appropriated accounts. it gets almost no attention. i'm on the finance committee, and i can tell you it is -- we do not pay -- we pay much less attention to expenditures through the tax code than we do through the appropriated accounts. now, i don't for a minute suggest that means we don't have to cut the appropriated a focus on entitlements, because, you know -- spending was the smallest share. the biggest share was the appropriated accounts. now it's flipped. we're over 60% the mandatory accounts, social security and medicare. the discretionary accounts are the smaller share. it's one of my charts. it's strange the way we appropriate around here. when we look at a solution, nobody wants to kind of talk about the elephant in the room.

nobody wants to talk about the entitlements. we want to focus on discretionary spending, which i would argue is much less of the problem. but, you know, we all understand politics. senator. >> i want to add one caution in terms of a percentage of gdp and revenue during boom times. that's when you're percentage of revenue will increase, and obviously in tough economic times it goes down 15%. it's not a balanced budget because we increase taxes to that level. it's because the economy was booming and allowed that much revenue to be extracted from the economy. it's all subject to debate, but that would be my caution. >> here we are in the situation in which our spending right now is over 24% of gdp. our revenue is between 14% and 15% of gdp. so spending as a share of the economy is at or near a 60-year high.

revenue is at or near a 60-year low. no wonder we've got record defici deficits. i don't know which one of you mentioned if you look at the 10-year outlook here, i think on a realistic basis we're looking at trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. you said that, doctor. i always like to attribute it to the right place. thank you all. i know we committed to ending at noon. somebody has to make a plane. we appreciate very, very much the testimony. i think this has been an outstanding hearing. >> thank you very much. on tomorrow morning's "washington journal," a

conversation with james lieu wits. we'll talk to senator john bar wrasse o of wyoming. he's trying to work out an agreement on exending the payroll tax cut the rest of the year. a look although how the federal government measures pry increases and how inflation affects entitlement programs such as social security. our guests are michael horrigan and barry bosworth. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> when president lincoln was shot on april 14, 1865, he was wearing a black coat made for his second inaugural by brooks brothers. it's cared for the national p parks service. american history tv documented the process of removing a replica coat and placing the original coat on display for the public and learned how the

artifact is preserved for future generations. lincoln's coat on american artifacts in sunday morning at 8:00, also at 7:00 and 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3's american history tv. >> the head of the transportation security administration, john pistole testified about aircraft security. this hearing. house homeland security subcommittee on transportation security is an hour. the subcommittee on transportation security will come to order. we're meeting today to examine the transportation security's administration screening partnership program. i apologize for the delay, but

they don't let me have any say-so when votes are called on the floor. i appreciate your participation. >> let me first state that i'm a strong supporter of the partnership program and was disappointed with the ts a's decision last january to not expand the program. had to determine that performance -- that the performance of federal screeners and private screeners are roughly the same and that the security standards set for the sbp airports are identical. rather than trying to insulate a

jinl federal work force, tsa should work to strengthen and improve the private screening program and make it more cost-efficient. then tsa could concentrate of implementation of oversight. last april the full committee chairman and i saw it fixed. the security enhancement law account of 2011. they approve any sbp application that would not return -- they're concerned if an application is dnd. i'm pleased language similar in the bill recently passed the house. in addition the huge number of tsa personnel working in airports with private screeners troubles me. recent data provided reveal that is certainly airports where contractors do screening and tsa is there to oversee the screen process, there are upwards of 50

tsa employees on the payroll. while we can agree that strong oversight in this area is important, having 50-plus tsa officials in a single airport where they're not responsible for conducting screening is plain overkill and costing huge amounts of money. we will look at this issue and other contracting and management issues throughout the hearing. i look forward to all the witnesses and now recognize the ranking member the subcommittee, my friend, the gentlelady from texas for any opening statement she may have. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. we worked on this committee because we have an unabiding commitment to the security of this nation. i'm delighted to see administrative pistole and thank him for his leadership. this is a time for tough choices, tough decisions, and strong commitments to secure this nation. i would offer to say that because of this committee and the leadership of ranking member and chairman that in actuality

