurance Company (Board Member)
12. Memberships: (List all memberships and offices held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.)
University Methodist Church
Rotary Club of Baton Rouge
Junior League Sustainer
Public Affairs Research Council (Board of Directors)
Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce (Board of Directors)
Baton Rouge Green (Board of Directors)
Chi Omega Alumni
Capital Area Women's Network
Leadership Louisiana
13. Political affiliations and activities:
I have been employed as a political reporter, on camera host or
public television executive since 1972. Therefore, I have not been a
participant in any political party activities or elections. Serving as
a moderator for numerous statewide debates, it is important for me to
be very clearly non-partisan.
14. Honors and awards: (List all scholarships, fellowships,
honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals and any
other special recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.)
Honorary Doctorate of Humanities--Southeastern University
Communicator of the Year (PRAL)
Outstanding Women of Achievement (YWCA)
Louisiana Women's Political Hall of Fame
Marketer of the Year
15. Published writings: (List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.)
Numerous letters in Visions Magazine, a monthly publication sent to
Friends of Louisiana Public Broadcasting. An introduction to An
Illustrated History Of Louisiana published 2003 by the Foundation for
Excellence in Louisiana Public Broadcasting.
16. Speeches: (Provide the Committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated.)
Please see attachments as Graduation Speech 2002 & Congressional
Testimony
17. Selection:
(a) Do you know why you were selected for the position to which you
have..been nominated by the President?
My name was suggested by the board and officers of the Association
of Public Television Stations (APTS). The authorizing legislation of
CPB indicates one member shall be selected from among individuals who
represent the licensees and permittees of public television stations.
It is my honor to be considered for this position.
(b) What in your background or employment experience do you believe
affirmatively qualifies you for this particular appointment?
Since 1976, I have worked for Louisiana Public Broadcasting helping
to build our network into a vital community institution. In a state
that has great challenges, we recognize the importance of public
broadcasting as an educational medium. On the national level, I have
served as Chairman of the Board for APTS and Vice Chairman of the Board
for PBS. When there is a thorny subject facing public broadcasting, I
have co-chaired our national negotiation for voluntary carriage of PBS
stations by cable providers and direct broadcast satellite. I have also
chaired industry groups on common carriage of programs, membership and
education. On several occasions, I have testified before Congress as a
representative of the station community. I hope my knowledge of our
industry will be helpful to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
b. future employment relationships
1. Will you sever all connections with your present employers,
business firms, business associations, or business organizations if you
are confirmed by the Senate?
Not applicable. Position is for 60 day Board position.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, explain.
Not applicable. Position is for 60 day Board position.
3. Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements after
completing government service to resume employment, affiliation, or
practice with your previous employers, business firms, associations, or
organizations?
Not applicable. Position is for 60 day Board position.
4. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any
capacity after you leave government service?
Not applicable. Position is for 60 day Board position.
5. If confirmed, do you expect to serve out your full term or until
the next Presidential election, whichever is applicable?
If confirmed, I would hope to serve out my full term.
c. potential conflicts of interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers.
I am a state employee with retirement benefits after age 60. I am a
participant in the state's deferred compensation plan and also have an
individual IRA.
2. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
My investments consisting of mutual funds and bank money market
accounts are modest and should not create any potential conflicts of
interest.
3. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated?
My personal business dealings should result in no conflict of
interest. I would recuse myself.
4. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have
engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy.
I have testified before the House Appropriations Committee when it
was chaired by Representative Bob Livingston of Louisiana. My testimony
was in support of the funding for Public Broadcasting. I have also
testified before the House Commerce Committee chaired by Representative
Billy Tauzin of Louisiana. At the Congressman's request, I discussed
the digital transition and the authorization of the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting.
5. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items. (Please provide a copy of any trust or other agreements.)
I anticipate no potential conflict of interest, but I would rely on
the General Counsel to give me advice if any question should arise.
6. Do you agree to have written opinions provided to the Committee
by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to which you are
nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics concerning potential
conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to your serving in this
position?
I agree to have any such opinions provided to the Committee.
d. legal matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative
agency, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other
professional group? If so, please explain. No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance,
other than for a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain. No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or
civil litigation? If so, please explain?
No, other than routine licensing proceedings before the Federal
Communications Commission.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? No.
5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in
connection with your nomination.
I came from a military family with a strong sense of public
service.
e. relationship with committee
1. Will you ensure that your board/commission complies with
deadlines for information set by congressional committees? Yes.
2. Will you ensure that your board/commission does whatever it can
to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so?
Yes. I look forward to the opportunity.
f. general qualifications and views
1. How does your previous professional experiences and education
qualify you for the position for which you have been nominated?
I have 27 years experience in public broadcasting and a passion for
the potential of this medium. I also understand the many challenges we
face both fiscally and technically. I hope my knowledge will prove
useful to the Corporation and to Congress.
2. Why do you wish to serve in the position for which you have been
nominated?
As a station representative, I hope to bring the grassroots
perspective to this board. Local service to citizens is the foundation
of public broadcasting.
3. What goals have you established for your first two years in this
position, if confirmed?
I would like to explore how the Federal appropriations are spent
and how success is measured. Additionally, I would like to better
understand the strategic planning role of the Corporation.
4 What skills do you believe you may be lacking which may be
necessary to successfully carry out this position? What steps can be
taken to obtain those skills?
Although I have legislative responsibilities for encouraging the
growth of Public Radio in Louisiana, I do not have an in-depth
knowledge of the industry on a national basis. There are numerous
meetings I would attend that would educate me fairly quickly.
5. Please discuss your philosophical views on the role of
government. Include a discussion of when you believe the government
should involve itself in the private sector, when society's problems
should be left to the private sector, and what standards should be used
to determine when a government program is no longer necessary.
Our representative democracy has a clear responsibility to secure
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for our citizens. As a
wealthy nation, we should not allow our poor to go hungry nor our sick
to suffer. Government should allow individual freedom of opportunity,
religion, and speech. I also believe in personal responsibility and
private investment. Government must provide security, but should also
encourage business development, cultural investments, and charitable
donations. Some government programs are created to address a crisis,
but continue past the need. I think changing technology may also
require a change in the way government does business.
6. Describe the current mission, major programs, and major
operational objectives of the board/commission to which you have been
nominated.
It is my understanding that the role of the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting is to encourage the growth and development of public radio
and television broadcasting as media for instructional, educational,
and cultural purposes. The specifics of programs and objectives will be
something I must learn if the Senate sees fit to confirm my nomination.
7. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
board/commission and why?
My initial impressions of the challenges to the Corporation come
from a station perspective and include a chronic lack of funding, a
changing media environment, and an expensive fundamental change in
technology.
8. In reference to question number six, what factors in your
opinion have kept the board/commission from achieving its missions over
the past several years?
The Board has had to respond to rapidly changing technologies at
the same time an economic downturn at both the national and state
levels has seriously impacted public broadcasting.
9. Who are the stakeholders in the work of this board/commission?
I mentioned many of them previously, but I should say that every
taxpayer and every viewer or listener has a clear stake in this
enterprise.
10. What is the proper relationship between the position to which
you have been nominated, and the stakeholders identified in question
number nine?
I believe we have a responsibility to listen and to respond to all
stakeholders with policies that support the legislation that created
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
11. Please describe your philosophy of supervisor/employee
relationships. Generally, what supervisory model do you follow? Have
any employee complaints been brought against you?
Although I was brought up in a military family, I believe in a
``team approach'' to running our organization. We have clear civil
service guidelines, and I have never had a complaint brought against
me.
12. Describe your working relationship, if any, with the Congress.
Does your professional experience include working with committees of
Congress? If yes, please explain.
I have a long and good working relationship with every member of
the Louisiana delegation. I have known many of them and their staffs
prior to their coming to Washington. As I mentioned previously, I have
testified before both the House Appropriations and Commerce Committees.
As the Chairman of the Board of APTS, I have had the pleasure of
meeting with numerous Senators and Congressmen.
13. In the areas under the board/commission jurisdiction to which
you have been nominated, what legislative action(s) should Congress
consider as priorities? Please state your personal views.
I would hope Congress would reauthorize the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting and would adequately fund our transition to digital
broadcasting.
14. Please discuss your views on the appropriate relationship
between a voting member of an independent board or commission and the
wishes of a particular president.
I would hope to serve the President as a thoughtful, honorable, and
responsible board member.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Courtney.
Mr. Van Tine?
STATEMENT OF KIRK K. VAN TINE, COUNSELOR TO THE SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Van Tine. Chairman McCain, Senator Lautenberg, and
Senator Allen, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today. And I especially want to thank Senator Allen for his
kind introduction.
It's a privilege to be here, and a great honor to have been
selected by President Bush and Secretary Mineta for this
position. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with
all the Members of this Committee on the many important
transportation issues facing the Department today.
During the past 2 years as General Counsel of the
Department, I had the opportunity to work on a wide variety of
transportation issues with a wide variety of people both inside
and outside the Department. I learned a great deal during that
period, and I believe that, if I were confirmed, my experience
as General Counsel would be valuable preparation for the duties
of the Deputy Secretary.
I understand the complexity of the issues before the
Department, and I have learned, from Secretary Mineta, the
importance of listening and establishing a dialogue among those
with conflicting views. One of the hallmarks of Secretary
Mineta's tenure has been a persistent effort to achieve
consensus where there are differences of opinion, and I view
that as one of the fundamental responsibilities of the Deputy
Secretary, as well.
If confirmed, I'd also hope to work closely with all the
Members of the Committee in connection with the Secretary's
legislative priorities. As you know, the most urgent of these
right now are reaching agreement on the FAA reauthorization and
the reauthorization of the many surface transportation programs
affecting the safety and infrastructure of our transportation
system.
I'd also hope to participate in an active dialogue with
this Committee to help shape a new and stable future for
national intercity passenger rail service in this country. And,
Senator Lautenberg, on that point I would just like to assure
you that the Department understands your concerns and is
committed to the continuation of intercity passenger rail
service, and I'd especially like to talk to you further about
those issues, if I were confirmed.
A second objective would be to help develop a seamless,
smoothly functioning working relationship with the Department
of Homeland Security. While our relationship is already
cooperative and productive, there are numerous issues pending
now and numerous issues that will arise in the future where
close coordination and collaboration would help substantially
to ensure that both the security and economic consequences of
our respective actions are understood before, rather than
after, the actions are taken. We owe it to the transportation
industries we deal with every day and to the American people,
as a whole, to ensure that both missions are accomplished as
efficiently and intelligently as possible.
Finally, a traditional role for the Deputy Secretary is to
focus on improving the management of the Department's programs.
While Secretary Mineta's team has made excellent progress in
that regard over the past few years, there is always room for
improvement, as our Inspector General reminds us from time to
time. As General Counsel, I worked closely with the Inspector
General in addressing numerous management issues within the
Department, and I would expect to maintain that excellent
working relationship in the future.
Secretary Mineta has emphasized the need to deliver a full
measure to the American taxpayers in programs we administer,
and I believe that, if confirmed, my background would equip me
well for that task. I know you're extremely busy, and I'd like
to thank the Committee for scheduling today's hearing. I'd be
pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr.
Van Tine follow:]
Prepared Statement of Kirk K. Van Tine, Nominee to be Deputy Secretary,
U.S. Department of Transportation
Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings and members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to consider my
nomination to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of Transportation.
It is a privilege to be here and a great honor to have been selected by
President Bush and Secretary Mineta for this position. If confirmed, I
look forward to working closely with all the members of this Committee
on the many important transportation issues facing the Department
today.
During the past two years, as General Counsel of the Department, I
had the opportunity to work on a wide variety of transportation issues
with a wide variety of people, both inside and outside the Department.
I learned a great deal during that period, and I believe that, if I
were confirmed, my experience as General Counsel would be valuable
preparation for the duties of the Deputy Secretary.
I understand the complexity of the issues before the Department,
and I have learned from Secretary Mineta the importance of listening
and establishing a dialogue among those with conflicting views. One of
the hallmarks of Secretary Mineta's tenure has been a persistent effort
to achieve consensus where there are differences of opinion, and I view
that as one of the fundamental responsibilities of the Deputy Secretary
as well.
If confirmed, I would also hope to work closely with all the
members of this Committee in connection with the Secretary's
legislative priorities. As you know, the most urgent of those
priorities right now are reaching agreement on the FAA reauthorization,
and the reauthorization of the many surface transportation programs
affecting the safety and infrastructure of our transportation system
that will expire next February under the current TEA-21 extension. I
would also hope to participate in an active dialogue with this
Committee to help shape a new and stable future for national intercity
passenger rail service in this country.
A second objective, both in the short term and the long term, would
be to help develop a seamless, smoothly functioning working
relationship with the Department of Homeland Security in the many areas
where our respective responsibilities intersect. While our relationship
is already cooperative and productive, there are numerous issues
pending now, and numerous issues that will arise as the Department of
Homeland Security becomes fully operational, where close coordination
and collaboration would help substantially to ensure that both the
security and economic consequences of our respective actions are
understood before, rather than after, the actions are taken. We owe it
to the transportation industries that we deal with every day, and to
the American people as a whole, to ensure that both missions are
accomplished as efficiently and intelligently as possible.
Finally, a traditional role of the Deputy Secretary is to focus on
improving the management of the Department's programs. While Secretary
Mineta's team has made excellent progress in that regard over the past
few years, there is always room for improvement, as our Inspector
General reminds us from time to time. As General Counsel, I worked
closely with the Inspector General in addressing numerous management
issues within the Department, and I would expect to maintain that
excellent working relationship in the future. I take very seriously the
Inspector General's recommendations regarding the top management
challenges facing the Department, including particularly the need for
effective oversight of ``mega projects.'' Secretary Mineta has
emphasized the need to deliver ``full measure'' to the American
taxpayer in the programs we administer, and I believe that, if
confirmed, my background would equip me well for that task.
I know that you are extremely busy, and I would like to thank the
Committee for scheduling today's hearing. I would be pleased to respond
to any questions you may have.
______
a. biographical information
1. Name: (Include any former names or nick names used.) Kirk K. Van
Tine.
2. Position to which nominated: Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department
of Transportation.
3. Date of nomination: September 18, 2003.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
Residence: Information not released to the public.
Office: U.S. DOT, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
5. Date and place of birth: August 30, 1948; Syracuse, New York.
6. Marital status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Barbara B. Van Tine; maiden name Barbara A. Byers.
7. Names and ages of children: (Include stepchildren and children
from previous marriages.)
Mary Lindsay Van Tine, 22; Meredith Leigh Van Tine, 19.
8. Education: (List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received.)
1966 to 1970 U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD; B.S., June 1970
1975 to 1978 University of Virginia School of Law,
Charlottesville, VA; J.D. 1978
9. Employment record: (List all jobs held since college, including
the title or description of job, name of employer, location of work,
and dates of employment.)
1970-1975 Officer, U.S. Navy, various locations
1975-1978 Student, U. Va. School of Law, Charlottesville, VA
Summer 1976 Summer Associate, Law office of Northcutt Ely,
Washington, D.C.
Summer 1977 Summer Associate, Baker & Botts, Washington, D.C.
Summer 1977 Summer Associate, Hunton & Williams, Richmond, VA
1978-2001 Attorney, Baker Botts, L. L. P., Washington, D.C.
(Associate 1978-1986; Partner 1987-2001)
9/01 to Present General Counsel, U.S. Department of
Transportation
10. Government experience: (List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State or
local governments, other than those listed above.)
General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001-2003
U. S. Navy, 1966-1975
11. Business relationships: (List all positions held as an officer,
director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or
consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.)
Former Partner, Baker Botts, L.L.P
Former Partner, Boterlove (Baker Botts real estate partnership
in Houston office building where firm offices are located)
12. Memberships: (List all memberships and offices held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.)
Member, D.C. Bar Association
Member, City Club of Washington
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 10
years.
11/17/00 to 12/13/00 Provided legal services in support of George
W. Bush in connection with 2000 Presidential Election litigation in
Tallahassee, Florida.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past 10 years.
1999 The Bluebonnet Fund (Baker Botts Political Action
Committee, $522)
2000 The Bluebonnett Fund (Baker Botts Political Action
Committee, $522)
2001 The Bluebonnett Fund (Baker Botts Political Action
Committee, $540)
1999 George W. Bush, Republican Presidential Primary Campaign,
$1,000
14. Honors and awards: (List all scholarships, fellowships,
honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals and any
other special recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.)
Competitive Appointment to U.S. Naval Academy
National Defense Service Medal, U.S. Navy
Virginia Law Review
Order of the Coif (top 10 percent of law school class)
D.C. Bar Best Section Award, Litigation Section Co-chair, 1999-
2000
15. Published writings: (List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.)
``Financial Services Modernization:'' A Cure for Problem
Banks?, 69 Wash, U.L. Q. 809 (1991).
Enforcement Issues Under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 and the
Natural Gas Act of 1978, 16 Hous. L. Rev. 1025 (1979).
16. Speeches: (Provide the Committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated.) None.
17. Selection:
(a) Do you know why you were chosen for this nomination by the
President?
I believe I was chosen as a result of my background and experience
as General Counsel of the Department of Transportation for the past two
years and as a lawyer practicing in Washington, D.C. since 1978. As
General Counsel, I have gained substantial experience and familiarity
with a wide range of policy issues and administrative matters presently
before the Department of Transportation.
(b) What do you believe in your background or employment experience
affirmatively qualifies you for this particular appointment?
For the past two years, as the chief legal officer of the
Department, I have been responsible for the resolution of significant
substantive issues arising across the whole range of the Department's
activities. In addition, working with the modal Chief Counsels, I have
been responsible for the management of the Department's legal
personnel. My experience and training to date, both at the Department
and in private practice, have been directed towards solving practical
problems in ways that are consistent with law. Through my involvement
as General Counsel, I am already familiar with many of the important
issues facing the Department today, and I am well acquainted with many
of the key career staff and political appointees at the Department. I
have also gained experience with respect to the workings of government,
and have learned to represent the Department capably in the legislative
process and within the Executive Branch. Also relevant to the day-to-
day functions of the office of Deputy Secretary is my management
experience over the past 33 years in various positions in the U.S.
Navy, in a law firm, and at the Department.
b. future employment relationships
1. Will you sever all connections with your present employers,
business firms, business associations or business organizations if you
are confirmed by the Senate?
Not applicable (current DOT employee).
2. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, explain. No.
3. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements after
completing government service to resume employment, affiliation or
practice with your previous employer, business firm, association or
organization? No.
4. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any
capacity after you leave government service? No.
5. If confirmed, do you expect to serve out your full term or until
the next Presidential election, whichever is applicable? Yes.
c. potential conflicts of interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients or customers.
I have no such arrangements or agreements with any entity.
2. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
Please refer to Deputy General Counsel Opinion Letter.
3. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated?
Please refer to Deputy General Counsel Opinion Letter. In addition,
during 1995-1996, I served as lead counsel in one case against the
Department of Transportation, Mesa Air Group, Inc. v. Department of
Transportation, 87 F.3d 498 (D.C. Cir. 1996). That case concluded in
1996, and I have had no relationship with Mesa Air Group since that
date.
4. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have
engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy.
For the past two years, I have participated in DOT legislative
issues as necessary to carry out my duties as General Counsel.
5. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items. (Please provide a copy of any trust or other agreements.)
Please refer to the Deputy General Counsel Opinion Letter.
6. Do you agree to have written opinions provided to the Committee
by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to which you are
nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics concerning potential
conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to your serving in this
position? Yes.
d. legal matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct by, or been the subject of a compliant to
any court, administrative agency, professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, provide
details. No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details. No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in interest in an administrative agency
proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide details? No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? No.
5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination. None.
e. relationship with committee
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines set by congressional committees for information?
Yes, to the best of my ability.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures?
Yes, to the best of my ability.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the committee with requested
witnesses, to include technical experts and career employees with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the committee?
Yes, to the best of my ability.
4. Please explain how you will review regulations issued by your
department/agency, and work closely with Congress, to ensure that such
regulations comply with the spirit of the laws passed by Congress.
If confirmed, I expect that one of my primary responsibilities as
Deputy Secretary would be to supervise and work to improve the
rulemaking process within the Department. I would expect to be involved
in all major rulemaking efforts, with the goal of ensuring that all
rules issued by the Department comply with the letter and the spirit of
the laws passed by Congress. As part of that process, I would expect to
meet regularly with each of the operating administrations within the
Department to review the progress of their rulemaking efforts.
5. Describe your department/agency's current mission, major
programs, and major operational objectives.
The Department's primary mission with respect to every mode of
transportation is to promote safety. Other missions include, in
general, the need to maintain and improve the transportation
infrastructure, increasing transportation efficiency and capacity,
thereby relieving transportation congestion, the regulation of
transportation modes as authorized by statute, and the appropriate
balancing between development of transportation systems and the
protection of the environment. In addition, the Maritime Administration
promotes a healthy merchant marine in support of the defense posture of
the United States. The Department also works closely with the
Department of Homeland Security to improve the security of all modes of
transportation.
6. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
f. general qualifications and views
1. How have your previous professional experience and education
qualifies you for the position for which you have been nominated.
See response to Part A, items 17 (a) and (b) above.
2. Why do you wish to serve in the position for which you have been
nominated?
First and foremost, I have a genuine desire to be of service to the
United States. The actions of the Department of Transportation have a
direct impact on the daily lives of the American people and I would be
honored to play a role in helping to shape those actions. In addition,
I enjoy new challenges, and I believe that the position of Deputy
Secretary would be both intellectually challenging and professionally
stimulating.
3. What goals have you established for your first two years in this
position, if confirmed?
If confirmed, my immediate short term goal will be to meet with
each of the Administrators, reacquaint myself with the current issues
facing each of the operating administrations, and ensure that an action
plan to resolve those issues is in place and proceeding satisfactorily.
