unprecedented, and do it where they minimize the social, environmental, and economic stresses, and a big part of that will be mew nighs. finance. right now, they are overly reliant on land sales, taking the farmer's land, selling it, and opaque means of finance, and so you need to come up with a system where mayors and governors have their own budget and transparent authorities. they have a lot to do. >> switching to another difficult subject, frankly, which is hacking, and a tricky subject when it comes to u.s.-chinese relation the. there's a couple questions. is the chinese government behind hacking the united states' companies and governments. how bad is it?

if so, how should the u.s. respond? >> okay. let me start with a little background. first of all, all governments engage in intelligence gathering, vis-a-vis, the other governments, and so the big point of friction and tension comes when a government or a company gathers intelligence, you know, through hacking, gathers intelligence trade secrets from u.s. companies. ..

we are saying if you want to you can say no and and watch tv, you can do whatever you want, but if you really care you will decide what is in the best interest of the children and if they are not interested it will never happen. the majority will never take any interest in the betterment of their children but i would disagree with you. the majority of them care about their children. they love their children just as much as i love mine. unfortunately some of them haven't had the opportunity that i've been blessed to have and

the majority of these members have in the system and not have it collapsed because we can't agree on the rules to enforce our economic stability. so this to me is something that is a really important area. >> so what do you think just to follow up on that, do you think the obama administration has been slow to criticize china and called china on this but recently they did. is that inappropriate response? >> the obama administration clearly has the responsibility to help our companies protect

their intellectual property and trade secrets, and i think as we look at what we need in this country, we need stronger laws, we need to be a will to enforce the law. i think the business needs to do a much better job of hardening their computer systems, and i think the need to do a better job of reporting and attack immediately. we need to enforce those laws. >> in your book on the brink -- and you are working on a new

book that will be out in the next year -- everyone should have read i believe it is your first book; is that right, "on the brink" about the financial crisis. one thing i pulled out that was interesting is that in september of 2008, things were bad, de hearing relating very fast. you notified the prime minister to give him an update about what was going on here and you kind of warm him and he said maybe things are okay. actually, maybe things can get worse. so he warned you back a little bit which was a fascinating interchange but that led me to the question how and how closely to the chinese monitor the u.s. economy? >> well, i think of course they monitor it carefully.

they were highly reliant experts, and i think that the financial crisis was the first wake-up call they had. the second one was the european crisis coming and now they just really understand what's their economy now come $8 trillion? if you look at europe, the u.s., japan has 35 trillion. so they just can't insulate themselves against what is happening in the broad world when they are as reliable as they are on exports, so i think that is another reason they are working so hard to have more domestic growth. but yet to the chinese were quite aware of what was going on because you know they were big investors in treasury securities

the largest holder of the treasury's, the largest foreign holders of the fannie mae and freddie mac securities, so they had a big interest. but frankly, the relationships we maintained and the level of trust we built up through the strategic economic dialogue went through a very constructive relationship and the beebee av in a way we communicate frequently. even to the point when george bush made a very important decision which was when he called the global leaders' meeting to deal with the crisis, she made a decision to go with veggie -- the g20.

you have the g8 ministers and there was a group of central bankers, so he decided the g20 was much more representative of the global economy. but he rightfully had some concerns and said would there be a constructive outcome? one of the things he asked before hand, they asked me to take a quick sounding to get to hu jintao to see whether the chinese were willing to play a constructive role and they got back very quickly, which i think then made it very easy for president bush to decide to go with fudgy 20, which -- the g20 which obviously made a lot of sense. >> sticking in the financial sector, what is the number one priority in terms of the reform

that china should look to in the financial sector? >> to come down to number 1i think is difficult. there are several things they need to do but i think one thing i would look at to see how serious they are about reform is to say will they open up their markets to foreign competition? because i can't -- i don't know of a single market where there's an efficient world class capital market where you don't let the institutions come in and compete. it's hard to run a world-class institution as a joint venture. so the argument that i have made to the chinese is that if you let the foreign banks come they

are going to be regulated by the chinese, they will be employing chinese professionals and it is only by doing that when you have a world-class financial markets. things that i think are important to the chinese are that right al the private sector isn't getting the capitol that it needs in the current system and having, you know, really efficient capital markets you are going to come up with a more efficient allocation of capital to the private sector. and then another thing is investors. investors in china, you have a bit of a real-estate bubble because you say where can they invest their money. real estate is one of the few areas they feel comfortable investing. to be able to -- i argue having world-class investing institutions will help china

become a nation of investors and not just savers. right now you have all of the savings in china for two reasons. one because it is a fear based savings you don't have adequate safety nets, social security and welfare, and the other is they don't get good returns on their investment so the interest rate liberalization will be important. what happens is the chinese investor has a few places to go and you can put it in the bank savings account and not get the rate of inflation and then that is a subsidy that gets passed on to the state owned enterprises in terms of the borrowing rate but it doesn't help the public sector were the chinese investor. so interest rate liberalization would be one thing to look at and then opening up to

competition so you can have world-class institutions. >> and you think that those are likely to happen? >> the reason i'm optimistic is when you look at what they have done, the chairman of the central bank was given -- he reached retirement age and had been asked to stay on, and he's been a big advocate of the financial market reform. roger mcginn is a real reformer is now on minister of finance come and the chinese is again going to be chaired by the man that had been previously he was the chairman of the bank of china and again i think these are all very knowledgeable

professionals, but it remains to be seen because i would say anywhere you have success there is resistance to change so i would just simply say we have it in the vested interest and we have a different system that the best interest in the system and best interest in their system so they are going to be entirely reformers. >> i want to switch over to questions in the audience. this is from luis. he asks what are your thoughts about the recent apple and china dispute. do you think it was necessary to issue a public apology to the chinese people?

>> i read the same article in the financial times that you have, so let me put it in perspective. china is a huge market and that u.s. companies and all sorts of companies are benefiting greatly by participating in that market. so apple historical looked at china as the factory of the world. so apple computers, the iphone and so on or assembled in china and sold in the u.s. and around the world. but what has happened is with economic growth and prosperity in china it's become a big market i think it is well over $20 billion of sales.

it's the fastest-growing market. some people think it is the fastest market for smart phones in the world right now. apple has a big percentage, a big stake in the market. i think what you are going to see is the foreign companies coming in the there is a good number of u.s. companies and foreign companies in the leadership positions that are going to be under a lot of scrutiny and held to a very high standard by regulators. i am not saying all of this is their but when the chinese looks at what happens to some of the companies in the u.s., they don't always think it's fair. i would say that the good news

for apple and the u.s. and the chinese and the world is that is the fastest growing export markets and growing very quickly and it's important to apple. what happened is that they were criticized on state tv. they started off arguing the customer service and business forms or the same in china and elsewhere and at the end of the day, he ended up apologizing, which is a big important market. >> okay. this is a question from a gw graduate student. there are two questions i think you may have touched on the first but you can answer both if you like. does china need to make

political reforms to achieve a sustainable -- achieve sustainable economic growth and then second, what is the next most important economic growth engine for china in the next few decades? >> i would say first of all i didn't talk about political reform. i do believe that -- and i've always believed that economic reform, economic freedom, greater economic integration with the rest of the world quite naturally will lead to more personal liberties which it has over time and the political reform. the chinese public local system is still evil thing. the last transition, this was the first time it went a sitting leader didn't like the successor. this is the second one.

the way to understand china is that they look through the lens of the political stability. so making any tough decision whether it is an international relations, economic issues, environmental issues, what better, they are going to say what is the path that is going to give us the greatest stability. and the argument that i make is speeding up the economic reforms and political reforms rather than undermining stability is going to be the quickest path to stability. and i believe that will be the case proven to be the case on the political reforms. there's a lot of discussion and debate in china how the political reforms will take place. i think the general view is it will take place first within the department and the party and experimenting in the local

elections may be getting more authority to the national congress, the people's congress. for the real economic stability it is going to continue political reform and will be necessary. >> what about china's military, mr. secretary? should china expert and its military and make it bigger and i ask you that given the backdrop of the pinnacle islands which i believe is a u.s. man for the islands dispute between china and japan, and of course what's going on in the caribbean peninsula -- korean peninsula. >> i will give you to sentences on the question what is the

biggest driver i think it will be urbanization. in other words productivity if someone goes from the farmer to a second city, the economic income goes from the equivalent of $40 a month to a hundred and if they go to a first year city is 200. so if they get that right and get the consumption boost, that will be the biggest driver coming up with this urbanization model of economic growth going forward. okay, so you have a bunch of questions. >> so whether china should continue expanding their military, what i think about it or you think about it is irrelevant. they will keep expanding the military. and from their perspective, our

military spending exceeds the top countries put together. now, so i always explain to them, to everyone, it's important to be strong in asia are not the world economically, diplomatically and militarily and that our presence in the asia pacific has been important for everyone including china because of its ensure the stability, and you've got this trade in the economic cross investment and growth that's benefit of all of us. so now you see there are too troubling things that are going on. one in the east china sea, the dispute of japan and china and the japanese caucus, the chinese

call the high lands, you know, and when you look at the merits, it's easy to understand it from both sides because when you look at history there is a marriage on both sides. but this is dangerous. i think the points that the u.s. makes continually on both sides is that it needs to be really good control right down to the commander and create channels of communications at the top political levels, military levels, commander levels because there's been a lot of tension. now, i am optimistic that the new foreign minister is someone

who speaks japanese and is a japanese expert and is selected to go into that role and both sides will be able to the escalate because the stability is just totally necessary for the kind of economic growth that asia and the world needs for the stability in the region. and then on the south china sea that is different because there is a territorial, china has a territorial dispute with just about everyone, the philippines, vietnam, indonesia and various countries have disputes among themselves, and there we do not take sides. we just simply say less than cut it is just unacceptable, as it

is with the east china sea with the japanese, not that these would be resolved peacefully off with the threat of force that they would be resolved peacefully, and that we need some solutions in both the south china sea and the east china sea. >> and korea? >> welcome again, i am reading the same newspaper that you are but looking from the vantage point of watching closely and watching it when i was the treasury secretary, and in the one respect, this is -- although this is a more extreme reform of north korea's customary disruptive outlandish

threatening behavior this is just day reform of what we've seen and now you've got to take it seriously when you have a rogue state developing nuclear weapons. and i looked at this with your point. this is a case in point of why u.s.-china relations are so important. one of the reasons when i talk about it i say it's hard to think of any major problem in the world that isn't going to be easier to solve or that the u.s. and china work together and isn't going to be much more difficult to solve if we are at odds with each other. so i think that when looking at almost any problem, one way that we should think about it is what does it take to get china on

