it is true that outside spending was happening in 2003, 2008 and 2010 but in 2003 when the money was -- before mccain-feingold when it was flowing through the party it was closed. and we sought to thousand for the five 27 group and that was

closed. the disclosure which i see as a dramatic change from citizens united, two interesting points to raise about this suggested you relax the limits on candidates and parties. one is the statement you make the supreme court has said we are permitted to regulate donations on the basis they might incite corruption or the appearance of corruption. i am not sure the conservative supreme court would go so far as to say the limits, they might but maybe not. that is one question. the second is if disclosure leads to intimidation and harassment than what art parties and candidates being intimidated? if you really buy that argument and take it to the logical conclusion you would have disclosure of candidates parties either and what some people are saying and outside groups are

extensions of the campaign. that is what they're pressing for disclosure. back to the supreme court. the supreme court said it is okay to have a boycott. there are a law that bar intimidation and harassment. so far the attempts on disclosure laws and ballot initiatives, not imposing a value judgment but whether the court would agree that disclosure is intimidation. >> i have a question. i am probably eat only person in this room who has received a campaign contribution. how does this affect the behavior of the people getting the money. is there any data to show how it affects their behavior? the essence of our discussion to determine whether our system of

campaign contribution is proper or legal or constitutional and effective and whether the public will be done in this process but the impact is whether the people who are getting the money are serving the public or not serving the public and one thing i don't see in the data is how it affects behavior. >> there are two ways people have studied this. people on one side of the argument like to point out there is no demonstrable effect on visible activities. the dispute among political scientists how much you can see. the most visible you expect to see. what you have in court

depositions and political science is demonstrable agenda setting affects, people who think we shouldn't kid into this because it will hurt us. i have so many good things i could spend my time on so i really want to go there. there is a new book out by linda powell and an older book, this is pretty thoroughly demonstrated people who bother showing up at subcommittee hearing this pretty clearly find this too to contributions. i want to weigh in on this but also want to respond to the last point that was made. a quick factual thing, a lot of

the same lines, the one thing that we have never seen things like it before is the independent spending committee. that is basically let's blow way contributions. we need to talk about that because that is really about contribution limits and if you don't the independent spending committees are fig leaves made out of some sort of material but i do see contributions. i think there was plenty of documented evidence of quasi extortion during the soft money period before watergate and i think that is up problem.

it targeted at problem which is different from independent standing. cit mccain-feingold drive this money to the other system? i don't see it. i think there was not disclosed -- can't draw a trend lines or take it both ways but if you are there before mccain-feingold, what you see when you look at the party bar charts is that 2000 was the historic high point and 2002 was a blitz of people -- anticipating mccain-feingold and parties came back to the 2000 level. came back in 2006. it is important to be concerned -- we ought to think about

letting parties do more but i would argue that should be done -- how can that be done with limited contributions to control the other demonstrated fact of this quasi extortion. >> somebody want to weigh in on the quid pro quo questions? >> not just quid pro quo but create a risk averse attitude where nobody wants to do anything and super pac contributions down the road. >> i am not the only one on this panel -- that is great reading. there are a lot of testimonials from former members of congress and politicians, we really think it's thanks. maybe it didn't meet some obvious definition of corruption in a political science paper but they knew in their gut that they

were walking in increasingly to fund-raising events where mega donors would hand them checks so soft money could go into the -- they did not like that. it is worth going back and reading that ruling. the other thing is the amount of time. if you talk to candidates and activists one of the things that shocks of them is how early the money is being spent. you alluded to that in opening comments. people spending money at an earlier phase than in the last presidential race and that is putting pressure on people which is why you see headlines like the one you held up to suggest the president is very scared. >> one of the things that raised the level of anger like eddie on the part of candidates and other political actors you just don't know when the two million or a significant amount of money will

appear at a moment's notice and it extended the period of the campaign. i spend a weekend in ohio not for political reasons, most importantly was sharon brown who is incumbent senator up for reelection in a tough race was aggressively advertising in mid to late july which is unusual and reacting to an aggressive ad campaign. not from his opponent but an outside group. expanded the campaign perhaps adding to the level of the discussion but certainly it has caused people to spend money they would not otherwise be

spending which means they have to raise more aggressively from different sources adding to this cycle. >> my fellow panelists seemed concerned about panelist anxiety. i am not concerned about candidate anxiety. there is very little anxiety after the federal election campaign act was enacted in the 1970s which created a long period of stasis in our political system in which incumbents were protected by the high walls established by the federal election campaign act and the difficulty competitors had in raising money in a system that required them to raise money in small increments without the help of constituencies or political angels. those walls are coming down. outside groups are bringing those down which creates

tremendous turbulence in the system, competition in the system, pluralism in the system and all of those are terrifying to incumbents and that is a good thing. that is the way democracy is supposed to work. what some analysts have referred to as extortion i have news for you. there's still a lot of fund raising going on today after mccain-feingold, after citizens united. there is still a tremendous amount of pressure on corporate and other entities to put money in this system. they may not be hearing directly from the candidates but from groups, outside groups that in many respects they view that as the same thing as hearing from members. also agreed that there is a fig leaf notion of separation between the candidates and the outside groups and that goes to the question of what we mean when we say expenditure of

independent expenditure and we could have a healthy debate about whether we need a much clearer definition of independence versus toward nation but that issue has been around a wall time and the finance reform community doesn't deeply engaged. a very valid question because the supreme court has assumed these expenditures would be truly independent. but anxiety among officeholders is terrific. >> a healthy debate quickly. >> i've talked to reform groups, not happy about coordination issues but they have written a lot of letters, tried to get the sec to take action on this and to pressure president obama to reform the sec. that is where this coordination

definition has come of with an effective definition. i don't think that is an issue that has been ignored that financed the federal election commission. might be another interesting discussion. do we have an effective regulatory agency in place and if not what would it take to come up with something both sides would agree with be effective and fair. >> one last question, can you open your crystal ball and think about the fall? we haven't even talked about presidential -- most people would agree does not exist any more or effectively exists. slowly went away in the primaries and the general election candidates will not take public money. what is the fall going to look like in the presidential level

with both candidates, raising money and super pac attachments and one of the congressional races. our congressional races going to be bombarded by outside money or associated interests to respond. what is your crystal ball as we look ahead? >> i am still convinced neither candidate is going to win based on lack of funding. i didn't have resources to run a vibrant campaign and i would not suggest that. between the parties and groups and campaigns you have to remember that a lot of spending, its affects are fairly a femoral in some ways. they are useful defining candidates to people not familiar with them and pointed messages that specific points in

time. these candidates are pretty well defined. there is incredible amount of spending but it won't determine the outcome. >> the congressional race -- >> may well make a big difference. in that small senate of house races, control of both of those chambers in question. it can do one of those things. >> if we want to know what the fall looks like it is happening now. they stay up. the impact about side spending will increase the further down the ballot you go. it won't be determined in the presidential race. there is congressional and senate races where it could have an impact ended is important to remember the super pacs stay on state and local levels. those are races where an outside

group could flip the race completely. that is very interesting but i have my eye on six months after the election. i can't wait until some good data come out the we could analyze and draw some strong conclusions. we are operating in the realm of the theoretical and to some degree arguing about whether or not citizens united ruling has a dramatic impact. i am looking forward to see interest in this election. >> i want to echo state legislative races with huge amounts of money being spent. in my own state of kansas, the home -- significant amounts of money being put in state legislative races as much as

congressional. >> six months after the election before you go to questions, we have two common sets of questions but not exactly the same proposals. both saying that there needs to be serious thought about what constitutes coordination and independence and it is important to the changes this year but we need to think seriously about political parties. that is part of an agenda after january. >> we want to hear from you. mike is here if you could identify yourself. right here in the front and right behind you. >> the question that i have a, executive education, you talked about the volume of money. if money is a problem i will

take that off the table for the question. and gerrymandering and a number of districts with a funnel effect. accentuating the problem if there is a problem. how does that play out? >> i would just say the redistricting process has been with us for a while. it has been waiting for political parties to drop political boundaries in their own parties's interests. i don't fault them for that the way the system is currently structured. i think the two things go hand in hand. the redistricting process reduces the competitiveness of

the system. the way money functions in our political system has for some time refused the competitiveness of the system. it would be difficult to disentangle those effects and judge which one of them is the predominant effect. >> an interesting test in california. because of the districting process with different cuts and other states where that is. >> we have a report coming out later in the fall. the simple point is a few less competitive than they were in the last cycle but a similar number. because there is a universe of competitive feats whatever that is due to redistricting and some just do it the fact of close races and a lot of money