In addition to the remaining issues regarding DOT's 2004 appropriation,
the Department presently has pending reauthorization proposals for each
of its modes, and a reauthorization proposal for Amtrak is pending as
well. I would expect to be involved in those legislative matters and
would expect to work closely with Congress as it considers and enacts
authorizing legislation. Longer term, I would also expect to devote
substantial time and attention to a continuing review of the economic
condition of the airline industry, as it recovers from the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. On a continuing basis, I would work to
cement a strong working relationship and solid communication links with
the Department of Homeland Security, as we work together to address the
security challenges facing the Nation's transportation infrastructure.
Finally, I would hope to make significant progress in achieving the
Secretary's goal of improving and expediting the Department's
rulemaking process.
4. What skills do you believe you may be lacking which may be
necessary to successfully carry out this position? What steps can be
taken to obtain those skills?
As General Counsel, I worked closely with the previous Deputy
Secretary virtually every working day for almost two years. As a
result, I had daily opportunities to observe the considerable skill
with which he carried out his duties, and I learned a great deal from
watching him. While I am still relatively inexperienced in government,
I believe that my legal training and my experiences over the past two
years provide me with the basic skills necessary to carry out the
duties of the Deputy Secretary successfully.
5. Who are the stakeholders in the work of this agency?
The Department's primary stakeholders are the American people,
virtually all of whom have significant personal and economic interests
in the safety and efficiency of our transportation systems. Other
stakeholders, all of whom have major roles in improving the overall
quality of our transportation systems include Congress, the States,
local governments, commercial businesses that provide transportation
goods and services, and the labor forces who build and operate our
transportation network.
6. What is the proper relationship between your position, if
confirmed, and the stakeholders identified in question number ten.
If confirmed, one of my responsibilities as Deputy Secretary would
be to listen to the views of the stakeholders identified above, and
give those views appropriate weight in making decisions affecting the
operations of the Department. In balancing the views of various
stakeholders, the Department should be guided by the intent of Congress
as expressed in the statutes applicable to the Department's operations.
7. The Chief Financial Officers Act requires all government
departments and agencies to develop sound financial management
practices similar to those practiced in the private sector.
(a) What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to
ensure that your agency has proper management and accounting controls?
If confirmed, I would be responsible as Deputy Secretary for
ensuring the Department's compliance with all Acts of Congress,
including the Chief Financial Officers Act. As General Counsel, I have
worked closely with both the Chief Financial Officer and the Inspector
General to ensure full compliance with all legal requirements regarding
the Department's financial management. I understand the importance of
accounting controls and would ensure continued compliance with all
legal requirements to the best of my ability.
(b) What experience do you have in managing a large organization?
My management training and experience began, in a very small way,
on my first day at the U.S. Naval Academy, and my primary roles during
my subsequent service as an officer in the Navy were to lead and
manage. While I did not manage large numbers of people, I learned to
lead by example, to instill a sense of common purpose and pride in the
organization, to earn the respect of my subordinates by learning the
details of their work, and to value the contributions of all.
Between 1978 and 2001, I practiced law at the firm of Baker Botts,
L. L. P., eventually becoming the head of the Litigation Practice Group
in the Washington, D.C. office. When I left the firm, that practice
group consisted of approximately 40 lawyers and seven legal assistants,
for which I had management responsibility. Over the course of my 23
years at Baker Botts, I had various other management responsibilities
within the firm, serving as hiring partner for the Washington office
for nine years, serving on the firm-wide strategic planning committee,
serving on the firm-wide compensation committee, and serving on various
ad hoc budget and marketing committees. I also served on the Steering
Committee of the Law Practice Management Section of the D.C. Bar for
several years, serving as Co-Chair of the Section during 2000-01. While
no law firm experience can compare to the management challenges
presented by government service, I believe that, when I became General
Counsel of the Department in 2001, I was adequately prepared to assume
the management responsibilities associated with that position.
Since September 2001, as General Counsel, I have had primary
responsibility for managing the legal affairs of the Department, and
have been significantly involved in a wide range of other management
issues, including major administrative matters regarding the personnel,
working space and organization of the Department.
8. The Government Performance and Results Act requires all
government departments and agencies to identify measurable performance
goals and to report to Congress on their success in achieving these
goals.
(a) Please discuss what you believe to be the benefits of
identifying performance goals and reporting on your progress in
achieving those goals.
Performance goals and required reports are a valuable tool for both
Congress and the Department. For Congress, the requirement to establish
goals and report results provides a concrete way to assess an agency's
effectiveness in carrying out its missions. The required reports also
provide a way for Congress to identify specific problem areas at an
early stage. For the Department, the establishment of performance goals
is beneficial because the process of developing those goals requires
the Department to consider, discuss and decide among competing
priorities and possible policy choices and formulate an integrated and
coherent plan for achieving its objectives. In addition, the
requirement to submit reports is useful as a catalyst for establishing
internal deadlines in the organization and ensuring that necessary
actions move forward as expeditiously as possible. The preparation of
required reports also serves as a focus for a periodic internal
evaluation of the Department's performance, and as an additional
incentive to maintain proper management and supervision over the
Department's activities.
(b) What steps should Congress consider taking when an agency fails
to achieve its performance goals? Should these steps include the
elimination, privatization, downsizing or consolidation of departments
and/or programs?
Congress has an important oversight role in reviewing the
performance of Executive Branch agencies. Where an agency has failed to
achieve its goals, an important first question should be whether the
agency has sufficient resources to achieve those goals. If so, then the
focus should be on whether the agency has been granted, and has
exercised, the necessary legal authority to carry out its missions and
achieve its goals. If the agency has simply failed to perform
satisfactorily, its operations should be reviewed to determine the
fundamental problems that it must overcome. While it is beneficial to
review periodically the need for and nature of government programs,
elimination, downsizing, privatization or consolidation would seem to
be solutions to be undertaken only where there is sufficient consensus
that the original purposes of the agency are no longer necessary in the
public interest, or that the agency no longer has the ability to
perform its assigned mission.
(c) What performance goals do you believe should be applicable to
your personal performance, if confirmed?
The performance of the Deputy Secretary should be evaluated in at
least three areas. First, as one of the senior officials of the
Department, the Deputy Secretary should give sound, clear and timely
advice to the Secretary and the Administrators, helping the Department
to achieve its operational and policy goals in implementing the
statutes adopted by Congress. Second, as a senior manager within the
Office of the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary has a responsibility to
direct the activities and monitor the performance of other OST
personnel. Third, as a Departmental official who will work closely with
both Congress and the other Executive Branch agencies, the Deputy
Secretary should be a knowledgeable, professional and collegial
advocate for the views of the Department, and should attempt to resolve
differing views in a cooperative rather than a confrontational way.
9. Please describe your philosophy of supervisor/employee
relationships. Generally, what supervisory model do you follow? Have
any employee complaints been brought against you?
I believe that supervisor/employee relationships should be
professional, but as informal as possible while maintaining a
businesslike atmosphere. I have always tried to treat others as I would
like to be treated, with respect and consideration. I follow a
supervisory model that stresses teamwork, open and frequent
communications, and inclusion and consideration of all views and ideas
in the decision making process. I give credit for successes to my
subordinates, and assume responsibility for problems myself. No
employee complaints have ever been brought against me.
10. Describe your working relationship, if any, with the Congress.
Does your professional experience include working with committees of
Congress? If yes, please describe.
During the past two years, in the course of my duties as General
Counsel, I believe I have begun to develop a good working relationship
with Congress, including particularly the committees with jurisdiction
over transportation issues. The majority of my communications with
Congress to date have been in the form of formal correspondence or
technical discussions with committee staff. If confirmed, I would
continue to develop a cooperative and professional working
relationship, to ensure that the concerns of the committees and of
individual Members are promptly and effectively addressed.
11. Please explain what you believe to be the proper relationship
between yourself, if confirmed, and the Inspector General of your
department/agency.
I believe that the proper relationship between the Deputy Secretary
and the Inspector General is one of independence and mutual respect. As
a matter of course, I believe the Deputy Secretary should cooperate
fully with the Inspector General at all times, and should make every
effort to implement recommendations of the Inspector General regarding
matters within the scope of the Deputy Secretary's authority. As
General Counsel, I have established a close working relationship with
the Inspector General and his staff, and if confirmed, I would expect
to continue that relationship and work cooperatively with the common
goal of improving the operations of the Department.
12. Please explain how you will work with this Committee and other
stakeholders to ensure that regulations issued by your department/
agency comply with the spirit of the laws passed by Congress.
I believe that one of the Deputy Secretary's primary
responsibilities is to ensure that all of the Department's actions are
authorized by law, and consistent with both the letter and the spirit
of the statutes passed by Congress. If confirmed, I will work closely
with the Committee and other stakeholders to ensure that all views as
to the intent of Congress are given appropriate weight.
13. In the areas under the department/agency's jurisdiction, what
legislative action(s) should Congress consider as priorities? Please
state your personal views.
With respect to the Department of Transportation, I believe that
safety issues should always be the highest priority. With that in mind,
establishing the statutory authority for, and long-term financing of,
the Department's aviation and surface transportation programs through
the reauthorization process is currently the highest legislative
priority of the Department. Finally, in the near term, it is important
that appropriations legislation be enacted to provide current-year
funding for the programs of the Department.
14. Within your area of control, will you pledge to develop and
implement a system that allocates discretionary spending based on
national priorities determined in an open fashion on a set of
established criteria? If not, please state why. If yes, please state
what steps you intend to take and a time frame for their
implementation.
Yes, to the extent such matters are within my authority as Deputy
Secretary. If confirmed, my primary roles in this area will be to
consult with the senior staff of the Department regarding the criteria
in each case and to advise the Secretary with respect to budget and
grant award issues. I would begin to do so immediately, to the extent I
am involved in decisions regarding discretionary spending.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rosen?
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY A. ROSEN, SENIOR PARTNER, KIRKLAND &
ELLIS, LLP
Mr. Rosen. Chairman McCain, Senator Allen, Senator
Lautenberg, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.
It is an honor both to have been nominated by President Bush
and to appear before this Committee as you consider my
nomination for the position of General Counsel of the U.S.
Department of Transportation. I also would like to thank
Senator Allen for those very kind introductory remarks.
After spending more than 21 years in the private practice
of law, it would be a privilege for me to play a part in
helping Secretary Mineta and the Department address the
transportation issues that affect every citizen and every
business in our country. Indeed, the transportation industries
have been important to my family and of great personal interest
to me.
My grandfather worked most of his life for a railroad in
the Northeast. My brother went to college at Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical Institute because he wanted to fly. And in my own
professional career, I came into contact with a wide range of
industries, occasionally including the transportation sector of
our economy, such as cruise lines, ammonia pipelines, and
automobiles.
The Department of Transportation faces important challenges
in improving the safety of our transportation systems, in
reducing congestion, and maintaining and improving our
transportation infrastructure while, at the same time,
protecting our communities and environment. If confirmed as
general counsel, I would work to provide the Department with
the highest quality of legal advice and representation.
Finally, let me say that I have a strong desire to
participate in public service and contribute in some meaningful
way to our country. Reflecting back many years, that was what
attracted me to law school in the first place. I regard my
nomination to this position as a great honor, and I hope I'll
have the privilege to serve. If I am confirmed, I look forward
to working with all of you and your staffs.
Thank you, again, for giving me this opportunity to appear
today, and I would be, of course, pleased to answer any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr.
Rosen follow:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey A. Rosen, Nominee to be General Counsel,
U.S. Department of Transportation
Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. It is an honor both
to have been nominated by President Bush and to appear before this
Committee as you consider my nomination for the position of General
Counsel of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
After spending more than 21 years in the private practice of law,
it would be a privilege for me to play a part in helping Secretary
Mineta and the Department address the transportation issues that affect
every citizen and every business in our country. Indeed, the
transportation industries have been important to my family, and of
great interest to me. My grandfather worked most of his life for a
railroad in the northeast. My brother went to college at Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical College because he wanted to fly. In my own professional
career, I came into contact with a wide range of industries,
occasionally including the transportation sector of our economy, such
as cruise lines, ammonia pipelines, and automobiles.
The Department of Transportation faces important challenges in
improving the safety of our transportation systems, reducing
congestion, and maintaining and improving our transportation
infrastructure, while protecting our communities and environment. If
confirmed as General Counsel, I would work to provide the Department
with the highest quality of legal advice and representation.
Because I was a litigator, as opposed to a specialist in
transportation regulations or legislation, I will need to learn more
about the details of the particular statutes under which the Department
operates, and I have started that process. Given the variety and volume
of the Department's activities, I believe that my broad experience as a
lawyer, as well as my experience in managing lawyers at a large law
firm, would prove to be helpful if I am confirmed to serve as the chief
legal officer of the Department of Transportation.
Finally, let me say that I have a strong desire to participate in
public service and contribute in some meaningful way to our country.
Reflecting back many years, that was what attracted me to go to law
school in the first place. I regard my nomination to this position as a
great honor, and hope I will have the privilege to serve. If I am
confirmed, I look forward to working with all of you and your staffs.
Thank you again for giving me this opportunity to appear today, and
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
______
a. biographical information
1. Name (Include any former names or nick names used.): Jeffrey
Adam Rosen.
2. Position to which nominated: General Counsel of the U.S.
Department of Transportation.
3. Date of nomination: October 3, 2003.
4. Address:
Residence: Information not released to the public.
5. Date and place of birth: April 2, 1958; Boston, Massachusetts.
6. Marital status: Married for 21 years to Kathleen Nichols Rosen;
wife's maiden name was Kathleen Sue Nichols.
7. Names and ages of children: Anne Rebecca Rosen, age 13; Sally
Amanda Rosen, age 11; James Kenneth Rosen, age 9.
8. Education:
Brockton High School, Brockton, Massachusetts; attended 9/72-6/
76; diploma in June 1976.
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois; attended 9/76-6/
79; B.A. with highest distinction received in June 1979.
Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts; attended 9/79-6/
82; J.D. magna cum laude received in June 1982.
9. Employment record:
(a) Kirkland & Ellis LLP., Washington, D.C., June 1982 to
October 2003: Began as an associate, became a partner in 1988,
and eventually became co-head of firm's Washington, D.C. office
and a member of the firm-wide management committee beginning in
1999. Private practice of law for 21 years.
(b) Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C., January
1996 to present: Adjunct Professor. Have taught courses in
professional responsibility and legal ethics.
(c) Dewey Ballantine LLP., New York, N.Y., June 1981 to August
1981. Worked as summer associate at law firm during summer
before last year of law school.
d) Lord Bissell & Brooke, Chicago, Illinois, June 1980 to
August 1980. Worked as summer associate at law firm during
summer after first year of law school.
(e) Apparel Buying Company, Braintree, Massachusetts, June 1979
to August 1979 (and previous summers). Worked as summer
warehouse employee during summer after college and before law
school
10. Government experience:
Member of Arlington County (Virginia) Historical Affairs and
Landmark Review Board, appointed by County Board, during the period
March 1991 to March 1993.
11. Business relationships:
Partner in Kirkland & Ellis L.L.P., 6/82 to 10/03, and Kirkland
& Ellis International, 11/94 to 10/03
Member of the Board of Visitors, Northwestern University
College of Arts & Sciences, 5/98 to present.
12. Memberships:
Memberships: U.S. Supreme Court Historical Society (1990 to
present); American Law Institute (1996 to present); American
Bar Association (1983 to present); National Association of
Scholars (approx. 1995 to present); Society of Automotive
Engineers (approx. 1990 to present); Association for the
Advancement of Automotive Medicine (approx. 1990 to present);
Defense Research Institute (approx. 1990-95); Chesterbrook
Woods Citizens Association (1993-present); McLean Community
Association (approx. 1994-2002); Virginia Historical Society
(1991 to present); National Trust for Historic Preservation
(approx. 1995-2002); Arlington Historical Society (1991-94);
Fairfax Historical Society (1997 to present); Library of
Congress Associates (approx. 1995-2001); Northwestern
University Alumni Club of Washington, D.C. (1983 to present);
McLean Racquet Club (1994 to present); Chesterbrook Community
Association (1994 to present); Reston Raiders Hockey Club (1998
to present).
Bar Memberships: D.C. Bar; U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit;
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit; U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan; U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
I have not held nor been a candidate for any public office. While
in law school in 1981 I became an Alternate Member of the Ward Seven
Democratic Committee in Cambridge, MA. In 1987 I served as a member of
the Arlington, VA Democratic Committee. In 1988 I was elected as a
delegate to the Virginia Democratic convention.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 10
years: None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past 10 years.
My records reflect the following contributions of$500 or more:
September 1993:
Kirkland & Ellis PAC, $750
July 1994: Kirkland & Ellis PAC, $750
November 1995: Kirkland & Ellis PAC, $1,125
December 1997: Cordray for Ohio Attorney General, $500
June 1999: Bush for President, $1,000
May 2000 Bush for President Compliance Committee, Inc., $200
February 2000: Cordray for U.S. Senate Committee, $500
April and December 2001, Senator John Warner Committee, $250
and $250
In addition, I have from time to time made various contributions of
lesser amounts to other candidates and political organizations, such as
the Republican National Committee.
14. Honors and awards:
Member of American Law Institute; In college, I was elected to Phi
Beta Kappa and Deru honorary societies.
15. Published writings:
Article: ``Court Acceptance of `In Kind' Settlements in Consumer
Class Actions,'' 9 Class Actions & Derivative Suits (ABA Litigation
Section) 20 (Summer 1999).
16. Speeches:
Speaker at Kirkland & Ellis Litigation Conference on ``The
Future of Class Action Litigation: Dealing with the Ripple
Effects of The Supreme Court Decisions in Amchem and Ortiz''
(September 16, 1999)
Speaker at Price Waterhouse General Counsel Forum on ``Taming
the Class Action Tiger: Surviving Settlement Challenges''
(December 16, 1999).
Speaker at ALI-ABA Securities Law Seminar on ``New Dimensions
In Sec ties Litigation'' (March 22, 1990).
I have not been able to locate copies of my actual remarks at these
presentations.
17. Selection:
(a) Do you know why you were chosen for this nomination by the
President?
I believe I was chosen for this nomination because I was regarded
as an experienced lawyer with management experience in a large national
law firm.
(b) What do you believe in your background or employment experience
affirmatively qualifies you for this particular appointment?
Several aspects of my professional experience qualify me for this
position. First, I am an experienced trial lawyer, with more than 21
years of experience in Federal and state courts around the country. I
have appeared in courts in more than 20 states, and in proceedings
involving jury trials, bench evidentiary hearings, arbitrations, and
appeals, so I have a background that enables me to provide legal
counsel to the Secretary and others at the Department. Second, I have
had considerable experience in the management of lawyers in a large
organization at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, which is a law firm with more
than 900 lawyers and 2400 total personnel in six office locations. In
addition to my term on the firm's management committee, I have had
experience on the firm's finance committee, litigation management
committee, technology committee, and personnel review committees. Those
experiences should be useful in helping to guide the Department's legal
activities and its more than 450 lawyers. Third, during the course of
my 21 years of private practice, the business litigation in which I
have participated has brought me into contact with a wide variety of
industries, including at times some participants in the transportation
sector, such as cruise lines, ammonia pipelines, railroads, and
automobile manufacturers. While I am not an administrative law or
regulatory practitioner, some familiarity with the transportation
sector is likely to be helpful to my understanding of the legal,
legislative, and policy issues that the Department faces. Fourth, as an
adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center I have taught
professional responsibility and legal ethics, which are obviously as
important to public service as to the private practice of law.
b. future employment relationships
1. Will you sever all connections with your present employers,
business firms, business associations or business organizations if you
are confirmed by the Senate? Yes.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, explain. No.
3. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements after
completing government service to resume employment, affiliation or
practice with your previous employer, business firm, association or
organization? No.
4. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any
capacity after you leave government service? No.
5. If confirmed, do you expect to serve out your full term or until
the next Presidential election, whichever is applicable? Yes.
c. potential conflicts of interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients or customers.
I have no such arrangements except the departure compensation
payment owed by Kirkland & Ellis LLP and the unfunded retirement plan
benefits that are identified on my financial disclosure report.
2. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
I am unaware of any potential conflicts of interest other than
those identified in the Acting General Counsel's Opinion letter.
3. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated?
Please refer to the Acting General Counsel's Opinion Letter.
In addition, during 1994 and 1995 I served as counsel in a case
against the Department of Transportation, General Motors Corp. v Pena,
No. 94-CV-74668 (E.D. Mich. 1994-95) and NHTSA EA92-041(1992). That
case concluded in March, 1995 with a settlement See 60 Fed. Reg. 13752
(March 14, 1995). I also appeared as counsel with regard to
investigations before the NHTSA in four instances: (a) 1986-89 Hyundai
Excel transmission investigation, NHTSA C-92-001; this matter was
closed by the agency on October 29, 1993. (b) 1994 Hyundai Sonata
compliance with FMVSS 214, NHTSA HS#631039; this matter was closed by
the agency early in 1995. (c) GM Type III door latch petition, NHTSA
DP-96-008; this petition was denied by the agency in 1996. See 61 Fed.
Reg. 64563 (December 5, 1996). (d) 1991-97 GM S/T Trucks Antilock
Brakes, NHTSA EA94-038; the agency closed this investigation on
February 8, 2000. To the best of my knowledge, none of these presently
remain open and/or pending before the Department of Transportation.
4. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have
engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy. None.
5. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items. (Please provide a copy of any trust or other agreements.)
Please refer to the Acting General Counsel's Opinion Letter.
6. Do you agree to have written opinions provided to the Committee
by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to which you are
nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics concerning potential
conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to your serving in this
position? Yes.
d. legal matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct by, or been the subject of a complaint to
any court, administrative agency, professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, provide
details. No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details. No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in interest in an administrative agency
proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide details?
I have never been involved as a party to any civil litigation or
administrative agency proceeding, nor have I been an officer of any
business that was a party. I am aware that Kirkland & Ellis LLP has on
occasion been a party in some civil litigation, but none of those
concerned any activities involving me personally nor did they involve
the Department of Transportation, and I am not personally familiar with
the details of those lawsuits.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? No.
5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination. None.
e. relationship with committee
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines set by congressional committees for information?
Yes, to the extent it is within my authority and ability to do so.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures?
