you're not really sure of the best way to approach potential donors, you send letters to big foundations and corporations, well known philanthropists. you do not get your foot in the door and your ideas do not get anywhere. .

cape cape [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] they all said in one form or

another, when respondent became chairman, it would help raise private money. after the 2006 election, after it was clear respondent would become chairman of the ways and means committee, the college started to get larger tricks. donors had business before the congress. just the appearance of that alone is striking. how does it help ensure trust in government? the adjudicatory found that the respondent's use of his office for a campaign in violation of his lease and new york city zoning regulations and its building code, was a favor or of benefit to respondent that created an appearance of impropriety. think for one moment about one

of respondent's neighbors and constituents. one who may not have been as fortunate as him. maybe she lived there for 30 years and had a rent stablized apartment. the landlord was seeking to evict her because they claim she wasn't use the apartment as her primary residence. faced with the choice to buy groceries or pay to fight the lawsuit, she simply decides to pack up and leave. imagine a few months later she discovers that respondent had an apartment in the building that she didn't use as his primary residence. she also learns that the staff knew about the office and that the landlord got rent checks and e-mails for congress on them. sle also learned management put respondent's name on a list of

special handling 10ants. she learns that spont respondent met with the landlord about a potential new real estate development deal. and she learns that when the press wrote about respondent's use of the apartment, he moved his campaign office somewhere else almost immediately. how would that influence her faith in government? the supreme court has said taxes are the life blood of government, and their prompt and certain availability and imperious need. imagine how it feels to be one of your constituents who dutefully pays her taxes. maybe she's a waitress who earns much of her pay from tips, preparing her tax return is a real pain. it takes a lot of time. she can't afford an accountant, and she sure doesn't like to file.

she doesn't like paying either, but she does it. and she reports all of her income, including those cash tips she gets. one day after a long day on her feet, she turns on the television, and she sees the chairman of the house ways and means committee. he's responsible for writing the tax laws. and she learns that he hasn't been paying taxes on his dominican beach villa for 17 years. a member of congress who has a c.p.a. to help him prepare and file his taxes, and still, he didn't get it right. how would she feel about that? the purpose of financial disclosure is to inform the government about the financial interest of government officials in order to increase public confidence in the integrity of conflict and to deter any

conflicts of interest. every member of congress and thousands of government employees are required to complete these forms every year. taking the time, which can be significant, to complete the forms completely and accurately. the forms are repeated. financial disclosure is about the public's truft. being able to see a member's private interest and his official duties is essential to helping the public have faith that its representatives are working to serve the public interest, not their personal interests. respondent from 1998 to 2008 failed to file appropriate

taxes. this prevented his peers to check his financial hold lings as their duty as representatives in congress. in addition, respondent is a senior member of the house. he held positions of trust, authority, and power. as ranking member and later chairman of the ways and means committee, he has significant influence for the critical and intricate policy areas that touch the lives of millions of americans, from taxes to medicare, social security to trade. the ways and means combhee's work has an effect on virtually every american. what does it say to the public when they learn that their health care laws were overseen by someone who shows such

carelessness in preparing and filing his own financial disclosure statements? what does that alone do to the public's trust in government? in the capitol is a line by george washington. it reads, "this government, the off-spring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed has a just claim to your confidence and support. it is essential that the public has faith in this institution." the public must be able to trust those who govern them. as former speaker of the house, henry clay said, government is a trust, and the offices of the government are trustees. both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people. public office is a public trust.

respondent violated that trust. a member has been found to violate the house of ethics rules has breached the public's trust. when a member of congress violates the terms of that trust, he is subject to discipline by his colleagues. as trustees of the public trust, each of you must consider the best interests of this institution and the people it represents. you should consider whether the conduct of an individual who violated the rules undermines the public's trust in its government. committee council submits respondent's conduct which violated house rules, laws, and regulations, and other positions in government undercut the public's ability to have faith and trust in this institution. the subcommittee found

respondent's conduct reflected poorly on the institution of the house, and thereby brought discredit to the house. disciplinary action in this matter is necessary. as to what that sanction could be, the question should be whether it adequately represents the standards of members today. at least with regard to individual accounts, a reprimand would not be inconsistent with the precedent. in this case, to the law and to the institution. however, the fact is that the subcommittee findings share its course of conduct demonstrated a lack of attention and carelessness over a broad range of issues over a lengthy period

of time. his actions and accumulation of actions, as the subcommittee found, brought discredit to the house. his conduct serves to undermine public trust in this institution. the subcommittee findings of the actions he had on the public trust was weighed against the precedence in this committee suggests something more than a rep mant manned but less than a censure would not be inappropriate. that said, we cannot ignore the fact that respondent was, at relevant times, either the chairman or the ranking member of the ways and means committee. nor can we look at the fact that so many elements of his conduct that acted so overtly with his

action and position. i respectfully submit this committee should represent to the full house that it take disciplinary action against respondent, and that this committee recommend respondent be censured by the house. >> have you conclude -- concluded? >> yes. >> we now return to mr. rangall. i see you have our colleague, mr. lewis, standing next to you, and i would invite you to address us now. >> thank you. first, let me say i can imagine the awkwardness that this committee had over the years, and i know none of you would have volunteered for this service, nor would you have believed that this case would have taken this long that it did take. i understand that.

the second thing, is his statement did not imply my lack of love for my country. one of the reasons this has taken so long is that when people were talking about settlement, never was the evidence that was not found as it relates to the allegations and evidence. as a matter of fact, one of the reasons why i was insisting on having the winds testify in front of the investigate tri committee was because they may not have changed the facts, they

may not have been given excuses for my behavior, but clearly in view of some of the things that have been said by council and mr. bonner, they would have been given an explanation of my behavior, as it relates to the very serious charges of violating the house rules. i look at myself every morning, mr. bonner, and i have never blamed staff, my family, or anyone for my irresponsible behavior as it relates to violations of the house rules. as a matter of fact, i have said it publicly and you have clips of this as to what i've said. and i, no matter what decision

you finally reach, i will dedicate my life in trying to let younger members and other members know that these rules are not there to punish, they are there to guide the mbers to protect your character and integrity of this congress. whether they are new members or older members, they have a responsibility to do just that. i would pose, however, that the atmosphere in which i dealt with the landlord at 40 west 185th street, that i dealt with those people that listed foundations that could make recommendations for city college to receive a grant that they were able and

did testify that there was no request or suggestion that i would receive any personal gain. there would not be even the suggestion of corruption. had there been some suggestion when we were negotiated that we could have avoided this hearing, if someone had said to me they were willing as they were really asking this committee to do, to say what was not found, even though it was alleged and still is being alleged by newspapers, reporters, by television reporters, as it deals with rangall being a crook, rangel

and wrongdoing, i wanted to be judged, and i admitted to wrong-doing to my committee, and it wasn't my fault that this committee decided to have this hearing on the eve of my primary or the eve of the general election. there was enough derogatory said about me, i don't think you have to feel sorry for my constituents about not knowing. i want to clear the record of what i did not do, although the record shows that what i did do was serious enough for this committee to continue its

investigation. i am not here to retry the case. but even you, mr. bonner, might think it would be fair to point out that the record would indicate that the landlord solicited me for that apartment that the apartment had been vacant as other apartments had been throughout the building, and that with the exception of the zoning law mentioned by council, it was determined there was no violation of any agreements of any persons. that the person the lease was paid to said he wanted me there, and that my leaving there would have destablized the apartment. but again, since you refer to the appearance of favoritism, i can't get into that subjective dealing about the appearances of people. i did not know i was on a special list, and i don't think

anyone has asked what did i gain as a result of being on that list. because there was appearances, it was with the staff. in any event, the fact that 17 years taxes were paid to the dominican republic has nothing do -- to do with the fact in this case as it relates to my conduct. but i would believe that the account yanlt that testified would have shared with you how mistakes were made, that i assume responsibility for. because whether it is a lawyer, c.p.a., or accountant, i signed the paper. but had i had the opportunity to listen to the winds, i think that the atmosphere would not be that i was a bad person, but more in line with what was said.

like was asked, do you have any evidence of personal benefit or collection? he says, "i see no evidence of corruption," said blake chism. i believe the congressman was over-zealous in many of the things he did and in his personal finances. this statement is nothing for me to be proud of. this statement makes me believe

that a lot should have been done, and i recognize that, and i meant that. but i think it would really help, if the committee would put in that report, no matter what you agree the sanctions should be, that your member was not corrupt and did not seek and did not gain anything personally for the bad conduct that i've had. that's all i've ever asked when i referred this whole thing to committee. all i is this you make a point of investigating everything. i have had anot account yapt to look over taxes and all the things that should have been done, but that is not an example that i would want to set for the members of congress. and quite frankly, even though i

came in here prepared not to deal with the question of censure and the options that you've had, i think that mr. chism when this committee saw fit to give reprimand, i assume that when you go into executive session, you would notice how other members were treated under circumstances where they were personally enriched, and where there was no question that corruption existed. i have brought my friend here, john lewis, because i wanted him to share with you some words. he has a statement as to how

i've dedicated my life to my cunning tri -- country and to this congress and to my community, and i know if i had counsel here, that they would say one thing -- don't antagonize any of the members of this committee, but mr. bonner, i really was surprised that you could deal with questions that dealt for my love for my congress and my country and my district as well to talk about of the -- testimony that you found that was factual that was not disputed by me, but by the same token, the surrounding circumstances of what i had left that apartment were there, in a subsidized apartment, left there. the answer is no.

these people that we've been looking for subsidized apartments certainly wasn't looking for -- the apartments were vay consultant, and i didn't try to hide anything from anybody. again, that doesn't deal with how it appears even though there's an account there saying i gave the appearance. i was over-zealous because i've dedicated my life to trying to make certain that those people that were not exposed to the proper education could get it. there is the rangel fellowship that the state department runs their scholarships in my name and those not in my name because i know that the only thing between me as a high school dropout and korea and becoming chairman of the awesome and

respectable ways and means committee was the g.i. bill and education. so over-zealous is not an excuse, but i appreciate mr. chism demonstrated that it is an explanation, and not an excuse for my favor. i hope you take that into consideration, because it is not just the years i've been in congress, it is the years that i expect my grandchildren to be looking at, my community, and i hope you take all those things in consideration, and i ask now that you give an opportunity for john lewis, perhaps, to share some views of the over 50 years of friendship that we have enjoyed. >> by unanimous consent, mr. lewis is now recognized.

>> thank you, madam chair, members of the committee. i want to first say that i am here just to say a few words about my dear friend, my colleae, my brother, charles rangel. i must state up front that i don't know the facts in this case. i have known mr. rangel for more than 50 years. he's a committed and dedicated and hard-working patriotic american. he fought in korea for our country. he returned home and got an education, and went off to law school. he served the city for new york and the state of new york. he is a hard-working public servant. when the call went out in 1965

to come to selma, alabama, to help people who had been standing in unmoveable lines, to help people who could not register to vote, he came to selma, and he walked with many of us, including dr. martin luther king jr. all the way from selma to montgomery, alabama for the right to vote. he sponsored and passed progressive legislation to end the vicious and evil system in south africa. he's always been a champion for those who have been left out and left behind. he has traveled the length and breath of america for those who didn't have a voice. my colleagues, i must tell you that charles rangel is a good and decent man. i know this man. i want to thank you, mdyam

chair, mr. ranking member, and members of the committee, for allowing me an opportunity to say just a few words. >> if there are any members of the committee that have any questions, i would be happy to respond. >> thank you. the gentleman has yielded back his time. i would turn now to the committee for guidance the democrats have been noticed. we have a recorded vote. so that has been postponed. i retract that statement. a recorded vote has been rolled. so we will now go to the time in our proceedings when members may under the five-min minute rule ask questions they may have. i will turn first to the ranking

member, mr. bonner, for his five minutes. >> mad yam chair, -- madam chair i will defer questions to my colleagues, but i want to respond directly to mr. rangel that -- about two matters he raised in his statement. mr. lewis referenced the fact that as a young man mr. rangel volunteered and came and marched with him in selma, alabama, to help bring civil rights and justice for all. i was born in selma, before that march. but i want you to know that that's one of the many proud parts of your legacy. as someone who was born in selma, i'm grateful that you came and did what you did to make america a better place.

i want to make it perfectly clear, though, that in my statement of the facts, i did not nor would i ever question your love of country. and i didn't question your love of the institution. i said that you have so long proclaimed to love this institution. and i also made it clear that i'm not qualified to speak for the people of harlem and the 15th district of new york. i also noted that no one can take away the proud and dedicated service you render to your country and the honors and medals that you earned. >> i would like to thank you, mr. booner. -- mr. bonner. i do want to point out, however, when it was clearly your prerogative on monday to make the statement about the lag of counsel -- lack of counsel and

the frustration of not being able to set up an account and do what needed to be done so that you would be represented, i do want to point out, that the adjudicatory subcommittee, of which i was not a member, had the responsibility, it was my understanding, to conduct a trial to have those winds that could have represented your views to come in a public setting and make those arguments for you or for the record. and while i was not here that day, and you chose to leave after you came, i just want the record to be clear that that was a choice that was made to not call winds and to not represent yourself or to have legal counsel represented for you.

and i just can't want that assertion that the record could not have been more complete. that was a decision that i certainly had no role in. >> can i respond? >> i'm through. >> is that a question? >> absolutely. >> as i said in my remarks, the only reason i wanted counsel and wanted a hearing was so that the witnesses would be able to come forward. and the questions as to corruption and self-interest could be answered. that the landlord could fell you that he solicited me. he wasn't doing me any favor. having said all that, it is not true i had the option of having winds called up. it was denied me. they created summary judgment in

saying there was no need for winds because rangel hasn't admitted the disclosure and the fact related to other issues was established. so i don't know whether mr. bonner, if you were not on the committee, but if you have information that i have the opportunity to call winds, you are making one big mistake. that was denied. >> thank you. >> the gentleman's time was expired. i just would note that if the member wishes to be heard that the ruling on the motion would be held in abeyance. do other members have questions? >> that was a tribute last night to you and i want to echo the sentiments of mr. bonner, your courageous acts during the civil rights movement.

i think a lot has been made in this about self-interest and corruption. i guess i am a little confused. it depends on how you define "corruption." in your letter to speaker pelosi you said "as speaker of the ways and means i am held to a higher level of propriety." and i agree with that statement. "sitting on one of the highest committees to solicit business, lobby business before the committee, raise money for what i call a monument to me, and an institute to be named after yourself, i believe, is a value, and is a benefit and is self-interested. people donate millions of dollars to have institutions named after themselves.

as a matter of fact, you say the donations were accepted under certain circumstances as might be construed of influencing the respondent's governmental duties. is that not a corruption? i guess it is how you define corruption here. i think reasonable people may disagree with that interpretation. with all due respect, i have great appreciation for you, sir, but the failure to pay taxes for 17 years, what is that taggant amount -- what is that tantamount to? we are all expected to pay our taxes, and you as tax committee chairman writing laws for the country, with that according to mr. trafficant, you -- with that , mr. traficant, didn't pay

taxes. he was expelled from the congress. charles wilson received improper gifts and was censured. mr. chism, it is my understanding that your recommendation here today is for censure? >> that is correct. >> i want to make one thing clear. there is a misunderstanding of the american people, i think, that we have the authority to put people in jail or so forth. that is within a court of law, not within the jurisdiction of this committee. but in fairness to you, mr. rangel, respondent, and mr. chism, i would like some clarification, and i think the person people would like some clarification as to how soliciting moneys in an improper way from entities that have businesses before your committee, including lobbyists, to build a monument to me, how that is not self-p interest, and

-- how that is not self-interest, and highway that is not in some way, defined as corruption. >> is that a question to counsel? >> it is a question to mr. chism and mr. rangel. >> had the winds been called, mr. chism would have told you that city college came to me. they were looking for the ability to use my name in raising funds for the school. had the winds been here, it would have been made abundantly clear that i was not trying to criminally hide anything from the i.r.s. or from the congress. if you looked at the records of disclosure, you would have seen i wasn't hiding anything, it was president recorded. -- it just wasn't properly recorded. listen, there is nothing that i

ask imagine that anyone can make a contribution to city college that somehow or other that matter would not be one that could possibly come before the congress. it's impossible. so you and i discussed in corruption. i'm satisfied with the record that the investigate tri committee established. and that would lead you to believe as a former prosecuteor that never was there an attempt to hide anything from my constituents or from the i.r.s. so to me, if you have to kick this up from not properly abiding by the rules, which i admit is serious enough, but i really think that it's a stretch to imply -- well, i don't want to get into a discussion -- like he said, is it objective, and there are a lot of things that happen in life, that i would

think someone's conduct is corrupt, and that is something. but i'm just glad that you raised these issues to emphasize that i wanted the people to know before the election exactly what i've done, and to allow them the opportunity to make the decision whether their congressperson was corrupt or over overzellous -- over-zealous. >> the gentleman's time is expired. i would ask to give mr. chism an additional minute to respond to the question. >> thank you. congressman, the other day i answered a question. i answered it based on my reading of the record, the

interviews i've conducted, the people i've talked to. it was my opinion -- mine -- i do not presume to speak for anyone else. nor did i intend to. i do think it comes to the question of intent at the end of the day, and that's how i interpreted mr. butterfield's question. >> the gentleman's time is expired. do other members have questions of mr. connoway? >> actually, i had two questions about your comments, mr. rangel. i want to make sure i understood it. the city college in new york came up with the idea of the rangel center for public servants and they approached you with that idea? is that what you just told us?

