>> we have a blog, resources. you will see how to open your court, a local organizations, a glossary we are working on out of the bergman center. that is one area we talk about. we have they meet the court officials, the history of the court which give you some of the background. for example there is talk about the court, the judge, other people who are in the courts. we have questions, why did you agree to have it open? we of questions, what role does the court play, ask the clerk. we talked to the assistant clerk. the head of probation, we talked to. we're

some understanding. we have work to do but that is actually part of our mission as much as the stream. >> there was a debate to archive or not to archive. what were the objections? >> if you take all look at our site -- it is handy that i have it -- let me go to it for a second. i need to bring it up a little higher. we have an ongoing blog that

covers us covering ourselves. [laughter] it is a very meta experience. the archive issue is a very complicated one. there were a lot of conversations how we would archive and when we would archive and what we would are cut. archive. this is a good place for a disclaimer. on our block, the fault massachusetts supreme judicial court is to hear about the open court are cut. it is an issue that has not completely been resolved. i cannot talk about the specifics of the case because i suspect there are a few people who work in public information. you'd want to avoid something like that.

the issue of archives is a key one. it is not replicating the experience of being in court at that time. it is time shifting that experience. by definition, we are not actually providing the exact same thing that happened when you come into court. that was a large, large conversation about whether we should or should not. working with our board of advisers and their working group, we felt by the friday before may 2, that we had come to consensus that we had covered the issue of archiving and we would posts archives. late on friday before the monday that we started it, we got a letter from the district attorney's office from norfolk

county where the quincy district court presides stating their feelings that their should not be an accessible archive. they are in favor of an archive but it should not be public we accessible. -- publicly accessible. >> what is the response from the press in massachusetts to making reporters register? if i did that in west virginia there would be a revolt. >> this is not credentialeding. this is asking them to sign up on a web site and download a form that says i am a journalist and i will agree to these rules. these proposed rules went out for comment and to the news organizations. there were no real objections to that. because we have the judiciary media committee and the role

119 committee which is comprised of journalists as well, they had a hand -- a big hand -- in helping us to devise this proposed rule. if this gets approved in this way, there will be a lot of work in the beginning to get everybody registered but i don't think it will be a problem after that. >> with analytics, you have about 150 people viewing this. what is the overall public perception? how has the project should the public perception of the courts? are you doing anything to gather feedback? how are you seeing that the

feedback and perception of the court is as a result of the project? >> we are doing, but we are not doing comment on the live stream. you can comment on the blog but we need to do a better job of being part of that conversation to see where things are going. a lot of the comments in a sense of what we are doing have come out of coverage around this issue of the archives. we announced that open court was going live. we have a bit of a bully pulpit because we are based wbur. that is one of the leading news information sources in the city. it is the npr public radio station. there is an awareness of this. there has been public conversation on our air around

this archive issue. that is where it is going but to your point, as i have explained, we have spent a lot of time on the mechanics and now our intention is to be much more out in the community, engaging the community. with this issue of the archives, we were doing periodic meetings with the quincy working group and within that community. it has been hard to inject ourselves into those against the backdrop of litigation. we intend to pick those up now. at this point, we need to keep going forward to talk to the community. that is a great question. >> the comments that you have on the b,og, are those moderated? >> we moderate than.

>> do you have a policy that you follow that says what the circumstances are when you would delete something? >> yes, it is interesting. public radio does not have the kind of commenting issues other media does. we just use the exact moderating policy that we use for the rest of the wbur.org site. it is basically play well with others and be respectful. it is similar to the npr policy. we cribbed our common policy from npr and it worked out pretty well. there have not been problems. >> i wanted to see whether this project is being used by the traditional media locally.

if i was a reporter watching this in the "boston globe" newsroom, how could i find out more about this? what is the title of the case? who are the lawyers? is there anything on the site that would do that? >> it is an interesting question. when we were planning this, we thought the lowest hanging fruit would be to post the docket, what each case was. we have not been able to crack the state court data base to provide something that is usable. there is a lot of sensitivity about posting the names of those accused.

they are accused. as we all know, nothing this appears on the web. if someone was wrongly accused of x and he applies for a job as a national journal and day maybe he would not get that job. it has not been fully resolved. it is an incredibly blunt instrument right now. there is no tagging that is effective and no names associated with the case. as we go forward, that is one of the things we will be working on. i referenced this earlier. you can get issues of bail and society's ills.