Yes, to the extent it is within my authority and ability to do so.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the committee with requested
witnesses, to include technical experts and career employees with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the committee?
Yes, to the extent it is within my authority and ability to do so.
4. Please explain how you will review regulations issued by your
department/agency, and work closely with Congress, to ensure that such
regulations comply with the spirit of the laws passed by Congress.
If I am confirmed, this would be an important aspect of my
responsibilities as General Counsel. I am generally familiar with the
Administrative Procedure Act and the body of judicial case law that
addresses the need for rulemaking activities to comport with the
enabling statutes enacted by Congress. The Office of the General
Counsel has significant oversight responsibilities with respect to
rulemaking activity within the Department. If confirmed, I would want
all Department rulemakings to implement effectively the objectives of
the statutes passed by the Congress. I would also anticipate that, to
the extent permitted by applicable law, I would receive and consider
communications from Congress with respect to ongoing and future
rulemaking activities. I am prepared to devote the necessary time and
effort to avoid the issuance of regulations that would be inconsistent
with the laws passed by Congress and the objectives reflected in such
laws.
5. Describe your department/agency's current mission, major
programs, and major operational objectives.
The Department's mission, programs, and objectives have been
defined by the governing statutes passed by Congress and the policy
directions set forth by President Bush and Secretary Mineta. As
described in the DOT Strategic Plan for 2003-2008, the Department's
mission is to ``develop and administer policies and programs that
contribute to providing fast, safe, efficient, and convenient
transportation at the lowest cost consistent with the national
objectives of general welfare, economic growth and stability, the
security of the United States and the efficient use and conservation of
the resources of the United States.'' Much of the Department's mission
is pursued through the operating administrations' programs at the FAA,
NHTSA, FMCSA, FHWA, FRA, FTA, MARAD, and SLSDC, as well as the RSPA and
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
As I understand them, the Department's major priorities involve the
enhancement of safety and security to protect the well-being of our
population, and the maintenance and improvement of the Nation's
transportation infrastructure so as to expand mobility, improve
intermodal and global connections, and reduce congestion in order to
promote our national economy and quality of life. These objectives need
to be accomplished by means (a) that enhance our communities and
protect the natural and built environment, (b) that are coordinated
with other government objectives and activities, and (c) that reflect
an organizational commitment to excellence and continual improvement.
6. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
f. general qualifications and views
1. How have your previous professional experience and education
qualified you for the position for which you have been nominated.
Please see my response to Part A, items 8, 9, and 17.
2. Why do you wish to serve in the position for which you have been
nominated?
First, I have a strong desire to participate in public service, and
to make a contribution to our country to the extent I can do so
usefully. Second, I believe that I can make a positive contribution at
DOT because of my professional experience in private practice, my
experience in managing lawyers, and my personal interest in the
transportation sector of our economy. In addition, I am attracted to
the challenge of assisting in the objectives of a Department whose
actions have a direct impact on the daily lives of the American people,
and I am honored that President Bush has nominated me for this
position.
3. What goals have you established for your first two years in this
position, if confirmed?
My first and foremost goal is to provide the Secretary and others
in the Department of Transportation with the highest quality of legal
advice and representation. That would apply with regard to regulation,
legislation, litigation, enforcement, negotiation of agreements, and
all other aspects of the legal and policy issues that arise at DOT. A
second goal is to maintain and enhance consistency in the way that
legal issues are considered and addressed throughout the Department. A
third goal is to continue and enhance the Department's coordination
concerning legal issues with other parts of the Executive Branch, such
as the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Office
of Management and Budget, and others. And a fourth is to develop a
positive working relationship with the committees and members of
Congress with regard to any issues of concern that fall within the
General Counsel's purview.
Most immediately, I plan to focus my attention on identifying the
current legal issues confronting the Department and its operating
administrations, to ensure that they are given the appropriate
resources, attention, and support.
4. What skills do you believe you may be lacking which may be
necessary to successfully carry out this position? What steps can be
taken to obtain those skills?
Although I do not consider myself lacking in any necessary skills,
the area in which I have the least applicable experience is the
legislative process. However, I understand the Department of
Transportation to have skilled professionals in the government
relations area, skilled legislative lawyers, and the Secretary of
course was a member of the Congress for many years, so I expect to
become better educated by interacting with the Department's personnel
and with the Congress.
5. Who are the stakeholders in the work of this agency?
Ultimately every citizen of the United States is a stakeholder of
the Department of Transportation. Every user of the transportation
system (and associated systems) is a stakeholder: every motorist, every
air traveler, every train passenger, every shipper, and so on. In
addition, the suppliers of transportation services are stakeholders:
every airline, every trucker, every railroad, every marine operator,
every automotive manufacturer, and so on. The builders and suppliers to
these providers are themselves also stakeholders: road construction
contractors, parts manufacturers, and the like. All of the employees of
the businesses that use the transportation system, that provide the
transportation services, or that build or furnish supplies to the
transportation providers are likewise stakeholders.
Moreover, state and local agencies that have responsibility for our
roadways, airports, sea terminals, traffic inspections, and other
transportation functions are likewise stakeholders, as are other
Federal agencies with transportation-related operations such as the
NOAA National Weather Service.
Transportation is a critical element for every business and for
every citizen. For that reason, the Congress which represents the
American people is also a stakeholder.
6. What is the proper relationship between your position, if
confirmed, and the stakeholders identified in question number five.
Existing legislative mandates, executive orders, and department
precedents define the relationships between the stakeholders and the
Department of Transportation (and its operating administrations). If
confirmed, my role as the General Counsel would include assuring
compliance with applicable legal requirements with regard to
considering the views and interests of stakeholders, and assuring that
the appropriate weight was given to stakeholders' views in the
Department's decision-making and operations. In rendering decisions,
the Department should of course be guided by the laws passed by the
Congress that apply to the Department's operations.
7. The Chief Financial Officers Act requires all government
departments and agencies to develop sound financial management
practices similar to those practiced in the private sector.
(a) What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to
ensure that your agency has proper management and accounting controls?
If confirmed, I would be responsible as General Counsel for
advising the Department with regard to compliance with the Chief
Financial Officers Act. My own authority and ability to direct specific
actions in financial management and accounting would be limited, but I
would seek to ensure that Departmental officials receive appropriate
advice about the Act's requirements, and receive assistance in
developing any additional measures needed to ensure compliance.
(b) What experience do you have in managing a large organization?
Please see Part A, item l7(b) above. In addition to my role in the
firm-wide management of a national law firm with approximately 900
lawyers and 1,500 additional staff in six offices, for the last several
years I served as a co-head of the Washington, D.C. office of the law
firm of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, which has approximately 130 lawyers and
200 additional staff. Among other things, that required my involvement
in a wide range of management issues, such as: (a) hiring, retention,
promotion, relocation, and departure issues; (b) budget issues; (c)
real estate issues; (d) coordination between different legal practice
areas, (e) training and supervision issues, and (f) leadership,
motivation, and professional development issues.
8. The Government Performance and Results Act requires all
government departments and agencies to identify measurable performance
goals and to report to Congress on their success in achieving these
goals.
(a) Please discuss what you believe to be the benefits of
identifying performance goals and reporting on your progress in
achieving those goals.
Identifying performance goals can help to ensure efficient and
effective agency management and performance. Performance goals, once
set, can provide significant measures of accountability for the agency
and its personnel. Requiring reports on achieving performance goals can
provide Congress with objective information to assess efficiency and
effectiveness of agency programs and spending.
(b) What steps should Congress consider taking when an agency fails
to achieve its performance goals? Should these steps include the
elimination, privatization, downsizing or consolidation of departments
and/or programs?
If an agency fails to achieve its performance goals, inquiry should
be made as to whether the agency has sufficient resources and adequate
legal authority to achieve those goals. If so, the causes of failure
should be reviewed and analyzed, and positive corrective steps taken.
Ultimately, the steps the Congress should consider must depend on the
nature of the problem and its amenability to potential solutions. No
steps should be ruled in or out in advance; Congress should maintain
the flexibility to make considered judgments based on all the facts and
circumstances. Ultimately, Congress must be prepared to take whatever
steps it concludes will be most effective and best suited to the public
interest.
(c) What performance goals do you believe should be applicable to
your personal performance, if confirmed?
If confirmed as General Counsel, I would expect to be evaluated in
terms of whether the Secretary and the Department receive appropriate
and timely legal advice to enable them to perform their mission well.
Indicators of that would include a reasonable success rate in the
courts in litigation involving the Department, and more generally,
acceptance of interpretations of law by the General Counsel as being
consistent with Congressional intent.
9. Please describe your philosophy of supervisor/employee
relationships. Generally, what supervisory model do you follow? Have
any employee complaints been brought against you?
No employee complaints have ever been brought against me.
My basic philosophy of supervisor/employee relationships is to
treat everyone with professional respect, courtesy, and dignity. I
assume that people are competent and responsible (unless and until they
demonstrate otherwise), and I believe in rewarding and promoting those
who excel. In general, I believe that people respond better to positive
encouragement than to criticism, but some balance of the two is
sometimes necessary. Because no one person can do everything that is
important, I also believe in teamwork and collaboration, with open and
frequent communications (including ``bad news'' as well as ``good
news''). In general, success is usually the result of joint efforts,
and calls for credit to be shared among the team.
10. Describe your working relationship, if any, with the Congress.
Does your professional experience include working with committees of
Congress? If yes, please describe.
I have had no professional experience working with committees of
Congress. If confirmed, one of my goals would be to establish a
positive professional working relationship with the committees and
members of Congress with regard to any issues of concern that fall
within my purview.
11. Please explain what you believe to be the proper relationship
between yourself, if confirmed, and the Inspector General of your
department/agency.
I believe that the General Counsel is the final authority on legal
issues with the Department. But the Inspector General has an essential
role to play in ensuring that the Department is operating consistent
with applicable law and that its programs and activities are not
subject to waste, fraud, or abuse. As I understand it, the Inspector
General has independent authority to investigate and make
recommendations, and to make reports to Congress. If confirmed, I would
seek to develop a good working relationship with the Inspector General
and cooperate appropriately with his office in the performance of his
responsibilities. Because I would share the objective of improving the
operations of the Department, I would take seriously and consider
carefully any recommendations made by the Inspector General.
12. Please explain how you will work with this Committee and other
stakeholders to ensure that regulations issued by your department/
agency comply with the spirit of the laws passed by Congress.
There are a number of rulemaking proceedings underway within the
Department of Transportation. The General Counsel has a primary
responsibility to ensure that the Department's actions, including
regulatory actions, are authorized by law, and consistent with both the
letter and spirit of the law as enacted by Congress. If confirmed, I
intend that my office would pursue that responsibility appropriately.
If confirmed, I will work closely with Members of the Committee and
other stakeholders to ensure that their views as to the intent of
Congress are sufficiently considered.
13. In the areas under the department/agency's jurisdiction, what
legislative action(s) should Congress consider as priorities? Please
state your personal views.
The General Counsel needs to pursue the legislative priorities
established by the President and the Secretary. In that regard, I
understand that almost every operating administration within the
Department is operating under lapsed authorizations and would benefit
from final action on the reauthorization legislation pending in the
108th Congress. Perhaps most significant is final action on the funding
authorities and programmatic changes for the Federal Aviation
Administration, where a four-year authorization would provide a firm
foundation for modernization of the national airspace system.
Comparably, Congressional action on a long-term renewal of ``TEA-21''
authorities for the surface modes is needed, hopefully by early next
year. Also, the Department as a whole would benefit from final action
on full-year appropriations for Fiscal Year 2004 before the adjournment
of the First Session, and the Maritime Administration could benefit
from legislation being developed to extend the Maritime Security Fleet
Program. In addition, the Secretary has proposed legislation to address
future aspects of the intercity passenger rail system. I anticipate
that other legislative needs and initiatives will arise during the
upcoming years, and, if confirmed, I will be prepared to advise the
Secretary and work with the Congress to pursue beneficial legislative
action.
14. Within your area of control, will you pledge to develop and
implement a system that allocates discretionary spending based on
national priorities determined in an open fashion on a set of
established criteria? If not, please state why. If yes, please state
what steps you intend to take and a time frame for their
implementation.
My general understanding is that as a percentage of its total grant
spending, the Department has a relatively small percentage of funds
over which it has discretion, and as to those, some funds are earmarked
by Congress for specific projects. If confirmed as General Counsel, I
would not expect to have major direct responsibility for the allocation
of discretionary spending. But to the extent that I could be helpful to
the Secretary in pursuing the most cost-effective spending based on
national priorities and objective and publicly-stated criteria, I would
do so.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Rosen.
Mr. Gallagher, as you know, we will be militarily involved,
in one way or another, in the war on terror for a long period
of time. I think we all know and appreciate that. And I know
you were involved in forging an agreement earlier this year
between the Department of Defense and private industry to share
spectrum in a manner that'll protect sensitive military
functions while providing more opportunities for WiFi services.
What lessons did you learn, and what more do we need to do in
this area? As we all know, one our greatest vulnerabilities is
our telecommunications systems.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question.
It was a privilege to work with the Department of Defense
on that particular spectrum matter. It was particularly
difficult, but it was really a team effort that included the
engineering staffs of the FCC, private industry, and the
Department of Commerce, and our own Office of Spectrum
Management at NTIA. The collaborative work of those entities
and those groups was able to double the amount of spectrum for
WiFi, at 5 gigahertz, at the same time we protected very
sensitive military operations in the 5 gigahertz band.
What made that accomplishment particularly satisfying is
that it, in very short order, became an international standard
through our advocacy and collaboration with private industry,
with the Department of Defense, with NASA, and with the
Commission at the World Radio Conference this summer. And we
now have a single allocation and a single technical framework
that will allow that to go forward.
And I would say that there were probably three key
learnings that came from that exercise. First is trust the
engineers over the lawyers.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gallagher. Our technical focus was very, very heavy on
engineering and very, very light on the lawyering and on the
public-relations aspects. And when you have professionals, like
the folks in our Office of Spectrum Management, in the Office
of Engineering and Technology at the Commission, and the
experts from the private sector, we find that they speak a
common language that is liberated by today's technologies.
I'd say that the second component would be trust. We had
worked together with the Department of Defense credibly in how
we dealt with the very difficult issues of finding additional
spectrum for advanced wireless services, or 3G. We had also
worked together figuring out a way to authorize ultrawideband
devices in this country. And in the context of those
discussions, we were able to build a rapport and trust that
focused us on what served the American people the best.
The Secretary of Commerce told me early on, when I arrived
at the Department of Commerce, he said, ``Mike, when you're
working on these spectrum matters,'' he said, ``you'll be
having to make a choice between advancing our economic security
as a country in our economy versus advancing our national
security. My direction to you is: Do both.'' That leadership
provided by the Secretary was the third component. When you
have strong direction from above, from the Secretary of
Commerce, the Secretary of Defense, Chairman Powell, to his
staff, expecting that these results will occur, there is clear
responsibility. Then you're able to get to the type of result,
which not only allowed the Department of Defense to continue
operating, but also authorize a new technology, which will
create jobs, which will continue to put the U.S. at the leading
edge of competitiveness, and also will provide, in response to
the last part of your question, additional telecommunications
capability in the event of any challenge or disaster. It's
another pathway for people and devices to connect with one
another.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Halpern and Ms. Courtney, from time to time there are
allegations that the CPB, slash, PBS NPR have an ideological
bias. I hope that in your exercise of oversight, you will make
sure that there is no substance to those allegations.
Ms. Courtney, you've had extensive experience in this
business. We intend to introduce reauthorization of the CPB
early next year, and hopefully get it approved by the Congress
and signed by the President. What input would you have in
additional or deletions that need to be made in reauthorization
of the CPB?
Ms. Courtney. Well, of course, our eternal problem is we're
always short of funds. That's fundamentally it. But as I was
listening to the conversation today about new technology, I
realized the digital conversion has offered tremendous
opportunity for us, but at great expense. The whole world that
we're existing in has changed, and I think maybe we need to
look at that. Examine such things as multi-casting and data
transfer. Many of us are involved, for instance, in homeland
security because we operate interconnecting networks. We
operate the Amber Alert for the entire state of Louisiana. We
have spectrum that should be used for good public service, and
we want it to be. So I think, the transition from the analog
world to a digital environment, allow us to look at that.
The other thing I guess I would say is simply that I think
public broadcasting--the bedrock of public broadcasting, both
radio and television, is localism and understanding that it's
in the local communities that it really plays out. And I think
sometimes we don't understand that on the national level. Some
of our national institutions and--I've been on all the national
boards, have a different agenda and it's not a question of
mistrust or anything; simply a question--sometimes not
understanding what happens day to day on the ground. And I hope
I can bring that sensibility to bear.
The Chairman. Well, if you're in favor and emphasize the
importance of localism, then are you satisfied with the way
that so much funding goes to a small number of major stations,
such as the one in Boston and others?
Ms. Courtney. As long as they continue--well, actually,
what we do is, we choose to air those programs. And as long as
they produce NOVA, Masterpiece----
The Chairman. But they get the funding to produce those
programs.
Ms. Courtney. They do, but I give them a lot more money
from own raised funds in my community, and that would fall
apart if we didn't----
The Chairman. You'd take Louisiana money and send it to
Boston. Is that----
Ms. Courtney. Basically, yes.
The Chairman.--what you're----
Ms. Courtney. If they produce the programs you want.
Because unlike commercial networks, where we just receive the
programs, we have input in whether we want those programs or
not, so it's a combination of funding from the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting, from viewers like you----
The Chairman. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with
it----
Ms. Courtney. Right.
The Chairman.--but I don't know how that helps localism.
Ms. Courtney. Because--well, one of the things we should
always have--and Cheryl alluded to this--is that we should have
outreach. It's not enough to do just a program. If you're doing
something on Alzheimer's, we should have outreach funds to make
sure we can touch the local communities with this program. It's
not enough to do just a television program anymore, and that's
kind of the thing we're saying today. It's not just a national
broadcast program; it has to have outreach and touch people in
every community, and that's something we should do.
You disagree. What?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I hesitate to get into these matters too
deeply. But if you're for localism, I think most local station
managers would allege that unless they have sufficient funding,
it's hard to emphasize that.
But, Mr. Van Tine, I would mention that I have a letter
here supportive of your appointment from the CEOs of AirTran
Airways, America West Airlines, Frontier, Jet Blue, Midwest,
Southwest, and Spirit Airlines. And, without objection, that
letter will be entered for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
November 3, 2003
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On September 18, the President announced his intention to nominate
Kirk Van Tine as Deputy Secretary of Transportation. Based on our
collective and individual experiences with him, we believe he would
make an excellent Deputy Secretary of Transportation and urge you to
proceed with the confirmation process to fill that vitally important
position.
While Mr. Van Tine was General Counsel at the Department of
Transportation, he was devoted to the mission of the Department,
particularly enhancement of airline competition, open markets and the
restoration of service following the tragic events of September 11,
2001. During his tenure as General Counsel, we found Mr. Van Tine to be
consistently even-handed and objective while he worked tirelessly to
address the issues facing the airline industry. While we did not
necessarily agree with all Department decisions in which Mr. Van Tine
was involved, he carefully listened to all positions, engaged in
constructive government/industry dialogue, and acted with great
integrity. He pursued constructive steps for the benefit of all
carriers.
As the airline industry continues on the fragile road to recovery,
it is essential that Mr. Van Tine be allowed to bring his experience
and knowledge to the Department, so that he can help lead the
Department's efforts to address the needs of consumers, communities,
and airlines.
If there is anything further we can do to assist the Committee in
the nominating process for Mr. Van Tine, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Joseph Leonard
Chairman & CEO
AirTran Airways, Inc.
Jeff Potter
President & CEO
Frontier Airlines, Inc.
Timothy E. Hoeksema
Chairman, President and CEO
Midwest Express Airlines
Jacob M. Schorr
President and CEO
Spirit Airlines
Doug Parker
Chairman, President and CEO
America West Airlines
David Neeleman
CEO
JetBlue Airways Corporation
Herb Kelleher
Chairman
Southwest Airlines
cc: Majority Leader Bill Frist
The Chairman. Mr. Van Tine, let's talk about Amtrak just
for a minute. It's a very controversial issue. Numerous
administrations, not just this one, have tried to institute
reforms. One of the few benefits of being on this Committee for
a long time is you accumulate a history of attempts at reform
all being fought off, and then more money, and then
administrators of Amtrak--and I would say, with the notable
exception of the latest one--saying, ``We're on the glide path
to economic self-sufficiency.'' I'm sure you may have heard
those from previous administrators. I believe, if my memory
serves me correct, it was 1973 when Amtrak was formed, and
within 3 years it was going to be financially independent. It's
been 30 years, a little over 30 years, since that promise was
made. And yet we seem, even with the present administrator,
unable to impose even the cancellation of one route, because,
in his words, Mr. Gans says it's, quote, ``political.'' Well,
it's political, but it's also financial, because my
constituents have to pay for Senator Lautenberg's extensive
network, which is heavily subsidized, and so there's a certain
fairness issue here.
As much as I support and want a viable Northeast Corridor,
I don't think it's viable in my home state of Arizona. I wish
it was. But I'd like to have some of your thoughts about how we
can go about the business of reforming Amtrak, or are we just
doomed to the annual exercise, which we do around here--the
Administration, whether it be this one or previous
Administrations, will propose a certain amount of money, which
will be immediately condemned as insufficient, which will then
be responded to as not having any reforms being made, which
will then be responded to by saying that the system is about to
collapse and is unsafe, and we end up in the same gridlocked
position that we are in today.
And so I'd--maybe I'd like to have a few of your views on
that issue, and then maybe we'll move on to----
Mr. Van Tine. Senator McCain, I don't have the history with
the issue that you do, but I've read the history, and I
understand everything you're saying, and I think your last
point is one of the Department's central concerns this year. I
think we would like to break out of that cycle where there is
an annual crisis and we have to resolve that crisis at the last
minute to keep Amtrak operating. And the only way to do that is
to reach some agreement on a longer-term authorization.
My first experience with Amtrak was in connection with the
$100 million loan that the Department was asked to give Amtrak
in 2002. And, as you know, we ended up giving Amtrak that loan.
