broadband as a universal service everywhere in the country to all people when it can mean different things over time. what we've done at the fcc is we've done two different things. we've set goals for where the country should try to strive to on broadband. for example, we set a goal of 100 megabits, affordable to 100 million people by 2020. one gig gag bit access in every community in the country. at the same time, for universal service fund where we have to decide, okay what are we going to actually pay for, it doesn't make sense to say we're going to pay for 100 megabits to everyone in the country based on current usages. in the universal service fund order from a few months ago, we defined that level as four megabits basically with an ongoing obligation of the fcc to look at the uses that are essential force participation in our economy, for small businesses, for looking for a

job, for education. and making adjustments to that over time as is appropriate. >> you know, let me close by saying that something that you both know already. but i think it merits repeating in public. you have one of the most important responsibilities in our society, in our government. and i mean that. because a lot of people who work in government hoon head agencies, who sit on boards, they affect certain portions of the population and they don't affect others. but the most important person in corporate america is touched by your decisions and the poorest child in a classroom in a rural area in the inner city is touched by your decisions, too. and i think your challenge and certainly what i think should be your mission is to make sure that while we don't interfere with those up here's ability to use the internet, to use technology to, move ahead, that we leave no one behind. and we're running the risk already of leaving a lot of

people behind. and you should always keep that in mind. also, something you're not allowed to comment on i know, but you have one of the greatest jobs around because you know before we know what's being tested out there and we all would love to know what's next. but i know you can't tell us. there will be a rush on the market tomorrow. but for my part, i want to thank you for your testimony. thank you for your work. we disagree at times on some issues but in general, we approve of the work you're doing and just keep doing it, and remember that it's broadband for all folks. it's broad. not just for some. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. serrano. by the way, because mr. serrano is probably one of the most tech savvy members of congress and i don't know, you might be responsible on your ipad just by -- you're probably consuming is half the bandwidth in the entire congress just on your

ipad. >> just when i'm watching baseball. >> i didn't realize the yankees were on more than one channel. i thought what's what you watched. >> the yankees are throughout the world. there's baseball and then there's the yankees. >> well, let me thank both of you for -- on that note, let me thank both of you for your service. i echo the words of our colleagues. and i also want to finish as i started. i want to thank you particularly for being exceedingly accessible to me and my staff. you always have been and i know we'll get the answers to some of these questions we've had. i think with that, this meeting is adjourned. thank you. >> thank you very much.

>> and it is monday, march 26th it, 2012. and today, the supreme court hears the first of three days of oral argument challenging the health care law signed by president obama two years ago last week.

the court will consider the constitutionality of requiring people to purchase coverage by 2014 or face a penalty. justices will also rules on the question of whether the law violates state's sovereignty. 26 states rlts behind the case. while the supreme court has declined requests for live televised coverage, they will release same day audio. we plan to have that for you at about 1:00 p.m. eastern. c-span commissioned a poll looking at reaction to the court case. among the findings, 95% expressed interest in the case while 54% indicated they'll listen to the argument, 86% think this week's case should be televised and 74% think all supreme court arguments should be televised. we've got a facebook poll up too today. we're asking what your level of interest is in the case. go to facebook.com/c-span, that's c-span with no dash to register your feelings. and don't forget we've been following the health care debate

from the beginning at c-span.org, you'll find archival video of hearings, speeches and rallies, related documents and links to other pages. that's again at c-span.org. >> minnesota representative chip have a vac, a retired airline pilot recently appealed for preserving a federal program that will trains and arms airline flight crews. the program will be cut in half under president obama's 2013 homeland security budget request. transportation security administrator john pistol has said the pone for the program would be redirected to other security efforts. congressman cravaack spoke at the heritage foundation innings washington and he's followed by a panel that also opposes the cuts. this is about as hour and 25 minutes. >> so let me run over the logistics real quick before we get started so the congressman is going to makera, and graciously agreed to take some q

and a. he's going to talk and then he ironically has to run and catch a flight. then we're going to do a very quick chinese fire drill and bring up the following panel to discuss for the remainder of the time. so i am very excited, recent first of all, we're very excited to host this event. it's over a decade now since september 11th and the attacks on new york and washington. and we have learned so much on how to make this nation safe. and preserve our liberties and keep our economy moving. you know, we've thwarted at least by our count 459 terrorist attacks since 9/11. all but three of those where is stopped by people doing the right thing, doing their jobs. we know what works and what doesn't. and when you see your government start to do things that don't make common sense, that are actually walking away from the

