arizona candidates' debate next week. >> there's been honest contention, spirit of this agreement, and i believe considerable arguments. but don't let anybody be misled by that. you have given here in this hall a moving and dramatic proof of how americans who honestly differ close ranks and move forward for the nation's well-being shoelder to shoulder. >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website, c-span.org/thecontenders. >> and what about you? are you now out of debt? do you have a comfortable back roll in the bank? you are paying less for the things that you buy or more?

do you really think things can't be better? of course they can. working together we can and will make them better. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> tsa administrator says that the's's pilot program to hire private airport screeners is still being assessed. he testified before the house homeland security subcommittee on transportation security. last year tsa said it would not expand the program "unless there are clear substantial advantages to do so." currently there are 16 participating airports. this hearing is about an hour. >> the committee will homeland security subcommittee will come to order. this subcommittee is meeting today to examine the transportation security administration's screening partnership program. and i apologize for the delay. they don't let me have any say

so which wh votes are called on the floor. i do agree your participation. i'll recognize myself for an opening statement. want to thank the commissioner for being here and the time it takes to prepare for this today. the subcommittee will examine a screening partnership program in tsa's willingness to work with the private sector to improve transportation security. let me state that i'm a strong supporter of the screening partnership program and was disappointed that tsa's decision last january not to expend the program beyond an existing airports using private screening services. i'm aware that last week the tsa approved one airport but not two others from sbp. that is the wrong approach in my opinion sins gao determined that performance -- that performance of federal screeners and private screeners are roughly the same and that the security standards set for the sbp are complete identical. rather than trying to insulate the giant federal workforce, tsa

should be working to strengthen and improve the private screening program and make it more cost efficient so u.s. businesses can take on a more meaningful road. then tsa can concentrate on implementing the management oversight and contracting and training reforms it desperately needs. last april the full committee chairman and i introduced the security enhancement and jobs act of 2011. the bill requires tsa to approve any sbp application that would not compromise security and congress is notified if a bill is denied. in addition, the huge number of tsa personnel working in airport that's do have private screeners troubles me. recent data provided the committee reveals that a certain airports were contractors do screening and tsa is just there to oversee the screen prague ses. there are upwards of 50 tsa employees on the payroll.

while we can agree that strong oversight and this area is critically important, having 50 plus tsa officials in a single airport where they're not responsible for conducting screening is plain overkill and ca costing money. we'll look at other management issues throughout the hearing. i look forward to all the witnesses and now recognize the ranking member of the xpt, my friend the gentle lady from texas for her opening statement she may have. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. we are friends. we worked on this committee because we both have an unabiding commitment to the security of this nation. i'm delight to see administra administrative pistol 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 to secure itself since 9/11. a hor irving act that no one will of -- a hor irvirific act no one will forget. it was on that day that the security of this nation through airports was privatised. and it was on that day that private security entities allowed individuals who ultimately sent planes into the towers of new york to kill thousands of persons. so i have a vigorous disagreement and i'm hoping that the administration will courageously hold the line. this is not a time for politicizing and making people happy and it's not in time for humoring small businesses. and in my mind and the work that i have done, i have considered a supporter of small businesses,

medium sized businesses, large businesses. and the work that is done in procurement to assure that american business has an opportunity to serve its nation. but on this one, i believe in one point of the chairman. he is right that we need to be fiscally responsible. we need to assess our needs. we need to insure that individuals are placed and utilized in the tsa structure and the transportation security office structure in the most efficient, appropriate and secure manner that we possibly can have. mr. chairman, you're right about that question. i cannot adhere to a mass reform, massive reform that would provide for an expansion of the screening partnership program without the appropriate limitations that are present fli