It was a very difficult process, though. We worked very hard to
get that done, and one of the reasons it was difficult, because
Amtrak's accounting was not in the condition it should be, and
that it's----
The Chairman. That wasn't just your opinion. That was of
the DOT IG, among others.
Mr. Van Tine. Yes, sir. And it was also the opinion of
their independent auditors. And their financial reporting was
not in the condition it should be. And I think that, you know,
we start with the fundamental principles that Amtrak should be
honest with Congress in its financial reporting, Amtrak's
accounting should be understandable and transparent, and that
Amtrak's management should be as efficient and businesslike as
possible. I think those are principles that we all should be
able to agree on.
I think the core issue right now, though, Senator, is
whether we can find a way to match up the service that we
provide with the needs and desires of most people in the
country, and that's where there is a mismatch right now, and I
think that's what you're getting to in your comments about
Amtrak service. I know that Phoenix, for instance, doesn't have
any Amtrak service, and you seem to do all right.
But there are other ideas about this. I know that there are
ways to go about this process of matching up, besides cutting
routes. Perhaps there are other ways to arrange things. The
system is virtually unchanged from when it was created, about
30 years ago, and it's the one transportation system in the
United States that has not kept up with the times, I guess, and
the needs and desires of the American people.
And those are, sort of, my fundamental thoughts at this
point, Senator.
The Chairman. Well, thank you. And, Mr. Van Tine, I just
want to emphasize again, I don't mind using my constituents'
tax dollars to subsidize the Northeast Corridor. They fly to
the East Coast, and hopefully would make use of that service if
it was suitable.
What I do mind is asking them to contribute an unending
amount of money, with no end in sight, which was promised 30
years ago after 3 years. And that's the aspect of it that I
find disturbing, and I hope that we will be able to reach some
conclusion. But, in the interest of straight talk, I don't
think we will.
Senator Lautenberg?
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Our Chairman is a very distinguished American and Chairman
and Member of the U.S. Senate----
The Chairman. Look out.
Senator Lautenberg. And he----
The Chairman. Look out.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Here we go.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. We're getting close to the edge of the
cliff.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. But being--there are virtues to being
on this Committee for a long time. You get to be Chairman.
That's one of the significant assets.
The Chairman. If you choose to run for re-election.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. But it's always with a good nature, but
it's sometimes different in viewpoint. And, you know, one of
the things that the people in New Jersey holler a lot about is
the fact that we are 49th among states in return on the Federal
tax dollar--49th among states--so we give out a lot more money
than we get.
Now, it's fair to say that some of that has got to be
included in water rights for western states, some of it's got
to be included in the national aviation system, some of it's
got to be involved with the national transportation system
generally. So I quickly point out, in addition to sending all
that money to the Federal Government, that New Jersey has
contributed over one-and-a-half billion dollars in the last
decade to the Northeast Corridor Improvements Program.
And, Mr. Van Tine--I want to say, Mr. Chairman, I think we
have a group of excellent candidates across the board, and I
have to reconstruct my comment a little bit. Cheryl Halpern--
it's not her dad; it's her father-in-law, but she's just as
proud. They're a very tight family.
But there has been some significant changes in the
structure of Amtrak. We started some years ago in providing
electrification to the Northeast Corridor, from New Haven to
Boston, and it's made an enormous difference.
And I also want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that last year
was the biggest year in Amtrak's history, including going back
to its pre-Amtrak ownership days. It had 24 million people that
it carried last year. And without overdramatizing, the fact of
the matter is that 9/11, which had its most significant effect
in our region, New Jersey and New York, was serviced on a
continuing basis by Amtrak when nothing else was working--
highways or aviation. And it's a national resource, in my view,
that has to be maintained.
And, Mr. Van Tine, I listened closely to your comments, and
I hope that you will work closely with all the Members of this
Committee, but I've not had a lot of good luck, in terms of
contact with the Administration, on my point of view about
Amtrak or about the privatization of FAA.
Were you, in your previous position, Mr. Van Tine, involved
with the development of the reauthorization of the FAA
organization?
Mr. Van Tine. Not substantially, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. You know that some states were made
exempt from privatizing their----
Mr. Van Tine. I'm aware of the history of the bill, and I
understand what's happened in----
Senator Lautenberg. Yes.
Mr. Van Tine.--in that regard. My role----
Senator Lautenberg. What a coincidence it is that the
Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation had the two
Alaskan airports removed from the possibility of privatization
as the bill worked its way through. It wasn't included in the
original House bill, but it got--somehow or other, it found its
way in there. And it's my understanding that there are others
that are protected from privatizing or turning commercial with
the FAA. And I hope that you're going to look closely at that
and that we'll be able to discuss it.
Now, this year the Administration proposed that Congress
appropriate $900 million for Amtrak, and at the same time $300
million for Iraq's railroads. Now, Iraq is a place that has
developed a lot of controversy, a lot of pain, a lot of
anguish, but it's ironic, I think, that we should spend $300
million for railroads in a country the size of California, and
it's proposed that we simply spend $900 million for the entire
rail system, passenger rail system, city-to-city, in our
country. So does this--do you think this indicates the
Administration's commitment to passenger rail service in the
United States?
Mr. Van Tine. Senator Lautenberg, first I want to say that
I understand your concerns, and the Department understands your
concerns, and I want to assure you that, if confirmed, I would
like to sit down and talk with you about all your concerns. But
on the specific $900 million number, it's my understanding that
that number is the Administration's estimate of the operating--
the number necessary to cover the operating expenses and the
debt service for the coming year. And the intent is to open the
debate, the dialogue, on how to resolve Amtrak's problems and
the broader issue of intercity passenger rail this year, rather
than, as Senator McCain was saying, to limp along from year to
year with the same drama playing out each time. We'd like to
make a serious effort this year to try and achieve some
consensus.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, in your comments, you noted how
closely you work with the IG, with the Inspector General.
Mr. Van Tine. Yes, sir.
Senator Lautenberg. He happens to be sitting here. He's a
familiar face to all of us, and he's the conscience for many of
us. And the disparity between his proposal and the $900
million, he offered a rather gloomy perspective and said that
the railroad couldn't survive.
Now, (a) is he just wrong, and, (b) do you consider that
the national passenger rail service is a critical element of
our transportation system, or is it just a regional service
that ought to be taken care of locally?
Mr. Van Tine. Well, as I said, Senator, the Administration
is committed to support for national passenger rail service,
and I think everybody believes that it is important. It's more
important, clearly, in some parts of the country than in
others, and people are willing to support it more in some parts
of the country than in others, and we need to find a way to try
and match up the support for the system with the funding that
we give it.
On the number that the IG has come up with, I'm aware of
what the Inspector General has talked about with respect to
Amtrak. I think that, in general, the views of the
Administration are in line with the views of the Inspector
General, as far as the structure of Amtrak. I think the
Inspector General may have included some additional elements in
the calculation of the number that he presented beyond those
that were included in the President's budget proposal.
Senator Lautenberg. Are you----
The Chairman. Senator Allen?
Senator Lautenberg.--are you aware of any----
The Chairman. Senator Allen? Your time has expired. We'll
have a second round----
Senator Lautenberg. OK.
The Chairman.--if you'd like, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Allen?
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me first address you, Mr. Gallagher. And welcome to
your family, especially--what is it, your father-in-law, the
first time he's been----
Mr. Gallagher. It's my grandfather, yes, sir.
Senator Allen. Grandfather, first time east of Nevada. This
is not typical weather, sir, at this time of year, but you've
brought some good, dry weather with you.
I'm going to first commend the Department of Commerce and
the Secretary for what you've been able to do on so many issues
that are vital to the future competitiveness of our country and
communications and issues which, Mr. Chairman, this Committee
has been advancing most recently.
Number one, working with the FCC on the WiFi spectrum
issue, that was one that had bipartisan support, and that is
just a tremendous advancement in opportunities for people to
get broadband wirelessly within their home, carrying around
their laptop like they do a cordless phone, rather than having
wires all over. But getting that certain part of the spectrum
was key to having that develop, and I think that has great
promise. Also, we're going to be working with you, and I look
forward to, on the issue of piracy, cyber-security, and also
protecting children on the Internet.
Now, speaking about the Internet and the economic digital
divide, one, I would hope you can get the Secretary of Commerce
and the Bush Administration to change their views on a bill
that passed with great support here, and that has to do with
improving the technological capabilities and infrastructure in
minority-serving institutions. The Chairman, Senator Lott, and
others--it was bipartisan support--supported this effort, where
your own reports will show that minority-serving institutions
do not have the technological capabilities and infrastructure
that they need to attract the professors, much less provide
that technological training and education to students who then
can go out there in the real world and get those good-paying
technology jobs, rather than us having to import workers to do
that job. And I would hope that you would change your position.
It's over in the House. If there's something that could be
worked out, let's get it done, because this is important for
technology, education, and opportunity, and a very good way to
help alleviate that economic digital divide.
Now, we're also going to be bringing up, this week, on
Thursday, another digital divide issue, and that is the
Internet and whether or not broadband and Internet access ought
to be taxed. Would you share with us what your secretariat's
view is of S. 150, which would permanently place a moratorium
on the Internet-access taxes in this country? And if you want
to make any comment on the measure for minority-serving
institutions, you're welcome to do that, as well.
Mr. Gallagher. Well, thank you, Senator Allen, for those
kind words and for recognizing my grandfather.
The first thing I would like to say is, thank you for your
leadership on keeping the parties in the WiFi issue in the room
and engaged. There were many dark days when it wasn't clear
that we would find an answer, and I do think that the
leadership coming from this Committee and from yourself and the
cosponsors of that legislation was very helpful in getting that
accomplished.
I would also like to assure you, with respect to the
Internet and the need for it to be accessible to higher levels
of education and in poor and underserved areas, the
Administration, remains committed to those ideals. I am aware
of the opposition to the legislation that you speak of, and I
am happy to carry your concerns back to the Secretary today.
And, if confirmed, I look forward to working with you on those
issues going forward.
With respect to the Internet tax bill, the Secretary, I
believe, has written four letters in support of, maintaining
and holding the line on the non-taxation of the Internet. And,
in fact, the President, not last August, the August before, in
Waco, Texas, said, ``If you want something to grow, don't tax
it.'' So the Secretary remains strongly supportive. It is a
very high priority of his to see that we maintain the growth of
the Internet by keeping the access to it non-taxed, so that
areas to the Internet can continue to expand to the less
privileged. Because when you tax something, you increase the
price of it; if you increase the price of it to those that can
least afford it, then, in fact, they are being left behind. So
there are a number of good, strong economic reasons and social
reasons to maintain the moratorium that's in place today, and
we do appreciate your leadership in that cause.
Senator Allen. Well, we'll need your help on Thursday, as
the Chairman, with his great leadership, will be helping assist
us in trying to make sure that's a permanent moratorium.
Mr. Gallagher. If confirmed by Thursday, I'm happy to get
right into it.
Senator Allen. Get to work.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. Real quickly, Mr. Van Tine, one thing that
I'll be wanting to work with you on is--insofar as passenger
rail, and that's high-speed rail. Generally speaking, rail,
passenger rail, is regional from population centers. From the
days I was Governor of Virginia, working with the Governor of
North Carolina, we wanted to get high-speed rail through
Richmond on down to Charlotte. And to the extent that we can
get that linked up with the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, I think
there is the population density to support it, and I look
forward to working with you on it.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I
look forward to voting for all of these nominees, as my time
expires.
The Chairman. Senator Lott?
STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Lott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gallagher, Ms. Halpern, Ms. Courtney, and Mr. Van Tine,
and Mr. Rosen, thanks to all of you for your willingness to go
through this process and to serve your country. And to your
families and friends that are here, get ready for some long
hours for these people. But we do appreciate, you know, the
sacrifice that is required to serve in these positions--except
maybe for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, that's all
fun there.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lott. Mr. Van Tine, I read your statement, and I
appreciate the opportunity to have met with you earlier. I
think the Department of Transportation is one of the most
important departments in the Government, and I think sometime
it doesn't get the attention and the credit that it deserves.
Obviously, we're very interested in the FAA
reauthorization, we're interested in the Amtrak issue that
you're working on. We need a highway bill. You're talking about
jobs creation. If we could get this $60 billion FAA
reauthorization done and a highway bill done early next year,
they could lead to an awful lot of construction activity. And
so I hope that you will work with us, as I know you want to, to
achieve both of those goals of passing those two important--
actually, all three issues.
On Amtrak, I have been very supportive of Amtrak in the
past. I'd like to continue to be, but I am concerned about a
number of issues this year that have caused me to have to
reevaluate exactly how we're going to proceed in the future.
You're a lawyer. There's three lawyers at the table. I have
a law degree. I don't know whether I would call myself a lawyer
anymore. It's just really amazing that when you're involved in
the process of making the laws, you lose your ability to be a
lawyer.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lott. But there are some things about our
profession that are not always attractive. We do sometime get
to be a little bit too caught up in legal niceties, and we do
get a little confident in the correctness of our position. And
I think maybe you have portrayed that in the past, Mr. Tine, to
be quite honest about it. And you're going into a different
position. Deputy Secretary. I mean you're going to be involved
in an awful lot of the key activities on a day-to-day basis,
working, of course, with the Secretary and the Administration,
but it's going to be very important that--you know, when you're
confirmed, that you use your very best diplomatic skills and
less of your legal skills, as you have had to in the past.
Would you like to just respond to that? I'd give you an
opportunity to defend yourself against some of the charges that
have been leveled against you, without being so direct about
it.
Mr. Van Tine. Thank you, Senator Lott, for the opportunity.
I understand what you're saying, completely. And I just
would like to say that as general counsel, one my functions,
one of my primary functions, was to serve as the chief advocate
for the Department's legal positions. And I didn't always make
the decisions, but I had to defend the decisions. And that was
the job that I got paid to do, and, for 2 years, I did it.
I think the Deputy Secretary, though, performs a different
role in the operations of the Department, and, as I said in my
opening statement, I think one of the fundamental
responsibilities of the Deputy Secretary is to try to resolve
disputed issues and achieve consensus where there are
differences of opinion, and I truly believe that. If confirmed,
I'd take that responsibility seriously.
Senator Lott. Well, good luck. And try to not be a hopeless
bureaucrat. When you're faced with a decision, make it and move
on.
Mr. Van Tine. I understand your point. Thank you.
Senator Lott. We'll try to help you.
Now, ladies, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Board
is a very important responsibility, and I want to be quick to
acknowledge that most of the public television programs have a
high standard of excellence, and particularly children's
programming. And in my own state, they've done really a
marvelous job. I think probably both of you are familiar with
what goes on in the state of Mississippi. I think that really
the people have a lot of confidence in what they do there.
And I know, Ms. Courtney, you're from Louisiana. You've had
a very interesting background--certainly will bring a good
perspective to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
I must say, though, over a period of many, many years, I
don't think that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has
fulfilled its responsibilities sufficiently under the Public
Telecommunications Act of 1992. Section 19 on Objectivity and
Balance Policy states that there will be strict adherence to
objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs
of a controversial nature. I know you've been trying to kind of
smooth out the rough edges and work with that, but the
perception is still, of a lot of people, me included, that you
still have some programs that clearly are not balanced and
objective, and they're not balanced on the individual program,
and they're not balanced overall.
And I specifically want to refer to the NOW with Bill
Moyers. I mean, I certainly think he's the most partisan and
unobjective person I know in media of any kind. And so I'll
give you the first opportunity, Ms. Courtney, to respond to
this. Do you think that he's objective and balanced? And if
there's--the answer is no, which obviously he is not, and if
you think you----
[Laughter.]
Senator Lott.--if you think he is, I'll refer you to his
piece on November 8, 2002, how he responded to the election.
And I think it's the most blatantly partisan, irresponsible
thing I ever heard in my life. And yet you all have not seemed
to be willing to deal with Bill Moyers and that type of
programming.
Well, I'm out of time. I'd just like maybe both of you to
respond to that overall question.
Ms. Halpern. Let me take the first----
Ms. Courtney. Let's let Cheryl do the first----
Senator Lott. Oh, you're getting off to a good start, going
to refer to the senior member.
Ms. Halpern. The fact of the matter is, I agree with you,
and there is a problem here, because the CPB is in a unique
position.
Senator Lautenberg. Bring the mike a little closer.
Ms. Halpern. The CPB is in a unique position. On the one
hand, the statute requires the support for programming that is
objective and balanced, while, at the same time, the statute
prohibits the CPB from interfering with local station operation
or controlling editorial content.
So there is a dilemma here. Furthermore, if I can be
anecdotal about my service on the Broadcasting Board of
Governors, where the entire funding for the international
broadcasting entities is provided by the U.S. Government. So
when there were allegations of impropriety and violation of the
journalistic code of ethics, we were able to aggressively step
in, review the transcript of the potential violation, and
initiate penalties and change accordingly. The CPB cannot, in
this construct, similarly engage or penalize the individual
licensees that choose to air programs, nor can we impact the
individual programs, because we are not the sole funders of
those endeavors.
So I'm as frustrated as you when I get communications from
the Pro-Israel community, for example, about perceived
imbalance with NPR, but there is so very little that the CPB
can effectively do to correct the situation.
Senator Lott. My time has expired. I'll come back.
The Chairman. Ms. Courtney, you need to comment on this.
Ms. Courtney. Fine.
The Chairman. And I think it's important we get your views
on this.
Ms. Courtney. Right. When I served on the PBS Board, I was
surprised that the policy was fair and balanced across the
schedule, because my training is as a journalist, and I feel it
should be fair and balanced within a program, because people
don't watch programs 24 hours a day. So I am adamantly opposed
to any approach like that. I believe it should be fair and
balanced and equal opinion, but I'm an old-school journalist.
We have a new situation in the world of journalism today.
It appears that a lot of people have opinions. I believe
opinions should be--be they right or left, I think opinions
should be clearly labeled as opinions. I think reporting should
be clearly fair and objective and balanced. And that's my--has
been consistently my opinion.
On a personal anecdotal note, I'm the recipient of all the
complaints from the viewers in my state when some national news
programs generally point out Louisiana as the source of all
environmental pollution. We are generally the poster child of
all that's wrong. And so if I don't get a heads-up from PBS, so
I'm on ground zero responding to people.
Consequently, one of the things broadcasters have to do, at
the local level, is to make sure that we then have additional
programs that address issues that get other perspectives.
That's our responsibility, as well. So you're going to get a
traditional journalist, if you get me on the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting, who believes in fair and balanced and
objectivity in programming.
The Chairman. Well, that may be an issue that should be
addressed in one way or another, Senator Lott, as we move to
reauthorization of the CPB. If Ms. Halpern's views are correct
that the CPB really has no influence over that, what's the
point in having a Board of Directors? So I think it might be a
subject in hearings when we move to reauthorize the CPB.
We hear about it a lot on both sides of political spectrum,
not--you hear the complaints from the conservative side, and
another major network on the liberal side. So----
Senator Lautenberg?
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, Mr. Chairman, just a couple more
things that I'd like to call attention to, and that is the
national obligation to support a national rail, passenger rail,
system. It's not different than supporting other programs, like
essential air service, where we have little or not interest.
But my constituents contribute significantly to providing that
service. My constituents are unhappy to know that New Jersey
contributes a dollar to the Federal well-being, and gets back
66 cents worth of values. Arizona is a fortunate place, because
they--for every dollar they put in, they get back $1.21. But we
all have to share----
The Chairman. What is that--excuse me--what is that
statistic on?
Senator Lautenberg. That's the general return of Federal
tax dollars that are----
The Chairman. You know, that's just simply, patently false,
but it doesn't matter.
Senator Lautenberg. Oh.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Please, go ahead.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I----
The Chairman. We don't get that money back.
Senator Lautenberg. Where did we get that information? The
Tax Foundation is the author of this, as well as the----
The Chairman. Yes, the Tax Foundation is wrong.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. And I want the record to show exactly
what I am saying, because this is not an unusual difference
that we go through here. And I also feel free to express a
view, as long as it's annotated, that there's a challenge to
it. We've had this discussion before, and I was right before,
and I'll be right again here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Van Tine, how do you feel about the
privatization of FAA?
Mr. Van Tine. Well, I presume you're talking about the
contract tower program, Senator Lautenberg----
Senator Lautenberg. No, not the contract tower,
specifically, but taking away the inherently government
umbrella under which FAA operates.
Mr. Van Tine. My role in that process to date, as general
counsel, has been simply to ensure the legal sufficiency of the
Department's actions, and I was satisfied that legally the
Department's actions were correct.
The Secretary has explained the Administration's position
on that issue on a number of occasions, and I support the
Administration's position.
Senator Lautenberg. Are you aware of any--going back to the
railroad situation--are you aware of any large-scale rail
system in any country that operates without subsidy,
substantial subsidy?
Mr. Van Tine. Well, I'm not an expert in world railroads,
Senator, but I--just offhand, no, I'm not. But I would like the
opportunity to discuss that with you further.
Senator Lautenberg. All right. I think these two questions
that I've raised in no way, Mr. Van Tine, challenge your
character or your ability to serve. I just would love to change
your mind about a few things.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. And, Mr. Chairman, with that--I would
just ask our two friends, who are going to go to CPB, I guess
it is, and--how about the fundraising part of it? You have to
do it. We've all done it in our past. Sometimes we're sorry for
it, but the fact is that you have a significant source of
revenue there. Do either of you have any ideas on how that can
be improved, in terms of volume of dollars received?
Ms. Courtney. I suppose you're referring to our endless
program fund drives, we call Pledge Drives, membership
campaigns----
Senator Lautenberg. I'm not complaining about them, because
I think the public ought to be more supportive.
Ms. Courtney. Right. Yes. People sometimes run when they
see me coming, because they think I'm going to collect on their
pledge of support, because I've been on the air for so many
years. And we are trying to be more varied in our approach to
these.