the united states has through some very, very difficult times managed it to security itself since 9/11, the horrific act no one will ever forget throughout historyannuls of history in in nation. it was on that day that security was privatized, and it was on that day that private security entities allowed individuals who ultimately sent planes into the towers in new york to kill thousands of persons. so i have a vigorous disagreement and i hope the administration holds the line. this is not a time for flit sizing and making people help, time for humoring small i amnd and the work done considered anvi small busi

me large businesses and the work done in procurement to ensure that the american business has an opportunity to serve it's nation. but on this one i believe in one point of the chairman he is right, we need to be fiscally spoens i believe and we need to assess our needs need to ensure that individuals are uti structure and transportation security office structure in the most efficient, appropriate and secure manner that wee. mr. chairman you are right about that question. but i cannot adhere to a mass an expansion ive reform that of the screening partnership program without the appropriate limitations that are presently

in place today. so i'd like to thank the witness and witnesses for joining us today to discuss the tsa partnership program commonly referred to as spp. they may opt out of using federal screening work force. in january of 2011 based on the review of administrator, administrator pistole decided not to expand the 16 currently participating airports unless there was a clear and substantial benefits to doing so. i might add there should be a security analysis in this as well. i hope my words, substantial benefit in his testimony or questioning, we will determine that substantial benefit or clear and substantial benefit does not ignore the security ramifications. it cost the taxpayers more than using the federal screener work

force. in a lot of that fact, that would be reason enough to support the administration's decision not to expand the program but the list goes on. further expansion of privatized screenings hampers the ability to push out intelligence information to front line workers and adds to inconsistency. it makes changes more complex. that means you not only have to vet the front line officers but vet the company, vet the executives of the company and vet the ownership and financial structure of this, vet the banks that the private company goes to. who is paying whom to turn their head and overlook some das touredly act to attack american citizens as at the at the travel the skies of america. there have been much discussion about whether private ized screeners perform better. i'm supportive of making sure federal employees across the

board are respected but also do their job. there is no conflict with insisting on excellence in performance to the idea that i have that privatizedcreeners are not adequate. make the federal employees excellent. that has been done in many, many places. on certain first responders in terms of their service, and we have no criticism of the young men and women who have come into our military service, nonprivatized, who have offer would themselves to serve. we would expect no less from transportation security officers. they are on tsa that the performance of privatized screeners is comparable to that of the federalized work force. i want our tso to be better than privatized workers, and i believe our focus should be how

we achieve that. we don't need equals in this busisspect to be better than. we have the responsibility of millions of americans all across this nation. they look to us, this great nation who uses the terminology "great," to be great and to be excellent. the reality is that this -- the security incidents have occurred at both airports with privatized and federalized screeners. under the watch in san francisco international airport a woman pushed through a checkpoint plane and boarded a plane and flew to baltimore without being screened. the statute establishing it did to micromanage tsa's decision to exclude an airport from participation sens openness. 16 is enough. ra, the administrator's judgment by saying he may approve an application. i know from this very hearing we

will see the potentl comg in. mr. administrator, trying to we have seen in the lasthall. wage of the faabi. that's unfortunate, and i'm sorry we're having this hearing i will live to rise again. i will find a way just like others did to undo that beust's. unfortunately, despite having never been debated by this committee, the committee of jurisdiction and no members appointed on behalf the of the committee, the statue was amended which will soon become law. that's called midnight legislating. in the dark, no transparency, and at hering to the voices of tsa's e. flexibility to approve or deny airport to opt out, places a time limitation of 120 days on tsa to

determine whether to approve an application and provide a waiver for the requirement that a private, contracted screening company be owned and controlled by a united states citizen. just a few years ago, everyone was up in arms about the potential repos foreign entities. we have resolved and/or studied that issue and i assume it's still being studied. there is no doubt that aviation still remains one of the most attractive entities for individual franchise terrorists, and now we suggest waivers, even if the company is owned by a foreign or the airport is owned bay foreign empty. how outrageous. i look forward to hearing from the administrator on the views and how he intends to continue to develop tsa into the federal counterterrorismet envisio envisions. he comes with years of experience for the fbi, who i understand and he knows full