it was included how much the court is almost the social service agency of last resort which the public can get an appreciation of of what is going on. from-pure coverage point of view, -- from a pure coverage point of view, people know what will be heard that day so they will put it on. there was a danger on a hearing on a case that happened a week ago and they knew it was happening that day and a monitor it. it is a really blunt instrument and i wish it weren't. >> part of my question was his question. you don't publish the docket but it appears that what you are showing is what we would call our first appearance. or our appearance or our arraignment. 99% of the people making a first

appearance don't have representation. is that the case in your court? how do you address that? >> it is a good part of what gets done there, our arraignments. there are things that we do as well but people get appointed counsel that day or they bring council. the vast majority of people will have lawyers there either because they are appointed and there is a call later if there is a question of bail or they are arraigned and given a lawyer and given a new date. the case name is called, the lawyers identify themselves, that is the best you will get. we don't post the list of the cases that will be called or everyone who will be arraigned that day or whether it is a criminal pretrial conference or a landlord/tenant case.

the cases are called by name so it might be bank of america of verses davidow. >> i am from the associated press and the holy grail of my career has been access to the courts. i must commend you for providing this kind of access. i think it is a great experiment. my question is -- two questions -- one iws do you complement how this would work for a high- profile trial and what you do about bench conferences? are you able to block them out? >> there was an interesting case yesterday. i took the plea on a case and the prosecutor and defense attorney -- i looked at the guys record -- the prosecutor and defense lawyers said they had

been agreed upon disposition. it was almost laughable what they were recommending to the court. when they looked at my expression, they asked if they could approach and have a bench conference. as soon as they say that, i know they will tell me that the guy is an informant providing information to the drug task force. i have been around long enough to know. [laughter] they insist on wanting to do it and gets on the record. we never turn of the recorder. it gets on the courtroom record. at that bench conference, yes, i turned off the camera. i did not want everybody in quincy to know this guy was providing information to the drug task force. what was your second question? >> how does this work in a high-

profile trial? >> there are certain things that are prohibited by statute in massachusetts in a jury trial that you cannot film that would be precluded. we would not film the jurors. we would not allow certain video streaming. one case coming up as a high- profile human trafficking case where the defendant was alleged to have picked a big girl walking home from high school, a 15-year-old girl, and essentially placed her in prostitution over a three-four weeks is the allegation. we had a full evidentiary hearing on that on whether he should be held as dangerous. i will not comment about the case but the legal issue is that the defense attorney and prosecutor both what the camera shot off for the whole hearing. the prosecution wanted it turned

off because they wanted to protect the privacy of the victim particularly since she was a juvenile. the defense lawyer wanted the camera to go off because they did not want to inhibit his right to a fair trial at a later point should this be archived. there were two motions, one to show up the camera altogether and one to not allow access to the archive. i denied both motions. i ordered both lawyers and their examination, their cross- examination, not to mention the minor child's name or any identifying information that would cause her to be identified. the defense counsel used her name twice. now the case has gone up to the supreme judicial court. there are real issues.

it is not as easy as it may seem. there are very significant and important legal and policy issues that we need to grapple. that is was great about having this as an experiment. we can get ahead of these issues and think about them and be thoughtful about them before going statewide. the supreme judicial court will have to address this issue which is great. i make the decision in court and if i am wrong, the appeals court will tell me i am wrong and will get some direction and statewide policy. >> we have about four minutes left. question over here? >> i was wondering if this is -- has generated interest in cases that otherwise would not be high-profile cases?

you said it was sort of a window into the social issues of the day. i was wondering if that had an 8 reverse fallout in terms of journalists covering issues they would not have normally picked up on? >> i will answer that they should be. at wbur and because it is coming into our newsroom and we have two employees in that courtroom every day, there is no shortage of materials that should be covered. there are absolute plans to do that. i suspect coverage breeds more coverage. this is a really valuable window into what is going on around the country. >> it has been said several

times that this is an experiment and the hypothesis is being tested. the statement has been made throughout both of these conferences which is the more the public knows about the court system, the better the public's perception of that system will be which is something we are dedicated to trying to support. i commend you on testing that hypothesis and that think you'll find the answer is that it is true. i thank the audience for some good questions and let spank the panelists. [applause] -- let's thank the panelists. [applause] >> i want to thank you, chris, let's give him a separate hand. [applause] we are right on schedule and we will have lunch in this room. before we break up, who knows

