U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

20–896 PDF 2016

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 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, 

Ranking 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

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 

(III) 

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 

Page

IV 

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 

(1) 

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.] 

2 

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? 

3 

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 

4 

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, powerplant 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. 

5 

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:] 

6 

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 AdminisVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:26 Aug 01, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20896.TXT JACKIE
7 

tration 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 

8 

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 adVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:26 Aug 01, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20896.TXT JACKIE
9 

vancements 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 cochaired the Government Relations practice group. While at Perkins Coie, I focused 

on the following public policy issues: 

10 

• 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. § 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. 

11 

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 

12 

—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 cirVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:26 Aug 01, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20896.TXT JACKIE
13 

cumstances 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. 

14 

(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. 

15 

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. 

16 

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, Kthrough-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 perpetVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:26 Aug 01, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\20896.TXT JACKIE
17 

uate 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 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 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 

18 

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. 

19 

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 

20 

* Inactive. 

Republican Jewish Coalition—Honorary Chairman, Vice Chairman 

Bionexus Foundation*—Director 

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 

21 

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 

22 

(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 

23 

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 

24 

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? 

25 

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. 

26 

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 multicultural 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. 

27 

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 

28 

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. 

29 

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 

30 

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-yearold 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. 

31 

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 

32 

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 ViceChairman 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): 

33 

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) 

34 

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? 

35 

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. 

36 

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? 

37 

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 

38 

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 

39 

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 

40 

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? 

41 

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, 

42 

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 

43 

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 manageVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:26 Aug 01, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20896.TXT JACKIE
44 

ment 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. 

45 

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 

46 

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 

47 

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 

48 

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, po- litical 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 

49 

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. 

50 

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, 

51 

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. 

52 

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. 

53 

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 

54 

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 publicrelations 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 

55 

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—— 

56 

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 DepartVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:26 Aug 01, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20896.TXT JACKIE
57 

ment, 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. 

58 

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. 

59 

[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 

60 

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 preVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:26 Aug 01, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\20896.TXT JACKIE
61 

sented 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 

62 

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? 

63 

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. 

64 

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. 

65 

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 

66 

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? 

67 

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 

68 

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? 

69 

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.] 

(71) 

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 

72 

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. 

73 

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 

74 

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. 

75 

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 

76 

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 

77 

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 comVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:26 Aug 01, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20896.TXT JACKIE
78 

muter 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 

79 

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 

80 

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 

81 

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 eduVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:26 Aug 01, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20896.TXT JACKIE
82 

cational 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? 

83 

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 

84 

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. 

85 

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? 

86 

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 

87 

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. §§ 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, § 123(a), 115 Stat. 597, 630–631 (2001) (codified at 

49 U.S.C. § 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. 

§ 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. 

88 

• 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 

89 

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 precondition 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. 

90 

1Pub. L. No. 107–42, 115 Stat. 230 (2001). 

2The 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. 

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. 

§ 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) pro- vided, 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. 

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. 

On September 3, 2003, we provided our final briefing addressing the second as- pect 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 

91 

3The 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. 4Public Law 108–7, sec 333, 117 Stat. 414 (2003) 

5War 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. 6The Act specified insurance increases were to be measured against the rates in effect during 

the period September 4–10, 2001. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

92 

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 calboml@gao.gov or mcintyrep@gao.gov. 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 

93 

ENCLOSURE


1104GAO1.eps 1104GAO2.eps
94 


1104GAO3.eps 1104GAO4.eps
95 


1104GAO5.eps 1104GAO6.eps
96 


1104GAO7.eps 1104GAO8.eps
97 


1104GAO9.eps 1104GAO10.eps
98 


1104GAO11.eps 1104GAO12.eps
99 


1104GAO13.eps 1104GAO14.eps
100 


1104GAO15.eps 1104GAO16.eps
101 


1104GAO17.eps 1104GAO18.eps
102 


1104GAO19.eps 1104GAO20.eps
103 


1104GAO21.eps 1104GAO22.eps
104 


1104GAO23.eps 1104GAO24.eps
105 


1104GAO25.eps 1104GAO26.eps
106 


1104GAO27.eps 1104GAO28.eps
107 


1104GAO29.eps 1104GAO30.eps
108 


1104GAO31.eps 1104GAO32.eps
109 


1104GAO33.eps 1104GAO34.eps
110 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS TO

KIRK K. VAN 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? 

111 

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. 

112 

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. § 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. § 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. § 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. § 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. § 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 carVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:26 Aug 01, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20896.TXT JACKIE
113 

riers. 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. § 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. § 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 Department§ 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 ofVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:26 Aug 01, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20896.TXT JACKIE
114 

ficials 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. § 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 wellserves 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 schedVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:26 Aug 01, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20896.TXT JACKIE
115 

ules 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. 

Æ