well are meticulous in their responsibili responsibilities enshurg the security domestically. we can do no less when it comes to this nation's skies and as well for those who travel internationally on our soil into our area. as we look forward to what i hope will be a productive year, mr. chairman, let us not forget the lessons of past, one of which is that the system of privatized screeners failed us on 9/11. there is no further sentence that i need to make. the 9/11 day of horror was partly on the watch of privatized screeners. the wisdom of the united states congress and the immediate see of those tragic days was to come together and find a way totso w system of which we had the opportunity to provide intelligence, training, oversight and yes, security for the american people. i see nothing has changed today and i would hope we change nothing in spite of the faa

legislation. i asked the administration to reject the premise of that legislation, even as it has been signed. i yield back.ve been advised we're going to call for votes between 3:45 and 4:00, so we'll try to move. now i recognize the gentleman from mississippi, the ranking member of the full committee, mr. thompson, for any statement he may have. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'm pleased that administrator pistole could join us today to discuss tsa's screening partnership program. i'd like to also extend a welcome to our second panel of witnesses. it's my hope thatand rhetoric s this program can be put to bed today. by this hearing title my colleaguesed on the other side of the aisle have implied that the current use of federal screeners impedes job growth. there's no proof in law or fact for that assertion. the number of screeners at an airport is determined by an

analysis of the risk, threat, and volume at that airport. these factors will not change base odd whether the screeners are private contractors or federal employees. so the number of jobs will not change based on whether the screeners are public or private sector employees. under the republican suggestion, the only thing that will change is whether the jobs will be public or private. we know that both types of screeners are effective and face challenges. follow the same rules and receive the same training. we also know that private screeners cost up to 9% more than federal screeners. we know that public and private screeners can join unions, so the only real difference is cost. b what do we know is why the republicans seem to be willing to pay more for the same service, how doing so will

create jobs. if the added cost of taxpayers fails to convince you that this program shouldn't be expanded, consider that it takes us back to a model similar to the one in place during 9/11. administrative pistole performed a full review of tsa's policies and practices and determined that the spp should not be expanded unless there was a clear and substantial advantage to doing so. contrary to claims made at the time, the administrator did not shut down the program. rather, he set a recent standard for expansion. that standard was met last week by low risk seasonal airport in montana and tsa approved their application. tsa did so because they -- the net impact was advantageous to government. on the same day tsa denied the

applications of two airports because they failed to demonstrate an operational security or cost advantage over federalized screening applications. both of these directions are perfectly logical, regrettably this hearing comes a day late and a dollar short for the committee. last week the faa re-authorization act was passed by the house, and soon will be signed into law as described by subcommittee ranking member jackson-lee. that aviation safety bill contained a security provision within this committee's sole jurisdiction altering the law controlling the spp. in summarizing this provision, it amounts it to a congressional attempt to micromanage the spp by stripping the administrator of his discretion. without this committee having

held one hearing marker or debate on the changes proposed, homeland security security members were denied a seat at the table by the speaker when the provisions went to congress. chairman king and i sent a letter to the speaker just two weeks ago requesting that jurisdiction over dhs be consolidated. apparently under this leadership even when you have jurisdiction you get left out. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank my colleague from louisiana. other members are reminded opening statements may be submitted to the record. we're pleased to have two witnesses today. the first panel we like to welcome is the honorable john pistole. as administrator he oversees 60,000 employees and the security operations of the airports throughout the u.s.,

the federal air marshall service and the security for highways, railroads, ports, mass transit systems and pipelines. welcome. the floor is yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman, charnlg rogers and ranking members jackson lei-lee and thompson. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the mission to protect the freedom of movement for people in commerce and also appreciate the opportunity to update the committee on the progress we continue to make in our efforts to develop and deploy a range of risk-based intelligence-driven initiatives to prevent terrorist attacks while facilitating the movement of people and goods across it is u.s. and nationally. our number one priority is to provide the most effective skwurt in the most efficient way. tsa accomplishes this mission through a series of public and private partnerships. last year alone tsa invested nearly $2.5 billion in the private sector in critical services, technologies and

