that have occurred in egypt or tunisia as anyone else. >> thank you. anything you would like to add to what -- that you would like to add from the questions that were raised? since there were also a few questions there. >> yes. i think i will start by the last part of the question. is the social justice part of the revolution is very important. when i said the revolution is that of dignity, you said it the other way around. that doesn't mean we do not recognize the importance of economics into this and that if we don't succeed in economics, that we'll have the next wave as a bread and food revolution. so we are very conscious about that. but it is important to remind people when they just tack this will from a bread and food point of view to tell them that the economic -- the democratic transition process and the political process is very

important. it's a project in society that's taking a lot of energy without losing focus out of this. let me summarize it another way for a person in my generation. i've lived under two rulers, and the way i see it is that under one we did many things right but we failed to do democracy. then we did democracy for tunisia, we would have been up in the arab world. with ben ali, some things went right, many things went wrong. i'm not here to state what went wrong. all of you know exactly what went wrong. but also we failed to do democracy. this time the society is paying the bill. there is insecurity. there is a social and economic bill that needs to be paid.

now, if we do the political reform process right, in three years when we look back, when the economy comes back to normal functioning, we would be proud to say the bill was paid but it was worth it. we have achieved what was lacking to our society, which is the establishment of freedom, human rights and democracy. but if we restore economic proser ti and fail to do that, it would not have been worth the hassle. we would have failed. that's when i started refocusing the point from that point of view. it's not to downsize the size of the challenges. in tunisia, you know, the labor unions are very strong, and they contributed a lot during the revolution. now the government is engaging in dialogue in order to establish a mode of development where we achieve prosperity but

not at the cost of original development or the cost of social justice. and that's why in the government program we have, i didn't go into detail, but we have at least 12 measures, social measures. we have increased, for example, the number of families that benefit from what we call the poverty benefit. we raised the amount from 72 dinars to 100 dinars. there are whole packages of social action that are very delicate and good segments of the society. because we feel we need to the do things urgently and do it now in the wake of the suffering of these people.

the other question is regarding -- the freel trade agreeme agreement, economics there is a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of respect for the tunisia revolution. we in the tunisian government have dignitaries and prime ministers and presidents of states and ministers of foreign affairs visiting tunisia on a daily basis. almost 30% of the prime minister time is receiving these people, and these people come to tunisia in order to congratulate the tunisian people for what they did and also offer help. probably in the past ten months, tunisia has received more visitor visito visitors and more dignitaries in its history of the last 50 years. we have a lot of people from

europe, the united states, stood up with tunisia, president obama and the administration, since the first days, and with the tunisian people. we are also receiving a lot of senators, people from the house, the administration also are visiting and a lot of encouragement. and of course there is a lot big focus today in the world in making tunisia as a model of a successful democracy which is modern and prosperous in the arab and muslim world. this is very important. this is important to us in the beginning because we are concerned, and this is important for the world. and i think the united states does it because it's in the interest of the united states to see a country like tunisia or egypt become a model. it's such an important thing. it's the key to many of world's problems, towards stability, towards peace. and that's why today, when we

talk with these countries, we don't feel really any pressure, honestly speaking, and candidly as you said, that the only message we get, what can we do for you so that you succeed, and the only focus is not only, you know, regional issues and other issues, is on domestic issues and how to make this will model work and succeed. so there are common goals. we want them all to succeed. the u.s., europe, and other partners twant mod toll succeed. and we're welcoming these countries to help us succeed together in building these democracies. and i think that's the best way forward for us all, not just for our countriecountries. the other alternative, god forgid, if these models fail, is is a complete disaster.

there was no seminar that said what happened if all these revolutions failed? it's a nightmare for the countries and for the world. so really there is a concerted effort from the international community, and we feel it so that we succeed. so there is no lever to economics or, you know, things that come with conditions. and anyways, things have changed. you don't have dictators anymore. you don't have regimes that are complacent. now you have to deal with the democracy. you have to convince the people. even the governments are not tree to take any possession or do whatever they want to do. it's not like in the past. if there are things that are offered that are not in the national interests of these countries, these countries would refuse and will not be able to do. and if the governments accept something against the people's interests, they will lose the next election, because the people are watching.