concentrated on this with all sorts of people -- not sure we exacerbated that as much as the universe of competitive districts. there are a lot fewer people holding -- democrats holding republican district which used to be the case 20 years ago. you have to think about the wall s in politics in the political system but also primaries where you have people trying to hold the district and conservative democrat looking over your left shoulder and trying to hold a moderate democratic district looking over your right shoulder in the primary and the money potentially going more to primaries and independent

groups. >> good question to ask because it is worth pointing out that maybe people out there in much longer number nobody on this panel said there is too much money being spent on political discourse. the conversation has all been about the effects on candidates and that is a different conversation so by asking the question you point out something important. >> out of the room here. here is the microphone. >> from howard university, my question is can a property man or non property man become

equal? that is what democracy is. when i listen to the conversation -- i am glad you brought up mcconnell versus sec. mcconnell was one of the people for disclosure and he said a lot of good things but when it came down to disclosure he voted it down and as you said you think anxiety is good but to empower political elected officials endlessly campaigning and not the governing for the people how is that democracy? thank you. >> founders intended us to have a very vibrant campaign season. if you look back at american history before the federal election campaign act in the 1970s we had a long history of

competitive races particularly house raises indicating for a long time that members of the house are engaged in a continuous campaign because they only have a two year term and that is a very healthy thing for us and it was disturbing when we reached a point not long ago where house members felt relatively assured that least after they made it through their first term and were reelected ones that they were locked into that seat for life. because of redistricting but also because of the way the campaign finance system discouraged challengers. 9 understand candidates do not enjoy the frosts of seeking out constituencies and funds from various constituencies it is a fundamental part of the

democratic process. >> as a former office holder, today political viability is an important word. = ability to raise money in large part over any other quality over iq, experience, wisdom, judgment. i am not a fool to believe -- capital in the public sector. this is a business of ideas. the money is the criteria going to your question of property versus non property. primary criteria for politics. that is an important question to ask. >> the question is a good one.

is correct that viability to raise money than people running will go where it's easiest to raise money. and from one person from 1,000 people. and multiple matching, without restrictive regulation, how much of a conversation have we been having or distorting or not distorting, not to do things. and positive incentives to go into $25. and it works. these things impact work. people who are not playing.

that is an important goal to be thinking about. it is not one that has a distorting effect. >> it is interesting to hear the focus on competition in the wake of citizens united. i have heard a number of people say all the extra money is great because it enhanced competition and what i also think of is the analysis is the public planning system and the impact that had. if you think about competition for better or worse look at how public financing systems are at work. all people who never ran before r e elected. much higher percentage of women holding public office and minority and ethnic groups holding public office than a conventional system. not making a value judgment but if you want competition i would

say that probably the public financing system would enhance competition more dramatically than anything else. >> reason to be hopeful about the nature of technology. to more distribute the resources. it is not the money itself that is important but what you can get and how to translate into communication with voters and other interaction and we still haven't seen remotely the final result on the dramatic technological change that allowed the obama campaign to be successful in 2008 and to crowd the other potential users of those schools. as that continues over time it will be helpful overtime. in terms of distributing access to the resources. >> question right here. >> my name is george lionel. does the amount of money being

spent affect the quality of information? >> we should have the other senators here. >> studies show that we all know they are emotional and unfortunately more informative. there's not a negative effect between advertising levels of information that is positive and that is surprising. >> right here. microphone in this direction. >> edward brodeur from sunshine press. to respond to something dr. malbin said earlier about the

money not accomplishing anything. whether it was effective or not, i am sure the number of articles i have written on voting records in congress is in three digits. that is true for a lot of journalists in this town. the money either correctly influences politicians for elections for being spent by fools. there is no other way to parse that. but my question is this. 15 years ago the pacific rim economy, the tiger economy collapse and a major reason is governments were bought off and they were illegitimate and their

economic successes weren't a result of producing more and better widgets but buying off the crown for the presidency or whatever it is in that particular country. what do you think will be the effect if big money is able to prevail in our elections over a period of a couple decades? what will be the effect on america? is it conceivable that when capitalists get their wish they destroy themselves as seems to have happened in the pacific rim economy in 1997. >> this goes to the question of accountability and transparency and risks to the business community which a member of business leaders are quite sensitive to. i would say too it might be worth looking at a gallup poll which suggested for voters the

number 2 issue behind jobs and the economy is corruption and government and the number 2 issue they want elected officials to fix really surprise me. that suggests voters are concerned about what is happening and this is as much higher on their radar screen in previous elections. ..

i think there's lots of explanations for that level of cynicism that have very little if anything to do with the campaign finance system. >> i thought you're going to take up the point in this way that the government, you're talking about more one party governments in tied with business, the question of competition and whether the money is really going to challengers, primaries challengers and outside parties. that would be one response to this. >> candidly, i don't think you can remotely compare our system to the system that prevails in asia and southeast asia. those countries have so much more significant problems than we do, thank god. and their political systems are not anywhere near as transparent and built with disclosure as our system is. you can compare our current system to the united states, let's say in the 19th century. i mean, big money if you want use that phrase, i'm not sure exactly what it would mean, as

present in our system from the founding, and we survived these 200 plus years. >> i would also echo with what bob said, which is modern technology does empower people beyond traditional government institutions. i saw this personally this year when it came to the issue involving the motion picture industry, one a used to be involved with. having to deal with film piracy. without going into the back of the issue there was a public uprising regarding the issue of what the government should do to deal with film piracy, and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people petition their government, kind of irrespective of what the government institutions were doing, and prevailed under members of congress to change their position. that's a factor that we have not really seen before. we have seen public pressure under government but not this kind of instantaneous massive public russia. that has both bad policy choice

to because of the facts are wrong it can be very destructive, but it is an empowering force. and i don't think they had that in singapore or the other countries you are talking about. >> the transparency element, i continue to be amazed. we went through this financial disaster in 2006, 2008, in large part because there wasn't the transparency in terms of very important financial transactions. huge amounts of money being traded amongst people who didn't really know who their counterparties were, did not with the other side of the transaction was, didn't know what their incentives might be, did know whether they were being honest and straightforward about the nature of those transactions, and we virtually collapsed the system. why we would want a political process that mimics that where you don't have transparency, where you don't know who the party to the transactions are come at the end of the day, it escapes me.

>> time for one more question. right up front. >> action why don't we take you to. >> take them together. >> is this on? what i have is also much a question that sort of -- television advertising even in this year increased different forms of technology. is still an increasingly primary means of communication in campaigns in terms of the expenditure of money. indeed, the expenditure on media advertising is increasing at a greater rate than the overall campaign expenditure. the second thing is, you know, bob, you said this correctly, you know, the advertising in

presidential campaign, you know, does not have as much impact because there are so many other sources of information. it has enormous impact on races below the level of presidency where there is no other source of information, and that is a serious question or the health of american democracy. >> okay. take the second question and we will answer them together. >> thank you. i'm a sole proprietor. david brooks this morning in the times said that this election was boring and consequential, and he particularly mentioned the fact that this incredible outpouring of advertising this early is primarily aimed at the uninformed and the uninvolved. because the party seemed to believe, and the candidates seem

to believe, that there are so few undecideds that what they're really going after are the people who really don't pay any attention by negative advertising. could you comment on not only brooks comments, but the whole question of the undecideds and how to move them? >> so, open to the audience, want to the panel on questions of campaign advertising in the significance especially on lower rates and secondly on the money and the effect on targeting undecided voters. >> i will quickly note it's not just advertising that causes election outcomes. it's also the ground game. one of the reasons why groups on the left are very worried and candidates on the letter word, they don't have enough money. there's just no question the outside money in terms of the advertising is outpacing the concerted outside money is outpacing the liberal outside money by more than three to one. but if you look at labor unions and if you look at other types

of grassroots groups, even the democratic party and the candidate, they are really trying to knock on doors and go door-to-door to get voters out that way. and, of course, groups on the right are doing the same thing. so i think it's going to be interesting to see how effective these ads are. some people might say the at was awash and it was a colossal waste of money. but people are going to try anything to win an election. especially one as close and as high-stakes as this one. >> this is the most micro-targeted lesson in u.s. history. the technology has evolved to a point that the presidential candidates are able to target voters with precision that we've never seen before. and so i think one of the odd effects of that is that they are not necessarily naming the vast bulk of the american public that they are aiming at the narrower and narrower demographics and constituency.

on the ground game point, you know again, i mean, i heard some folks outbidding about looking six months back at the data. but the problem is much other relevant data will be there because a lot of that ground game takes place in the undisclosed world. it is sponsored by 501(c) groups that don't hav to report their activities. so just one other example i think what much of the activities can be very relevant this fall will take place below the radar line, and will be visible even to academics who might after the fact for journalists after the fact might want to analyze what actually happened. >> and on that note we're going to thank our panelists and closed the panel. thank you. [applause] >> at the foot of the bridge i was beaten. i thought i was going to die. i thought i saw death. >> in 1965, a 25 year old john

lewis took part in the voting rights march from selma to montgomery, alabama, on a route that would take them across the bridge. >> we came within a huge difference of the state trooper to a man identified himself and said i am major john of the alabama state troopers. this isn't unlawful march and would not be allowed to continue. one of the people walking beside me said major, give us a moment to kneel and pray. and the major said, troopers advanced. >> across that bridge, author and congressman john lewis sunday at eight on c-span's q&a. >> a house transportation subcommittee held a hearing on misconduct allegations of transportation security administration's screeners. deputy administrator john halinski addresses of these allegations and tsa disciplinary action procedures. this is just under an hour.

