it makes sense. that is the best way to move the ball forward. >> other members of the panel, i don't know if anybody would like to comment -- >> i would say while we recognize the brevity of it, to simply say go act reasonably. that's just a negligent standard that's built into common law for everything. we're all under that duty. when you're facing a threat of this magnitude, this nature, accelerating to have the congress say hey act reasonably. i think that is under well ming as a standard and expectation as we enter the age of cyber battles. >> i would agree particularly when you have a road map that's worked for 16 years in another industry that you can lean on. i'd like to talk a little bit about how unreasonable delay works in the real world. you know there's talk about whether a notice should be

mediate, could you put some specific time frame on when a reasonable notice would occur? can anyone on the panel comment on whether it's realistic to require a company to notify consumers within a specific set of days? >> i think the challenge is different states have different r50ir789 requirements for what reasonableness means. all of us share an interest in making sure our customers know what happened as quickly as possible. there are issues that arise. for example law enforcement may ask that we delay notification because they're pursuing the criminals and they don't want to interfere with the investigation. i do think that flexibility is important because there are circumstances in which what one may think is reasonable -- >> is that relatively unanimous in the panel? >> i think one of the problems with having a risk analysis between the discovery of the

breach and notification of the consumers is that it can delay notification to the consumers. one of the reason many states have no trigger at all -- >> can anybody talk about overreporting? it seems to be one of the chals of what happens in the practical world. companies go out and over report. >> once again, i would turn to what again state ags are saying on this topic. they are not hearing that consumers want to hear less about breaches of their personal information. consumers are upset about the fact that they're hearing so many breaches because they're upset so many breaches are taking place. they don't want to forego the possibility of protecting themselves. >> they want to be notify. i think that's right. that's fair. >> we do see in the auto manufacturing recall space dealers and others noticing

people paying less attention to recalled notices because they think they get too many of them or not serious enough. something to keep an eye on. >> i'd like to thank our witnesses for testimony today. a little three-hour exercise here. we appreciate your patience. i think the panel's been very informative. this is a very important issue to our country. very important issue to the americans that use the system on a daily basis that we give them the confidence they can continue to use one of the most aggressive and progressive payment systems in the world. all members will have five legislative days to submit additional questions to the chair which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response. i would ask the witnesses to please respond as promptly as you're able. all members will have five days to submit material for the chair

to be included in the record. with that this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you. on the next washington journal, vermont congressman will discuss rail safety, the upcoming vote on transportation funding, the expiring patriot act and trade issues. and oklahoma representative steve russell talks about government waste tax reform and the national defense authorization act. we'll take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter.

washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on cspan. here are some of the featured programs for this weekend on the networks. saturday morning, 10:00 eastern, we're at the internet and television expo in chicago for what consumers can expect for the future in innovation. speakers include comcast chairman and ceo, cara swisher and fcc chairman. president obama is at georgetown university discussing ideas on how to alleviate poverty in the united states. saturday morning beginning at 10:00 eastern we're live from city hall in maryland for the book festival with former u.s. representatives tom davis and martin frost. and sunday evening at 9:00,

president of the american constitution society on the impact of labor and employment laws on working women and their families. and on american history tv, saturday afternoon at 2:00 eastern, on oral histories remembering the liberation of nazi concentration camps. with an information of gerda klein. and sunday night at 6:30 on the presidency, u.s. naval war college professor on the relationships winston churchhill developed with american presidents during his career. get our complete schedule at cspan.org. the new congressional director is a handy guide to the 114th congress. bioand contact information and twitter handles. also district maps.

