tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 25, 2015 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT
national response by government unless the coordinate a response by the community at several levels. governments, government activist groups, coalition, international organizations. much easier said than done as the current situation in the middle east demonstrates. the arab middle east is in political social collapse and the social anarchy of the major regional players standing on the scene with the ability to act to any degree, turkey, iran, saudi arabia and israel are hardly a homogeneous group and only one of them is arab. they all oppose hostage taking in theory. they have a common enemy and i says, all engaged in cross cutting competition among each other. dms in the beginning it's all about politics. display special operations force teams from now until two days he
>> but also the lone wolfs, meaning that particularly now as we are seeming to take over the people who came to watch a movie, opened fire and all that, and obviously we have to think about also the future in terms of the environment of the so-called lone wolf now to weaponize, let's say, ebola and take over, you know, entire communities hostage. let me move on to our friend and colleague, dr. wayne zaideman, as i mentioned, with his experience for decades at the fbi but also academically. he has a doctorate from nyu on iran, and i asked him to share
with us his experiences in the middle east and elsewhere. >> thank you, professor yonah. when i took a crisis hostage negotiations course in the fbi in the early '90s, it was focused basically on criminal hostages. and when i asked the instructor, well, what about terror situations, he said you would handle it the same way. i'm going to go through this and show how i believe that was incorrect at that time and is incorrect now. they said, they taught us that when you have a hostage negotiation or a barricade situation where a crime has gone wrong and they've taken hostages or there's a domestic dispute
and there's a feeling of desperation by the people or somebody who wants to commit suicide by cop by having a policeman shoot him and there's hostages involved, they said the first thing that people tend to want to do is work on problem solving and then the behavioral change. hopefully, the behavioral changes, hands up and they leave. but that rarely works unless you precede it with three other things to do. the first is active listening. they basically mirror what the hostage-taker is saying and, in effect, letting them tell their side of the story. then you bring empathy into it. you want to determine how they feel, what their feelings are. and then you want to gain rapport and gain their trust. once this process gains momentum, then you get into the
influence part which is working on problem solving with the hostage takers and bringing about the behavioral change. however, this has very little relation to modern day hostage taking when you're dealing with islamic extremist terrorism. let me go into a little bit of history before i go into the islamic extremist ideology. in the, in 1980s, around 1986 president ronald reagan transferred arms for seven hostages in lebanon, and he finally in 1996 admitted that but said that it wasn't to gain the hostage release, it was to foster better relations with iran. but, in effect, what this proved was it became a revolve ising door. you pay for -- revolving door. you pay or -- for hostages, they
release some, then they get more hostagings. that was what was going on in lebanon at that time. in 2002, president bush had a policy that ransom can be paid if officials believed doing so would help gain intelligence about the terrorist groups or the individual terrorists but not for the sole purpose of freeing american hostages. because you don't want to encourage terror, and you don't want to materially support terrorism. but this did allow for negotiations, and it did allow for using the rationale of helping to gain intelligence about the terrorist groups or the terrorists. as ambassador marks mentioned, there is a statute, u.s. statute 18 u.s. code 1203 about the seizing or detaining of u.s. citizens outside the united states. and basically, as he mentioned, the policy many some ways remained the same. you can negotiate, but no
concessions, no ransom, no change in u.s. policies to reward the hostage takers. however, as he mentioned, the one change is that we can -- while we urge the american citizens not to pay ransom -- if they want to do it anyway, we provide basic logistical support and help with contacts with the host governments. it should be noted that the department of justice has never, and i repeat never, prosecuted anyone for paying a ransom. now, recently president obama swapped five top taliban commanders in exchange for army sergeant bowe bergdahl. now, the rationale that he used was that for our own soldiers we do not leave anyone behind once a conflict is over. however, in my opinion, sergeant
bergdahl lost this covenant owed to our troops when he deserted and when he collaborated with the enemy. in that case, i think that he lost the right to have the united states release five top taliban commanders for his release. in 2002 the national criminal justice reference service pointed out that hamas' modus operandi is to kidnap israeli soldiers or civilians to bargain for release of their prisoners. now, my colleague, ifat, will go into this in further detail, but it should with noted that their policy was no concessions and that they relied on hostage rescue operations. however, due to public pressure -- israel is a small country, and people tend to know each other, and as a result israel began releasing
prisoners. and some, there was some criticism of government officials for releasing those who have blood on their hands. in return for releasing hostages. now, getting on to the hostage negotiations for islamic extremists, i must note that terrorists, islamic -- radical islamic terrorists are not concerned about public opinion. they are not concerned. their audience is not what the public says, their audience is only god. their validation comes from god. so as a result, there's no need to minimize casualties. in fact, it's fine for them to maximize casualties. it's fine for them to do barbaric things like beheadings, burnings, drownings, crucifixion s. the leadership believes to know what god wants of them. for example, in iran the mujda
heads, the religious scholars, rule on behalf of the hidden imam before his return. so they are tied in with god, basically. and once the citizens of a country empower the clergy to speak on behalf of god, they are forever precluded from create sizing the clergy. from criticizing the clergy. it would be like criticizing god himself. so terrorism becomes an act of religious expression. now, at one time people of the book, which would be like jews and christians, were a protected status. while they were persecuted and while they had to pay exorbitant tax rates and they were second-class citizens, at least they were protected from being killed. they were people of the book. however, islamic extremists get around this too. instead of people of the book, they refer to jews, christians or fellow muslims who don't can agree with them -- who don't agree with them as a pagan or a
polythreist. so -- polytheist. so by changing the label, anyone can become a fair target, christian, jew or fellow muslim. now, lands that were once islamic are part of the islamic entity until the end of time. so it's nonnegotiable. for example, spain was andalucia, so at one time it was under islamic rule. israel at one time was under islamic rule. so they're precluded from negotiating or giving up any part of that. and it's an obligation on them to wage jihad until either the people are willing to be ruled under islam or they become muslims. now, what's my solution? we can't win a war against terror in our time, we can't win any war if we worry about
political correctness and collateral damage. it's true that we have to identify the enemy. the enemy is islamic extremist terror. and while it is important to try our best to limit civilian casualties, we cannot become paralyzed by, to take action for worry that there'll be some collateral damage. if we were paralyzed in this way in world war ii, we would have lost the war. we must identify the enemy and allow the military to succeed in its mission. during world war ii, if we were worried about collateral damage, we wouldn't have been bombing dresden, we wouldn't have been bombing japan, and we wouldn't have obtained unconditional surrender. so basically what i'm saying is politically-fought wars end very badly. we must fight to win and obtain an unconditional surrender. if we go back to a position of