>> the hearing will come to order. subcommittee is being to address ongoing misconduct within the screening work force. >> i would like to welcome and especially tsa's new deputy minister, john halinski for testifying here today. i'm sure you'll do a great job. i share administrator pistole's in your ability. the need for the federal government to oversee and direct aviation security is undeniable. terrorists have proven time and again their commitment to attacking our nation's aviation systems. the government has a duty to protect its citizens against these kinds of attacks. having said that, the majority of americans do not support the government's current approach, and when they hear that the people at tsa that are supposed to enforce and ensure their security are engaged in gross

misconduct it only makes matters worse. stealing from checked luggage; accepting bribes from drug smugglers; sleeping or drinking while on duty, this kind of criminal behavior and negligence has contributed significantly to tsa's shattered public image. it is true that other federal departments struggle with criminal cases against their employees; but tsa, unlike most agencies, interacts with the general public in a very frequent and personal manner. the fact is tsa's high-profile criminal cases have contributed to its major image problems and a growing lack of support. i believe tsa has an oversized workforce, which only increases the likelihood of this type of behavior. i think the number of employees could be reduced dramatically, with significantly more attention paid to qualifications and training. it is just a small percentage of the overall workforce that is involved in criminal or negligent behavior; but it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the bunch, and at the end of the day perception is reality. i did not convene this hearing to rehash all the details of the recent incidents of misconduct,

nor is my intention to vilify every tsa employee. rather, this hearing is a chance for tsa to describe its efforts to more quickly identify and remove employees whose behavior or lack of judgment can further damage tsa's already troubled image. i believe the american taxpayer is owed this information. more importantly, i believe the frequency of tsa employee misconduct is a symptom of a larger problem we have examined before. with the exception of s-p-p airports, tsa is responsible for both overseeing the screening and conducting the screening. in some cases, we have seen poor screener performance going uncorrected or, even worse, being encouraged or covered up by tsa management. one of the most disturbing examples occurred last year in honolulu airport, where screeners and supervisors were letting luggage go through without screening for explosives. tsa's own federal security director was in on it. one of these cases is too many. but there have been other disturbing cases since then, including at airports in southwest florida, philadelphia, jfk, and newark.

today, i look forward to receiving information from mr. halinski on his efforts to tackle these issues and how congress can assist you in those efforts. tsa has taken some action under administrator pistole's leadership to improve the integrity of tsa's workforce, including the creation of a new office of professional responsibility. while i regularly support the administrator, adding bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy is generally not a good solution. with that i now recognize the ranking member of the sick and ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. davis, for any opening statement he may have. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and plus the key member ms. lee has not been in attendance today. i'm sitting in in her stead. so i will read her opening statement at this moment and she may join us for the end of the hearing. i would first like to take this opportunity to thank mr. halinski for joining us today for the first time in his new role as deputy administrator at tsa.

mr. chairman, action of this congress, we have focused on efforts by the federal government to empower our front-line employees. transportation security officers working at our airports across the country are the first line defense against terrorism. through our work on the oversight committee and the previous congresses, the committee has found that these workers suffer from high injury rates of attrition and exceptionally low morale. and to raise like there was no hope for them to obtain the necessary workplace protections. collective bargaining rights that other federal employees enjoy. however, today we're closer to achieving this goal. and in turn, establishing a workforce that can place a greater focus on the security mission at hand.

the lack of workplace protections for screening personnel, combined with poor workforce management, increasing costs and decreases security. collective bargaining rights will ensure that tsos are regarded with the same standard and authority as other critical security personnel. we can have confidence that these rights will not interfere with the proper steps being taken to address criminal activity and our failure in the training program. mr. chairman, as we explore today's hearing topic, i must caution you that we must make it clear as to what type of misconduct we are referring to. in one instance we may be discussing alleged criminal activity that tsos engage in and, therefore, must face legal consequences. on the other hand, we must take a closer look at incidents when tsos fail to comply with standard operating procedures at

the checkpoint, and what steps are taken by tsa to identify this activity, and address the training and enforcement programs. this hitting is an opportunity to question tsa about how it ensures that screening procedures are followed and how they determine whether the remedy for misconduct be disciplined or immediate training of tso. proper training of tsos is critical to security of our aviation system. that is why i along with my democratic colleagues of the committee have consistently called for provide tsos with additional training whenever it reaches screening operations and missteps poker. i look forward to hearing more from tsa about how the most recent reorganization if it is undertaken will address these concerns. in recent hearings my colleagues on the other side of the aisle

have stressed the importance of determining adequate staffing levels in order to create efficiencies that do not compromise security at our airports. and these tight budgetary times it is important upon all of us to find ways to be more efficient without compromising security. we cannot, however, cut corners when it comes to transportation security. i look forward to hearing from mr. halinski of tsa's staffing allocation model, and its determination to adequately staff our security checkpoints. i would also expect to hear from him on the costs of outsourcing of screening operations. finally, i hope that mr. halinski can solve the mr. whip try to unravel for over a year. that is how we tsa's ongoing headquarters reorganization reduce costs and create efficiency? with that, mr. chairman, i think

you and yield back. >> i think the gentleman and other members of the committee are reminded opening statements may be said that for the record. we're pleased to have today with this distinguished witness, mr. john halinski, the tsa deputy administrator. mr. halinski has assumed his new position on, in july of this year. he previously served as that of the the office of global strategies and europe area management before the. before joining tsa, mr. halinski served 25 years in the marine corps in a variety of distinguished positions, and we thank you for your service. the chair now recognizes mr. halinski for his opening statement. >> good morning chairman rogers, congressman davis, and distinguished winners of the subcommittee. things for the opportunity testified debate. since tsa's inception, commercial aviation has been a priority -- as evidenced by repeated unsuccessful attempts to attack our aviation system, in recent years tsa has

mitigated threats related to liquid explosives, the plot in 2006, the christmas day underwear bomber attempt in 2009, the cargo explosive attempt in 2010, and concerns about surgically implanted explosives and renewed threat of explosives concealed on the body this year. the threat continues to evolve which is why tsa uses intelligence as a key driver of all we do. our transportation security officers, or tsos, screen more than 1.8 million people per day. our workforce is dedicated to the security of all passengers and our leadership is committed to employing risk-based intelligence driven operations to reduce the vulnerability of the nation's transportation system to terrorism. 10 years after federal screening operations began, our workforce is one of the most diverse in the federal government. the tsa workforce exceeds -- succeeds rates for the three largest minority groups. approximate one quart of our workforce or 15,000 personnel

are veterans of the united states armed forces who bring to tsa the same dedication of serving their country that they did while in military uniform. our workforce has considerable on the job express with the average tso server with us for nearly six years. we train and expect our workforce to carry out our critical security mission with professionalism and respect. over almost travelers have a positive experience at the airport. of the six main passenger screened each year we are contacted by roughly seven and 50,000 travelers, and of those contacts less than 8% are from passengers registering a complaint. this fact belies the near constant criticism and frequently embellished allegations of improper screening reported in immediate and repeated as fact by many individuals, despite evidence to the contrary. since the creation of tsa we have been focus on involving the skill of our workforce to mitigate potential threats. through efficiencies greater in our operations and the use of