>> i had left the clinton library with a member of the appropriations committee, and i was sharing that experience with the president of city college, and he asked me whether or not i -- what i was going to do with my papers or something to that effect, and i told him that since coal-in powell had something -- colin powell had something there, that i could put my papers in, in the course of the conversation, he said that would be a great -- and i think the record is clear in the investigating committee, even though i have not talk with the president since and i have not read his testimony, and my lawyer told me that i shouldn't read the testimony of the winds because that would confuse me. >> stop, mr. rangel. >> i am saying they wanted me there, more than i wanted to go to city college. and there is also a question of a -- i know counsel will say this.

the record will indicate that no one at city college told me about an office. the last thing i needed was an office. they put it in and took it out. >> reclaiming my time, madam chair. >> i'm sorry. >> i'm perfectly satisfied with the clarification the way the trame thing came together. you retained a forensic accountant to go through your tax returns for those 17 years, and they estimated what your taxes would have been as best they could, if the records were available, had you filed your tax returns during that time frame. most of the taxes owed was told by the constitutional of limitations, in other words beyond the opportunity for the i.r.s. to compel you to pay those taxes. have you given any consideration to voluntarily paying those back taxes to square yourself with the i.r.s. >> i certainly have. because the question would have been, had the taxes been paid

and the dedeductions be made for the dededuction and appreciation of the property in the dominican republic, my accountant fells me it would have been minimum. and the only reason i did not he can pose and go beyond that, is because i wanted the case close as it related to coming before the committee. if a part of your adjudication would be a resnsibility to do it, i just did not want to get involved legally in doing something in front of this committee since they made it abundantly clear. every obligation i had, you know, this wasn't recorded. this is what i referred to the committee. and i was prepared to do whatever the committee suggested to show that i had no intent to evade the law. >> just to be clear, those taxes from the early 1990's up to

2004, you have not paid those? the estimate from the account thant that you retained and paid -- >> i paid whatever my accountant told me to pay to make sure that i was not behind in any taxes that i owed. >> thank you, sir. yield back. >> any other member wish to be identified? >> thank you madam chair. i have a few questions. this is as it relates to the issue of corruption. i don't think it is close -- either mr. chism to determine corruption. i think the judge and jury will be the american people on that quefment what we're here to deal with today is on the various violations of the 13 counts. the adjudicatory committee said those were 13. we're here to deal with a

sanction, a reprimand, a fine, whatever it may be. my question to you, mr. chism. you did not recommend the fine, and i'm just curious, too, from mr. rangel, if when you paid those delinquent taxes, did you pay fines and penalties and interest at the time? y paid whatever the accountant told me to pay. i've always had an accountant. i had one in new york. whatever they said i should do to amend returns, i have done. that is true of disclosure as well as the i.r.s. and of those counts, if i just might add, as a former prosecutor, you know of the 13 allegations, i think four or five of derrive directly from the fact that i improperly used congressional stationary --

stationery. and with the intent that it was the right and proper thing to do. that was on government property -- >> reclaiming my time. thank you, mr. rangel. mr. chism, can i ask why you did not recommend the fine in this? recommended censure, but not a fine. >> congressman, my ultimate recommendation is a censure. in historical terms, i think that would be remarkably significant on its own. however, i also noted in my remarks that under the precedence the case could call -- fall between a reprimand and a censure, and it would not be inappropriate to find a sanction in that range.

there are limited options how you would get beyond a reprimand and a censure accident and a fine would certainly be within the province of the committee if compliant with the committee's rules. >> when recommending a sanction, is it appropriate to consider the fact that mr. rangel refused to participate in the proceedings the other day? for example, i had a number of questions i wanted to ask the respond yentas related to lenox terrace. i had them submitted for the record. but can the committee consider his refusal to participate in determining an propet sanction? >> mr. chism. >> i think that this is an institution that judges itself scomprk that your conscience, each member's conscience and the

variables that reflect on this institution, may be considered as you see fit. obviously i deal with the charges that have been found. i deal with the proceedings, and based solely on what was found, it is my recommendation for a censure. >> in the history of this institution, has a member ever been disciplined for such a large number of vie layings, as in this case? if so, what's the case history? >> i think my recollection is that in a matter of digs there were eight found counts.

i'm sorry, wilson, charles h. wilson. >> so that's the most? >> yes. >> the gentleman yields back. do other members that have questions wish to be heard? >> the question of not participating i would like to respond to. >> if i could, mr. rangel, if we could ask the questions. and i also note in recognizing mr. harper, that the chair did note during the hearing that the respondent is not under our rules required to participate. >> but he asked counsel, and since i don't have counsel, i thought i could respond. >> by nan unanimous consent mr. dent has given another minute so mr. rangel can respond. >> the question was, when you left the hearing, i had

questions on lenox terrace that i was going to ask you or your cune sell, and -- or your counsel, and i was unable to ask. >> i want to make it clear, i did not have to come here during the proceeding. two, no one challenges the fact that i expected to have counsel here. thirdly, no one could possibly suggest that i submit myself to examination without a lawyer here. and fourth, i'm now prepared to answer any questions that you would want as relates to anything that you think might influence your decision to the sanction, whether it is len objection terrace or not. -- whether it is lenox terrace or not. >> the gentleman's time has expired. we would ask mr. harper to ask his questions. >> mr. rangel, i want to make sure we're clear and i hope mr.

rangel understands, that when we were set for the hearing the other day, the winds were here and under subpoena. is that correct? >> dwickly, mr. harper, i want to say, frafficant was nine found counts. i wanted to clarify that for the record. bl harper, yes, we had winds here and available and were very prepared to proceed. >> it is my understanding had mr. rangel not walked out, that those winds would have been called -- that those winds would have been called and we would have heard that testimony, and the motion for summary judgment would have been held in abeyance? >> that was my understanng. >> would it please the court? can i plention to counsel what i was told as relates to this hearing? counsel told me he was going for

summary judgment. counsel moved for summary judgment. you ruled on summary judgment. how in the world would i have had a chance to cross-examine winds. >> if i may, we're going to let mr. harper finish his questions. i will be -- give a brief interplay with the indulgence of the members on that point, then we will recess to vote. these are the last votes for the day. we will return, finish our questions, and then go into deliberations. mr. harper, finish if you could. >> mr. chism, as you look at the allegations in the s.a.v., excluding the ones at the end that dealt with violating the house rules and conduct on the improvide of the house, is there any one or two that stood out as more serious in your consideration of recommending censure?

>> i think there were three. the financial disclosure count. the count relating to the nonpayment of taxes, and the solicitation count. and the circumstances with which those solicitations were made, particularly the official misuses of official resources weighed heavily in my decision. >> and of those three that you just mentioned, was there any one that stood out more than the other two? >> i think if i said the financial disclosure and the tax pieces sort of together given his position as the sharme of the ways and means committee and

the effect that that would have had, did have on the public's trust mitigated in favor of a recommendation of censure, in my judgment. >> and mr. chism, if i may ask, when you considered count 12 and 13 in the s.a.v., count 12 being violating the spirit of the house rules and 13 conducting discredibility on the house, how did you weigh those counts in the consideration of your recommendation? >> the finding that respondents conduct reflected discredit on the house. at the end of the day, i think if you look back at the history of the committee and the way case yeds typically are disposed

of, this is about the institution, congressmen, and the ultimate test for the institution is whether members behave incredibly. -- behave cedibly. that 13th count is at least a perception of someone who loves the institution. that was fundamental. >> madam chair, with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. i would just note, and we'll come back after these votes, just to clarify, we did have all the subpoenaed winds up stairs in the horrible little room. as i indicated on the record, we were prepared to proceed with the hearing if mr. rangel chose to do so, and not rule on the

motion that was offered when he declined as was his right not to participate. mr. mccall and i went up to tell the winds that they could go home and that is the way that happened. at that point the committee will be in recess until after the votes. i would ask members to promptly return after the votes are concluded.

i never protecting the reputation is extremely important. -- i know protecting the

reputation is in borden. many would wonder if there is any integrity left to protect. i think that refers to one party as it does to the other. that being said, i think the people of this country have an abiding sense of fairness and justice. while they want to see their institutions protected, they also want to see justice done. i think that is a very important matter to most americans that i know. while it is easy, i think it come to sit in judgment and criticize, it is a bit more difficult to actually find justice. in this case, sin this is a hearing on sanctions, it is very important that we find justice.

it is justice to the institution. it is justice to the people of this country. it is also a justice to someone who has been accused and found guilty. that being said, i would like, based on testimony i have heard a, there has been no finding that the respondent was guilty of any intent or factual instance of having personal gain. is that correct, counsel? i am asking you about the findings. >> with respect to the findings, that is correct.

>> in our jurisprudence, maybe the best way for us to determine wh constitutes justice is the system of precedents and what presidents have been said, what has gone before us, what previous congresses have done in similar circumstances. do i understand there have been four instances of censure in the past? >> the numbers i gave earlier are all matters that came out of the committee itself. there are a number of more instances of censure and the the house dating to the 19th century. >> then let's talk about this committee. it has had four instances of censure? >> i believe that is right. >> which of those did not

contain some elements of personal gain, of those four? >> give me one second. the recommendations for censure in 1978, failing to report a $1,000 cash contribution he received, representative digs was convicted of 11 counts of mail fraud and 18 counts of false statements. charles wilson next up -- accepted loans more than $10,000 from a person directly interested in legislation. >> personal gain in those instances? >> the other two matters, and there were two in which the committee recommended a

reprimand for house censure and those work both for having sex with pages. >> we will not get into that. those other three sound as close to this case and had personal gain involved, correct? i guess what i'm asking you in essence is if we do find censure in this case, would we be setting a precedent? or would we be following a previous precedent? >> as i said, i do not think that the precedents of the committee demarcates a very clear line. there are not many cases that are truly, squarely on point here. you can pick and choose certain counts and line goes up with different recommendations, but there really is not a case in committees passed that you can

line up well with this case. to the extent that precedent should be the guide. i believe it ought to be respected. i also think, however, as i noted, that the times may be different than in previous times in which the committee has considered different sections. >> which takes into a round of subjectivity. >> your time has expired. does any other member wish to ask a question? >> thank you, madame chair. thank you members of the committee, said committee, and staff for all of your hard work. and does not go unnoticed. i have heard it said this week that this is a difficult case. difficult it is. it is difficult for me, first of all, because i have not had

staff nor council to devise me as a member of this committee. all of us know that the staff works for and with the chair and ranking member. members of this committee are struck to that we cannot discuss this matter or any pending before the committee with their personal staff. we are left to fend for ourselves and that has made me very uncomfortable. when i was on the supreme court in my state, i had two law clerks and an executive assistant who worked with me every day and i depended on them greatly. i have not had that type of support in this case. it puts me at a tremendous disadvantage. the other thing that has made this case difficult for me is that we are judging not only a colleague, but a 80-year-old man who has spent 40 years of his life, one half of his life, in this institution. i did not know until a few minutes ago when i was eating a

chicken salad sandwich next to the chair in the cloakroom in the house of representatives fortuitously. i looked upon the wall and there was a picture of congressman rangel that has been there for several years which was depicting his service when he was in the korean war. at the conclusion of the article it talked about his being awarded a purple heart and a bronze star. that is the type of individual that we are judging. it has also troubled me in this case that we are dealing with the respondent that has no legal counsel. that troubles me greatly. it troubles me that his lawyers, after the hearing was announced his council decided to withdraw from the case. i do not know their reasons, but i can tell you that when i was a trial judge, never, ever would i have allowed council to withdraw on the eve of trial.

that has troubled me greatly. if mr. rangel had counseled today and earlier this week, there are arguments that could have been made by counsel. those arguments have not been made and it is not responsibility to make those arguments for him, but there are certain the arguments that could have been made. they would have had a bearing on the section that we will ultimately impose in this case. the precedents of the house are critically important and skill the council could have highlighted other cases that the committee has dealt with. it is my hope, madam chair, that we will decide a section based on precedents, not politics, expediency, public opinion the facts of this case do not -- do not -- warrant a censure in my opinion. i respect the charge of's right

to warn such a decision. even the council has said that punishment is difficult and ranges from reprimand to censure. i suggest that any conflict between these two punishments must be resolved in favor of the respondents. censure is extreme and should be reserved for intentional conduct worthy member has derived a personal financial benefit that is not in this case. we are judges, madam chair. we are bound by the laws of the case. in response to my question on monday, the council clearly stated that the evidence does not suggest corruption. the council has lived with this case and he knows it inside and out. he has a distinguished career of public service and he, based on my observations -- observations is a legal scholar. if he had found corruption, he would have said so. this establishes no correction, and as judges we should be bound by this.

we must not answer any legal conclusions that would supplant those of the party. the adjudicatory subcommittee, also. we are judges. we're not advocates. finally, we must not lose sight of the fact that members of the house solicit gerbil contributions and donations for their favorite charities. this happens every day. mr. rangel fell short only because he failed to get permission to do so. because he used official resources in making the solicitations with respect to the failure to disclose, it is clear that he has a knowledge this, embarrassingly so, that he was sloppy in his reporting and record-keeping. the record we have before us does not establish that this failing to disclose was intentional or done for an improper purpose. i look forward to our deliberation fifth and trust that justice, fairness, president will be our guiding

star. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, and rep butterfield. does any other member wish to ask a question? mr. welch? >> thank you, madam chair. this is an extraordinarily important case in the institution and of course for mr. rangel. as complicated as this was, the facts are relatively simple. there was improper solicitation. mr. rankled should not have used his rank, his staff, his office to solicit funds even though the funds. solicited were for a nonprofit educational institution. he should not have been soliciting from entities that had business before his committee in the converse where it was very much in appearance that there would be a conflict. i want to come back to that in a moment. the rent stabilization was something he was not entitled to and the benefited by.

the taxes he did oppose the government he did not pay them. mr. rangel has a knowledge in each case that his record keeping was sloppy and he breached responsibility. his defense is essentially not a defense, because failing to meet your obligation, whether an accident or intentional is not a defense your responsibility to me your obligations. counsel, as i understand is agreeing that he did not seek and solicit money for his personal benefit. also as mr. butterfield indicated, members of this body to solicit for educational institutions named after themselves, a practice i think never should have been allowed in this congress. it is a manner in which mr. rangel did it that caused him this trouble. these are serious concerns in the process by which we got here was long, complicated, and it

caused a lot of concern on behalf of the american public. that is essentially what happened. the question that we face is sanctions. as mr. chandler said, we have an obligation to the institution and we have an obligation to be judges and be fair to mr. rangel. sanctions can be serious, whenever they are. this committee can make recommendations, and that is rare that a member of congress is hauled before the committee and then stands in front of the entire body rather be reprimand or censure and has read before the congress of this united states and the people of this united states a recommendation of a public policy. we're going to make our decision on this, but i would caution those of us on this committee and all of us in congress that

this is not the end of this for the american people. when we have a system where corporations, individuals country money to each and every one of is because of who we are in the position we occupied we try to make calibrated distinctions between what is legitimate and what is not. where you draw that line is in the eye of the beholder. would the american people have a sense of is the enormous amount of money in politics we have to act as a body to do everything we can to uphold rules, regulations, and ethical standards of this institution which requires us to be very strict in those obligations and call this as we see it as far as mr. rangel is concerned. this is to restore some public credibility. this will not be the end of it because when people who work hard, as you said, and they are

trying to pay their bills in their working and those of us who have high responsibility and receive donations, a big part of the process, republican, democrat, independence, the question of whether what this body is doing is meeting its highest goal, which is to work on their behalf. mr. rangel, i went to give you an opportunity, because i know this is important to you. you have led an extraordinary life. you fought your way over to the right side of the tracks. you had no opportunity when yo were young. your way out was to enlist in the military. then you were in a brutal war and nearly died in korea. when you came home, you could not get a job because of the color of your skin. you did not get discouraged. you push a cart in lower manhattan. you have a wonderful marriage and a great family. you have earned the respect and esteem of the people of harlem. you have been an inspiration to

generations of people. you find yourself now having lost the prize you sought for so long, the chairmanship of the ways and means committee of this congress. you find yourself sitting were you wish you never were, before the ethics committee and you know you will soon be standing before the entire congress going back to that. i want to give you an opportunity to express whatever it is that you want to save the people in your district that i know you care so much about and who have looked up to you for so long.