One of the things we don't like to do is change our
programming schedules. But, unfortunately, it seems that music
is what touches people's souls, and so, consequently, music
programs, be it, you know, nostalgia, songs from the 1960s or
whatever, are what people pledge around. But we're trying to
change things from a transactional sort of relationship to
investing in an institution. And our greatest success has been
when we do things that are particularly relevant in our
communities. And I know that's true of my colleagues across the
country. Mississippi does something particularly about
Mississippi; people respond to it. We do--I know that the
wonderful series out in Arizona on--that they've been doing for
a long time is--it's a big fundraiser. And New Jersey has
particular programs that they do. So we've been finding great
success in producing programs about our local communities, and
I think those--I think that's the future. You know, connecting
to people personally.
And, frankly, with my history series, we have lots of
ancillary products, books and DVDs. We provide them to schools,
but then we also offer them for sale, and they've been a
tremendous revenue source, frankly. And so I think we're going
to have to be entrepreneurial at the same time we're mission-
driven.
Senator Lautenberg. I would close with this. Ms. Halpern,
you noted that the Jewish community would--is one that might
call up and complain. Are they the only community that issues
an occasional complaint about a bias one way or the other?
Ms. Halpern. No. Quite frankly, the conservative community
is rightly concerned about Bill Moyers and that type of
programming. The Pro-Israel community has been concerned about
alleged impropriety with National Public Radio, specifically
with respect to the Middle East and its alleged imbalance,
apropos Palestinian portrayal versus Israeli portrayal. But,
nonetheless, there has to be recognition that an objective,
balanced code of journalistic ethics has got to prevail across
the board, and there needs to be accountability when that
fails, that the individuals who are subsequently judged to be
guilty, of impropriety be, in some measure, penalized.
As I said, you know, going back to my BBG days, we were
able to remove somebody who had engaged in editorialization of
the news at Radio Liberty from that position. But then the BBG
was the sole measure of support financially, and we had the
control in order to so engage.
And going back to what Senator McCain said, with
reauthorization, I think perhaps there needs to be a review,
and the CPB, if possible, should be given more clout, so to
speak, to hold programming to, measures of accountability.
Whether that's, in fact, doable is pure speculation on my part,
but there definitely needs to be accountability in the system.
Senator Lautenberg. And were those people removed with
handcuffs, that man, you said, physically removed? Was he----
Ms. Halpern. They were--no, it was a woman, who was----
Senator Lautenberg. --removed in handcuffs.
Ms. Halpern.--given a job, where she was not allowed to
editorialize.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Senator Lott. Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman. Let me just point out--I don't know what it
has to do with anything, but according to the Federal Highway
Administration, the State of Arizona gets 87 cents back for
every dollar that it sends to Washington in the form of gas tax
dollars. But it really is not relevant.
Senator Lott. I want to thank you for that, because we get
some of that money over in Mississippi.
The Chairman. I was going to say that Mississippi--oops,
Mississippi is down to 96. You're not doing your work.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Do you want to say something else, Senator
Lott?
Senator Lott. Well, I think Ms. Courtney wanted to comment.
Did you want to comment?
Ms. Courtney. I was just going to add, we really are
terribly responsive to the public in public broadcasting. I
have to tell you, I'm not so worried about a board saying,
``You're not right,'' or, ``You're wrong.'' Believe me, the
public will tell me. I have three boards of directors. I have
the 501(c)(3)'s, our friends group, a foundation group, our
governing authority. We get tremendous input. And I guarantee
you, if there's a program that people are unhappy with, we'll
hear about it.
I want you to really understand that, you know, we really
are responsive to it, because people connect to us with--at the
state level, the state legislatures, they connect with their
dollars in pledge drives. We have wonderful community advisory
groups. And we really vary across the country because of
communities----
The Chairman. But what percent of your overall funding
comes from----
Ms. Courtney. The CPB?
The Chairman.--the Federal Government?
Ms. Courtney. In Louisiana, 9 percent.
The Chairman. Nine percent comes from the Federal
Government.
Ms. Courtney. And it's----
The Chairman. Ninety-one cents is from local contributions.
Ms. Courtney. --or from state appropriated money.
Senator Lott. Mr. Chairman, if I could, let me, again, say,
Ms. Halpern, I thank you for the job you've already been doing,
and I can tell from Ms. Courtney's comments she's going to be a
very positive addition to the board, and I think the experience
you had at the state level will be very helpful.
Going back to what you were saying, though, earlier, I feel
good about the state operations, whether it's New Jersey,
Arizona, or--my own state of Mississippi has refused to run
some of the programming over the years if they thought it was
offensive. So that is being done, I guess, state by state. The
problem is still up here, I think. Some of the stuff that's fed
down there still needs a lot of review and a continuing effort
to balance it. And I know that effort has been underway for
years, but you still have a way to go.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lott. And I hope you ladies will, you know,
continue to work in that direction.
Ms. Halpern?
Ms. Halpern. If I can just close, one of the things the CPB
has instituted in order to reconcile the tension between these
competing statutory requirements was to create a 1-800 number
and e-mail address to solicit public feedback about program
content. And the CPB does share this information with the
Congress and within the industry. The other thing that the CPB
has begun to sponsor are handbooks, seminars, and other efforts
to help the public broadcasting's journalists do a better
objective job. And we can certainly--staff and I can provide
more information about these activities if you would so desire.
Senator Lott. I would like to get that, and I do appreciate
it. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, I want to, again, thank the witnesses
for their willingness to serve, and we're grateful. I think
you're all highly qualified, and I know this is a wonderful
moment for the family members, as well. We look forward to
working with you in the future.
We intend to move your nominations as quickly as we can,
given the press of the end of session business, but we'll try
and move your nominations as quickly as possible.
I thank you, and this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
American Road and Transportation Builders Association
Washington, DC, October 31, 2003
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McCain:
The American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA),
a 101-year-old trade association exclusively representing the Nation's
transportation construction industry, enthusiastically endorses the
nomination of Kirk Van Tine to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of
Transportation.
Mr. Van Tine possesses an extraordinary intellect and resume,
having served his country in numerous ways over the last three decades.
He has served in the military, at the bar, and, most recently, in the
Federal Government with highest distinction.
ARTBA has worked with Secretary Mineta on a variety of issues for
over twenty years, and we remain impressed by the exemplary group of
top officials that he and President Bush have assembled at the
Department. By rejoining the Department as Deputy Secretary, Mr. Van
Tine would make a valuable addition to a team that is fully committed
to enhancing the safety, security, and efficiency of the Nation's
intermodal transportation network.
ARTBA has found Mr. Van Tine to be open-minded about the concerns
of our industry. At the same time, he has taken a rigorous and
principled approach to the many issues with which he dealt when he
served as the Department's General Counsel. During these challenging
times for our nation, it is more important than ever that the Deputy
Secretary of Transportation possess all of these qualities.
We hope that the Committee considers and approves Mr. Van Tine's
nomination in an expeditious fashion, and that the full Senate confirms
him soon so that he can begin work on the many vital matters facing the
Department of Transportation.
Thank you tor your consideration of ARTBA's position. If you or
your staff have any questions, please contact me at any time.
Sincerely,
T. Peter Ruane,
President and CEO.
______
American Road and Transportation Builders Association
Washington, DC, October 31, 2003
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hollings:
The American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA),
a 101-year-old trade association exclusively representing the Nation's
transportation construction industry, enthusiastically endorses the
nomination of Kirk Van Tine to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of
Transportation.
Mr. Van Tine possesses an extraordinary intellect and resume,
having served his country in numerous ways over the last three decades.
He has served in the military, at the bar, and, most recently, in the
Federal Government with highest distinction.
ARTBA has worked with Secretary Mineta on a variety of issues for
over twenty years, and we remain impressed by the exemplary group of
top officials that he and President Bush have assembled at the
Department. By rejoining the Department as Deputy Secretary, Mr. Van
Tine would make a valuable addition to a team that is fully committed
to enhancing the safety, security, and efficiency of the Nation's
intermodal transportation network.
ARTBA has found Mr. Van Tine to be open-minded about the concerns
of our industry. At the same time, he has taken a rigorous and
principled approach to the many issues with which he dealt when he
served as the Department's General Counsel During these challenging
times for our nation, it is more important than ever that the Deputy
Secretary of Transportation possess all of these qualities.
We hope that the Committee considers and approves Mr. Van Tine's
nomination in an expeditious fashion, and that the full Senate confirms
him soon so that he can begin work on the many vital matters facing the
Department of Transportation.
Thank you for your consideration of ARTBA's position. If you or
your staff have any questions, please contact me at any time.
Sincerely,
T. Peter Ruane,
President and CEO.
______
American Maritime Congress
Washington, DC, October 31, 2003
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman,
United States Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On behalf of the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, our
Nation's oldest maritime union, and the American Maritime Congress. a
research and education group representing U.S.-flagship operators in
the domestic and international trades. we are writing to strongly
support the nomination of Mr. Kirk K. Van Tine to be Deputy Secretary
of Transportation.
Mr. Van Tine, who most recently served as the General Counsel of
the Department of Transportation. has a long record of distinguished
service as an attorney in private practice for over twenty years where
he specialized in complex litigation involving business matters and the
Federal Government.
During his tenure at the Department, he has demonstrated a firm
grasp of the critical legal and policy issues surrounding
transportation, and the public/private sector interaction and
partnership that marks all modes of transportation. Particularly in the
aftermath of September 11 and the War on Terrorism, the effectiveness
of this partnership has become an essential component of our nations
homeland security and our ability to advance America's interest around
the globe. We believe that Mr. Van Tine will provide strong leadership,
vision, first-hand knowledge, and experience to this position that the
challenges now facing the United States require and for which he is
eminently qualified.
The Marine Engineer's Beneficial Association and the American
Maritime Congress fully support his nomination.
Sincerely,
Gloria Cataneo Tosi,
President.
______
Association of American Railroads
Washington, DC, November 3, 2003
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Ernest Hollings,
Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McCain and Senator Hollings:
As the Senate Commerce Committee considers the Administration's
nomination of the Honorable Kirk Van Tine for the position of Deputy
Secretary for Transportation, I would like to voice my steadfast
support for this well-qualified nominee.
Mr. Van Tine has a distinguished career and received overwhelming
support from the Senate in his nomination as General Counsel to the
Department of Transportation. In his current position Mr. Van Tine has
been instrumental in the implementation of critical safety and security
legislation in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11,
2001. In my experiences with Mr. Van Tine, I have found him to be
objective and thoughtful in all of his decisions in regard to
transportation policy. On a personal note, I have known Kirk for many
years and continue to be impressed with his work ethic and excellent
judgment.
On behalf of the U.S. freight railroad industry, please take my
favorable recommendation of Kirk Van Tine into consideration as you
review his nomination. It is my belief that Mr. Van Tine will be an
excellent Deputy Secretary of Transportation at a time when the Nation
is facing critical transportation issues.
Sincerely,
Edward R. Hamberger,
President and Chief Executive Officer.
______
Associated General Contractors of America
Alexandria, VA, November 3. 2003
Hon. Daniel Akaka,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka:
The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) represents
33,000 construction and construction-related companies in all 50
states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. On behalf of our
members, we urge you to join us in supporting the nomination of Kirk
Van Tine to be the Deputy Secretary of the Department of
Transportation. Mr. Van Tine has the necessary background and knowledge
to ensure that the department is as effective as possible, dealing with
mature issues such as aviation security, aviation reauthorization, and
highway and transit reauthorization legislation. He is equally capable
of taking on emerging issues that the Department will face during his
tenure.
The integration of the many moving parts that make up both the
operations agenda, and the legislative and regulatory agendas of the
Department of Transportation require the attention of someone like Mr.
Van Tine. He has proven himself time and time again to be a natural and
effective leader, and will prove to be a genuine asset in the
Department of Transportation. For all of those reasons, he has the full
confidence of the Associated General Contractors of America to serve in
the capacity of Deputy Secretary of the Department of Transportation.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our views.
Sincerely.
Stephen E. Sandherr,
Chief Executive Officer.
SES/jds
______
General Aviation Manufacturers Association
Washington, DC.
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McCain:
The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA)
enthusiastically endorses the nomination of Kirk Van Tine to be Deputy
Secretary of the Department of Transportation.
Mr. Van Tine's exemplary service to the Department of
Transportation as General Counsel proves that he will be a valuable
asset to the Department as its Deputy. GAMA has had an opportunity to
work with Mr. Van Tine and found him to be open to addressing the
issues facing the general aviation industry. We are impressed with his
work ethic and dedication to transportation issues.
Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, the general aviation industry has
faced numerous challenges over the past two years. Numerous security
regulations are changing the way general aviation operates. We need
strong leaders at the helm of the Department. Now more than ever our
members are relying on the thoughtful leadership of Mr. Van Tine.
We encourage the Committee to consider and approve Mr. Van Tine's
nomination in an expeditious manner and that the full Senate confirms
him soon. Thank you for your consideration of GAMA's endorsement.
Sincerely,
Ed Bolen,
President and CEO.
______
General Aviation Manufacturers Association
Washington, DC.
Hon. Ernest Hollings,
Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hollings:
The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA)
enthusiastically endorses the nomination of Kirk Van Tine to be Deputy
Secretary of the Department of Transportation.
Mr. Van Tine's exemplary service to the Department of
Transportation as General Counsel proves that he will be a valuable
asset to the Department as its Deputy. GAMA has had an opportunity to
work with Mr. Van Tine and found him to be open to addressing the
issues facing the general aviation industry. We are impressed with his
work ethic and dedication to transportation issues.
Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, the general aviation industry has
faced numerous challenges over the past two years. Numerous security
regulations are changing the way general aviation operates. We need
strong leaders at the helm of the Department. Now more than ever our
members are relying on the thoughtful leadership of Mr. Van Tine.
We encourage the Committee to consider and approve Mr. Van Tine's
nomination in an expeditious manner and that the full Senate confirms
him soon. Thank you for your consideration of GAMA's endorsement.
Sincerely,
Ed Bolen,
President and CEO.
______
November 3, 2003
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hollings:
On September 18, the President announced his intention to nominate
Kirk Van Tine as Deputy Secretary of Transportation. Based on our
collective and individual experiences with him, we believe he would
make an excellent Deputy Secretary of Transportation and urge you to
proceed with the confirmation process to fill that vitally important
position.
While Mr. Van Tine was General Counsel at the Department of
Transportation, he was devoted to the mission of the Department,
particularly enhancement of airline competition, open markets and the
restoration of service following the tragic events of September 11,
2001. During his tenure as General Counsel, we found Mr. Van Tine to be
consistently even-handed and objective while he worked tirelessly to
address the issues facing the airline industry. While we did not
necessarily agree with all Department decisions in which Mr. Van Tine
was involved, he carefully listened to all positions, engaged in
constructive government/industry dialogue, and acted with great
integrity. He pursued constructive steps for the benefit of all
carriers.
As the airline industry continues on the fragile road to recovery,
it is essential that Mr. Van Tine be allowed to bring his experience
and knowledge to the Department, so that he can help lead the
Department's efforts to address the needs of consumers, communities,
and airlines.
If there is anything further we can do to assist the Committee in
the nominating process for Mr. Van Tine, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Joseph Leonard
Chairman & CEO
AirTran Airways, Inc.
Jeff Potter
President & CEO
Frontier Airlines, Inc.
Timothy E. Hoeksema
Chairman, President and CEO
Midwest Express Airlines
Doug Parker
Chairman, President and CEO
America West Airlines
David Neeleman
CEO
JetBlue Airways Corporation
Herb Kelleher
Chairman
Southwest Airlines
Jacob M. Schorr
President and CEO
Spirit Airlines
cc: Minority Leader Thomas Daschle
______
November 3, 2003
Hon. Trent Lott,
Chairman, Aviation Subcommittee,
Senate Commerce Committee,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On September 18, the President announced his intention to nominate
Kirk Van Tine as Deputy Secretary of Transportation. Based on our
collective and individual experiences with him, we believe he would
make an excellent Deputy Secretary of Transportation and urge you to
proceed with the confirmation process to fill that vitally important
position.
While Mr. Van Tine was General Counsel at the Department of
Transportation, he was devoted to the mission of the Department,
particularly enhancement of airline competition, open markets and the
restoration of service following the tragic events of September 11,
2001. During his tenure as General Counsel, we found Mr. Van Tine to be
consistently even-handed and objective while he worked tirelessly to
address the issues facing the airline industry. While we did not
necessarily agree with all Department decisions in which Mr. Van Tine
was involved, he carefully listened to all positions, engaged in
constructive government/industry dialogue, and acted with great
integrity. He pursued constructive steps for the benefit of all
carriers.
As the airline industry continues on the fragile road to recovery,
it is essential that Mr. Van Tine be allowed to bring his experience
and knowledge to the Department, so that he can help lead the
Department's efforts to address the needs of consumers, communities,
and airlines.
If there is anything further we can do to assist the Committee in
the nominating process for Mr. Van Tine, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Joseph Leonard
Chairman & CEO
AirTran Airways, Inc.
Jeff Potter
President & CEO
Frontier Airlines, Inc.
Timothy E. Hoeksema
Chairman, President and CEO
Midwest Express Airlines
Doug Parker
Chairman, President and CEO
America West Airlines
David Neeleman
CEO
JetBlue Airways Corporation
Herb Kelleher
Chairman
Southwest Airlines
Jacob M. Schorr
President and CEO
Spirit Airlines
______
November 3, 2003
Hon. John D. ``Jay'' Rockefeller IV,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Rockefeller:
On September 18, the President announced his intention to nominate
Kirk Van Tine as Deputy Secretary of Transportation. Based on our
collective and individual experiences with him, we believe he would
make an excellent Deputy Secretary of Transportation and urge you to
proceed with the confirmation process to fill that vitally important
position.
While Mr. Van Tine was General Counsel at the Department of
Transportation, he was devoted to the mission of the Department,
particularly enhancement of airline competition, open markets and the
restoration of service following the tragic events of September 11,
2001. During his tenure as General Counsel, we found Mr. Van Tine to be
consistently even-handed and objective while he worked tirelessly to
address the issues facing the airline industry. While we did not
necessarily agree with all Department decisions in which Mr. Van Tine
was involved, he carefully listened to all positions, engaged in
constructive government/industry dialogue, and acted with great
integrity. He pursued constructive steps for the benefit of all
carriers.
As the airline industry continues on the fragile road to recovery,
it is essential that Mr. Van Tine be allowed to bring his experience
and knowledge to the Department, so that he can help lead the
Department's efforts to address the needs of consumers, communities,
and airlines.
If there is anything further we can do to assist the Committee in
the nominating process for Mr. Van Tine, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Joseph Leonard
Chairman & CEO
AirTran Airways, Inc.
Jeff Potter
President & CEO
Frontier Airlines, Inc.
Timothy E. Hoeksema
Chairman, President and CEO
Midwest Express Airlines
Doug Parker
Chairman, President and CEO
America West Airlines
David Neeleman
CEO
JetBlue Airways Corporation
Herb Kelleher
Chairman
Southwest Airlines
Jacob M. Schorr
President and CEO
Spirit Airlines
______
Transportation Institute
Camp Springs, MD, November 3, 2003
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman,
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Transportation Institute, representing U.S.-flag vessel
operators engaged in all aspects of the Nation's waterborne commerce,
wishes to express its support for the nomination of Kirk K. Van Tine to
be Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Mr. Van Tine has served admirably as General Counsel at the
Transportation Department and during that time developed a keen
appreciation of the complexities facing the U.S. transportation
industries, both internationally and domestically. His performance as
General Counsel, as an attorney in private practice for more than 20
years, and as a naval officer have clearly prepared him well to assume
this leadership position.
We urge the Committee, and in turn the Senate, to look with favor
once again on his nomination. Mr. Van Tine has served the
Transportation Department with distinction and will continue to do so
as Deputy Secretary.
Sincerely,
James L. Henry.
cc: The Honorable Ernest Hollings
JLH:rf
______
UPS Corporate Public Affairs
Washington, DC. November 4, 2003
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On September 18, President Bush announced his intention to nominate
Kirk Van Tine as Deputy Secretary of Transportation. UPS does not
oppose this nomination and remains neutral in this proceeding.
The Deputy Secretary of Transportation provides a critical role in
the function and operation of the Nation's transportation network. UPS
looks forward to an expeditious confirmation process by your Committee.
If there is anything we can provide to assist the Committee in the
nominating process, please contact me at 202/675-4251. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Arnold F. Wellman,
Vice President,
Corporate Public Affairs,
Domestic/International.
______
American Public Transportation Association
November 5, 2003
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman,
Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I write on behalf of the 1,500 member organizations of the American
Public Transportation Association (APTA) in support of the
Administration's nomination of former Department of Transportation
General Counsel Kirk K. Van Tine to be the Department's Deputy
Secretary.
About APTA
APTA is the trade association for the North American public
transportation industry. Its public and private member organizations
include transit systems and commuter rail operators; planning, design,
construction and finance firms; product and service providers; academic
institutions, transit associations and state departments of
transportation. APTA members serve the public interest by providing
safe, efficient and economical transit services and products. Over
ninety percent of persons using public transportation in the United
States and Canada are served by APTA members.
Our Support
During Mr. Van Tine's tenure as the Department's General Counsel,
APTA was pleased with the good working relationships we had with
Departmental legal counsel responsible for transit, safety and commuter
rail issues. We knew that the issues and concerns of our membership
would have a fair and balanced hearing, and this was always the case.
We are thus very appreciative of Mr. Van Tine's stewardship of the
Department's legal team during his time as General Counsel, and believe
he served the public interest well in that regard.
The Department has faced considerable organizational change over
the past two years, and many critical transportation challenges remain
to be addressed. Mr. Van Tine not only served as General Counsel but
also worked closely with Secretary Mineta and the Department's
leadership team on a range of important national issues. In these
difficult times particularly, we believe that continuity and experience
are important to maintain at the highest levels of Departmental
leadership. We have the utmost respect and confidence in Secretary
Mineta, and urge you to support his candidate to be Deputy Secretary of
the Department of Transportation.
Sincerely yours,
William W. Millar,
President.
WWM/cbo
______
American Public Transportation Association
November 5, 2003
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
Ranking Member,
Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hollings:
I write on behalf of the 1,500 member organizations of the American
Public Transportation Association (APTA) in support of the
Administration's nomination of former Department of Transportation
General Counsel Kirk K. Van Tine to be the Department's Deputy
Secretary.
