enemy and who seeks to do us harm. you never know. the problem is that you always have to know. tsa a terrorist off boarded a plane on christmas day. it should have gone off. it did not go off. that and got a plot to blow up several subway stations in washington, d.c. the goal was to kill as many people as possible. good intelligence gathering prevented this from happening. we were lucky. good intelligence. they used bombs hidden in cargo. excellent intelligence, stopped this plot that should have

stopped us moving forward. we cannot be complacent. our transportation system remains a prime target. we must continue to bolster our defenses against determined enemies who will not relent or go away and will increase. as methods of golf, so much the psa. if they have massive responsibilities and missions. they move half a billion people through the aviation system every year. they scream billions of pounds of cargo as best as they canad.

we are not talking theology or idlogy. we are talking about protecting the american people. it is a different deal. a lot of democrats did not like 5 lisa -- fifsa > face said it invaded privacy too much. we have to go back and forth on these things they must remain in nimble in their response to new and emerging threats. we must take appropriate action to close any loopholes on making sure the system continues to move people faster and in an effective manner. i have concerns about the general aviation. it has got not pretty easy.

i do not like going out to dulles airport and walking on an airplane. they do not even look at me, not a pat down. the existing system needs a fresh look burd. we must incorporate new technology that will make it harder for terrorists to exploit our transportation system. .t is complicated prad the balance between security and policy always haunts you. it haunts you. it is a delicate one. i believe csa is committed to achieving this to the best they can.

these procedures are in place to protect us from a very real risk. they are not there just for the doing of it. in the coming weeks i'll be working with my colleagues to make sure that csa had the resources it needs to address concerns. that will be tough. we have to gather ourselves together and decide if it is important. thank you for being here. i think you are doing a terrific job. you have been at the home for several months now. i know it has been a demanding time. i look forward to hearing your thoughts. i will vacate the chair and turned to my co-chair and ask

him if he will assume the chair. >> thank you. >> thank you. i will look forward to working with you on the reauthorization. of the next time you were here we said it was going to be a tough job p.m.. -- tough job. i know you are finding that out. i agree so much with what he said. your job is enormous. not only are really looking at the cargo issue, which this committee has been very active in trying to usher that cargo -- have been active.

we have not been able to address that to our satisfaction. now a to is very clear that once again we dodged a bullet. we have to have procedures. i hpoe we will be working with the countries where there are aviation gateways, that we will beef that up. we will be actice. we will have intelligence gathering to do that. when we are at risk of so many airplanes coming into our air force with cargo, we have got to have intelligent gathering that

should be part of your cooperation or direct control. you are from the fbi. you understand that need, you have got to be hearing the outcry about the invasive uses of pat downs in the airports. there has to be a way that you can figure out how to do what is necessary. we all see people going through with long skirts and coverup possibility. that is what you are addressing. we understand that. there has to be a way for a privacy concern to be addressed. it is legitimate. i know you are aware of it. we have to see some action. i have heard the secretary say that she is converned --

concerned about the privacy. the outcry is huge. i will end by saying -- i have two more things to say. one is, i also mentioned that i am concerned about our report which are also entries into america and our trains. we have got to make sure we are doing everything we can before the originality of our enemy comes for it rather than always catch-up. it is good that we learn from the mistakes and they passed in the reiteration. however, we have got to stop anticipating what they are up to before it happens. the last thing i will mention is that it is my understanding that

you have not made any decision about changing the federal law that prohibits screeners from striking. i hope that you will not try to chang what is the law. if you did decide to go the other way, there would be an in congress and great efforts to prevent it from happening. that is not the fight we walk right now. we should be concentrating on these other issues. with that, i am glad you are here. i appreciate your being here. i think that in your short time your getting your hands around this, our job is to have oversight and tell you what needs to be a priority and hope to work with you on that. thank you very much. >> thank you.

we will begin some votes at 11:00. we only have one witness. what i would like to do, i will make a couple of comments and then call on colleagues for opening statements. then we will hear the testimony from a mr. pistole. the history goes back to the hijacking and the determination with metal detectors to keep guns out of airplanes airplanes are being hijacked in cuba and other places. we saw the growth of the terrorist threat creating a shoe in the form of a bomb and t hen fashioning liquids that could be used as a bomb in air and then a bomb disguised as underwear. now various more sophisticated

things on the freight system on airplanes. we have involved with a series of threats trying to respond to make sure we have safety in the skies. i have a series of questions about the freight side. there is work to make certain that those who work at airports are properly screened. the most recent issue of full body imaging and law-enforcement style hat down - pat downs, i think those are a very legitimate questions. the law enforcement stop pat downs were just initiated a nationwide in october. it has only been a month. it is not surprising to me there would be a lot of concern and anger by some of protest by others. it is important for us to have a complete discussion about what this means.

has your staff had backpack down? -- pat down? what is the impression? we must make sure that people do not get on planes with bombs and kill people. i understand that. the question is, how do we do that in a way that is not go to the first predict for this agreed to do things that most people would find unacceptable as they try to get on a plane and get through a process. these are important issues. we appreciate your being here to be able to discuss them with the. we want to do everything we can do to help you succeed. let me, mike all if this is appropriate for them -- let me call on my colleagues and it is

appropriate for them. >> thank you. congratulations go to you and your team for the good work. although these packages were addressed to chicago synagogues, investigators believe the bonds are meant to blow up mid-flight over the east coast. the vulnerabilities in our system remain. 65% of cargo on international passenger flight bound for the u.s. is well short of the 100% screening mandate. right now dhs received a manifest information from aircraft for hours before our arrival. women now learn about a bom --

we may not learn about a bomb until it is in our orders. customs said it makes sense to make the cargo of information pre-arrival. what we want to strengthen aviation, my colleagues talked about the humiliation that the companies they patdowns, we need to talk about that. there are areas we need to talk about. as only airlinea security, but there was a railroad incidents in northern virginia. one of the most important facilities is the d.c. metro system. we cannot make any mistakes.

passenger and rail system targets are prime targets for terrorist the route the -- throughout the world. the threat is real. we cannot afford to be anything less than diligent about it. congratulations. >> thank you very much. >> i'm going to some of my comments in writing so hopefully we can expedite the process to get to the witness. >> thank you. >> i also will not make an opening statement. through you, alan like to make a request. although this is an open hearing, i think at some point in time we should have been administrator and committee in

the classified set it to understand the information that has led to the changes and the procedures prepa. >> that request is noted. this committee had a closed hearing in which secret material was presented to us about security prepay. >> i endorse the idea. i think it is important. some things we will not be able to talk about in public. i appreciate that. i want to thank you for the role tsa played. it illustrated the importance of this screening. i am eager to work with my colleagues.

i know the secretary has had changes made in terms of countries that can no longer send in cargo. i support stronger screening in the future. we look forward to working on these issues. i want to say a few words on passenger screening at my own risk. i appreciate the steps forward you have made. i have been a fan of the advanced imaging technology. i think it will show things we did not know about before. it is a deterrent to some of these activities. as someone who has a hip replacement, i have been padded down in front of my constituents on every flight. i welcome this we do not have to have -- where you do not have to have a patdown so people have a choice.

we need some education out there. they are always offered a private screening. it house to be out there. people are going to feel uncomfortable with this. they have to understand that this is being done for their best interests and their safety given some of the terrorist activity that we are seeing. i want to thank you for your work. >> tsa is always in a damned if you do, damned if you do not mode. i appreciate that the american public demands safety on the commercial airplane. there is a price we pay for that. sometimes there is an uncomfortable plight. i have gone in on committees about the ridiculous notion that i can take my mascara on an

airplane and i understand that this is much more serious to many americans in terms of intrusiveness burda i think we can do a better job on public education i have had my -- education. i have been patted down every time because i have a knee replacement. i'm excited to walk through a machine incident getting my those oflov --- my dose of love pats. we need to make sure they have choices and understand the risks we are trying to address them then i think the majority of americans will become supportive of the measures they are trying to do to keep the state. i want to congratulate the department of homeland security. we have a tendency to focus on the failures of government. there have been some real successes.

i think the way the h1n1 virus was handled, while many americans were frightened for a number of weeks, i think that a good job was done there. i think between homeland security and our intelligence community, we should all be thinking the public servants that protected us from another explosion in mid-air in terms of the incident at yemen. the intelligence community are the unsung heroes in this country. this administration has made a huge commitment to the intelligence community to ensure we have the right kind of intelligence at the right time. congratulations on continuing to keep america safe. i look forward to listen to your .estimony abou >> i am sure you want to deny there was any lovep atting going

on. >> i knew have patdowns think the -- i enjoy is used to having the -- i am used to having the patdowns tsa. i was being silly. i hope they knew that. >> my understanding is you have a slightly longer opening statement by necessity. this committee understands that. >> i appreciate your diligence. it is an honor to be here. as we begin this busy travel season next week, i would like to take a moment to address the traveling public and all those who are focusing on this issue to make sure that the core mission of tsa, homeland

security, and the government is to keep the traveling public safe. we have seen further attempts by terrorists to attack aviation, subways -- as he talked about aviation and being informed, we know the intent is still there as we have seen manifest. when know their capabilities in terms of the concealment and design. we are using technology and protocols to stay ahead of the threat in keep you safe. i want to be clear that ait is the most advanced and available technology. for us to detect the next generation of nonmetallic devices, it is safe for travelers and crew members.