>> let me apologize to the committee for putting it through this. i was scared in correa and what god has given me i am appreciated of with the opportunity to serve and not know how much longer i have to live, but i have always tried to help people and to thank god for all he has given to me. i leave the sanctions to all of you as a commission and

apologize for what i've caused you. i feel the matter what you decided for sanctions that i never sought any personal gain. please make certain that my name, not withstanding the imagination summit have, that there is no way to stretch this that as i was a corrupt individual to the shame of my family, my community, converse, and the country. i leave it up to you as to what is fair in terms of sanctions

and i recognize that you cannot deal with issues that are not before this committee. what the press has done to me, my community, my family, is totally unfair. the council knows this. all of you know it. it is not your responsibility to correct them. , but they will continue to call me a crook and a surge me with being corrupt -- and charge me with being corrupted. i hope you might see your way clear to say this member was not corrupt and there's no excuse for my behavior, and there was no intense for me to ever go beyond what has been given to

me as a salary. i never attempted to enrich myself and that i walk away no matter what your decision, i am grateful that i have had this opportunity to serve and i recognize that had not been for god's gift in saving my life that i would not even be here today to talk with you. i think you for this opportunity to express myself and i apologize for any embarrassment i have caused you individually or collectively as a member of the greatest institution in the country, in the world. >> thank you. the gentleman's time has expired. there are no further requests for questions. >> point of clarification.

based on the comments, it appears we have moved into the deliberation phase of what we're going to do. if we go back behind that door than nothing said back there will be known. i am a little confused as if we are half a loaf or whole loaf. >> to answer the gentleman's question, we have had a number of statements made by numbers for the day and at this point we will recess jury special session toeliberate as indicated. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> the committee on standards will reconvene simply to report that after much deliberation, the committee voted 9-1 to recommend that mr. rangel be censored by the house and to be required to pay restitution for any paid taxes -- any unpaid taxes and to transmit to the full house these

recommendations. that concludes the committee's deliberation and obligations in this matter. i would just like to say this. we have worked harder together in this matter. in a way that has been quite ranching. we are satisfied to be concluded and we do think of the staff and members and mr. rangel for being here, as well. unless there are further comments to be made at this time, and i would recognize mr. rangel. >> i know how much discussion went into this decision, that as i stated earlier, i hope you can

see a way clear for the record to make it abundantly clear as directed that any action by me was not the intention to bring in a disgrace on the house or to enrich myself personally or considered by counsel to be corrupted. that would be a great help to my family and community. >> thank you, mr. rangel. i would note our report will be on the committee website later this evening. with that, there are no further comments and the committee is adjourned. thank you to all who participated.

>> as you heard, the committee recommended censure for congressman rangel. this is the second most serious punishment house can impose on a member. the most would be explosion. a lesser option would be a reprimand. the committee sends its recommendation of censure to the house which must now formally vote on the manner. the floor vote is expected after think they skimming break. -- after the thanksgiving break. >> on "newsmakers," james cliburn talks about how democrats be themselves in the 112 congress. how they plan to work with republicans.

>> when i saw their attitudes, i was extremely hard and -- and remember, some of them barely one. a lot of our people barely lost. we have done the calculations. 202,000 votes in total, 1200 votes year, 1400 votes there. it comes down to less than two under 50,000 votes that we lost the house by. a lot of people barely won, a lot of pple barely lost. i guarantee you that we can speed of this recovery for 25 miles per hour to 50 miles per hour. to keep going in the private sector as we have been going, we will have to be at our best two years from now. i can tell you a lot of these people will be back. >> rematch city?

>> absolutely. for the entire country. >> we will see a lot of these nearly defeated democrats running again? >> they will be out there running again. >> "newsmakers" with south carolina representative james clyburn on c-span. >> like all men of great gifts, when they give up power, even though they may give it up for sensible reasons, they begin to anchor for the moment they give it up. >> his award winning trilogy on the theodore roosevelt. he examines the final years of the t.r.'s life. tonight at 8:00 p.m. some travelers will be subjected to the enhanced imaging and a pat down in the airports. the gsa administrator john pistole told the subcommittee

yesterday that a small number of troubling passengers to be randomly selected for the pat down even if they use the new imaging screening. he was testifying before the committee on capitol hill held to address recent concerns over the new tsa security measures. >> the hearing will come to order. my opening statement and then as i explained to the witness, i have to go rescue the health- care bill in the finance committee where it will be assaulted on all sides. byron will take over. >> my statement. turn on the tv, pick up the newspaper. in the past 48 hours, there has been a steady stream of stories about airport screening procedures, pat downs, full-body scanners, comments from spouses,

in all directions. i appreciate the people's concerns. i understand there's a frustration and i realize some of these procedures appear in basis. our witness and i had a terrific long session at the beginning of this week and we went into a lot of this. the new pat down procedure embodies the enormously difficult task, the unavoidably difficult task of balancing the need to protect the public and the need to maintain their privacy. how do you do this with a pat down? well, one of my first questions for you mr. pistole, and you were doing a great job, concerns these procedures and how you came to develop a new security regulations. i do recognize the threat that we face. i is to chair the senate intelligence committee. i can tell you the threats are, as we indicated, extremely real,

extremely on going and evolving every day. something has not happened because the intelligence has been so good. that will always be the case, so we have had a lucky run. we cannot expect that to last. we face a deadly, determined, at enemy seems to u.s. harm, firm -- from without and within. you never know. the problem is that you always have to know. the tsa always has to know. consider the events of this last year. a terrorist boarded are played on christmas day carrying a deadly explosives on board. should have gone off but it did not. in the federal agents uncovered a plot to bomb multiple somewhere stations in washington, d.c. the goal was to kill as many

people as possible. again, good intelligence gathering prevented this from happening. we were lucky. good intelligence. we recently provided a plot to blow up planes over the u.s. using bombs hidden in cargo. again, excellence intelligence opped this plot which should have worked from moving forward. and we cannot be complacent. our transportation system remains a prime terrorist target. not just in the air, but all forms of transportation. we must continue to bolster our defenses against a determined enemy who will not relent, will not go a little -- will not go away, and will increase. hazmat the default, there for so must the tsa's. the tsa has a mass of responsibilities and multiple missions. they move 500 million people

through the aviation system every year, they scream and billions of pounds of domestic and foreign cargo, as best as they can. they protect our ports and harbors public transportation system. all of this with the prospect of not enough money to do the job that they would like to do. i do not doubt the difficulty of their mandate, but the agency must remain somehow well resources. we are not talking theology or ideology. we're talking about protecting the american people. a lot of democrats did not like fisa because it invaded privacy. maybe a lot of bad things did not happen because of bison. we need to go back and forth on these things. the agency must remain well resource, and they must remain nimble in their response to new

and emerging threats. we must take appropriate action to close any security loopholes. while making sure our global transportation system continues to move people, freight, goods, faster and faster and in an effective manner. i continue to have concerns about general aviation. we have discussed that. general aviation has gotten off pretty easy. i do not like going to dulles airport and just walking onto an airplane. they do not even looked at me. clearly the existing system of international cargo security needs a fresh look which i know the tsa and dhs have started to do. we must also incorporate new technologies that will make it harder for terrorists to exploit our transportation system. the systems are complicated, are they not senator lautenberg?

it is in court enough to say again that the balance between security and privacy always faces you, haunts you. director christoph, it haunts you. -- director pistole, it haunts you. the tsa wants to achieve this balance to the vast extent that they can. i would urge all of us to consider that 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 will be working with my colleagues in congress to make sure that the tsa has the resources they need to address key security concerns. that will be tough in this atmosphere, but on this committee was sort of have to gather ourselves together and decide that this is important. i think you for being here today very much. i think you're doing a terrific job.

you have been at the helm of the tsa for only several months and i know it has been a demanding time for you. i look forward to hearing your thoughts, which will not because i will not be here. i apologize for that. i will vacate the chair and turn to my co-chair, senator hutchison, and asks senator dorgan if he will assume the chair. thank you. >> mr. chairman, thank you. certainly i look forward to working with you on the reauthorization of the transportation security agency. mr. kristol, the last time you were here we said -- mr. the stole -- pistole, we said this would be a tough job and you are finding out. i agree with some much with the chairman has said. your job is just enormous.

not only are we looking at the cargo issue, which this committee has been a very active in trying to assure that cargo, which is on so many of our passenger planes, as well as bringing goods into our country, that we need to know what they are, we have been active, but we have not been able to address that to our satisfaction. now with the situation with yemen, it is very clear that, once again, we dodged a bullet, if you will, but we have to have procedures. i hope that we will be working with the foreign countries where there are gateways and to america for aviation that we will be set up.

i know our committee will be very active in that area. secondly, we have to have intelligence gathering to do that. when we are at risk of so many airplanes coming in to our airports with cargo, sometimes cargo only, sometimes in the passenger planes. we have to have intelligence gathering that should be part of your cooperation or under your direct control. you are from the fbi so you understand that need. secondly, you have to be hearing the outcry about the innovative uses of the 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 in the airport to going through with long skirts and lots of covering up

possibilities and that is what you're trying to address, and we understand that. there has to be a way, however, for a privacy concern to be addressed, because it is legitimate. i know that you are aware of it, but we have to see some action. i know the secretary is as well and have heard her say that she is concerned about privacy. but i think we need to do more because the outcry is huge. i will adjust and by saying -- i have two more things to say. i have also mentioned before that i am concerned about our ports was -- which are entries into america and our service transportation we have to make sure we're doing everything that we can before the originality of our enemy comes fourth rather than always playing catch-up

which is what we seem to do. it is good that we learn from the past, that we learn from the mistakes, that we bar from the new iterations of the plot. however, we have to start anticipating through intelligence what they are up to before it happens. the last thing that i will mention is that it is mine understanding that you have not made any decision about changing the federal law that prohibits screeners from striking. i hope, with all that is on your plate, i hope you will not try to change what is the law in this country. i think you did decide to go the other way that there would be an upheaval in congress and their be great efforts to prevent this from happening. i do not think this is a fight that we want right now when we should be concentrating on these other issues that both the

chairman and i have mentioned. with that, i am glad you're here, i appreciate you being here, and i think in the short time you are getting your hands around this, that our job is to have oversight and tell you what we think needs to be a priority and hope to work with you on that. thank you very much. >> think you, senator hutchison. we will be getting some votes in the senate i believe that 11:00 a.m. today. we only have one witness, mr. aeropostale -- mr. pistole. then we will hear the testimony. the history of all this goes back to hijacking and the determination with metal detectors to keep guns out of airplanes because airplanes are being hijacked to cuba and other places as well. then we saw the growth of the

terrorist threat creating a shoe in the form of a bomb, or arming issue as a bomb, and then fashioning liquids that could be used as a bomb that bomb disguised as underwear were under were carrying a bomb. now we have the various more sophisticated things on the freight system with airplanes. we have evolves with a series of threats trying to respond to make sure that we have a safety in the skies. i'm a series of questions about freight and a general aviation, about the work to make certain that those who work in airports are properly screened, but i think the most recent issue of full body imaging and law enforcement styled pat downs with intimate touch and, i think those are very legitimate questions. as you know, the law

enforcement-style pat downs were just initiated in october. it has only been one month. is not surprising to me that there be a lot of concern and anger, and protests about this. i think it is important for us to have a full and complete discussion about what this means. has your staff had the pad down? have you had the pack down? what is the impression of this? we must make sure that people do not get on airplanes with bombs to blow the plane out of the sky and kill people. i understand that. the question is how do we do this in a way that does not go to the nth degree and to invade people's privacy and do things that most people would find unacceptable as they try to get on a plane and get through an airport processed.

you in your agency must succeed. we must do everything we can to make sure you succeed on behalf of the safety of the american people. let me call on my colleagues, two opening statements, if appropriate. senator lautenberg. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. pistole, congratulations to you and your team about the cargo plane coming from yemen. all those these were addressed to chicago synagogues, they believe the bombs were meant to go off mid flight over the east coast. vulnerabilities in our system remain and just 65% of cargo on

international passenger planes bound for the u.s. are screened, wells for every 100% screening mandate. right now, dhs receives cargo manifest information only four hours before arrival. that letter -- that means we may not learn about obama until it is well within our borders. the former minister -- administrator has said it makes sense to have cargo information pre-departure so you can potentially denied access to the airplane. we need to strengthen aviation security in the united states and my colleagues have talked about the humiliations of the pat down. we will talk more about that at length. there are clearly areas we can identify. too often when we think of the tsa, we think only of aviation

security, but we were reminded last month when the fbi arrested a man who was planning to bomb four metro system's in virginia that one of the most important transit facilities is the d.c. mattress system caring 1 million passengers per day. we cannot make any mistakes. passenger and rail transit systems are prime targets for terrorists throughout the world as we have seen in london, madrid, so we need to protect ourselves more against this threat. the threat is real. we cannot be anything less than vigilance. mr. pistole ko'd congratulations on a job well done. >> i will submit my comments in writing so hopefully we can

expedite the process to get to the witness. >> thank you. senator isaacson. >> i also will make an opening statement, but i'd like to make their request and that is even though this is an open hearing, i think it's some point in time, we should have the administrator and the committee in a classified setting to understand the information that has led up to the changes in the procedures and i make that request for you to the chairman and ranking member. >> the question is noted. this committee has on previous occasions have had a closed hearing in which secret material was presented to us about transportation security. ?enator klobuchar >> i endorse the idea. i think it is important to understand why some of these procedures are implemented, and those will be some things we

will not be able to discuss in public. i wanted to thank you for the role that the tsa played in securing our nation, certainly with the recent incidences' with the bonds being sent to synagogues and. this illustrated the importance of screening. i know i'm eager to work with my colleagues. secretary of politics now have made changes in terms of -- secretary napolitano has made changes in the terms of which countries can send in cargo. i look forward to working on these issues. i want to say a few words on passenger screening and my own rest given the calls that have been coming into our office on these screenings. i appreciate the steps for that 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 that is very important and it is a deterrent to some of these activities. secondly, as someone who has a

hip replacement, i haven't had it down every single flight i have taken, and i welcome the advanced imaging technology where you do not have to be passed down. i hope you will discuss the rollout of that advanced imaging technology so that people do have a choice in airports. i now have a choice in minneapolis now. if they want to have the pack down, they can do that. we need some education about what it is and what is happening so they are not caught off guard at the airport. then the fact that they are always offered a private screening, i think that needs to be out there. clearly people will be uncomfortable, but i think they need to understand that this is being done for their best interest and their safety given the terrorist activity we are seeing across the country. i want to thank you for your work. >> thank you, senator klobuchar. >> the tsa as always damned if

you do, damned if you do not. i appreciate that the american public demands safety and security and commercial airplanes. there is a price that we pay for that. that is sometimes uncomfortable price for the american flying public. i'm gone on about the ridiculous notion that have not taken -- cannot take my mascara. i understand that this is more serious to many americans in terms of intrusiveness. i think we can do a better job of education. i have had my security pat downs every single flight, twice a week, for the last four years of my life because i have a knee replacement. i am wildly excited about the fact that i can walk 3 machine instead of getting my pat down. i think we have to work on this, make sure the traveling public has choices and make sure the risk we're trying to address.