board and if we can get china on board, it will be easier. now, on this one, it's been difficult because on the one hand, the chinese are very angry at the kind of behavior is that you are seeing with kim john un on that regime and the other thing they've prompted up economically because they don't want a collapsed state on their border, and they don't want south terry everett on their border, and so the way that i can to think about it is highly important that we would be communicating regularly and doing contingency planning in terms of how to deal with the worst outcomes because of the highest level we have the same interest which is peace, stability, economic growth in china and asia and around the world, but we need to be

preparing in terms of how we are going to deal even if they are not high likelihood of comes out comes where north korea uses force or you have a collapsed state or what have you. >> we are out of time that i want to ask one more question from the audience, and that is what potential role if any to you see for international students and asian-americans and battering and strengthening the u.s.-china ties? >> that is a great question. i would start off by saying that i have set up at the paulson institute i believe there are going to be ups and downs in the mutual relationship based upon what the issues of the day are in beijing or washington and we need to come back to the .1 of

the disturbing things about the military relations with china is that the military's don't like each other that much and we don't have the same level of trust that we have in the economic arena. the economic arena there is tension but that's the good news. 40 years ago we didn't have economic relations with china. we had no tensions. we always had tension but if there's all kind of trust and channels of communication, we need ways of getting the military to work together on humanitarian issues or these dialogues which we are pursuing we need to work better. but there is nothing like students, and the more knowledge we have a feature the more we know about each other, the more we trust each other, the more we are like each other, and it's --

you don't make that for serious. it's hard to make it become an adversary of someone you understand. and one of the biggest problems we had is we had a very different systems and cultures and one of the things if the united states we don't do particularly well is understand others cultures. they are so proud of the system and the way we are what we have in every way what is best for everyone in society pizza, having american students get to know chinese and vice versa and this is going quickly as i think is important to the u.s.-china relations going forward. >> i think that is a wonderful note to in bonn, and obviously i think that we have covered a lot of ground to be a much more to talk about but we will have to

save that for another day. please join me in thanking secretary hank paulson. [applause] [inaudible conversations] at the white house earlier today press secretary jay carney discussed the nuclear program and how the u.s. is taking steps to ensure it has the capacity to defend itself and its allies. here is a look. >> you see no large-scale

mobilization you said it would restart and increase the production of the nuclear weapons material and i wonder does that give the president some pause and are you reconsidering the this is a familiar pattern? the announcement that it will reopen and start its nuclear facility is another indication of the pattern of contradicting its own commitments and it's a pattern of violating its international obligations as you know that facility has been dormant as part of an agreement, which north korea at least in this announcement seems to be willing to violate and there is a path open to north korea to achieve the security and the international respect and economic development that it seeks the this is surely not the

path. as i said yesterday, it is our position and the position of the broad international alliance if he will that north korea must abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons and abide by all of these international commitments. we seek the complete verifiable and irreversible denuclearization through authentic and credible negotiations. the u.s. and every international partners have a goal of ensuring that the nuclear korean peninsula and a strong common interest in peace and stability in southeast asia. we are working very closely with our allies in the region. we are taking appropriate measures in response to their rhetoric and provocative actions out of north korea, but it is in keeping with a pattern of behavior by the regime.

>> it seemed a little more alarmed. the and rational community. spread the president expressed his concern about the actions and behavior of the regime in north korea and we have worked with our allies must recognize the of the united nations security council and the resolution was passed with china and russia condemning the behavior in this arena and we will continue to do that. the steps we take with our partners they make it clear to the regime that there is no

benefit to the path that they are taking. we take the steps necessary to ensure the capacity to assist our allies and defend the united states. >> that was part of today's white house briefing with press secretary jay carney. you can see all of the remarks any time on c-span.org. a report commissioned by the national rifle association says school teachers should be allowed to carry firearms if they receive proper training.

she was out there in a way that i indicated before with respectable women didn't do but this is a new era. this is a time when the movement is under way and interestingly enough, someone like julia tyler sort of fits into a certain extent. she is conservative but in times of breaking through the traditional way that a woman should be a, she is doing it in a way that other women are not at that time.

enhanced pat-down that airports but they are hearing the case this week. the airport security procedures are the subject of an event hosted by the cato institute. it is one hour and 20 minutes. >> good early afternoon and welcome to the cato institute auditorium. i am jim harper director of information policy studies here and i am very pleased in away to welcome you year-to-date to talk about all the ways through surveillance and direct intrusion on your experience as a traveler. on second thought, we won't talk about all of them but in the major ways they do. today's event is something of a two-fer. we are going to talk about different but related issues

with the government and the trouble. first we will hear from edward to it when i saw him give this presentation at the center for justice at nyu a few months ago, i thought that more people need to see this. more people need to understand the internet travel surveillance that the government conducts over all of us law-abiding and lawbreaking when we try to move the country were moved around the world. so first we are going to have a full presentation from edward hasbrouch letcher think is interesting and concerning. after that, we will turn to the news topics, the recent tsa rulemaking in the area of strip search machines. ginger mccall will talk about the latest developments in that area with the introduction of the rulemaking on the part of the tsa thing to do with its rulemaking being required by court order and having taken 20 months to produce the two

sentences of regulatory language and only 52 pages of justification for the regulation that it has proposed. a couple of internet notes for those of you watching on line on c-span or here in the room the hash tag that we recommend is #tsasearch and i will be looking for comments and questions that i may use turning that event so please feel free to share with your friends and colleagues online. with regards to the rule making, there is also a tiny url that can take you to the website where the tsa accept scholar and on this trip machine policy. that is tinyurl.com/tsacomment. once again, tinyurl.com/tsacomment. first, edward hasbrouck.

the term may have been claimed for edward hasbrouck and during a meeting of the dhs privacy committee on which i served, edward accompanied me in the hall and was virtually holding me there to insist that by then press them in what way i can't recall but i think that is what you see from today. they call him to go to authority on the international travel and how to get the best deals on the internet. he is an author, journalist, consumer advocate and true travel expert. he is the author of the book of practical no matter how to travel abroad the world, and you can find him at the practical nomad.com. after 911, edward hasbrouck notice to the and pension and we were suffering on the freedom to travel, and he didn't go along to get along, rather turned his

efforts towards exposing and debating the freedom to travel. as of today i think that he is one of the foremost experts on the surveillance of the travel system wanting him to speak with us he works as a consultant in the identity project on the travel related human rights and civil liberties issue that was founded by the longtime friend of kato. gillmor funded this as well because the meeting of the privacy committee he challenged me along with all of the other members of the committee to return to washington without showing i.t. at the airport. i took, but the challenge and i had a pleasurable experience because at the time when there's a second search for not having an eye o.d. coming you got through the line faster so thanks to john gillmor. we will take ed's presentation first and then i will come back up and introduce ginger for the second half of the ceremony.

please welcome edward hasbrouck. [applause] >> thank you very much for the kind introduction and all of you for coming here, and to all of those turning in. on a further note, if you want to follow along at home, you can find copies of the slides i will be showing on the project website at papersplease.org. since september 11th of 2001, the government has implemented an extraordinary comprehensive system of surveillance and control of the movements both within the country and abroad. bits and pieces have been called out from time to time but i think that there has been little understanding of the comprehensive big picture which is all i can give you as quickly as possible today.

the first step is the requirement of people having government issued credentials not so much to prevent people without a government issued by the from traveling although that is an incidental that affect, but in order to ensure that each act of trouble can be logged and correlated into the second component of this process in a lifetime personal travel history of your movement. under the basis of which the government has then been able to move to a permission based travel control regime in which real time decisions are made when you want to go somewhere as to whether the government will let you on the basis of your identity and on the dossier of history linked to that identity, finally once the permission system is in place, the government has made the final step of sticking with a default from yes to no so that rather than the presumptive right to trouble it can be interfered

with only on the basis of judicial action the presumption is no one is allowed to travel unless they receive affirmative government permission to read the government's insistence cents 9/11 everything about airports is different and not subject to the usual rules has made it more difficult than it should be to put these things in perspective. and actually, the good frame of reference for the comparison for travel surveillance is that the surveillance has gone on communications and the warrantless wiretapping. they had traveled if there are recorded movements. movement of messages and physical person. both involved in the unfunded mandates and in the case of the programs i'm going to be talking about more than $2 billion by the dhs underestimates of

mandated modifications to travel into the systems to support the government surveillance control functions. finally they have in common that they are suspicious less dragnets of people that are being investigated but about everybody in case. although travel wasn't generous as is said there are significant differences. one is the legal framework in which all leah based in the statute, communication and the movement of the methods have more legal protection than inflammation of the physical body but that's the way it is. congress doesn't seem inclined to fix it. the second big difference it isn't a surveillance but an active real-time control system.

it's a bit confusing and technical and i will read everything i am going to say from now one is a gross oversimplification otherwise we would be here and the dhs confused the matter by its own inconsistency of policy and language over the last decade as the system has evolved. there are three different sets of entirely identical but overlapping data that the government has required on the lines of troubled companies to make available to the government depending on whether it is an international or domestic plight with different names there are also different systems with different names come secure flight for domestic travel, the automated targeting system or international travel. there's also a difference that isn't as significant as it looks which is in the case of international travel of dhs makes its own copy of the

reservation information, whereas for the domestic trouble what really maintains real-time access but again, that doesn't matter so much. all of the controls on the privacy of the information the government has talked and wrote or control of its copies which are meaningless as long as it can go back to the industrial host of the data and get another copy whenever it wants. so the government has access which it does. the people that designed the set mostly came from the nsa backgrounds that knew nothing about the industry assumed after 9/11 that it would be easy to get the information they have about travellers and make their own use of it. it doesn't work like that because the hosting of the reservations to companies called computerized reservation systems or the global distribution systems which also serve as the troubled companies, hotels, travel agencies and so forth and so on. the major and none more reset as

of yet minor google which spent $700 million to years ago to get into the business that shows how significant of a business it is. it forms in a sense the out source of the global clout of reservation data on behalf of the entire industry you will notice a couple of things one is there are at least two intermediaries between the traveler and the government. this is why the government can get the data from the troubled companies without needing a warrant under the doctrine it is their property they didn't have a way to know what the government has done. of course being a global cloud is a point of vulnerability. boehler ability to exploitation of this the the bye marketers and data miners that may be unknown in the traveler by