there are a number of studies. we have protections in place to insure we respect the privacy of travelers. those the warm private screenings are allowed to do it. the use remains optional for travelers. very acquirement -- the requirement is not required. the need to make sure the when they get on the plane that they have the confidence that everyone on that flight has been screened. everyone else on the plane was to make sure that i had been a radically screamed or you have. that is what we come downtown -- down when it comes to privacy. we have adjusted patdown policies to using techniques that are going back to christmas

day and what we are seeing with the cargo platte. -- plane. it challenges our social norms. i would add that i would want to go today how they get their security and what we need to do to address that. that is what we have done. we have also been informed of of what others are doing. it may be referred to as love pats, but the bottom line is that we are consistent with many countries throughout europe on

some countries around the world. we need to have an effective patdown to discover it during the screening process. we believe that is the best technology again today. those who opt out of that technology need to receive the same type of screen. few people in the scheme of things will actually receive those pat downs but if there is a vocal group that has experience it for the right time. the bottom line is that we are trying to work in partnership with the public to say that you are safe on this flight. people need to be informed.

18 they need to know the privacy. nevada people do not know that. -- a lot of people do not know that. we have seen some attempts to persuade travelers from using ait big bear that is understandable. ait did using -- ait. that is understandable.

i ask all passengers to remember that our officers are there to keep you safe. security is a shared responsibility. during the travel season, it is essential. we appreciate the kind words about the international cooperation that the collective we used with authorities on the recent cargo plight. i went to yemen five days after the plot was discovered to assess what they were doing. we sent a team to work with the authorities. we've met. how can we work with you? what are your current process

these? what can we do in terms of capacity building in training techniques? we had taken specific steps. i go into considerable detail on my written statement. i want to briefly update you on my review of the surface transportation. this is a significant issue. we want to close vulnerability gaps with intelligence driven process. and we want to focus on critical deterrence.

we want to increase the number of surface inspectors and began a mobile screening program with the new york city police department and subways. the cargo plucked against the transit system here in d.c. shows that our enemies are possibly using the methods and tools and practice. we are reshaping our approach so everyone recognizes we are one part of the continuum for the united states. they are interconnected.

>> thank you for your testimony. one is the issue of background screening for those working in or around the airport. and by the people are serving in different ways on the airport grounds. you are preparing to begin to change that. the aviation workers pay about 1/3 of the cost. tell me what you are doing here. >> we talked about two key

issues. whatever it may be, it exposes people to risk. in the aviation sector, we do a thorough background checks on anyone that had access to the sterile airport. eckhart those imports, there are different payments. it is something that i am working closely with. we had the most overlapping with the u.s. coast guard on how we provide this. we are not there yet. i hope we can report back some good progress. >> if it is accurate, if it cost 1/3, if you harmonize these

circumstances, this probably is not the right approach. alan like to get an analysis of the effectiveness of the aviation side. my understanding is that it has worked fairly well. the me ask you about patdowns to th -- ask you about the patdowns. you explained why it is necessary for us to have advance screening. had he been subject to the law enforcement style patdowns that was given? >> i insistent that i receive it before by order that it be deployed nationwide.

>> your impression? >> it is spero. >> your impression? >> the whole purpose this -- it is more invasive them what i was used to. what are the plot out there? how are we informed about the latest technology? why do we need to ensure that we are being thorough. it is clearly more invasive. the purpose is to detect the type of devices that we have not seen. i am very sensitive to and concerns about people's privacy concerns. i want to work through that as

best we can. we need to provide for the best possible security. it went from using the back of a hand to a different approach. you might describe that. >> the back of a hand is still used in some aspects. i would prefer not to go into specific detail and an open hearing because i do not want to give a roadmap to anybody and say, here is exactly what the technique is and how we can defeat that. >> the issue of full body

imaging. most of us have seen that it is very explicit. you would decree with that. -- you would agree with that. what kind of protection that you develop so someone who has had a reasonably explicit photographs taken that will not be moved around and that there will be a privacy relationship that they can count on? >> we have instituted a number of the privacy protocols to ensure that they do not happen. for one, the officer who is doing the image -- what i have seen on cementing news reports are not accurate.

>> a total shock to them? >> i do not know where they are getting them. it is a little more. they never see the image. the machines are disabled in terms of retention our ability to transmit the images. cell phones and cameras are not allowed. we have implemented adequate privacy protections. i am interested in the next generation of advanced imaging technology. anhas a yeafigure where i anomaly on the body may show up as a box.

patdowns then the -- then the on that area.ocus there are a higher rate of false positives on that area. that results in more patdown. we are trying to stay away from that. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. first of all, i think i'm going to say that i think we should have a classified hearing. we will work with scheduling on that. >> i welcome that. thank you. >> i want to now talk on cargo. is it feasible for all cargo operations to be screened in the

same specificity at the passenger processes? secondly, do we have practical solutions? there are now imaging machines that are used on the border for trucks going across the border. are those technologically feasible to be used for air cargo? is it also an affordable option that would be common sense? >> it is not practical at this time to screen 100% of air cargo worldwide it that is the question. we do screen 100% of all passenger flight in the u.s..

we screen high risk cargo coming into the u.s. on passenger flights. there is still a lot of cargo out there. there is almost 9 billion pounds of cargo coming into the u.s. every year. the challenge becomes those coming from companies that either the government and/or the cargo companies have a relationship with. the two packages coming out of yemen, an individual goes to a forwarder and then send it to defdubai. can we ensure that they had been properly screened? we need to work with the organization that past a

security declaration last month. 190 countries signed off. it deals with over 230 airlines. everyone has the same interest to make sure that their flights are safe and secure. >> are you working on more your personnel being stationed in area where there would be a priority? >> we are. we have over 100 employees who

are deployed around the world. also, on your first question, we do have small, medium, large apertures and defense technologies to the back cargo. it dishes more of a challenge than it is a passengers. the larger it is, the more difficult in is to disarm. we also use explosives technology technology equipment. that is not a consistent standard around the world. let me talk about the collective bargaining issue. if you have a collective bargaining, it may not be the open strike.

where are you in this process? is it something but you are looking at seriously? have you decided that other priorities are more important? >> they are doing an assessment about whether it makes sense predella. this was complicated by decision last friday.

our experts are working with other human capital exports. what does that mean? >> it is it ordering the tsa to have an election? >> it says we should have an election for exclusive bargaining. it does not make a whole lot of sense.

>> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> maritime cargo is into our ports. the cargo it to our country by air only has to be provided for hours to a rival. would it be feasible to ask that a long fair amount be allowed

before the cargo get supported on an airplane? this is challenging them. >> you are going by air because you want a quick arrival. what happens with a 24 hour notice? halley but said that? >> we have. we have worked closely. we find a number of discussions about how we can work with industries to get more advanced notifications without affecting the bottom line for the cargo carriers. they have been very open and

receptive for the king for opportunities. to say it is not get this -- tsa does not get this. what action do we take? if there is a high-risk package coming from a place in the world, what action can we take that family then communicate? can we communicate with them to say we are concerned with it? that is the key but.

we can expand with passenger rail. what actions has tsa taken to meet the recommendations? >> there are a number of issues that we are addressing. the key is how do we best ingate state and local still have that first response and prevention irresponsibility? we can do it through the grants that we can allocate. one is through training. is the actual hiring -- the only

officers there were hired for new york city's subways. these of the type of things we are doing. >> there is an assessment of the passenger rail. it is a significant security risk. surface transportation has made up a very small percentage of .sa's overall budget there currently reviewing the 2012 budget. >> i hope so. women looked at the number of people better traveling by rail

and seeing what inviting target it was, that we can continue to avoid not focusing enough attention. >> i agree. the budget in terms the surface is not reflect the large multiples of that in terms of the grant money. it goes. -- it goes through fema. >> they would be subject to advanced imaging and the law- enforcement style pad down. >> defense imaging technology is an option. people can opt out of that.

for context, we deployed the first ait in 2007. this did not happen overnight. but let me clarify. >> let's assume the passenger goes through the expansive imaging. what circumcises -- circumstances would you use? if there are still alarms, that is when they would submit? >> a passenger were submitted to both, no alarm went off or suspicion, would that be arbitrary?