kinds of things that are proven and effective, it's vet very frustrating. and so to take time out and talk about one of those today i think is really, really worthwhile. so thank the congressman, thank our panel for doing this. it's my honor to introduce representative chip cravaack, a 24-year navy veteran and third generation of his family to be in the u.s. military. he has experience as a navy pilot and i think important for our event today, also a northwest airlines pilot. that dave him the opportunity to see and experience and live in many parts of the united states and travel around the world. and then wisely, if any of you have been there, decide to make northeast minnesota his home and represent the eighth district from that state and his navy career, he was honored was honored with several awards including the joint service commendation medal. he has a bachelor of science

degree from the united states naval academy. that's okay. i went to west point. my nephew and his wife went to the naval academy so i'm over that. i'm honored and pleased. he has a masters degree in education from the university of west florida and he has also attended the naval war college and the national defense university. so we couldn't ask for anybody with a better resume to talk about the issue today. so please join with me in welcoming the congressman. >> and and that's okay, bob, not everybody can make it into the naval academy. >> i understand. i'd like to thank everybody for coming here today and i'd especially like to thank ed fuller for all the great work he does here at the heritage foundation and brian darling and, of course, james carafano for all the work they are doing, as well. i'd like to take the time just to thank for the conversation this month of lieutenant colonel

aiken and mike carne and captain tracy price who was able to get my great insight how this program actually got started. of course, the advocates that are currently working with ffdos, captain mike coffman and special thanks to captain fred eisler for all the work you've been doing, as well. how this all started. i had my 8-month-old in my arms. the baby-sitter came in and said, there's an airplane that hit one of the twin towers. and i said, oh, cessna 172 must have gotten a little too close for a little sight seeing trip and hit the -- one of the towers. she said no, it was a big airplane. and i'm thinking in my mind, i'm thinking of all the approaches into -- i said wow, how could that have happened. low visibility? i'm racing through all the scenarios in my mind how that

could possibly occur. and then i turned on the television and then i saw the second jet hit. got my son in my arms. turned to my wife. and i said, our nation is under attack. that's how it started. of course, i was glued to the television. little did i know that i lost two friends that day. one a company mate and a classmate of mine. so this is personal for me. my country was under attack. and i lost some friends. when i heard secretary napolitano in a most recent homeland security brief marginalize the dedication, the efforts, and quite frankly, the necessity of the federal flight deck program, i took that

personal, as well. one of the three things i'd like to touch upon today is what an ffdo means to our national security, the benefits of the ffdo program, and the challenges that i see on the horizon for ffdo. 9/11 woke us up. i as a pilot that flew countless hours in the commercial airline system going through countless amounts of security, we knew, quite frankly and to be honest, that our security was kind of lax. but it was a reality check. nowhere in any scenarios that we had ever thought about would we have thought that an aircraft would have been taken over by terrorists and used as a weapon of mass destruction. the reality now as it was then is that we live in a very dangerous world. with varied and morphing threats. while screening at the airport

can reduce some threats, the enemy is constantly probing our weaknesses. i think we're doing a pretty good job for passengers coming through the airport. but you have to remember the threat just does not stop there. the threat is for anyone hon is in the shadow of that aircraft that can possibly touch that aircraft. so there are many and varied threats that are associated when a passenger gets on that aircraft and a pilot fires up those engines. we need the assets, now, we understand that we are going to a risk-based intelligence based screening. i highly support that. so that we focus our limited resources on known or unknown threats. but we must also, it is imperative, that we also have that safety net that is necessary in case of a failure

of that will system. in conversations this morning, we've already seen failures within that system for those that touch the airplane. we can't seem to pick up a paper without seeing how drugs are being placed on our aircraft or how packages are being stolen. so there is somewhat of a weakness that we must address and we must be able to counter if the situation does occur. ffdos along with their federal fams, federal air marshals, are the last line of defense and the chief deterrent, butultimately, ultimately, they are the ones that are going to stop the terrorists from entering the cockpit and allowing that aircraft to be used as a weapon of mass destruction. terrorists have to consider a couple things nowadays. before they walk on that

aircraft, and they sit in that cabin, they're not quite sure if they're surrounded by multiple officers that are willing to take charge if need be. and if a fam is not present, even more so, behind that cockpit door, there may be a federal flight deck officer ready to greet them with an 18-k 40 caliber. aviation security is a multilayer approach. on the ground, and in the air. now, as soon as you -- as soon as you buy your ticket, the security starts. you go through automatically you start going through a security measures. but as much as the passengers we must take a look at them, i must reemphasize those that get into the shadow of the aircraft as well is equally important in taking a look at. because we may have a passenger come through our screening process without a problem.