then the majority of americans i think, i hope, will become supportive of the measures that the tsa is trying to do to keep us safe. , to take the remaining time in my opening statement to congratulate the department of homeland security. we have a tendency in this process to focus on the founders of government. there have been some real successes. i think the way h1n1 was handled, while many americans were frightened, i think a good job was done there. i think between homeland security and our intelligence community that we should all been thinking the public servants that protected us from another explosion in mid air and the terms of the incident from yemen. the intelligence community are the on sawn heroes in this country in this administration and they have made a huge commitment to the intelligence

community and are continuing to make sure we have the right kind of intelligence at the right time. congratulations on continuing trend to keep america safe and i look forward to listening to your testimony today. thank you, mr. chairman. i am used to having the pat downs found the tsa. i was being silly calling them "love pats." >> mr. pistole, you are reasonably new to the straw. you have had to hit the ground running. my understanding is you have a slightly longer opening statement by necessity and this committee understand that. your entire statement will be part of the record. >> thank you senator dorgan. it is an honor to be here in my

first oversight hearing with the committee since being sworn in on july 1st as the tsa administrator. as we began this busy travel season next week, i would like to take just a moment to address the traveling public and all of those focusing on this issue right now to make sure that the core mission of the tsa, homeland security, and really the government is to keep the government safe. over the past year we have seen further attempts to attack some ways, aviation, cargo, passenger, and as we talk about aviation informed by latest intelligence, we know the terror attempts are still there as we have seen this manifest. we know their capabilities in concealment and design of improvised explosive devices. we are using technology and protocols to stay ahead of the threat and keep you safe. we are continuing to deploy advanced imaging technology and

more airports and i want to be clear that ait is the best available technology today. we are always looking for improved technology and i will talk about automated target recognition. this enables us to detect the next-generation of non-metallic explosive devices. it is safe for travelers, crewmembers, our work force, and has been validated for a number of studies whether it is at johns hopkins, and did national institute for technologies. we have protections in place that those who want to have private screening are allowed to do so. the use remains optional and the requirements of screening equivalent is not. we need to ensure for everyone, for all the traveling public that way -- when they get on that plane, they have high confidence that everyone else

has been adequately screened. everyone else on that plane has made sure i have been screened, that you have been screened. that is what it comes down to in this balance between privacy and security. i will talk more about that in response to questions. we have adjusted our policy to simply use techniques that are informed by the latest intelligence going back to christmas day and what we are seeing with the cargo plot, the concealment and design of petm in ways that challenge our social norms that covert testing by the gao, inspector general, the tsa, how they gethrough security and what we need to do to address that is what we have done and i would ask it would be able to go into a closed setting to discuss that in the more

detail. we have also been informed by what other countries around the world are doing. you will travel to many places and have seen and perhaps experienced the type of pat down that may be referred to as a "love pat, or whatever else. the bottom line is we're consistent with many countries from europe and are less invasive than some of the countries around the world. we need to have an effective pat down coupled with technology to discover anomalies in the screening process. we believe it is the best technology available today. those who opt out of the advanced imaging technology need to receive that same type of screening, as i said. few people in the overall scheme of things will actually receive this pat downs. there is a vocal group out there who have experienced this for the first time and are rightly raising concerns as to what is

behind this. the bottom line is the tsa officers are trying to work fairly partnership with the traveling public to say that we want to ensure that your say on this flight and work with us in the partnership to provide the best possible security which is what it comes down to. one thing that helps is just being informed weather is a mess -- a metal detector and to make sure they know what protocols are. you have to take everything out of your pocket or it will show up as an anomaly. that is part of the education process. it is on me and the agency to help inform that we are doing that. we have seen some public attempt to dissuade travelers from using ait and that is understandable. if there are two flights going to the same place at the same time, you have the option of getting on one we have not had

-- we'll has been thoroughly screened and you have another flight where there is no screening i think everyone would want to opt for the screening with the assurance that the flight is safe and secure. i know flight crews prefer that and i know i would prefer that. the work force is fully trained in the new technology and screening procedures. i expect them to act professionally at all times and treat all passengers with dignity and respect. a similarly asko passengers to remember that our officers are there to keep you safe and have the means to do so. security is a shared responsibility. during the holiday travel season, the cooperation between the tsa and the traveling public is the central. i use a collective week that the law enforcement agencies use with aviation authorities on these plots.

i went to examine five days after the plot was discovered. we sent a team of security screening experts to work with the yemen authorities. i met with their minister of transport to see what they were doing and see how we could work with them coming to your ford center hutcheson, and see what their current recalls in processes where. what could we do in terms of training, techniques, tactics, and technology. i will be glad to get into specifics in response to questions. i go into considerable detail in my written statement on that plot. we continue to work with our international partners on a number of issues as they relate to both passenger and cargo flights. there is more can talk about in that regard. when to briefly update you on my review of the program priorities because that is a significant issue that we are addressing. we continue to work with

security providers, particularly passenger rail and mass transit, to close the gaps with an intelligence-driven process. we want to target grant funds on critical infrastructure and operational counter-terrorism deterrence. the tsa has expanded their visible intermodal response teams and have increased the number of surface inspectors to have a successful mobile to begl mobile screening program in new york city's subways. the recently disrupted plot against the transit system here shows that the enemy is evolving through different methods and tools. we are reshaping our approach so that everyone recognizes that we are part of a continuum of national security for the united states.

i have three interconnected priorities. the first is focused on cutting edge technology. the second is support of the work force. the third is strengthening partnerships with stakeholders and the traveling public. with it that i would be glad to take your questions. >> first of all, thank you very much for your testimony and description in what your agency is doing. first, is the issue of background screening workers, many of us traveling see people serving in different ways on the airport grounds. there is a current process for that screening, as i understand it. you are preparing to change that.

my understanding is that the aviation workers pay one-third of the cost of port workers, tell them what you're doing here. how do we harmonized in the u.s. government background checks that are done in critical sensitive areas? >> what ever it may be that exposes the people to the risk, in the aviation sector that cargoes and ports there are different processes and protocols.

in terms of the coast guard, how do we harmonize this one-stop shopping? >> the reason i have asked the question, if it is accurate, if you harmonized in the circumstances on the four sides, i would like to get analysis in the efficiency and effectiveness you have acknowledged that there is reason for people to be concerned and express the concern publicly.

first of all, have you been subject to the law enforcement style pat down that was implemented nationally in october? >> i did receive before in order that it be deployed nationwide, i insisted. also other senior members of the homeland security perceived that at them. >> your impression? >> it is thorough. >> beyond that? >> the whole purpose -- >> did it make you uncomfortable? >> it was more invasive the bank was used to. in my mind from 27 years that the fbi, what are those plots out there?

what do we need to do to make sure that the american people are being thorough? the purpose of the evasiveness is to detect the types of devices we have not seen before. for example, from last christmas. this provides the best possible security. let's i understand that it banned from using the back of the hand to glide across a person to a different aroach that to my described. >> i would prefer not to go into specific detail in an open hearing.

and how we can defeat the techniques. particularly with these less 3. any member that has not experienced it, an experienced qualified security officer would be glad to. >> the full body imaging is very explicit, you would agree? with recently explicit photographs taken of them that has not been overwhelmed? with a privacy relationship that they can count on. >> we have instituted and implemented, i should say, a

number of privacy protocols to make sure that those types that you describe do not happen. the security officer viewing the image with a face blurred, what i have seen on the news reports is not accurate. some of these very graphic displays are not what security officers are doing. quite a bit more detail on some of these. receiving the image, the author sees the person or the image and machines have specifically disable the functions in terms of storage for transmitting those images. cell phones, ceras, anything like that are not allowed. we have implemented adequate privacy protections. that being said, i am

interested in the next generation of imaging technology. getting the figure options through automated target algorithms and analogy that might show up on the box. the path down with just focus on that area. that is the next generation. a high rate of false positives. use at the airport in amsterdam, entirely false positive and we are trying to stay away from that. >> thank you for your response. >> thank you mr. chairman. first of all, i do think that we

should have a blindside hearing. i will work with scheduling on that. i believe that senator rockefeller will agree. i want to talk about cargo. first, i would like to ask you if it is feasible for all cargo operations without passengers, to be ingrained with the same obsessive -- same specificity, do we have practical solutions? what i am getting at is that there are now imaging machines used on the border for going across in trucks. are those technologically feasible? is it an affordable option that

would be a common sense option? >> did is not practical of this point to screen 100% of air cargo worldwide. we do scream it done passenger flights in the u.s. but as of august. and we screen what we decide as 100% of high risk cargo coming into the u.s.. that being said, there is still a lot of cargo out there coming into the u.s. every year. the challenge becomes those packages coming out from known shippers or large companies, either the government or the parts of the companies that have relationships with. the package is coming out of yemen, an individual goes to a

freight forwarderer and then sends it to dubai. the challenge is in the supply chain. can we ensure that the packages have been properly screen? frankly, we cannot do that right now. we are working with the national civil liberties association, which passed a border last month. 190 countries signed off on this declaration. we are also working with international eritrea's it, which deals with 230 airlines around the world. how do we best accomplish that? capacity and development issues

with these countries have the same screening capabilities in the west. that is part of the challenge. >> are you working with more of your personnel being stationed in areas where there would be a priority? >> yes, we are. we have over 100 employees deployed around the world. inspectors that will work with host government aviation authorities for that purpose. with your first question, we do have small, medium, large, advanced technology x-ray, which is more of a challenge to look at cargo. the more compact, the more difficult it is. in the u.s. will use explosive

technology detection equipment that is not a consistent standard around the world. >> let's talk just a bit about the collective bargaining issue. when i was talking about strikes, the reality is that if you have collective bargaining, it may not be the open strike, but it is the slowdown, the kick out, that sort of thing. my question is -- where are you in this process? is it something you are looking at seriously? or have you decided that other priorities are more important? >> one of the priorities for the confirmation process was dealing with the issue and i was asked to do an assessment of collective bargaining made sense. the one thing i laid out at the hearing, what i talked about,

they're not being an adverse impact of an internal assessment. i have done a review and i am close to a decision on that. i will say that it has been complicated a bid by the decision last friday that ordered tia say to hold an election for exclusive union representation without collective bargaining. a somewhat confusing opinion, actually. our experts are going back to work with other human capital experts saying okay, what does that mean? i am hoping within the next 30 days to make an announcement about where i believe we should go. >> the federal labor relations board is ordering that he essayed to have an election?

>> the election decision basically says that we should have the election for exclusive bargaining with one bargaining unit and not for the purposes of collective bargaining, just for the purposes of representation. frankly, but does not make a lot of sense. we are working through that and i am confident that we will have a way forward. >> i am glad you think it does not make sense. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. the department of homeland security requires manifest information to be provided 24 hours prior to loading fall all maritime cargo. the manifest only have to be

provided four hours prior to the arrival of the material at the airport. certainly too late to stop something from happening in our airspace. would be feasible to ask that a longer amount for a longer time be allowed before the cargo boards an airplane? look, the primary thing we are concerned about, obviously, is security. what might be due to commerce around the world if we say -- you want a quick arrival? on the other hand, what happens if we say, ok, give us the 24 hour notice?

>> we have worked closely on number discussions to work within the industry to bring advance notification without affecting the bottom line for cargo carriers. they have been very open and receptive to looking for opportunities. the bottom line is that the more advanced notification we have, the better informed we can be. if there is a high risk package that has been identified coming from the place in the world, what if it is 24 hours? can we then communicate with that for eight to say -- ok, we are concerned about that package going on the plane.

that is the key. >> in the recent cargo bombing threat we sought information sharing for foiling this plot. the national security council recently released a report finding that psa needs to improve and expand communication with passenger rail. what actions has csa taking to meet those recommendations? >> there are a number of issues that we are addressing. the entire surface transportation arena. the threats we have seen from london and moscow, madrid and mumbai. thone just last month that the joint terrorism task force so well disrupted.

the key is -- how do we besting gauge the state and locals with investment responsibility? there are three ways. the first is through grants. the next is through training. canines and things like that. or there is a hiring like we did in new york city last year, where they hired 120 officers last year. working specifically for new york city subwastops. those of e times we are doing. >> the department recently concluded an assessment of the rate -- the nation's passenger rail system, finding significant security risks. service transportation traditionally was made up of a very small percentage of

overall. agencies are currently reviewing budget needs. the budget request for the gsa, well and provide more sensitivity for the need to rail and transit security? >> absolutely. >> i hope so. looking at the number of people travelli, i oked atow inviting the target was. we cannot continue not focus more attenon on the security transit system. >> i agree. the only other comment is that the budget does not reflect large multiples in terms of grant money. there is actually more that does not show up in the esa budget.

>> mr. chairman. mr. director? under what circumstances would i passenger be subjected to advanced imaging and law enforcement style pat downs. >> people can opt out of advanced imaging. just for context, we actually deployed the first in the fall of 2007. this did not just happen overnight. assume that the passenger goes through advanced imaging, not objecting to, says fine. under what circumstances would you subject the passenger to the second? >> if there is an alarm goes off or an alert, something that needs to be addressed, perhaps

getting an opportunity to go through a second time. they would have to submit. >> if a passenger were subjected to both withoutn alarm going off or suspicion, would that be arbitrary on the part of your people? to have a pat down? >> id would be a very rare instance for someone to have a pat down if there was not some type of warning. >> i am wondering why i got both a few weeks ago. i did use my said identification and was subjected to both. how would you answer that question? >> i would have to look into it.

if there were no alarms, there would be a very small percentage done at random so as be totally unpredictable to the terrorists. that is such a very small number, i would be surprised. >> as this has developed over time i have wondered where the tipping point is with the american public. take off your belt, you are your shoes, very intrusive now. does it worry you that we are at a point where this is not a vocal minority? that people think you have simply overstepped? >> i am sensitive to that.

what it comes down to is how we maintain a balance. i believe that reasonable people can disagree on the balance between privacy and security. we all agree that everyone wants to be secure and that. yes, i am concerned about that and what to make sure that we can address those issues by affording people private screenings that their requests, doing all of those things that address concerns given the highest level of confidence to everyone on every flight being screened in a way that they feel comfortable that everyone else on the flight is safe. >> let's examine that a little bit. if i think about cargo in the belly of the passenger plane, were you to follow the same approach you would send it through advanced imaging of some time for packages.

if you saw something suspicious or an alarm went off in that package, you would open the package and examine that. do we do that today with cargo? >> yes. >> so, we are using x-rays, advanced technology, explosive detection, we do all of those on cargo. we do do about half with certified cargo security partners among some homes and private businesses so that we do not have a bottleneck at the airport. delivering the cargo in a secure fashion. >> every package? >> every package that goes on a passenger plane in the u.s., yes. >> what is your next that on this? i am thinking that nothing is going to change. >> your question is if i

understand sensitivities. the asking though i change the policies? snow. i think that by being informed of the latest intelligence and efforts to kill our people in the air, i will now change the policy. -- not change the policy. >> so, it will be the same people have the adoption -- the option to opt out? >> senator, you have yielded on that point? the increase or advanced technology, he hopes, will lead them to a point where advanced imaging will give more than the simple impression. correct? >> more than the false positives we have seen in our testing area. >> how far away is that?

>> i would like to say months, but it is technology driven. there is a huge incentive to get this as fast as they can. of course, nothing is perfect in that regard. a number of companies are competing to do that. working closely in going to reagan airport we do test our equipment before we deploy it. i invite you to come out there and see what we are doing with our advanced target recognition software. my thing about that is that from a budgetary standpoint it is a software modification to the existing hardware. that way we do not purchase new hardware that can be used in software modification. to answer your question more fully, in the interim right now we are using the best techniques

and tactics given the intelligence and able to buy the best technology. my hope is that the technology will improve. perhaps someday not only with six figures for people to walk through, they can keep their shoes on and keep computers in the briefcase. things like that. those are things i would like to build up to, recognizing the creativity of the terrorist we have seen and knowing that they can put them there. putting them a lot of other places. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> following up on the senator's comments, this is the automated imaging recognition picture. this is small and was given to me, clearly addressing the privacy issue. you are saying that the square or read out lima area is an area

of concern subject to a pat down. are there not a number of false positives on that right now? >> correct. >> if that is worked out, people would be going through these screens without worrying about privacy? they would not be subjected unless they came out as recognized by the machine? >> if the algorithm shows on that part of the body where there is an anomaly, that part of the body would be subject to the cat down. >> it looks like technology can be a solution to privacy. >> i think so. >> it is not a solution for one issue, however, which is good communication with the public. which i think you need to pay

attention to. some of the out week -- out rage has been in response to some of these comments. i've like you to submit for the record the statement from pamela robinson in georgia. she is a diamond traveler and a businesswoman. this testimony illustrates of the secretary's statement the other day, that if you do not like it, there are other ways to travel. it was somewhere -- somewhat insensitive. from atlanta there is no other way to get to san francisco. rationally it needs to be looked at to understand what the other senators and i are dealing with on a day-to-day basis. the traveling public is significantly upset.

the 9/11 commission in 2007 asked t s a to develop a system crew passed so that they can expeditiously go through security in a safe and secure manner. it is my understanding that there were two areas where they were testing that for two years. from what has taken so long to implement that are around the country? >> it is one of the questions i asked when i first came on as administrator. i think we have made good progress, especially recently, to the point where in the near future i hope that we will have significant improvements in that regard. >> monday-three times and rode

with crew members on two of the three flights. the issue is important to them. anything that you can do to expedite the process can be appreciated. my last question or comment is this. other than the pat down, the biggest amount of feedback that i get is young children. particularly if they are subjected to a ipad del. if they go through an x-ray machine, one is the sensitivity of privacy. the other is the sensitivity of the amount of radiation they are exposed to. has sufficient testing been done to make sure that exposure to radiation over time is not a problem? >> one thing that i did not do a good job of communicating is that children 12 and under are exempted from enhanced pat downs.