it's not as easy as it used to be. it's a new equation that, you know, we have to deal with, that you have to deal with. >> thank you. >> now, as far as the free-trade agreement is concerned, that's a good sign. i am very cautious about the process it goes through in the united states and needs to go through congress, but it needs to go through tunisia as well and has to be approved by the two parties and -- [ applause ] and we're very confident that we will succeed in meeting the requirements because we have a free-trade agreement with europe. and with europe we're moving into a pretty muched status. so we know how to operate in an international context. as far as the iseli/palestinian conflict is concerned, i would rather have the minister of foreign affairs of tunisia answer your questions. this is a session about economics. but tunisia operates within the

framework of the arab league and did not take any initiative outside of the arab league. demand that regard, it's not any different from any arab country. and there are arab countries that are members of the arab leagues that have free trade agreements with the u.s., bike bahra bahrain, like morocco, like jordan. so i don't think that's a problem. and there are no particular policies or options or -- that are being taken that i know. >> thank you very much. i want to try and bring this to a close now, and what i'd like to do is maybe just say from my perspective i want to end on making two fairly obvious observations. the first one is that i think in the next 12, 18 months, the big challenge is really the one that you have raised, which is how to manage the gap between

expectations and delivery, because there is almost no model of delivery, whether it's on the politics, whether it's on the jobs front, whether it's on making societies more open, that one can imagine will be fast enough to respond to the expectations, which are sometimes unrealistic. so, managing that gap is going to be the big short-term problem, because a failure to manage that gap can derail the process. and the second observation i have is we are very focussed in the short term. we started talking about the challenge in the medium term. is the rest of the world as conscious that what we are talking about is an engagement that is a long-term partnership engagement? that what we're not talking about is a bitter financial support in year one-a free-trade

agreement, and then, you know, we move on to the next issue. this is going to be -- to make it work, to help support the transformation of societies, this is a five-, ten-, 15-year project. and in that, the rest of the world will need to think not just of the ambition of the engagement but also of whether we are ready, and i speak "we" in this case also of places like the imf. with reready to rethink the way we operate in ways that will actually respond to the needs of very different kinds of societies as they emerge on 15 years? so, i think this is a bigger, more ambitious challenge than a sort of quick response challenge, although there is the need to manage the short term as well. so i do think that this is something we should also -- certainly i don't speak for the imf -- but take away in terms of -- we need to do our business differently to be responsive to the needs that will emerge from

the transition countries. but before ending, i would like all of you to please join me in thanking our panelists for their terrific insight. today on c-span3, a look at aviation safety. up first, a house oversight meeting on the transportation security administration. then the congressman from minnesota on providing guns and security training to airline pilots. and later, former president bill clinton speaks to a conference of college students about public service. this is c-span3 with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week and every weekend 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on american history tv. get our schedules and see past programs at our websites. and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. tonight on c-span3, american

history tv and a look at life for african-americans during the 18th and 19th centuries. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, lonnie bunch, director of the smithsoni smithsonian's national museum of african-american history and culture. the house oversight committee recently held a hearing with several officials from the transportation security administration. committee chair darrell issa read complaints from traveler who is said they'd been mistreated by tsa officers. and congressman jerry connolly of virginia told the tsa officials, quote, we're not cattle. this hearing is about two hours. the committee will come to order. the oversight committee exists to secure two fundamental principles, first, americans have a right to know that money washington takes from them is

well spent. and second, americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight and government reform committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. we will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the american people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. this is our mission statement. today we are calling the third hearing conducted by the oversight committee, today a joint hearing, where we plan to hold at least two additional tsa oversight hearings in april and may. there is no question that the tsa serves a vital role. the question is in a post-9/11 period, are we getting value for our money? do we in fact have a system

which is thorough and complete that in fact takes care of all of us? or do we have a fairly expensive, labor-intensive system that in fact is not making us appreciably safer? in a time of budget limitations, tsa, although essential, must in fact deliver value to the american people. with more than 65,000 men and women working for tsa, it is not a small agency. this is more men and women working for an aviation-based safetyrganization than build all the ford automobiles in america combined. only one quarter of the funds used by tsa come from aviation fees. three-quarters come directly from the american people, meaning those of us who do not fly are paying a heavy price for those who do.