criminals with hackers and terrorists and government agencies not nearly dhs and foreign governments and their law enforcement agencies around the world. in europe there has been a great deal of concern that does this diagram example shows someone traveling within your up on the airline making their reservations through a european troubled agency even when the master copy of the reservation stored in europe may be multiple copies of the cloud and the u.s. which the dhs can access without anybody in your not knowing about. they hold true even if you are traveling within the u.s., any government in the world where the airline or the reservation system or the travel agency has an office can get access to it for example the chinese public security bureau and those in the

united airlines in beijing ask them to call up your reservation from washington to chicago because the chinese citizens are subject to the jurisdiction and the law and they can hand them over to the bureau. nowak record is kept up there by the reservation system it isn't visible to the airline that this has happened and unless you or somebody you know happens to be looking over your shoulder in the bathroom when it happens after the fact there is no way to know whether it has happened. tsa's incomplete diagram of how the process works on the government side there are many incomplete messages but i want to focus on a few things here. the aviation entities -- at the

end to the in the lower left it's shown as a pass through rather than the centerpiece. they are not showing it directed to the dhs at all. it's going through the airline. the dhs over on the right side you see that this is more than just what the tsa may describe as watchlist matching it is a real time process of evaluation the black box and a red box there's nothing about what goes on and how the decisions are made it. there is connectivity to other law enforcement in the call center that can reach out and have them come to the airport and question you and a diagram was published by tsa before the latest updates to the records notices for both plight and atf

systems showing they have real-time access to other commercial databases credit reports, but never that they can access on the other side. but what may be most significant getting over towards the left side of the diagram is an enlargement you notice that there is passenger data moving from left to right to those that the value we did on the government side it was going back from right to left they were printing the results. that is the permission message and those lines are the control lines the dhs commanded be built into the infrastructure that prevent the airline from of boarding pass until they receive that individualized per flight message from the government. you might think they are stopping you from flying but that might implicate the law and

it does. that contradicts express language not only guaranteeing the right to travel but specifically guaranteeing your right to travel by air and in its obligations and rulemaking to consider that right as they never have done in any will making today. if they aren't following the law can we get it in report and we will be talking more about that one later but what the policy with the dhs has been by the former secretary of homeland security michael chertoff who repeatedly said that he did not believe that no-fly orders should be subject to the review from a former federal judge saying that he thought his decisions as secretary shouldn't be subject to the kind of person when he was a federal judge, and

while these are policies of the dhs under the bush administration, no obama administration has repudiated the views yet it continues to be the dhs practice not so much to defend the systems, but you actively resist being obligated to defend them before any court at all so what is in the record that they compile? if you travel across the u.s. borders in the last ten years they have a file on you. in the identity project we've put out forms for people to use and you can find them on the web site at papersplease.org or on my website. we have been compiling of the responses and eventually sued for the portions that they have withheld after stalling for three years. the cdp retroactively accepted the automated targeting systems and they are told of their

attractive and application of that exemption, but they did in their discretion release quite a bit of damning information. some of the information that we know is there and i will show you examples include complete copies of passenger name records, airline reservations but also include non-a year line data and index wall of every time you cross the border buy any means and the notes attached to that give more information about whatever they deem the interest. this is a very simple passenger record but happens from washington dulles. what's interesting here is some of the association data. the only contact information in this reservation is the phone number of a friend when i reconfirmed my flight who was intrigued and somewhat surprised to note that he had been permanently linked up with me and homeland security files.

this is from san francisco. that can be correlated with a better internet records might be associated with it because it is also the e-mail letters and credit card numbers permitting them to pull in a lot of other this as additional data. these are wonderful and infected with the talk about using them for. define people that are not yet prospects. this is deliberately a guilt by association machine. that is what it is designed for and that is how it is used to beat it isn't limited to air travel or travel to and from the u.s.. this is a trip i took to brussels on line three and four on the reservation from paris to brussels and back by train. what is that doing your in a test file?

this one similar this is a trip to france. line for is on the highway but to frankfurt. this particular extract is the smoking gun that shows the dhs has read access. they are not merely using the airline they that they have their own i.t. with brooch privileges. this person traveled to berlin, stayed there for a week and then traveled on to london and came home. blind three and four life cut out here to show that this was a separately issued ticket not connecting to or from a flight on an airline that doesn't fly to the u.s.. the united airlines if you call up the reservation for buildings they wouldn't have seen that a user with the privileges would have been able to retrieve that as the u.s. did.

everybody who might spoken with of that has gotten their file from the dhs and brought it to me and said what does this mean when i've gone over it with them, they're has been something that surprised and disturbed them in their file. most of the time when they have seen that, they don't want to fly on the internet. but each of these things here or something that i have seen in the actual examples of files people have received in response to their request. and remember this is just the stuff within its discretion that they chose. hotel reservations if they are made, whether or not the show what is a complex question, but they sometimes do it they are made in the same reservation and the flight, and i've seen in them in a reservation from multiple people linked together with their name, their gender, date of birth and so forth the code showing behind the house for one bed or to in their permanent lifetime file.

a special meal requests would show a special service requested that may show invisible medical conditions, charlotte routinely. reservations for the improvements there's a lot of other information that may be more revealing than you think. the billing codes are routine for example. they have a center in the dnr. this is everything that the truffle company captors for its business purposes into the permanent file. there can also be discount codes for the example if you get a discount because you're part of a group that's troubling to a particular conference or even to or convention that the billing code may reveal what organization's convention you were attending. even if it is an organization

that is normally very resistant to disclosing its membership list as many are. the second component of these files in addition to the reservation is the entry and exit law back to 1992 while the notice that was supposed to be published and the federal register before the system came into operation wouldn't be published until 14 years later in 2006. operation of a system of records is a crime. this information is not just limited to flights to and from the u.s.. it also includes older flights. this is a great concern of the canadians who if they go on vacation in cuba inevitably overfly the u.s. so they have a list of all the people that have flown to cuba on their petitions from canada.

.. trip i took by train across the u.s. canadian border, between montreal and new york. here is one for a trip by private car, the recently the cvp has installed license plate readers at the border crossing so a more recent complabl entry

would include the license number of a car i was riding in. family, there's the text notes associated with the entry in the leg. these are not people who are arrested or suspected. these can be entered when nothing was found. negative computer qir i -- it was somebody who walked across the border. why is it recorded in the permanent file? i flew back from -- the apple, the fruits so you to throw away. i threw it away and thought nothing of it. i find in my file that i'm permanently linked to this event.

another occasion i had been at an agricultural industry expo in and i checked the bock that i've been around livestock. you may know what happens when you check the box in biblical sense they get down at the feet in 5:00 and wash your shoe. if they get on washing my shoes they get off on washing the shoes. why does it belong in my permanent file? this is from john gill more's file. he had a book entitled "drug and your right." if it's not exercise of first amendment right. i don't know what it is. again from another trip that john gilmore the passenger attended computer conference and traveled to visit friends 100%

baggage exam negative. passenger is self-employed in computer solve ware business. being an entrepreneur is suspicious fact that belongs in the permanent file. there's more to all of this. i hope that all of you will be inspired by this to look in to what is in your file. but also to look more closely at the reality of how that is being used and what we need to get out of the situation we've been put in to. where we now travel by common carrier only as a privilege granted by permission of the government. thank you. [applause] >> i have some sense of the digital lookover that you're getting before you arrive at the airport. what about the examination your

body gets when you do get to the airport? i think you'll find that ginger mccall lacks the intensity of edward hasbrouck. she has the dogness and maybe more. she teaches on the law of open government at the georgetown law center. working on a variety of issues including consumer protection, open government request, national security matters, she litigates ethic, freedom information lawsuit, and coed or it. she coauthored several briefs to the e supreme court and regularly speaks on prove and open government issues. the number of forums is many that she's done. hopefully she's add to the résume that she's spoken at cato. she provide -- to discuss the rulemaking to the extent there

is one in the strip search machine policy. ginger mccall. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much for having me. i'll try to give as much intensity as i can to this. jim was helpful enough to give me help beforehand. hopefully that will add to it. so i guess i'll -- start off with the good news. i have a unique opportunity to comment on a controversial air travel program. the body scanner program nude body scanners have been something that open pick has worked on four or five years now. we have had several lawsuits on the topic. and finally it's come to fruition with a notice and comment rulemaking period by the agency. now exceptic among you will probably ask what is the point. but we really do believe this is an opportunity for the american public to weigh in on this.

and if the agency doesn't take your comment in to account, doesn't take our comment in to account we are willing to take it ahead neuritis court. the notice came out of a lawsuit we filed on july 15, 2011. this was a lawsuit in d.c. circuit court. we filed under several legal docket rein including the fourth amendment, the privacy act and the administrative procedure act. that administrative procedure act said if an agency is going to issue a new rule it has to go through a notice and rulemaking comment period. it has to solicit the comment of the american public. it has to give you and the rest of the american public and everyone who cares the opportunity to comment on that rule and give the agency feedback. and the agency is supposed to take the feed back in to account. so we filed, we asked the agency for we petitioned the agency for the rulemaking multiple times and we got frustrated and filed the lawlt in court.

and the court ruled in our favor on the apa issue which is quite unusual and it was a as a result we were pleased with. the court found that quote the tsa did not justify the -- and the court said that agency practice these body scanners machine, the nude body scanners machine that show the naked image to the tsa official impose a substantial burden on the public. according to the court, quote, if any upon so many members of the public. millions of travelers passing through the body scanners which was posting graphic images. the court expressed concern about the use of body scanners. it ruled against us on the forty amendment issue. it was largely based on the representation that members of the public have the option to quote opt out of the machine. you can opt for a patdown. now when we had originally

started pursuing this topic, that pat down was just a fairly typical patdown you would expect. after we started to pursue, i suppose the agency started to get frustrated and started to issue what were called enhanced patdown. some of you might be familiar with the sort of libertarian campaign that happened in the wake of the enhanced pat down. don't touch my junk guy. i encourage you to youtube it and do a little bit of research on what is included in these. this is not an option that epic would stand behind. we focused mainly on the body scanner issue and for passengers to opt out. that doesn't mean we think the enhanced patdown are appropriate in our comments to the agency we're asking far difficult alternative. but the court ordered the agency in this case to under go that

notice and comment rulemaking. and the court said to the agency you need to do this quote promptly. the agency interpreted this as -- well, let's see it was a nearly two-year delay. during the period they filed multiple times with the court to, you know, encourage the court to tell the agency it needed to follow up and give the agency a thirty day deadline. to give the agency a deadline which it needed to issue this notice and comment rulemaking. and approximately i guess twenty months later now here we are finally looking at the rulemaking. after the the court seat deadline last fall for the agency to have this completed by the end of march, so march 26th which is no surprise to those of us following this. i figured it would be later. i thought it would be the final friday in march at 4:30 p.m. but they if -- did it a few days early. march 26, the tsa started the notice and comment rulemaking