>> it to be a very rare instance for someone to have a pat down. >> i am wondering why i got both. i did use my senate id and is subjected to both. i did not object to go to the advanced imaging. some do. some do not bill -- do not. how would you answer that question? >> i would have to look into that. if there were no alarms, you would not be subject to a pack down. there is a small percentage that is random and can be unpredictable to the terrorists even if they think everything is ok. that is such a very small number. i would be surprised. >> i have often wondered out

what point there is a sticking point with the american public. take dr. bell, your shoes, your liquids now advanced imaging and very interested patdowns -- a intrusive patdowns. are you worried that this is not a vocal minority? people just think you have overstepped. >> i know the threats are real. what it comes down to is how the balance. i believe people can disagree as to the balance between privacy and security. we all agree that everyone wants to be secure. we do not agree what the proper balance is. i am concerned about that.

i want to make sure we can address those privacy issues. we can do all those things that addressed the concerns while giving the highest level of confidence. everybody has been screened in a way that they feel comfortable. >> let's examine that a little bit. if you were to follow the same approach, you would send it there advanced imaging of some kind for packages. if you saw something suspicious, you would open up the package. he would examine that. do we do that today? >> yes. we either use x-ray, advanced technology, a trace the texting, a canine, we do all of those.

this goes on a passenger plane. >> i get the impression that you are showing understanding. i think nothing will change. >> for all those listening in, it is still going to be the same big bear o

>> people have the option to adopt out. >> would you yield? he testified that the technology will lead to the point where the technology will give six figures. is that correct? >> there are high false positives. we are not there yet. >> how far away is that? >> i like to say months. it is all technology driven. we are trying to get it as best as they can. there is a huge incentive for them to do that. companies are competing to do that. we are working closely.

we test all of our equipment before deployment. the nice thing is that from a budgetary standpoint, it is really a software modification am. we do not go out and buy on new hardware things that can be used. that is a little more full. i see as an interim time will be using the best tactic is -- tactics. my hope is that the technology will improve. people can take liquids through. they do not have to take computers out. those are all things i like to

bill through, recognizing the creativity that we have seen. >> thank you very much. this is the recognition picture. this is a little small. it addresses the privacy issue. what you are saying is that the square outlined area which is an area of concern, that you are having a number of false positives? >> correct. >> it that is worked out, then people would be going through the screens without worrying about privacy.

>> that bought shows that it will show up on the part of the body. that part of the body would be subject. >> and looks like technology can be a solution. i want to ask consent to submit to the record a three page statement by pamela robinson of georgia. she is a businesswoman and a traveler. this testimony illustrates the statement the other day that if

you do not like it there are other ways to travel. it was insensitive to the public. she is going to a meeting in san francisco. there is no other alternative than 2.5 days by rail or three days by car. air travel is essential and and knees to the effect that -- and it needs to be looked at. the traveling public is significantly upset. >> the 9/11 commission in 2007 asked tsa to develop a system for the flight crews so they can expeditiously go through security. it is my understanding that in south carolina you have two areas we have been testing

effort to years put them. >> what is taking so long to implement it? >> that is one of the questions i asked. i think we made good progress. both airlines raised the issue. it is important to them >> oth than the pact down, the biggest amount of feedback i get our young children.

they are subjected to a -- they are subjected to going to the x- ray machine. there is the sensitivity of privacy and the amount of radiation they are exposed to. has the gsa done sufficient testing to made sure that exposure to that radiation over time is not a problem? >> one thing we did not do a good job of communicating is that children 12 and under or exempt from the pack down. -- pat down. as far as the radiation exposure, i would defer to what the independent studies did in looking at all types of populations, including children, pregnant women, the elderly, and things like that, which found that the exposure is within safety standards. >> thank you, mr. administrator. thank you for the job you did.

>> they keep. >> just following up on senator isakson's line of questioning about the technology, i think this is a very good option. we keep improving the technology, but where are we in terms of the role al? how many airports are they in? what is the maximum amount they can put in the airports? >> we have approximately 385 of the machines for 70 airports' right now. what we have been authorized and funded for is 490 by the end of the year. will have 100 or so by the end of the year and another 500 by the end of next year. that is what we are building towards. >> is the plan to -- i would

assume all the major airports have them. we get them in cargo, for instance -- will we get them in fargo, for instance? >> the airport has the ability to physically install them. >> can you describe the decision making process that went into strengthening the pat-down that did without revealing things you cannot reveal? >> when i came on in july, i looked at what we are doing to address the threat posed by the christmas day bomber. we were also informed by several reports -- without going into too much detail, one of the things they found as a common

denominator was when they were able to get through the cover testing -- which they could get through security, it was largely because we were not been thorough in not in our pat- downs. intelligence coupled with the covert testing led me to conclude that we needed to be more thorough to be more consistent with our partners around the world, recognizing that we are an interdependent system. if the bill mccollum had been a detective overseas, he never wet -- if abdulmuttalab had been detected overseas, he never would have made it here. >> we are always aware that we do not want to lose focus on

yesterday's threat. what we are working very closely with the law enforcement and communities are what do we see as tomorrow's threats and help all that inform our judgment today in terms of what technology we need. that is part of our process. >> someone talked to you about the crew issue. i know you're working on that. in terms of education, what can be done for the holidays coming up? >> i would make a appeal to the american people to get to the tsa web site to see what the procedures are and be the best inform travelers possible. the better informed that they can be, the better partnership we can have to provide the best possible security. >> very good. a quick question about the screening -- do you feel that 2013 is a reasonable deadline

for the one daughter% screening -- for the 100% screening? >> we are talking about international air cargo to coming to the u.s., we divided into two cared gorey's -- were divid into two categories- known and unknown. we have a close relationship with the major cargo shippers. they are working very closely with us to identify high-risk packages. it is in their best interest not to have high-risk packages on their part. 2013 is a challenge, but that is what we are working towards to be sure we could do that. >> ok. very good. thank you. >> said german castle. >> i would like to talk a little bit about cargo and the capability of airports around the world to screen

appropriately. what is the plant for a high- risk cargo inspections for countries that do not have screening capabilities? we have, unfortunately, the people who want to harm our country are not operating under a flag or a sovereign nation. they are everywhere in the world and they moved continually, which is why we have the investment in intelligence. it seems to me like they will begin to pinpoint those countries that have no capability of screening other than visual. what is the plan on how we deal with -- there is a number of those countries, is that correct? >> there are, senator. i look at what they were doing in terms of screening. we found that the use of x-ray machines exclusively. it is not a modern x-ray

machine we concede to dimensional and things like that. it has very limited physical inspection. it is under even around the world. what i see as the best way forward is what we do in the u.s. it would work in terms of a trusted screening facility. there are what does a 140 private companies doing over 50% of the screening of cargo going on in u.s. passenger flights. that is what the models. we are working with the the zero organizations. in terms of capacity development for those countries you allude to that do not have the ability right now to do that kind of screening -- the team that we set to yemen to train and equip -- we also took equipment to leave with them in terms of

building capacity to do those things you describe. >> i also thought the notion that we would have to buy equipment for other countries. i am very worried about the preponderant of countries out there that are not taking this seriously and had not made this a priority because that is the missing link. >> at the what we'll probably see from a private sector, business-risk model that they may likely not pick up packages that they assessed as being high-risk in certain areas of the world. that would be the fallout, i think, from this. it is an extreme measure of risk-management. >> what about the other cargo measures? there has been a lot of talk in this hearing talking about air. what are the security measures that we are increasingly in the other cargo been used,

particularly maritime? when you have the remote ability to detonate, the damage that could be done, frankly,rai rail, maritime -- are there any assurances we are doing well on that right? >> there are clearly still some gaps in vulnerabilities -- gaps in an bullard -- gaps in boehner abilities. gsa has a role, but its eight limited role. >> this might be one that we want to talk to the secretary about. i know it has to be frustrating. you move one direction and try to address any gaps we have, and

then another one opens up. you do there and you're taking your eye of the first one. i state we have to be sophisticated about the weakest links that we have. clearly, i take non-air cargo may be along with those countries that are not stringing -- along with those countries that are not screaming are places we should look at. >> administrator, it is good to be with you again. i want to talk about a subject that we have talked about pat-downs.is we spoke before you were confirmed about maybe relying more on behavioral evaluations like israel does. i am frankly bothered by the level of these pat-downs. i have seen them in florida.