technology, we have invested in more specialized screening approaches, enhancing our layered security system as recommended by the 9/11 commission. also since the inception of tsa we've used intelligence and our experience to make adjustments to the prohibited items list. these changes our workforce to focus on high threat items. we base these decisions on a careful analysis of intelligence and a commitment to mitigating risk. in addition to administrator pistols expectations of hard work i'm a professionalism, and integrity from everyone who works at tsa, he has committed to read the most effective committee and the most efficient way. we're currently engaged in a transformation to better allocate resources and streamline agency functions. our mission requires a workforce of specialist skills that can adapt as threats evolve. maintaining and enhancing our employees capability is a high priority. to be successful in initial hold ourselves and our workforce

accountable for meeting our expectations for hard work and professionalism and integrity. like any large agency will have employees that don't meet our expectations. it is a matter of loyalty to the tens of thousands of employees who take pride in turning out our mission and do it well that would take prompt and appropriate action when identified employees who do not meet our standards. administrator pistole's sure that the coming to tsa established the office of professional responsibility, or opr. patterned after similar function within the department of justice. the purpose of opr is to ensure that allegations of misconduct are thoroughly investigated and that is what is appropriate and fair across the agency. in closing what unites everyone at tsa is our mission. we are actually aware of why tsa was created. our employees, some of whom are your neighbors and your constituents, choose public service to ensure that the horror of 9/11 never happens again within our country. our workforce is committed to serve and protect the traveling

public is both genuine and admirable. i am proud to serve with tsa, and i'm committed to supporting to make them better. i'm committed to defend them when they are criticized for doing the right thing, and am also committed to holding them accountable when they fail to meet our standards. this is what our mission requires to be successful. thank you and look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, mr. halinski. the chair recognizes himself for five minutes of questions. mr. halinski, do you believe that the criticisms of tsa by many americans are reasonable, yes or no? >> sir, i would say that when i looked at the statistics that we have, which is green approximate 600 million passengers a year, and we have engagement who actually come in contact with about 750,000, about 8% or less than a% or actually criticisms of tsa. when you look at the large

amount of passengers that are going through, i think that statistic speaks for itself. i will say that in any large organization, if you have an organization of 60,000 people, that's like a city. you are always going to of crimes in a city. you're always going to people in the city who don't do things that are proper or make mistakes. i'm not saying we're any different from any other group of americans. i'm saying we are exactly every other group of american but we will hold them accountable when they do something wrong and i think we demonstrated that recently with the creation of our opr in trying to streamline the process when we identify problems in our organization. >> so do you think the criticism by the bergen people are reasonable? >> sir, i was a i haven't seen a lot of, well, i would ask if you could provide us with the criticisms are. i haven't seen a lot of statistics about criticisms. >> have you been out in the publicly? >> serve i speeded by him every

time i go to wal-mart or church. >> understand but i saw an interesting fact the other day on the media and the press that tsa gets. we have tracked since 2009 negative reporting in the media of tsa and found that they were almost 13,000 reports in the knee of tsa and about 47% of those were negative. an interesting fact that time is that there are about 5000 blogs out there. of the 5000 blogs, about 80% of those are negative towards tsa. one interesting piece i find is a former marine officer is the fact that it's very easy to put a negative comment in a blog and not put her name on it. and i think that's a point. when we see criticism were going to address criticism. we're going to address vulnerabilities. i give you my word on that. >> you talked about the office of professional responsibility. tell me more specifically what you intend to do, now that you're in charge to more rapidly

try to eliminate this problem to the extent humanly possible. >> and i will tell you we're very committed to, when we see an issue with an employer, we are very committed to resolving it. i'd like to take one moment to let you know that speeded but specifically, what do you intend to do differently before you took the position to ensure that speedy resolution. >> yes, sir. when we have personnel that have committed let's say stealing drugs or lack of security that we can immediately identify, those personnel are terminated. they are walked out the door. >> that's a new development. i'm glad you that. >> yes, sir. number two, we do, when we cannot conclusively identify bad behavior, we conduct an investigation. we have created the office of public or professional responsibility to ensure that there is consistency, that investigation is help you quit consistent review of the process, it is appropriate out employees are held accountable

for misbehavior. i think it sends a strong signal and i'd like to go back to your opening comment when identified some issues in some of our airports. i do that as a positive thing. we are policing our own. we are identifying problems and we are conducting the appropriate action. in some cases it is terminating employees who have misconduct. i would also categorize -- >> let me ask you, the new contract you're about to sign will inhibit your ability? >> sir, at this point because it is a very sensitive negotiation i think would be inappropriate for me to discuss that because it might have affects on the negotiation. i don't think it's appropriate to discuss that. i'm more than willing path of negotiations completed to give you a full briefing on exactly what is entailed in that. on that issue. >> well, after the negotiate are completed, i'd rather do it in public. the public needs to know. one of my concerns all along

with tsa has been when they do have somebody, for example, makes serious errors in judgment, like when people are going through magna common or, they are terminated. they are really disciplined any significant way. there's been some pretty egregious actions that have been active in the private sector i think it would've been terminated. some concern that to my be some effort to inhibit your ability get rid of bad apples at the truth is the over one majority of tsa, i could employers, could people try to do a good job. but we can't let the whole organization be tainted by that folks at you can't seem to get rid of. of. without my time has expired and a recognized mr. davis for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and mr. halinski, welcome again. let me ask you, in 2006, the dhs office of inspector general reported that officials at san

francisco and -- compromise the oig security effort. they did so by informing their contract screeners that testing was occurring. do you believe that such misconduct by a company with a contract for screening services constitutes a breach of the public trust? >> sir, first let me say i'm not somebody with a particular case as i have not read that. i would say that whenever, whether it's a private company or a public company, we identify an issue in our screening work force. we try to take the appropriate action that is needed. >> let me ask you what would have been if that was found to be the case today? >> i believe that if we found something like that going on we would take the appropriate action. i believe that we would be discussing that with the company

that is there, and we would take the appropriate action based on a review of the process. i can't exactly what that would be because i wouldn't have the fact intel is able to sit across the table from them and discuss it. >> just a moment ago you and chairman rogers had some dialogue relative to the newly established office of professional responsibility, which was created to ensure timely, fair and consistent discipline throughout the agency. however, it is my understanding that most decisions on discipline are made at the local level by federal security directors. if that is the case, and how will the office of professional responsibility be able to ensure fair and consistent discipline, and that it is being applied

when it is not the entity making such decisions in what appeared to be a majority of the cases? >> sir, i think it depends on, number one, on the case but the office of obr will review all cases. there's a review panel that consisted of two individuals from the office of obr as was and fs e. and to do a paper review of the case. want to get i would like to say we have 60,000 employed to our office of professional sponsor is a very small organization. we are concentrating, it's a new organization. we believe it is the right approach. we're trying to be consistent across the board. it is a review process that does occur. >> well, let me ask you, that being the case, how will the office of professional responsibility coordinate with tsos exclusive representative

representatives, the american federation of government employees to ensure that the terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties are not violated. spitzer, i'd like to say that at this point we are in a very sensitive negotiation on collective bargaining. i think anything i say could be taken out of context, and i don't want to jeopardize that particular negotiation at this point, but we would love to do a public forum as chairman rogers said on all aspects of the agreement with the union, sir. >> thank you very much. i yield back, mr. chairman spent i thank the gentleman. the chair now recognizes the general from california for five minutes. >> first of all, let me thank you for your service in the marine corps, and i appreciate that. i presume that, i'm confident that the dedication you should as a marine is the same dedication you're showing us today, helping us with

challenges. and i just want to put on the record, i think we are seeing it today as result of the work done by dhs and by tsa. i think i'm safer when i go, and this weekend i'm going with my granddaughter on a flight, when they turn five they come with granddad out to visit us in california. and i feel more confident and safer today than i did in the days right after 9/11. so i appreciate that work, and i appreciate the work that tsa employees. i think of whole body scanners may be one way of reducing some of the complaints you have, as someone who said many, many body surges from tsa. it's not a pleasant experience and there are many ways that i think can lead to complaints or and i think the rapidity with which people go through the body scanners and a lack of having full body searches is an

improvement. i'm a supporter and have been a screening partnership program. i was pleased of the announcement this last week, that major airport in my district, sacramento international airport which has been striving for some time to get permission from tsa to pursue that, if that's appropriate, that the announcement they can pursue that has gone forward, and i appreciate that. is there any evidence whatsoever that there is any difference in terms of the level of complaints that you have from those airports that have tsa employees versus those that have screening partnership program employees? >> sir, i would say that our analysis between the federalized workforce and the sdp has found that from an operational standpoint there are basically no differences. i would say that our analysis has also indicated there's a