period. so you, the member of the public, and we at epic and anyone else the organizations here cato and others can comment on this. the deadline for filing is june 24, we have information on the website on epic.org. you can look, it's in the upper right-hand side of the corner you can use the tiny url that jim mentioned. we enjoy cow to comment on this. we have taken look at the proposed rule which really amounts to two sentences. and the two -- sentence the tsa is proposing to use to move the current screening procedures. i'm going read if for you. the screening and inspection described may include the use of advanced image technology. for for purpose of the -- screening tblg used to detect --

that's twenty months work of work right there. nowhere in this does it take in to account the e vassive pes of the machine. the only amounttive to the machine is a super invasive pat down. they don't take in to account the cost to the passengers. they are subjected to long waits. i attempted to opt out personally on this. i ended up to opt in i waited for twenty minute for a tsa office of my same-sex to give me an enhanced bat town. when i decided i was going miss my flight to the conference i was forced to comply. we heard it from the travelers. we asked for their experience. it comports with what we found. we had requested originally back in i believe it was 2008 or 2009

several different sets of document from the tsa on the body scanners. this is what inspired our empire campaign. we asked document like contracts, statement of work, technical specification for the machines as well as passenger complaints. and what we got back was a stack of passenger complaints it was probably about this high. and we also got back contracts and statement of work which you can find on our website. these indicated that the tsa wasn't telling truth about the devices. it wasn't really telling the truth about what they were capable of. they indicated that the devices were not designed to pick up powdered explosive which is something i'll talk about later in context of the rulemaking. that the devices were capable of capturing storing, and transferring the naked images produced by the machines. and there were several other

interesting findings we had. i won't spend all of my time on that. you can find the was in on our website. this is part of what inspired our later lawsuit about the rulemaking as we thought that this was quite a large step for the agency to be taken without ever actually opening up to comment from the public. so given the text of the proposed rule, which again you can find a lot of information about this on our website, and also at the tiny url jim mentioned. we have some recommendations. these are the recommendations that we're planning to include in our comments. and we also have some places where we think that it might be great for other people who have compliment i are expertise to weigh in. first, the agency has completely taken over the dialogue on this. first, it was the use of the word "full body scanners." it was whole body imaging originally. whole body image machines. they decided it wasn't a nice and warm fuzzy term. it gave the american public too

much of an idea what was going on. they changed the term to body scanners. now they have changed it to an even more sanitized term which is advanced imaging technology. we're pushing back on this. we would encourage you to do the same. i know, people have slightly more extreme versions of this porn scanners et. cetera. we have taken to calling them nude body scanners or nbs. it gives a much more accurate description of what the machines are capable of. we plan to support what is called regulatory alternative. in these comments the agency summarizes several different alternative. one of those is to leave things the way they are. to stick with the metal detector as we have been doing for the last probably i don't know two decades, decade and a half. and another alternative is to focus on the use of metal detector along with explosive detection technology. and that's something that we would endorse.

it's narrowly taylored it's looking for a particular thing. that's the threat. where as the body scanners pick up all manner of medical device. they pick up anything extra you might have in the pocket. when we discovered they are not designed to pick up powdered explosive the key threat the p et n. we also are very heavily going to come out and favor of the passenger's right opt out. and to demand the use of questioner generic image filter. i think it's a victory to others who worked on the finish are long time today may modifications to the machine. they require that privacy filters be put on the machine. we're asking that the privacy filters be mandated.

the court have actually relied on the fact in ruling against us on the fourth amendment claim. that relied on the fact that the agency represented to the them and the public you have the ability to opt out. we're saying in the rule,let go ahead and just put that to the actual regular -- that you have a right to opt out. and the agency must use the generic filters. there must be no image that can be stored. the image that is the generic stick outline that ha as spot on it that highlights where it is. that must be the only image produced by the machine. we're encouraging the public and other organizations especially moip organizations to have people submit the personal experience. the stack of claims we got showed a lot about what the agency has been doing on the ground.

it's different in the airports around the country. we saw when the controversy started to pick up. they put in to place in the d.c. airport where members of congress would be going through the airport. really great sign age about the body scanners machine. you have the rite to opt out. big television explaining what the machines are. some places there wasn't even a sheet telling you. asking travelers to let the agency know what their real

experience is on the ground. there's other issues to address that open pick isn't in a position to address. i think others might be in a better position to address. the ambiguity of the term and rulemaking. so much of the terminology in the rulemaking is ambiguous. it allows for a lot of wiggle room on the agency part. we are asking ores to commit comments on this. anyone who has any expertise on the effectiveness of these machines. what they're capable of detecting. we have seen in the document that we receive from the agency that the machines were not designed to detect pod everyday explosive. the literature we have seen put out by rapid scan and other manufacturers indicated the same. that the machines are designed to detect high density object. that is ceramic or hard plastic. not powdered explosive. anyone -- the cost-benefit

analysis and jim might have comment on this. but looking at the cost-benefit analysis that the agency has put together it simply not accurate. it doesn't take in to account the real cost that travelers suffer. the agency seems to be believe it's expensive to opt out of the machine. where is the classification for how expensive it is for people to opt out of travel via airfare. a lot of people after the machines started to be put in to place began to travel by car and train and there is a cost to that. so to look at that cost-benefit analysis and take it apart. the agency hasn't taken it apart. the agency has put forth the most favorable position that it can possibly put fort on the machines.

to really look at accurate sei and the description of the capability of the machines. to look at the impact of the agency's screening program on travelers with prosthetic and other medical devices. the machines are designed to pick up anomaly. a lot of those, you know, cool on os i bags. to take a look at the layered approach the tsa say it is has to airport security. when we say they aren't detected in picking up powdered explosive we hear it's scwus one part of the larger layered approach to airport security. let's take a look at the layered approach. let's take it apart. whrets let the agency know where it's weak, too invasive.

where it's not justified by the effectivenesses. the retention of images still hasn't been an issue that's been thoroughly addressed. they denied the machine are capable of obtaining documents. the document we got indicated clearly that the machines were designed by tsa's specifications to be able to retain, store, transfer the images. and this sort of -- stick figure technology that the agency has put in to place now what it calls automated target recognition doesn't necessarily solve the problem. if there's an underlying image that is taken by the machine and just overlaid with that more politically correct stick figure image. we would encourage here and everyone watching to file comment on this. to let the agency know what you think. to tell the agency what your

experiences are with the machine. if you have expertise and cost-benefit analysis in radiation risks. and these sorts of issues to let the agency know. take the time. this is a rare opportunity to comment on a program that that a lot of us have been working on it to four or five years. it's a controversial program. we managed to force the agency to have to take your comment. so, you know, do take this opportunity to comment on this program. [applause] a few things opinions about the tsa nude body scanning? >> yeah. well, i would particularly strongly endorse what ginger said. especially for those watching. it's critical for the tsa to hear from those of you for whom being required to submit to virtual strip search or enhance

the groping of the gentile is untolerable and suffered the loss of your career, the loss of ability to visit family, friends, tsa needs to hear from those of you have been impacted. they want to pass this off as nobody should care if they're getting their again jen tills grouped. in the secret closed room by themselves masturbating while they watch you naked. nobody should care about that. it's minor. it's not -- they need to hear especially from those who had your lives totally disrupted by it. as ginger read about regulation, incorporates the idea of virtual strip search machine to the authority that tsa already claims that you must submit to screenings. you must submit to whatever they

say institutes screening. it's critical to realize at present there's absolutely no statutory or regulatory definition of what substitutes screening. there's way to determine if they say you have to do this, don't do this, don't do that. the only way to find out whether you're allowed to do something or required to do something at the tsa check point is to refuse their orders, be arrested, and fight it in court. that's wrong. and that's a problem with the lack of rules, the lack of rule of law that far transcends the birdie scanners. the second thing i want to make specifically related to the rulemaking. it's key for people to remind the tsa that travel is a right. they have an affirmative statutory duty consider your right to travel by air.

that's what is missing from the whole frame of reference from the start of the post 9/11 aviation security programs. if any recognition these are conditions being imposed on the exercise of right. one you recognize these are conditions being imposed on exercise of the right so you to recognize they are subject to strict scrutiny. including two sort of analysis the tsa hasn't conducted. so you to be shown affected. if not effective for the purpose. and when you look at it, most what the tsa says effective for is catching drugs. not actually finding terrorists. and second they have to be shown to be the least restrissed alternative that fulfill the purpose. tsa hand pretended to do that. the starting point needs to be people need to remind them that travel is a right must which they must take to consideration. >> this discussion of risk

analysis and effectivenesses is really, i think, one of the weakest point of the program. it's a program that is not only very envasive. it's not very effective. nowhere in their cost-benefit analysis within the fief of it or so pages of actual analysis behind the two seasons rule change do they address it. they sit down and say that's the real risk if presented did f we don't put them in place. it's how they mitigate the risk

in the regulatory documentation of the short 52 pages. most of what is not actually analysis. they cite the literal dollar costs to tsa. but there are many others and maybe we could brainstorm a little bit or discuss the other costs that accrue to passengers, to the airline system, to airports, and so on and so forth from the use of the machine. >> there's obviously the cost of the passengers who choose not to fly when they can avoid it. to drive. >> that cost include more on the

highway. let me take the other side what are the cost of the surveillance component of the travel surveillance and control more than $2 billion by dhs own estimate of unfunded mandate. there's also a cost to travelers. and that you're compelled by government order to provide additional information not directly to the government but for the government's purposes you are required to provide that additional information to the airline. one of the airline screamed for the unfunded mandate they have gotten the government gift. they have a free ride. there are no restrictions whatsoever after you're forced to them the personal information

on the ability to use, sell, monotize this in other ways. it involves a massive government coerceed i think it's difficult to quantify. >> you might recall as travelers. as airline started collecting birth date. they didn't have it if you're not a frequent fly per they need the birth date. it was only a few years ago it wasn't the case. you have to share the gender and birth date so it can be run past the system. do we have comment or question from the audience. i see the first one-third row back. wait for the microphone. i don't require you to identify yourself. [laughter] >> i'm a washington correspondent for washington. i followed this issue because the e.u. spent years trying to

negotiate passier name record agreement with the u.s. i was particularly fascinated when you started describing data that the u.s. government could have concerning trips taken within europe. i'm not even on airlines. can you quickly recomp how that ends up in the hands of the u.s. government. more generally on the agreement. i know, that the e.u. two of the things apart from the volume of d.a. was also the issue of the retention period. how long the data can be kept and the fact there's no you additional rejew. what is your view on the other two issues? >> well, with he talk about that. in term of how does the u.s. government get the information as i showed you about flight, train trip, bus trip within europe? it gets it because the d.a. is already stored or copies already storied or assessable in the