i would not want my wife touched like that. i think we have to be focused on safety, but there is a balance. now you are going forward with more of these advanced imaging technology machines, which i take part in an appropriate. although they are in basic, there is no physical touching. there are procedures in place to keep that person looking at the imaging in another room. there are some protections there. i also understand that you would like to do everything possible to keep americans say. there has to be a limit. what we do to write this balance? in a we have gone too far. >> senator, i think there are a number of issues here. one is that people who have received this pat-down what almost exclusively be as the result of an alarm. it is a very small number of

people who are getting a pat- down that is not a result of an alarm. the second is being informed by a intelligence. we talked about the gao, the inspector general, the covert testing, which we could talk about in a classified setting up -- we know there are additional things we could be doing to detect things and we know, based on pat-downs, we have found dozens of artfully concealed objects that could pose a risk to aviation. it comes down to that balance, as you say, and the fact that everybodwantto be secure on that flight. everybody has been strained properly and we have a high level of confidence, yet we want to make sure of the best possible privacy. if we move to a.t.r., i think

that will go a long way. reasonable people disagree as to what that proper balance is. if we had those two flights that i mentioned earlier, one, you have the option of being screened and you know everybody else has been. i think almost everybody will get on that flight. my job as administrator is to find that balance and recognize the and the sadness of it. i also recognize that we must prevail. >> i appreciate the work you are doing. i know it is a difficult balance to strike. what i would hope for in the advancement in technology without getting into anything that is confidential, when you see little kids or senior citizens who are traveling domestically and maybe have not been outside of this country before, we get the chance they

are terrorists is very, very, very slim. we know that if you are a man who is 18 to 40 and you have been traveling around the world, there is a higher chance that you would fall into that group of folks that would lead a danger to the country. i would love to see a world where we have some kind of identification where we go, they check my driver's license, they know much trouble history, and they can treat people based on the likelihood that they are a terrorist not just because they are walking onto an airplane. someone traveling between minneapolis and fort lauderdale who was never let the country and never has a criminal record, there is a good chance that they are not concealing a plastic explosive in their underwear. >> to your point senator, i would restate the fact that we are trying to be a intelligence

driven organization. children 12 and under would not be subjected to those pat- downs. we are trying to be as best informed about each individual traveler, similar to the israeli model. we are picking up some tips of their. there is a dynamic tension between safety, security, and privacy. how do we resolve that dynamic tension while ensuring the bottom line that that flight is secure? >> i appreciate your comments and your good work. tyche, mr. chairman. >> senator did tdemint. >> i appreciate your professionalism you are showing today. what of the things that senator

lemew is looking at is will we continue to evolve this. i want to make sure that we are not overly concerned with being so politically correct that we ignore high-risk targets. we particularly appreciate you looking at ways to transition this technology that allows you to see things you need to see and things you do not it is something that is more animated. i take that would give people a lot of comfort. looking at the rational age -- i think that americans and other that we are not just setting up rules. my concern is most of what the government has to do -- your job is to keep peace bowl -- your job is to keep people safe, not keep them comfortable. but to get out of control over time. we need to make sure that travel by air and other waste continues

to be a good experience. you seem to be tried to draw the best balance there. that is very important in involving the technology as well as the personnel in the behavioral aspects of this. it is a very good package. if you keep us up-to-date on what you're doing, not just in hearings, but periodically a memo or something. i would like to stay more and form. if passengers and not travel in a year in the run into this, it is a hidden of setting -- it is an upsetting thing. we are getting hundreds of calls. but what does to be on top of this. apparently you are doing what you can't to try to modify this in a way that seems reasonable to people and to keep them safe. you have a very tough job. i most want to thank you for what you are doing. >> thank you.

>> one final question. tyche very much, senator. we have had for events -- we have that for events that have led to more screening. one dealt with issues, one that what underwear, one dealt with liquids, when dealt with cartridge toners. each reflects an offense by someone tried to commit, in this case, murder. they tried to get a bomb on an airplane. you are involved in defense. we are in vault -- we are involved in defense. we have wrapped up the defense a lot. that is what this discussion is all about today. tell me about the threat level. the threat level continues to increase. you would increase our defensive capabilities. where are we relative to where we were a few years ago? is the defense -- is the offense that i have the offense -- is

the defense ahead of the offense? >> there are other groups around the world that are interested in committing terrorist acts not only of the u.s. but in europe. is all the germans increase their level this morning. the way i look at this construct is that we are on a continuing. -- we are on a continuum. we are working with other countries cut wherever it may be. copley there is some intelligence because someone is detained on a battlefield. that may not work. we look at the other agencies that will hopefully and foremost

about plots that may be taking place here in the u.s. that may not happen until mike former colleagues -- until my former colleagues inform us. if somebody sees something that is a threat -- that may not be the case. when it comes down to t.s.a., you are absolutely right. we are the last line of defense for the u.s. government. whether it is a security officer -- is somebody gets to all that and they were to get on that plane, that we are down to the general air marshal's to be that last line of defense. there may be armed pilots on board. there are obviously concerned crews and passengers. for the u.s. government, it

comes out to the concert. >> when i was like to ask you, -- what i was trying to ask you, a passenger knows just by reading the newspapers that the threat -- should they feel there is slightly less risk, the same risk, or more risk? >> i hope they can see the actions or a deterrent to terrorists. for someone who is planning an attack on aviation, they will see these actions as a way of moving them to a softer target. we have done so much to heart and the targets of aviation and, yet they have done all kinds of attacks. i hope it is a deterrent. that is the bottom line. >> senator hutchison. >> mr. tyner left the san diego

airport after refusing to undertake the full-body scan. now it is being reported that he is being investigated and that he may face up to eight $10,000 fine. is that the procedure? are you investigating him? >> i have learned that we had the administrative authority to try to find people to try to smuggle items onto airplanes. that has banded done several thousand times. -- that has been done several thousand times. it is being reviewed duded -- it is being reviewed. i do not want to prejudge anything, but i do not anticipate anything coming from that. this is a partnership here. >> i agree with you that it should be considered a

partnership. in general, i have found endlessly i hear that the t.s.a. employees all are aware of the privacy issues. they are handling it very well. but is it the policy of the someoneand not to fine who does not want to be screened and leaves? >> when all the facts are made, i will make a decision on that. >> i would hope that we would not go overboard if someone decides that they have the right to their privacy and, therefore, they walk out without injury to anyone. i cannot see that that would be a fine of bets.

>> i have to make sure i have all the facts. i agree with you completely on that, senator. the fis have historically been part people try to smuggle items on board. >> thank you very much for your testimony. thank you for the work that you and your agency does. we will talk to the chairman and i expect that he would agree and want to have a classified briefing by eu and the agency in the future. this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you, senator. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> on c-span tonight, at the bipartisan policy center and the federal budget. secretary of state clinton visits to capitol hill seeking votes to ratify a nuclear arms treaty with russia. democrats accused nazi policy i s -- as majority leader in the news conference.

>> like all men of great guests, they give up power even though they may get it up for principled reasons. >> in the final volume of this award winning a trilogy on theodore roosevelt, edmund morris examines the law roosevelts life. but this sunday at 8:00 on "q &q." >> make a five to eight minute video on this year's theme, "washington d.c. through my laens." but live your video by january 20 for your chance to win $5,000. it is open to high school student's grades 6 through 12. for more information go online

to studentcam.org. >> the domenici and former budget director alice rivlin will get a plan for reducing the national debt by nearly $5.90 trillion from 2012 through 2020 to a combination of spending cuts and changes to the tax cuts. some of the proposals are similar to those set forth by the cochairs of the president's desk commission last week. they lead a task force on debt reduction for the bipartisan policy center. the museum in washington d.c. post disappointed by minute event. -- posts this 55 minutes event. >> good morning. on behalf of my friends and

fellow co-founders of the bipartisan policy center, senator bob dole and senator howard baker, all like to thank you for joining us. unfortunately, they could not be here, but i know how pleased they are with the work of this task force and are gathering this morning. if we can learn anything from the results of the elections earlier this month, it is that the american people are anxious and frustrated with the state of the economy and with our mounting public debt. our economy and our future as a strong, prosperous nation are threatened by the prospect of soaring deficits and debt in the coming years. debt and deficits that will be driven by the aging of the population, the continuing growth of health care costs, and the reluctance of policymakers to reduce spending to cut the cost of public programs. we are running the risk of the debt growing far larger than the economy itself, forcing the

nation to borrow huge sums of money. this will increase our dependence on foreign leaders and lenders and start our vital defense programs, raise the risk of economic crisis, and weakened our economy and our nation in the long run. we cannot leave this legacy for future generations. we all know that we talked about this problem for long enough. now is the time for action. that is why we are here today. after months of meetings and negotiations, a bipartisan policy center desk -- debt reduction task force is releasing its landmark report to chart a new course to rebuild our economy, to reduce the stabilize our debt, and to take control our destiny. the task force is a bipartisan group of former white house and cabinet officials, when former

senate and house members, former governors, mayors, and labor leaders forced this plan by working together. it placed all options on the table from steep spending cuts and to significant new tax increases and developed a consensus plan that they can now support. of course, the choices they made were not easy and the choices that the president, the congress, and the american people will have to make will not be easy either. reducing the nation's debt and restoring our future will require sacrifices on everyone's part. but it can be done. as the task force as demonstrated by its work. this plan will not be possible without the leadership of the task force's degette note cochairs, senator pete domenici and alice rivlin. it is my good fortune to work closely with alice in several

capacities and pete as a colleague. remember, it was president clinton who worked tirelessly for months with peake and other republicans and democrats to balance the budget for the first time in nearly 30 years at to start us on a path of four straight budget surpluses beginning in 1998. i can think of no better individuals suited to drive this debate forward in the months ahead. with that, i will turn it over to pete. >> well, first let me thank the senator for sponsoring this effort. we are here because the bipartisan policy center thought this was a big enough problem for them to take on and support and i want to thank jason.