military and economic strength, we can deter war. with weakness, war is inevitable. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> i got a job for you. >> get your book now. >> thank you very much. and we'll come back to some of the issues, obviously, that you raise. our next speaker is ifat reshef, who is minister and counselor, as i mentioned before, middle east counterterrorism. she's a graduate of tel aviv university, the call of law -- the school of law, and she served also in cairo in the israeli embassy several times, and she will deal with the israeli response to hostage taking. and incidentally, just in the past couple of days, hamas, they
declared that they do have some body parts of some of the israeli soldiers who were killed during the gaza campaign about a year ago. obviously, it raises a lot of questions. ifat? >> thank you very much, professor alexander. can everybody hear me? thank you. >> they can -- [inaudible] >> okay. i'm here to share a little bit of our experiences, the state of israel, and i have to say from the start that i will offer more dilemmas than answers. i simply don't have -- we don't
have good answers for what is one of the toughest, i think, most difficult things for decision makers anywhere and in the state of israel in particular. also another opening remark is that i won't be discussing isil, although unfortunately we find ourself in a situation now that we border both with affiliates of isil and al-qaeda, but we still have bigger threats and bigger problems that we face from those terrorist organizations that have been targeting israel for decades. mostly palestinian terrorist organizations and the most famous lebanese terrorist organization that is also the most famous proxy of iran, hezbollah. and this is an ongoing challenge, an ongoing experience and one that has gone through different phases, and i think
it's fair to say that we are still in the midst of the learning curve. and while we've reached several conclusions, this is probably not the end of this process unfortunately. but i would like to begin with, first of all, the understanding that while we, i think, we in israel face a unique aspect of the phenomena of kidnapping for ransom which is to say we are mostly faced by a ransom which is to release prisoner are, to release terrorists, and this is not kidnapping for ransom that is paying money, so the families of the people who are kidnapped be it soldiers or citizens are not faced with this dilemma that the former speaker spoke about, whether to pay out of pocket or
get the money in another way. so this is an issue that the tates need to deal with -- the states need to deal with, and i think also the understanding in israel is that this is the responsibility of the state to deal with this issue. the families can do a lot in terms of public relation campaign, in terms of making this issue remain very much in the news, but it's not, it's not in their capability to do whatever is needed to release their loved ones. so this is an important, i think, remark which is, which is unique to our situation. but also i would like to give a little bit of background in saying that the whole issue of kidnapping for ransom is actually a very old one in our tradition or at least the tradition of the jewish people because, in fact, it has not only that it has roots in the bible, but this is one of the
most important commandments that you have in the jewish religion. and it was extensively debated in the rabbinical literature because not only because it referred to a very -- to a phenomena that was going on, jewish communities were facing situation where people became hostage or kidnapped or put in jail by hostile authorities in order to pressure the community to pay ransom. the reason for that was not just the fact that they were very vulnerable in different places and under different circumstances, but because there was such a commandment, the commandment that was considered much more important than other commandments that dealt with helping the poor, helping the weak, and the sense of mutual
solidarity within the jewish communities that was very known to their, to their surroundings. so we have discussions that are going back almost 2,000 years ago. and what's fascinating is that the same questions and the same dilemmas that we have today were already discussed by our sages, by our most important rabbis from those years. and the questions are mostly how do you weigh the life of a person, the life of an individual and the better benefit of the whole community, and how do you, how do you put -- how do you put value on human life? could it even be possible? and if you are willing to give everything you have and, you know, the ransom back then was, indeed, mostly money, if the community is ready to get the funding necessary and to pay the ransom, wouldn't that be
counterproductive because it would just bring about the next incident where a person from the community would be abducted, kidnapped and so on and so forth? so this dilemmas are very ancient in our history, and the dilemmas continue. the answers, i'm afraid, have not been very successful. the answers have been given, by the way. there's even, there was even an attempt to actually say, one attempt was to say that you can pay ten times the fair value of a hostage. now, again, you can ask who is to tell what is a fair value of a human being? how can you even presume to say that? but apparently, people found ways to do that. i have to say even those rules were not exactly maintained. there were exceptions, for example, in the case of husband and wife. the husband has the duty to pay everything he has to release his wife, at least for the first
time. this the case of -- in the case of important jewish scholar ares, for example, some of the rabbis thought that, again, there are no limits to what you need to pay, because these people, their value for the community is much higher, and so on and so forth. so, again, this is to say that rules were never really kept. there were attempts to sort of create some kind of logic for the community to operate according to, but the reality was always stronger than those attempts than the rules. if i go now to our times, the modern state of israel, again, the nature of the demands have changed. and it is mostly the release of prisoners, the release of terrorists. that adds another set of complications and dilemmas, of course, to our decision makers because mostly it's, again, a question of motivation, it's a question of if you do pay this
price, what happen next? wouldn't that just encourage the next abduction, the next hostage taking, the next kidnapping? but also we have to take into consideration that those people that are released, those terrorists, they themselves have the potential in a lot of cases, in fact, being fulfilled in a very short period of time to go back to engaging terrorism. so the dilemma that a decision maker in israel is facing is, again, how do you weigh lives against life? if you know there is a person or persons, a citizen or a soldier that has been kidnapped, they have a face, they have a name, they have parents, they have family, they have friends. and we are, as was said here, a very small country, and everybody knows everybody. but at the same time, you are asked to release arch terrorists that once released will probably
go back to terrorism, and then they might kill an indefinite number of people that you still don't know their identities and their faces and their families. but when it happens -- and it just recently happened in recent months with six israelis killed as a result of terrorist activities that some of the people who were released during our last prisoner deal have been involved in different levels. this raises a huge dilemma for the israeli society and a huge dilemma for the government. so these are questions that are very, very difficult to answer, and there are no good answers. you can think of pros and cons for each, each way that you might choose to answer it. and this is an ongoing effort that we are still, i think, very much in the midst of it.