About APTA
APTA is the trade association for the North American public
transportation industry. Its public and private member organizations
include transit systems and commuter rail operators; planning, design,
construction and finance firms; product and service providers; academic
institutions, transit associations and state departments of
transportation. APTA members serve the public interest by providing
safe, efficient and economical transit services and products. Over
ninety percent of persons using public transportation in the United
States and Canada are served by APTA members.
Our Support
During Mr. Van Tine's tenure as the Department's General Counsel,
APTA was pleased with the good working relationships we had with
Departmental legal counsel responsible for transit, safety and commuter
rail issues. We knew that the issues and concerns of our membership
would have a fair and balanced hearing, and this was always the case.
We are thus very appreciative of Mr. Van Tine's stewardship of the
Department's legal team during his time as General Counsel, and believe
he served the public interest well in that regard.
The Department has faced considerable organizational change over
the past two years, and many critical transportation challenges remain
to be addressed. Mr. Van Tine not only served as General Counsel but
also worked closely with Secretary Mineta and the Department's
leadership team on a range of important national issues. In these
difficult times particularly, we believe that continuity and experience
are important to maintain at the highest levels of Departmental
leadership. We have the utmost respect and confidence in Secretary
Mineta, and urge you to support his candidate to be Deputy Secretary of
the Department of Transportation.
Sincerely yours,
William W. Millar,
President.
WWM/cbo
______
US Airways
Arlington, VA, November 6, 2003
Hon. Bill Frist,
Majority Leader,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Frist:
I am writing to express U.S. Airways' support for three key
nominees to positions in the Department of Transportation and to ask
for the Senate's timely approval of these candidates. With the current
tumultuous state of the commercial airline industry, I believe it is
vital that Kirk Van Tine, Jeffrey Rosen, and Karan Bhatia be confirmed
by the Senate so they may begin their work at the Department.
Secretary Mineta has demonstrated both his abilities to lead the
Department, as well as build a capable and qualified team. U.S. Airways
worked closely with Mr. Van Tine in particular during our loan approval
process with the Air Transportation Stabilization Board (ATSB) and
found him to be fair, objective, and professional while representing
the Department of Transportation's interests. I believe he 'Will bring
these same qualities to his position as Deputy Secretary of
Transportation.
I have great confidence that these candidates will be an asset to
the Department as it works with aviation industry partners to continue
building a safe and viable air transportation system. Your help in
scheduling a vote on their nominations before the Senate recesses for
the year would he most appreciated.
Sincerely,
David N. Siegel,
President and Chief Executive Officer.
cc: Honorable Tom Daschle
Honorable John McCain
Honorable Ernest Hollings
______
Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.
Arlington, VA, November 13, 2003
Hon. Bill Frist,
Senate Majority Leader,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Frist:
On behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), and its
more than 23,000 general contractors, subcontractors, material
suppliers, and related firms across the country, I am writing today to
express our association's support for President Bush's nomination of
Mr. Kirk Van Tine to the position of Deputy Secretary of
Transportation.
While serving as General Counsel at the Department of
Transportation, Mr. Van Kirk has been a loyal ally of ABC.
Specifically, his dedication to implementation of Executive Order
13202--which restricts the use of mandatory union-only project labor
agreements on federally funded construction projects has ensured that
taxpayers' dollars are well spent.
Again on behalf of ABC, I urge your support of Mr. Kirk Van Tine
during his confirmation procedures.
Respectfully Submitted,
William B. Spencer,
Vice President, Government Affairs.
CC: The Honorable Ernest Hollings
The Honorable John McCain
The Honorable Thomas Daschle
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Conrad Burns to
Michael D. Gallagher
Question 1. Your office negotiates and administers the Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) under which many critical functions are
delegated to ICANN. Your predecessor also led the U.S. Government
delegation to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) of ICANN. Do you
anticipate that if you are confirmed as NTIA Administrator you will be
actively and personally engaged in these issues? If confirmed, will you
undertake to report regularly to the Senate Commerce Committee on how
NTIA is carrying out this role?
Answer. I am committed to fulfilling the role of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in support of
the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Department of
Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN). I consider the implementation of the terms of the most recent
MOU a high priority effort in which I will be actively and personally
engaged. I will be happy to provide the Committee with reports on
NTIA's activities and efforts in this critical area.
Question 2. The Department of Commerce and ICANN recently signed a
3-year extension of the MOU. Under this extension agreement, ICANN
explicitly commits to address a problem that is of great concern to me
and the Commerce Committee as well: false WHOIS data. WHOIS and similar
databases are essential for identifying and locating domain name
registrants, especially in cases of security threats, consumer fraud,
activities harmful to children, and other misconduct that occurs
online, but the database cannot play that role if it is filled with
wholly inaccurate contact information, as it is now. Under the MOU
extension, ICANN promised to ``implement measures to secure improved
accuracy of WHOIS data.'' Can you be more specific about what NTIA will
be looking for from ICANN regarding WHOIS accuracy, and explain the
steps you will be looking for ICANN to take to fulfill this obligation?
Answer. I share your concerns regarding false or inaccurate WHOIS
data. The WHOIS database serves many important public policy needs,
such as allowing intellectual property owners to determine the identity
of those conducting piracy or trademark counterfeiting operations, law
enforcement officials to investigate illegal activities online, and
consumers to identify the commercial entity with whom they are dealing.
It is for this reason that the Department and ICANN agreed to two
provisions regarding WHOIS in the current MOU--the implementation of a
centralized complaint process and an annual WHOIS update requirement
for accredited registrars. ICANN will report to the Department on their
progress in this regard annually, starting, respectively, in March and
November, 2004.
Moreover, I believe that ICANN's management understands the need
for accurate and publicly available WHOIS data, and have been
encouraged by recent developments within the ICANN community. In
addition to the implementation of a centralized complaint process and
an annual WHOIS update requirement for accredited registrars, the
President of ICANN has established a ``President's Committee on WHOIS''
to ensure collaboration among all constituents with respect to WHOIS
data issues and convened a WHOIS workshop at ICANN's recent meeting
last month. These activities reflect a continuing commitment by ICANN
to broaden understanding of WHOIS data accuracy and usage issues and to
develop a responsive work program. I see these developments as concrete
steps to implement measures to ensure improved accuracy of WHOIS data.
Question 3. Some people have read the MOU as if ICANN's obligations
regarding WHOIS data accuracy are limited to publishing only the
Internic WHOIS Data Problem Reports and the ICANN WHOIS Data Reminder
Policy on an annual basis. Can you clarify that this is not the case,
and that you are looking to ICANN to implement new mechanisms to
improve the accuracy of WHOIS data, not just to prepare reports on
these two aspects of WHOIS?
Answer. ICANN's responsibilities to improve the accuracy of WHOIS
data go beyond mere reporting functions. Section II.C.10 of the MOU
between the Department of Commerce and ICANN provides that ICANN shall
``[c]ontinue to assess the operation of WHOIS databases and to
implement measures to secure improved accuracy of WHOIS data.'' To this
end, the Internic WHOIS Data Problem Reports and the ICANN WHOIS Data
Reminder Policy Reports are only intended to be specific examples of
tasks supporting the broader goal of improving WHOIS data accuracy.
ICANN management and key constituencies have undertaken other
initiatives in this regard. For example, ICANN's Generic Names
Supporting Organization is engaged in an examination of relevant
aspects of the WHOIS database with a view towards developing
recommendations to improve its accuracy. My focus will be on improving
the accuracy of WHOIS data and not just report production.
Question 4. The MOU extension requires ICANN to ``augment its
corporate compliance program'' and to ``audit material contracts for
compliance by all parties''. In your view, what role should contract
enforcement play in such a compliance program? Will NTIA be expecting
ICANN to go beyond ``auditing'' contracts for compliance and undertake
enforcement of those contracts if it detects violations? In this
regard, do you believe that the NTIA views the Registrar Accreditation
Agreements signed by each registrar with ICANN as ``material
contracts'' that are covered by this aspect of the MOU extension?
Answer. From my perspective, the MOU provisions are intended to
ensure that ICANN's management understands the critical role that
contracts play in the financial and corporate stability and security of
the organization. Clearly the Registrar Accreditation Agreements are
key documents defining ICANN's relationship with registrars and are
critical to ensuring accurate and publicly available WHOIS data. I
believe that ICANN's new management does understand and is committed to
resolving contract compliance issues, including enforcement of WHOIS
provisions in the Registrar Accreditation Agreements. Following
completion of the audits, I will take any necessary corrective actions.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to provide additional
information on the Department's relationship with ICANN, particularly
with regard to WHOIS data. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I
can be of any further assistance.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John McCain to
Kirk K. Van Tine
Surface
Question 1. As you know, the Administration has announced its
intention to fulfill the cross-border traffic requirements of NAFTA and
will open the Border by the end of the year. What is the Department
doing to prepare for the anticipated opening of the border? Will the
Administration submit a proposal to Congress to authorize additional
funding for border-related activities or seek other related authority?
Answer. I am aware that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration has prepared a comprehensive plan to ensure that the
NAFTA cross-border provisions are implemented safely and on time. The
plan sets forth specific screening and monitoring procedures to ensure
that Mexican vehicles and drivers comply with Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations when they operate in the U.S. The Administration has
sought a significant increase in resources for FY2002 activities to
prepare for the safe entry of cross-border commercial traffic.
Some of the major program strategies, activities, and milestones
planned or undertaken to prepare for the opening of the Southern border
to commercial traffic follow:
1. Rulemaking. On May 3, 2001, DOT proposed regulations governing
the application process for Mexican-domiciled carriers that
wish to operate in the U.S. and the process by which DOT will
review the safety records of carriers during the first 18
months of their U.S. operations. The new requirements will
ensure that carriers understand and are able to comply with
U.S. requirements. Final regulations will be published by
November 2001.
2. Resources. To support comprehensive State and Federal safety
enforcement activities at the Southern border, the Department
requested $88.2 million in additional funds in its FY 2002
budget. The request includes $13.9 million to hire 85
additional Federal staff to perform safety inspections and
conduct safety audits of Mexican carriers. The Department also
requested $54 million to provide the Federal share for the
construction and improvement of State commercial vehicle
inspection facilities. Currently 2 3 border crossings with
truck traffic do not have permanent inspection facilities. In
addition, the Department requested $2.3 million for immediate
construction of areas to park commercial vehicles placed out-
of-service for safety violations. The Department is also
proposing that an additional $18 million be made available to
support the staffing of State facilities and increase State
motor carrier border inspection activities. All-Federal
enforcement personnel will be hired and trained by December
2001.
3. Education and Outreach. The FMCSA, in concert with the border
States, will be conducting a series of safety compliance
seminars to educate Mexican carriers and drivers on compliance
with Federal and State regulations. The seminars will include a
detailed explanation of new application requirements. These
seminars will supplement ongoing efforts to translate and
distribute educational materials to Mexican carriers and
drivers. The seminars will be conducted from August to November
2001.
4. Application Processing Procedures. Procedures are being developed
to ensure that all applications are evaluated thoroughly,
accurately, and consistently, and that only qualified carriers
are approved to operate. Procedures will be developed by
September 2001. An application-processing center will also be
established by September 2001.
5. Safety Audit Procedures. To ensure Mexican carriers operate
safely, the FMCSA rulemaking requires that an audit of each
carrier's safety performance be conducted. Within 18 months of
receiving authority, all Mexican carriers must submit to a
safety audit by providing records to a Federal safety
investigator and participating in a thorough review of their
operating procedures. Procedures for conducting the review will
be in place by August 2001.
6. Safety Databases. The FMCSA will focus on improving the safety
information systems available to Federal and State enforcement
officials in order to verify application information directly
with Mexican transportation officials, automate the review of
applications, provide real time safety performance and other
data to Federal and State inspectors and effectively monitor
the safety performance of Mexican motor carriers operating in
the United States. All inspectors will have access to available
U.S. and Mexican driver licensing, carrier, and other safety
databases by January 1, 2002.
7. NAFTA Coordination. The Department of Transportation will
continue to work with Mexico to increase regulatory
compatibility between our countries, establish cooperative
agreements on the exchange of safety information, and provide
technical assistance to build compatible compliance and
enforcement programs in Mexico. The adoption and implementation
of comparable programs in Mexico will provide greater assurance
that vehicles entering the U.S. are already in compliance with
safety standards.
Question 2. The astronomical costs of transportation projects
should be a top concern to the Department. The cost overruns associated
with the Boston Central Artery Tunnel Project have risen to over $14
billion, and those costs will likely continue to rise before the
project is completed. The Big Dig project must serve as an example for
all of us on the critical importance of Federal oversight of federally
funded transportation projects.
In addition to the Big Dig, the DOT is overseeing 41 other mega-
projects. What actions will you take, to ensure greater Federal
oversight on all federally-funded transportation projects--from
airports to shipyards to highway projects?
Answer. I believe it is critical that the Department be a careful
steward of Federal funds. Recipients of DOT funds and DOT internal
managers must be held accountable for meeting cost and schedule goals.
Since projects will not always proceed as planned, the Department
should have early warning of problems with these large projects and
should play an active role in developing solutions for those problems.
I understand that the Department created a Task Force to strengthen
the oversight process and that several recommendations have been
developed regarding improvements in the quality of the oversight
process and selection of the managers who perform the oversight. If
confirmed, I would expect to work with other members of Secretary
Mineta's management team to ensure that DOT oversight is strengthened.
Several of the operating administrations within DOT have processes
in place to oversee additional infrastructure projects that are not
categorized as mega-projects. Strengthening the process for mega-
projects will also serve as a model for strengthening the oversight of
these smaller projects.
Administrative
Question 3. Over the last several years, it has become apparent
that it is difficult, at best, to get reports and regulations cleared
for release by DOT. Reports to Congress are regularly late and
regulations are often held up for months as they make there way through
the various agencies within DOT. Apparently even DOT agencies that have
no role in the development, oversight, or enforcement of regulations
are routinely required to review and sign off on regulations and
reports before clearance.
(a) What action would you take to improve interagency communication
and cooperation within DOT and streamline the review process for
regulations and reports?
(b) What will you do to help ensure that reports to Congress are
completed and submitted in a timely manner?
Answer. Secretary Mineta has committed the Department to moving as
expeditiously as possible in rulemakings, consistent with its
obligation to ensure that DOT agencies comply with all statutory
requirements for rulemaking. As General Counsel, I would play a
significant role in accomplishing this management objective. On the
recommendation of the DOT Inspector General, the Department has
instituted a new tracking system for regulations. That system became
operational on May 1. It is capable of generating a basic set of needed
reports, and the Department intends to expand its capabilities over the
coming months.
Secretary Mineta's frustration with delinquent reports from the
Department while serving as a Member of Congress clearly demonstrated
to him the need for accurate, timely information as a key component for
decision-making by Congress. Additionally, the Deputy Secretary has
made timely regulatory action by the Department and its modes a very
high priority, in line with recent recommendations of the Inspector
General. The DOT Inspector General (IG) studied delay in DOT rulemaking
(report issued July 20, 2000), and its recommendations form the basis
for improved interagency communication and cooperation. The IG found
areas where there were clear opportunities for improving efficiency and
effectiveness and made several recommendations, all of which the
Department has implemented or is implementing. If confirmed as General
Counsel, I commit to make a sustained effort in this area one of my
highest priorities.
It is my understanding that the various administrations within DOT
are not routinely asked to review the rulemaking actions of other
administrations within DOT unless the rule making could directly affect
programs within their immediate jurisdiction. For example, FRA may be
asked to review an FMCSA rulemaking on railroad crossings, and NHTSA
may review an FAA rulemaking on child seats. In addition, it is my
understanding that the Office of the Secretary now limits the review of
proposed regulations and reports only to those offices within the
Department that could be affected. In coordinating the regulatory
process for all the modes, I would attempt to ensure that the process
works efficiently, and that regulations are developed and cleared in a
timely manner.
Question 4. I trust that you clearly understand the difference
between statutory and report language. What steps will you take at the
Department to ensure that the modal administrations treat report
language as it is intended, an expression of Congressional interest,
rather than having it be treated as a Congressional mandate?
Answer. I can assure you that I clearly understand the difference
between statutory and report language, particularly when it comes to
the naming of specific projects in report language. In such instances,
only statutory language is law; report language is not law but simply
an expression of Congressional interest. If confirmed, I will be sure
that the Chief Counsel offices in the modal administrations understand
this as well.
Maritime
Question 5. The President has proposed as part of the
Administration's FY 2002 budget to zero out funding for Title XI
maritime loan guarantee program. Private maritime interests who support
the program recently published a report which argues that the program
has been a net revenue raiser for the Federal Government? I am
concerned the findings in the report have not been subjected to any
outside independent analysis. If confirmed, what will you do in order
to insure that such reports, which clearly counter the Department's
position, are responded to fully and in a timely manner?
Answer. If confirmed, I will attempt to ensure that, when the
Department is requested to evaluate a private report, it will perform
an objective, independent, and balanced evaluation, and that the
Department's analysis will be completed in a timely manner. My
understanding is that an evaluation of the report mentioned is underway
at this time in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and
Programs.
Aviation
Question 6. The FAA recently published several options for managing
excessive demand at LaGuardia airport. Two of the options were
developed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which
operates the airport. Those options involved market-based solutions
wherein the Port Authority would charge congestion fees or hold an
auction for take off and landing ``reservations.'' I believe that any
attempt to manage demand at LaGuardia must be done under the authority
of the Federal Government because local authorities are legal preempted
from imposing such solutions. Do you agree that airports do not, under
Federal law, have authority to establish their own remedies, such as
congestion fees, for managing demand for air services?
Answer. The extent of an airport proprietor's powers to set fees to
manage demand for air services raises complex legal issues as well as
difficult issues with regard to our international aviation obligations.
The FAA has the statutory authority to regulate navigable airspace and
to assure efficient air traffic management. 49 U.S.C. 40103. An airport
proprietor has the right to impose fees, terms and conditions on
operators at its airport hat are reasonable, nonarbitrary,
nondiscriminatory, intended to advance a local interest, and do not
impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. 49 U.S.C. 41 713(b). It
is possible that a properly structured peak pricing program whose
objective is to align the number of aircraft operations with airport
capacity could be reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory under 49
U.S.C. 471 07(a)(1) and 47129 as well as under the U.S. international
air services obligations and the International Civil Aviation
Organization's policies.
However, the Department has the legal authority and obligation to
review and carefully consider such programs, and I would ensure that
the Department exercises that authority with respect to any plan. As
stated in its June 12 Federal Register notice on LaGuardia options,
[T]he FAA does not propose nor endorse the Port Authority's
options at this time. Federal laws, regulations, and U.S.
international obligations presently in place may, in fact,
prevent PANYNJ from imposing these proposals. In this notice we
seek suggestions on effective, comprehensive solutions that
represent the best public policy for controlling congestion and
allocating operating rights at LGA, and we will consider
pertinent legal issues in any policy options ultimately put
forward for adoption. 66 FR 31 736.
I understand that, at present, FAA is working with the Port
Authority in seeking solutions to the congestion at LaGuardia; the Port
Authority has not acted to impose congestion pricing or other market-
based options on its own. The FAA's current effort is to attempt to
identify those options that represent the best public policy solutions
for controlling congestion at LaGuardia, and then address whether they
might be implemented in accordance with existing legal and
international requirements or whether changes might be advisable. I
would ensure that I am kept informed as this subject develops, and that
the Department's actions are based on sound legal analysis.
Question 7. As you may know, the bilateral air services agreement
between the United States and United Kingdom, known as Bermuda 2,
restricts competition and is heavily slanted in favor of British air
carriers. The U.S. has tried unsuccessfully for many years to
liberalize the relationship. In recent weeks, there has been some talk
that negotiations may be back on track as American Airlines and British
Airways may make another attempt to obtain antitrust immunity for it
international alliance.
(a) What is your position with regard to the U.S./U.K. bilateral,
and what will you do to ensure that the United States is not put at a
disadvantage with respect to access at Heathrow?
Answer. I understand that replacing the restrictive U.S.-U.K.
aviation agreement with an ``Open-Skies'' agreement is a U.S. aviation
priority. DOT met informally with the British on June 26 and 27 to
discuss a possible resumption of talks, and it was agreed that the
parties would not fix dates at this point, but would be flexible and
prepared to meet as and when circumstances develop further. Meanwhile,
DOT continues to concentrate its efforts on partners that are ready for
liberalization.
I recognize the importance to U.S. carriers of access to Heathrow.
I also recognize that Heathrow is a highly congested airport and that
it is critical for the slot allocation system to continue to be
transparent and non discriminatory. In a liberalized environment, the
ability of U.S. carriers to establish a competitively effective
presence at Heathrow will be a key consideration if British Airways
seeks antitrust immunity.
(b) What are the chances that the U.S. will be able to get a more
liberalized agreement, or even ``open skies,'' with regard to the
British?
Answer. Although I do not at present have access to full
information on this topic, it appears unclear whether the U.K.
government is ready to engage in serious talks leading to open skies.
(c) What is your position on changing the 25-percent limitation on
foreign investment in U.S. airlines?
Answer. The current 25 percent limit on foreign voting interest in
U.S. air carriers is of course a part of U.S. aviation law, so any
possible change would entail close consultation between the
Administration and interested members of Congress. I am aware that
there is a divergence of opinion on this issue. Proponents cite the
existing limit as an obstacle to further liberalizing U.S. carriers'
access to foreign markets, while others raise concerns about possible
impact on our defense posture and other adverse effects. If confirmed,
I would form an opinion on this important question only after I have
had an opportunity to make a thorough study of all the relevant issues,
in consultation with governmental and private-sector stakeholders.
(d) What are your views on cabotage, and do you believe U.S. air
carriers would be at an advantage or disadvantage if the Congress
changed the cabotage laws?
Answer. This is a fundamental issue for both domestic and foreign
aviation policy, as well as for the transportation parties concerned. I
am familiar with the divergence of views in this area. Globalization of
the airline industry, the growing number of carrier alliances, and
consolidation concerns, for different reasons, have all spurred calls
to reevaluate constraints that limit the markets that airlines can
enter.