the is the president. it was this got going, it did not spare any effort to get it done. first, i want to again thank all of you for being here this morning -- i want to thank -- i want to again thank all of you for being here this morning. the american people and america face a quiet killer that is eating away at the foundations of america. let me repeat -- we confront a quiet killer that is eating away at the foundation of america and that is the growing deficit and the debt that comes with multiple years of deficits. as admiral mike mullen said earlier this year -- and i want everybody to understand that we operated on this basis -- that our national debt is the most serious threat to america's

national security. so for those who ask should the military sacrifice also, the answer is -- everybody must sacrifice and every part of government must share in the sacrifice so that this quiet killer will not eat us alive before we can have a chance to fix what is our doings. our task force recognized two twin problems. one was the lingering, high joblessness and the poor economic growth that comes with it. at the same time, the highest debt this nation has ever run. two realities and two responses. the task force has done deep- rooted and powerful thing in responding to these two realities. parsed, we recommend -- and i want everybody to understand that this has not been recommended publicly as part of the solution to this problem,

but we did it because we solved the problem on how to make sure we did not exacerbate the debt. we propose a one-year tax holiday of the social security payments due from over 140 million american workers, men and women, and their employers. they will keep 6.2% of the payroll each end every payroll check that is issued for one year. if you are interested, that means that our people will have $650 billion to spend or save up in that year. we did that because as the second part of one package we put together a package of debt- reduction programs, which alice will go over with you, and the tax changes and tax increases, the sum total of which permits us to say the economy can begin

to grow and, at the same time, a bill will pass that will curtail these expenditures of our country, reports the tax code, which will be explained to you by one of our most ardent supporters of tax reform -- he will follow on sued to do that. i want everybody to understand that this is a total plan. it does the job. it this was turned to legislation and adopted, this silent killer that is eating away at america's welt -- we are getting poorer day-by-day -- that killer will go and in its place will come worth and prosperity. for the next two or three decades, the debt will be under control. i think that is a tremendous achievement and i am so pleased that this bipartisan group of men and women from all walks of decided it was big enough

for them to come to meetings from far away and you were many, many days and many evenings to put this package together. in the end, some disagreed with parts of it, but nobody chose to say as a totality, as a whole proposal, nobody chose to say they did know. i think that is the testimonial to the moderate nature of this package. it is not extreme. i want to close by saying it will not be done if there are not as a visit leaders in america to pursue it. our members or leaders. they will pursue it, but we need, beyond that, we need the president of the united states to lead with reference to this plan. he can look it with this experts and see if he would choose to be a leader openly and publicly in getting this job done. in closing, i want to say that

although might co-chairman and i have had issues and problems of the serious nature as we did our jobs during our allies, but nothing that we have ever done comes close to the tsunami that is part of the economic problem that we have. it is an economic disaster awaiting sunday, some time, and not so distant in the future. it must be fixed, or we are letting america go to seed. we will not be a leader in the water if we do not fix this. i only pray that the people will respond without having to see the results of this debt. if they want to wait around and see us fail, see our money debauched, at all the things that will happen if they wait this long, did this will not work. that they want to accept the

problem, which is an american problem, the debt belongs to everybody. it is our destiny to fix it. with that, i am pleased to announce that we are going to have dr. rivlin explain the thing. we had a member who is on a tight schedule. we wanted to speak. if he will come up here, i want to enter do stupe the former governor of the state of oklahoma. -- i want to introduce to you the former governor of the state of oklahoma. i want to say thank you for today and for your great input. i cut you tell america how it is going to work. thank you. [laughter] [applause] >> as the senator said, this is

a consensus document, but that does not mean that we all agree with everything. the long-term retirement and solvency, i had to produce about how this should be put together. there are two statistics that frighten me. first, by the year 2020, $2 trillion of revenue will have to be used to pay of the debt. by 2025, all the revenues coming to topple saddam will go solely to medicare, medicaid, social security, and the debt. for me as a conservative, what is dramatic in terms of encouraging growth and opportunity? fundamental reform of the tax code. what we propose here is to reduce the tax rates, not only corporate, but individual tax rates from 39.6% to 27%.

15% and 27% will be the two tax rates. the corporate tax rate will go from 35% to 27%. that should stimulate overseas investment and sales. the others should stimulate individual decisions that have nothing to do with the tax code, but everything to do with what we as individual family members and business owners think is best for our families and businesses. we want to keep mortgage interest deductions and charitable contributions in as a tax credit, eliminating other benefits, deductions, and the like, so we could have two simple rates. people can have the decision for what is best for them. in order to reduce the spending and the debt and get the budget in balance by 2012 and dramatically reduce the debt to 60% of gdp, we propose a

national sales tax -- a debt reduction sales tax of 6.5% for that purpose. i think for growth and opportunity purposes and to get rid of the debt and the deficit, to avoid the long term fiscal insanity of spending more than you earn, spending more than comes in, these are the right things to do. for me as a conservative, i did not win every battle, but much of this is excellent public policy. [applause] >> before we go into more details of the plan, we wanted to introduce the members of this great group. some of them are here, for which

we are very grateful. some came from a great distance. some could not be here, but we appreciate their input as well. we have governor jim blanchard from the great state of michigan and also a former ambassador. he has been very helpful on this. we have sheila burke, prof. and sometime -- and longtime senate staffer made major contributions. we have bob campbell, he brought lots of business experience to the table. we have henry cisneros, a

former mayor of san antonio. he is a very distinguished contributor. we have a former cabinet member in the clinton administration from the commerce department. he has come from a long distance just to be here this morning. we really appreciate that. we have bill hogueland. he voted for both me and pete domenici. he is now with cigna insurance. frank keating, who you have already met. a small business organization

that has had major input on the small business side to this report. joe is from the committee for economic development. he also works in the administration of the hill. he is an excellent economist. we have bill noveli, the former head of aarp and now a professor. he is going to talk a little bit about our security provisions in a minute. let me mention the people who are not here today whose contributions have been also a major. bob bixby, lynn bermann, maya

mcginnis, donald merrin. edward mcelroy who has been a longtime member -- a longtime leader of the teachers union and had major input. mark marial, the former mayor of new orleans. tony williams, the former mayor of this very city and former colleague of mine.

>> let me say so everybody will know, dr. rivlin and i last night we met together to conclude our work, she made the statement that this was the most important activity that she has taken in her long career. i want to say the same. if it had not been for the people that were introduced, they understood that everything was on the table and they also understood that the future of the country was on the table. each one of them, you can tell, had a lot to do. they wanted to make sure that we provided something very positive that we can grow at the same time, get our debt under control. i want to say that it was a pleasure working with you at to see you react the way you did when we needed votes and to come to consensus, it is something that says to america it that

this can be solved by a bipartisan input if leaders want to and if they decide it is better to save the country than to save their political future. they -- if they want to make that decision, it will be solved. .hey keep bids >thank-you >> i want to explain briefly what is in the plan, then we want to take your questions. you can see a short lady all of a podium. i have not fallen off of one of these yet. [laughter] as senator domenici said in introducing this plant, we were really concerned about the challenges -- accelerating the

recovery, which is an absolute necessity, and restraining the explosion of debt, of boarding a debt crisis that could blow up into a worse recession than the one we had before now. we propose a package to attack these twin challenges. the first is a payroll tax holiday for one year, both sides of the payroll tax, employer and employee, which frank spoke about. we think that would have an immediate impact. it would keep money on the paychecks of many wage earners in america. it would be a significant boost to the economy. we also believe that a deficit reduction plan should be phased in slowly. we have done that so that it

doesn't derail the recovery. we are proposing a very drastic tax reform, which frank keating has talk to you about. i am very proud of this. i think it is a very interesting piece of legislation. if it became legislation, it would give us a slightly more progressive tax code than we have now. it is definitely simpler and owth.pro-borgr we have gotten rid of almost all of the deductions and exclusions, a spicy the exclusion of employer paid health benefits. -- especially the exclusion of

benefits.layed it benefitpaid improving the art income tax credit with eight wage credits and, also, a child credit. we do have a broad-based consumption tax. 6.5% rate, which we think is a moderate rate. we think the tax package as a whole, and it has to be seen as a whole, would be pro-growth, pro saving and investment, and somewhat less pro-consumption. then on the spending side, we have held discretionary

spending for four years at a freeze. that means no more money. there are very important priorities that the government must meet. they have to fit under a hard cap. that means we will have to do last with some of the things said are duplicated or no longer a high priority. a hard freeze for five years of the defense side. we believe we can have a more efficient and effective at military if we forced the pentagon to look at its priorities more so than they had been doing and to rethink exactly what america is doing in the world.

on the health care side -- and this is the most important part of the budget for the long run -- we have two parts to our recommendation. in the shorter-run, we reinforced the cost reductions that are in the recently passed health reform bill. we would raise the part b premium on medicare. we would recommend tort reforms that were not recommended in the health reform bill. we think that can help avoid expensive at madison. but our biggest proposal is to transition medicare to a premium-support program beginning in 2018.