who art smith. he is the chef and he is to be the oprah winfrey's chef. who knew? you'll be treated to a wonderful meal. the back around noon. at 1:30, we will assemble at metro east and west for the case of the nylon night stalker. it is fun and you will have some great speakers. you have about a 12-14 minute lunch and bacbreak and back herr lunch. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[no audio] [no audio] [general room chatter] >> on today's "washington journal," the postmaster general. stephen moore will discuss tax policy and we will talk to the national journal reporter about federal job-training programs. "washington journal" begins a 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. throughout this month, cspan video will feature lbj tapes

from his telephone conversations. they are caring for the first time. this saturday, hear president johnson talk with everett dirksen and vice president democratic my -- nominate hubert humphrey about vietnam, the paris peace talks, and a presidential race. >> i am trying to do a job. i will do it. if i get these at 4:00 this afternoon, i will get it done hell or high water. >> listen in the washington, d.c. area at 90.1 or online @ cspan radey of.org. in this interview yesterday at that newseum in washington, john pistol said intelligence is the best tool in the fight against terrorism. this is 35 minutes.

>> i am susan bennett and we are partnering with gannett and "usatoday" two planes were crashed into the world trade center in new york city and another into the e ntagon and the fourth plan crashed in shanks bill,

pennsylvania. more than 3000 people died that day and our lives changed forever. we want to focus today on one aspect of the change that has impacted millions of americans. that is the way that we travel, by car, by rail, by boat, and most importantly, by air. we will talk today about the security we have come to live with, what has worked and not work and look ahead to the future of what transportation security will be like over the next 10 years. for the answers to those questions, we will go straight to the top. our guest today is john pistol, the head of tsa. he oversees a workforce of more than 60,000 people who manage the security operations of more than 450 federalized airports around the country as well as the federal air marshal service, security for highways,

railroads, pipelines, mass transit. john came to the tea as a with a wealth of experience in counter- terrorism and terrorism. he spent more than 26 years at the fbi as a special agent working his way up through the ranks and after september 11, he was put in charge of the fbi counter-terrorism program. in 2004, he was named the bureau's deputy director. he has led innumerable investigations that are high- profile but most are recently was the attempted times where bombing in new york city in 2010, the attempted christmas day attack on northwest flight 253 in 2009, and the unsuccessful plot against the new york city subway system that same year. we have a lot of territory to cover and limited time but we want to reassure the audience that we will leave time for you to ask your questions. when that time comes, we'll ask

you to come down to the microphone and give us your name and home town or affiliation and we will let you have your turn. i hope you'll join me right now in welcoming john pistol to the program. [applause] i know you said your parents were married in 1941 and there are memories of the day described as the day of infamy by franklin delano roosevelt. our day of infamy was september 11, 2001. can you share with us briefly a little bit of background and where you were that day and how you first learned about those attacks? >> thank you for the invitation here and it is good to be with the audience. i was in syracuse, n.y. that day doing an inspection of our office there. i had been at a tv station earlier that morning.

i was in a federal judge's office when the first plane hit. there were concerns about that so i went back to the fbi office and watched as the second plane hit. >> what was your role from that point on? >> i had been serving in our boston fbi office and after that i learned several of the hijackers had come out of boston. i went back to help the investigative all efforts there and was eventually transferred full time into the counter- terrorism division. fbi changed the paradigm for help fbi investigations were conducted with the focus on prevention. >> we will leap forward to tsa. you spent your fbi career trying to catch the bad guys. at tsa it is much more

preventative. you hope to never have an incident. can you talk about that transition? >> the fbi changed after 9/11 to become more preventative to make sure another 9/11 did not happen. they have been working across national and international communities. that had changed in the fbi post-9/11. the mission at tsa is similar, focusing on prevention, but also the idea of the resiliency aspect of that in case there is another attack. it is the same with natural disasters or anything else. >> their previously had been criticism of the tsa not having a big enough work force or one that was not trained enough and the money was not being put into the resources that you needed to

safely say that everybody was secure as they traveled. is that the case now? >> i think there are many ways than tsa and the department of homeland security and the fbi and other agencies can go about their work to provide the most effective security in the most effective way. a little over one year now i have been with this and there are multiple layers of security in place. you see one of those multiple letters at the checkpoint and we try to focus on more of an intelligence-driven approach. the more people share with us, the more we can make better judgments that can facilitate the physical screening part. >> in the years since you have been here, the tsa has been in the headlines and one of the issues has been the use of pat downs and the body scanners.

