explosive devices, the unanimous answer was no. the tsa released a notice to airlines warning them of the increased threat caused by explosive implant methods. earlier this month someone posted a video on the internet demonstrating how to defeat these-. why are we continue to spend millions on technology with some obvious vulnerabilities and what have you done with respect to the hearing last month and the revelation that they can't detect some of these things? i would point out that recently our administrative testified to effectiveness and a follow up hearing in the month of april in a classified setting he'll be able to get into more details. i will tell you that we obviously on a daily basis review vulnerabilities in our system and ensure we have litigation in place including ait which is our best deterrent or best detection against

metallic and nonmetallic threats. >> is it your plan to replace all the magnetometers with aits? >> that's not our current plan. based on sort of our evolution with the risk-based security we're look at the best way to deploy the best assets we have and con fission figurations that make sense across the system. >> as they're purchased, are they getting deployed in a timely manner. i know there's some warehouses that a lot of this equipment sits in as it gets deployed and we're -- the last i heard we weren't using modern deployment techniques like drop shipping them to the airports. >> to my knowledge there are no aits in the warehouse that you referred to. the aits are being deployed readily and our utilization numbers are improving dramatically on a u baily basis. >> where are you with getting evaluation of these machines for

tsa agents that are nearby and operating them and frequent screenees be they frequent fliers i realize the airline staff are typically diverted. i saw a pregnant female tsa officer right by one of those-and was concerned. i understand there's no peer reviewed safety checks there. >> with regard to the back scatter technology, which is the one that uses radiation, there have been three as i understand it independent studies including one from the food and drug administration and one from the u.s. army in addition to that the machines are subjected to regular testing to ensure that they fall within safe limits. and with every test that's been conducted the units will well below established limits. all of the tests that i referred to are available on tsa's public

website at tsa.gov. >> are you comfortable with those? >> the recent report on this repeated much of the same information mr. mclaughlin just provided. i'm comfortable with what i heard. if you're interested in follow up, i can certainly talk to your staff. >> thank you very much. we'll be in touch. we now recognize the ranking member for five minutes. >> assistant secretary sadler, the go reported that its audit found that tsa had inadequate screenings in place to identify applicants ineligible and to deny the issuance to them. what steps taken as tsa taken to address these findings? >> well, the first thing that we did was we created an executive level oversight board

coordination with dhs to map out our short-term, medium term around long-term strategy to address these recommendations. immediately after receiving the report in the recommendations we retrained the individuals who collect the information at the enrollment sites on their ability to identify fraudulent documentation. we also made system documentation that allows us to collect more information on the documents that are collected. pass that to our adjudicators so they can be reviewed more thoroughly. the midterm and longer term plan we're making arrangements from the u.s. system so we can send our fingerprints toe that repository and check our prints that we have against those in that repository to see if anybody's applying under multiple names or identities. the other long-term project is a capability with the fbi.

what that means is currently we're required to submit a new set of fingerprints each time we want a criminal history records check. what we're working tards is seeing if we can submit the fingerprints we have on file to the fbi to get a criminal history records check without hauling somebody in to submit a new set of prints and also that capability will tell us if the individual's committed some type of criminal offense in between the applications that they make every five years. so there's a number of things we're doing. we took the recommendations very seriously. we're doing the best we can with the program. we want to make it the best that we can be. >> during a hearing held by the senate commerce committee in may of 2011, mr. lloyd indicated in a response to a question from senator bozeman, that a normal driver's license is at least as secure probably in many cases

more secure than a twik. is it more or less secure than a normal driver's license? >> i have to defer to mr. lord on how he came to that conclusion. we think it's a secure credential. you have to remember prior to twik, you could go on to a port and gain act stoesz a port with multiple credentials, possibly a credit card, a union card, any number of credentials. so the first thing about twik, it's the first time a common credential has been issued in a maritime environment. which means we can train to that credential. we developed many security features to put on that card. we did that in coordination with other agencies including the forensics document lab at ice so we did the best we could to make that card secure. it has a biometric on it. although the readers aren't in place yet, the coast guard does have portable readers they can use to dorandom checks as well