one of the famous israeli experts on this issue suggested, for example, that there have been changes in the way the terrorist organization conducted their kidnapping activities as a result of the way that the government of israel chose to react to them. so there is a significant difference between those kidnapping attacks that went on in the '70s and the ones that we experience since the '80s to these days. the main, the main difference is that in the '70s you would have this incident where there would be a takeover by terrorists of a facility. it could have been a school, a bus, a house, a known facility,
and they would take hostages, and then they would start making their demands and the bargaining, yes or no, would start. that allowed for a situation where instead of actually starting negotiation to release the hostages, the government of israel chose when it was possible to try a military option, a military takeover taking down the terrorists and releasing the hostages without paying the ransom. so not yielding to terrorism. and that, in fact, was the policy that was put forward in the '70s by the late then-prime minister rabin. whenever there is a possibility to try and militarily take down the terrorists and release the hostages, you do not negotiate. you do not start a negotiation. however, the second part of it
was that when this possibility does not exist, you, in fact, do start negotiations, and you try to see which of their demands you can answer. and the reason is that you cannot leave people in this situation, just abandon them completely. so we never really had a policy of no negotiation because that would have been, i think for the israeli society, almost unbearable. one of the reasons that we have to take into consideration, we had different cases of hostage taking from school children, families, what have you. but there has also been a tendency, a growing tendency, i'm afraid, of kidnapping soldiers. and while we share with most of the countries in the world this notion that there is a duty,
there is a commitment by states to their citizens and states do need to do their best to protect the lives and the well being of their citizens, there is an additional commitment when it comes to the state of israel because we have conscription, because we have a general drafting. and boys and girls, when they turn 18, go to the army. especially from the jewish population in israel, both boys and girls. they go to the army, they enlist. the country sends them to defend themself, and when they have taken hostages or kidnap in this context, the country has an additional duty to get them back. this is part of what was mentioned here. with respect to the rest, you don't 4r50e6 a wounded soldier behind, you don't leave soldiers behind, and i think it is a very strong notion. in israel i think some would argue it's more a contract the
army has with the parents of a soldier. if they expect parents to send their kids at the aim of 18, they also expect the government to do can its best to make sure if there is a possibility for them to come back home, this is what the state should do. so what happened in the '80s was that since the different terrorist organizations saw that the government prefers to do everything possible in order not to conduct negotiation but is actively trying to release -- by the way, with a terrible price. we had cases of both hostages and the soldier that participated in their release attempt were killed. i'm sure we're all aware of the famous case where we had an air france airplane that was abducted to uganda, and only the israeli host ams stayed --
hostages stayed at the airport there, and there was a very heroic release of them. actually, most of the hostages got back safe and sound. there was a lady who was hospitalized then, and she died, but actually we took losses, and the famous one was, in fact, the brother of our prime minister. so in the '80s we saw a change in the strategy and tactics of the terrorist organization. they understood that as long as they operate in a known place, there would be some attempt to forcefully release the hostages. so what they tried to do there then onwards was actually kidnap an israeli citizen, be it a soldier or a citizen, and take him to somewhere unknown, preferably outside the state of israel where it would be very difficult for the security
organizations to find him. and there, actually, you leave the state no other chance but to start a negotiation. if, indeed, there is a moral, religious, what have you, commitment to wring our citizens and our soldiers -- to bring our citizens and our soldiers back home. and there started what a lot of people see nowadays as a slippery slope where you had some very famous deals, and you could see a trajectory where the price just goes higher and higher. ..
now, having said that, a lot of criticism in israel on the deal, on this slippery slope. one has to say that there is -- for each all the criticism there was a lot of popular support. something like 80%. no one could resist the picture of a young soldier going back to its father and mother. the human thing, it's the human reaction. you have the very rational and logical analysis and emotional,
personal, everybody thinks of their own sons and daughters when they go to the army. you cannot compare between the two. it's a heartbreaking issue. we have families of victims of terrorists that tried to put test. this is a very difficult dilemma to make. i should add to that, this is something that is unique, i think, to the state of israel, one of the things that you should consider when releasing prisoners to get persons back, it's not that you're encouraging, incentive for the next kidnap or hostage, by the way, when in jail, our experience is they get more radicalized, more experience,
they get operation training and become much more dangerous. by the way, when they are released, they become a role model for their communities. their release helps recruit organizations. but the fact is -- an interesting question is, what does it do to the state of israel against its different enemies, and the problem is that hostage taking are part of a war. you have a side that does not accept international law and plays against the rules, bends the rules, and this is the way
of getting more. we as a country that is against different threats need to deter our enemies from continuing in this path. there is a lot of questions in israel when a country accept that and when you release one thousand people for one person, does that, in fact, hurt and there are a lot of state organizations in the region. they're all watching. they're all drawing their conclusions and if their conclusion -- this is a society that's so sensitive to the life of one individual, we should try to do our own actions or our own hostage taking or maybe do this or do that. and, in fact, hezbollah likes to
talk about the fragile society of israel and compare us to all kinds of description. but i could also argue, and i think this is something that people share in israel, that is this is a sign of strength. the society is willing to take such big risks and knowingly release terrorists and the bloodiest murders -- murderers that kill children to get one person back. this is a sign of strength. this is a sign of commitment and makes the society actually stronger. when the society is stronger, the country is also stronger. i don't have -- i cannot answer one or the other. this is an ongoing debate.
i would say, though, there has been some attempt to try and set new rules, rules that would in a way limit the discretion of the government and of the prime minister when deciding in such -- in such sensitive and con politic -- complicated cases, and we're hoping we should not face this situation again. this episode that we have been experiencing since the '80s, it usually takes a few years. this is not an episode of days or hours like was the case when, you know, the hostage taking took place in israel itself, but
people can be in captivity for years. five years of his life. while this is going on, the family is going through, you know, unspeakable misery, and the society -- those people who know them and those people that get closer to them in the process, they're all going through very emotional and painful situation and this is something that is very much -- is very much present in the daily lives in israel while it is taking place. every few years we have such an episode. we're hoping not to reach a new one. the attempt actually started before released. former chief justice of our supreme court of justice, and this committee was charged with
coming up with new rules, not just about the price, but all the relevant questions, who should be -- who should be responsible for conducting the negotiation and the what would be the limitation and so on and so forth. the idea from the very start was that this would not affect because this was an ongoing case and they didn't want to risk it, and so they did not publish, they came up, they concluded their conclusions and the conclusions were submitted to the minister of defense and they are binding and confidential. we do not want our enemies to understand what they're dealing with. if they have the manual it would
make it easier for the most efficient way to apply in the next incident. but also people presume that the idea is to limit the price and to -- to rise to much more reasonable ratio. so you would still have room for maneuvering for the government to conduct a negotiation, you will never reach a situation where, you know, a person is taken hostage, the country says, i'm sorry, we cannot negotiate. this would be unacceptable in israel. the government cannot be exhorted in the way it has been by the terrorists organizations that has confront us because they know there's no limit on the numbers. i should say here, we are asked and we paid a price also for some idea on the medical conclusion of a kidnapped
soldier, if he's alive or dead, we were asked to pay for corpse of dead sold -- soldiers. this was a serious attempt to lay down rules. other attempts most public was in some legislation that was introduced that also limits the authorities. before that it was the president's authority to pardon prisoners that were sentenced to life, terrorists that murdered people but also other terrorists and not just about terrorists, it's about murderers of this kind at large. this situation, again, hopefully we will not get to another
situation of this sort, but it would be a different attempt, maybe, and a different experience for the government and maybe the minister of defense who is now -- is getting more powers and authorities on this issue in the new set of rules, to conduct this in a way that might be more reasonable in the eye of the society and the government. but again, i have to say no easy answers, nobody knows how that would actually work. this is an ongoing dlimma, a dilemma that cannot be solved. nobody can say that the answer is a or b. and hopefully i won't have to discuss it next time and say our experiences and lessons that we learned and i lee you -- leave
you with this hope and i'm open to take any questions. [applause] >> okay. now i'm coming to last but not least speaker olman and is also executives and i think i should really mention that most recently also distinguished and a very distinguished journalist. thank you. >> his real -- [laughs] >> his real thing was a young naval officer.