we see that as a way of controlling the rising costs of health care, medicare in particular. we would control at at no greater than the growth of the economy. healthcare has been growing faster than that. we think between now and 2018, we can't figure out ways in which it can grow at a more moderate rate. the way we propose to do that is to get medicare recipients a choice. they could stay in traditional medicare, but if the cost of traditional medicare went up faster than the growth of the economy, they will have to pay for the privilege of being in the traditional program. the other option would be too

good to a medicare exchange and it used among managed-care plans that would compete on the exchange. we believe that this competition would likely reduce the growth of cost and improve the quality. it would depend on the exchange be well organized and putting out a lot of information about the cost and the outcome of alternative plans. we have other reforms in the package, civilian and military retirement, agricultural benefits, and, finally, social security. i am going to turn to bill novelli. let me say one other thing, we do have process of reform in the

report as well to enforce all of this. we think those are extremely important. let me turn to bill to talk about social security. >> before you speak, could i just make one comment? i would like to make sure everybody understands -- when we say the american people we want our country to grow and we want people to be put back to work, we have reduced taxes for all of the working people and the employers for one year by putting into effect this holiday. at the same time, we expect a package including that would include a reduction in the debt that are provided in this plan. you cannot do one without the other. you cannot use the tax cut and not do the other because you were exacerbate the debt. when you take our package,

including the new tax that we will put in, you put the two together and you have a dramatic reduction in the debt that helms the american people and, in the meantime, they would receive this tax holiday, which we believe will make the economy take notice and move. the two go together. not one, but both together to promote the restraint and reform so that you get both growth and debt reduction. those are the twins. thank you for letting may impose on your time, bill. you are next.

>> good morning, everyone. i am build a valley. i have worked on issues affecting older americans and their families for years. i am committed to adjusting our fiscal crisis that guarantees adequate retirement security for today's and tamara's older generations. the plan we are putting for today will strengthe says security so that it can pay benefits in a fair and equitable way for the next 75 years and beyond. it will do so while protecting america's most vulnerable seniors. here is what the plan would do. it gradually raises the amount of wages subject to payroll taxes, which is now one under $6,800 over the next 38 years to reach the 1983 target of covering 9% of all kweichow

worse. nets, our plan changes the cost of living adjustments for social security benefits so it more accurately reflects inflation. that is a technical change that would be applied to all programs, including the indexing of the tax brackets. our plan also slightly reduces the growth in benefits for approximately the top 25% of beneficiaries as compared to current law. the plan raises the minimum benefit for a long-term, low- wage earners and to protect the most horrible scene years with a modest benefit increase. also, beginning in 2023, indexes the benefit formula to take into account increases in life expectancy. we have to take into account longevity. it requires decisions security

administration to ensure that early retirees understand that they are choosing to receive a lower monthly benefit when they do retire early. these changes are designed to increase the incentive to work longer while not raising the full retirement or the early retirement age. finally, the plant makes social security universal. it makes it a universal system by covering newly hired state and local government workers beginning in 2020. . .

that is the way that these people have helped us all along, making sacrifices.

there is no way for this plan to get implemented unless everyone agrees much as we did to win the second world war. >> does this include a freeze on operational costs. >> we will have to take a good look. >> the criticism that you have

is that we cannot let taxes go up as much without cutting spending more. why didn't you cut spending more? >> we cut spending a lot. the want to remind the people if they are worried about about that all attempts to look at this plan, the cuts in programs exceed the revenue that comes and. we started off that we could do 2/3 cuts in programs.

no one would be for this so we had to moderate this. we can grow again and prosper. >> it depends what you're looking at. the total of revenue increases would be two trillion and 188 billion. the spending --

>> you might hold that up and dow. this is a simple graph that shows what goes in and what goes out. this can explain it better than we can. >> can you tell us how the trust funds would be held harmless? how would that work? >> simply the trust fund would be reimbursed for the lost revenues and the general

revenues over a 10-year time. >> we have an adequate tax receipt and we pay the trust fund for what came out in the year that we gave. >> while in the world what i forget this? >> your two biggest savings would be employee health benefits and medicare support. can you talk about what is the

feasibility and the likelihood and how do you get this through? >> i'm glad you brought backups because part of the tax reform that we also regarded as part of the health reform is gradually phasing out and eliminating all of the exclusions of employer benefits from income. that has been controversial many economists and political folks of the right and left think that this is the right thing to do as long as you don't do this too fast.

from the point of view of health reform, this is to be discouraging people and people that have overly generous health plans. this would be to affect wages over time. this gives you revenue in the social security system and the regular tax system. >> i look forward to sitting

down with my colleague is going everyone of these items in detail. my experience is that older people really understand the importance of their children and grandchildren having a secure children. we want to help people understand how extreme this problem is. i think that we can do that. >> let me come back to the second part of your question. i did not say anything about converting medicare to premium support. this is a way of controlling the growth of costs. both of the competition on the

medicare exchange will give us more efficient medical care because the government could control the rate of increase for subsidies and the total program including those that did not want to go to the exchange would grow no faster than gdp plus one. >> i would like to make a point. can this really be done? the answer is, to fold. this is a package and cannot cherry pick and pit one piece and not another.

you must do the whole package. there is something brewing in the government of the united states called the bill to extend the debt limit. this cries out and the last election seemed to indicate that the american people cry out through it and says that if you want to increase the debt limit, why don't you fix the debt. i would submit that that is ever to 92 take a package and submit this if they don't get a good package of the people, i'm not sure how that will go. he should be the leader anyway. we won the war because our president became the leader in the second world war. we need only one leader and we need him to get engage to.

what happened is that we should put this together. the taxes, the reductions and expenditures. the other parts are exciting. we say that if you want to reduce the debt so that you can vote for the extension of the debt limit, let's be serious. >> you talked about this being a moderate plan. isn't it a very radical to suggest a national sales tax? >> i don't think so. when you have to do in our society is to try to solve problems in ways that will work.

we have a big problem that cries out for big solutions. what we have done is that we have a sales tax that is as broadbased as you can get and is as much a consumption tax as it is a sales tax or more. regardless of the climate, the overriding climate is that america is in trouble. the silent killer is about to get us. we don't know when but it would whose leaders to tell the truth and then to provide truthful solutions. then we need something like this sales tax or we cannot solve this problem and we just wait until something really bad happens to this great country. >> i would characterize this as bold and not extreme. >> can you talk a bit about

your assumptions on future national growth. what are your assumptions on the growth of the economy? what is your analysis of the impact of these changes on investor behavior, business confidence, and so on. is this dynamic. is there more confidence, does more investment take place. >> we started about the future of the budget. this is with the generally expected baseline. this has moderate growth. we expect that this package would accelerate growth both in the near term and in the long run because we think that the tax package is much more pro- growth in the investment and pro savings.

we cannot prove this end we don't have numbers to go with this. >> no one can. people can say that they know how but we don't know how. >> you took on a lot of the tax expenditures. why did you retain the ones that you did and what is the cost of the mortgage interest deduction? finally, you do detect appetite in congress to follow through with the reforms? >> why did we protect this? why did we protect the ones that

we did, i think for pretty obvious reasons. the whole mortgage deduction has been an important part of homeownership for a long time and this is not constructive in the best way. converting this to a credit as being 15% which is what we do which would be more beneficial to moderate income homeowners and classes at the top. we have been through a time in which we built too many high-end houses but the encouragement was part of this. charity is a worthy cause and should be retained. the child credits, that is a

longstanding thing and the tax code, this is important to families with children. we put this into a better form. the earned income tax credit also assist people who are low wage earners. you have to have a file to get it and that is pretty complicated. under our new system, you would not have to file, this would come right into your paycheck. your employer would no what wages you have which would be a straight credit which would be figured into your paycheck. >> ali are getting pretty long and i don't know who is in

charge. >> have you had any conversations with members of congress about this package, specifically mr. bain and mr. reid? >> -- mr., john boehner and mr. reid? >> i have not. >> we have briefed many members of congress and their staff and we have shared this plan with the presidential commission of which i am a member. we have shared our plan. they are very grateful for the template and have said so and we have shared the work as well because we thought we had a lot of good stuff here and people

will see this. >> last question. >> with the commission be open to an earlier start date? if you would have spending increases from the past two years. >> no, at to say that we would never be open to anything would be improper. we did what we did because we wanted to make sure that what we were telling the public is that we have a holiday and if we want to take this from the working people.

they would get a rebate but this will stimulate. regardless about what people say about the government, we should have already done this. we did not have a way to pay for this. we do want to put in a package and we have a debt reduction tax. we would like to phase in the tax and spending or this will have an adverse affect. >> and cannot exactly accelerate earlier than 2011. we are in 2011 already. if you look at what the effects of these hard freeze would be over time, it would bring us back to the spending levels in real terms that we had from earlier.

this is a very severe cut over several years, may be too severe. both the firms and discretionary spending, this does not allow increases in response to inflation or dramatic growth for the growth of population or any of those things that drives spending up. >> this is not include the war or the stimulus. the stimulus was -- anyway. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> up next, the secretary of state visits capitol hill seeking both to ratify a nuclear arms treaty with russia. democrats chose nancy pelosi as the minority leader. the head of the tsa testifies about his security features at a senate hearing. tomorrow, incoming freshman congressman mike kelly. a look at the airport screening procedures with laura murphy with the aclu. also the wall street journal news manager on the compensation packages corporations.