u.s. the agreement that you were talking about only relates to the mirror copies kept by dhs of this data and does nothing to cure the preexisting flagrant violation of european law by the fact that data is already transferred in the commercial sector to the u.s. but enough about that. the other part of your question was -- [inaudible] >> well, again, that -- the agreement greats no judicial review. by its own terms, it is not binding on the u.s. and is not enforcement in u.s. all the agreement substituted was a partial grant of immunity

so some of the things that airlines have travel companies have been doing that violated e.u. law would no longer violate e.u. law. it did nothing to create a right of judicial review in the u.s. the state is already exempt from the privacy act as far as the government sector. there are no privacy laws governing airlines, you know, or reservation systems in the u.s. so the commercial use data is completely unregulated. it did nothing to solve any of the problems which predated this and persist. >> question down in the front here. >> yeah. i'm not afraid to identify myself. lisa, i'm a writer and editor at tsa news blog. we have been covering this and urging our readers to submit the comment. they should know the tsa conveniently started removing the rapid scan machines which are the back scatter, the

radduation-emitting -- there are no radduation emitting machines. we removed them. the millimeter wave machine have not been tested for safety. it's still an invasive search of the body. they have a 45% false positive rate. they alarm on more than half the people who go through them falsely alarm. before you submit your comments i would urge you perhaps not to dwell so much on the radduation. don't give em this the change to bot your public comment. concentrate on the fourth amendment violation. the violation of the body. the violation of our right travel about the country freely. the fourth amendment violation. and the fact that the scanners are so ineffective. they are a 54% false positive issue. >> the one issue with that once you set off alarm you are getting the patdown. >> question over here.

>> in the middle. my name is helen anderson. i have been trying to get my case of innovation of privacy by military satellite surveillance in to court for forty years. our country continues to be more invasive of people's privacy rights every year attorneys will not take my case. why don't they do something about it. it's the legal profession creating this chaos? >>let take that. what about private right of action. the administrative procedure action. there are a number of cases around the country. your thoughts how it bubbles up in the court. >> we have seen several travelerses who brought cases again the tsa. the problem there's a somewhat on secure provision that requires if you bring a case against the tsa you have to do it in d.c. circuit court.

that was a procedural problem for several of the plaintiffs in the cases. it's generally going to be fairly difficult to challenge this. because if the court have taken for granted that the tsa has wide latitude in the sort of searches it can do within airports with, they give great deference to the agency on the fourth amendment issues. there's, of course, the possibility someone bringing the law if you find the court that isn't sympathetic to the agency and takes in to account the fact that, you know, you pretty much have your choice of the nude body scanner machine or the very, very, very invasive pat down. that's not a fourth amendment search standpoint an effective choice. there's not a lot of real choice within the scenario. there might be a better outcome. it needs to be brought in the d.c. circuit court. >> i just mentioned. the cases are going on to partially address one of the questions. two of the most significant

corp. corbit v. -- it happens that john i would say is a nonlaurie markble john pro se. that's worth looking at. they are not debt. they are pursuing them on apeople. i'm going to boston after the event, the first circuit in tbons will be hearing one tomorrow morning brought initially bay couple of harvard law school students. that are continuing to pursue the case. they continue to throw as many procedural barrier in the way as they can. >> there's the possibility to sue under the apa. you mentioned secure flight. we filed comment on that. it's something we're following up on. we may end up filing suit in the similar fashion. >> i keep hearing about the entrepreneurs -- [laughter]

pursuing their right. let take a question second row on the aisle. >> i had name is allen. i'm post media canada. the passenger who decides to drive to new york if so you have a transpoppedder you're monitor along the highway. your phone obviously can be accessed. if you look what call suspicious -- how is gps factoring to that it what is the government -- what do you fear will be mined from the gps constant recognition where we are? >> the gps issue the gps you have in the phone right now there's not of protection for the location information. we asked congress again and again to issue protecting location information and they failed to deliver. there's also the issue of automated license plate reader which was something that you mentioned. we saw it recently we filed an freedom of information act with custom and border protection which is just about the only

agency question get to respond to the freedom information act in anything under a year. we filed one with them and we got back they were share the loins plate data not just with other federal agencies but also and it tied to something with they said. third party companies. they have been sharing the data with ?ushes. car insurance company that have been sharing it widely. wells companies associated with those and doing security related work. the data just get shared out and shared out just on a wider scale. the license plate readers is one thing to pay attention to. and they're being put in. there's a lot in d.c. there a lot in maryland, i think in virginia as well. and there's not a lot of regulation around that either.

there is some hope for the privacy of location data as least the government after the u.s. v. jones case which was a gps tracking last year. they ruled anonymously there is in fact a privacy interest in location data. but we're waiting to see that trickle down and the agency have been attacking that. the law enforcement agencies have been attacking that. >> this is one of the loop home you can drive a truck through and cvp operates under what they claim as a complete border exception to the fourth amendment which makes border regions sitting in a border region now because 200 mime of the ocean. they consider border regions to be the virtual you of the border. cvp is claiming they can set up license plate reader in the area where most of the u.s. population lives with no regulation whatsoever. and for those who may be templed to think, you know, i don't care

that much about the information. part of the problem is that what is knock innocuous here and now may be something you have strong reason to keep private somewhere else or some other time where different rule apply. what can change for better or worse with time. that's the particular danger of not merely looking at this now. the data that can come out. if you may be going to a religious institution or it political rally or abortion clinic or a particular kind of doctor's officer. the therapist office.

all of that is very private information that you might not want being logged forever in some secret file somewhere. i back parked around the world and i bought an air ticket from you also. i thank you. it's an honor to be here with you. he's an awesome legend. the law right to travel what is our picture of the right to travel. what is reasonable exception? i would think it's reasonable to record the identify everybody who crosses the border. what should be the right to travel and what is the reasonable exception and

limitation? first question, where does the right to travel come from? i was talking about this before the event. institutionally ting counts both as part of the first amendment which guarantees the right to assemble. to assemble is an active verb. to come together in an asemibring. the first amendment right to assemble is means the right to travel and be together. as when we came here. it's also the right to travel is also one of those unenumerated by the institution reserve to the people. and you can also get to it from the framework of international human rights. as far as what should be exceptions to the right to travel, when should you prevented from traveling? you should be prevented from traveling on a court has issued a no-fly injunction. there are -- people two to court every day thousand of them in this country and domestic violence cases having for an

injunction saying you're threatening to kill me and our children. i want the court to order you not to walk down my block. courts issued that. we established legal process for no walk orders. interference stopping from travel is -- basis to arrest you for something on the spot. if your not under arrest you're not under injunction. it should be a list of those against there is an injunction. as far as what conditions should be put upon it it comes back to the strict scrutiny. the decisions justified as effective and necessary for a legitimate purpose. >> i want to talk about that the injunction.

one of the things we found even if the court gives you acquittal. you be included on no fly list. it's not enough to get off the no fly list. it's a different class of litigation. no no fly order has been reviewed by any court. indicating that you are on the list. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. i'd like go back to -- [inaudible] mentioned regarding when you opt out and you get the basically the search. what are the rules and guidelines on who they hire to do that? i -- [inaudible] my young daughter was searched at 13.

the person definitely didn't know what they were doing. when i've been searched you have the breasts squeezes, you have inappropriate behavior that no one else would be allowed. dare you say something and then you're not going going to be on the trip. you have to allow to basically -- do they have any type of guideline on the people they hire? you have to sit there and let your child be abused by somebody in front of you. it's disit gusting. >> i had never seen the guideline. -- [inaudible] it's sort of effectivenesses we as citizens can engage in against the agency here. when they started doing these enhanced patdown people tested. especially parent on the behalf of the children who are patting down by tsa officials and the agency changed the practice after that. children under the age of 12 are no longer subject to the same

set of pat dop or the body scanners machine. we want to push back on the agency. we can create real change here. it requires we actually -- [inaudible] >> there are no rules. that's the problem. question i know that bruce and i are and other -- what we these things that the government participates in that prarps makes feel safer but don't eliminate that much more risk.

be great who is a real expert on the risk that are presented someone a real expert on the numbers present comment to the agencies on the topic. >> we don't really know the answer years to be zero. congress hasn't pursued it too much. actually testify at european hearings and parliament in ottawa. the members of parliament have asked the question. and the response from dhs is it's been a success. we have spotted so many people. they haven't said anything to clarify whether those are example of success or whether those are example of cases which they deprived people of the right. those are not necessarily people convicted of anything.

mostly again when success they talk about arrest and you look at it -- [inaudible conversations] >> truthfully looking at the recent history of attempt -- [inaudible] it might be more worthwhile to spend the agency on basic training for american citizens how to disarm a terrorist. >> it's worthing note that terrorists caught isn't suspect the only initial success. it has a deterrence effect as well. there might be a number to decline what they are planning -- [inaudible] given that if that's the major benefit we can have the machine not elect any information at all and run people through them to think they are being -- [laughter] >> we're running short on time. i have a couple of burning questions. are will others from the audience? i have two questions i'll start with the curve ball. our audience may have picked up that neither of you are libertarians.

and i'm wondering what you would think of the policy i refer ultimately to restore responsibility for security to the airlines and the airport. the surprising amount of currency, i think. and a lot of people are more ameble to it than i would have expected. i would be interested in your thought what the situation would be like for private accountability for security in the wrair. -- area. i think we would be facing a lot -- [inaudible] the data being shared as i talked about with the line plate reader. i think that's the -- [inaudible] perhaps more of a push toward cost effect i effectivenesses. i don't know.