place today. so i'd like to thank the witness and witnesses for joining us today to discuss tsa's screening partnership program. under this program, airports may apply to opt out of using federal screening workforce and january 2011 based on the review of the administrator decided not to expand spp beyond the 16 currently participating airports unless there was a clear and substantial benefit to doing so. and i might add there should be a security analysis in this as well. i hope my words, stand benefit, in his testimony or questioning we will discern that substantial benefit or clear and substantial benefit does not ignore the security ramifications. it costs taxpayers more than using the federal screener workforce. in light 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 privatised screening hampers tsa's ability to push out intelligence information to front line workers and adds to inconsistency. it makes changing procedures based on threat more complex. that means you not only have to vet the front line officers, you've got to vet the company. vet the executives of the company. vet the ownership, vet the financial structure of this. vet the banks that the private company goes to. who's paying whom to turn their head and to overlook some dastardly act that is prepared to attack the american citizens as they travel the skies of america. there have been much discussion of whether privatised screeners perform better than the federal counterparts. i'm always supportive of making sure that our federal employees across the board are respected

and also do their job. and there is no conflict in linking this to the idea that i have of that privatised screeners are not adequate. make the federal employees excellent. that has been done in many, many places. we certainly don't criticize our 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 nat priva nonprivate yoized who offered to serve. we expect no less from transportation security officers. they are on the front line. tsa informs us that the performance of privatised screen serz comparable to that of the federalized workforce. i want our tso to be better than privatised workers. and i believe our focus should be how we achieve that.

we don't need equals in this business. the federal government is always expected 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 this security incidents have occurred at both airports with privatised and federalized screeners. under the watch of privatised screeners at san francisco international airport, a woman pushed through a closed checkpoint lane, boarded a plane and flew to baltimore without ever being screened. the statute established in the spp did not endeavor to micromanage tsa's decision to include or exclude an airport from participation. it was to show a sense of openness 16 is enough. rather it gave proper defrns to the administrator's judgment by stating he may approve an applicant application. i know have this very hearing we'll see the potential

amendments coming in. mr. administrator trying to demand and saying that you shall just as we have seen in the language of the faa bill. that's unfortunate. i'm sorry we're having this hearing after the fact. but i'll live to rise again. and i'll find a way just like others did to undo that. i think it's wrong. unf unfortunately, the committee of jurisdiction and no members being appointed, conferrees, the controlling statue was amended in the re-authorization act which will soon become law. that is called midnight legislating. in the dark, no transparency and a add hearing to the voices of one tune. that limits the flexibility to deny or approve an application to opt out. places a time limitation of 120 day onz tsa to term whether to

approve an application and provides a waiver for the requirement that a private contractive screening company be owned and controlled by a united states citizen. now just a few years ago, everyone was up in arms about the potential of ports being owned by foreign interadvertise. we have resolved and/or studied that issue and i assume that is still being studied. but will is no doubt that aviation still remains one of the most attractive entities for individual franchise terrorists. even if a company is owned or the airport is owned by a foreign entity, how outrageous? i look forward to hearing from the administrator on his views of the changes to the spp statute and how he intends to vote tsa into the federal counter-terrorism network he envisions. he comes with years of experience with the fbi who i understand and he knows full

well are meticulous in their responsibilities. we can do no less whether it comes to this nation's skies and as well for those who travel internationally into our area. as we look forward to what i hope will be a productive year, let's not forget the lessons of the past. one of which is the system of privatised 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 privatised screeners. the wisdom of the united states congress and the immediacy of those tragic days was to come together and find a way to insure that tsa was a federal system of which we have the opportunity to provide intelligence, training, oversight, and, yes, security for the american people. i see nothing has changed today. i would hope we change nothing in spite of the faa legislation. i ask the administration to

reject the premise of that legislation even as it has been signed. i yield back. >> i thank the gentle lady. we've been advised we're going to be called for votes between 3:45 and 4:00. now i recognize the gentleman from mississippi, the ranking member of the full committee, mr. thompson, for any opening statement he might have. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'm pleased that administrator pistol could join us to day to discuss tsa's screening partnership program. i'd like to also extend a welcome to our second panel of witnesses. it is my hope that some of the myths and rhetoric surrounding this program can be put to bed today. by this hearing title, my colleagues 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 effect for that assertion. the number of screeners at an airport is determined by an analysis of the risk, threat,