equipment across all frpgs modes. since 2002 or work force has safely screened more than 5 million passengers. throughout 2011 we began evaluating the benefits of several risk-based security conferences including precheck, an initiative you know began last fall and is currently operating in seven of our country's busiest airports. the participation in preeconomic is open to u.s. citizens who are members of existing can you remembers and border protections as well as certain airline frequent flyers. in the few months since we began this initiative, over 310,000 passengers have gone through tsa preeconomi precheck, and the feedback is consistently pochlt we have plans to expand this mission throughout 2012. there's much more to risk-paced security than precheck. other efforts were expedited

screening of over 300,000 airline pilots and changes in screening procedures for the 60,000 or so children 12 and under traveling by air every day and the expanded use of behavior detection techniques in two airports. we're taking steps to develop our layered approach through security through state-of-the-art technologies, better pass engineer identification techniques and other actions that strengthen our capability to keep terrorists off aircraft. by continuing our methods, risk-based security helps me move security with a counterterrorism focus. the goal behind all this so look for ways to conduct the most effective security in the most efficient way. doing to allows us to focus resources on travelers we know the least about or those on the terrorist watch list reducing the size of a haystack in which a terrorist may hide. combine that focus with

classified sxoer intelligence and we're in a better position to inform the skurlt screening process. as we mentioned, congress created means to assess the effectiveness of privatized screening through the spp program beginning in 2002 with five airports. currently among the more than 450 airports with security overseen by tsa, there has been mentioned the 16 airports in the sbp. as you may know and as was noted, i recently approved one more application, wes yellowstone, and if a contract is awarded the number is 17. i've recently denied two applications that did not provide a clear and substantial advantage to the taxpayers and our ability to achieve our mission. thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. >> i thank the gentleman and

recognize myself first fornd we from side to side. about four months ago i sent a letter to you. by the way, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to offer that for the record. woud okdz, so ordered. i sent a letter to you expressing my concern over the ruling of the u.s. court of federal claims in the case of first line versus u.s. and the alcal security inc. submitted that for the roerd. the time is it cams on the heels of your public safety that it doesn't fit into your vision for a federal work force. my concern is whether the decision made in the kansas city case could have been affected in some way by thefa want it to be successful in an integral part of its ireoor of kansas city aviation here today to offer his pe

why did the kansas city contract go so wrong? >> thank you, mr. chairman. there were several things where webd have done a better job, and part of that was in your assessment of not only the best value but the cost and security aspects continuing as an spp airport. it's a question of which private screener was the best value to the taxpayers and could provide the best the other finding that the court made was that we did not do a good a job as we could have and i agree with that in documenting our findings both between the source election -- the board that revth source election authority. i do note that the court ruled in our favor, but the key take

away and doing a better job until analysis and articulation. how should we move forward? clearly we're -- i'm in support of kansas city. they've had a good provider there p in terms of their private screening, and the whole intent, as evidenced by this, was to continue that is a question, which private company was best suited to provide those services? >> okay. the former federal official was working as an adviser and wanted to be at the kansas city airport. were awe wear of na? >> i was not. >> did anyone at fsa involved in making the award have direct contact from the time the rfp was issued until tfls awardeded? >> not to my knowledge. >> are you concerned about the influence of a former tsa employee had on the contracting process given his connections

inside your agency? >> begin that i was not aware of that, obviously there's always the appearance that we need to be mindful of. i was assured in terms of review of this and looking at the court decision that there was no improper influence, that everything was done according to the procurement, the acquisition process, but with the court's finding in terms of both our assessment and our documentation of our findings. we could have and should have done a better job. so as a result of that court decision, i have changed the procedures to ensure that that does happen and we don't repeat the mistakes we did in that instance. >> great. in the stam letter i referenced earlier, i urged you to postpone any action for kansas city until the subcommittee can conduct necessary oversight. i think