Modifying or removing the cabotage prohibition could result in new
sources of competition for U.S. aviation consumers and if adopted
globally, contribute to a more open international aviation regime on a
worldwide basis. However, there are also important competing factors,
such as our defense posture, that argue against any change in the
cabotage prohibition.
I believe that U.S. airlines have shown both domestically and
internationally that they are effective, adaptable competitors. I would
expect such U.S. carrier competition to continue if the cabotage laws
were changed. However, the specifics of any ``advantage or
disadvantage'' would also depend on how Congress changed the cabotage
laws and the international response to the change.
Question 8. In its January 2001 report on airline competition, the
Department of Transportation discussed taking aggressive action to open
up airport facilities to make possible new and increased airlines
services, and thereby promote competition.
(a) What actions to open airport facilities do you believe DOT
could take in order to promote competition?
Answer. Beginning with Fiscal Year 2001, certain large-and medium-
hub airports must submit competition plans in order for the FAA to
approve the collection of a new Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) or for
a grant to be issued under the Airport Improvement Program (AlP). The
underlying purpose of this statutory requirement--contained in AIR 21
and based on our report ``Airport Business Practices and their Impact
on Airline Competition''--is for those airports that are dominated by
one or two carriers to demonstrate how they will provide for new-
entrant access and expansion of incumbent air carriers.
To date, DOT has reviewed and provided extensive comments on 38
competition plans, resulting in airport officials adopting business
practices that are more ``entry friendly.'' DOT has met with airports
that have deficient plans to provide them with detailed comments as to
what actions they need to take to meet their statutory obligations
regarding the content of the competition plan. Finally, DOT developed
an ``implementation audit plan,'' required by AIR 21, in light of the
possible need to take more stringent legal/regulatory actions against
those airports not meeting their legal obligations.
(b) In your view, is the perimeter rule at Reagan, National Airport
an anticompetitive barrier to competition?
Answer. While a principal tenet of airline deregulation is open
competition and the elimination of economic restrictions such as the
perimeter rule, the Department's position has been that modification to
the perimeter rule at Reagan National Airport should be handled by
Congress and the local authorities. I agree with that position.
Question 9. For each of the past four years, DOT has extended the
current Computer Reservation System (CRS) rules for a year without
addressing the concerns that it raised about the rules' applicability
to Internet sales and other issues.
(a) Do you believe the CRS rules should apply to Internet
distribution of airline tickets?
Answer. Because the Department recognizes the importance of the
question of whether the CRS rules should be applied to the Internet
sale of airline tickets, the Department asked the parties in its
pending CRS rulemaking to comment on this issue. I understand that many
parties submitted comments on this issue which disagree on whether
regulation is necessary. I have not yet had an opportunity to review
those comments but would carefully do so before I would advise the
Secretary on the rulemaking issues.
(b) When will DOT act to finalize changes to the CRS rules?
Answer. The Secretary fully recognizes the importance of completing
the CRS rulemaking. He has instructed the staff to move forward on the
rulemaking and develop a rulemaking proposal that can be forwarded to
OMB. If confirmed, I intend to ensure that the staff promptly carries
out the Secretary's directions.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ernest F. Hollings to
Kirk K. Van Tine
Stabilization Act Compensation Payments
Question 1. I have been informed that the DOT has provided
different awards of compensation to comparably situated air carriers.
Some have suggested that there may be serious flaws in the way the
compensation payments were administered. At different times, I received
complaints about the management of the program.
Was any thought given to the need for third party resolution
of disputes, or at least their assignment to an Administrative
Law Judge.
Do you have any thoughts as to why there have been what seem
to be a lot of complaints about the handling of this program?
Answer. The Department's implementation of the compensation
provisions of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization
Act has been based on the language of the statute. In Section 103 of
the Act, Congress specified that the amount of a carrier's compensation
was to be the lesser of the amount determined under a market share
formula, or the amount of the carrier's actual losses due to the
terrorist attacks. In that same section, Congress also specified that
the amount paid could not exceed the amount that the carrier could
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the President, that it lost due to
those attacks.
Under Section 103, if two ``comparably situated'' carriers both
demonstrated actual losses greater than their market share formula
amount, then both would be entitled to their formula amount. For
carriers with comparable market shares, the formula would result in
comparable compensation for both. However, if one or both carriers
demonstrated losses less than the formula amount, the amount of
compensation payable to each might be different, because the carriers
may have incurred different actual losses as a result of differing
business structures, different contractual arrangements with customers,
or other possible factual differences.
On September 17, 2003, the General Accounting Office issued a
report on the Department's post-September 11 aviation assistance
programs. That report included a review of the Department's processes
and methodology in implementing the compensation program. The GAO
report contained no adverse findings or recommendations, and indicated
that DOT's payment methodology conformed to the statutory requirements.
A copy of that report, GAO-03-1156R, is attached.
As described in the report, the Department's ``disaster relief
program was administered by a team of DOT accountants, economists, and
aviation analysts within the Office of the Secretary with support from
the Office of the General Counsel and Office of the Inspector General.
DOT designed and implemented a structured claim review process to help
ensure that only September 11 losses were compensated. . . . After
applications were reviewed, carriers received the lesser of allowable
actual losses related to the terrorist attacks or the market share
formula amount as specified in the Act.'' GAO Report at 12 (footnote
omitted).
In its review, GAO focused on the claims of 14 major carriers,
including two all cargo carriers, United Parcel Service and Federal
Express. GAO Report at 19. However, as the report notes, DOT received
over 450 applications for compensation under the Act. Almost all of
those claims were resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the carriers
and the Department. Presently, only three carriers are challenging the
Department's procedures in court.
In establishing the procedures for processing claims, the
Department did give consideration to the issue of how to resolve
disputes that might arise. Because of the large number of claims that
were anticipated, and because of the urgent need on the part of the
carriers to receive payment as quickly as possible, it was determined
that the best course of action was to process the claims as
expeditiously as possible under the Department's regulations, to
attempt to work out any disputed issues with carriers consensually, and
to ensure that carriers had access to the normal legal process for
resolving any disputes that remained. The Department believes that that
process was largely successful, and has resulted in final decisions and
payments more quickly than referring disputed claims to Administrative
Law Judges or other forms of dispute resolution, which would insert
additional intermediate steps in the overall resolution of the issues.
The Department believes that the added time and expense of such
intermediate proceedings would have created hardships for affected
carriers by further delaying final resolution of their claims.
In the first two weeks after the statute was enacted, the
Department disbursed approximately $2.3 billion in compensation, and at
the time, that prompt action was credited in the industry and the press
with saving many carriers from bankruptcy. Many of the issues that
subsequently arose were the result of misunderstandings as to the
information necessary to process claims or the meaning of the statutory
language, and were resolved through discussions between the carriers
and the Department. I am aware that Congress has received complaints
from particular carriers who dispute specific portions of the
Department's regulations. If confirmed, I would encourage the
Department to explore the possibility of further discussions with those
carriers to see whether any of those outstanding disputes can be
resolved amicably.
Domestic Policy
Question 2. Congress deregulated the airline industry in 1978, and
sunset the Civil Aeronautics Board. Access to airports prior to 9-11,
was a major concern of new entrant carriers. I pushed to open up
dominant hubs, including requiring airports to file competition plans
with DOT. I understand the plans were suspended for a time after 9-11.
Is the Department again requiring airports to file these
plans?
How would you use this type of information to aid in gaining
access for carriers that are not able to obtain gates at
dominant hubs?
Answer. In an October 1, 2001 letter, the Department temporarily
deferred the filing of competition plans or competition plan updates to
March 1, 2002, and announced that it would make airport improvement
program (AIP) and passenger facility charge (PFC) funding decisions
before May 1, 2002, without regard to the status of the competition
plan updates. The Department took this action primarily because of the
immediate need for airports to implement additional security measures
after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Following the deferral,
all covered airports filed plans or plan updates in Fiscal Year 2002
and in Fiscal Year 2003, in accordance with the Department's filing
requirements. 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 40117(k), 47106(f); Program Guidance
Letter (PGL) 03-01.1, Requirement for Airline Competition Plans
(November 19, 2002).
A provision in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act that
would have exempted covered airports from filing competition plans or
updates if they used their Fiscal Year 2002 PFC or AIP grants to
improve security was deemed not applicable, because the covered
airports informed the Department that they did not intend to use 100
percent of such funds for security projects. Aviation and
Transportation Security Act, Pub. L. No. 107-71, Sec. 123(a), 115 Stat.
597, 630-631 (2001) (codified at 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47106(f)(3)).
In the same Program Guidance Letter, the Department lengthened the
time period for filing competition plan updates to 18 months from the
date the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approves a plan filing.
Program Guidance Letter 03-01.1, November 19, 2002. It is my
understanding that the intent of allowing this additional time period
was to enable airports to integrate suggested business practices into
their procedures and to report on the results. The Department continues
to monitor airport implementation of competition plans throughout this
period, in accordance with the statutory responsibilities to review the
plans and their implementation to ensure that each airport successfully
implements its plan. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40117(k)(2).
I believe these plans are useful tools in helping airports analyze
ways to open their facilities to new entrants and other potential
competitors. I have been informed that, at each of the 38 airports that
have filed competition plans and plan updates, concrete actions have
resulted from the competition plan process, such as review of gate
leases and subleases, monitoring gate use, appointing new entrant
liaisons, developing dispute resolution processes, and developing
fairer and more transparent processes for gate availability
notification and gate assignment. If confirmed, I would expect the
Department to continue to work with airports to ensure that meaningful
competition plans are developed and implemented.
Rulemaking Procedures
Question 3. Under your tenure as General Counsel, DOT issued four
rules without notice and comment under the Stabilization Act. In
another case, DOT was not able to testify because it was in the middle
of the comment period in a rulemaking proceeding.
What are your views on notice and comment and when is it
appropriate to not use the ``normal'' procedures?
When do you believe it is appropriate for DOT to testify
when it is engaged in a rulemaking?
Answer. I strongly believe in the importance of providing an
opportunity for notice and comment as part of the rulemaking process.
Having served for two years as General Counsel of the Department, and
having practiced for 23 years as a lawyer in the private sector, I
believe I have a good understanding of the requirements of Section 553
of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In general, the APA provides
for notice and an opportunity to comment before issuing final rules,
with two important exceptions. First, for certain categories of rules
defined in law, an advance opportunity for notice and comment is not
required. Second, when the agency finds ``good cause'' (e.g., an
emergency or other special circumstances), an advance opportunity for
notice and comment is not required. The circumstances that could
constitute good cause vary from case to case, and are generally
outlined in case law. If the Department cannot provide advance notice
and an opportunity to comment, and believes comments may provide useful
information, I strongly believe the Department should provide an
opportunity for comment after the rule is issued, and give serious
consideration to those comments.
In response to the second part of your question, I believe it is
appropriate for Congress to request and for Departmental witnesses to
appear before Congressional committees whenever oversight of agency
action is needed. However, the Department has at times requested that
Congressional committees consider changes to the form or timing of such
appearances in order to preserve the legal integrity of matters that
are pending before the Department. In those instances, the Department
has attempted to ensure that the potential testimony of Departmental
witnesses would not violate the various legal requirements that govern
the rulemaking process, and that participation in the hearing would not
subject the final rule to legal challenge based on a claim of undue
Congressional pressure. While it is difficult to generalize, I believe
those concerns are heightened when the comment period is over, the
entire rulemaking record has been closed to comments, and the
Department is in the final, decision making stage of the rulemaking
proceeding. In the past, after discussions with Committee staff, such
situations have been resolved cooperatively, and I certainly believe
the Department should continue to work with Congress in the same way
when such situations arise in the future.
DHL Citizenship
Question 4. It took DOT 18 months to complete its citizenship
review of DHL's October 2000 reorganization. The DOT IG found that
review inadequate, and DOT has since given the matter to an ALJ,
allowing less than six months to review DHL's June 2003 reorganization.
Do you believe that the ALJ will have sufficient time to
complete a record, adequate for you to review and for the DOT
to make a decision in this complex case?
At the time DOT's handling of the citizenship of DHL Airways was
under scrutiny by the IG, DOT began an informal review of DHL's
acquisition of Airborne. However, the IG criticized the lack of
transparency in DOT's administration of these requirements.
What role did you play as General Counsel in this matter?
What are your thoughts on this matter and what factors will
you consider as the Deputy Secretary in reviewing this matter?
Answer. I am informed that, since referring the matter to an
Administrative Law Judge, the Department has issued several orders
granting requests by the ALJ to extend the time for completion of the
proceeding. The Department's reasoning is set forth in its orders in
the docketed proceeding. Because the proceeding is still pending before
the ALJ, and because the issue described in your question has been
raised as a contested matter in the case, I believe it would be
inappropriate for me to comment further at this time.
Under the Department's regulations, the Secretary has delegated
authority to issue final decisions in such matters to the Assistant
Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. The role of the
Office of General Counsel in such cases is to provide legal support on
issues of statutory interpretation, such as the meaning of the
statutory citizenship requirements, and to assist in the review of
factual information provided to the Department by carriers. As General
Counsel, my role was to ensure the legal sufficiency of the
Department's actions. I concluded that, under the Department's existing
regulations, the Department had complied with all applicable legal
requirements. The Inspector General's report did not conclude
otherwise.
Because the matter is presently pending before an Administrative
Law Judge, and will be before the Department after the ALJ issues a
recommended decision, it would be inappropriate to address in this
response any of the issues that may be presented to the Department for
final decision. However, the Department's responses to the procedural
issues raised in the Inspector General's report, and my own views
regarding the Inspector General's recommendations, are set forth in my
response to the written questions of Senator Rockefeller, a copy of
which is attached.
One of the management responsibilities of the Deputy Secretary
would be to ensure that the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and
International Affairs and the General Counsel complete the review of
the Department's procedures in a timely manner, and to review any
recommended improvements to the process before they are presented to
the Secretary for approval. If confirmed, I would ensure that the
important concerns raised by the Inspector General are thoroughly and
sufficiently addressed
U.S.-European Union Negotiations
Question 5. Mr. Lamy has taken a tough stand with respect to
negotiations with the U.S. over steel and a number of other issues. The
U.S. is also negotiating with the EU over an aviation pact.
Why should we negotiate with the EU now, given its hard line
on other matters?
Issues under consideration include, apparently, cabotage and
changes in the foreign ownership laws. The Department apparently has
already caved to the EU on foreign ownership as it has already asked
for legislation to change these longstanding laws.
As the Deputy Secretary, and as a long time counsel involved
with complex litigation, would it be your position to give away
issues under negotiation in advance, or would you choose a
different process to negotiate such key issues?
Access to Europe, and particularly London's Heathrow Airport
has long been a critical goal of the U.S. Do you still support
an opening of Heathrow as a pre-condition to a deal with the
EU?
Answer. In addition to the factors mentioned in your question, it
is my understanding that the timing of negotiations with the E.U. is
heavily influenced by the fact that the negotiations could ultimately
result in substantial potential benefits to U.S. consumers, carriers,
and communities. These negotiations hold the possibility of creating
the world's largest open-skies area and, with it, new opportunities for
economic growth.
The U.S. and E.U. are still at a preliminary stage in these
discussions. Once the key issues have been identified, a negotiating
strategy will be tailored that best serves U.S. goals, including
enhanced access to European markets (including London Heathrow). The
Administration's proposal to modify the ceiling on foreign investment
to 49 percent is not a concession to the EU, but rather is motivated
independently by a desire to increase the access of U.S. airlines to
global capital. It is my understanding that the proposal to modify the
ceiling on foreign investment does not include any change to any of the
other legal requirements for citizenship, including the actual control
test. If confirmed, I would ensure that the concerns raised in your
question would be given serious consideration.
Bipartisan Congressional Oversight
Question 6. Recently, it was reported that the White House would no
longer respond to requests from the minority, unless the majority party
agreed to the request. You have stated in response to several questions
posed by the Committee that you will cooperate with the Committee in
providing information to us.
Given the White House position, will you provide information
to the minority, when requested and respond expeditiously?
Answer. I am not aware of the details of the issue described in the
first sentence of your question. However, I have been informed that the
Department has not received any instructions to change its longstanding
policy of cooperation with Congressional requests from both the
majority and minority. If confirmed, I would expect the Department to
continue to respond expeditiously to all such requests as in the past,
whether from majority or minority members.
Air Traffic Control Privatization
Question 7. It is important that Congress pass H.R. 2115, the FAA
Reauthorization Conference Report, which authorizes funding for key FAA
programs over the next several years. The legislation is currently
being held up from final passage primarily over the issue of
privatizing our Nation's air traffic control (ATC) system.
Much of the concern in Congress over this matter comes as a
result of the Administration's decision to remove the
``inherently governmental'' distinction from the ATC workforce.
What role did you play in this decision?
Do you feel that the safety of the ATC system could be
impacted if portions are outsourced?
Answer. On December 18, 2002, Secretary Mineta issued a written
determination under the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998
(``FAIR'' Act), 31 U.S.C. Sec. 501, finding that the separation and
control of air traffic is not an inherently governmental function, but
finding that such services, when provided at FAA's en route and larger
terminal facilities, are activities that are a core capability of the
FAA. Services that qualify as core capabilities are not subject to
being contracted out to the private sector. As General Counsel of the
Department, my role regarding this issue was to ensure that the
Department's decisions conformed to the requirements of the applicable
law. I concluded that the Department's actions were legally correct in
all respects.
The Administration has repeatedly stated that it has no immediate
plans to contract out air traffic services at existing federally
staffed air traffic control towers. This position was reaffirmed by FAA
Administrator Blakey as recently as September 24, 2003, in a hearing
before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Aviation, in response to questions.
I have reviewed the Inspector General's Report, dated September 4,
2003, entitled ``Safety, Cost and Operational Metrics of the Federal
Aviation Administration's Visual Flight Rule Towers,'' and in
particular the portion of the report entitled ``Safety'' at pages 6-7.
I have no basis on which to disagree with the conclusions set forth in
the report. I have been assured by the FAA that it closely oversees the
existing contract tower program. It is also my understanding that
contract towers are staffed by qualified controllers who hold the same
certification as FAA's federally employed controllers. If confirmed, I
would expect the FAA to continue to assess and monitor the safety
impacts of its actions in this area.
______
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, DC, September 17, 2003
Congressional Requesters
Subject: Aviation Assistance: Information on Payments Made Under the
Disaster Relief and Insurance Reimbursement Programs
As a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the
United States, the airline industry incurred significant losses
resulting from the temporary shutdown of the Nation's airspace and
passengers' apprehensions about flying following the attacks. The Air
Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act \1\ (the Act)
provided, among other things, $5 billion in emergency assistance to
compensate air carriers for their direct and incremental losses
stemming from the attacks. The Act also authorized the Department of
Transportation (DOT) to reimburse air carriers for increases in their
insurance premiums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pub. L. No. 107-42, 115 Stat. 230 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 28, 2001, we completed and briefed you on the first
phase of the work you requested, concluding that there was a reasonable
basis to assume that the airlines' financial losses related to
September 11 would exceed the $5 billion made available in the Act.\2\
Since then and pursuant to the second part of your request, we
monitored DOT's progress in administering the disaster relief and
insurance reimbursement programs and provided periodic status updates
to your offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The briefing slides and a summary of our analysis were included
in our October 5, 2001, correspondence to you. See GAO-02-133R
Financial Management: Assessment of the Airline Industry's Estimated
Losses Arising From the Events of September 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 3, 2003, we provided our final briefing addressing the
second aspect of your request. Specifically, for the $5 billion
disaster relief program, we discussed the process DOT employed to help
ensure that the payments it made were only for the direct and
incremental losses stemming from the terrorist attacks. We also
provided information about the losses claimed by the major air carriers
and payments made by DOT to these carriers and others that applied for
assistance. For the insurance reimbursement program, which was
administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), we discussed
the process FAA used to determine and reimburse air carriers for
insurance premium increases resulting from the September 11, 2001,
disaster. We also provided information on the total payments made under
the program. Finally, we discussed FAA's expanded in-house aviation
insurance program and the potential impact to the Federal Government.
The briefing slides, which provide more detail on our analysis, are
enclosed.
Results in Brief
DOT designed and implemented a structured claim review process to
help ensure that the $5 billion in disaster relief funds were used only
to compensate carriers for their September 11 related losses. A team of
DOT accountants, economists, and aviation analysts with support from
the department's Offices of the General Counsel and the Inspector
General administered the disaster relief program, reviewed carriers'
loss claims, and determined carriers' allowable September 11 related
losses. As specified in the Act, each carrier was compensated the
lesser of allowable actual losses or the market share formula
amount.\3\ The major air carriers claimed losses of $5.6 billion
related to the terrorist attacks. These carriers have been paid $4.1
billion or 88 percent of the total $4.6 billion distributed. As of
August 26, 2003, DOT reported that most air carriers had received their
final payments pursuant to this program, although a small number of
claims remained open due to unresolved issues. All the major carriers
except Federal Express have received their final payment. Federal
Express has an administrative appeal and a lawsuit pending with regard
to its payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The formula amount is calculated by dividing the carrier's
available seat miles (ASMs) or revenue ton miles (RTMs) by the universe
of ASMs/RTMs (a reflection of market share) multiplied by available
compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, the major carriers recovered approximately 73 percent of
their claimed losses, although 8 of the 14 major carriers had all their
September 11 losses compensated. The remaining 6 carriers' losses were
only partially compensated because their allowable September 11 losses
exceeded the amount determined by applying the market share formulae
prescribed in the Act. Industry wide, 355 of the total 448 applicants
receiving assistance were paid based on the formula. Because 93
carriers had actual losses less than their formula amount, DOT will not
distribute the entire $5 billion provided in the Act. DOT advised the
Congress of this fact and in February 2003 the Congress rescinded $90
million.\4\ DOT officials plan to return any remaining unused funds to
the Treasury upon the completion of the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Public Law 108-7, sec 333, 117 Stat. 414 (2003)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the insurance reimbursement program, the FAA
implemented a systematic review process to determine the increases
carriers experienced in their war risk insurance premiums following the
terrorist attacks and to reimburse the carriers accordingly.\5\ FAA
utilized insurance providers' invoices to substantiate the premiums
being charged immediately before September 11 and to evidence premium
increases following September 11.\6\ For each of the major air
carriers, we verified FAA's reimbursement determinations by
independently recalculating these amounts. In total, 183 carriers were
reimbursed $68 million for their increased insurance costs. The major
carriers received $58 million, or 85 percent, of this total.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ War risk insurance provides coverage to carriers for losses
resulting from war, terrorism, or other hostile acts. These policies
typically provide coverage for the aircraft and liability.