a fold-out map of capitol hill. and a look at the president's cabinet. order your copy today. it's $13.95 plus shipping and handling through the cspan online store. in last week's elections the scottish national party gained 50 seats. now only three members are not members of the snp. this week, they talked about the election and their historic win. he spoke at scotland's regional parliament. this is 40 minutes. thank you. the next note of business is a statement on the outcome of the u.k. general election. the first minister will take questions at the end of the statement and therefore no

interventions or interruptions. nicola sturgeon, ten minutes. >> thank you very much indeed. i'm grateful for the opportunity to make a statement on the outcome on the u.k. general election. let me take the opportunity to congratulate all those elected to serve as members of parliament. it's also of course an enormous responsibility and i know all those taking up seats for the first time will be feeling pride excitement and trepidation. i wish them all well as they get to work on behalf of their constituents. my good wishes also go to those who lost seats last week. we also know from past experience what it feels like to lose. so while we may celebrate success, we take no pleasure in

the personal loss that defeated candidates will be feeling. i wish each of them the best of luck in what they choose to do in the months and years ahead. [ applause ] so the result last week was of truly historic proportions. the snp now has the honor of representing 56 out of 59 seats in scotland in the north, south, east and west of our country. we secured 50% of all votes cast. 1.4 million people in total voted snp. the largest number of votes that any party has won in scotland ever. the trust that the scottish people have placed in the snp to represent the country's interest is unprecedented. we will now work each and every day with determination and with humility to pay that trust in

full. i also want to make clear we will also work and work just as hard to win the trust of those who did not vote for the snp last thursday. as scotland's government we recognize the unique obligation we have to reach out to and speak for all of scotland. i pledge today that we will make scotland's voice heard we will stand up for the progressive policies we put right at the heart of the election campaign. but we will also seek to build unity in our country. there's one final point i want to make today about the nature of our task. during the election i spoke often about my desire to build a progressive alliance to lock the conservatives out of office. while scotland voted for that change, labor failed to win

sufficient support in england and i regret that. our determination to work with others of progressive opinion across the political spectrum remains undiminished. we will build alliances to argue protection of the vulnerable against deeper welfare cuts. we will seek to defend our human rights protections. for the privatization of the national health service and safeguard the u.k.'s place in europe. a clear majority of people did not vote conservative last thursday and they deserve a strong voice in parliament. i promise today that the snp and the scottish government will seek to be that voice. we will be a constructive principled determined and effective opposition to the majority government and we will seek to be so on behalf of people not just in scotland, but people right across the u.k.

resigning officer, the scale of the mandate that the people of scotland gave does ensure a much stronger voice for scotland. but also strengthens the hand of this scottish government in seeking to secure the very best deal for scotland which in turn strengthens our ability as a government to deliver for scotland. yesterday, i visited the emergency department to thank our front line nhs staff for the hard work they are doing to improve waiting times and also reaffirm our commitment to support them and make the further improvements that are needed. the delivery of health care and other services is the responsibility of my government and we will rightly be judged on our performance. we can do more to support and protect our public services if our budget is not being cut year

on year. it is for these reasons that we put an end to ones terty at the very heart of the election campaign. at the very hard of the agenda. [ applause ] i spoke to the prime minister by telephone on friday. yesterday, i wrote to him to seek a meeting at the earliest possible opportunity and we're looking to meet later this week. let me be clear that public spending and the protection of scotland's budget will be key issues on the agenda when we do meet. the issue of more powers for the scottish parliament must also form part of our discussions. i want to pay tribute to lord smith of kelvin. it provides us with a strong starting point. that is so necessary if we are

to grow our economy faster and lift children out of poverty. they welcomed the proposals that lord smith brokered. but we've been consistent in our view that the proposals do not go far enough. makes abundantly clear that this view is shared by a significant proportion of the scottish elect rat. they must now agree with a process that looks again at the smith commission proposals. and that must be a process that is made here in scotland. and one that involves wider scottish skoetociety. we believe the scottish parliament should move to fill financial responsibility. we want to see def lugs of