as far as radiation exposure, i would defer to those independent studies and what they did in looking at all types of populations. finding that the exposure is well within safety standards. >> thank you for the job to do. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you. just following out of the senators line of questioning, we have a bill to expand the use of that technology. i mentioned in my opening that this is a very good option, as the senator stated. where are we in terms of the rollout? what is the maximum amount that we plan to put in the airport? >> approximately 385 advanced

imaging technology machines deployed in 70 airports right now. authorized and funded for 490 by the end of the year. another 100 or so by the end of the year. another 500 to get us to the end of next year. >> is the plan to have them assumed the major airports that like getting to places like fargo, for instance? >> on an airport by airport basis, there are a number of factors, including the ability of the airport to physically install things. >> under the pat down, can you decide what we describe -- can you describe process and how you came up with that without revealing too much? >> in july and boat that what we were doing to address the threat

of the underwear bomber. i was also informed by several general inspector reports that all three were in the testing. without going into too much detail, one of the things they found as a common denominator was that when they were able to get through security, it was largely because we were not being thorough enough in our path down. the intelligence, coupled with repeated covert testing led me to conclude that we needed to be more thorough and consistent with partners around the world, recognizing that we are an independent system. if he had been detected

overseas and never made it here, that would have helped. >> do you believe that these changes will be permanent now? >> we are always trying to of all our techniques. what we are working very closely on with this party is what we see as tomorrows threat and how it can inform our actions today in terms of the technology that we need. >> the senator talked to you about the crew issue. what do you think could be done with holidays coming up? >> i would make an appeal to the american people to see what the latest practices and procedures

are. especially when we are talking about once per year travelers. the better informed that they can be, the better partnership we can have. >> very good. quick questions about the screening, do you feel that 2013 is a reasonable deadline for the 100% screening? can you talk about the present alternative right now? >> talking about the international air cargo coming to the u.s., we divide it into two categories. trusses shippers and those that are unknown. we have a very close relationship with major cargo shippers. they are working very closely with us to identify high-risk packaging. it is in their best interest to

not have those on their flights. 2014 is a challenge that we are working towards to make sure that we can do that. >> very good. thank you. >> senator? blacks live like to talk about cargo and the capability of air force a round the world to screen appropriately. what is the plan for high risk cargo inspection for come -- for countries without screening capabilities. unfortunately the people that want to harm our country and not operating under a flag or sovereign nation. they move continuously, which is why we need the investment in intelligence. it seems to me that they will begin to other -- begin to pinpoint those other countries

that have no way of screening other than visual. what is the planned as to how we deal with those countries? >> for example, when i was in yemen a few eks ago to look at what they were doing, i found that they used x-ray machines almost exclusively. it is a machine that is to dimensional, there were no physical inspections or canines. is an uneven around the world. compared to the u.s., using a private sector would work in terms of trusted screening facilities. 1140 private companies doing 50% of a screening.

in terms of capacity development for those countries that you alluded to that cannot have the ability to do that type of screening right now, like in yemen. the team that we send their in terms of -- the team that we sent in to their -- the team that we sent their did those things that you described with that capacity. >> of the notion that we would have to purchase screening equipment for other countries. but i am worried about the upper hundreds of countries not taking this seriously. that is the weakest link. >> what we will see from a private sector business risk model is that they might likely not to cut packages assessed as high risk from certain areas of

the world. that will be the fallout from this. an extreme measure of risk management. >> what about the yard -- the other cargo measures? we spent much time in this hearing talking about the air. what are these security measures we are increasing in other cargo been used? particularly maritime. the damage that could be done, can you give the committee some reassurances that we are making progress on those fronts? a cleft we are making some progress but we want to manage expectations. clearly there are still gaps in vulnerability.

but gsa has a role, but frankly it is somewhat limited, secondary or tertiary to the coast guard. >> this might be one that we want to talk to the secretary about. i know that it must be frustrating. i know that you move one direction to address the gaps, then another one opens up. frankly, it may be along with those countries that are not screaming as the places where we need to be all hands on that. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good to be with you, administrator and what americans

are dealing will doing more of what other countries like israel do. frankly, i am bothered by the level. i have seen them first hand in florida. i would not want my wife to be touched in this way. i would not want to be touched in this way. we have to focus on safety, but there is a balance. you are going for advanced imaging technology teams that are all fine and inappropriate. you have procedures because to keep those people in another room provides protection. there are limits to keeping the

people safe. there has to be a balance. >> there are a number of issues here. the first is that people who have seen the pat down almost exclusively as a result of the alarm of advanced imaging technology, a very small number of people receive the pat down as a result of anything other than an alarm. the second is the intelligence we have talked a bill with covert testing. we know that there are additional things that we could be doing to detect things. we have tested dozens and dozens of concealed objects that could pose a risk to aviation.

for me it comes down to that balance, as you say, and the fact that everyone wants to be secure on their flight, knowing that you have been screened, i have been screened, and we have a high level of confidence with the best level of privacy. how can we do that? i think it would really go a long way. in the final analysis,. if we had those flights as i mentioned earlier, there is the option of being screened in you know that everyone else has been. with no screening you just do things and i think that almost everyone will get on that flight that is properly screened. my job as administrator is to find the balance and recognize the invasive as of if. hawkins stakes are high and we

must prevail -- the stakes are high and we must prevail. >> without giving in to anything confidential -- without getting into anything confidential, looking at little kids that have never been out of this country before, we know the chance that they are a terrorist is very slim. no one wants to talk about profiling, but we know that if you are a man that is 18-40 and have been traveling around the world, there is a much better chance that you would be a danger to this country. i would love to see a world where we have some kind of identification. maybe rejected driver's license and can travel history, you could screen people on terrorist likelihood. someone traveling between

minneapolis or lauderdale, never left the country with a criminal record. there is a chance they could be concealing a plastic explosive in their underwear. >> because we are trying to, looking at pilots and why they go through the same type, really trying to be best informed on each individual traveler in the model, using protection extensively and picking up some fines. the bottom line is doing it without profiling. there is a dynamic tension there between safety, security, and privacy.

how do we make sure that is secure? >> thank you. >> senator? >> thank you. i appreciate the professionalism that you are showing today. >> as an idea, will we continue to of all this? particularly i want to make sure that we are not concerned with being so correct that we would ignore high-risk targets in mentioning the israeli model. looking at ways you transition this technology that allows you to see things that you need to see, things the to do not, and things that are more animated. it would give people more comfort.

what americans know that we are not just sitting up on the rules, my concern is that it can get out of control over time. we need to make sure that travel is a good experience. you seem to be drawing the best balance and that is very important. behavioral aspects are good packages. keeping us up-to-date on what you are doing, like in a memo or something that you passed today with the americans that partnered to stay more informed because they have not traveled in a year, it can be a pretty

stunning thing. hundreds of calls, they want us to be on time for this. doing what you can to modify this in a way that seems reasonable to keep them safe, you have a tough job but i mostly want to thank you for what you are doing. >> one final question, and thank you very much, we have had four events that have been the defining events with much more screening after 9/11. underwear, shoes, liquids, cartridges. each event reflects an offense by someone trying to commit to in this case murder. they wanted to get a bomb on an airplane. you are involved in defense.

the question of rescue, we have been doing defense ala. tell me about the threat level that continues to increase. you have increased the defensive capabilities. where are we relative to a few years ago. >> obviously the operational tempo of the peninsula has increased. there are groups to run the world, you may have seen the germans increase the air levels in response to a current threat stream. we are on a continuum for national security with offensive

actions of the military in tribal areas. if hopefully there is intelligence on the battlefield. it may not work and in that case we might look at those other agencies and things that will hopefully inform us about lots that are taking place in the u.s.. my former colleagues in the task force would be informed. see something, say something, there is a threat. but that may not be the case. when it comes down to the t s a, you are absolutely right, we are the last line of defense for the u.s. government. be it officers or specialists swapping hands to pick up trace ravishment -- trace residue, but

if someone gets through all of that and gets on an airplane the air marshal could be the last line of defense. perhaps the armed pilots. concerned crew and passengers. for the u.s. government that really comes down to that contract. >> asking about that passenger that is taking a flight in this country today, they knew it -- they know by seeing the newspaper that threats of increased. but also that your activities have increased in response. should they feel a slightly less risk, of the same risk, or more of a risk? bob >> hopefully they would see that these actions were taken as a deterrence. anyone playing terror would see these actions as moving towards

softer targets. and yet they have done all of these types of attacks. i hope that it is a deterrent. that is the bottom line. >> i have one more. this rather high profile person that left the san diego airport after refusing to undertake a full body scanner, it is being reported that he is being investigated and may face a $10,000 fine. is that the procedure? are you investigating him? >> i have learned that they do have the administrative authority to fine people that try to smuggle items on airplanes. prohibitive items. that has been fairly common several thousand times. i am not aware of any instance

where someone who has refused screening has ever been fine. it is being reviewed. i do not want to prejudge anything, but i do not see anything coming from that other than working with the public to said work with us, this is a partnership. >> i agree that it should be considered a partnership. in general i have found, and i mostly here, that employees are very aware of the privacy issues. that they are sympathetic and are handling it very well. is it the policy of the agency not to find someone who decides they do not want to be screened and they therefore leave? >> the policy is leading to that issue to come up with a desion when the facts are made.

>> i would hope that we would not go overboard if someone decides that they have the right to their privacy and therefore they walked out without injury to everyone. i cannot see that that would be a defining event. >> trying not to preview to budge to make sure that i have the facts, but i agree completely with you on that. fines have historically been for people that have tried to smuggle items on ward. >> correct. thank you. >> thank you very much for your testimony. thank you for the work that you do and that your agency does. we will talk to the chairman and i expect that he would want to have a classified briefing by you and the agency in the near future. this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> tomorrow, the author talks about his book about the struggle for survival inside the white house, on the inner workings of the obama administration. gary schmitt critiques nato's target of 2% of gdp.

the federal aviation administration deputy administrator discusses how new fda technology is keeping up with the increase in airline travel -- travel and reducing delays. >> this year's student documentary competition is in full swing. make a 5 to 8 minute video on this year's theme, "washington d.c. for my lands." upload your video before the deadline for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. there is $50,000 total in prizes. the competition is open to middle and high school students. for all of the rules go online. >> on thursday, the house failed to approve a measure to extend unemployment benefits through february. the current extension ends on

november 30. although a majority of members voted for the extension, the bill needed a 2/3 vote for approval. here is a portion of that debate. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass emergency unemployment compensation continuation act, h.r. 6419, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6419, a bill to amend the supplemental appropriations act, 2008, to provide for the further extension of emergency unemployment benefits, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, and the gentleman from la, mr. boustany, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: madam speaker, this

is called an emergency bill because it's an emergency. for millions of people, this is an emergency. unemployment benefits will run out in a few days. therefore it's an emergency for the united states of america. and let me just indicate what's at stake here. through january 1 of next year, close to two million people will not any longer be eligible for benefits. and then a month later the amount almost doubles. this is an emergency. i received a call last night i was in my office at :30, and a

person called from atlanta, georgia -- at 9:30, and a person called from atlanta, georgia, to thank me and to thank mr. mcdermott and to thank our party for bringing up this extension. i don't know what more any of us want. i don't see how we can go home for thanksgiving when as a result of failure of benefits hundreds of thousands of people may not have a turkey on their table because they can't afford it. and the next week may not have the moneys they need to meet their daily needs. this should be a bipartisan effort. this is a totally human effort. this is totally an urgent effort. these are people laid off,

people who have been looking for work, people who cannot find work. for every job at least five people are looking for employment for that job. i don't know what other evidence needs to be brought here. it can be stated very briefly and directly. if the two million people who are going to lose their benefits looking for work were brought here so we could see them, would anyone vote no? would anyone vote no? do we need the two million here? can we put ourselves in their homes, in their shoes, in their places with their families, with their children?

this is an emergency. this house must act. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boustany: as yogi berra said , this bill is like deja vu all over again and not in a good way. the bill before us today is a ninth extension of unemployment benefits since mid 2008. benefits recently stretched up to 9 weeks or almost two years in most states. and with the exception of just one billion, last november every one of those extensions was not paid for. that's a total of $135 billion added to our $14 trillion debt.

meanwhile, our democrat colleagues swore their policies would create jobs but they haven't. instead of paychecks, millions of americans were left with only an unemployment check. in february of 2009, the president signed the democrats' trillion dollar stimulus plan. democrats at that time promised that the plan would create 3.7 million jobs and lower the unemployment rate to 7% by now. none of that happened. instead, over two million private sector jobs were lost and unemployment has spiked to 10% while the debt has grown by almost $3 trillion. a total of 48 out of 50 states have lost jobs since this democrat stimulus bill passed. here we are again extending unemployment benefits because the democrats' trillion dollar stimulus failed to create the millions of jobs that they promised it would. but even more sadly, instead of doing this responsibly, this

bill will simply add another $12 billion to our current mountain of debt and we can do better than this. we certainly can do better than this. both republicans and democrats support helping long-term unemployed. the chairman of the committee expressed a great deal of empathy in his opening statement. we share that empathy. every one of our congressional offices has dealt with families dealing with this tragedy of unemployment. but republicans and even some democrats want to sonsably pay for these benefits. in fact, there are sufficient unspent stimulus funds to do just that and cover the $12 billion cost of the bill before us. this is not a new republican idea or a new idea, this is something we have discussed before. but the other side insists on bringing this forward unpaid for. the chairman of the senate finance committee has proposed

cutting stimulus to pay for certain measures. last june the democrat leader himself, mr. hoyer, admitted there was spending fatigue across the country and that if, i quote, if we have dollars not yet expended in the recovery act they should be applied to new spending like this, end quote. that would be far better than adding to the unchecked growth in spending and debt that has already cost us an estimated one million jobs. the fact is we can both provide this help and pay for it. by cutting less effective stimulus spending. that's what we should be debating today and not a bill called up under special rules that permit no amendments and no chance to offer ways to pay for this. even if this were to pass, the sad thing is there are no plans in the senate for a vote on this bill any time soon. so the fact of the matter is this bill is going nowhere. the american people know it

isn't right to add these costs to our already overgrown -- overdrawn national credit card. they want -- we all want to help those in need. but the american people also know someone has to pay when government spends money. and it shouldn't be our children and our grandchildren. madam speaker, the american people sent us here to do a job. we should pay for this spending today. we can pay for this spending today. there is no reason why we couldn't bring a bill forward with a way to do this. a way to pay for it. i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this bill today and instead let's work together to quickly pass the bill to extend federal unemployment benefits while finding a responsible way to pay for it. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i say to the gentleman from louisiana, the people of this country looking

for work don't want empathy. they want unemployment insurance that they worked for. and you're standing in the way. don't send them empathy. send them what they worked for. i now yield four minutes to the author of this bill, the gentleman from washington, and i ask permission that the balance of my time be taken by the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from washington will control the time and is recognized. mr. mcdermott: may i ask what the division of minutes is at the moment? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 16 1/2 minutes. mr. mcdermott: on the republican side?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mcdermott: thank you. i rise in support of h.r. 6419 which will extend current unemployment insurance benefits through february of next year and provide much needed help to unemployed americans during the holiday season. from the beginning of the unemployment insurance program 75 years ago, we have never cut off benefits for out-of-work americans where the unemployment rates have been this high. without this extension, temporary federal extended benefits will shut down shortly after thanksgiving, the 27th, and denying benefits to two million of our fellow citizens over the holiday season. it's unthinkable to me that we could allow these benefits to last during the holiday season and before the economic recovery is on solid ground. despite the severity of the republican economic collapse,

which started under mr. bush, there have been 10 straight months of private sector growth under this democratically controlled congress and administration. despite the huge accomplishment of digging the american economy out of the republican economic ditch, two of the americans remain unemployed. there is still only one available job for every five unemployed americans. to make matters worse, the president's now carrying reports that employers around the country are refusing to hire the unemployed. they are saying to the unemployed, we want to hire somebody who has a job to come over and fill our job. because we know you were laid off because you weren't a good employee and that's why they let you go. we don't want to hire people who aren't worth anything. that's the message that's going out in this country to the unemployed. and many of those people are

middle class people who worked very hard and through no fault of their own their industries collapsed. banking, housing direct results of what the bush administration did or didn't do, really, that is regulate wall street. unfortunately the republicans who already made it clear that instead of helping the middle class one of their top rightors is to give millionaires and billionaires a huge $700 billion break. now, the same people who are saying this should be paid for will be out on this floor sometime in the next couple of weeks saying, we don't have to pay for a tax break, why that will just -- that will pump jobs into the world. all we have to do is cut taxes everywhere and we give $700 billion to people who make more than a half a million dollars a year, that's ok.