>> like all men of great ginsberg but, when they give up power, even though they might give this up for principle reasons, they give it up. >> edmund morris examines the final years of franklin -- of theodore roosevelt's life. >> the c-span networks, we provide coverage of politics, foreign affairs, nonfiction books and then history. fined our content any time through the video library. we take c-span on the road with digital content. it is washington your way, the c-span networks now available in more than 1 million homes.

>> president obama and president medvedev signed a new treaty in april which requires both countries to cut their nuclear arsenals. this still require senate ratification. the secretary of state came to capitol hill to secure votes in favor of the arms pact. this is 15 minutes. >> nice to be back. let me thank the chairman of the armed services committee. in particular, i would like to thank both senator kerry and senator lugar for their outstanding leadership treaty. with their stewardship, this is

ready to be voted on by the u.s. senate. they have held a dozen hearings. others have held an additional half-dozen. they crafted a resolution of ratification incorporating input from senators on both sides of the aisle and they were ultimately able to usher the treaty through the senate foreign relations committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 14-4. >> [inaudible] i strongly disagree. this is what the american people expect us to do, to come together to do what is necessary to protect our country. we can and we must go forward now on the new treaty during a lame-duck session.

we need to ratify this treaty and locking the incentives. most importantly, and i want to stress this because i'm not sure that everyone understands that when the treaty expires, we lose the ability to have inspectors on the ground. we need to get our inspectors back. we are much better off with this than without. the director of national intelligence said, the earlier, the sooner, the better. we need it stability, transparency that this will provide.

with this is the rationale that previous presidents and congresses of both the republican and democratic party have repeatedly and overwhelmingly supported. this is also a treaty that is critical for our bilateral relationship with russia. we have enhanced the cooperation with the benefit of our country. that is why our entire metered -- a military leadership as well as six former secretaries of state, five former secretaries of defense, 3 former -- and seven force commanders of u.s. strategic command support this treaty and support of this now. we look forward to the senate quickly completing the process.

the american people would like to see republicans and democrats working together on behalf of national security. that is why in 1991 under a republican president, the senate approved the treaty of a vote of 93-6. that is why in 2002 under a republican president, the senate approved the moscow treaty which included no verification measures by 95 to nothing. i had the privilege of voting for that treaty. this treaty deserves the same overwhelming support. >> thank you very much, secretary clinton for joining us. we have a very broad discussion on focusing on the national

security challenges to our country today from afghanistan, pakistan, iraq, and the middle east. the secretary was comprehensive in her engagement with members of the house and senate leadership. this issue of the start treaty is really at the top of the list and the discussion. our country is strongest and we protected best when we come together in a bipartisan way or in a non bipartisan way. historically, we have made our greatest advances in terms of national security when we leave politics at the water's edge. that is how we got a 95-0 vote on the moscow treaty which had no verification at all as the secretary just said.

people who are today in the senate and on the other side of the aisle voted for that treaty. here we have a treaty that for the first time provides additional ability to count warheads on both sides. here we have a treaty that allows us to have random inspections to find out what of the other side is doing. for one year now, we have had no inspections, no american boots on the ground in russia able to protect american interests. we will not have them on the ground protecting american interests. this treaty is ratified. we are in a key wars right now. we face the threat of terror every single day. we face the threat of proliferation and nuclear weapons. this treaty is the best way to reduce and address threats to

our country and we need to address this now. we have reached out for months and i made a decision as the chairman to delay asking for a vote on the request of a number of members on the other side of the aisle so that we could give people more time to evaluate this treaty. we have done that. as of today, i know the last questions that were posed by some senators have been answered and those questions are available for analysis. the american people expressed their will in a very divisive election will -- year and they asked the u.s. congress to do their business and to get rid of the politics and to protect american interests and it is

this congress that has done the work on the street. it is these senators elected here and now who have a constitutional responsibility now to deal with this treaty. it is this treaty that has gone to the hearings, analyze this. it is these senators that have a responsibility to vote. the president and the secretary of state are asking the u.s. senate to do their job. let me just say that i talk with a number of senators on the other side of the aisle and we discussed the outstanding issues. there is no substitute for agreement on the treaty. what separates apparently with a sense of moving forward is money out 10 years in the future.

the president has put $80 billion on the table for modernization and an additional 4.1 billion to meet the request of senator kyl. either way, the chairman of the appropriations committee, the secretary of state, we are committed to modernization. next year, the house of representatives would be run by the republicans. we would hope that the republican leader would get agreement on a republican on the house with what will move forward. we stand ready to negotiate. we have two weeks. we will be out of here on the thing as giving break and we stand ready to work on any day during that time. we have at least two weeks before this goes before the senate. the door should not remain open if we can find the good faith to negotiate on behalf of our country in order to deal with

the modernization funding and resolving any outstanding questions. the national security demands nothing less and we are committed to providing this. there is no stronger or powerful voice for common sense and respect for deliberations then senator lugar and we appreciate this. >> thank you. let me summarize this point of view. we are talking about the security of the u.s. this is not simply a debate among senators at this point, this is the voice of the american people that as we inform the senators, the

treaty must be ratified. since december, we have had no boots on the ground to inform us of what is occurring regarding the nuclear-weapons of russia. this is very serious. in my office, it says that at the beginning of the program, 13,300 nuclear warheads are aimed at us everything we have, 13,000, 300. any one of those warheads could obliterate the city of indianapolis. there are thousands still there. the american people might have

forgotten, senators might have forgotten. we're deeply concerned about north korea and iran and other programs. we're talking about thousands of warheads which are and excesses -- are an existential problem. i supported the modernization of our nuclear arsenal. i ain't like to work with the others in the republican party. we are at a point where we are unlikely to have heeded the treaty or modernization unless we get real. that is the point of our meeting today and i appreciate the secretary of sharing so vividly her impressions. i appreciate the chairmen's patience through negotiations. we think each one of you for helping us a tell -- for

helping us. >> [inaudible] and what are you telling them. >> are owned outreach efforts have been ongoing as we have discussed the process of ratifying the treaty. i hope that this is a message that we intend to do everything we can during this lame duck session to get a vote to ratify this treaty. i think that this is essential that we bring this before the senate. i think that what senator lugar says is so important, no one

knows more about this issue than senator lugar. for anyone to think that we can postpone this or we can avoid it, i'm afraid that that is vastly underestimating the continuing threat that is posed to our country. we hope our friends in the senate will bring this up and pass this treaty and then i can inform the russians that they are trying to do the same which they told us that they would intend to do. >> [inaudible] >> senators kerrey and liquor are experts with dealing with this. i had the privilege to serve with them for 8 years.

they both believe that this must be done. the administration will do whatever it takes literally around the clock to reach out and answer questions and have the discussions because this is not an issue that can afford to be postponed. we think that once we take that message with the urgency you have heard from the three of us, we will get the votes and we will pass this treaty. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] class senator voinovich said that he believes that the senate should not consider ratification of the treaty in the lame-duck session. he made his comments on the senate floor. the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. voinovich: i rise today to discuss the challenges america

faces in our relationship with russia and their implications on the senate's consideration of new strategic arms reduction treaty known as the start treaty. a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have spoken about the treaty's impact on global nuclear nonproliferation. and i'd like to use my remarks today to highlight my concerns about the treaty in the broader context of, one, the obama administration's reset policy towards russia; two, the start treaty's impact on our allies in eastern europe and the bam particular states. i believe these concerns must be addressed by the administration before i can determine my support for the treaty. mr. president, over the last decade, i've been an ardent champion of nato and have worked diligently to increase membership in the alliance.

i've also been active in improving our public diplomacy in eastern europe through our expansion of the visa waiver program at the qualify our friends and alice in central and eastern europe and that legislation which the president signed on visa waiver was supported by both our state department and by our department of homeland security. in my remaining time in the senate i will continue to work to strengthen that visa waiver program, which improved our image in the world and strengthened our borders through shared best practices, and enhanced intelligence sharing with our partners and allies abroad. my passion for foreign relations stems in large part from my bringing -- upbringing as the grandson of southeast european immigrants. as an undergraduate at ohio university, my first research paper examined how the united states sold out the central and eastern europe in 1943 and 1945.