powers over employment policy including the minimum wage, welfare, business taxes and equality. the powers we need to create jobs and lift people out of poverty. it is such a package of priority tackling powers that we will now seek to build support for and agreement on. let me say this sincerely. i very much hope that scottish labor will now become part of this growing consensus. this morning i went with them and they agreed to call for powers over the minimum wage, health and safety law equalities legislation and for greater responsibility on welfare to be devolved as a matter of priority to this parliament. for scottish labor to leave these powers in the u.k. labor government was perhaps understandable. but to argue these powers should remain in the hands with no

mandate in scotland would be inexplicable to moth people across our country [ applause ] i hope they'll now think again and help us to build economic prosperity and foster greater social justice. last issue i want to dress is one that was ironically talked about much more about our opponents opponents. the issue of independence. it is no secret that the snp supports independence. we always will. this election was not about independence. it was about making scotland's voice heard at westminster. i said i would not take a vote for the snp out of endorsement of independence out of a second referendum. i understand by that.

there will only be another referendum on independence if the people of scotland vote to have one. that is democracy. and of course it cuts both ways. i can't impose a referendum gents the will of the scottish people nor can david cameron rule out. it will be the people who decide. what happens to public opinion on this question the years ahead. it depends on the respect shown to the decisions the people of scotland has made. how david cameron and his government choose to respond to the message scotland has sent will be crucial to how we move forward. last week's election didn't just result in records. it also resulted in record low support for the conservatives in scotland. it was the lowest share since 1865.

so it seems to me that the conservatives now have a clear choice. they can't ignore the voice of the scottish people and let people draw their own conclusions about the ability of westminster to respond to scottish opinion. they can choose to demonstrate that westminster does listen. we will work in good faith to get that better deal for scotland. we will be constructive and seek kreemt on issues where we can find common ground and always act in the best interest of all of the people of scotland. presiding officer, we ask people to vote for us in this election to make scotland's voice heard at westminster. people place their trust in us last week to make scotland's voice heard loudly and clearly. we now intend in the house of commons and here in the scottish government to get on with that job on behalf of all of the people we are so honored to

serve. [ applause ] >> thank you. i thank the minister for early sight of the statement which i will reflect on in a second. can i take this opportunity to congratulate the first minister on a remarkable result for her party. campaign was led from the top with dignity and flare. the hard work and dedication of activists and volunteers cannot go unnoticed. one sentiment is that pride in our democratic process. people don't just stand up for their beliefs, but they make the case for them. and then the people decide. and they decided to send a strong team of snp mps to westminster. the first minister refersed

human rights protections. these benches will do everything we can to oppose any attempt to scrap the human rights act. [ applause ] enacted in the early days of a fresh labor government the act embodies the civil and political rights fundamental to any liberal democracy. a threat to the human rights act is a threat to those very rights and it must be stopped. secondly and in closing i've met and spoke with a number of constituents this week who are fearful of plans to further attack disability benefits. there is fear and trepidation in the air. what reassurances can the first minister give those individuals that whooils there no question she will give voice to those fears that she will act here in

this parliament to protect them as well. >> first minister. >> thank for her gray shous arcs and agree with her absolutely in what she said about the efforts of party activists and activists in all parties. the victory last thursday was down to the hard work of tens of thousands of candidates activists, supporters and members. my heart felt thanks to each and every one of them. can also say, i welcome her comments on opposition to repeal of the human rights act. i do think this is one example of i hope many examples where labor and the snp in that progressive alliance i spoke about can work together against some of the wrong headed measures put forward by the conservative government. any suggestion we should move

back from human rights protection i think is appalling and completely wrong. we will do everything within our power to ensure that vital human rights protections remain in scotland and remain undiminished. and i welcome the support of the scottish labor party in that respect. also on threat to the support that people with disabilities that rely so heavily on, i think of the mainstream parties at this chamber, and corrected if i'm wrong on this, we were the only party to stand very firmly say that we would oppose the 3 billion pounds cut coming from the government to the disabled people across our country. we will do everything we can to oppose that. disabled people should not pay the price of balancing the books. and we will also continue as well as opposing these measures