but if there's something on that aircraft that they can attach themselves to, that is where the threat occurs and that's where the fams and the federal flight deck officers come into play. in the air, there's multiple actual several sources able to stop a terrorist attempt. passengers actually are the heroes. we saw that happen on flight 93. another naval academy graduate at the helm of that aircraft. federal air marshals, that's the next to protect the cockpit from anyone entering the cockpit. the reinforced cockpit door is a deterrent, but it's the federal flight deck officer behind that door that is going to stop the threat. reinforced doors are important. and they will slow the progress of any attacker that wishes to commandeer the aircraft. but again, it will be the federal flight deck officer that stops the threat. federal air marshals and federal flight deck officers are a team.

they work very well together. air marshals are a vital part of that. matter of fact, the federal air marshal program just to get in that program, you have to be the best shot of any federal law enforcement. but there's -- they're only present on a limited number of flights. the ffdos expand that deterrence even more and the ability to respond to the unexpected threat which may be the achilles heel of a risk based, intelligence based type of program. according to the estimates by the air line pilots association, ffdos only cost $15 per flight segment. let me say that again. to protect an aircraft, to protect possibly the potential of thousands of people, the federal flight deck officer costs $15 per flight segment. though the actual numbers are

classified, currently ffdos defend over 100,000 flight segments per month. and 1.58 million flight segments per year. thousands of fdos have been certified through the program despite the budget hasn't grown since its initial inception. currently, ffdos are not allowed from receiving reimbursement for many of the expenses related to their own training. for example, i am a former federal flight deck officer. i went down to ar ticha, new mexico for training down there. i did it on my days off and it was my own cost to go down there to do that. to requalify each -- twice a year, i obviously, i want to remain proficient in my accuracy. so i spend money on my own ammunition to make sure that when i am qualified once again in six months, that i do well

because i take that as a personal goal to ensure that i am the best federal flight deck officer that possibly be. and remember, the federal flight deck officer does it on their own time and are not compensate ford what they do. they do it because they're americans. they do it because they believe in this country and they do it because of the honor that they feel they must protect their passengers and their fellow americans. like i said, many undergo many personal expenses. and for pilots if you're not flying, you've already gone away from your home, 15, 16 days a month. in addition to that, going away to spend their own time once again so they actually pay for the privilege of defending this great country of ours. despite all this, even with the challenges that the federal flight deck officers have placed before them, the cadre has been growing of dedicated volunteers that have these sacrifices to protect americans and the flying

public. and they consider it an honor to do so. the first 44 federal flight deck officers that graduated in 2003 had a budget of $10 million. that grew to $25 million in 2004 and has kept that level since 2004. but this funding is now being eroded by a carveout for crew defense. it's about $1.4 million out of that program. last year, due to the funding levels, not one federal flight deck officer could have a background check. this is a challenge for us. the federal flight deck officer program is not expanding. matter of fact, it's contracting. under the current obama administration has further proposed to cut the program in half. sending it to an eventual course in my opinion of elimination. secretary napolitano has made this quite clear to me that they wish to erode the program down and it's cutting back and it

doesn't fit and now the risk-based intelligence-based security ta they are looking at. while i applaud the secretary again on using intelligence and risk based analysis, there always must be a safety net. to capture those that might slip through that security-based screening. but even as we focus on threats of higher unknown risks, we must always remember that we cannot allow the anything to slip through the cracks. ffdos are there. they're one of the most cost effective ways to both reduce risk, increase deterrence, and also respond to the safety of passengers and the flying public. the secretary also fails to understand the threat. the threat doesn't necessarily come through the terminals of an airport. the threat is in the shadow of the airplane, as well.