but even the billion and a half plus dollars paid for out of landing fees and other collections, ticket fees, to run our airports in fact is a high price to pay, a burden, if you will, on our efficiency. so whether the dollars come from ticket fees or come from the taxpayer directly, it is essential that we review tsa's effectiveness. by 2013, tsa will arguably by its own accounting have wasted more than $500 million of taxpayer money developing advanced imaging technology, or ait machines. in addition to public outrage over privacy violations, classified gao reports paint a dire picture of ineffectiveness. gao believes screening of passengers by observation techniques or spot program, which has already cost taxpayers

$800 million is ineffective and that congress should consider limiting funds for this program. gao as a nonpartisan organization claims that tsa deployed s.p.o.t. before having solid scientific bases for its effectiveness and that when it worked, it was only an accident. despite a potential $3.2 billion cost to the federal government and industry, gao continues to find the tsa is failing to properly administer twic, the transportation worker identification credential. i have seen this failure myself. i have seen a mandated bio id simply waived. showing a picture i.d. is not in fact what congressman dated. deploying these and deploying them in a way which is quick and effective is essential. let's remember, they cost a lot of money to produce the card. simply using it as a high-priced

i.d. card is not acceptable. without creating a plan to upgrade its explosive detection system, or eds, which will cost $964 million or more to the taxpayer, tsa cannot ensure updating eds will be feasible or cost-effective. let me just reiterate. eds is an important system. whether it's the inadvertent touching of fertilizer or the real operational use of explosive, we need to know. we need to screen. it is an effective tool if it works. if it doesn't work and work 100% of the time, we have the biggest problem we could possibly have. lastly, the vipir program, visual intermodal prevention and response, faces serious questions from security expert

and legal scholars about the effectiveness and constitutionality of the initiative. tsa is not performing or taking into serious consideration the cost benefits, and that is a big part of what this committee is here to ask questions on today. not is it nice to have. not might it work. not we must do something. but in fact have we done a cost/benefit analysis? we have screened through many resources, developed, researched, but only deploy those which work. in fact, what we do know here at this committee and at the transportation committee is that we have fielded products that don't work in the past. and when it becomes known by the public that a product has a gaping flaw, that product becomes essentially useless. sadly, what we discover is even when it becomes public, there is no other tool. so in fact we continue screening people, knowing that screening alone is not enough and that the

public knows that. with that, i now recognize the chairman of the subcommittee on aviation infrastructure, mr. petri, for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for organizing this important hearing and doing so with the transportation committee. after 9/11, the transportation committee held a number of hearings to attempt to determine what happened and what needed to be done. and it became very clear at those hearings that the then existing federal policy of requiring easy access to the cockpit in case there was a medical emergency or something of that sort was not the most secure way to go. that policy was changed, and now our cockpits are hardened. that is to say it's very difficult for a passenger to

take over an airplane and turn it into a weapon, as happened at 9/11. that in my opinion is the most significant security change since that time. beyond that, of course, people can go on airplanes and possibly take a plane down, can create whis chief, become a hara-kiri person, as they could if they were to go to a football stadium or on a cruise liner or any other sort of train, other modes of transportation. we do have a security problem, but it's not restricted to airlines. and the major part of the danger of airlines i think was dealt with when it became impossible for people to take over the airplane and turn it into a weapon as happened at 9/11. that said, of course, we have this regime that all of us experience who serve in congress if we live any distance at all

on a weekly basis, practically, if not more often. we're inspecting millions of travelers, hundreds of thousands every month, the same people over and over and over again. and that has to be wasteful and intrusive. and this has been going on now for ten years. if it's going to go on for another ten years, it behooves us to come up with a more efficient, less intrusive, more sensible program so that we concentrate on where there might be a risk rather than inspecting the same people over and over and over again. when we had hearings back at the time of 9/11, experts came and testified before the transportation committee from israel, a number of other countries that certainly have for many years faced very, very heightened security threats.