and involve at that airport. these factors do not change. so the number of jobs cannot 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 job 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. 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 added cost of taxpayers fails to convince you that this program should not be expanded, consider that it takes us back to a model similar to the one in place during 9/11. administrator pistol performed a full review of tsa's policies and practices and determined that spp should not be expanded unless there was a clear and substantial advantage to doing so. krar to clai contrary to claims made at the time, the administrator did not shut down the program. rather, he set a reasonable standard for expansion. that standard was met last week by a 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 date, tsa denied the

applications of two airports because they failed to demonstrate an operational security 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 as subcommittee ranking member jackson lee, that aviation safety bill contained a security provision within this committee's sole jurisdiction authoring the law controlling the spp. in summarizing this provision, it amounts to a congressional attempt to micromanage the spp by stripping administrators of his discretion. without this committee having

one hearing, markup or debate on the changes proposed, homeland 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 mississippi. other members of the committee are reminded that the opening statements may be submitted for the record. we're police pleased to have two witnesses us to day. the first panel we would like to welcome the honorable john pistol. he has been the administrator of the tsa at the department of homeland security since 2010. as administrator he overseas the management of approximately 60,000 employees, the security operations of more than 450 federalized airports throughout the u.s. the federal air marshal service

and the security for highways, railroads, ports, mass transit systems and pipelines. welcome mr. pistol. the floor is yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman rogers and ranking members jackson-lee, thompson and members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the mission to protect the freedom of movement for people and commerce and appreciate the opportunity to update the committee on the progress we continue to make and our efforts to develop and deploy a range of risk based initiatives while facilitating the movement of poem and goods across the u.s. and internationally. our goal and number one priority is to provide the most infective security and the most efficient way. tsa accomplishes this vital national security mission through a saer riz of pun lick-private partnerships. for example, last year alone tsa invested $2.5 billion in the private sector in critical sfs, technologies and equipment

across all transportation modes. since 2002, we screened 5 exper workforce safely screened more than 5 million passengers through a multi-layered security system. through 2011, benefits of several risk-based security screening concepts including precheck, many of you know in some experience began last fall and is currently operating in the country's busiest airports. tsa precheck is open to u.s. citizens members of customs and border protection, trusted travelers program and certain airline frequent flyers. in the few months since we began this initiative over 310,000 passengers have gone through tsa precheck and feedback we've been receiving from participants has been consistently positive. as a result we will expand to other airports and airlines throughout 2012. there's more onto risk-based security than precheck. other efforts recently deployed,

screening of 300,000 airline pilots in 10 airports. changes in screening procedures for 60,000 or so 12 and under children traveling by air every day, and expanded behavior techniques in airports. additionally further develop layered approach to security through state-of-the-art technologies, additional canine teams, pang identification teams and other actions which strengthen our ability to keep terrorists off aircraft. to keep away from one size fits all, tsa moving towards a high-performance organization with a counter-terrorism focus. the goal behind all this is to look for ways to conduct the most effective security in the most efficient way. it allows us to focus our resources on the travelers we know the least about or on the terrorist watch list there by reducing the haystack in which a terrorist can provide.

classified and other intelligence we're in a better position to perform the security process. as mentioned, chronic created a means of effectiveness privatized screening through the program beginning in 2002 with five airports. currently there has been mentioned 16 airports in the sbp. as you may know and was noted i recently approved an application west yellowstone. if a contract for private screening is awarded the number will be 17. i've denied two applications that did not provide a clear and substantial advantage to the taxpayers and our ability to achieve our mission. given senate passage we will assess implications of the new law and direct appropriate resources to carry out an attempt for oversight and committees. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. >> i think the gentleman, and i'll recognize myself first for