as do the checks as far as the port security inspections and vessels security inspections each year. >> a section exempts mariners who do not need access to a security area obtain a twik. coast guard policy letter 1115, implements section 809 but still requires those seeking their first mariner credential to visit a twik enrollment center. essentially complete the twik enrollment process and pay the enrollment fee. i understand the exemption is estimated to apply to potentially 60,000 of 210,000 licensed mariners in the united

states, is that correct? >> that is correct. today we have only had about 68 take advantage of that provision. >> why do you think that is? >> for some they see that twik as an employment possibility. if an employer were to ask why they don't have one, they see that advantage to us to have that credential. >> i see my time is expired. i yield back. >> thank you very much. there are quite a few other questions. some of the other members that had to leave did want to ask some additional questions. with that in mind, we will be submitting additional questions in writing to complete the record as we finish this up. also without objection i'd like to leave seven-days open for members to submit both those questions and opening statements. i'd like to thank each and every member of the panel for being

with us. i kmebd you for your service to this country and urge you to continue to look for ways to improve what you and your agencies are able to do to better serve and better spend more efficiently spend and use the taxpayers' money to provide a safe transportation environment for all of us. again, thank you for being here. we're done. c-span's congressional directory has a complete guide to the member of the congress. inside you'll find each member of the house and senate, including district information and maps. also information on cabinet

members, supreme court justices and the nation's governors. you can pick up a copy for $12.95 plus shipping and handling at krrs dx span.org. more about aviation security with congressman kra vac from minnesota. then former president bill clinton speaking to a conference of college students about public service. after that a look at trade in u.s. exports with remarks from the u.s. ambassador to the world trade organization. later a house financial services subcommittee hearing on the collapse of the firm mf global. tonight on c-span 3 american history tv with a look at life for african-americans during the 18th and 19th centuries. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, lony bunch director of the smith sewn yan's director of the african-american

museum of owlture. >> the vast majority of consume ners 290% are okay with this concept that the social networks and companies like google provide free services like web-based email services, like mapping services like search services. they do that for free because they're able to sell nonpersonally identifiable information about the things you do on the internet. >> first of all, this is hardly my view with respect to the concerns about the change in google's privacy policy. you had 36 state attorney general objecting. i don't think they're in europe. i think those are states within the u.s. you had congressional leaders in the democratic and republican party objecting. you had 60 consumer organizations from the united states and europe objecting. >> open internet coalition on google's new policy, providing

free services for users or violating their privacy. the obama administration has proposed cutting in half funding for a program providing guns and air marshal training to airline pilots. minnesota congressman chip krav act spoke about why he opowes the cuts. >> let me run over the logistics real quick before we get started the congressman's going to make some remarks. he's graciously agreed to take some q&a. i'm going to introduce him. he's going to talk and then he has to rub and catch a flight. and then we're going to do a very quick chinese fire drill and bring up the follow up panel to discuss for the remainder of the time. so i am very excited -- first of all, we're very pleased the congressman are to host this

event. it's been over a decade since september 11th and the attacks on new york and washington. we have learned so much on how to make this nation safe. as preserve our liberties, and keep our economy moving. we've thwarted at least by our count 45 terrorist attacks since 9/11. all but three of those were stopped by people doing the right thing, doing our jobs. we know what works and what doesn't. 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 effective, it's very, very frustrating. and so to take time out and talk about one of those today i think is really, really worthwhile. so i thank the congressman. thank our panel for really doing this. it's my honor to introduce representative chip kra vac who is a 24-year navy veteran and