>> [inaudible] the airline industry receives enormous -- [inaudible] in part in exchange for their use of public resources and their agreement operate as common carriers. speaking more personally. i think the choice was made when it was, you know, an early pioneer at deregulation act of passed in 1978. the choice was made to allow airlines the choice of set their own prices at least domestically. but -- [inaudible] earlier requiring them to respect travel as a right and requiring them to operate in a nondiscriminate way as a common carrier were retained. the key thing if transfer security back to the airline, would be to main main and actually enforce a continued obligation but they actually operate as a common carrier and treat travel as a right. if you don't want to take on all

-- you can be become a charter operator and pick and choose who you want to tell. if you apt licensed operate you need to be subject to an obligation -- [inaudible] >> the very least pleases and thanks. [laughter] >> my way of thinking about the general project of bringing the suit that you did and then the comment i'll say again, tiny url.com/tsa comment for those who want to register your comment. the overall arch the scope of the project is to try to bring the transportation security administration in at least one respect under the rule of law. and a lot what we've been talking about today is about the rule of law with regard to air transportation and air security. with the issue chance of this

exceedingly slim somewhat content use notice of what the regulation is, given that the second highest court in land asked for it. i wonder if we have a set back. because the regulation will be rejected in the court's when it finally hits. we'll have to do another few years of work to get a good regulation that can be challenged on the substance whether it provides security benefit in the exchange. but i want to hear your processes what you think happens, how this plays out, how long it takes to get the tsa under the law if we can can't just get rate -- rid of it. >> we have seen some movement on part of the agency in response to public outrage about the body scanners. it originally they were subjecting airline pilots to the body scanners, which -- [inaudible] ridiculous. you're an airline pilot.

you are flying the plane. you have control of the plane and could destroy it so you choose. assume belie you have gone through the proper clearance program to determine you are responsible enough to flight plane. the agency since believed made an exception for the airline pilot and exception for small children at least in regard to some screening. we have seen a burn toward the -- the remember in addition machine. the stick figure machine. i do think that, you know, we can force the agency eventually to get it -- [inaudible] and take a lot of. i guess i have faith in the democratic process. >> i would say, you know, we need litigation and it's good it's happening. we need to appeal the congress more if they haven't taken up the issue the way they should. ultimately, we don't get -- [inaudible]

by appealing. we retain our rights by exercising. as said, the only way really to get these things established is people to say no to illegal orders, illegal demands, if they are prepared to do that they can fight it. unless people stand up and say no, this is not going to -- [inaudible] would we have the government recognize our right to travel. i phrase that line in light of ed's comments to the effect we have them. the government doesn't recognize them. when we have the government recognizing our right to travel it will be no small part in thanks to the work of these two. thank you for joining us. [applause]

tonight on booktv in prime time life in combat. "rule number two ." an howard's speaks at tucson book festival on "seal team six." and jake tapper takes a panel discussion on "the outpost." booktv tonight at prime time. starting in an hour from now here on c-span2. a new report commissioned by the major rifle association says schoolteachers should be allowed to carry firearms if they to aive proper training. former arkansas congressman presented the report today.olitc here is ahi few minutes of that >> with 90% of americans supporting your measure and the background checks, and the factt

aren't there more concern about the lives of their kids thander? aders of the nra thving a moip to the nra by by majority supports these. what red light politics allowine the nra to transcend and have a story like today's "washington post" that your bill and others could be gutted if republican b lawmakers accept new language being circulated by the national rifle association? what are the politics that allow that? how with -- he with reverse it. and are we going lose the opportunity unless americaoppo figures out a way not to pay ama attention to that kind of ting.? what is to be done? how do you explain it?appe i cannot answer that question. because i'm not the nra. y can only speak for my own ianl

reality. i do believe with all of my heart that when you have twenty children murdered, little children simply, you know, learning how to read, "run spot run." getting ready for christmas, and somebody comes in and murdersode them. i said in my speech there are certain transformative momentshr that happen in all of our lives. if that does not cause fault to step back and say we need to begin to look at the way our country is operating and say wer

need to do something about gun violence. i don't know what willay.o do i will be interested to hearoutn what the nra has to say aboutll that. that.et me say this, having lived as long as i have lived and been in politics as long as i have, one of my greatest concerns is that people that arguments go b cack and forth ad we end up doing nothing. argum and we end up doing absolutely nothing. because i believe when our have the transformative moments, they are pregnant with opportunity to make a difference. pre and if we do not act in those moments, then things will likely only get worse. and so i do -- i'm hoping i otve, you know, you will notu wn hear me beating up on the nra.

i want to work with the nra tohe bring about meaningful legislation so we get somethingl done. i mean, i want to deal with the. bottom line. do we get something dope ori wae don't we? at the end of the session do we have legislation or don't we? the arguments will fade in to the universe, but the question is have we accomplished anything? and so, again, i would greatnyth question. i would hand that off to mr. lapierre. >> that was part of briefing from today represented elisha cummings. cow can see the remarks right now on c-span and also at 9:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span. coming up on the next washington journal, allen of u.s.a. today gives an effort on the bipartisan efforts in the house and senate to create

comprehensive legislation. .. the tv screen please have for so many hours a week. we need to be able to hear people speaking for themselves outside the box.

we can't afford the status quo anymore from global warming to global warning. >> remarks at massachusetts congressman trained to on courteous. he spoke of the women's national democratic club in washington. it's about an hour. [applause] >> thank you for inviting me here. this is a very special place to me for low-budget reasons because it's at the women's national democratic club. my wife and i. lisa had her wedding reception in the team adtran 1989.

we got off to a rocky start. we got married at sacred heart church request here in d.c. and what we arrived at the church there was another one going on. we had to wait until that ceremony finished. i remember coming into this beautiful november crisp evening and i came in we were also crashed, the photographer told me the guy who is in charge of valet parking totaled his car. the marriages lasted. were still happily married. [laughter] and happy to be in the place where it all began. i worked with george mcgovern in college and he became a lifelong friend. i didn't fear all in sioux

falls, south dakota. we got events all the time that people always think he's my father. walk into an event he was a mandate for supporter of your dads. tell your data is the biggest biggest supporter he ever had. my dad, walter mcgovern owns a liquor store in massachusetts and i hope they keep supporting him. [laughter] i owe george mcgovern a great deal. i was in fall river, shaking hands, greeting voters in this elderly woman came to me and squinted and looked at me and said mr. mcgovern, i have to tell you is the proudest moment of that last one i voted for you against richard nixon in 1972. i did not to say, but i say thank you for a match hope you go from me again. she obviously good a night at

70% of the vote. the george mcgovern remains one of the best examples of public service that this country has ever seen. he was adamant to her my teacher and i kind of the line myself philosophically with his views. i am a liberal. i'm not afraid to admit that. [applause] i have a positive vision for our government. i don't want wasteful government, but i believe we ought to have adequate government. i believe in the great society. i believe in the united nations. i still think the body can be of good to help end violence and bring about world peace. all of us need to work harder.

we allow our nation to get into wars. we have this great debate in washington right now over at deficits are bad people say we've got to make tough decisions. we're going to have to take back benefits you make it for medicare and social security were going to cut nicer education to make it more difficult for young people to get a college education or cut back so cities towns can't repair we have to make tough choices. these two lawyers we are ran, afghanistan and iraq and most of these wars. why didn't we pay for them. when george bush the first went to war against saddam hussein or iraq went to kuwait, he had congress appropriate necessary

funds and got support from countries around the region to pitch in. we didn't have this incredible deficit in terms of what we owe. since we borrowed money when they were not paid for. when you add up the cost of these wars, how much wherein the whole, it's in the trillions of dollars. so a few years ago, i introduced an amendment that the late congressman jack murtha of pennsylvania and former congressman dave obey of wisconsin, basically saying the president wants to take you to work on the yet to pay for it. maybe we ought not go to war, but this debate we have right now about tightening higher

budgets and getting our fiscal house in order, to have that discussion and not talk about what these wars have cost, to me it's ridiculous. we need to be more cautious in how we get into wars. as to extricate ourselves from iraq and hopefully getting ourselves out of afghanistan, i will have to say not fast enough in my opinion. winnie to make sure we don't make the same mistakes in the future. we just implemented this thing called sequestration, which i think it's about the dumbest idea i've ever heard in my life. i tell people sequestration in my opinion represents an all-time high in recklessness and stupidity. i get it that we need to try do find savings in our government's budget, but the notion you do across-the-board cuts without any care given to where are

cutting, everything treated the same as just nonsensical. if you have a line item in the budget that said fraud, waste and abuse, the line item for medical research should be treated the same way. it makes no sense. and we have this group in washington, who invaded the republican party. they're more libertarians. people do not believe in the public there. when people say that to compromise, i'm all for compromise. i get it. i'm not going to get everything i want, but how do you compromise the people who want you to capitulate, who want basically nothing left of government. the more you cut, the better for them. we've had debates in congress. one member asked, why do we need a national federal highway system quiet the republican

president, dwight eisenhower thought it was a good idea that if i built a highly massachusetts to connect to rhode island and connecticut is a dead end at the state border. the idea we are having these debates today that we had in the 50s and 60s is just crazy. we had to be moving forward. the responsibility of our government is not to tell you how bad you are. it's not to love your standard of living in your quality of life. we are to be figuring out, how do we help prove the quality of life for the people of this country? not how we throw people in poverty and cut benefits for people who need it. that's what is missing in this debate. we have a deficit debt problem come as a part of the deal is we have to cut where you afford to cut and raise revenues we need to raise revenues.

the other part of investment. if lambasted the way we should in medical research, he would save a lot of money down the road. if we could find a cure to alzheimer's disease, i don't think medicaid would have another problem. so vital to fix the budgetary problems for medicaid by finding a cure for alzheimer's disease, new medical breakthroughs to make it less likely to get ill will have to be in the hospital to find cures to diseases. i talked to medical researchers all the time. i come from a city, umass medical school, one of the greatest medical schools around. you may see the headlines recently invited to an actual kid curative hiv/aids. a lot of the research was done at the university of massachusetts. it's incredible. not too long ago, hiv/aids is a death sentence.

now we can control it and we might even have a cure for it. that is incredible. it not only will improve the quality of life for people, but if you want to save money, you have to do a little investment. not investing in our infrastructure is a crazy idea. every other country in the world is investing in infrastructure. look at the incredible investment in the infrastructure of their making. they're doing it because they know it's essential for their economy to grow. they are thinking not just this year. they are thinking five, 10, 20, 30 years on the road. we have to think of those terms as well. all because people talk about, maybe they look good on a balance sheet this year, but next year or the year after they're going to cost us a lot

more. a mcclatchy about one thing i've been working on for quite some time. very much like my friend and mentor, george mcgovern, i took on this issue not only in the united states but around the world. i want to talk first about the united states. we've got 50 million people in this country who are hungry. three of the richest, most powerful, most prosperous nation with 50 million people hungry. 17 million are children vendors not a congressional district in the united states of america that is hunger free. every community has hunger and it then this does not have to be i tell people hunger is a political condition because we have the food. we have the knowledge of how to implement programs to alleviate hunger, everything you need to and accept political will.