using the new voice that we have in the house of commons, we will continue in this place to do everything we can to mitigate against the well favor cuts. it goes back to what i said in the statement. rather than us simply standing here trying to mitigate measures from a westminster conservative government, let us join together in saying put the welfare powers in the hands of this parliament and this government so that we can stop these attacks in the first place. [ applause ] [ applause ] >> members who wish to ask a question of the first minister should press the speak button. >> thank you. may i thank the first minister for advance notice of her statement. i like that congratulations to those i have already expressed to daid cameron. increasing both the number of

votes and seats while already in office. while in scotland, we did not manage to add to the eat total, we did contribute to the total of votes. the most of any election. i am naturally delighted that the conservatives have been returned to government to finish the job of an economic recovery which today's figure notwithstanding has already seen 175,000 more scotts in work over the last five years. our goal is to reach full employment. so that anyone who wants a job knows there is one for them. she revealed a shopping list of request. can i ask her what level of support from scotland's business organization did the smith commission receive when examined this issue just a few shorts month ago. >> well, i would really hope,

notwithstanding my opposition to the conservative government and icon graduatelated david cameron on friday. no secret i didn't want him to be the prime minister. i really do hope that in the days following this statement, we have perhaps a different tone struck. i said in my statement that they scored their lowest percentage share of the vote in scotland since 1965. that is a fact. the snp scored a record high share of the vote. whether it's on more powers, business taxes welfare powers or continued austerity. i say this very directly to ruth davidson, it cannot be business as usual. if you simply turn your face against what people in scotland have indicated support for, what you will say to people in

scotland is that westminster does not listen cannot listen. let's have the discussion on how we want to build on smith. ruth davisson will put forward her views. i will put forward my views. the people of scotland must be listened to. that's the starting point i begin with and i hope it's the one ruth davidson will too. >> kevin. >> thank you. i'm pleased to hear the first minister say that snp mps will do everything to halt the disability benefits cut. does the first minister agree with me that the best way is to bring all social security to this parliament. >> i do want to see it deinvolved to this parliament. the proposals put forward do not

go far enough. they would leave the vast bulk of decisions in the hands of westminster. a debate between politicians this can often sound as if an academic debate, but this is very real for hundreds of thousands of people across our country. now, having power in the hands of this parliament doesn't put into the hands of this parliament a magic wand. tough decisions have to be taken. but we at least know we'll be taking them with values and priorities uppermost in our agenda. so i hope i'm not expecting to get agreement today on this from the conservatives, but i do hope we can form an alliance with scottish labor and others in this chamber to say that welfare powers, the decisions over support for the most vulnerable

in our society should not be in the hands of a majority government in scotland. they should be in the hands of the democratic elected parliament and government of scotland. >> yeah icon graduate late nicola sturgeon on her party's victory. we have lessons to learn which we are absolutely determined to learn. but this parliament has a job to do every single day of the week. just this week, police with guns in the street mental health services falling short, unemployment on the rise, missed for months on end yet this first minister spends parliamentary time with a snp party statement that tells us absolutely nothing -- >> order. >> see, they don't like it. can i ask the first -- can i ask the first minister when she is going to give us a statement on

even just one of these important issues that she's got responsibility for. >> first minister? >> well, i'll be standing here in this very place tomorrow at 12:00 noon to answer first ministers questions. as i do every thursday at 12:00 noon. that is hardly my fault. i think it's really important for this parliament to reflect on the result of the u.k. election and reflect on how we use what people in scotland said last thursday to seek to influence the decisions. why do i think that is important? because the decisions that the westminster government takes impact directly on the ability of this government and this parliament to search the people of scotland. so i make no apology. to say that the u.k. government the austerity must stop and this parliament must be empowered to serve the people of our country