slightly higher cost -- >> i understand i don't want to get into that because we had strong disagreements with your department on that because the original you came up, your folks are got to put the additional cost of pension and so forth in the. we brought it down to 13%, down to 3% so i don't want to get into that question because we've gone on and on about that. i don't think there's any problem with examining it. but i've had some real problems with the numbers i've gotten from tsa over that time. let me ask you this. how do you recruit screeners? what we -- what are the key qualification course had a change in light of the complaints was that about some of those who have been on the job and pass the? i think we ask have a very good process to recruit screeners. and let me start, it'll allow me to walk through that process. we recruit our personal through a variety of different

processes. what we're looking for, because i think it is a key to good security, is we're looking for a very diverse workforce. and i'm not talking about race. i'm not talking about age. i talk about a combination of many other factors. experience, several things, because it's a very the important because if you're going to be successful in security, you can't look through one lens. you have to be able to look through multiple lenses. when we do our recruiting, personnel come in and they're vetted against a criminal database. they're vetted against terrorist database and they are vetted against their financial records. once they come into tsa their different about, they're given a fairly extensive training regiment. they have to pass a series of tests, knowledge on screen, knowledge on our standard operating procedures. and then they are given an extensive third of on the job training. and as they progress, they are given recruit training on a continual basis.

>> a period of probation and? >> i believe, i'll have to go back and get back with you on the. i don't want to give you the wrong answer. >> okay. what about your recruitment of veterans speak with yes or. we actively recruit veterans but as i said 25% of our workforce our veterans spent so how do you recruit? >> we use a lot of the internet to be quite frank. we use, we have programs where the that the transition assistance program with dod. i think that's very good program. i myself went to the program and it does identify opportunities for veterans. >> how many criminal cases do you have ongoing? >> i'll have to get back with you. i'm not sure exactly. >> if you could come and if you give us the type of offenses i would appreciate that. spent thank the gentleman. the chair now recognizes my friend and colleague from minnesota for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome aboard, sir. thank you for your dedication and service.

thank you for doing that. can't think of a better guy than a marine so thank you very much. much. >> appreciate it, sir. >> you come from a very professional organization, and i hope that what you've learned from the core will definitely be transferred down into the troops. i think that being a marine corps will definitely help you along that way, so i look forward to that seeing the transformation in tsa. like the chair said, majority, member of the old saying, 95% of your workforce is good, but none for% of the work is spent on 5% of your people. i think that's probably what your extension right now as well. i also understand and appreciate your sensitivity regarding union negotiation. as a 17 year union member went through negotiation process, i stand what you're concerned, saying something to me, being

taken out of context and affecting negotiation, so i totally get that. i understand it. one of the things though when it went through negotiations, one of the strong opponents that i've always said is that you never negotiate safety. that's one thing that i hope you will take to bear when you do go to the table and negotiate with unions that safety is not a negotiable item. it's either one way or the other, and hopefully we will always be on the side of safety. so with that said, in your testimony you mentioned training for tsos to effectively interact with passengers and the escalade difficult situations. one of the things, what else i have i have with tsa bill regarding making sure that our troops, our words come back from overseas when they are in uniform with orders in a military id, that they get expedited screening.

do you have special train for tsos to expedite the screening for members of the armed services speak with yes, sir we do. whenever we start a new program, or we initiate a program, what we have is extensive training of our screeners, in this case for military personnel to recognize a couple of different things. we really think the partnership with established is very good on a number of levels. not just returning veterans but also wounded warriors. and wounded warriors families. and i think we've established a very, very good program. it's been great to work with dod in this capacity. having come from dod them and we are very, very committed to supporting them and carrying that out, sir. >> because the reason why ask the question, i for several stories on service members who were forced to remove their boots, service blouse when they were traveling in uniform and on orders. this is really, i take it personally, and i just recently, returning back to minnesota i saw a young major coming back from afghanistan.

and i was all excited because the bill we had, was able to press forward. i said we able to get to expedited screening? he said no, what's that? it wasn't even offered to them. and he was in full military uniform, coming back from afghanistan. so i was very, very disappointed that this bill that we fought so hard for is not being deployed. we just had a hearing about that just a couple weeks ago, so anything that you, especially as a veteran yourself, anything you can do to get to move this along, quite frankly or in violation of the bill already because it was supposed to be fully executed. so anything that you can do as a marine, and also as the head, i would appreciate your expedited that. can you tell me if any steps have been taken since then to change anything for tsos to account for risk-based security screen for members of the armed services? are people aware of this fact that is in place?

are they aware when you see a service member in uniform that they are to offer expedited screening to them speak was yes, sir. as i said, we are very, very committed to working with dod. i think we've established a good partnership with dod. we are in as you know, sir, 450 some odd airports, and we are doing our best to ensure that we get the word out to our workforce on dod. we look at the military as one of our models for the risk-based security program. precheck, and as we continue to move forward with that, we will continue to conduct ourselves according to that, sir. >> okay, sir. you do understand it is the law signed by the president? >> i actually understand the law, sir. >> and withou with that i will d back the. >> thank the general and to the chair now recognizes over a second round of questions. to make sure that the audience both here and on c-span understand you know, some instances i am concerned about,

i want to discover to the. lash at honolulu airport 45 t. is a employees were fired or suspended including the federal security director for knowingly failing to screen checked bags and explosives. also last year in jackson, mississippi, a tsa assistant federal security director was arrested for stabbing a coworker to death in her apartment. accused individual was previously a screening supervisor in chicago o'hare airport. this year in newark airports screen supervisors were fired for being caught sleeping in front of monitors used to detect explosives and other threats in checked bags the issue also at fort myers airport, five tsa employees were fired and 30 others including supervisors and if it was a pretty director were suspended for failing to conduct random screenings. and danger dulles airport extreme supervisor was arrested for allegedly running a prostitution ring out of a hotel in maryland. given these examples can you tell me your thoughts about

tsa's ability to oversee these supervisors who conducted the screening? >> yes, sir. i'd like to add to that in a couple of ways. first with incidents in honolulu, newark and fort myers, these are incidents were i believe that the measures that we've taken in place are starting to show fruition, sir. quite frankly i say that because we are policing our own. we've identified an issue, conducted a thorough investigation, and the parties that were involved have been terminated from tsa, as they should've been, because they were not in accordance with the way we operate. in the case of jackson and dulles, those are criminal cases. i believe that was occurring when these individuals were off duty, and have been handled appropriately. i believe both individuals have been arrested and terminated from tsa. i would tell you on supervisory training, one of the things we've initiated in our transformation in the last year is the creation of the office of training and workforce

engagement. why is that? at one point we had training in several different areas. we have now consolidated training to become much more efficient. part of the training that we're doing right now in georgia is what we call her and i want to get credit because i screwed up a couple days ago on an acronym. ess of training which is the essential to supervising screening operations. this particular training is new. it specifically addresses supervisory screening techniques and operations, how to interact with the public, our culture of accountability on our culture of integrity. we're trying to get the entire screening supervisor workforce trained in a very short period of time. to that standard. >> what period of time speakers were looking at about 18 months. >> every supervisor will go to veteran speak with absolute. we are putting a push on and we believe the creation of this office of training and workforce engagement is a major step to refocusing our efforts to become

an efficient counterterrorism organization one of our people accountable and increased integrity spent i'm glad to hear that you're talking at 18 months because last i heard you all were looking at a much longer time. this is a great improvement. tsa represents everything wrong about the federal government, bloated bureaucracy. would you put the chart up for me? help me navigate this. when you look at the bottom right hand side of the screen is a little green box. that's when some has identified as having done something criminal or inappropriate. kind of walked into the process of what happens after that person, let's say is caught stealing something in a bag. talk me through, where do they go? there seems to be confusion to me? >> to be quite honest i've never seen that slide. it seems a little confusing to me, but let me simplify the process. we have a couple different

processes. if an individual in tsa is identified as committing an act of theft, drugs, and we do test for drugs, or lack of screen, what we do immediately, if we can prove it immediately we terminate the employee spent deeply that will be in any way inhibited by your new contract? >> sure, once again i'm going to go back to what i've said before is that i feel if i discuss any aspect of the collective bargaining agreement at this critical time, i could jeopardize that negotiation and i would prefer to give you a full briefing in an open hearing like this after it's concluded. >> well, i can just tell you, if you're not able to fire people for stealing under the new contract, we're going to have a problem. >> sir, the policy we have is if we catch an individual who is stealing, involving drugs or committing acts of lack of security, is to terminate that employee immediately. if we cannot prove it immediately, what we did is we conduct an investigation. if you go to the dhs ig or its