he was so smart they got rid of him too. >> all yours. >> thank you. it's good to be here. it's always good to be with the 29 from the marine corps. don't ever discount the power of a bullet. i'm going to be fairly brief, i have to apologize because another meeting that i have to go to because i may have to go early. let me begin with this, it's not so much physical threat to american citizens, other citizens but the threat to the constitution. what al qaeda has done through terrorism has hay lighted the tensions between protecting civil liberties and the nation
and we do not have a good response. what you see at guantanamo bay is whether they should be treated as criminals or enemy co mba tants. we have not resolved that one way or the other. how far can they go and try to protect the nation and file a civil light? it's on going and it's going to get worse. second, the best armies, air forces and marine corps, i say that, al, are incapable of defeating an ideological army that has not army, air force let alone marine corps. the third point is that while we talk about resolving these things with a comprehensive
approach. how many of you have not heard the term comprehensive approach or all aspects of government? not just the department of defense, but because the department of defense is the best resource, best organized, most functional agency by size. by default it takes all the issues. it cannot solve the problem unless you get to the roots of the terrorism. we have not been very capable because the government system the way it's organized right now is not organized very this very comprehensive detail of dangerous. we are still very much who are oriented on the cold war.
we have to change our mindset. perhaps, as bay -- let me talk about challenge that is you may not have considered about terrorists. cyber crime. anybody not read the headlines about cyber thieves who stole a hundred million dollars by stealing data. i have news for you, it's going to get better and better. what happens when i get the records of companies, lets say the share goes up and down and i can manipulate the data. i'm a terrorist and i have access to the internet. what is going to prevent me or my colleagues from making huge amounts of money by cyber crime
and leveraging these things. it's going to get a lot worse. cyber blackmail. suppose i am a member of the islamic state and i decide to threat petco, what happens if i'm with petco and i get a threat, what do i do? they just happened to shut down power. let me give you a great case. a very, very rich woman, hugely rich, personal assistant got an e-mail, would you please send $250,000 because i just bought a , b, c and d.
i'm going to take care of the deal. the woman said, what deal. what happened was that they were able to get into these e-mail accounts and were able to forge this woman's way of speaking, had all sorts of access. what happens when the islamic state decide it's going to now commit this kind of blackmail? it's going to call family a, b, c and d, we will kill your family, relatives. what happens heaven forbid when a person is captured by the islamic state, worst, supposing they are a woman and they have five or ten american service captives. how are we going to react to
that? we have captured ten of your servicemen and we will sell them back to you for a hundred million dollars a copy and every hour or every 24 hours we will execute one of them. what does the president of the united states do? this may never happen. this maybe the fiction of hollywood and movies. it's something that we have to think about. the problem of thinking about it is that we have such a divided government that even a president would assembled members of congresses, if any of these what ifs transpire, we have to be able to have a nonpartisan way of responding. can you member what happens if the next president is faced with this if an american person is hostage, we have to do abc and d. the other party is going to say, you are the worst most cowardly
president in the world defeating whatever policy that president may have. there are solutions but they require a mature responsible government, and quite frankly, don was kind to mention my book, arising from that war that started 101 years ago four new horse men were created. we see it here in washington. we see it in afghanistan. we see it in syria, we see it around the world. religious ideological, that's what we are talking about. these are the greatest dangerous. but the biggest danger right now when we are dealing with the issue of hostage is how do we make a broken government work with the circumstances?
i will lead you with the answers to find that. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> you have a minute or have to go? >> i am going to have to leave in about five minutes. >> let me have the opportunity, scenarios all the way from cyber blackmail. let me ask you this, should we actually rethink the conceptional and the definition aspects of hostage taking because if the scenarios, and for example, that's why i mentioned, for example -- we know that isis and their strategic thinking and the al qaeda as well, and by the way, it's the anniversary of the
declaration by the al -- all it seems to me that when we think about the future, we cannot discus group of individuals, but the entire nation, and that is so say to the escalation of the weapons of has destruction, biological to entire nations and then to have the demands. how are you going to deal with that? >> first of all we can exaggerate many threats. we have taken the weapons of mass destruction as a disaster that is probably not going to happen for any number of reasons. that's one of the things is really more function of movies and literature, fiction than
reality. that's one of the things i'm not really worried about. what i'm most worried about is we lack strategic approach, we do not have a strategy. take for example the islamic state. we have a coalition of 62 countries that have joined against the islamic state, but what we have not done is put an oversight mechanism, we have not told what they are responsible to do and how they are going to do it. so you have nine lines of effort in this particular approach, two of which are military, the defense of defense is doing quite well as some of our allies. for example, the counternarrative. we have not done anything about that. we are being destroyed in terms of propaganda not only from islamic states but vladimir putin in ukraine.
we have to defeat the ideological. you have people that are on our side in iraq, why are they not speaking out more, why is the king of saudi arabia or crown prince not doing allot -- a lot more. you are never going to deal with a lone wolf. the guy was a jihadi baa we -- t we have to deal ideology. that would be step one. it's not going to be just trying to rearm the iraqis, that government is so corrupt, sadly we are wasting money. we have to get the arab states engaged. it start with the ideological
battle. all these problems that you raise about hostage, al qaeda, lone wolfs. we don't know whether the islamic state -- yemen going back to russia. my concern is is far more like yemen. unless we start getting the strategy together, we maybe sadly shocked in the future. >> okay. i had to take even a step further. ideology is a reproach of political realities. you have to talk about politics. the americans in the
phillipines, the fight against the british in '40s, that ended when the political situation changed and then you have vietnam against terrorists. you have to resolve a political situation of power and who is in control and what is the legitimacy of that power and the competence of that power. the problem with iraq and syria is not political legitimacy or competence. until you deal with those, even ideology isn't going to get you very far. >> amen. >> you have to go. we'll get you some other time. okay, we are going to open up a discussion, and if you have a question or brief comment, please identify yourself for the
record. >> yeah. >> one second. get the mic there. >> thank you very much. i work on counterterrorism for many years. >> speak louder, please. >> clear the record on a couple of things if i might. first of all, on the statement olman, what do we do when our people are killed while being held hostage. this happened in lebanon. general giggins were killed. they violated the policy. every time one hostage was released another one would be
taken. so there was the dilemma that we faced than right now, because there wasn't quite the visual of beheadings and so forth. that was a dilemma. it gives back to the dilemma that you layed out. calling terrorism hostage situations is a classic case of short-term gain. it's not always easy. i would raise the question to you all, when the elements that we faced in the state department is the issue of publicity. families are encouraged to be
quiet or go public as they did in lebanon and issues come up in and increase the value of a the hostages and raises currency. i'm not sure if there's any hard answers on that. it certainly has to be dealt with. it was a question for you, ma'am, also the tradition against death penalty which is -- any consideration in israel that perhaps they should use death penalty against terrorist that is were clearly involved with blood on their hands. i'm not sure if there's a moral difference with taking out a terrorist with a drone missile before the acts or executing after he goes to trial. i just wonder if that issue was brought up again.