better. the day to daywork of this government never stops. as i said yesterday when i visited edinborough and speak to the front lane staff, yes there is work to do. yesterday's figures were the best performances we began publishing weekly statistics. let's be determined to support them to do even further. part of that support in my view, as we as first minister standing up saying loudly and clearly i do not want to see further cuts to the budget of this parliament. >> we have very little time for questions. can i ask the questions brief as possible and for my part i will do my best to call as many members as possible. >> can i start by congratulateing the first minister on the scale

of the snp victory. i want to ask about national insurance. i know that she wants it to be devolved. can i ask whether there will be an assessment and the flip side what impact it would haven pensions currently linked to national insurance so we can take a considered view on the proposal based on the fullest evidence. >> there is no such direct lipg there. but that are put to one side. the debate about what further power should be devolved to this parliament. proper process around that that allows as many voices and people in scottish society to be involved as possible. i'll be very happy to public analysis and assessment and evidence that makes the case that the more powers over job creation, the more powers over business taxes, power over

welfare we have in the hands of this parliament, the more successful we can be in growing our economy, and lifting people out of govty. >> thank you. in building alliances in particular regarding human rights. can i ask the first minister given the announcement about shipping desperate refugees back to the awfulness of the countries of origin, will the first minister also commit to building that alliance and reach out to the wider u.k. community? >> well, i said during the election campaign i wanted snp voices in the house of commons to be voices for progressive change. the kind of change is progressive change i believe many people across the rest of the u.k. also want to see. we will continue to seek to reach out to build alliances

with people of like mind not just in scotland but across these islands for the kind of change we want to see. i would hope that it would be possible to build an alliance in the house of commons as well as in wider society against the repeal of the human rights act. i think ordinary people across the country are appalled on the idea we would roll back on human rights protection. these are vital protection for people in all walks of life and we should work hard to protect them. the snp will seek to work with others across all parties and people in new parties to build alliances for the kind of change we want to see and build alliances in opposition for what we don't want to see. >> being elected last week it would have abolished the bedroom

tax across the united kingdom. i know first minister would have supported that. instead, likely to be increased and extended. we worked together before to protect scottish households from the impact of the bedroom task. will she work with us again to maintain that mitigation in the face of any decision of this measure irrespective of any debate. >> yes i will. we have mitigated the impact to the bedroom tax and we will continue to do as much as we can within the powers and resources we've got to mitigate the impact. i hope that will be something around which we can unite. i've said this before. i didn't come into politics to simply mitigate the worst impact of welfare cuts. i want to be first minister so we can be the author of the

changes that we want to see and the author of the kind of society we want to live in. yes, let's work together. but for goodness sake let's work to get it into the hands of this parliament. [ applause ] >> patrick harvey. >> thank you. can i add my congratulations to those who were successful. i'm glad that the first minister chose to have an early meeting with the stuc given the very direct threat with the right to strike coming from the new u.k. government. it's iran ik that government has formed with the direct backing of one of of four in those eligible to vote. does the first minister agree even if there was a popular mandate for this policy there is no justification for this direct assault on the right to

strike op people in scotland or elsewhere. will she ensure that such proposals have no future in scotland. >> well very much agree with that and given assurance to they would have the backing of the scottish government and indeed the backing of my party. i don't believe that is the priority in scotland. i don't believe it's what a majority people in scotland want to see efforts being spent on. instead i want to work with stuc to make sure we are doing what needs to be done to increase productivity, to get more people onto living wage to deal with contracts. these are the priorities we should be focusing on. this government will stand against any attempt by the conservative majority government to crackdown on trade union rights. with perhaps of the exception of

the scottish conservatives that will we will united in this chamber to saying no to those kinds of attacks. >> does the first minister agree that the prime minister is successful and brings forward an early eu in our referendum then a double majority must be required to ensure scotland is not taken out of the eu against its will. >> yes, i do agree with that. the indications that we might see it brought forward from 2017 to perhaps as early as next year. the snp opposes that referendum. if there is to be one, we think it is absolutely unacceptable and indefenseble for any constituent part of the u.k. to be taken out of the european union against its will.