internal in our office of investigations. if the allegation turns out to be true, it is taken to the office of professional responsibility. they have 30 days to conduct a consistent approach in dealing out appropriate action. that compacts the timeframe much quicker. we believe this process is streamlined and more effective, and more important is consistent across the board. >> is that office of the professional responsibility at for days can be determined or suspend or take whatever action, there's no other step beyond that? >> except through an automatic review. so there will be a letter, the va 14 days to 20 some odd day period with a person has the ability to respond and then there'll be a final adjudication. we're trying to streamline it. we do not tolerate in our agency this behavior, sir, and i'd like to say can we have 60,000

employees, sir, and they are good employees. if i may make one comment. we see a lot about surveys with tsa employees and they said this and they said that. there is one striking piece that every survey we have that stands out among our employees, and that is a commitment to our mission, and they truly believe because they are not the best paid folks out there in the world, sir, that they are there to protect the traveling public, and that's their mission. we take very seriously. we're not going to tolerate, i'm going to sit around until you i'm not going to tolerate misbehavior or criminal conduct. we will take appropriate action. i give you my word. >> that's good enough for me. the chair now recognizes mr. davis force next round of questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. halinski. am i correct to understand that discipline is not one of the terms of the contract? >> sir, yeah, i was in the marine corps for 25 years. we used as a name, rank and serial number. i will go back to what i said previously. i believe that if i talk about

any piece of this negotiation it could jeopardize it. i understand all of your concerns on this, and i will gladly come back and talk to you about collective bargaining in the future. we would love to do that but i just feel that we could jeopardize the sense -- the sense of negotiation at this point. >> let me ask you, what role does the newly established office of training and workforce engagement play in determining whether or not there is a need for discipline, or a need for additional training? how do you separate? >> yes, sir. so we've created two new organizations within tsa, and we created the office of training and workforce engagement to reduce redundant training throughout the entire organization and centralized to become much more effective. we're utilizing the facilities which we believe demonstrating a

cost efficiency, and their focus on training and messaging internally to our workforce but when i see messaging, it's that messaging of accountability and integrity. the office of professional responsibly on the other hand is there to work with the leadership of tsa and provide consistency when we talk about dealing in areas of discipline or misbehavior within the organization. >> earlier this summer the house took several votes, and immense, to the homeland -- amendments to the homeland security field. and several of those amendments focused on policies, and specifically targeted the screening work force. and one in particular would ban tsos from wearing badges that would've stripped the office title from screeners. i'm trying to understand how

would prohibiting screeners from wearing badges stripped them of their title, enhanced aviation security? if you have any -- >> sir, i really, i don't have an opinion on that, sir. it never came to fruition but i don't have an opinion, and i have a strong belief in our screening work force. i believe we have 60,000 people, one quarter of which are veterans, that are looking annually at 6 million people, and have a very short period of time to do it, and to make a decision, go or no go, it's an enormous accomplish that for these people. i truly believe that. they are out there defending the public every day. and to their stories, you see blogs, there are misconceptions out there. i would say we are no more different than any other organization in this country, and we are made up americans who are committed to protecting his

country. and that's the thing i truly believe in and want to work with the organization to make sure we gained a reputation for the future, sir. >> in your new role as deputy administrator, what do you see as the biggest challenge facing the screening work force? >> i think there's a couple of challenges, sir. one of the things that we would like to work on quite frankly is the perception of our screening work force. we are looking at that, how we better message we are and what we do because i believe it is a good story. we want to improve the efficiency. i think that we are doing that. through training, through education, and we want to ensure that we are supporting the workforce. i have found in previous positions the leadership when you talk about a publishing omission which i believe we do, the second piece is taking care of your personnel. and you do that through training, you do it to defending him, and at the same time you do it through holding them

accountable to a standard. and that's what i plan to do, sir. >> thank you very much. i will certainly say that you demonstrate a tremendous level of training as well as discipline. i think you're going to manage this quite well. thank you very much, and i have no further questions. >> and you, mr. davis. the chair now recognizes mr. cravaack for his second round of questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you are a breath of fresh air, sir. thank you very much. i truly think that you're going to be -- to bring pride and furnish it wasn't -- pride and professionalism back to this organization. so when i think you're going to be doing is taking just exactly those very people who do work for the tsa, you're going to be enforcing them and making sure that they are recognized for who they are and what they do and bring a lot of pride back to this organization that we took so much pride in right after

9/11. that brought this organization forward. so i think you're exactly what they need right now, so i appreciate that. just a little bit aside, you said prior to 2006 we have about 45,000 full-time equal the tsos. and as the same function for carried out by about 25% fewer personnel while passenger volume remains about the same as it was back in 2006. earlier information provided by the tsa in the budget, would seem to indicate that the tsa is not operating within 25% fewer tsos today. necessitating a congressional hard cap on the number of screeners at 46,000. can you comment on that discrepancy? >> absolutely, sir. and what i'd like to explain it as is when the written statement talked about 45,000, 25% less doing actual screening

operations, what we have done, and it's based on the comments by the 9/11 commission, is we'll look at trying to increase our security capabilities through a layered effect. so we've taken those personnel and created what we consider to be an exceptionally good layered security approach, including detection office, our transportation security, explosive specials. training officers. we are not going to see that number. we know or limitation and we'll stand by it but we believe that we been more effective in increasing that layer of defensive effect by utilizing, not only that, increasing the ability of our people to develop within the organization to jump from a screener to behavior detection officers, to look at other areas. so it's a two-pronged approach. one, we believe are more effective because we are turning out the tenets of the 9/11 report which was a layered security defect, we're increasing opportunities for our

workforce to make them more of a professional workforce by giving them opportunities to do other things. >> you brought up an interesting point, bdo's. are you fine thing to be effective? >> yes, sir we are. i would like to point to one example that action happened yesterday. were two of our egos in miami identified a kidnapping victim called law enforcement and the kidnapping, and the person that was kidnapped was identified and the police came in, and she, how much going to say this? we stopped a kidnapping her, basically to the quick thinking and the abilities of our bdo. i believe the program is effective but i believe it is essential. also for the project risk-based security program. because if you have a security program you have to look at from many aspects. you can't have one piece of technology that fits on but you have to incorporate technology as well as the human factor.

and bdos do that, sir. >> right. i have my questions about bdos but after speaking with you, you think that they are an effective program, i will go with you. and support you on that, and hopefully we won't have another round questioning bdos again in the future. so i appreciate that, and regarding software updates come in your testimony you talked about in this conduct tracking system developed by lockheed martin in your wrist and testimony being delayed until april 2012, some thousand 2013 but what are the operational result not be able to observe the patterns and trends of conduct with this software? >> what we're trying to do is each one of those things with technology, we like to get to tomorrow if we could. we are working on the. what it means is we're doing it the old, i was a marine stock, we are fact they began trying to do. it just takes a little more time. >> fair enough. good luck with it. thank you for stepping up and taking on this position and look

forward to working with you in the future. with that i will yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair now recognizes himself for another few questions. i want to pick back up where we left off and talk about what happens when you determine somebody is guilty of misconduct and process. what you describe was pretty clear to me. i'd like to understand, the tsa's office of inspection, is that the first place to go to determine if there was a problem? >> yes, sir. if we determine that there is an issue we will turn it over to our office of inspection. >> and they're the ones who send onto professional responsibly if they find there was a problem? >> they will ask the department, ig, if you want to take the case or not. the department ig will say yes or no. and if it's know, then we will conduct the investigation but if it is just -- >> in opr? >> no, it's the department of homeland security inspector

general. >> if they decide they don't want to pursue, then you're saying opr will pursue a? >> no, sir. the department inspector general can't accept that case or not. if they determined that they're not going to accept it in the office of investigation will conduct the investigation, and the results of that investigation are then turned over to the office of professional responsibility to make a decision on whether there was an issue or not, and what the discipline should be accordingly, sir. ..