but an unemployment check for somebody to keep bread on the table and keep their mortgage paid is not ok. we can't not fund that. this is an emergency. people who talk like that on the floor of this house have never been unemployed or never have known anybody who was unemployed. you would not talk that way about unemployed people if you knew them. now, this should give every middle-class american a lot to think about the results of this last election. this is your first chance to observe what you can expect in the next two years. the majority leader -- the minority leader in the other body said, my number one priority is to prevent barack obama from having a second term. not public policy, not jobs for people, not health care for

people, but political games. and that's what this is all about. the experts agree, two out of every three people who get unemployment benefits are in the middle class. we are not talking about people who weren't trying or weren't working or doing their part as americans. while the republicans were bankrupting the country to help the rich with one hand, giving tax breaks all over the place, the republicans were using the other hand to push the unemploy middle class of america out of their homes and never dealt with the foreclosure issue to prevent them from having food on the table and keep their children from being properly clothed. . on the campaign trail republicans called the unemployed lazy. you have never met an unemployed person or you would never say that a second time to them. they say unemployment benefits spoil out of work americans.

they get lazy and sit around the house and wait for their unemployment checks. those checks aren't that big in the first place and secondly, people don't like to be unemployed in this country. people look for work and they're looking for work and they're now being told, you've been out of work for two years, we don't want you, we want somebody who already has a job over here. some republicans question the constitutionality of the unemployment insurance program. the health and welfare of the american people is unconstitutional, according to some people. fortunately, the american people don't feel the same way. a recent poll showed that 86% of americans believe the unblowed really want to work. that's what the people think. that's not the political rhetoric of people running for election. but that's what the people really think. the election is over now and

americans are have said, we want both parties to work together to get things done and do it by listening to the american people. americans don't want to push american families whose breadwinners lost their jobs through no fault of their own into poverty during the holidays. i think we should end these debates and extend benefits longer and allow benefits to be scaled back on the economy as the economy improves. the reason we've had all these votes out here is because the senate is unable to do anything. we've tried to extend this for extended periods of time and over in the senate they can think, let's extend it for a month. see if we can starve them for a month. they let this program lapse for three months over there. and you're telling me that we're going to work together. i think we ought to work together. the short-term extension is an effort to see if our republican colleagues will support any kind of help for the

unemployed. i'm told by the other side that there's no plans in the senate to take up this bill. well, they're waiting to see if we can get it out of here. if you don't help, maybe it won't get out of here. but the message to four million americans will be, the republican party doesn't care whether you have a christmas or a way to fund your mortgage or a way to put food on the table for the first three months of the next year. i hope my republican colleagues will join the american people in supporting this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. >> madam speaker, we're hearing oversimplifications from the other side. mr. boustany: this is not one of those either you pass it or you don't types of issues here. we could pay for this. and the sad thing is, all i'm

hearing on the other side is a great deal of cynicism. furthermore, look the american people have spoken about this. they are saying, we've got oget a handle on national debt if we're going to get the economy going again and create jobs because the american people want paychecks. they want good-paying jobs they want an end to this uncertainty. we have information from the mcarthur foundation, a very respected organization, they released a poll showing that 70% of voters in month's leches say it's important to reduce the national debt. overwhelmingly, voters want us to reduce the debt by cutting spending. instead of doing this, fiscally responsible thing and paying for this new spending which we could very easily do, the bill before us today does exactly the opposite. it adds $12 billion to our nation's debt in a program that's already added $135 billion to the national debt. the sad thing is, madam

speaker, we could extend these unemployment benefits and we could pay for them. look, the bill reflects, i think, a very cynical political maneuver by the democratic leadership because they know that the senate has no plans to pass this unpaid for bill. we've been down this path before. in fact, the liberal "huffington post" has broke then code on what's going on here. there was a recent headlines, jobless benefits about to lapse as senate democrats mull strategy. that was the headline on tuesday. and, quote, no plans in senate for a vote on unemployment benefits, read the headline yesterday. the quote senator -- to quote senator reid from rhode island, a democratic leader on the legislation, i quote, at this point it's not been scheduled. i can't point a specific time it will come up for a vote this week. end quote. the american people are tired of the cynicism and they want

answers. the sad thing is, there's a simple answer on this one. unlike many of the other problems our country is facing, which are much more complex. we could extend unemployment benefits and we could pay for it. but our friends on the other side of the aisle currently control the house, control the senate, kohl the white house and they can't even get their act together to do this. -- control the white house and they can't even get their act together to do this. especially since there are republicans who one willing to do this extension if it were paid for. there is a way to pay for it, yet our friends across the aisle refuse to see this. i are reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: i use 30 additional seconds. my friend on the other side clearly understands, i'm sure, the legislative process. we put a bill over to the senate, they can make a change. if they want to pay for it, they can pay for it. they are safe.

they're comfortable. because they know you're going to stop the bill. or try to stop the bill. they know that the house republicans are determined that they're not going to let this bill through here. so they say, all right, we can say we have -- we won't do anything with it. my opinion is if we put a bill over there, they'll pass a bill. i yield two minutes to mr. davis. mr. davis: spaung, mr. chairman. i believe the american people want to work. those who are unemployed want jobs. those who are out of work want employment benefits. i don't think that there is any excuse that could be given. there's no reason that one can conjure up. i would say to a person who is unemployed, out of work, have no -- has no food, can't pay their mortgage, can't enjoy the

holidays, that there is a reason, especially since they have worked, that they can't have benefits to get them through this season on an emergency basis. i'm amazed. i'm dumbfounded, i can't believe that i'm hearing what i'm hearing. that somehow or another, the democrats, in a technical sense, are keeping individuals from getting unemployment benefits. i would hope that we could change our minds, change our positions, and know that when we do this for the least of these, then we're doing the work that we ought to be doing. let's pass this measure to provide benefits to the unemployed and i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will take this opportunity to remind all members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. i want to remind our friends on the other side that in the past when they did bring the bill up on suspension, it failed and yet when you did on one occasion bring it up on regular order, it did pass. we all have to work hard to listen to the will of the american people. yesterday, speaker pelosi herself said, i quote, our consensus is we go out there listening to the american people, it's about jobs -- it's about jobs, it's about reducing the deficits, end quote. yet here we are again today being asked to increase the deficit by another $12 billion, another $160 million in debt for every family of four in the united states, just for three months of benefits under one program. all of the -- all on top of the

$.8 million of debt we wracked up since president obama took office. the question, madam speaker, is , is the speaker really listening to the american people? what we heard earlier this month is that people want us to provide help to those in need but not add a mountain of debt that we are currently leaving to our children and grandchildren. the sad thing again, i are repeat, the sad thing is, we can achieve both goals today. we could have. the congressional budget office has informed us there's enough unspent stimulus spending that we can cut to cover the additional spending in this bill. it's unconscionable that the other side has not heard the american people about the concerns about unfettered debt passed on to our children and grandchildren. again, mr. hoyer this past summer suggested we do just that, in june, he said, i

quote, if we have dollars not yet expended in the recovery act, they should be applied to new spending like this. in july, 59 democrats signed a letter saying, and i quote, extending critical economic investments is no more important than paying for them. america is facing a debt crisis that is threatening to undermine our economic and national security. we can no longer afford to exacerbate the problem because the decisions about how to pay for what we spend are getting harder, unquote. this one is so easy, we have a way to pay for it. yet the majority chose to bring this to the floor unpaid for and without an opportunity to even offer an amendment. so i ask our colleagues on the other side are you listening to the american people? madam speaker, are they even listening to each other? and do they agree with the

speaker that it's about debt? all we're hearing are mixed signals. if so, join us in voting down this unpaid for bill and working together on a new bill which we could do very quickly that does right by the unemployed as well as our children and grandchildren. that's what the american people expect of us today. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: can you tell us how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has seven minutes remain, the gentleman from louisiana has nine and a half minutes remaining. mr. mcdermott: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. maloney: madam speaker, the joint economic committee, which i chair, released a report today that finds that if congress fails to extend the federal unemployment insurance benefits program, the unintended consequences could be extremely serious.

serious, not just for the two million americans who would see their benefits expire in december, but extremely serious for the larger economy as well. prematurely ending the program would drain our economy of some $80 billion in purchasing power. just as our fragile economy is beginning to recover. this would result in the loss of over one million jobs over the next year. even now, there are five americans looking for work for every job opening in the land. and more than 40% of those unemployed have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. including over 159,000 in new york state with some 95,000 in my home of new york city. choosing to vote against an extension and thus add a

million americans to the ranks of the unemployed cannot possibly be considered as a wise economic policy choice. the nonpartisan congressional budget office ranks the stimlative effects of unemployment benefits as one of the most effective policies to reduce growth that they have studied. and the president's council soft economic advisors estimates that every dollar spent on unemployment insurance benefits increases gross domestic product by $1.60. economists predict that without extended benefits, the economy will suffer, consumer spending will fall by .5%, and economic growth will be reduced by almost a half of a percent. the facts and the numbers in the -- i request five seconds.

mr. mcdermott: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. maloney: the facts and numbers in the new report make it clear that extending this program benefits those who need our help most, benefits the larger economy, and thus benefits us all. so i urge a yes vote on this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. i, again, say there was a way to pay for this. we have to be frank with the american people on this. jobless benefits have cost so far $319 billion, and yet unemployment is still at 9.6% and we've seen really nothing coming from the other side who controlled the majority of the house, controlled the senate, controlled the white house. we've seen nothing to help

small businesses get going again. we've seen nothing to promote competitivive -- competitiveness in the economy. it is unpaid for. nothing -- there was an agreement. we're saying let's do it in a responsible way and pay for it. you know, it wasn't always this way. this is the ninth attempt to extend this program, and when democrats passed their only paid for unemployment insurance extender bill in november of 2009, the only one that was paid for, the administration, the obama administration hailed that fiscally -- i quote, fiscally responsible approach to extending unemployment insurance, end quote, add, again, quote, fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs, end quote. that was from the

administration's statement of policy about the democrats' one paid for u.i. extension bill, which was h.r. 3548. 156 republicans supported that november, 2009, bill. but the administration's only logic, democrats had an irresponsible bill which increases the deficit by an estimated $12 billion undermines the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs. the sad thing, madam speaker, is this -- we could extend unemployment benefits and pay for it. this is not a hard one. there are harder decisions coming with the debt our country is facing and economic uncertainty. republicans are ready to move forward and get this country going in and to restore american competitiveness, but i see our friends on the other side of the aisle are up to their old ways. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington.

mr. mcdermott: i have no further speakers, madam chair, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: madam speaker, i believe we concluded debate on our side of the aisle, and i'm prepared to yield back if the gentleman's prepared to close. mr. mcdermott: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. boustany: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington to close. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i found that the other side is very adroit at finding some reason not to help the middle class. now, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the people in this country are not interested in cutting off food and housing and medical coverage for people

who are unemployed in this country. and do use these arguments, well, we're going to get the money from the stimulus money, i defy anybody on this floor at this momento stand up and tell me where that stimulus money is and what the impact would be if you cut it. because that money was allocated to various agencies, some to purchase -- pay salaries for school teachers, some to pay salaries for policemen and firemen and local government, some to pay the states for medicaid. all this money is out there. maybe some of it hasn't yet been spent, but it's allocated. some of it is for construction projects. i suppose you, like that governor in new jersey, who really think it's politically smart to stop a public works project on the hudson river because then he can use that money to pave potholes in new

jersey and he puts the construction workers out all over the place,ut of work. those infrastructure projects, you can't spend all the money on the first day. it does take a little while to build it and you pay it out as you build it. now, you know that. you're -- republicans aren't -- they're not -- they're just being deceptive. they think because it still is there in the treasury it can be used for something else. it might have been committed for something else, but not my republican friends. this emergency that these 4.5 million people have over here who have no benefits coming by the end of march, you folks understand that you shouldn't worry about this. i mean, the speaker -- the speaker will explain it to you that they -- you just have to wait until we find where that money is in the budget. this is an emergency for people

who have no check coming. now, we would all like this thing to be all over. there isn't anybody on this floor, republican or democrat, who wouldn't like the mess that was created by the bush administration to be over with. it isn't. and the problem is a guy in my district is, jim, i can tell you what the problem with america is, and your republican side has a bad dose of this. he says it's the belief in the microwave. if they have a problem they come down to the refrigerator, they open the refrigerator, pull something out, open the microwave, throw it in, push two buttons and then they have lunch. they think everything can be solved like that. it took eight years for mr. bush to create the mess that we are dealing with, and it's not going to be over in 30 seconds like the microwave dinner is. and the fact is that you got

people who contradict you directly, the real budget. no one's ever going to accuse me of being a big budget warrior or deficit warrior. but the president of the concord coalition, the organization dedicated to eliminating federal budget deficits said, and i close, as a deficit hawk, i wouldn't worry about extending unemployment benefits. it's not going to add to the long-term structural debt, deficit and it does address a serious need. i just feel like unemployment benefits wandered into the wrong street corner at the wrong time and now they're getting mugged. and he's absolutely right. for us to pick on the unemployment benefits as the problem for this deficit, wait until we have the debate on taxes on this floor, and i hear people whining around here

about people making more than half a million dollars and we have to give them a tax cut. i urge my colleagues to vote for h.r. 6419. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6419 azzammed. -- as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? mr. boustany: we would like a recorded vote, the yeas and nays, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. boustany: yes, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

>> house republicans chose their leadership. they unanimously chose john boehner as speaker. he led a briefing unveiling the new leadership and talking about the decision to ban earmarked. this is about 15 minutes. >> we are humbled by the trust that the american people a place to mess. we have the new majority and a new leadership team. as you have heard me say before, this is not about us. it is about the american people. it is the american people that are in charge. they want a congress that focuses on the people's priorities. cutting spending, creating jobs, and reforming the way congress does its work. republicans made a pledge to america to listen to the american people and a pledge to focus on their priorities. that is exactly what we are going to do. we're going to focus on creating jobs, cutting spending, and reforming the way congress does its business. we will fight for a smaller and

more accountable federal government in washington. today, republicans adopted and earmark dan that shows the american people we're listening and serious about ending business as usual in washington. we hope that the president will work with us on all of these priorities. i also want to say how proud i am of the leadership team that our members and elected. i think we have a team that represents the broad consensus of our party and the broad diversity of our party. i am looking forward to working with them on dealing with the priorities that the american people have sent us here to deal with. >> we realize the public has

given us a second chance. it is a golden opportunity to live up to the expectations that the voters have for this congress and our party. we are going to be in results- driven congress. job one is to cut federal spending and remove the uncertainty that has been hampering job creation in the last several years. this congress is going to be about reform. the incredibly large freshman class will help us effect that reform and change the culture of the way this place works. today our conference to the position that demonstrates our commitment to that reform. that is the adoption of the extension of the moratorium on your marks -- earmarks. is evidence we are committed to reforming the way this place works in the culture in

washington. our conference has elected a leadership team that is fresh and ready to get to work. with us today, you will see christie from south carolina. we also have our newly elected chairman from texas. you will also hear from our new book, kevin mccarthy, with the others who have served before. -- you will also hear from our .ew whipped u >> we have been listening to the american public. thousands of ideas came through. never once did we ask anyone what party they were affiliated with. we were able to vote on the ideas coming debate the ideas in an open format. as that was the process, that is welcome to the floor of congress, the best ideas.

we laid out a pledge for america that we thought would turn the country around. unfortunately, the majority party did not allow us to come to the floor. i believe the strongest part of the pledge and the very first words in the preamble, that america is more than a country. america is an idea. the voters laid out a clear message. they want to see change in washington. no one up here believes the republicans went out with the majority. only in america are you given a second chance. we will find that our whole focus will be about job creation, reducing spending, and changing and reforming congress itself. we understand that the power is with the people. they put on loan every two years. they will watch closely. that is why you see a lot of new faces.

it is clear across the country. this is more a national message than ever before. we have heard them and we're putting the team together to make sure we are able to carry out what they told us. >> the american people spoke loudly on election day. they said we want more jobs. we want less spending, we want the federal government that is less intrusive and more accountable. more importantly, they said that we want to save the american dream, an american dream where our children can still have greater opportunities and a brighter future than we have had. republicans in the house of representatives semitist heard the message loud and clear. -- republicans in the house of representatives have heard the message loud and clear. in many respects it is a rejection of the policies of the president of the senate, and

majority leader. we are humbled by the responsibility the american people have given us. it is a second chance. we look forward to getting to work on behalf of the american people. >> the freshman class is not just historic in size, we plan to be historic in the results we deliver for the american people. we ran our campaigns and we were ordinary people. we were running businesses and raising our families faced with tough decisions that this administration was leaving us with. we recognized that the legislation passed had real ramifications on families and small businesses because we were trying to keep our doors open as well. we asked the american people to watch what we do when they elect us. we plan to deliver results. we are a diverse class. we come from diverse backgrounds. we are united as a class and as

republicans to make sure that we follow through on the pledges we had in this campaign and follow- through to make sure that we get government under control. we will take it back and give it to the people. we will cut spending money we do not have. we will make sure that we do what is right for our children and our future. >> on the campaign trail, i heard business owners tell me they could not pay higher taxes and hire more people. they cannot do both. i had families tell me that they were struggling to keep their budgets together. they ask why we cannot do that. they said if we're elected, to govern a campaign of transparency and openness. the republican party will listen to the american people. today we start the conversation. >> i guess we are going to have some questions. [laughter]