\6\ The Act specified insurance increases were to be measured
against the rates in effect during the period September 4-10, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soon after the terrorist attacks, insurance providers generally
cancelled carriers' war risk insurance coverage but then offered to
reinstate the policies at a substantially higher cost and with reduced
coverage limits. For the major carriers combined, the total annual cost
for war risk coverage jumped from approximately $12 million prior to
the attacks to more than $700 million immediately afterwards. This led
to the Secretary of Transportation's determination that war risk
insurance was not available commercially on reasonable terms and
conditions and thus FAA was authorized to begin temporarily selling war
risk coverage to air carriers operating domestic flights. Under current
legislation, FAA may continue to provide war risk coverage through
August 2004 with a possible extension through December 2004. In its
2003 Accountability Report, FAA reported that it had extended $113
billion in coverage to 71 carriers, thereby increasing the Federal
Government's risk exposure. Meanwhile, air carriers have begun to
explore other options including a risk retention group to provide more
affordable coverage in anticipation of FAA's offering of war risk
insurance terminating in 2004.
Scope and Methodology
Our review primarily focused on the major air carriers. DOT defines
a major carrier as an air carrier whose annual operating revenue
exceeds $1 billion. To achieve our objectives we performed various
procedures, which are described in detail in Appendix I of the enclosed
slides. We did not audit the major air carriers or the underlying
records supporting the claims for disaster relief payments. Also, we
did not assess the reasonableness of the pre- or post-September 11
premiums charged to carriers for war risk insurance coverage. We
conducted our review from September 2001 through August 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Agency Comments
We requested comments on a draft of these briefing slides from the
Secretary of Transportation or his designee. On August 26, 2003, DOT
provided us with oral comments expressing the department's general
agreement with the facts presented. DOT provided some technical
comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until
30 days from its date. At that time, we will send copies to the
Secretary of Transportation, the Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration, and interested congressional committees. We will also
provide copies to others on request. The report will also be available
at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-9508, or Phillip McIntyre, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-
4373. You may also reach us by e-mail at [email protected] or
[email protected]. Other key contributors to this assignment were
Jeffrey Jacobson, Ruth Walk, and Doris Yanger.
Linda Calbom,
Director, Financial Management and Assurance.
Enclosure
List of Requesters
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
United States Senate
The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Aviation
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
United States Senate
The Honorable Ron Wyden
United States Senate
The Honorable Lloyd Doggett
House of Representatives
Enclosure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
n Tine
Question 1. One of the big issues facing Congress and the
Department involves the future of Amtrak. Last summer the
Administration issued proposed legislation, introduced by request by
Sen. McCain, which would turn over most of the responsibility of paying
for passenger rail service to the financially-strapped states. No one I
know thinks this bill has much merit. I know of no one in Congress who
likes it; the industry does not like it; Amtrak does not like it; and
of course, the states especially don't like it. You were DOT's general
counsel when this legislative proposal was being developed. Now you are
a candidate to be the Department's #2 leader. As Deputy Secretary, what
will you do about this proposed legislation that has had such a
negative reception?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with the Secretary and the
Federal Railroad Administration to open a dialogue with Congress, the
States and other stakeholders to explore the aspects of the
Administration's proposal that most concern those who do not support
it. While the Administration's legislative proposal is one way to
accomplish the needed reform of intercity passenger rail service, it is
not the only way. The Administration proposal is a conceptually sound
and thoughtful attempt to address the serious problems confronting
Amtrak today, and it can prompt innovative solutions in areas where the
current approach shortchanges commuters and intercity travelers, as
well as affected States, employees, and other stakeholders. If
confirmed, I would look forward to discussing alternative approaches to
reform that would be consistent with the five principles the Secretary
set out in June 2002.
Question 1a. What other mechanism do you see within the Federal
Government to raise the adequate funds needed to cover the capital
backlog on the Northeast Corridor, the infrastructure improvements for
high speed rail in new corridors and improvements to services currently
operated by Amtrak?
Answer. The Administration is committed to continued support of
intercity passenger rail and continues to believe that Federal funding
will be necessary in the future. While the Administration's legislative
proposal establishes a framework in which Federal support would be
provided for capital projects, the framework set out in the
Administration's proposal is flexible enough to accommodate and
encourage other forms of financing. For example, more than 10 States
currently contribute financial support towards Amtrak's operating costs
or capital improvements, or both. If service on the Northeast Corridor
and elsewhere were more tailored to State and regional needs, and if
weaknesses in accounting and financial reporting, internal controls,
and operational efficiency were addressed, it is possible that more
States would agree to provide financial support for intercity passenger
rail service.
Question 2. As Congress works on appropriations for the next year,
it appears that Amtrak will be forced to limp along for yet another
year. The Senate has approved $1.35 billion for Amtrak, which is $350
million less than Amtrak says it will need. The House has approved only
$900 million. As Deputy Secretary of DOT, you may be asked to serve as
the Secretary's representative on the Amtrak Board of Directors. What
do you believe you could do as a member of the Amtrak Board to ensure
that the railroad gets enough funding to improve its fiscal health,
infrastructure, and performance?
Answer. The most important way to assure that Amtrak gets the
funding it needs is to establish a level of confidence and trust that
Amtrak has become a well-run, soundly managed business operation.
Presently, there appears to be widespread skepticism that Amtrak spends
the taxpayers' money efficiently and wisely. That skepticism must be
addressed with results. While Amtrak's management has made great
strides over the past two years, the Board is really the only body that
can ensure that Amtrak improves its financial accounting and project
management, and ensure that Amtrak gives accurate information to
Congress about the costs and benefits of providing particular services.
The individual Board members must be willing to work collaboratively
with Amtrak's management and devote sufficient time to their duties to
ensure that Amtrak is as efficient as possible in providing intercity
passenger rail services.
Question 3. As a nation, we have provided funding for highways
since the 1950s at an 80 percent Federal share or better. We have
provided funding for transit systems for several decades at an 80
percent Federal share by law, although this Administration is pushing
down the Federal match to 50 percent in some areas. We have provided
funding for the aviation system for airport improvements at 80 percent
Federal share or better, for air traffic control operations, for
security, and for bailouts. Do you think we should continue to
perpetuate this bias against investment in our passenger rail system?
Answer. Currently, unlike intercity passenger rail, highway and
airport capital funding is largely financed through excise taxes on
users of those facilities, and some state matching funds are required.
Without imposing new taxes, the Administration proposal advocates a
mechanism similar to the mechanisms that presently exist for funding
public transit infrastructure projects. Funding responsibility for
capital projects would be shared between the Federal Government and the
affected jurisdiction, in the same manner as the Administration
proposes for transit new starts in SAFETEA.
Question 3a. What about investment in freight rail projects that
show a clear public benefit? For example, we are looking at the
nationally significant project in Chicago that involves freight,
commuter, intercity passenger rail, as well as state and local
infrastructure improvements affecting highway safety and mobility. What
is the avenue to address such investment and what role should the
Federal Government play?
Answer. The Department has two financial programs that can assist
freight rail projects that show a clear public benefit. The Railroad
Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program (RRIF) can provide
loans at the cost of money to the government for terms up to 25 years
for any rail project. The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act program (TIFIA) proposed in SAFETEA can provide Federal
financial assistance to large projects that include intercity passenger
rail facilities and freight rail projects. It is my understanding that
none of the larger freight railroads have requested Federal assistance
to date, and that some of those railroads have expressed opposition in
the past to Federal assistance. I also understand that some of the
larger railroads are now reconsidering participating in projects that
have both public and private benefits, with the Chicago project being
an excellent example. I believe the Department should be willing to
work with all of the interested parties to identify the appropriate
role for the Federal Government in helping realize the benefits these
projects can yield.
Question 4. This year, the Administration proposed that Congress
appropriate $900 million for Amtrak, and $303 million for Iraq's
railroads. I find it somewhat ironic that the Administration believes
we should spend $303 million for the railroads in a country the size of
California, but then proposes to strike a fatal blow to its own
national passenger rail system by reducing its funding to half of what
it needs for the coming year. Do you think this proposal is indicative
the Administration's commitment to passenger rail in the United States?
Answer. The Administration is firmly committed to the continuation
of intercity passenger rail service. While the Administration believes
that the current business model for providing that service is flawed,
it has consistently said that it would support a substantial Federal
investment if the business model is reformed. Over the past few years,
Secretary Mineta has taken extraordinary measures to keep the present
system solvent while attempting to achieve a consensus on a model that
can work over the long term. For example, in 2001, Secretary Mineta
reluctantly allowed Amtrak to mortgage its rights to use Pennsylvania
Station in New York City. Similarly, in 2002, he granted a $100 million
loan to Amtrak under the RRIF program. Without either of those actions,
Amtrak may well have had no alternative but bankruptcy.
Question 5. I have noticed in the past few years that communication
between the DOT and Congress has deteriorated. My staffers find it
increasingly difficult to acquire information from the Department
concerning rulemakings and legislation under development. Frequently,
DOT places the blame on OMB for its inability to share information.
What can you do as Deputy Secretary to improve the channels of
communication between the Department and the Congress?
Answer. As General Counsel, one of my priorities was to respond
promptly to Congressional requests for technical assistance and other
information. In most cases, I was able to provide the requested
assistance with minimal delays. Occasionally, however, the Department
is unable to respond to questions concerning its position on pending
rulemaking or legislative proposals because they are already in the
formal clearance process. If confirmed, I would try to establish a
regular, continuing dialogue to address issues of concern and get
feedback on potential solutions before commencing the formal process. I
would expect the Department to continue to respond expeditiously to
most requests as in the past.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Kirk K. Van Tine
Question 1. I was deeply disappointed by the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) decision regarding the citizenship and control
of DHL Airways. Given the precedent setting nature of this case, I find
the DOT's actions in general and Mr. Van Tine's in particular in this
matter troubling, and I am requesting that Mr. Van Tine resolve some
outstanding questions that I have about it.
In the DOT's letter to me of May 7, 2002, then DOT-Assistant
Secretary Van de Water explained that the Department of Transportation
has concluded its investigation into the citizenship and control of DHL
Airways. However, DOT did not lay out in any detail how the Department
reached its conclusion.
On what legal grounds did DOT determine that DHL was a U.S.
citizen?
Answer. It is my understanding that the views described in the
Assistant Secretary's letter of May 7, 2002, were based on the
information presented to the Department at that time and the
application of the statute governing citizenship determinations in 49
U.S.C. Sec. 40102(a)(15), and the past administrative decisions of the
Department and the Civil Aeronautics Board applying the statutory
tests. The Department initially was presented with this issue as a part
of the routine continuing fitness review resulting from a change in DHL
Airways (``DHL,'' now ASTAR) ownership. Under the Department's rules,
such reviews are handled informally. See 14 C.F.R. Sec. 204.5(c). The
purpose of the informal continuing fitness review process is to
determine whether, based on the information provided, an on-the-record
docketed proceeding should be instituted by the Department. In this
case, in addition to DHL, both UPS and FedEx met with and provided
information to Department staff.
The Department's informal review was completed in May 2002 with a
conclusion that, based on the information available, the Department did
not believe there was a sufficient reason to institute a formal
proceeding. Several interested parties subsequently requested such a
proceeding by filing formal petitions challenging DHL's citizenship. In
August 2002, the Department consolidated those petitions into a single
docket (OST 2002-13089). The Department has not yet made a final
determination in that proceeding as to DHL's citizenship.
In the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003
(April 16, 2003), after formal, on-the-record proceedings were under
way, Congress enacted a provision directing the Secretary to use an
Administrative Law Judge to resolve the issues in Docket OST 2002-
13089. The next day, in compliance with that provision, by order of the
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs dated April
17, 2003, the matter was referred to an Administrative Law Judge. On
October 15, the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge was
concluded, and his recommended decision is due January 2, 2004. After
it is issued, the Department's regulations provide for discretionary
review. See 14 C.F.R. Sec. 302.32. If reviewed by the Department, the
decision will either be adopted, reversed, or remanded. After the
Department issues its final decision, any aggrieved party may file a
petition for judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The final resolution of the matter will depend on an analysis of
the evidence presented in the proceeding and, as previously noted, the
application of the statute governing citizenship determinations in 49
U.S.C. Sec. 40102(a)(15), and the past administrative decisions of the
Department and the Civil Aeronautics Board applying the statutory
tests. Because the issue of the precise legal and factual tests that
should be used in determining citizenship is among those pending in the
present proceeding before the ALJ, it would be improper for me to
comment further on that issue here. The legal grounds for the
Department's final action in this matter will be set forth in the
Department's decision on the ALJ's recommended decision.
Question 2. It is my understanding that the General Counsel's
office would normally make this decision. Why did Mr. Van Tine refer
this matter to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and
International Affairs?
Answer. As explained above, the citizenship review described in
your question was a part of an informal continuing fitness review
occasioned by the change in ownership of DHL Airways (``DHL,'' now
ASTAR). That type of review is conducted pursuant to the Department's
statutory authority to regulate limited aspects of airline economic
matters, set forth in 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, Part A. In regulations
dating from the transfer of the duties of the Civil Aeronautics Board
to the Department in 1985, the Secretary of Transportation has
delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International
Affairs (not the General Counsel) the responsibility and authority
within the Department to make decisions in such matters. See 49 C.F.R.
Sec. 1. The Office of General Counsel provides legal support on issues
of statutory interpretation, such as the meaning of the statutory
citizenship requirements, and assists in the review of factual
information provided to the Department by carriers. As General Counsel,
my role was to ensure the legal sufficiency of the Department's
actions, and I concluded that those actions were in compliance with all
applicable statutes and regulations.
Question 3. In the citizenship determination proceedings, DOT
officials had several ex parte communications with DHL Airways, which
is appropriate provided DOT disclosed this or announced that they were
waiving the disclosure policy. Did DOT disclose these ex parte meetings
or seek a disclosure waiver? If not, why not?
Answer. As explained above, the original review, begun in the fall
of 2000, was a part of the continuing fitness review that was triggered
under the Department's regulations by the proposed change in ownership
of DHL Airways (``DHL,'' now ASTAR) in 2000. See 14 C.F.R. Sec. 204.5.
Continuing fitness reviews, including those involving citizenship, are
not on-the-record proceedings under the Department's existing
regulations. See 14 C.F.R. Sec. 204.5(c). Rather, since the days of the
Civil Aeronautics Board, they have been handled as informal reviews
under the Department's rules, through meetings with and information
requests to carriers in which proprietary and business confidential
information is considered by the Department. In that kind of
investigation, the ex parte rules do not apply. See 14 C.F.R. Part 300.
Question 4. I have been briefed by the DepartmentSec. s Inspector
General team that was asked by the House Transportation Committee to
investigate how this case was handled. They have found that this case
was handled in an ad hoc, informal, closed way; that the policy-level
leadership of the Department was not intimately involved in the
decisions regarding this case; and that the input from, and information
to, other affected parties to this case was limited. Does Mr. Van Tine
agree with the IG's assessment of how this case was handled?
Answer. While I believe that the Department's procedures for
handling this case complied with all applicable legal requirements, I
also believe that the procedures for resolving citizenship issues
should be reviewed in light of the Inspector General's report, and that
the recommendations in the report and the comments received by the
Department should be given serious consideration.
After meeting with the Inspector General to discuss his findings
regarding this matter, I advised the Assistant Secretary for Aviation
and International Affairs that the Inspector General's procedural
recommendations should be given serious consideration. On March 5,
2003, the Department issued a Notice Requesting Comments on the
Inspector General's Report. That Notice was filed in the pending
docketed proceeding regarding DHL's citizenship. Subsequently, on July
30, 2003, the Department published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking requesting comments, in general, on the procedures for
reviewing citizenship cases. The comment period closed on September 29,
2003. The Department received comments from 10 parties. The Department
is currently in the process of evaluating those comments and
determining the best way to make the citizenship review process more
open and transparent.
Question 5. Will Mr. Van Tine be implementing the IG's
recommendations?
Answer. One of the management responsibilities of the Deputy
Secretary would be to ensure that the Assistant Secretary for Aviation
and International Affairs and the General Counsel complete the review
of the Department's procedures in a timely manner, and to review any
recommended improvements to the process before they are presented to
the Secretary for approval. If confirmed, I would ensure that the
important concerns raised by the Inspector General are thoroughly and
sufficiently addressed.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ernest F. Hollings to
Jeffrey A. Rosen
Question 1. You have a lot of experience in the private sector
managing large groups of lawyers, which makes you qualified to be DOT
General Counsel in one sense. However, your experience working with
transportation issues is rather limited. How do you propose to bring
yourself ``up to speed'' on the many diverse transportation issues now
at hand, and particularly with respect to the reauthorization of TEA-21
legislation which should happen early next year?
Answer. I recognize that the Department addresses a wide range of
diverse transportation issues, including those involving maritime,
highway, railroad, transit, trucking, motor vehicle safety, hazardous
materials, aviation, and others. Since it would be a rare lawyer who is
expert in all of those areas, additional preparation to gain an in-
depth understanding of the full range of transportation issues is
obviously necessary. I have started the process and will continue
getting ``up to speed'' by focusing on the operative statutes enacted
by Congress, meeting with various officials throughout the Department
to gain an understanding of the issues they confront, attending
meetings in an observer role, studying the status of various regulatory
processes, and more generally by looking for ways to listen and learn
as extensively as possible--both within DOT and externally. While I
cannot currently participate in the Department's decision-making, I am
focusing on identifying the current legal issues confronting the
Department and its operating administrations, so that if confirmed I
would be well-prepared to act as the Department's Chief Legal Officer.
I believe that my background as a litigator is well-suited to this
task, because the preparation required in this instance is similar to
that needed with respect to learning the legal framework applicable to
a variety of lawsuits in which some involve previously-known subject
areas and some do not.
If I am confirmed, I would also look forward to participating in
the shaping of transportation legislation that is consistent with the
Secretary's Strategic Plan. I am currently in the process of reviewing
the legislative proposals that have been made by the Secretary,
including the SAFETEA proposal, and I hope to be able to play a role in
helping the Secretary and the Congress achieve a long-term
reauthorization, if I am confirmed by the Senate.
Question 2. What do you see as your role within DOT with respect to
working with the Department's policy-makers? Will your role be limited
to that of legal advisor to the ones setting Departmental policy, or
will you have a direct role in writing transportation policy yourself?
Answer. As I see it, the primary responsibility for transportation
policy rests with the Secretary, and ultimately with the President and
the Congress. Within the Department of Transportation, the Deputy
Secretary, the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, the
Administrators, and others obviously have a major role to play in
policy matters.
The General Counsel has the responsibilities specified in 49 C.F.R.
Sec. 1.23(c). The Department's own rules expressly identify the General
Counsel as the ``final authority within the Department on questions of
law.'' The General Counsel participates in matters involving
rulemaking, litigation, international negotiations, and legislation,
among other things. It is therefore a broad role that involves serving
the Secretary and the President as the Chief Legal Officer of the
Department of Transportation. From my discussions to date with
Secretary Mineta, I anticipate that I will participate broadly as a
legal advisor if I am confirmed by the Senate.
Question 3. As you know, one of the big issues facing Congress and
the Department involves the future of Amtrak. There are a number of
bills pending in Congress now, including one proposed by the
Administration and introduced by request by Sen. McCain. All of the
bills propose substantial changes intended to improve Amtrak's
performance, fiscal health, and infrastructure. However, the bills take
very different approaches in attempting to achieve those improvements.
What do you believe the Federal Government's role should be in making
the very needed improvements to Amtrak?
Answer. At the risk being overly simplistic, the Federal Government
has a vital role in making improvements to Amtrak, because Amtrak is an
entity with directors appointed by the President, and with substantial
Federal funding. My own experience with Amtrak to date is largely
limited to experience as a passenger, but I agree with Secretary
Mineta's statements that the Federal Government has a substantial
interest in the development of ``a truly healthy and viable national
passenger rail system.'' One important aspect of intercity passenger
rail transportation should be ensuring that its benefits in addressing
transportation congestion are integrated with the other modes of
transportation. The fact that several proposals are before Congress at
this time speaks to the elemental issue--the need to adopt a model for
intercity passenger rail that is in tune with current realities. I am
in the process of studying the current situation and the pending
proposals, and if confirmed would look forward to assisting the
Secretary in advancing a practical solution that well-serves the
American people.
Question 4. Some of the modal administrations within DOT, most
notably the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, are very late
in issuing regulations which the Congress has directed them to do. What
will you do as General Counsel to see that the overdue rulemakings are
issued? What will you do to improve the timeliness of the various
administrations in issuing new rulemakings?
Answer. From what I have learned to date, Secretary Mineta has made
it a priority for the Department to complete its rulemakings in a more
timely and expeditious way than in the past, and steps were taken
during the last two years to pursue that objective. In October 2002,
the Department implemented a new rulemaking tracking system, which
appears to be very helpful. Using this available tracking mechanism,
the General Counsel can assist in ensuring that priorities and
schedules are established, and can monitor the progress. The Office of
General Counsel can also provide training to participants in the
rulemaking process, and can continue to encourage those responsible for
various rules to pursue them efficiently and on time--especially where
Congress has established a deadline for action or has otherwise
stressed the need to act quickly. If I am confirmed, I will work with
knowledgeable individuals within the Department who have in-depth
experience, including in particular the Deputy General Counsel and the
Assistant General Counsel for Regulations and Enforcement, as well as
others within the Department and the operating Administrations, to
continue to make progress in improving the rulemaking process.
[all]