if this were another war, we find the political will and go to war. we have to have a war against hunger in the united states. people say you're a bleeding heart. we can afford to spend more on these programs. it's not all about spending money. its his coordination to begin with amongst the programs we have. i tell people we can afford not to solve this problem. kids who go to school hungry don't learn. you skip a meal, it's hard to concentrate. you have young children who show up in emergency room so so i basically a common cold, but because they're exhausted their new systems are compromised in the end of spending many days in the hospital. senior citizens show up emergent dirhams because they take a medication for an empty stomach when the bible specifically says take within ill.

there's a reason for that, but they can't afford food and medicine, so they go out with food and end up in the hospital. not only does this produce misery, but it costs a lot of money. it costs money when people have to have prolonged stays in the hospital. so if you don't care about the moral aspect of his, i think you have to care about the bottom line. join with me in this effort to take on the issue of hunger in america. i've been asking the president to do a white house conference on food and nutrition to bring everybody together. other government agencies coordinate with each other to get people what they need in the short-term, the transition people off of public assistance. a big chunk of the people unsnapped work for a living. when people say you want to get a job, they do, but there is so

little they still qualify for public assistance. we've got to tackle this issue. bring the faith-based leaders, food banks and the mayors and governors and the grocers and everybody -- the farmers, everybody who might have a role. bring them to the white house, lock the door and open it until you have a plan because we do not have a plan. with a plan to do a lot of things in this country. there's no plan to end hunger. hillary clinton says it takes a village. she's right. it takes a plan as well as a village. if you have a plan, none of us know overdoing. he may do good stuff locally, but if it's not connected to something else, it just doesn't work. enough of the band-aids, we can solve this problem. i will close with us, i have

always believed from my travels around the world that people look up to us, not because of the size of our weapons arsenals, not because of the number of military bases we have, but they look up to us to what we stand for. they appreciate us being there is a beacon of freedom and democracy and is a stalwart of human rights. eleanor roosevelt helped put together the declaration of human rights. that is a great source of inspiration for people around the world, especially human rights. i also believe from my travels that there's something else. that is that we are all alike, all the same. whether you're a mother or father or a mother or father in kenya or ethiopia or asia or latin america, we all care about our kids.

we all care about our families. we all care about our security. i believe even know we are doing great things, i want to give brasov credit for this see the future they may have to promote agricultural growth and food security over the world. we have to invest much much more in that. if we had known around the world as a leader in the effort to end extreme poverty and hunger, people would like us more. i have this radical idea of people healthier, they don't want charity. i'm the author george mcgovern robert dole food for education program, basically the school lunch program that has incentives to create sustainable self-sufficient school feeding

programs in various parts of the world. millions of kids are fed in school. millions of girls who otherwise would not go to school are going to school because there's a meal there. some of these programs are innovative, where you go for a school meal and bring home a little snack and future brother, sister or mother or father. in actuality space community in colombia a few years back it was one of the worst examples of extreme poverty i think i've ever seen. this young mother came out to me and said i want you to think the people of the united states for me. my son is 11 years old. every day in the summer living, one of the leadership that armed groups comes through here.

one day as the guerrillas, the next day i've ever seen. this young mother came up and said i want you think the people of the united states for me. my son is 11 years old, every day in the summer living. one of the leaders of the armed groups comes from here. they approached me, this 11-year-old boy's mother and say, give me your son. let him join us. so go fight for a cause. and in exchange, we will promise you one thing and that is we will feed him every day, something you cannot do. i've come so close to giving up my 11-year-old son. if you join one of these groups, he'd probably be killed. i also know without food, he will die here. i have make a choice anymore.

you, the people of the united states had made it possible for my son to not only be fed every day, but a school setting where you learn to read and write and get out of this terrible place and have a good life. i will never forget you for that. this is what it's all about. so one of the things i feel very strongly about is that is where our strength is in those other programs. those are the initiatives we had to put around the world. i've never had anyone come say to me, give me a rocket launcher or more guns and more landmines. people ask for food. they asked for help with cyberculture. for all alike in that respect. i also think this tendency for

us to believe we have a military footprint everyplace in the world is theirs. how would you like it if in maryland there was a military base china had her virginia, russia had a base. he would resent it. i understand the importance of the military arrangements between countries. our greatest strength is in our humanity. it is not the number of military bases around the world or the size of weapons arsenal. i hope we can have these discussions and arranging your city upon the administration. i hope you can change not only this country for the better in terms of ending poverty. he cannot spearhead an effort to lift the people all around the world.

those words she spoke during the international race where true today as they were back then. i come before you as somebody who's excited about the future. i'm not happy, but i am optimistic. some of these ideas i think that's the future. the sooner they get there, the better. i think you for who you are in your activism and taking politics seriously. thank you for paying attention to its going on in the world. as troubled as congress is right now is a time for everything. this backward pic and house of

representatives. that's the american people out of the party. thank you very much for having me. [applause] >> thank you for the inspiring talk. we're going to take questions from the floor. the congressman will repeat them and respond to them. please keep them shorter. raise your hand. [inaudible]

no foreign entanglements. this means to me no american soldiers to be on foreign soil fighting that countries for the civil war or whatever the problem is. we should not send one soldier to vietnam. if we want to do that, militarily or financially. as far as i'm concerned, vietnam is a crime against humanity. >> i think you have heard the question. i agree with you. i think vietnam is a terrible mistake. i think the war in iraq was a terrible mistake in the war in afghanistan which began as a matter after osama bin laden has morphed into the mission where nobody knows what it is or how it ends. that's an example of foreign

entanglements. they can untangle some of the issues that are unique. we have paid a heavy price for blood and treasure. we are bankrupted because of these wars and on top of all of that, we have lost some of the best and brightest. i've been to more funerals than i can remember. brave men and women who have families with bright futures had lost his eyes because of these unjustified wars. as soon as we get out of these wars, we need to be careful not to get into another one. they are people anxious to get us involved in s'mores. >> if you try to close the bases

overseas, don't you think the pentagon would be the first ones to scream about it? >> outcome of the question is if the close bases overseas, the brats in the pentagon will scream about it. probably. every agency has their defenders and nobody wants to get anything out. we had to have a discussion about what national security means. do we all feel safer so they can blow up the world. we have a new national security, which includes the fake making sure everybody in this country have good quality food, making sure people have a job and living faith communities, that they have access to good education.

those are the sources of our strength. when you listen to the debates in congress, you'd think none of that matters. i want a military second to none. don't get me wrong. the sources of our strength are also in his other things that we are not quite demand. we will not be an economic superpower if we don't invest in research, scientific research. if we don't keep infrastructure as modern as it can be, we will discern economic edge. my constituent seiyu osama bin laden rather going to come through the front door? what they lose sleep over is whether they'll have jobs and next day. whether or not they'll have their mortgage. those are the things people give

him security and lead a new definition. we've tried not definition of national security. >> first of all, you are to be commended for this stand you took in the recent film, a place at the table. i can't remember if there were any other congressmen who participated in that film, but you are to be commended for that. my question is this. why in congress are there so many patriots who look down with contempt when i talk about food stamps. is it that they are pandering to the far right wing quiets are they just are so disconnected they don't care? >> is both quite frankly. they pander the right wing when they demonize the program that provides people protection when

they are vulnerable and can't afford food, so that's one of the things. a lot of members have no idea what it's like to be poor. a place at the table is this great film about hunger in america. hunger in america is not starvation in sub-saharan africa. here is different, but every bit as deadly. it examines families who are struggling in poverty china to put food on the table. i lived on food stamp diet for a week with some of my colleagues that because some might call it thought it was astronomically high, with this incredible benefit. right now it's $1.50 per meal. you can't buy a starbucks coffee for $1.50. we kept a blog in her mind to people it's tough to be poor,

hard work to figure it out or put food on the table would have a limited amount of money. when you buy now, you run out. the terrible choices people have to make. so i think the food stamp program now called snap is a great program. if you didn't have it, you would have people who would be starving to death and part of the problem in washington is it's unfashionable and easy to demonize them. you can go to guns snap and vote to eliminate all you want and there's no political consequences. you go for a gun-control measure and all of a sudden the nra is on your back. if you vote to take people, you're probably not lose your election. what i hope this film does, i hope it raises awareness and get

smart people to see how they vote on these issues dealing with policy and hunger. if they vote the wrong way, i hope enough evocative of the next election. they provide people a circle of protection. >> thank you so much. you've really energized me to want to work on a war against hunger and i would like to ask you in terms of the w. m. d. c., which you might recommend in terms of where we could best put our time and action to work against hunger. either pieces of legislation. what would you recommend to us? >> one is call your member of congress and tell them to go on the mcgovern bill in the house of representatives bill.

[inaudible conversations] >> well, the mcgovern go to stop any more cuts in the snap program. one of the things that is to start intimate is notwithstanding the fact there's all this fraud, waste and abuse in the crop insurance program, which is really a scandal in and of itself. last year, the republicans in the house voted to cut $16.5 billion out of the snap program i was told i should be happy because they want to cut 30 billion of the program. i'm the author rather. it would basically say no more cuts, so that's number one. number two come you're probably involve the local food banks and initiatives here. i'm happy to work with you and give you ideas of other things you might want to do. putting some pressure on the

president. that's how they plan to end hunger and then we can have benchmarks and measure whether we are making progress. we know who to blame. we need a plan. so that's where i began. >> the whole immigration and pasty seem to be dealing with the 9 million here illegally. d. think it's possible the federal government could develop a serious, expanded guestworker program that might make it possible for people to come and go without the dilemmas they now face quite >> the answer is yes they do. if we put our minds to it, we can develop a guestworker program that actually works. but in the meantime, we need a

comprehensive immigration bill to do a number of things. we need to realize the status of the millions of people here. whoever came by and large. many of them who are washing dishes at restaurants and doing seasonal work, all kinds of stuff for whatever reason we have a hard time finding nonimmigrants to do. the other thing is we are a nation of immigrants. one of the great things is diversity and we had to celebrate that. when i hear people talk about immigration reform as always we don't want any new people here. but more new people but better. in my own city, a cigna reveres the transformations of groups that comment. it has enriched my life. as i've learned more, enjoyed more food i can imagine.