third generation of his family to serve 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 and that gave 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 ever been there decide to make northeast minnesota his home and represent the eighth district from that state. in his navy career the ka tan was honored with several awards and citations including the joint service commendation medal. he has a bachelor of science degree from the united states naval academy that's okay, although i went to west point, my nephew and his wife went to the naval academy. i'm over that. 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 we have today. please join me in welcoming the congressman. [ applause ] >> 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. i especially like to thank ed fuller for all the great work that he does here at the heritage foundation and also brian darling and of course james for all the work they're doing as well. i'd like to take the time to thank the conversation of lieutenant colonel aiken and mike parn and captain tracy price who also was able to get me great insight of how this program actually got started. of course, the advocates that are currently working with ffdost captain mike hoffman and special thanks to captain fred iceler 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. i said, a cessna 172 must have gotten a little too close for a little sightseeing trip and hit one of the towers. she said no, it was a big airplane. i'm thinking in my mind thinking of all the all the approaches. wow, how could that have happened? low visibility. i'm racing through all the their owes in my mind how that could possibly occur. 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 i had 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 the secretary at the most recent homeland security brief marginalize the dedication, the efforts and quite frankly the necessity of the federal flight deck program, i took that perm 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 ffeo 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 be honest that our security was kind of lax. but this was a reality check. nowhere in any scenarios that we ever thought about would we have thought that 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 passers coming through the airport. but you have to remember the threat just does not stop there. the threat is for anyone who 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 the pilot fires up those engines. we need the assets. now we understand that we're going to a risk based negligence 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 system. in conversations this morning we've already seen failures within that system for those that touched 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 might address.

and we must be able to counter if the situation does occur. ffdos along with their federal fams are the last line of defense and the chief deterrent, but ultimately, 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 in need be. in 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 a gun.

aviation security is a multilayered approach. on the ground, and in the air. now 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 several sources able to stop a terrorist attempt. passengers, actually, are the heroes. we saw that happened 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 re-enforced cockpit door is a deterrent, but it's the federal flight deck officer behind that door that is going to stop the threat. re-enforced doors are important. and they will slow the progress of any attacker that wishes to commander 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. as a matter of fact, the federal air marshal program just to get in that program you have to be the best of any federal law enforcement. but there's -- they're only present on a limited number of flights. the ffdo expands that even more

and the ability to respond to ton expected threat, which may be the achilles heel of a risk based, intelligence based type of program. according to the estimates by the airline 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 1.5 million flight segments per year. thousands of tdos have been certified through the program despite the budget hasn't grown since the initial inception.

currently,ftdos are not allowed from receiving reimbursement for many of the expenses related to their own training. for example, i'm a former federal flight deck officer. i went down to artie sha, new mexico, for training down there. i did it on my days off and it was my own cost to do that. to requalify twice a year i have -- obviously, i want to remain proficient in my accuracy. i spend money on my own ammunition to make sure when i'm 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 plight deck officer that i can possibly be. and remember, the federal flight deck officer does it on their own time and are not compensated for what they do. they do it because they're americans. they do it because they believe in this country. 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. 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 and placed for them, the cadre has been growing of volunteers to protect americans flying public. 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 carve out for crew defense.

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. as a matter of fact, it's contracting. under the current obama mags 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 in it's cutting back and it doesn't fit the risk based, intelligent based security that they're looking at. while i i plaud the secretary again in using intelligent and risk based analysis, there also must be a safety net to capture those that might slip through that security-based screening. even as we focus on threats of

high or unknown risks, we must always remember that we cannot allow anything to splip through the cracks. ffdos are there. they're the one of the most cost ektive ways to both reduce risk and increase deterrence and 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 committee 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 from 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 offsetted 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 go into 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. [ applause ] >> so we have time for some questions. i ask if you have a question raise your hand and get acknowledged. wait for the microphone so the folks online can hear your question and also if you can state your name and affiliation that would be great. brian, i can ask you to kick it off. >> sure. >> thank you so much for coming and giving this presentation. i think my question is you touched on this a little bit, but what can congress do to fight back? clearly the obama administration wants to end the on pilots program. he want to cut the program in half as part of its budget. secretary napolitano has stated her intent not to include