thank you. [inaudible] >> technically we do have death penalty in israel. it was implemented only one time, and you have talking about the most famous criminal of all. this is something that -- and the trial was really historic episode where a lot of hol -- nobody even dreams of implementing, the thing -- i'm not familiar with any serious
discussion in israel on such, one reason there is a lot of reservation on death penalty for various reasons. also for practical reasons, i'm not sure, yes, it would prevent situation of hostage taking. it would create a new generation followers in food steps. we will have -- we will really have a problem. this is something that is not part of the judicial and moral. in states where you implement the death penalty it takes years for the judicial system to get
to the final appeal. using on terrorist you lose the momentum. i'm not sure that this would really be seen as the most efficient tool we can -- we can use. again, in this situation where there are no easy answers. >> thank you. wait for the mic, please. >> chris from the center of foreign international relations. my focus, my initial question and why i actually came here was mostly to examine, explain the role, it's a game changer, if you'd like, in fighting terrorism. there was a study that estimated about $90 million given to the al qaeda from 2000-2010.
there's a lot of debate whether that might have made a difference in blooming al qaeda in that region. on the other hand, after the intervention, it became obvious that the people that were hired from al qaeda by payment were easy to convert, all they did was surrender and change. the question is money a big factor. it goes down to the statement. i have huge respect for what the service of the fbi has done to the world in preparing the world for incident. people that are trapped in a situation and they need to escape. it's about time to examine. when it comes to collateral damage, for example, i had very
interesting discussions in may that the biggest problem in yemen in support of the united states is the collateral damage from drones. these are very moderate supporters of our mission in yemen, and, of course, they face the same problem in yemen today. isn't it time to start deconflicting, if you'd like, all the strategies and tactics based on the actual situation in the ground and becoming flexible in dealing with the complexity of each separate case? i mean, we have experience from lebanon with the hostages, some of them were released successfully and some of us didn't. the secretary of the united nations had established the whole network to deal with hostages in lebanon, if you
remember. we have had successful cases of that. hostages that the pirates are taking. they keep them for themselves for ransom or sell them to terrorists in yemen or outside somalia. so there's a lot of work to be done in how to each setting and respond successfully. and i wanted to bring it to this panel, how far should we be confident in our capacity to deal with complexity and how much are we confident in our capacity to respond in each separate case based on what we know from before? >> anybody wants to -- i don't know if it's a specific question, but your comments obviously is very interesting whether we discussed the drone
policy and strategy, but one of the areas that we did not go into, although mentioned, the rescue mission of israel. it seems that since that time every country prepared their own capability and so forth. and sometimes it works, sometimes it didn't work. so depends on the situation. any other questions? yes, please. >> regarding drones, one of the problems is when you don't have troops on the ground to examine the targets and to corroborate whatever all the information they have and direct the attracts, ene you're going to have this kind of problem. as far as money is a factor, it depends on the situation.
money in the middle east, a will the of the groups money is not even raised, it's done strictly for value. as far as cyber terrorism, that is a serious problem, i agree with that. when i was at dia recently there was a physicist. it would just fry all the electronics in the country. it'll just fry everything which will put everything in back to stone age. that's a serious problem. as far as what dr. olman said about ideology, i couldn't argue
with an extremist ideology. i giving the best logic in the world, it's not going to do any good. you need to have so that they can talk to them from their own point of views, same perspective. they said that when they have people that are -- that they capture, you know, before they commit the terrorist acts they have them counsel by a clerk who is respected and he says to them, why are you doing this. well, kill the enemy wherefore you -- wherever you find them. that wasn't a crime. so it doesn't really mean now what it meant then.
so sometimes even flip them and send them back as agents for their intelligent service. you need to have somebody from respective muslim clerk who is well versed that can sit down and work on propaganda. counterpropaganda for the -- >> very, very important point. when we talk about the islamic state, again, you can defeat some capabilities but you cannot eliminate the ideology. and the good news that some countries like morr -- they train even women to discuss this
issue with religions from other countries. it's a very long process. i think the point that you made is a very practical, very important one. now we are looking at the clock and the clock is ticking and i'm going to ask to make the final remarks for today's seminar. >> so everybody can get out of here on time. right. i want to add my thanks to what i think was a great panel today and certainly many, many very fine comments. i think, again, we have to remember that, you know, we are a great country and with great people in the united states, but there are other great countries and other great countries around the world, some small or some
large. all of them have distinct cultures and all of them have distinct languages and all of them have in the like. as i said in all of these seminars, unless we do a far better -- far better performance in understanding what other people are doing, what they're thinking about and looking at these challenges that we face through their eyes as well as ours, we are not going to be as successful as we have to be. and i think this is crucial. our strategy to be forward must be aflexible. it muib on -- must be on a high moral ground. i get a kick on all of the things on politics. we heard a very goodies cushion on politics today, everything
from how many times we define terrorism, define what's legal and define what isn't and it goes on and on and on, and yet, policy, i believe, is only a guide. you really do what you have to do when you have to do it for the reason you have to do it. i was known for violating policy many different times. i got put on rapport. when i grew up in the military, for example, we had a strategy of both acceptable and unacceptable acts tanned -- and the like. you didn't want to see them happen. you could live with them and then there were some that were considered unacceptable like nuclear attacks, et cetera, etc. that's when you go out to keep
that thing from happening. one of the problems we have with terrorism, first of all terrorism is a tactic, it's a tactic and nothing else. you can't have a war against tactics and all that kind of thing. you can take actions so that it becomes no reason for them to do it anymore. in other words, they're not yeting what they want out of it and so they're going to stop. it's been around as we all know since the bible, it's going to be around in the next century as well. it was loaded -- we were loaded with terrorist-type tactics in vietnam, for example. it was in 1965 a loan one thousand chiefs who were supporting south vietnam were assassinated. that was terrorism in the first degree. if you were with me, you'd had a
little vietnamese girl crying. you've seen this kind of thing firsthand and you never heard much about this in the press or the world and all that. they were out to lunch, and so these comments about the rules of engagement -- and we have to forget all that kind of stuff. you don't need any rules of engagement. the average american fighting men or women and all the civilians, all the people of natural power, they understand what is right and what isn't. you don't have to worry about that kind of thing. we fought in -- in 1965 we shot one million shots.
that's -- yet, you didn't hear those kinds of things. combat is combat. it's tough, it's nasty. we have ought to have a strategy that doesn't say too much about what we are going to do, because what we are going to do is different in every situation. it's different because as i mentioned, the culture, climate, etc. we can't hand ul -- handle all of these things in one kind of lump, all the way of doing these things. that's one of our great strengths. it's totally unacceptable, and that's the way it is when you're going to do something that's unacceptable and wrong. you are going to pay the price. we ought to be quiet about it.