the people who come here have a great work ethic. i'm somewhat heartening news talks about this bipartisan consensus growing. republicans realize being against immigration is not in the political interest, so that's a good thing that will work with us to come to a compromise. we need to do with issues of seasonal work and we also need to realize the status of people here and i think we can do that. it is going to happen income is going to happen this year because people get sillier than they do in a non-election year. >> on pam bailey, a constituent and very happy to be. i went to pakistan in october to part of a group that effects the drone strikes. but they too have your opinion. there's a growing and congress

not arrest any talk about unintended consequences. it seems to be huge in explaining why some people don't consider america exceptional. we are striking not individuals, but patterns of activity, which i hear of this agreement between the ages of 18 and 40 that live in the wrong place. the other thing that concerns me is that drugs make it possible. drone strikes growing up because this is our american lives, but not the others and we are removed on that. what do you think about that quite >> i am worried about that well. we are moving to war and killing people without having to see a first-hand or feel it. some of our soldiers are on the battlefield and yet we do train strikes to make it the best i can also make your children are

innocent people who have nothing to do with the bad guy. i am worried about that trend. i don't agree with randy paul on very much, but i'm glad he had a meltdown in the senate and had a filibuster to call attention to the fact we don't have a policy. there's no definition family of drugs today, but the chinese will have drones tomorrow. so what are the rules of engagement here? one final thing. we are all cause children, whether in the united states or pakistan -- cuban life is as valuable to people they are as it is here. when innocent people get killed as a result of strikes, the families of those people will hate us until they died because we took away the most precious or their husband or wife or mother or father.

we need to have our discussion about how to resolve problems without drum s'mores. congressman john lewis took a group to alabama in tuscaloosa, birmingham, montgomery and selma were 48 years ago john lewis was beaten, almost kilt marching over that bridge. one of the things that was so inspirational to me is that whole movement, the civil rights movement was nonviolent. john lewis was hit over the head with a bat by alabama policeman. it was a nonviolent movement that changed this country for the better and quite frankly served as an inspiration for the rest of the world. their inspiration was gandhi,

but the point of the matter is nonviolent can be used in a way where you can change the world and we are don't even talk about what are the alternatives. if you don't do this, we'll bomb you. we have to have more discussion about the other peaceful ways without killing everybody to sell some of these problems. i know there are, there have to be. [applause] >> i'm bill outfielder i work with the d.c. democratic party and the district of columbia. i want to commend you for your work on hunger, which renault impacts the whole world emissary citizens vulnerable. we are not a state amnesty route a few moments ago we don't have

a representative to call. we don't have senators who call upon and are delicate, eleanor holmes story to does a fantastic job introduced a bill, the new columbia mission act. when i checked before they make it much inside it, you're not not signed onto it. some of us are in the room are curious why not. [applause] you twisted my arm. it was a tough shadow. >> i'm at the e.u. delegation here, so i have to ask how optimistic are you the u.s. will conclude the free-trade deal with the european union and the next two years and do you think you'll pass congress and are your favorite such a deal?

>> on trade agreements, i don't have a position on that. i have to look at the details of how it's all negotiated. by and large we ought to have trade deals and trade agreements that have to be fair and they have to be such a knife out that they lift up the quality of life of workers from the country's ever seeking to have an agreement with as well as lifting our workers at. i was opposed to the colombia free trade agreement because i didn't think it addressed issues of worker rights in colombia or human rights violations going on and so concerns workers had in the united states. we trade agreements are supposed to work as they're supposed to lift everybody up. in places like colombia, where

people aren't earning a wage, not even a minimum wage, they have the opportunity to earn a livable wage so they can buy products in colombia and buy products in the united states. i represent areas in massachusetts during nafta, where i saw entire industries shut down overnight. paul berger was in my district. other textile company/. say that american workers left high and dry and mexican workers that were benefiting because you were getting paid what they should get paid. the european union is a different group altogether. i want to look at the details before i give you an answer, but my focus is on worker rights and

making sure the workers have an opportunity to earn a living. >> the wmd to stop gun violence. we have an ad hoc to discuss this issue. if all were hard after newtown. the senate expects as early as next week to hold votes on either a negotiated pact -- worried though that started then reported on the judiciary judiciary committee. the nra has a sound version today and obviously we are hard nothing happened. we are going to work are next week. everything including a senator. i hear so often from members of the ad hoc committee, and chairman of it, why are we wasting our time? it doesn't matter because the

house is going to do nothing. i really don't have any ammunition to counter that. maybe your work can help on this. >> a history professor said the world will not get better on its own. while there are people that do not want to seek sensible gun safety legislation, through congress and the people feel the pressure, things happen. i remember we couldn't get it hurricane relief passed as a result of hurricane cindy. the speaker of the house decided to go home and do not name while all of our people on the east coast were homeless and displaced in dealing with the aftermath of hurricane sandy. if the pressure is there, congress windows.

this is a difficult day for many members of congress because they are so used to living with the national rifle association. a lot of the members of congress automatically do it the nra wants because you don't want the money back. i think there's a growing belief that there are to be -- there have to be reasonable and rational limit any idea that anybody can go out and buy a military style assault weapon was 60, 70 rounds of ammunition, that's just kind of we don't have universal background checks. give me a break. the nra is to be for that. in some places in this country is easier to buy a gun than it is to vote and that is a sad

reality. we need to talk about this reasonably and rationally and this is not about taking away everybody's guns. there has to be some common sense here and i hope is congress has good spine and the senate and house to not only take a vote, but do something. i felt the anguish and president obama's words yesterday or the day before, which is happening here? these little children's bodies were riddled with so many bullets that you can identify them. that just happened. so shame on us if we do nothing. my hope is pressure will continue to build a look at those in the senate and house and hopefully do something.

>> i'd like to follow up on that last question and be a little more specific. the problem is we have a congress of the giant wall down the middle and it happens to be the bad guys are on the other side of the wall and on most of congress. so what can we do to specifically put pressure on those congressmen from their districts because we are here and the homeless into districts, not ice. hopefully put pressure on them? on the points you have made. >> to do this you have relatives who live outside the district of columbia. so maybe in some of the state survey of members of congress who were wavering on this issue, reaching out to faith-based

groups, reaching out to other clubs that you may be affiliated with, getting them to weigh in with members. there's no question members of congress react to their constituency. probably more so than they do from the other side. an effort that goes out to those constituencies that may be sympathetic and pressuring members of congress would be helpful. there are various organizations trying to do that. try to build constituencies in these districts, or like minded people are to speak out. one of the problems is there's a lot of people in this country who believe like we do on this, but don't say anything and are afraid it won't make any difference or you feel like maybe it's not your place to

call or write a letter or send an e-mail. we need to build constituencies across this country and put pressure on those numbers. i can, i find it difficult, for example, to see how congress would vote on something like universal background checks. add in another south would be a significant step forward because a big chunk of the sales are done without background checks and it's easy for people to get access to these terrible crimes. maybe we have to sort some of these votes up, but shame on this country is in the aftermath of not just newtown, but virginia tech, the tabby cat furs, shooting in the movie theater. pakistan account the fact every day there are accidental shooting because people don't lock their guns up. the kids get a hold of guns.

the number of people who die in this country from gun violence is through the roof. so i think this is the time. >> thank you very much for all your answers to the question. i'm trying to get a picture of you in the house and libertarians and i'm wondering if there's any means informality to talk to people who have such vastly different ideas from yours and to bridge that world within the house on an informal basis. do you talk together at all to try to understand and move them on an informal basis? >> we talk all the time. on some issues we have common ground. as one who wants to end the war in afghanistan as soon as humanly possible, some of them agree with me on that.

when they have a member state, they vote with me. i think we have some common views in terms of the rights of the privacy and we have some common ground and without dance to embrace the patriot act in there and many of us who are liberals like me, who agree with the my libertarian members on the need to make sure we are not put under surveillance unnecessarily. there's a process in place, including getting a warrant to do that. on these issues there's a common ground. but when it comes to government, there is a rigid ideology, the likes of which i've never, ever seen. and make spam most for newt gingrich. as much as i disagree with them, he believes there's a role for

government. even people who say when the defense bill comes up, for example, will preface their remarks by saying the only thing the constitution requires congress to do is take care of our military. everything else is your on your own. and they believe that. and i don't understand -- i can't believe all their constituencies believe that. but it goes back to us talking about in the beginning. i'm not for wasteful government. i'm for a government that works. we have to remind people what government has. i remember during the health care reform debate. i had an appointment at the university of massachusetts medical school and that is early, so i stopped in at donalds to get my opponent of

coffee before i went to the meeting and there's maybe 25 elderly man in the corner. if you ever want to know what's going on in the world, go to mcdonald's at 8:00 in the morning. there's always men solving all the world problems. i walk in and the guy goes to the covered. we were just tacking about you. it wasn't good. i said great. come over here. he said look, we don't want this health care bill. we do want government running our health care. i said what do you think medicare is? do you know if the bill does? ever miss co-pays for preventative care. that's good for you. it will close the doughnut hole. that the other things. one other thing is? i had a guy told me i need to get gunmen off his back. i said the more specific.

i feel too much government. i said helpmate. i'm not a congressman, politician. i am that i can solve those problems. people have this notion. with regulations governing clean water. view has medications regulated in which they give them to you. there are things here for poor people. if the safety net didn't exist, people would be living in absolute poverty. part of what we do is push back a little bit.

it's not without its faults. maybe we need to eliminate duplication. let's have the most efficient government and the world. as i said in a beginning, there's people out. but it lists people. we should elect people to help move us forward, not backwards. >> thank you very much for your work on human rights, not just in the united states, but abroad. a day to ask you about sri lanka. i've been very concerned about what happened in sri lanka and i know you have to because you've helped to get the united states to work on that. the sri lankan government has called the videos made of the killings filled a fabrication. however, these are authentic

records of what happened. why has the state department war crimes office not checked whether the u.n. rapporteurs who have rolled them up them authentic, why haven't the u.s. department of state crimes office checked on the use of ideas that report the results to congress. these things don't have to wait for an international investigation. >> we've been hearing this on sri lanka. this may be the ones who shown to members of congress and to raise and investigate authenticity and to be fair, the administration has also raised some of these issues that the sri lankan government. there are to be an accounting. the united states if we stand

for anything, foursquare for human rights. it's really what people expect of us. it it's very sympathetic and concerned. if i were close with one thing. i began telling you that george mcgovern was an inspiration to me. back in 1978, and i was a he gave his speech about defending the role of government and says that proposition 13 in all these antigovernment movements going on. i learned a couple of things that day when i heard him give a speech. why must i now know why he lost and raised the concern two years later as the result is very courageous to tears, but it is also reminding us that we have a

role in determining the government we have. so the final words in a speech, the greatest threat today is not a foreign adversary, but an enemy within. that is not a conspiracy or fifth column. it's a nice size. it is a dull conscience that i lost vision. i guess i would say to everybody is ready to work together for the collective conscience and didn't dig. we shouldn't shy away from them and i think we need to insist we can take on problems and so will fight for justice and fairness mps and make this the best it can be. thank you very much for having

me. [applause] >> thank you for coming. we'd love you to come back. >> i will, thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] ..