there will be amendments to that bill to introduce as a double majority rule in order for the u.k. to come out of the european union then it is not enough for the u.k. simply as a whole to vote for that. each and every member must also do so. i would hope that we would have support for that from every single quarter of this chamber. [ applause ] >> mcintosh. >> thank you. could i also begin by thanking those who won the right to represent scotland in the westminster parliament and also thank those who stood down and for all their public service to this country. there are going to be areas where we continue to disagree. the first minister believes that we could do more if we had more powers in this parliament. does she also agree with could

do more using the powers that already exist in this parliament. >> first minister. >> well, can i echo ken mcintosh's comments. i think it's a point well made to say there was mps who didn't stand for reelection and we wish them well too. i agree notwithstanding the disagreements we have across the chamber, i do believe it costs scrutiny in using the powers we have to mitigate the impacts of the cuts we have coming at us from westminster. we spend over 100 million pounds mitigating the impact of welfare cuts. we will continue to do that and look for ways in which we can do that further and better. we are investing money in supporting food banks and supporting efforts to tackle

food poverty. i will always listen to anybody who comes to me with ideas on how to do that better and more effectively. there is a limit to what we can do to mitigate u.k. government welfare cut from within the fixed budget that we have. everybody has to understand and realize that. yes, we will do what we can to mitigate. the most effective thing we can do is get the powers out of the hands of westminster and into the hands of this parliament. >> thank you. presiding officer. a number of organizations including trade unions have said that the smith commission proposals fall far short of the aspirations for scotland. does the first minister consider that today's agreement goes beyond the smith commission proposeals which should be seen as a starting point. >> yes, i do. when the smith commission

proposals were published, members will recall that the stuc were one of the biggest critics. said that they did not go far enough. the agreement we have reached today -- you know we don't -- the scottish government and the stuc don't agree on absolutely everything. but there are key areas where we do agree and we have agreed to jointly make these calls. all of these areas will take us beyond the starting point of the smith commission proposals. there are two points -- i meet the prime minister hopefully later this week. is there an agreement on the part of the u.k. government to move beyond the smith commission proposals. i need that confirmation from the prime minister. if there is that agreement then what is the process we then put in place to decide and determine the extent to which and the areas in which we move beyond

the proposals of the kmit commission. that process has to be robust, transpire transparent and has to be made in scotland. it needs to give organizations the opportunity to input their views. these will be the issues. i will report back to parliament on progress in due course. >> would the first minister agree democratic front if any politician rejected by the elect rat were to return to westminster by appointment to the house of lord's and in particular given that the liberals have 101 members, more even than the total number in the u.s. senate now that they're down to eight it's time for some 80 or 90 of the existing ones to consider resignation. >> first minister.

[ applause ] >> i'd go slightly further. i think the house of lords is a democratic outreach in and of itself. [ applause ] i look forward to the day which may not come within this time of parliament but i look forward to the day when the house of lords is no more. people with no democratic mandate should not be writing the laws of our land. yes, i do think it would be deeply democratically wrong for defeated mps to find their way back to westminster via a seat in the house of lords. we don't have defeated mps and we don't appoint to the house of lords anyway. i would hope they would each give a commitment that they will not seek to get round the democratic will of the scottish people in that way. no defeated candidate from the

election last week will find their way into the house of lord's. [ applause ] >> thank you. when the first minister meets with the prime minister, will she make it clear it is not acceptable for the u.k. government to seek to repat rat powers -- of the further additional significant powers which this country was promised in the closing days of the referendum, powers which the people of scotland have now demanded so loudly and clearly in the election result last week? >> as i think i made clear i will be seeking to have that conversation very directly with the prime minister. let us be quite calm and rationale about this. we have our differences of opinion. we will not all agree. one think i do think we can say very clearly is that there is no