there has been talk about whether this was an unnecessary violation of privacy or was this something that was absolutely needed to guarantee their security. have you -- how have you change things and have you learned from the dialogue that would on over the controversy? >> we know that terrorists are adapting an evolving to try to deceive security. we have gone from the 9/11 attack to the shoe bomber to a liquid plot. this is the five-year anniversary of when the british authorities arrested nearly 20 people as part of a plot. a few were convicted later. cartridges we being used in cargo packages. the underwear bomber, we have

information that terrorists went to the extreme of having surgically implanted bombs. that is the context for everything we do. these multiple layers of security are designed to provide the best possible security while respecting the privacy and civil liberties of everyone who travels. it is a balance that we need to strike every day. the advanced imaging technology gives us the best opportunity. if there's a small item in the men's underwear it is hard to detect because for a metal detector. there would be no medal in that device. our focus and awareness is that there may be other people the terrorists are trying to use in that same scenario.

we have to make sure we're doing everything we can to use the best training and techniques aided by the best technology to provide the best security. >> that is a real judgment call for the individual tsa agent. there was criticism about patting down children. that could be a threat at some point. >> terrorists don't follow a certain plant. with us the children as being terrorists but we know that parents use children to do bad things. that happens around the world but also here in the u.s. we know two 10-year olds have been used. in afghanistan, and 8-year-old girl was the -- used by the taliban and was blown up when she delivered a package. adults whose children for bad things. we are exploring things and are

trying some different ways of screening children who are with their parents in a way that facilitates, recognizing that the likelihood of a child being used to carry a bomb does not happen. >> we are trying to do everything we can at our airports and train stations. what assurance do you have that other foreign security agencies go to the same length of that we do? a lot of the ships and planes land here. >> there is no guarantee in this business. that has become very apparent given all the challenges we have. we are in the risk-mitigation or risk management business instead of risk elimination. we have no guarantee that everything is safe and secure.

cargo would come to a halt or slow down. with our international partners, we set standards they have to follow. if someone's to fly to the u.s. warship card or packages to the u.s., they have to meet these standards and we work with them to increase their efficiency and effectiveness of how they go about that. >> i recall back in the 1990's, before september 11, when there was resistance among the airlines for basic things like positive i.d. matches. the airlines made the argument back then that it would slow air traffic across the country and americans would never agree to that invasion of privacy that changed immediately. the airlines actually made money on it because people could no longer use third-party ticket. what level of cooperation do you get from airlines now when

things like reenforcing [unintelligible] or other things that cost them money? >> the airport authority and executives and the association's they represent in terms of finding collaborative solutions to challenging problems -- for example, we are working with the alliance on a new form of trusted traveler. they have been very forward- leaning. i spoke with the ceo's of five of the major u.s. carriers to thank them for their support because they are spending the money to make the changes that help us in terms of security and allows the possibility for more expedited physical screening checkpoints. >> the airports have the option with your approval to opt out of tsa security.

they can have a private security company come in. you have oversight but you do not have day-to-day management, as such is this something that is a concern in terms of ensuring there are secure flights every single airport? is this a trend that more airports will go for? >> there are 16 airports currently about 450 that have privatized security force. we still have tsa on scene and a half to adhere to our standards. the security is not an issue as much as the cost. it costs the taxpayers a little bit more to have those workforces. other than that, they have best practices they develop or there are other things we can learn from that we can deploy

nationwide. tsa is a u.s. government counter-terrorism agency. it is important for the flexibility to get out information quickly. guest>> some things work in some things don't. i remember the puffer machine. what about things like air marshals? is that cost-effective and provide the deter you want to? >> -- the deterrent you want it to. ? many don't know how terrorists would try to do another 9/11 but there are air marshals on board. it is similar to the secret service. every day that goes by, we don't

know what people did not try because of a great job the secret service does. we tried to make sure we are random and unpredictable in how we go about doing things especially in the mass transit area where we have invisible teams. we have uniformed officers, k-9 teams, they could be patrolling stations and they may be there tuesday at 10:00 a.m. and a possible terrorist may be there to do surveillance and they see that and the next time maybe thursday at 3:00 p.m. terrorists cannot go to school on what we do to try to beat us. >> much of the focus is on air

travel. there are some who are concerned about train travel and cruise ship travel. on the trains, you don't have positive i.d. all the time. you have people getting on with knapsacks who have not been searched. is this an area of attention? >> is something we try to work closely with amtrak on with their own police force. and then with metro transit chiefs across the country. we recognized tsa can't be all places all the time so how can we work effectively in enhancing what they do? they know the threats. they know the local population better than we do. our job is to enable what they do through grant funding or training of officers or additional canines. those are some of the challenges