it's a double threat, and all threats must be analyzed. that's why the safety net must always be there. in a testimony before the committee, homeland security, she said the armed cockpit door was the last line of defense. but as i already said it is the armed pilot that will most definitely be the last line of defense of preventing a commercial aircraft being used as a weapon of mass destruction. that is why i'm very proud that our staff will be introducing very soon a fully offseted bill doubling the ffdo program from $25.5 million to $50.5 million for fiscal year 2013. our goal is to enable the program to cover all qualified volunteers and increase the security level for the national public. i don't want anyone to be holding their kid and seeing

another airliner going to a building. i don't want another passenger from minnesota say, let's roll. and overtake an airplane knowing they're going to plunge to their own deaths to protect the united states. that should never occur. and at $15 a flight segment, i think we can pay for it. thank you. >> so we have time for some questions. i'd ask if you have a question just raise your hand and get acknowledged. if you would wait for the microphone so the folks listening online can hear your question and also if you would state your fame and affiliation, that would be great. brian, maybe could i ask you to kick it off. >> sure. i'm brian darling of the heritage foundation. >> thank you, brian. >> thank you so much for coming and giving this presentation. and i think my question is,

you've touched on this a little bit, but what can congress do to fight back? because clearly, the obama administration wants to end the pilots program. the evidence is on the record that they want to cut the program in half as part of their budget. secretary napolitano has publicly stated her intent to not include it in her version of a risk-based system. >> right. >> so how can congress fight back against this effort on the part of the obama administration to kill the arm the pilots. >> the program has remained stagnant with the last year. we've had no new federal flight deck officers come on board. the program not only being a stop the threat program, it is also a chief deterrent. the terrorists are going to think twice before they realize when they open that cockpit door, they're going to having an armed very highly trained armed pilot behind there. so what we need to do on the level of congress, we're

introducing this bill. we will lobby hard on the hill for this program because it, quite frankly, when i've come to congress and i understand we're in a budget crunch, that's why this bill is fully offseted for overauj of personnel, but this program is essential part of the safety net program. we can lobby this on the hill and i think i can get a lot of colleagues to sign on board and push this bill through. >> congressman, gun owners of america. thanks for being here. you mentioned that background comeks were no longer being performed on pilots trying to get into the program. a question, how long has that been going on and was that a function of defunding that aspect of the program or was it just an administration. >> as i understand, the next panel will probably be better to ask. as i understand it right now, there's been a backlog because of the amount of funds that are available but been a backlog of getting new pilots into the

program because of the background checks and background checks are expensive. we want to make sure that those that are flying the aircraft should be or with a weapon should be doing just that. so i strongly support having a full background check, but give us the funds to do it to make sure that we can get maintain the program and increase it because again, it is the least expensive program i think that's on the hill. i can't see any other program for $15 a flight segment to protect -- to protect an aircraft from being used as a weapon of mass destruction. again, i can't -- i don't want you to underestimate the deterrence that a federal flight deck officer has. just the shear program itself knowing that there may be an armed highly trained armed pilot on that flight deck, what a chief deterrent that is from a terrorist thinking twice about using a commercial airliner as a

missile. so you know, don't underestimate that because if they see that the program is going to be cut in half, well, to them, that's a window of opportunity. >> congressman, as long as we have you here, i'd like to ask you a broader question about tsa. this is a bureaucracy that has a bigger budget than the fbi. it's now become one of the largest federal workforces. not just looking at federal flight deck officer program but across tsa because you had to look for offsets, could you give a broader assessment of tsa, where you see it going in the future, things it should be doing, baby things it shouldn't be doing, what the strengths or weaknesses are? >> are any program, there's strengths or weaknesses. the tsa, what the tsa does is a

highly valuable function. they do it well. but we have to be smarter. we have to use a risk based intelligence based and i agree with that 100%. one of the bills we were just able to pass was for example, military people coming home on orders in uniform with their i.d. card are going to be treated like the heroes that they are and be able to go through an expedited screening process. the same type of expedited screening process those with other frequent flyer of traing programs. instead of having our troops coming home from afghanistan just trying to get home to their families, you see them in their stocking feet and t-shirts going through tsa. that's not how to treat our returning warriors but using is risk based analysis so that we can focus on the unknown or the known risks and then allow those that are considered low risk to go through an expedited screening process. using that type of security basis, that is why it is

absolutely imperative that we strengthen the safety net associated with it. that's why the ffdo program dollar for dollar is probably the most effective way of doing this as a deterrent and also to stop the threat. >> thank you very much for your time, sir. >> thank you, sir. >> pardon me. my name is washing weiss currently with the spectrum group in washington. i used to be the deputy chairman of security for the pilots at american airlines. and having worked with these gentlemen before. in the past, the ffdo program had always been treated as a really unwanted step child. >> uh-huh. >> it never really had the support from the tsa no matter who the administrator seemed to be. at this point in