substantial opinion in scotland that the smith commission proposals do not go far enough. that's the first point we need to establish. then we need to put that process in place to number how we go forward and in what areas we go forward. i'll end with this simple point. the severities led by david cameron cannot act as if it is business as usual in scotland. they cannot carry on as if nothing changed in scotland last week. everything changed in scotland last week and westminster must listen. >> that ends the statement from the first minister. next act of business can i just remind members we are probably going to have to drop at least one speaker from the next debate because i've allowed all the questions on this one.

friday, the house veterans affairs committee on health. live coverage begins at 9:45 a.m. eastern. then the washington institute for near east 308cy hosts a look at how the militant group isis funds itself. we'll hear from the fbi's counter terrorism division. ♪ sunday night on q&a veteran

canadian astronaut produced many videos on his activities on the international space station and shares scientific and personal aspects of life in space. >> the shiver of fear up my back, dark side of the earth looking at one side of australia -- of eastern australia in the darkness and watching a shooting star come in between me and the earth. at first, i had the standard reaction of wishing upon a star. but then i had the sobering realization that that was in fact just a huge dumb rock from the universe going 20 miles a second that missed us and made it down to the atmosphere. it was a big enough one that you could see it. we would have been dead in an instant. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on cspan's q&a.

house hearing on airport security. the department of homeland securities inspector general talked about the operations of the tsa including passenger screening, background checks for airport workers and airport perimeter secure. this two-hour hearing begins with the oversight committee chair. committee on oversight and government reform will come to order. declare a recess at any time. we have an important hearing today dealing with the tsa. airport security is pivotal to our nation's security. we appreciate the thousands of men and women who work at the tsa. we have an inorder nant amount

of guns still trying to be taken through airports. it's a very difficult situation with literally tens and tens of thousands of security badges that are out there. we need to continue to have a good vibrant discussion in this country about the safety and security of our airports. one of the things i like to say, i've said it many times we're different in this nation in that we are self critical. we take a good hard look and challenge the notion that the standard status quo is acceptable. one of the things that stuck out to me in the 9/11 report, often government lacks imagination. where terrorists and characters who want to do harm to the united states of america will often be more creative than our security personnel. so to have this type of discussion, it's good that we hear a variety of perspectives. we've had some good work from

the inspector general, from the gao. good perspective from others who have had to deal with highly targeted areas such as israel. that's the type of discussion we had today. but it does require that we have a very good communication between the congress and homeland security specifically the tsa. we've had an exceptionally difficult time, exceptionally difficult time getting information from the tsa on some very basic matters. one of the things we asked for -- this is a blank form, a blank form, not filled out, a blank form that people are to use as they do assess security. we asked to see a copy of it. we were allowed to see it encamera, but members here were not allowed to see that. 100% redacted. this is a blank form that they

will not even allow congress to see. if that's the type of cooperation we're going to get from the tsa, we're going to have some very difficult times. we had invited mr. carraway who's the acting administrator to come before the committee. at first we heard a variety of excuses. we needed more than two weeks. for weeks, we had planned to do this, in fact more than a month, felt that he as the acting administrator would be pivotal to this discussion. but homeland security objected to mr. ron's presence on the panel. they felt it was demeaning to actually have the acting administrator sit on the same panel as a nongovernment witness. that's absurd. that's offensive. it's a waste of the committee's time. it's a waste of congress's time.