we ought to do what we think when we think we want to do it, etc. propaganda as was pensioned by others, we're losing the propaganda war. we think it's auditory word. it's a way of life, and the enemy and all these people who don't like us, they're -- they're fueling this and with the use of internet and social media, they are cleaning our crop in what arena. >> i'm not going to say much. >> you want me to sit down? i'm not going to sit down, so you better say it. we have to get out of here. >> very tough. i'm not going to say anything. i thought that minister had really kind of shown us with the
terrible dilemmas are. emotion on one hand and strategy on the other. olman in his book says, you have to think -- you have to make problems bigger. i would say in a way to deal with this you really have to go beyond the episodes of hostage taking. you have to -- as general gray said, the countries, places, historical moment when these things take place. my own feeling is that yonah has made me tremendously aware. but what really taught me kind of the political configuration of this world, and can we really tackle. i'm a great believer in the iran nuclear deal.
one of the hopes is that it will change the basic political configuration of the middle east over time. it's that way that we get the correlation between turkey and iran and arabs and israel. we are bogged down in the day-to-day events. i agree. we can have seminas and i agree with the general, each case will be handled with good judgment. that isn't going to solve the world's problems. joan yonah makes me aware. i think -- do i get the last words to thank you and everyone else? >> no. >> what i am going to do is thank everybody else except al
gray. you get the last word. >> i get the last word. i want to add thanks to his thanks. lets get out of here. keep the faith and remember that if there is an emp attack and we lose our -- our grid, to me that's an unacceptable act and whoever does that is going to lose for more than an electronic grid, if i have anything to say about it. >> thank you for being with us. [applause] >> sat marks -- saturday marks the tenth anniversary of hurricane katrina. louisiana congressmen, i remember when the storm was coming. it first went to florida. everyone thought we dodged a bullet. i remember looking at it in the
radar. you could tell it was going to be a devastating storm. the manner in which they treated victims is astonishing. people waiting in the airport almost two days. there was not a bathroom, not anything. you put 5,000 people at an airport and don't give them restroom and water, you are asking for disaster. more on those interviews. it examines the real-life case. that's live at 7:00 p.m. eastern
on c-span2. all this week we are marking the tenth anniversary of hurricane katrina with special programming. tonight on c-span scenes from new orleans one year after the storm with a tour of the hurricane damage and conversations with those on the ground. that's followed by a house hearing featuring testimony from the citizens who left the city or were trapped by the waters. see those events tonight on c-span. >> the epa emissions for aircraft endangering the health of americans. epa's participation in that process. >> good morning, everyone. everyone can hear me okay?
great. i'm the direct or -- director of the climate division. on behalf of epa i would like to welcome you to today's public hearing. thank you all for taking the time out to come and participate and be with us today. the title of today's hearing proposed finding the greenhouse admission for air cause to air pollution that maybe anticipated. [inaudible conversations] >> aviation center. >> bill, director of the assessments division. >> bryan manning.
>> thank you. just to reiterate the purpose of the hearing today is to receive comments from all interested parties on the proposed finding and advance notice of rule making. this action as many of you know, was published on july 1st 2015. in this action the greenhouse endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations within the meaning of section 231a of the clean air act. in addition, they are proposing to find greenhouse from certain classes of engine used in commercial aircraft are contributing to the greenhouse pollution in our store. -- atmosphere.
when you are finished for your comments, members may ask clarifying questions. this hearing is not intended to be a discussion of the proposed findings. we might ask questions or request additional data. we will not respond to comments in this forum. instead we ask that you please provide written comments as part of the record. if any members of the audience want to testify, please submit your name. everyone attending here today should sign in regardless you are scheduled to testify. finally turn it over to my colleague bill. in addition to today's hearing this is an opportunity to send us written comments. comments closes and details can
be found in notices as well as in our website and the sheet that's available in the registration desk. let me turn it over the bill. >> thank you, paul, good morning. concurrent with these proposed findings on july 1, 2015epa issued vance -- advanced notice of rule making for setting aircraft greenhouse unit 231a of the clean air act. how those efforts my affect epa
action -- adopt corresponding international aircraft engine co2 domestically. this international co2 standard is expected to be adopted in early 2016. epa is requesting comment on a number of issues relating to setting co2, these include the appropriate effective dates for potential standards, level and whether it should apply to new aircraft. we are conducting this hearing under section 307d to provide opportunity for presentation, written submissions on the proposed findings. we are having hearing recorded
and transcriptions available, docket number epa0ar20130828. the transcripts will be available electronicically on remember site and regulations website. the official record of this hearing will be kept open for 30 days after today for opportunity for rebuttal testimony. you may submit additional testimony by using one of the messages described announcing the proposal. this hearing will be conducting informally, formal rules of evidence will not apply. paul and i will be serving as officers in this hearing. each person will be given no more than ten minutes to provide he or she testimony. paul and i have been asked to
serve as time keepers. so right down here to keep close track of times. when you have five minutes left, and also when you have one minute left and when your time is issued. keep your comments to no more than ten minutes. we will be using a group format for today's testimony. three individuals will be called at the table here in the front. if you have not done so, please check in at the registration desk for your group number assignment. when you hear your name or name called be prepared to provide testimony. witnesses must state name and affiliation prior to making statement. please speak slowly and clearly so our court reporter can record proceedings accurately. in order to streamline the process, members should be in the room and prepared to make their way to the front of the room while the previous members
are giving their testimony. depending on the number of testifiers today we may end uptaking a break today. finally, we will attempt to ensure discussion, proposal the official version of the proposal that is published in the register on july 1st of 2015 and controls any cases of conflict between it and what you may hear today. please refer to the version when developing proposal and npr. thank you. with that we would like to call the first group of witnesses to speak in this order. dr. nick from the international counsel and clean transportation. nancy young from airlines of america. nancy cougar from the clean air agencies. thank you.
will focus on the following points. first the scope of finding, second, the timing of an international or domestic co2 standard, and third, potential domestic reporting requirement for aviation manufacturers under the clean air act. epa has proposed that it focus on six key greenhouse gases. we agree with epa's assessment that scientific uncertainties on the climate impact and water vapor remain high enough so it's
not to address them in this initial endangerment finding. black carbon was identified as the second most important contributor in 2013, to reflect the latest science epa should consider incorporating black carbon in endangerment finding. also while we do not support integrating under the endangerment finding, epa should consider expanding existing requirement for aircraft, engine manufacturers, landing and takeoff emissions to include crew emissions. ..