>> our office of human capital is there to work with that employee. they're also there as an adviser to opr or to the office of investigation to what the rules are for federal government employees. >> okay. >> strictly advisory, sir. >> excellent. well, as you've already heard, we are pleased to see you in this positionment as you're probably a-- position. as you're probably aware, i've been on the armed services committee for ten years, and i have been urging various folks in management to do more to replicate what they do in dod because it is the largest of our federal entities, and they've kind of figured the things out that a lot of new agencies come along, and you're the third large federal agency. so i think a lot of the learning problems they've already experienced and given that you're a 25-year marine veteran, i think you realize that they've figured it out, too, so i would

applaud you for your service, and i fully expect you'll be applying those lessons learn inside the military toward your job. i think you're the right guy to do it, so i wish you well and recognize mr. davis for any more questions he may have. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, i do have one. mr. halinski, in the past we have expressed concerns regarding diversity in the agency. unfortunately, we continue to be disappointed as we look at numbers that we receive from headquarters on this matter. it is my understanding that in your previous role as lead of the office of global strategies you maintained a highly-diverse office including women and minorities. could you share with us your thoughts on a strategic plan if you have one to make sure that

the headquarters team represents that kind of diversity that you have experienced in other opportunities? >> sir, let me go back to what i said earlier about diversity, because i believe that it's vital or for security operations to have an extremely diverse work force. you can't look at a situation through one lens, and i think the key is active recruiting. i believe that the plan that we have in place is addressing that. there's always room for improvement across the board in any organization, and we look to address that in the future, sir. >> thank you very much, and i think that you are absolutely correct in your assertions about that particular issue. and we look forward to watching the progress.

thank you very much, mr. chairman. i have no further questions. >> i thank the gentleman, and i think that in sum what this hearing has demonstrated is tsa does, in fact, acknowledge it's got a little bit of a image problem and particular lay problem with -- particularly a problem with some of it employees. but i think, also, the fact that thai put you in this position and the things you've outlined are a good indication that you bend to remedy it. -- intend to remedy. some members may have questions that couldn't be here. if you're offered any questions, i would ask you to respond to those in writing within ten days, and with that, this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> we have to be really clear about the very many ways that we own ourselves and that we own our history and that we make decisions that our history is phenomenal, vital and special. >> the former president of bennett college, julianne malveaux, writes and comments on politics, education and african-american economic history. and this sunday your questions, calls, e-mails and tweets for the author of "surviving and thriving: 365 facts in black

economic history." julianne mall crow, in depth, live at noon eastern on c-span2's booktv. >> we did not begin as a city in kentucky. there was only a vague native american region and later a county in another state called kentucky. but we began in 1778 as louis v, virginia. >> this weekend join booktv, american history tv and c-span's local content vehicles from louisville, kentucky. biographer john david dike on kentucky's senior senator, mitch mcconnell. and author jason gainus on rebooting politics. and sunday at 5 p.m. eastern on american history tv, three weeks at farmington plantation in 1841 would be key in shaping abraham lincoln's views on slavery.

tour that plantation today. also the heydey of the steam boat on the ohio river. take a look back on the belle of louisville. once a month c-span's local content vehicles explore the history and literary life of cities across america. this weekend from louisville on c-span2 and 3. >> now, consumer products safety commission chairman, inez tenenbaum, testifies before a house energy and commerce subcommittee with the other three commission members. the hearing examines the hearing's implementation of changes congress enacted one year ago to the consumer product safety act of 2008. the panel also reviewed its handling of other emerging consumer product issues. this is about an hour and 40 minutes. >> good morning. the subcommittee will now come to order. good morning, jan. it's been a year now since congress, at the urging of our

subcommittee, approved key reforms to the consumer product safety improvement act of 2008. today we're going to check under the hood, talk to members of the consumer product safety commission and see how it's working. and the chair now recognize herself for an opening statement, and i appreciate that general counsel changed the clock from 86 minnesotas to 5 -- minutes to 5 minutes. it's an independent agency created by congress to protect consumers against unreasonable risks of injuries associated with consumer products. by and large, the cpsc does an admirable job of protecting americans, and i remain very supportive of its work. but on occasion, the agency makes some puzzling, head-scratching decisions which create economic hardships for u.s. businesses without appreciably improving the safety of certain products. the cpsing c has the -- without

question the cpsc has very broad authority which makes congressional oversight create create important. the agency has the power to issue recalls and research potential has a arizona associated with a wide range of consumer products. today the cpsc learns about unsafe of products in several ways. the agency maintains a consumer hotline and web site through which consumers may report concerns about unsafe products or injuries associated with products. it also operates the national electronic injury surveillance system which collects data. the broad reach of the cpsc was on full display in 2007 which has been referred to as the year of the recall in the u.s. fueled by the chinese toy scare, the cpsc alone imposed a record

473 recalls in 2007, many of these recalls involving lead in toys and other children's products. these much-publicized safety issues prompted congress to take action and resulted in passage of the consumer product safety improvement act of 2008, also known as cpsia. among other things, cpsia increased funding and staffing for the cpsc, placed instruct -- stricter limits on lead levels and required the cpsc to create a public database of their products. the public database -- excuse me, saferproducts.gov -- okay, staff thinks i wouldn't notice saferproducts.gov. [laughter] thank you, staff. so this remains a source of controversy. manufacturers continue to express their concern that most of the complaints are not vetted

by the cpsc before they're made public, opening the door to all kinds of mischief; whether to fuel lawsuits or to try to ruin a competitor's brand. within months of enactment, it became clear that a number of provisions would be extremely problematic, prompting the agency to issue stays of en, foment prior to -- enforcement prior to 2011. why the agency even considered such limits is one of those puzzling, head-scratching decisions. so last year after several hearings and bicameral and bipartisan negotiations, both the house and the senate passed h.r. 2715 offered by myself and my good friend and colleague mr. butterfield. on august 12, 2011, president obama signed that legislation into law. our purpose was to relieve unfair and costly burdened imposed on american businesses while still maintaining create create important -- critically

important safeguards. with that, the gentle lady from illinois is now recognized for five minutes for her opening statement. >> thank you. let me just say that mr. butterfield will be here, he is on the floor and unable to come now, but i want to field, first, to mr. waxman who is the ranking on the the full committee for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, ms. schakowsky, for your courtesy in allowing me to go ahead of you at this time because of scheduling problems i have. i want to thank you, madam chair, for holding this hearing to conduct oversight on the activities of the u.s. consumer product safety commission, and i'm pleased that we have all four commissioners here today to provide testimony. this month will mark four years since enactment of the consumer product safety improvement act of 2008 or what's called cpsia.

it'll mark one year since enactment of public law 112-28 which gave the consumer product safety commission additional flexibility in implementing the law. this law was a landmark piece of legislation. it fundamentally changed how we protect children from potentially dangerous products. implementation of this law has been the predominant focus of the commission. the goal of the law was to transform the agency's mission. the commission used to be an underfunded, ineffective, reactive agency. today the commission is still underfunded, unfortunately, but it is no longer ineffective and reactive. today the agency is on a path toward anticipating risks to children and acting to prevent them. no transformation is easy, and this has been no different. there were some rough waters in the early days of implementation, and a year ago we had to act to pass some targeted fixes to the law. but make no mistake about it,

this law has been a success thanks to this safety law. we now have strong standards for products used by infants and children including cribs, toddler beds, walkers and bath seats. we now have a product registration system that enables manufacturers or retailers of durable infant and toddler products to contact parents with recall or other information. and we now have a consumer product safety information database where the public can file and view reports about harm from consumer products. and we also have testing of products to insure that they are safe before they ever make it into our children's hands. and the results of the law are clear. toy-related deaths have fallen, recalls due to lead have declined by 80 %, and recalls overall have continued to decline as products have become safer. borderren forcement is also up.