a hardening of the cockpit was one of the things they advised and which we did. other things that they advised we have not done. trying to track people when they buy tickets and working on the intelligence side of things to see if there is some sort of likelihood that that person might be a risk, appropriate ways of inspecting people and how they behave, not just at the airport looking through their drawers and socks and sniffing at their shoes, but looking at how they interact with ticket agents, how they generally behave not just at the airport but as they go about their business preparing possibly to do things of risk. it seems to me that there are a lot more strategic and intelligent ways to go about it

than spending hundreds of millions of dollars, impeding the growth of the transportation -- transportation sector, the aviation sector, and basically changing the psychology of americans to have them starting to feel that they have somehow done something wrong and they're being suggest to patdown and shakedown, as we do when we're worrying about someone who has committed a crime or we're assuming everyone is guilty and treating them practically like prisoners when they're american tax-paying citizens. so, i feel that we've got a lot to do to straighten this whole mess out. it's not a cost-effective or very disciplined approach. and after ten years, we'd owe more to the american people. mr. chairman, thank you for having this hearing. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman yields back. i now ask unanimous consent that our colleague from tennessee, mrs. blackburn be allowed to participate in today's hearing. without objection, so ordered. i will now note that the ranking members of each of the committees are driving in have

been delayed. so, it is not a flight as far as i know. so they will make their opening statements after our witnesses make theirs. i'm sure they'll be here by then. with that i would like to now introduce our first panel. mr. christopher l. mclaughlin is the assistant administrative security operations at the transportation security administration. mr. steven sadler is the assistant administrator for intelligence analysis at the transportation security administration. mr. stephen lord is director for homeland security at the u.s. government accountability office, our wing, if you will. and rear admiral zukunft. an assistant commandant for

marine safety and stewardship and i might mention without a doubt the best jewel ever give on the homeland security in my opinion and in the ranking member's opinion. pursuant to the rules of this committee, would you all please rise to take the oath? raise your right hands. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? let the record indicate -- please have a seat -- all witnesses answered in the affirmative. now, my predecessor, whose face and portrait is up there, mr. towns, began a tradition of explaining the obvious. but he did it every time, and i appreciated it. your entire opening statements will be placed in the record. in front of you, you have a countdown clock. and like so many things that you look at, you say, does it really matter? the answer is please summarize if you run out of time.

we'd like to get through all of you and get you out of here with full questions and answers in a timely fashion. remember, your opening statements will be available in their alternity -- in their entirety. i'm sorry. mr. mclaughlin, you're first. you have five minutes. >> good afternoon, chairman, chairman issa and ranking and distinguished members of the committees. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. tsa has made significant strides in our deployment and utilization of ait over the past year. automatic target recognition software recently installed in the majority of our machines, enhanced passenger privacy by eliminating passenger specific images while improving through-put capabilities and streamlining the checkpoint process. in the fall of 2011, my office began to further develop operational performance targets operational performance targets including new ait utilization goal that is consistent with the gao recommendations. tied to this, we implemented an action plan to increase

utilization across the nation. as a result of these efforts, our utilization performance between february 2011 and february 2012 improved by 200%. in addition to ait, we're employing cat bps technology. this will automatically verify passenger documents. it will eventually replace the current procedures used to detect fraudulent or altered documents. we will deploy this technology for operational testing at a few airports beginning next month. technology is only one mechanism to identify potential threats. the s.p.o.t. program uses behavior observation and analysis to identify potentially high-risk individuals who may pose a threat to transportation security. s.p.o.t. was is specifically validated in 2011 by the dhs science and technology division representing the most thorough analysis of any behavioral screening program to date. no other counterterrorism or similar security program is known to have been subjected to such a rigorous systematic evaluation.

this study revealed that s.p.o.t. was significantly more effective at identifying high-risk passengers than random screening protocols. that said, tsa continues working with dhs, snt, and the broader research community to increase the effectiveness and the efficiency of this behavior-based screening process. subsequent to the validation study, tsa took steps last fall to enhance the program. under a new pilot, behavior detection officers employ a specialized technique to determine whether a traveler should be deterred for further screening at the checkpoint. this additional interaction used by security agencies worldwide enables officers to better verify for dispel concerns about suspicious behavior and anomalies. preliminary analysis shows an increase in the rate of detection of high-risk passengers, and tsa is currently conducting an analysis with the dhs science and technology directorate to inform a validation process for future roll-out. completing these program deployments, tsa has begun teaching a tactical -- i'm sorry. le