technology is only available for deployment in 2016 across multiple aircraft types to be considered in establishing stringency. a standard implemented in 2020 for new applications for type certification while affect aircraft types with the service of 2024 or later due to the time required for certification. this combined with the decision that has most the standards can require state-of-the-art 2016 technologies when implemented means even the most aggressive standard well lack the efficiency when they enter into service. for these reasons we conclude that covering all new aircraft will be required to meet the purpose of the standard to reduce emissions beyond business as usual. on stringency wheaty leave that an international and/or domestic standard should be set to
require state-of-the-art 2016 technology for new aircraft types are defined after the standard takes effect. we were also investigating the tiered approach under which the deliveries of new production aircraft or models that are type certified takes effect may have separate target applied to that. appending additional analysis the level may be appropriate for those types of still within the highest three levels identified. on timing in order to minimize the number of years the new tiebreaker before you level in the business as usual aircraft the standard should be applied for the new types as early as possible in 2020. early implementation for the new production aircraft either in 2020 or 2023 is also preferable. finally since the current discussions on the international standard assumes a static stringency level it would be
appropriate for the review of any international standard starting in 2019 so that they updated requirement is in place to drive additional technology development beyond 2020. regarding the manufacturing reporting requirements, we recommend that epa considered adopting the domestic reporting requirement for the co2 under the clean air act. considering the development of the voluntary database for co2 only we believe that details details, mandatory reporting is necessary to ensure transparency in the level and a level playing field across the manufacturers. finally as noted before we believe the correction of the cruise if is lost a bit domestic labor help improve our understanding of the climate impact of aviation. the epa would need to analyze the cost and complexity of developing the measurement and reporting if it decides to on
this approach. they would be submitted in writing and in addition of two update for the 2009 study referenced in title efficiency trends for new commercial jet aircraft to the public docket. the two studies together highlighted the importance of the meaningful admission standard to the u.s. aviation greenhouse gas emission reduction plan. thank you for the opportunity to comment today and for the continuing work on this very important topic. >> i'm the vice president of environmental affairs for airlines for america representing the major passenger and cargo airlines in the united states. we appreciate this opportunity to testify regarding the proposed findings on aircraft greenhouse emissions and advanced notice of proposed
toolmaking. as the record of the members demonstrates, we take our role in controlling greenhouse gas emissions very seriously. for the past several decades, u.s. airlines have dramatically improved fuel efficiency and reduced carbon dioxide emissions by investing billions of fuel saving aircraft and innovative technologies like the cutting-edge route optimization software. as a result although they comprised 5% of u.s. economic activities, they account for only 2% of the greenhouse gas emissions inventory. the industries improved efficiency 120% since 1978, stating 3.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. the point at the point of taking 23 million cars off the road. they carry 20% mark passengers
and cargo in 2014 then they did in 2000 while e-mailing 8% less carbon dioxide. despite the industry's strong record to date, however, we are not stopping there. the u.s. airlines are active participants in the global aviation coalition that is committed to 1.5% annual fuel efficiency from 2020. on the infrastructure technology advances achieved by government and industry our members are focused on these advances both at the national and international levels. for example, the u.s. airlines are partnering to modernize the air traffic management system and to reinvigorate research at development aviation and environmental technologies. in addition, we are dedicated to developing a commercially
viable, sustainable alternative aviation fuel, which could further reduce aviation greenhouse gas emissions while enhancing u.s. energy independence and security. we are a founding member of the commercial aviation alternative fuel initiative, a public-private partnership with the faa and other stakeholders that it's working on the development and the deployment of such fuels. having helped lay the necessary technical groundwork, afora members are using it on commercial flights. further, the industry coalition is supporting the development of a global carbon emissions offset mechanism that could be used to fill the gap should the concerted industry and investment in technology, operations and infrastructure measures otherwise not allow us to achieve the goal of carbon neutral growth from 2020.
it's against this backdrop that we welcome the opportunity to submit a full set of comments on the epa proposed financings by the comment deadline for the purposes of this hearing, afora offers five preliminary observations. first, we concur with the epa that it is appropriate for the agency to limit its endangerment and cause or contribute finding statistics well lived greenhouse gas emissions. as the epa points out on its proposal aircraft only admits to a six, 99% of which is carbon dioxide. as carbon dioxide is strictly related to fuel burning jet fuel as the number one cost for commercial airlines, members already have a powerful incentive to continue to reduce the co2 output.
second, we urge epa to keep the industry's strong fuel efficiency wreck or a relative greenhouse gas emissions constitution and global approach commitment as the agency proceeds. indeed commercial aviation accounts for 2% of the greenhouse gas emissions inventory while the source is epa previously sought to cover with greenhouse gas emissions regulations on road motor vehicles and power plants respectfully recount for 23 to 31%. given that demonstrated a fuel efficiency record an economic incentive to continue that trend, there is a question as to whether any epa regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft engines is needed. that said as it is with airlines operating internationally and manufacturers selling their
aircraft in international markets it is critical that aircraft mission standards be set at the international level and not imposed unilaterally. accordingly, we appreciate the direct engagement of the epa and the faa and the development of the carbon dioxide certification standard at the international civil aviation organization, the united nations was charged with setting standards and recommended practices for international aviation. not only is the process for setting aircraft standards highly rigorous, but the criteria for adopting such standards aligned well with the criteria under section 231 of the clean air act. fourth, we strongly support the epa stated intent to adopt the future co2 certification standard into u.s. law consistent in the clean air act,
the obligations and in harmony with international community. finally, we urge the epa to take note of the fact that the future co2 certification standards for new aircraft is but one arrow in the aviation industry's quiver for meeting its emissions goals. the partnerships are collaborative efforts to deploy sustainable alternative aviation fuels and commercial scale and vast array of additional infrastructure initiatives being undertaken by airlines and airports, manufacturers and other stakeholders that are also critical errors a rose. commercial aviation has an important role to play in how america responds to climate change. be assured that the members are
committed to doing our part. thank you. >> good morning. i'm the deputy director of the national association of clean air agencies. thank you for the opportunity to testify and provide the pulmonary comments on the epa proposed endangerment finding and advancement of the proposed full making seeking input on the ongoing development of international aircraft standards for co2 and the potential of the aircraft carbon dioxide standard. we are a national nonpartisan association of air pollution control agencies and 41 states and the district of columbia and 116 which are public in areas
are professionals in the areas that have past experience in improving air quality in the u.s. and the testimony is based on that experience. with respect to the endangerment findings, we commend and support the proposal to find that concentration in the atmosphere and danger the public health and welfare of the current and future generations within the meaning of section 231 of the clean air act to find that the emissions in a certain aircraft classes contribute to pollution that endangers public health and welfare and also to use the same definition of air pollution under section 231 as the agency used in making its 2009 and danger meant finding endangerment finding with respect to motor vehicles. >> epa states in the proposal that the 2009 and endangerment finding is firmly established and well settled and that there is no need to reopen or revisit in order to make an additional
finding under the section 231. we agree and support the epa proposal to make such additional findings now. epa proposed findings under section 231 sets the stage for harmonizing international and u.s. aircraft co2 emission standards. expected to adopt the international standard as early as february, 2016, we appreciate the epa request for the input on establishing that standard and the potential use of the clean air act section 231 to adopt and implement the standard domestically. we support the united states continued support for adopting international standards as well as the epa adoption of the domestic standard that would address the source category and a significant way. aircraft represents the single largest gas transportation source of the greenhouse gas emission not yet subject to greenhouse gas standards.