these states would become the -- quote -- "captive nations" -- suffering under the specter of oppression for nearly 50 years. as a public official in ohio, i remained a strong supporter of the captive nations. during my tenure as mayor of cleveland, i joined my brothers and sis fers in the eastern european deasupraat city hall. we flew their flags, we sang their songs and prayed that one day people in those countries would know freedom. mr. president, we saw the berlin wall and iron curtain torn, in large part to the leadership of paul john paul 2k-r, president reagan and george h.w. bush. even with the endle of the cold war, i remained deeply concerned that darker forces in russia were reemerging, human rights

and religious freedom for the citizens of the newly freed captive nations. worried that history will repeat itself. it always seems to do that. this concern in 1998 during my tenure as governor of ohio and chairman of the national governor's association prompted me to pursue an all-50-state resolution promoting membership. i'm inspired by president george w. bush's speech on nato expansion in warsaw on june 15, 2001. president bush stated, "we should not calculate how little we can get away with but how much we can do to advance the cause of freedom." there was concern at that time because of the debate over -- with russia that we would back off and not support further expansion of nato. i worked diligently from my

first day as a member of the senate in 1999 to extend nato membership to my brothers and sissers in in the form of captive nations. i knew nato membership would provide these democracies safe harbor from the possible threat of new russian expansionism. by also knew the process of nato expansion would enhance much more than security in europe. as i noted in a speech on the senate floor on may 21, 2002, while nato is a collective security organization formed to defend freedom and democracy in europe, we cannot forget that common values that we formed in terms of the alliance. in other words, the foundation of the alliance is based on common values. democracy, the rule of law, minority rights -- these are among the values that form the hallmark of the neigh tee lines. mr. president, one of the proudest moments as a senator

was when i joined president bush, secretary of state colin powell, secretary of defense don rumsfeld, richard myers at the nato summit in prague on november 21, 2002. when secretary-general of nato, lord rob inson officially announced the decision to invite bulgaria, romania, lithuania, estonia, latvia, slovakia, and slovenia to become part of the alliance. that was truly one of the most thrilling days of my entire tenure as a united states senator. later that day my wife janet and i were happy to attend a dinner in honor of the czech president vaclav havel at the prague capital. following that dinner at 1:30 in the morning prague time, i placed a call home.

they gathered at the lithuania waneian hall at our lady of per perpetual health to celebrate thatdays historic events. this was truly a capstone to years of effort on all of our parts. mr. president, it is because of my long history and work with the captive nations that i continue to worry about the uncertainties of our future relationship with russia. i have traveled to 19 countries during my 21 trips to the region as a senator. presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers in eastern europe have told me time and time again that it is comforting for them to know their relationship with nato and the united states, and it serves as a vital hedge against the threat of future potential expansionist russia. yet now there is much talk from the administration about vietnaming the u.s. bilateral

relationship with russia. moscow seeks to regain its global stature and be respected as a peer in the international community. i don't blame them. president obama's may 2010 national security strategy states -- quote -- "we seek to build a stable, substantive, multidimensional relationship with russia based on mutual interests. the united states has an interest in a strong, peaceful, and prosperous russia that respects international norms." end of quote. i agree with the president. there is nothing inherently wrong with this approach. mr. pe key areas where the united states and russia share common cause and concern. number one, russia's a permanent member of the u.n. security council and will continue to be essential towards any effective multilateral pressure on iran to give up its nuclear program.

russia continues to have leverage on north korean regime and staeupted a nuclear -- stated a nuclear free korean peninsula is in the interest of both of our nations. until august 2008, invasion -- their invasion of georgia, our government and u.s. industry were working hard on a nuclear cooperation agreement with russia similar to the one that we entered into with india. i was working on that with senator lugar. i thought that was a good idea. why don't we do the same thing that we did for india, we do it with russia. with the world economy as it is today, the worst thinge can do is break off communication and revert back to our cold war positions. president obama's trip to moscow last year and the reciprocal trip to washington drew opportunities to further engage russia and determine where we have a symbiotic relationship and what we can accomplish

together for the good of the international community. however, mr. president, i believe our reset policy with russia should not establish a relationship with moscow at the expense of our captive nations -- former captive nations. we simply do not know how our relationship with russia will transpire during the years to come. will russia fully embrace the democratic government, free markets and the rule of law? or will russia seek to reestablish its influence over the former soviet union whose collapse then-president and now prime minister vladimir putin described in 2005 as the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century? this is what putin had to say, was the dissolution of the soviet union. pretty striking comment coming from the former president, now prime minister.

this brings us to the topic of the new start treaty which the senate may consider in coming weeks. mr. president, americans' grand strategy towards russia must be realistic. it must be agile. and as i have said, it must take into account the interests of our nato allies. i am deeply concerned the new start treaty may once again undermine the confidence of our friends and allies in central and eastern europe. let me be absolutely clear. i do not ideologically oppose the administration's nonproliferation agenda. the president's stated goal of a world without nuclear weapons is noble, but i believe the senate's consideration of the new start treaty must be considered through a wider lens that include the treaty's implications for our friends and allies in the former captive nation. let's talk about what's going on right now. first, i'm concerned about the uncertainties surrounding russia

that could revert back to a country seeking to expand its influence on the baltic states and eastern europe. president medvedev's february 2010 national military doctrine of the russian federation released two months -- two months before the conclusion of the in the start treaty in april of this year explicitly labeled nato expansion as a national threat to russia's existence and reaffirms russia's right to nuclear weapons if the country's existence is threatened. i'm sure such statements combined with russia's 2008 invasion of georgia sends shivers down the spines of our pwrorgts and sisters in -- brothers and sisters in central and east earn europe. the concern regarding russia are not abstract. they are rooted in blood and tears, and they're rooted in a

history of abandonment. my hometown of cleveland, ohio, was once the city with the second-largest population of hungarians after budapest. i remember vividly the stories my hungarian brothers and sisters told me about the hungarian revolution of 1956 encouraged by the implicit promise of intervention from the united states and united nations, hundreds of thousands of hungarians prophet pro tested against the -- protested against economic reform and the end of political repression. those protests spread throughout hungry. -- hungary and the government was overthrown. but moscow sought to maintain control, took advantage of america's inaction on the rebellion, invaded hungary, crushed the revolution and established a new authoritative government. over 2,500 hungarians were killed in the conflict and

200,000 hungarians fled as refugees to the west. hungary would suffer under repression of the soviet union for nearly another half century. of course there was a similar episode in czechoslovakia during the prague spring of 1968. mr. president, the former captive nations have accomplished so much as free market democracies and members of the nato alliance. our friends and allies must have absolute confidence negotiations toward the new start treaty did not include side agreements or informal understanding regarding any russian sphere of influence in those captive nations. moreover, i remain deeply concerned, even in the absence of agreements or understanding, that the former captive nations may once again wonder will the

west abandon us again. will agreement with russia once again be placed above the interest and concern of our allies? will we forget what happened after yalta and tehran? we cannot -- we cannot -- we cannot let this happen again. conventional forces. second, the former captive nations are also closely watching russia's military activities. last september -- and nobody makes a big deal of it. last september russia undertook operation west, a military exercise involving 13,000 troops, simulating an air, sea and nuclear attack on poland. not much said about it. these war games, which took place during the 70th anniversary of polish independence, were the largest russian military exercises since

the end of the cold war. if you look at the russian military's recent activity, one cannot help but understand our ally's concern moscow may be reverting to the past. i hope president obama will meet with leaders from the former captive nations this weekend during the nato summit in lisbon. the president should provide these leaders public assurance, or reassurance that the united states remains committed to article 5 of the -l north atlantic treaty, which states an attack on any member of nato shall be considered to be an attack on all. one of the best ways to alleviate the anxiety about the russian military amongst our captive nation allies is for this administration to pursue negotiations with russia towards its compliance with the conventional forces in europe treaty, the c.f.e.

mr. president, the senate's potential consideration of the new start treaty cannot be disconnected from russia's prior track record on treaty compliance. russia decided in 2007 to suspend its compliance with the c.f.e. treaty, a treaty signed by 22 countries that placed balanced limits on the deployment of troops and conventional weapons in europe. this unilateral decision by moscow should serve as a reminder to my senate colleagues about moscow's commitment to its international obligations. russia's compliance with the c.f.e. treaty is essential to sustained security and stability in central and eastern europe, and their compliance -- again complying with it which sends a very great signal to the people that are worried about russia's

direction. weaponization of oil and natural gas. mr. president, our friends in central and eastern europe are worried about the uncertainties surrounding a russia that appears at times to be reverting back to an authoritative state, seeking to weaponize its oil and natural gas resources as a means to expand its influence on europe and the west. russia has the largest reserves of natural gas and the eighth-largest oil reserves. moscow turned off the tap to europe in the recent past. they can do it again. we should also be concerned about moscow aougs its control -- using its control of oil and natural gas to pit members of nato against each other. i know when i was at the

brussels forum this year and last year, i spoke with our friends in the e.u. and encouraged them that rather than unilaterally negotiating with russia in terms of natural gas that they should all come together and negotiate as a team so that they wouldn't be -- one wouldn't be pit off against the other. unfortunately, most of them ignored that. finally, mr. president, i am deeply troubled that the obama administration has tkpaoe coupled -- decoupled russia's human rights for the record america's bilateral relationship with russia. the united states and russia are both signatories of the 1975 helsinki declaration which clearly states that -- quote -- "participating states will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the fom