questions and then we'll alternate side to side and members arrived. about four months ago i sent a letter to you. by the way, i'd like unanimous consent to offer that in the record. no objection, so ordered. i expressed my concern over the rule in the case of federal claims first line versus as and acal security, inc. i just submitted that. the curious thing about the the timing of it, came on your heels of your statement it doesn't fit into your vision of a federal workforce. my concern is whether the decision city case could have affected in some way tsa does not want spp to be successful and integral part of the operations. we have the director who will offer his perspective on the second panel. before we hear him, i would like

for you to address this concern, why did the kansas city contract go so wrong. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there are several issues we found in the court of federal claims decision where we could have done a better job. part of that was in our assessment of not only the best value but cost and security aspects inherent. of course this is an airport continuing, just a question of which private screener was the best value to the taxpayers and could provide the best security. the other finding that the court made was that we did not do as good a job as we could have and i agree with this in documenting our findings both between the board that reviewed this and selection of authority. i do know the court ruled in our favor on six of eight issues but the key takeaways where we could have done a better job in

analysis and documentation and then the question became how should we move forward. so clearly we're -- i am in support of kansas city, they have had a good provider there in terms of their private screening and the whole intent as evidence, which private company best suited to provide those services. former security director was working as an adviser at the time the company submitted this proposal and won the bid to take the screening services at the kansas city airport. were you aware of that? >> i was not. >> did anyone who was at tsa involved in making the award have direct contact from the time the rfp was issued under will time it was awarded? >> not to my knowledge. >> are you concerned at all about the influence a former tsa tsa employee could have on the contracting process given his

connections inside your agency? >> given i was not aware of that, obviously there is an appearance we need to be mindful of. i was assured in reviewing this and looking at the court's decision there was no improper influence, everything was done to the procurement of the acquisition process but with findings in our assessment and documentation of our findings, we could have and should have done a better job. soo as a result of that court decision i've changed the procedures to ensure that does happen and we don't repeat the mistakes we did in that instance. >> correct. >> in the same letter i referenced earlier i urged you to postpone action on the rfp until the committee could conduct oversight. despite my request i understand they plan to issue a full contract. why did you decide to go back to square one on that contract? >> i looked at the court

opinion. in that they noted the permanent injunction was in the public interest because, and i quote, full and open competition in the procurement process. that's page 73 of the decision. so given that and the belief that we -- by opening up again we would have the opportunity to look at another contractor that could come in and do at least as goo if not better job than the two that competed, that coupled with several changes in the statement of work from 2010 added to my belief we should open it back up. as i note from the court decision they concluded what course of action tsa chooses to pursue after the contract canceled in order to maintain security is not for this court to decide i took that discretionary function and exercised it. >> do you know how much it cost so far, the repeat and how much

it will cost. >> i don't know the details. i'll be glad to look into that and get back with you. >> my time expired. the chair recognize the chairman for questions. >> thank you very much. i'm going to speak quickly so i can get quick questions from you. thanks for your service. you staid state in your testimony it's a u.s. counter-terrorisming a sichlt what other domestic counter-terrorism agency outsource the work of their frontline employees at the expense of taxpayers. >> not that i'm aware of. >> as i addressed in my opening statement, fundamentally altering to approve or deny participation in the spp that will soon become law from the faa reauthorization act sin the committee never debated changes and shut out of the conference by republican leadership i would like to take the time to review

some key changes made and get your response i also want to join my colleague mr. thompson and indicate the lack of employment when obviously people who work in the federal government, you might just answer this, are they people who are not unemployed? if they are working for you, they are not unemployed. is that my understanding? if someone is working for the federal government they are not in the unemployment line. >> no, ma'am. >> so in essence we are creating necessary jobs. >> yes, ma'am. >> the language of this specific of this specific legislation requires you to approve airport legislation to the spp if the approval would not compromise security or detrimentally affect cost, efficiency or effectiveness of screening of passengers or property at the airport. what impact will thisgu