clearly this is a factor commensurate with other transportation sectors. they must establish as rigorous and comprehensive a regulatory package as possible. in the u.s., it is especially critical because the state and local air pollution control agencies do not have authority under the federal clean air act to regulate aircraft in missions beyond the limits set by the epa. there's the following comments on three issues highlighted. applicability, timing and the co2 emission standards. they are considering various approaches pretty applicable to the aircraft co2 standard with a fundamental question being whether the standard should apply to the production aircraft or only to the completely new aircraft type of design. it is essential that the standard apply to both production aircraft and new type
designs and the definition of being production of any aircraft after the deadline. we simply cannot further the emissions reductions be garnered from the production engines and find no persuasive reason to forego them. on the issue of timing we recommend the standards take effect as soon as possible by 2020 for the new aircraft types and by 2023 for the engines. we are still studying the stringency by the npr. however we can say now our association encourages the epa to set the standard that is as stringent as possible and the standard of the technology forcing other than following. we would also like to touch briefly on a few issues related to the aircraft emissions standards. first we recommend the engines associated with but not part of an aircraft also will be addressed by the co2 standard.
among these are the power units. second we recommend the opportunities for establishing the standards for the end-use aircraft which can be retrofit to reduce the draft and save fuel. third although the standard at issue here is that co2. we encourage them to analyze and take steps to maximize production. finally while they support the establishment of an international aircraft co2 standard, the domestic standard that reads the full measure of the reductions from the source category is critically important. therefore we urge peta be prepared to adopt the more accurate program standards if the international standard falls short including the respect to the items raised in the testimony. >> in the coming weeks we will continue to study these and
other issues related to the epa proposed findings into the in the offer additional comments at the august 31 deadline and in the meantime we appreciate this opportunity to share the views this morning and look forward to continuing to work with you on this important initiative. thank you. >> thank you all for your thoughtful comments. we appreciate the comment. let me now call the second group of speakers up please. >> in the second group, we have eric white from the california resources board john from the airline pilots association international commend mr. james lee and that of the public.
into the microphone please nice and loud. thank you. >> good morning. thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on a proposed endangerment finding an advanced notice of the proposed rule making for the greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft. i'm the chief of the control division at the california resources board. the resource board is the california state agency responsible for meeting federal air quality standards and coordinating with state activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. they will also provide written comments into the docket. however i'm here today to emphasize the need for strong national greenhouse gas emission standards for aircraft and to re- emphasize the unique opportunity that you have to be a global leader for reducing the aviation emissions. i would like to begin by reiterating part of the testimony provided by the chairman in 2008 at the hearing for the regulation of greenhouse
gases under the clean air act. it's a threat to the state and to the nation. over the past 100 years we have experienced a sea rise. we are falling as rain and snow. leading to less water availability in the critical spring and summer. and an impact that threatens one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world and a color of the nation's export economy. climate change is also a major factor in the more severe wildfire season is predicted without major efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, in the century california will see a one to 2-foot sea level rise to 75% loss and snowpack twice the frequency of drought years and 55% more spot fires.
the comments are even more true today than they were seven years ago. as it is demonstrated in the drought and wildfires even as i speak. the passage as the assembly bill 32, the global warming solutions act established one of the world's most comprehensive and then vicious greenhouse gas reduction programs in the position in california to be on the forefront of addressing the climate change in missions. however in some sectors such as aviation, california and the various states are dependent on the federal government is of the most aggressive standards feasible. in that way the clean air act provides with both the authority and responsibility to do with california and the other states cannot do by themselves. today i speak before you to support the endangerment finding that greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft cause or contribute to air pollution that may be reasonably anticipated to
endanger public health and welfare. as stated in the 2007 joint petition for aircraft rulemaking and comments on the 2005 buddhist proposed rulemaking for the greenhouse gases under the clean air act, the overwhelming scientific data to support the claim that air pollution made up of the elevated atmospheric concentrations of the six well mixed and danger both the public health and public welfare. since this time the new scientific assessments further substantiated but a trifle effective emissions. as a circuit in 2007, they have the obligation of section 231 of the clean air act and the missions are set accordingly once the endangerment finding is made. as the epa noted aircraft missions make up the third-largest transportation source after emissions from
vehicles. the admissions 11% of the admissions from transportation are greater than all other transportation forces combined that come after it and it remains the single largest source in the u.s.. furthermore it is estimated u.s. aircraft would visit the largest mission among all transportation sector locations. as such it is imperative that decisive and expeditious action be carried out to stem emissions. they recognize the civil aviation organization is anticipated to promulgate the standard. while this is a promising initial step in controlling the admissions from aircraft, historically -- and standards have been technology following, not technology forcing.
as such they are concerned about the standards eventually adopted may not sufficiently reduce the business as usual scenario. we urge to extend the regulatory authority further and adopt the admissions standard that will be forward compatible forward a technology development and provide accelerated reductions. there's a variety of aircraft designs and aircraft engine technologies that show the reduction goal and should be considered as part of its regulation. they recommend they also look at
the basis they can have a substantial impact on reducing the emissions from aviation. going beyond the business as usual also means that the standards must be adopted and that are applicable both to the aircraft models in production after the effective date of the standard and as well as the future aircraft types. they also support an additional requirement for co2 emission rates due to the importance of collecting the data to ascertain the bigotry compliance as well as to inform the policy decisions on the future co tuitions reduction opportunities they could stand alone. they seek to international opportunities that include include such rfid requirements
for any aircraft for fuel-efficient technologies and reducing emissions from the auxiliary power units on aircraft. they also encourage to consider regulations to further reduce aircraft engine criteria pollutant, particularly outside of nitrogen. the mitigation of aircraft related emissions remains a critical part of the emission reduction strategies and we are working to do its part by ensuring other reduction opportunities, pursuing other opportunities. for instance in the near term, we will consider the measures to reduce emissions from ground support equipment for shuttle buses and other on facility airport related emissions. in closing in the event that we fail to adopt a meaningful aircraft co2 emission standards by next february, standards that go far beyond business as usual the urge to epa to act
independently and establish a strong national standard without further delay. california believes it is clear that we oppose more on the u.s. aircraft engine manufacturers and we believe the overwhelming scientific data has proven that aircraft emissions to endanger public health. therefore they have the obligation under section 231 of the clean air act to stop study emission standards both expeditiously as possible. decisive and timely regulation of the major sources is critical to meet state and national goals. thank you for your time. >> thank you mr. white. the floor is yours. >> good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to present this important public hearing. i serve as the first vice president of