we recognized. trains and buses and subways is a much more open architecture than aviation. there had been a number of attacks around the world, hundreds of attacks, since 9/11. that is something we recognize and that is why the viper teams are so important to work with local authorities. >> what about the cruise ships? >> every cruise ship line as their own security force and we work with them to make sure that they do proper screening before people get on board including the crow so there are background checks. we have not seen attacks, fortunately, planned on cruise ships and carried out. there have been some successful attacks on ferries overseas carrying lots of people. given the more open nature, it

presents an opportunity for us to leverage our resources. >> the technology is evolving. in the body imaging machines, it is getting better. what do you see over the next 10 years as things we will be experiencing at airports and railway stations? >> at airports, there has been talk about a checkpoint of the future. there is an international air travel association which is promoting that which strongly endorse. the technology is not there yet but the idea is to differentiate different risk to travelers. you walk through the checkpoint which is a tunnel filled with sensors that would be able to pick up explosive devices. you could keep your jacket and your carry-on bag and detect

that. that is a great concept but it is not there yet. my strong belief is that the best tool we have in this fight against terrorism is intelligence. whether we get information from the intelligence community or in the yemen bombing, that information have tracking numbers from two packages from yemen to chicago. that was provided by a foreign intelligence service. they provided the tracking numbers and we were able to track them, one in the middle east and one in the u.k. and we found those packages. at first, they did not look like bombs. it looked like computer printers. upon further inspection, we found how well they were designed and we disrupted them so they did not cause damage that is what we try to to to make sure we have these multiple layers of security in place.

>> i have to share with our audience. if anyone has a question, we would be happy to entertain any from the audience. raise your hand if you have a question. give us your name and home town or your fill of it -- or affiliation. >> i am in arlington. i used to travel for pleasure which is an oxymoron now. going to various airports, there is a difference in how they treat consumers of airport travel. charlotte is wonderful. everyone will agree with that. orlando is just terrific. they are always nice to you. atlanta is terrible.

national has good days and bad days. if i get somebody or if i distribute hersheys kisses, they are much nicer but they probably should not take candy from strangers. [laughter] what kind of training do you have to say let's see a little bit -- let's be a little bit nicer to the passengers? >> one thing i learned last year is out of the 450 airports around the country, if you have seen one airport, you have seen one airport. each airport is laid out differently and the checkpoint configurations are different and the airport authority uses their space in different ways. tsa is a tenant come -- depending on what the checkpoint is. we provide training for our security officers and how to provide the most effective security. there has been a customer service aspect of that but that

has been secondary to the security. everyone wants to make sure they arrive lot of their destination. we are working on how to do that in a friendly fashion. we had tsa website where people can share their experiences. the airport you mentioned, we might get 1000 different opinions about how they work and others don't work based on experiences. how could we provide the most effective security in the most efficient way to facilitate the passengers' travel recognizing that the vast majority of travelers do not pose a threat? >> do you have other questions? a couple up there and one down here. >> i am from new york city.

i was in the city with my husband and son when the planes at the twin towers. post test 9/11, we are all aware that a lot of information has been circulating about possible planes being flown into the world trade center. richard clarke was one of those people who was in the administration and in his book, he stated he was trying to get that information to push the administration and said that he was not being heard. can you share any information you had or that you know now post-9/11 of how things could be handled differently? >> i would recommend the 9/11 commission report. they did an outstanding job of tracking down the information

and piecing together information, some of which i did not go. i was brought in after 9/11 so i did not have those insects. -- insights. the 9/11 commission report is an outstanding historical monograph of what happened and some of the background. there have been a number of other good books in addition to richard clarke that i would also recommend. i don't have any personal knowledge of 9/11 prior to that. >> another question? >> it is well known that israel has an extremely effective deterrent program. should one travels b toen gurion airport, there is a screening

that takes place that is distinctly different from what we experience in this country. have you investigated any of those particular best practices and have you any comment in that regard? >> yes, we have had a number of discussions with the israeli authorities. they have a lot of things to be commended. there are things they do that go beyond what we are allowed to do here in terms of profiling and focusing on certain groups of people based on ethnicity or religion. there is a lot of things in terms of the engagement with passengers that i believe are good tools and we are doing something at boston-logan that is based on the israeli model and other aviation authorities models around the world that involve more passenger engagement. it is more information