>> mitch mcconnell said he would do all he could to block an omnibus bill. are you in alignment with him? does that put us on cruise control? >> i think it is a shame that the democrat majority in congress did not pass a budget, did not pass any appropriations bills. now we are left with nothing but bad choices about how we fund the government. we've been operating since october 1 under the continuing resolution. i would describe it as excessive levels. we made it clear we're interested in less spending. i said in september that spending bills at 2008 levels was about right. i am more focused on cutting spending and what type of vehicle might move in. >> the subcommittee recommended

.ensure for mr. renangel do you think that is appropriate fothe alleged violations? do you think the house will vote in this congress or wait until next year? >> i believe in the ethics committee process. it is the only bipartisan committee in the congress. there are five members from each party. the fact that the ethics committee has come to an agreement on a proper sanction, i wholeheartedly support. i believe that he wanted a faster process been afforded to him by the committee. i believe dealing with this as soon as possible is in the best interest of the institution and have mr. rangel. >> some say were ambushed in

january. is there any truth to that? >> we have a meeting scheduled with the president on november 30. we're looking forward to it. >> i was wondering how soon everyone will see a vote on repealing the health care bi. what will the plan be in terms of taking votes on that issue? >> we think obamacare will ruin the best health care system in the country. we believe oil bankrupt our nation. we believe it needs to be repealed and replaced with common sense reform to bring down the cost of health insurance. you will see us move quickly enough. -- we believe it will bankrupt our nation. >> there is a new stock offering. i wonder if anyone on the state believes the government actions with regard to general motors save any jobs. >> the government reaction to general motors and the bailout from the government could have

been handled in a more orderly way by a bankruptcy judge without the heavy hand of the federal government. look at the people who lost because of the government's actions. we're talking about tens of thousands of americans who were punished as a result of the government's actions. >> do you think it is legitimate for a lame duck session of congress to vote on legislation? >> every legislative body goes through the possibility of a lame duck session from time to time. i believe the u.s. congress has gotten into a very bad habit of having these lame duck congress is. i have got to believe this might be the fifth consecutive congress where we have had a

lame duck session. there is business that needs to be done. i would hope the leaders still in charge would heed the advice of the american people that occurred on election day in terms of being prudent in their actions before the end of the year. >> could you tell us the latest on the efforts to extend the bush tax cuts? how do you expect it to play out? >> i believe we should extend all the current tax rates for all americans. >> do you think this congress will do it in lame-duck? next year? >> that is up to those in charge. >> there is the request today to move the energy jurisdiction from the commerce committee. would you think about joe barton's request for a waiver? >> i think it is appropriate for the majority to look at how we can do our work on behalf of the american people.

having a debate about what jurisdiction and committee is a dialogue that we ought to encourage. i do not have a position on this. i do think the conversation underway that involves virtually half of our committee is a dialogue that we should have. mr. barton is free to come to the steering committee and ask for a waiver, just like any other member in that circumstance. >> it was reported earlier this week that one of the incoming gop freshmen had a meeting with the new members and had to wait for his health care benefits to kick in. is there a contradiction between his concern? >> i am not familiar with the conversation. >> i wonder if he could help us understand the discussion you are having that may not be easy

to raise the debt levels -- limits. >> i have made it clear that congress will have to deal with this mixture. we will have to deal with it as adults. whether we like it not, the federal government has obligations. we have obligations on our part. we will have time in the coming months to discuss that issue and how we might move such an issue. those conversations have not started yet. thank you, all. >> what about the military tribunal? [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> won the 112th congress convenes in january, 94 members of the house will take the oath for the first time. here is a look at a couple of new members. in florida's 25th, david rivera defeated joe garcia. the congressman has served in the florida state house since 2002. he is also the miami dade county republican party chairman. oodall willrob what al represent georgia's seventh district. the congressman elect will be a first-time office holder. stay tuned to c-span for continuing political coverage. >> the south carolina representative james clyburn

talks about his recent election to the new position of assistant minority leader for the new congress. he is maintaining his no. 3 spot in the leadership. >> it would have been easy to step down. i said that was not attractive to me. i thought that things that i have learned out there could be put to great use in our leadership discussions if we were to bring another chair to the table. i believe we are in a different political environment. we have a caucus that is a little bit different from the republican conference. they of 42 african-americans. we have 21 or 22 latina's.

with 10 asian pacific islanders. we have blue dogs that are not that much for trade. all this diversity, i thought i had learned a lot about. i thought i could bring discussions to the table and could take them away from the table into our constituency in a way that would limit me if i were chair of a caucus. >> "newsmakers" with south carolina representative james clyburn today at 6:00 p.m. on c- span. >> like all men of great gifts, when they give up power, they're handcuffed when they give it up. >> in the final volume on the roosevelt, edmund morris

examines his final years. that is tonight at 8:00. >> senate majority whip john kyl said he will continue to oppose the nuclear treaty with russia until the obama administration provides a larger budget for modernizing the u.s. nuclear arsenal. on wednesday, secretary of state clinton and senators spoke with reporters supporting senate ratification. the treaty passed the committee by a vote of 14 to 4 and sept. the full senate has not yet acted on it. >> it is nice to be back in familiar surroundings. let me start by thanking the

chairman and ranking members of the senate foreign relations committee for hosting a breakfast this morning with leadership from both the house and senate on some of the most critical national security issues facing our country. in particular, i want to thank both senator kerry and senator lugar or their leadership on the treaty. the treaty is ready to be voted on by the senate. they have held a dozen hearings. other committees have held an additional half-dozen. they crafted a resolution of ratification incorporating input from senators on both sides of the aisle. they were ultimately able to rush the treaty through the senate foreign relations committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 14 to four. recently some have suggested that we should hit the pause button, that it is too difficult

to do this treaty in a lame-duck session. i strongly disagree. this is exactly what the american people expect us to do. to come together and do what is necessary to protect our country. we can and must go forward now on the new start treaty during a lame-duck session. we have an opportunity to ratify the treaty unlocking the consensus on modernization funding. perhaps most importantly, and i want to stress this because i am not sure that everybody really understands that when the prior treaty expires, we lost the ability to have inspectors on the ground. we need to get our inspectors back into russia after a gap of nearly a year.

our intelligence and defense colleagues have recent -- repeatedly noted that we're much better off with start that when our baba -- them without it. the director of national intelligence said the earlier, the sooner, the better. we need stability, transparency, and predictability that the new start will give us by giving us insight into russia's nuclear arsenal. that is something the previous presidents and congresses have repeatedly and overwhelmingly supported. this is also a treaty that is critical for our bilateral relationship with russia. we have enhanced our cooperation to the benefit of our country on iran, afghanistan, nuclear non- proliferation, counter- terrorism, and on counter- narcotics. that is why our entire military

leadership as well as six former secretaries of state, five former secretaries of defense, three former national security advisers, and seven former commanders of u.s. shah strategic command support this treaty and support it now. we look forward to the senate quickly completing the consent process. i want to stress how the american people want 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 start treaty by a vote of 93 to 6. that is why in 2002, under a republican president, the senate approved the moscow treaty that included no other measures of 95 to nothing. i had the privilege of voting

for the treaty. this treaty deserves the same overwhelming bipartisan support. >> thank you very much, secretary glynn, for joining us today. we had a broad discussion of the challenges to our country today from afghanistan to pakistan to iraq, and the secretary was comprehensive in her engagement with members of the house and senate leadership. but this issue of the start treaty is really at the top of the list and the top of the discussion. our country is strongest and we protect it best when we come together in a bipartisan way or

in a non-partisan way. historically, we have made our greatest in dances in terms of national security -- our greatest advances. we had a 95 to nothing look at the moscow treaty which had no verification at all. people who are today in the senate on the other side of the aisle voted for that moscow treaty. then 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 a spot, random inspections to find out what the other side is doing. but for one year now, we had no inspections, no american boots on the ground in russia able to

protect american interests. and we will not have them on the ground until this treaty is ratified. we are in two wars right now. we face the threat of terror every single day. we face the threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons. this treaty is the best way to reduce and address threats to our country, and we need to proceed forward to address it now. now we have reached out for months. i made a decision as chairman to the late asking for a vote on this at the request of a number of members of the other side of the aisle, would he give people more time to be able to evaluate this treaty. we have done that. as of today, and know that the last questions that were posed by some senators have been

answered, and those questions up here on the hill are available for analysis. the american people have just expressed their will and a very divisive in difficult election year. they asked the united states congress to do its business. they asked the congress to get rid of the politics. they asked us to protect american interests, and it is this congress that has done the work on this treaty. it is these senators, elected here and now, who have a constitutional responsibility now to deal with this treaty. is this congress that has done its homework, analyzing the tree, going to the hearings, meetings with the centers who have the responsibility to vote. the president and secretary of state, the vice president has been deeply engaged in this. they are asking the u.s. senate to do its job. i talked yesterday with a number of senators on the other side of the aisle, and we discussed the

outstanding issues. as of now, there is no substantial disagreement on this treaty. what separates apparently the sense of ability to move forward is a question about money tenures out in the future. as of now, the president has put $80 billion on the table for modernization and an additional $4.1 billion to meet the request of senator kyl. all have said we are committed to modernization. as a teenager, the house of representatives will be run by the republicans -- as of next year.

we stand ready to negotiate. we have two weeks. we are going to be out of here over the thanksgiving break. we stand ready to work on any day during that period of time. we have at least two weeks before this comes before the senate. i refuse to believe that we cannot find a good faith to negotiate on behalf of our country in order to deal with the modernization, funding, and in order to resolve any outstanding questions. the national security of our country demands nothing less than that effort, and we are committed to provide it. one could have no greater part of then vice president biden. i have had that privilege for 25 years. there is no stronger, more powerful voice for common sense with respect to proliferation then senator lugar ar.

>> let me simply summarize these points of view. we are talking today about the national security of the united states of america. it is not simply a debate among senators at this point. it is the voice of the american people that has to inform centers that this treaty must be ratified in this session of the congress. since december 5 last year, we have had no boots on the ground to inform us of what in fact is occurring with regard to the nuclear-weapons of russia. this is very serious. in my office, we have a scorecard that says that the beginning of the program, 13,300 nuclear warheads were aimed at

us. our cities, our military installations, everything we have. 13,300. i have said frequently to my constituents, at any one of those warheads could obliterate the city of indianapolis. there are thousands still there. the american public might have forgotten about. we are deeply concerned about north korea and iran and other programs in which there may be one, two, five, 20. we are talking about thousands of warheads that are still there. i have supported the modernization and all the efforts of the president to carry and work withthers in republican party centrally. but we are at a point where we are unlikely to have either the

treaty or modernization, unless we get real. that is the point of our meeting today. i appreciate the secretary sharing so vividly her impressions. i appreciate the chairman's patients through these hearings, through negotiations. we thank each one of you for helping us share this with the american people. >> are there any questions? [unintelligible] >> is it really dead in the water? >> i hope that through our on outreach efforts to the russians, which have been ongoing, and we have discussed the process of ratifying this treaty. i hope the statement from the vice president, i hope the very strong statements that you just heard from the centers carry and

lugar sent a strong message that we intend to do everything that we can during this lame-duck session to get a vote to ratify this treaty. to me, is essential that we bring this before the senate'. what senator lugar said is so important. nobody knows more about this issue than senator lugar. for anyone to think that we can postpone it or we can avoid it, i am afraid they are 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 i can then inform the russians that it is their turn to do the same. they told us they would intend

to do that. >> [unintelligible] >> i think of senator kerrey and senator lugar are experts at dealing with their senate colleagues. i had the privilege to serve with them for eight years. they both believe that this must be done in the lame-duck -- and the lame duck administration will stand with them. we will do what it takes around the clock to reach out and have discussions. this is not an issue that can afford to be postponed. we think once we take that message with the urgency that you heard from the three of us, we will get the votes and passed this treaty. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> i want to begin by thanking the incredible leaders who are around this table, not only the vice president, secretary of state, but also some of the most able statesman from both parties that we have had in modern american history who are sitting around this table. we are here to discuss the importance of ratifying the start treaty. let me be clear, it is a national security imperative that the united states ratified a new start treaty this year.

there is no higher national security priority for the lame- duck session of congress. the stakes for american national security are clear and they are high. the new start treaty responsibly reduces the number of nuclear weapons and launchers that the united states and russia deployed lawfully maintaining america's nuclear deterrent. if we ratify this treaty, we are going to have eight verification regime in place to track russia's strategic nuclear weapons, including u.s. inspectors on the ground. if we don't, then we do not have a verification regime. no inspectors, no insights into russia's strategic arsenal, the framework for cooperation between the world's two nuclear superpowers. as ronald reagan said, we have to trust but we also have to verify. in order for us to verify, we

have to have a treaty. the new start treaty is also a cornerstone of our relationship with russia. this goes beyond nuclear security. russia has been fundamental to our efforts to put strong sanctions in place, to put pressure on iran to deal with its nuclear program. has been critical in supporting our troops in afghanistan through the northern distribution network. has been critical in working with us to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world and to enhance european security. we cannot afford to gamble on our ability to verify russia's strategic nuclear arms and we cannot jeopardize the progress we have made in securing vulnerable nuclear materials or in maintaining a strong sanctions regime against iraq. these are all national interests of the highest order. let me also say, and i think the

group around the table will confirm, that this new start treaty is completely in line with a tradition of bipartisan cooperation on this issue. this is not a democratic concept or a republican concept. this is a concept of american national security that has been promoted by ronald reagan, george h. w. bush, bill clinton, george of the bush, and now my administration. we have taken the time to do this right, to ensure that the treaty got a fair hearing. we submitted to the senate last spring. because of the leadership of john kerry and dick lugar, there have been 18 hearings on this subject. there have been multiple briefings. it has been fully and carefully vetted and has the full endorsement of our nation's military leadership, our rush

chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is here and will confirm that this is in our national security interests. my administration is also prepared to go the extra mile to ensure that our remaining stockpile and nuclear infrastructure is modernized, which i know is a key concern of many around this table and also many on capitol hill. we have committed to invest $80 billion on the effort to modernize over the next decade. based on our consultations with senator kyl, we have agreed to request an additional $4.1 billion over the next five years. the key point here is, this is not about politics, it is about national security. this is not a matter that can be delayed. every month that goes by without a treaty means that we are not able to verify what is going on on the ground in russia.

if we delay indefinitely, american leadership and america's national security will be weakened. senator reid said yesterday there is time on the senate calendar to get this treaty ratified this year, so i have asked by president biden to focus on this issue day and night until it gets done. it is important to our national security to let this treaty go up for a vote. i am confident it is the right thing to do. the people around ts tae think it is the right thing to do. i would welcome the press to query the leadership here, people who have been national security advisers, secretaries of state, and key advisers, defense secretary for democratic and republican administrations, and they will confirm that this is the right thing to do.

so we have a lot on our plate during this lame-duck session. i recognize that given the difficulties in the economy that there may be those democrats and republicans on the hill who think this is not a top priority. i would not be exercising this and these votes would not have traveled all this way if we did not feel that this was absolutely important to get that done. i am looking forward to strong cooperation between democrats and republicans on capitol hill, as exemplified by john kerry and dick lugar, to get this done over the course of the next several weeks. thank you very much, everybody. i am confident that we should be able to get the votes. keep in mind that every president since ronald reagan has presented an arms treaty with russia and they want to get ratification.

-- been able to get ratification. for the most part, these trees have been debated on the merits. the majority of them have passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. there is no reason we should not be able to get that done this time as well. >> the american enterprise institute hosts a discussion on a proposed agenda for the new congress. legal scholars and help policy analyst will discuss possible changes to the new healthcare all pri congressional spending and the constitutional limits on the federal government. live coverage begins tomorrow at 9:15 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> from barack obama to george washington, learn more about the nation's presidents online at the c-span video library. biographies coming interviews, historical perspective, and more, searchable and all free. it is washington, your way.

>> newly elected house members were in washington d.c. for a weeklong orientation session, although most will not be sworn in until next year. one of the items on their agenda, the traditional freshman class folk taken in front of the u.s. capitol. -- traditional freshman class photograph taken in front of the u.s. capitol.

[crowd murmurs] [laughter]

>> one additional activity for the new congressional members this week, choosing an office. the new members enter a lottery which determines the order in which they get to choose among the empty offices. here is a quick look. [laughter] >> mr. benishek drew no. 73.