we don't need two panels to have this discussion. we had decided in a bipartisan mutual way that cabinet level secretaries, if they come to testify before the committee will be the sole person to testify. if you're below a cabinet level secretary, we're not going to separate you out into your own panel. but the tsa, different than others that we've had. we've had a variety of other people come before this committee who sit side by side with regular people from the outside, from the private sector. and so unfortunately, the tsa has refused and mr. carraway has refused the committee's invitation to appear before congress. they've had plenty of notice. up until late, late, late yesterday he was going to be here if it was the separate panel. but now because we are not going

to waste this committee's time, we are not going to waste member's time, they are not sitting here today. it's an embarrassment that they would do that. they make these decisions themselves. but that is not the way it's going to work around here. tsa said, well, maybe we'll give you somebody else. it's not the tsa's decision as to who congress calls to testify. that is not their decision. it is the decision of the congress to understand and be informed by those that they invite before congress. but that's where we find ourselves today. with that i'm going to yield -- took a little extra time there, but now i'd like to recognize the chairman of the subcommittee on transportation mr. mike out of florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member for holding this meeting. i think it's an insult to the

committee that tsa would not send the acting administrator to this panel with due notice. this is a very important oversight hearing. we spend about $7 billion a year now on tsa's activities. and if you -- anyone takes time to read this report, we're going to hear from john roth in a few minutes, the inspector general who produced this report but every member of congress and people throughout the country should read this report. this report is an indictment of the failure of tsa not just in one area, but in almost every one of their functions. it's supposed to be a multi-tiered transportation security system they set up. and in every aspect, just glance through the report, everything

from passenger baggage screening and passenger screening, one indictment after another on systems to provide access for people who don't pose a risk and we all support tsa pre-check. they in fact -- it's designed to expedite passengers who don't pose a risk. in fact, we find instances in which they fail to -- to connect the dots and find -- found a passenger who was a convicted terrorist, sarah jane olson, who went through tsa. their system failed to find these people. the most important thing we're trying to do is find people who pose a risk. the tsa agent who saw her go

through actually identified her because she was such a well-known terrorist from her picture and then was even more astounding, he went to a superior and he -- he actually authorized the expediting of a terrorist through this system. this is an outrageous history. i just -- i have to say the chairman is not jason come lately. if you read further in the report, they talk about equipment purchases and the failure -- you have to have the best technology when someone comes through, not just an expedited system. but to see what they have that poses a risk, whether it's arms or now explosives and other devices that might harm us. back in 2009, the chairman introduced legislation to restrict the purchase of some equipment that actually didn't do the job.

this is a press account back then. he was thatwarted. an indictment of buying billions of dollars worth of equipment that failed. they bought puffers that failed. it's interesting the history, linda dash l represented one company, people might be familiar with that name. and then rapid scan which the chairman had raised some questions about privacy issues and not using it. they split the contract up, half a billion dollar contract between the two competing lobbyists. half billion for the equipment is one thing. another quarter billion per set of equipment to install the stuff. this is an indictment of even the remaining equipment. the rapid scan the chairman had

raised question about. had to be taken out. had to be taken out. this report says the equipment they have they can't maintain, they don't know whether it works or not. and they don't have people properly trained to run the equipment. this is a very sad day. and i can see why tsa did not want to show up today. there's 61,000 employees. they have 15,000 administrators because we have a cap of 46,000 screeners. this whole report outlines in each area, training recruitment, acquisition of equipment how they fail. i see why that seat is empty today and tsa would not show their face to this committee today. i yield back. >> now recognize ranking member mr. cummings. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i do thank you for calling this

very important hearing. the transportion security administration has an incredibly challenging mission. it has to strike just the right balance between passenger safety and passenger convenience. everyone who has been to an airport in the past 15 years can relate to the frustration of waiting in long lines at security check points. but after 9/11, we are painfully aware of the dangers we face on a continuing basis. the challenge for tsa is to develop programs that maximize safety and convenience, programs that protect the traveling public without making their experience unbearable. last year congress directed tsa to increase the number of passengers enrolled in the pre-check program. under the program travelers submit background information criminal histories and fingerprints

fingerprints. this information is run against terrorist watch lists and criminal databases. if these searches turn up no problems passengers are given known traveler numbers. that allows them to pass through --