intelligence screenings than moving everything to the physical screening. i don't want to have the physical screening be a single point of failure. i want to make sure we are informed by these techniques so that a possible terrorist is identified well before they get to the airport. that is the best defense we have we don't get that type of intelligence very often. it becomes a question of how we can use the tools available within our u.s. constitution for a more. -- frame work. >> question down here? >> thank you. i am with middle east broadcasting. i want to ask about an interesting contradiction. if we look at polls of arab-

americans, they are very well integrated and happy. they seem to be well off in this country and the large majority don't support the al qaeda ideology than we have a problem with domestic come from terrorism. can you comment about how significant a problem that is? is there a large percentage of the population that supports homegrown terrorists and they could potentially be active or is it a small fringe element? >> i would defer to the fbi and the national counter-terrorism center. in a broad sense, no, i don't think there is a broad support network for either al-qaeda or other terrorist groups. there are these one off lone wolves or individuals who want

to make a name for themselves or they have been ratified on the internet -- there are individuals out there and given the freedoms we have here, unfortunately, those individuals are always identified prior to then try to do something. >> you mentioned cooperation with the airlines. as far as checking baggage fetus th,e tsa -- as far as to check baggage fees, they may make the screening more difficult. at the airline's express a desire to cooperate on that? >> we are not discussing that directly in terms of a security issue.

the number of checked bags has gone down dramatically in the past few years. i'm sure not many people packed many things in their carry-on bags. each one of those carry-on bags that is packed makes it more difficult for screening officers to detect what may be a fairly innocuous appearing on them on an x-ray. it may be an electrical component or some organic material explosive that when combined could bring down an aircraft. that is a challenge we face and that we work closely with all our partners to try to address. that is being done at different levels. >> a question way up there. >> i just wanted to thank you

for helping make our country safer place. i want to say hello to my mom was watching live on c-span the [laughter] >> excellent. does someone have a real question? >> with the coming unionization and bargaining with the american federation of government employees, do you expect any major changes in workplace behavior or effectiveness? >> some of the changes will not be apparent to passengers. it will deal with how we evaluate our security officers, things that are much more administrative in nature, how they bid on a shift or their uniforms were there may be some

changes that they may want to make. as far as the passenger experience, i don't think people will notice anything other than whatever may come about as a result of some of those changes. i think it is more an internal issue. >> any other questions? >> my question is about trusted traveler. security experts are big fans of tiered screening. it stands to reason that most of the frequent fliers are professional travelers. the security experts also note that certain travelers like children and the elderly run the risk of having a high risk escort because you don't know a lot about them because they might not travel as much.

is there a practical solution that tsa has about tightened screenings for these apparently lower risk groups and how could you manage perceptions of that in the media? >> you have identified some good points and challenges we face as we try to move from a one size fits all constructs. the more information that people will share with us, basic information, that can help us make some informed judgments and decisions about whether there is a possibility of expediting screening from a physical standpoint. as it relates to children, i think we have some good initiatives underway to try to recognize that in all parents are of betheir not using them in a threatening white. we also recognize that senior citizens are not terrorists.

they have used a 64 year olds as a suicide bombers and there are a number of people on the terrorist watch list older than that. anytime you do a blanket exemption, you run the rest. i always want to maintain the random and unpredictability. even though someone is a known traveler, we will still reserve that right. in working with the border is a good opportunity for them to sign up for a professional traveler program. it gives them something to sign up for. i want to manage expectations that this will take a while.

it does not change overnight and then the change we make, we have to recognize that it is an enhancement to security. we are using our limited resources and focusing those on the unknowns to try to make good judgments and decisions about those that we know more about. >> one final question because our time is running out, sadly. we like to talk about the media and history and government and the newseum. how helpful or harmful as the media a ts into thea position? [laughter] >> the media can do a lot to inform the traveling public as to what is going on. that is a positive side. when we get focused on these individual situations, we have nearly 1.8 million people

traveling every day that we screen in the u.s. we have more than 2 million during travel time. it seems like there is something once every few weeks that happens. the context is that we have screened going on nearly 6 billion people in the u.s. since 9/11. there is bound to be some things where we could have done a better job. does not the media possible for reporting. -- it is not the media's fault for reporting. it is for the benefit of the traveling public to keep them safe as they travel. >> we want to thank you so much for your time. i want to remind the audience that we have another program coming up on saturday, august 20

at 2:30 p.m. ne andywseum theater. chris rose will talk about coverage of hurricane katrina. you can visit our katrina exhibit through september and thank you for coming and thank you administrators pistol. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> on c-span today, washington journal is next, live with your phone calls. then the state the problem official speaks at the americas society about security and democracy in central america. democracy in central america. later, president obama visits