these protections matter to parents, they matter to children, so i look forward to the hearing today from the commissioners about the continuing work. while i may not be able to be here throughout your testimony, i certainly will have a chance to review it after you've given it as i have for your statements that have been entered into the record, and i thank all four of you for being here and yield back the balance of my time. >> thank the gentleman. and at this point i will recognize ms. schakowsky for five minutes for a statement. we have nobody requesting time on our side. >> well, i thank you, madam chairman, for holding in this hearing. i think it is important for the subcommittee to hear from the consumer product safety commission about its activities and particularly the ongoing implementation of the landmark consumer product safety improvement act. a few weeks ago i joined chairman tenenbaum and danny kaiser's mother, linda, at a

press conference to mark the adoption of the strongest standard for -- in the world -- for play yards. the play yard standard is significant because it was a dangerous product that led to danny's death at his daycare center when it really was used as a crib, collapsed and choked him. and the portion of the cpsia that i authored and that mandated the new standard bears his name. i mention the play yard standard because it is a specific example of how the cpsia's safety standard for toys and children's products will save lives. that was our goal at the outset of drafting the legislation, and it is the one that we met. last year we passed our bill with some narrow fixes is so that implementation of the law could continue smoothly, and i welcome today's opportunity to

review progress but want to say clearly that i believe it's absolutely critical that we continue to support and uphold the fundamentals of this historic legislation. i want to highlight that, um, cpsia was a bipartisan effort. it passed the house 424-1. from the beginning to the end, and it's a model of what this congress can achieve on behalf of the american people. and chairman tenenbaum, i commend you for your leadership on implementing the safety standards for children's products and also for your ongoing work to improve the safety of table saws and window coverings. and i thank you for leading this commission in a way that continues to provide safety and security to the american consumer. and i also deeply thank commissioners adler, nord and northup for their service and

for for being here today, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> i tank -- thank the gentle lady. each of our witnesses has prepared opening statement that will be placed into the record. you will each have five minutes to summarize the statement in your remarks, but i'm sure you're very familiar with the way it works. our distinguished panel includes the honorable inez tenenbaum, chairman of the consumer products safety commission, and we thank you very much for postponing or changing your travel plans to be with us today. thank you very much for that. we also have with us the honorable robert adler, commissioner at the cpsc; the honorable nancy nord, commissioner; and our former colleague, the honorable anne northup, commissioner at the cpsc. thank you all very much for being here today and with that, chairman tenenbaum, you may begin with your five minutes.

>> thank you, chairman bono mack. i'm pleased to be here today to discuss the u.s. consumer product safety commission's operations and activities to keep consumers safe from dangerous and defective consumer products. the agency is in the strongest position to meet its mission than it has been in more than a decade. in the limited time i have today, i'd like to focus on a few recent achievements as well as look ahead to 2013. the first area i'd like to discuss is the cpsc's ongoing work to insure that infant and toddler products meet the world's strongest safety standards. there were numerous instances of injuries and deaths in infanses and small children and defective infant and durable nursery equipment. as a result, the cpsa contains section 104 which requires mandatory safety standards for most infant and toddler products. when i assumed the chairmanship in the summer of 2009, there were no mandatory safety standards for any of these products. since then i've moved to

implement this mandate as quickly as possible. in december 2010 the commission passed the toughest crib safety standard in the world. we also passed mandatory standards for baby walkers, bath seats, baby bed rails and play yards. the commission has also implemented the cpsia's that a all childrens products be subjected to testing by a third party. we provide manufacturers with a great amount of flexibility and choice as long as they have a high degree of assurance that their children's products are compliant. we are currently reviewing the ways to reduce costs as required by public law 1228. i'm also very proud of the work to implement and maintain the publicly-searchable database, saferproducts.gov. overall, it is a model of open government and consumer empowerment, and i appreciate the hard work by many on this

subcommittee to further improve saferproducts.gov during the the debate. the best way to insure that dangerous consumer products never get into the hands of consumers is to insure that they never enter the united states. as chairman i placed special emphasis on the continued development of the office of import surveillance. this office works hand in hand with u.s. customs and border protection. officers in major u.s. ports of entry to inspect and detain shipments that violate u.s. consumer product safety standards. in fiscal year 2011, cpsc import surveillance staff was able to stop approximately 4.5 million units of violent and hazardous consumer products from entering the united states. in 2013 funding permits i am optimistic that we will be able to take steps towards a fully integrate withed targeting system, often referred to the risk assessment methodology or ram. this will allow staff to analyze

a greater number of shipments, identify those that are more likely to violate laws and insure that our limited resources are dedicated to those shipments. but i'd also like to highlight a thurm of positive, collaborative relationships we've established. the first is in the area of educating parents to insure that infants have a safe sleep environment. as part of this, i've reached out to major retailers who sell cribs and play yards to ask them to join me in educating parents that the safest way for their baby to sleep is alone in a crib on its back with. accidental ingestion of coin and button cell batteries is another area in which we are keenly focused. we have very productive meeting with the major manufacturers and a range of possible solutions from design changes to safer packaging have been discussed. the third collaborative model is occurring in youth sports, particularly in the area of head injuries in football. after much hard work initiated by my office, a group effort led by the national football league

is underway to provide economically-disadvantaged youth football programs with new helmets and to conduct an education campaign to bring about a culture change in the sport. in the coming months and years, i see a cpsc addressing hazards i have already mentioned as well as moving to address merging hazards. we are carrying out a statutorily-required, proactive regulatory agenda, and consumers are safer because of this approach. with an increasing focus at the ports, with more meaningful standards coming online, and with even greater public/private efforts, i envision safer and safer products in the hands of consumers. today deserve no less. chairman bono mack, thank you for the opportunity to testify. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have later. thank you. >> thank you very much. commissioner adler, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. good morning. [inaudible] >> excuse me -- yeah, if you can just pull it much closer for --

>> does this worksome. >> a little bit closer, and is it turned on? >> i have no idea. one that says push? [laughter] >> thank you. >> let me try that again. good morning, chairman bono mack and members of the subcommittee on commerce, manufacturing and trade. thank you for the opportunity to testify today along with my fellow cpsc commissioners. i'm pleased to be here today to discuss an agency that i've been associated with many some fashion i since its establishmet in 1973. this october will mark the 40th anniversary of the passage of the landmark consumer product safety act, and looking back now i believe congress and the agency should take great pride in what the agency has accomplished, especially considering the immense scope of our mission which is to protect the public from in hi and all unreasonable risks associated with roughly 15,000 categories of consumer products. what has the agency accomplished? as a starting point, i would cite the estimated 30% rate of

reduction in deaths and injuries associated with consumer products since the agency's inception, and i would particularly point to the dramatic drop in death and injuries to children such as the reductions of over 90% of childhood poisoning and crib-related deaths. cpsc has produced an excellent return on investment. by our calculation, this drop has result inside over $16 billion in reduced societal costs or many, many times the resources the cpsc has been given to do its job. and as a very small agency, we've had to produce these benefits at very low cost. of course, even efficiency has its limits. as of five years ago, the cpsc had slunk to a sell -- shrunk to a skeleton crew. to congress' credit in 2008 you provided the agency with more tools and directing it to do more work and do it faster. put simply, the cpsia

revitalized the agency, and i'm sure consumers across the country are grateful. undoubtedly, the biggest change felt by the children's product community has been the mandate that all children's products be tested by third party independent laboratories before they enter the market and on a continuing basis thereafter. let me assure you that we at the commission have worked very hard on this mandate in a thoughtful and measured way, and i can report that we finally reached the point where the final rule will take effect in february. a strong safety step forward carries broad implications for our regulated commitment, and we know that and are fully aware of our immediate to work with them to implement the law. as we approach the fourth anniversary of cpsia, it's important to note the agency needed more resources and other tools to accomplish its safety mission, and it needed to change its approach to vulnerable populations, particularly

children. i think we will keep this in mind as we move forward into the future. i do want to note one particular provision in the cpsia because it's something the congress changed in the cpsia. i believe that in section 9 of the cpsia and other secs of our laws we have -- sections of our laws we have the most burdensome cost benefit requirements in the entire federal government. under these requirements by my count, the commission has managed to issue a grand total of nine safety rules in 31 years or roughly every three and a third years. the congress recognized this and took major stride to lessen the burden. they didn't abolish the need for cost benefit, congress retained it. and to drive the point home, you prescribed extraordinarily short deadlines for the promulgation of rules for children's products. this approach, to me, clearly has succeeded. by the most conservative count

possible under these procedures, we've issued ten safety rules in the past four years or two and a half rules every year as opposed to one every three and a third years. in closing, i want to share one major concern about a growing and increasingly vulnerable population, older americans. of which i am now one. in fact, despite being only 13% of the population, americans suffer 60% of the deaths and injuries associated with consumer products. the fact that i now fit within this demographic has definitely helped me understand what a serious challenge we face in the coming years as america ages. i look forward to working with my colleagues and the members of this subcommittee as we focus on our mission to protect our citizens from risks of unreasonable injury or death. thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioner. and welcome, commissioner nord. you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you so much. i'm delighted to be here. you have in front of you four

different statements representing the views, the opinions, the observations and in some cases the criticisms of the four commissioners of the o cpsc. and, yes, we all agree on many things. of course, we all agree that children are our most vulnerable consumers, and more importantly our most precious asset. of course, we all agree that increased resources for engineers, compliance officers, scientists, port inspectors and, yes, dare i say some lawyers has allowed us to really bump up our game in carrying out our mission. of course, a state-of of the-the art testing lap -- state of the art testing lab has met with rave reviews, and moving our information technology systems into the 21st cey