[laughter] >> don't be nervous. ms. butler drew no. 8. [applause] >> mr. brooks. >> oh, no. >> mr. brooks drew no. 81.

>> -- drew no. 84. [laughter] >> #52. mr. hurd drew no. 85. [applause]

why you have a lottery. >> just your name and your state. that's all i need, and then let me give you this packet and then you are going to see mr. fleming here. ms. herrera-but or has selected room 1130, longworth building. >> when the 112 congress convenes in january, 94 members of the house, 85 republicans and nine democrats, will take the oath for the first time.

here is a look at a couple of new members. republican david rivera defeated joe garcia, to succeed the four- term incumbent who ran in another district. congressman rivera has served in the florida state house and is also the miami dade county republican party chairman. republican rob woodall represent georgia seventh district. he will succeed the nine-term incumbent john linder. stay tuned to c-span for continuing political coverage. >> like all men of great gifts, even though they may give it up for principle reasons, they began to hanker for it once they give it up. >> in his award winning trilogy on at the core roosevelt, edmund

morris examines the final years of his life. tonight on c-span q&a. this week on prime minister's questions, harriet harman it standing in for party leader ed miliband says prime minister david cameron broke a promise to protect public services that could be affected by budget cuts. the prime minister also talks about the progress of training afghan forces and tax credits for the british film industry. questions"ster's tonight on c-span. >> utah senator elect mike lee gave a keynote address on friday. he discusses the gop agenda in the next legislative session. this is just over 30 minutes.

>> good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. i hope you are having a good couple of days here at our convention, the federalist society. it is my privilege this afternoon to introduce u.s. senator elect might leak from utah -- u.s. senator elect mike lee from utah. >> u.s. senator mike lee opens his online biography with a the following sentence, "mike acquired his love for the constitution early on by discussing everything from the due process clause to the second amendment around the dinner table." [laughter] this guy is serious. lest you believe that this is a near-rhetorical flourish, i have it on good authority from people who saw and heard mike on the campaign trail that he spent much time talking quite seriously and specifically

about the limits on government power contained in our constitution and why they need to be respected. one current u.s. senator whom i will not name and whose accent i am about to butcher said to me, he is actually out there talking about the commerce clause. well, yes senator, and i expect you'll be hearing much more about that very soon. [applause] might serve as the president of the byu law school chapter, and perhaps this explains his campaign speeches. it would not be fair for us to take all of the credit. he did a clerk for judge samuel alito. his father was a brilliant

lawyer who served as solicitor general of the united states under president ronald reagan. please join me in giving the senator elect a warm and hearty welcome. [applause] >> thank you for that kind introduction and for the opportunity you have given me to speak to one of my very favorite groups. the introduction reminded me that when i first target campaigning, people would look at me kind of strange when i mentioned the fact that we would discuss this sort of thing around the dinner table. i think i was 38 or 39, which i now them, before i realized that not everyone discusses the commerce clause over potatoes. [laughter] for me it was perfectly normal. the united states constitution and many aspects of u.s. history were something of a

second religion in my house. we discussed these things constantly. i remember conversations with my dad about roe versus wade when i was 10 years old. he explained the facts of the case, and as he finished explaining it to me, my response was, separate and apart to the insult this presents to the dignity of humankind, it overlooks the fact that there is nothing in the constitution at makes this a federal issue. i was really bothered by that issue at that age. i do not think he realized i was weird either. [laughter] i decided to get into this race and to run for political office because i have come to believe that our federal government is too big and too expensive.

i doubt there are many in this audience that will disagree with me on that point. but just in case, just in case there might be a few of you out there, i will remind you of the fact that our federal government has accumulated almost $14 trillion in debt. by the end of the year we'll have a $15 trillion debt. there is -- that is a lot of money. there are people across the united states, here in the district of columbia, in the state of utah, and all across the nation who do not make $15 trillion in an entire year. [laughter] it is true. if you divide that by eight the number of americans, it works out to about -- if you divide that by the number of americans, it works out to about $50,000 per head. however, it works out to about 125 belsen dollars per taxpayer. that is quite a -- $125,000 per taxpayer. that is what the problem.

the part that we do know is sufficiently disturbing to cause us to realize we have a problem. it is a problem that harkens back to an earlier time in our nation's history. an earlier time a couple of centuries ago, when american started expressing concern about the distant, powerful, national government, not based in washington, d.c., because it did not exist then. this was then part of maryland. but the national government based in london. it taxes too much and regulated us too heavily. it did not respect to the american principle of local, self-ruled. people govern themselves better

than government governs us. where government is necessary, most government decisions are better made locally then they are at the national level. this government was so far from the people that it was slow to respond to their needs, even when it did respond. and so, the people came to an understanding that feels somewhat familiar to us, that national government, by their very nature, have a tendency toward tyranny. they have a tendency to become a tyrant, ultimately, unless their power is carefully checked. that remains true, this tendency toward tyranny that national governments have, regardless of whether the government in question is headed by a king on the one hand, or by an elected president. even by an elected president who thinks he is a king. [laughter] unless we restrict the power and put careful boundaries are

rounded -- around it, tierney will ensue. it is an elapid -- tyranny will ensue. it is an inevitability. we as a country decided that we would reject this kind of government. we put together our founding document. we decided to come up with a list, a list of powers that we knew we had to have in our national government. we put forward that list in article i, section 8. this all too important but all too frequently overlooked portion of our constitution. we decided to give congress the power to regulate things like interstate and foreign commerce, to develop laws regarding naturalization, to develop a uniform system of

weights and measures, to declare war, to regulate federal public land in certain circumstances subject to certain limitations, and there are a few others, including my personal favorite, the power is to grant letters of been a it marked and reprisal. we do not talk about that one as often as we should, although we do in my house. my children have come to regard the one with great affection. but in case you missed that one in your last family discussion, a letter of march or reprisal is basically a hall passes issued by congress that entitles the holder to state-sponsored acts of piracy on the high seas in the name of the united states of america. it is the last thing i do, as long as i serve in the united states senate, i am going to get a letter of marque and reprisal, and you can all join me.

[applause] my point in all of this is to underscore the fact that within that document, within the us charter for our national government, there is no power to do all things that congress deems expedient. there is no power to make life fairer, more enjoyable, more equitable for americans generally. there are instead limited powers which james madison, whose name this society reveres, as i do, are clearly defined. those powers can be presumed to exist in the states unless they are indicated year. that was made abundantly clear

without ambiguity or uncertainty in the 10th amendment. and yet we are where we are. and yet, since the new deal era, every single year the combined expenditures of the 50 state government has been significantly less than the expenditures of the federal government. that was never true before the new deal era. it has always been true since the new deal era. i trace this back, most of it, to the changes that occurred in our commerce clause jurisprudence in the late 1930's and early 1940's. with certain legal cases, the court followed a standard

regarding interstate congress. it is a very simple concept. congress may regulate any aspect of human existence. and yet, there is not a single point upon which we could be more certain that the founding fathers of agreed and then and that they were not creating a federal government with these powers. they were not creating an all- purpose national government. not one of those men would have signed their name to this document and not one of the state would have ratified the document had they believed that what they were creating, what they were ratifying was anything other than a limited- purpose government. [applause]

now, i have been told since high school that i need to bury the hatchet when it comes to wicker v philburn. my school teacher told me to just get over it. the federal government is big. that ship has failed. leave it alone. i do not think i want to. i do not think i can. [applause] you say, because the king's court threw in 1787 remain true -- uc, because the things that were true in 1787 remain true today.

we would not be in a position where we are facing a $15 trillion debt with 100 trillion dollars in unfunded entitlement liabilities if they simply respected these basic precepts, if they stuck to the program, if they focused on those things that they are supposed to be doing. i mean look, there is only so much you can spend granting letters of marque and reprisal, right? [applause] the solution, i believe, lies not with an attempt of the federal judiciary to roll back legal precedent. do not get me wrong. i love baathist -- i would love it if that happened. even under that president, this health care plan crosses the line. the american congress is telling the american people that

they may have to buy a specific product today may not want. i applaud the efforts. i do not believe that they can return us to what i referred to as constitutionally limited government fast enough to get us out of the mess the we are now facing. i believe, hope and expect that in time we will have a supreme court in which the majority of justices will decide that the standard adopted previously utterly obliterates that doctrine. until that time, what to do? i believe we can do something that will not have to take years or even decades to complete. we have, as it turns out, not just one branch in our federal government. we have three. and only one of them is

controlled by people with lifetime appointments. the other ones you can vote for. the problem is that in the political branches over the last 75 years, members of congress in both houses of both political parties have seen that the supreme court answer is always yes, really with only two exceptions, the united states versus lopez in 1995 being one and the united states inverses morton being the other. in every other case where the question is, does this accede congress's commerce power, the answer has been no. some members of congress have stopped asking the question of whether they could, because the answer has always been yes. then they stopped asking whether they should. each member of congress is required to take an oath to

uphold the constitution. in my mind, that means more than doing that which you can get away with in court. we drove over year in a taxicab just a few minutes ago from my temporary space up on capitol hill. i do not know whether the cab driver exceeded the speed limit law at some point. he may have. i was not watching. but the fact that we did not get a ticket on the way over does not mean that he was complying with the law. it just means a the did not get caught. so too with congress, especially when you consider the facts that, in many circumstances, very few people, if anyone, could be said to have standing to challenge certain actions taken by the federal government. especially when you consider that lawsuits and never get brought because of the perception of futility. it is not fair to say that just

because the courts scarcely, rarely interfere with congress as exercise of authority that congress and members of congress are complying with their oath to uphold the constitution. what i am saying is that members of congress need to be held accountable, and need to hold themselves accountable to their oath, regardless of what the courts might be willing to enforce. that needs to become part of the american political discourse, the question of whether each member of congress, or each person pursuing an office in congress, will independently police and independently limit to the exercise of congressional authority out of respect, out of devotion to the principles of the american revolution, those the were embodied in our founding-era document, principles that have been utterly ignored, i believe, for the last 75 years within the three political branches of the government. we must expect and we must

demand more from our leaders, but it will not happen until we as voters and start the discussion, until we commence what i call, "the constitutional debate." when i first decided to get into this race, to run for the united states senate, i wondered, as a lawyer, am i speaking out on this to the point where i cannot see the inability of the young lawyer public to grasp the importance of this? in audiences throughout my stay, i ran the basic history of wicker v philburn. i explained the origins of the commerce clause and how its interpretations had evolved over time. people got it. they understood it. i continue the discussions

after i got into the race, and sometimes my campaign staff had to get after me. they told me in most circumstances i could cite only one case in one speech. i could refer only one time to a specific identifying clause in article one section eight. i found all sorts of ways of getting around that, but the point is, people listened. people without any legal education can and do grasp these things, and they grasp it well. this is something that the american voting public can and should and must, and i believe well, understand, because it may well be that we can get out of the current mess that we face. for the principal reason principal reason that renewed emphasis on federalism not just when the accords it did not just within the courts, but within the public, maybe the only non-partisan, non threatening way the week and

based some of the problems that we have. -- that we can face some of the problems that we have. it is quintessentially american. the idea of self rule is an american idea. it is one that allows us to remain agnostic on many of the most fundamental and sometimes contentious questions that we face in government, questions considering such things as what, if any, is the role of government in the provision of health care? there are people on both extremes of the political spectrum who i believe could find areas of common agreement with what i am saying. for example, there are people to the left of me politically to would say that the only way

out of our current health care crisis is to establish a single payer, government-run health care system. i want to be clear. i am not one of those people, in case there was any mistake. there are those who feel that way. fed many of them are just as adamantly hostile toward obama- care as i am . there are other people who say the government should never, ever get involved in the health care of the citizenry. it should be up to private institutions, families, churches and so forth. regardless of where you are on that spectrum or whether you're somewhere in the metal, i think it is much easier to get people to the point of asking the additional question, not just whether government should get involved, but at which level? should it be at a national level or should it be at the state level?

i think we can make a compelling argument, even one directed toward our radiological left, that would say it ought to be at the state level. -- our ideological left, that would say it ought to be at the state level. you could do it far faster, with far more consistency, making it far more true to what you envision as the utopian ideal of the federal government providing, or a government providing this. if it is not the federal government, then the state. there are many people in vermont would like to create such a system, a system that would be far easier if the federal government stayed out of this all together or at least avoided any further intrusion into the realm of what is within a what states control. it is already the unique prerogative of the states to

licensed physicians, to license other health care professionals including nurses, to license hospitals and clinics, to regulate the provisions and the issuance of health insurance policies within this state, and to establish a system of laws governing medical malpractice lawsuits. states can bar more effectively, i believe, manage all of this rest -- states can a far more effectively, i believe, manage all of this or risk, rather than having those decisions made at the national level. there are other practical decisions to be taken into account as well, geographic, demographic, and other particularized circumstances that vary dramatically from one state to another. one state may be able to do far more for its people based on the money it is able to bring in and then another state may be able to do.

in utah, for example, the average health care cost per person per year is about $3,800. in another state, it is over $8,000. there are similar disparities all over the country. if released big decisions at the state level, i believe they can be dealt with far more effectively and efficiently in a manner that is more respected to life, liberty and property that we as americans tend to cling to. that is the whole reason why we are here today and we are not speaking with a british accent and we do not wear wigs when we go into court. [laughter] [applause] not that there is anything wrong with that. [laughter] i used to ask the justice alito whether we should not bring back the way to the court just to add to the decorum of the whole thing. he did not write off on that at

all. he was not enthusiastic. my hope, my motivation for getting into this race has everything to do with restoring the debate, to the political branches of government. for my part, i pledged to my constituents at, and i repeat that pledged today, i will not vote for a piece of legislation that i cannot reconcile with the original intent of the constitution. [applause] to say that differently, if i cannot imagine myself explaining to james madison with a straight face why what i was doing was consistent with the text and history of the constitution as it has been amended all 27 times, i will vote no. i will do every single time, regardless of what the

president says i can get away with -- precedent says i can get away with. there is a big difference, and it is a difference that i will honor, a difference that will guide me and will guide my every vote as a u.s. senator. my hope is that by making this part of the american political discourse, as it once was, and i believed it was for the first 150 years of our operation under the u.s. constitution, we will as a people be able to come to some consensus as to what powers might be long more properly at the state level. this does not mean less government overall, necessarily. this does not mean that we cannot provide certain services to provide a social safety net to people. but it may mean that we refocus

our attention away from the federal government in some instances and for the states, that we will be pushing some power out of the federal government where it will be received by the states. we need people pushing that power out of washington, and we need other people on the other end to a bullet into the states. i believe they can and will doing -- people on the other end to pulpit into the state. -- to pull it into the states. i believe we can do it and we will do it. may god bless the sovereign united states of america. thank you very much. [applause]

>> the senator is going to take two very quick questions, and they need to be short so we have time for an answer. in the back. >> congratulations on your election. i have a question for you. there is a debate about the proper role of senators in the confirmation process of the federal judiciary, whether senators should just make sure that judges are competent and not cronies, or whether they should really scrutinize their beliefs. i wonder what your thoughts are on that. >> we are not there to just check a box. we are there to look for obvious pathologies and say, has this nominee ever been convicted of a federal offense? ok, the answer is no.

did this person graduate from law school and passed the bar exam? i think we are there to do more than that. in my case, that means a thorough examination into whether or to what extent each nominee understands his or her commitment to the constitution and to the laws of the united states. i will be looking into the idea of contextualism. this old-fashioned notion that our laws consisting of words and our words have meaning, many of which have been ignored, will lead to anarchy. that is what will guide me. >> who do you perceive in the senate will be an ally to your pledge to examine every piece of legislation along a constitutional litmus test? >> we have a few there already

who feel this way. i want to be very careful. we had a role to speak no latin. i told my staff today that i can keep out -- geek out all i want, these are my people. my c.e.g. reference is to jim demint and tom coburn. i would also include rand paul

from kentucky, marco rubio from florida. there are others as well. this is not something th is unique to any one senator. unfortunately, it has been too rare. fortunately, it will be rare no more. [applause] >> 94 members of the house will take the oath for the first time. here is a quick look at some of the new members. the new representative for hawaii's first district will be democrat colleen hanabusa. she has served in the hawaii state senate since 1999 and was

majority leader from 2003 to 2007. the new idaho representative is raul labrador. he has served in the idaho state house since 2006. march c-span for continuing political coverage. >> this year's video documentary competition is in full swing. make a five-eight minute video on this year's theme, washington d.c. through my lens. your documentary should include more than one point of view, along with c-span programming. up load your video by the deadline of january 24 your chance to win $5,000. there is $50,000 in total prizes. for all the rules and how to upload your video, go online to upload your video, go online to