signed into law november 19, 2001 and that is the act that created the transportation security administration. here is what it said. the pilot of a passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier in air transportation or interstates air transportation is authorized to carry a firearm into the cockpit if the undersecretary, meaning the tsa, approves, if the airline approves, if the firearm is approved by the tsa, and if the pilot received proper training for use of the firearm. well, we went to work. several meetings with the tsa and several letters to secretary of transportation fell on deaf ears. they did not want to have a thing to do with us. in fact, the administrator said, i will not allow pilots to be armed.

that required a 10-month extensive lobbying effort with congressional members and staff. and although some in the alpa leadership leaned towards a limited program of 2% public cap and a two-year provision, would certainly have kill the program very early on, an amendment by rep removed those limits and the bill was passed 310-113 in the house of representatives. in the senate, they always wanted a full blown. although, there was opposition there as well from the airline transfer -- the airline transport association. they sent a letter expressing their concerns against the program in a sign it by 21 airlines ceo's. then tsa administrator

testified before congress with the same programs almost identical to the ata better. despite that ,hr5005 was passed overwhelmingly 90-9 with one absent. that established the department of homeland security and inside of it, the army pilots against terrorism act, which mandated the ffdo program. the undersecretary transportation for security shall establish a program to that because volunteer pilots of air carriers providing passenger air transportation. it has some procedural requirements it set a deadline of three months for the tsa to create the program and that same three months for them to start training pilots. notice i said the word "passenger."

that was not in the previous language. that basket and late one night just before passage, which basically carved out the cargo operations. let me ask you a question. isn't the boeing 767 full of fuel and boxes just as lethal weapon as zero boeing 767 full of passengers -- just as lethal weapon as a boeing 767 full of passengers? there was a three month deadline, but the tsa took five months. in all the meetings we had with it to see a ministration helping to design this program, they complained. in fact, the newt minister of tsa complaint and one of our meeting saying, we have such a short notice, just three months but i said, actually, you have had 15 months. you decided not to create this

program. they also refused to accept a database we handed to them with 10,000 volunteer pilots on a cd that could have got them started contacting pilots and putting them into the program right away. they refused to accept it. they refused to accept a program outline we divided or developed in concert with the fbi. some agents of the fbi had designed a cockpit protection program. they did not want to have anything to do with that. we also started a professional standards program within the group of pilots that would eventually be armed. they ignored that. there were also hostile to the design of the program itself and designed to discourage participation. they created excess of background checks that were redundant to the background checks that we already had just become an airline pilot. with regard to security,

financial, and criminal background checks. their initial weapon choice was inadequate. we called it the barney fife pistol. it was a six-shot revolver. we produced a video that showed them it was inadequate to the job. we had in enactment of terrorist actors attack the cockpit. we were not able to handle it with the six-shot revolver or the tasers they asked us to use. we ended up with a more appropriate weapon. also the carriage procedures the design were a logical and unsafe. it required us to transport the weapon, except when the cockpit when we could carry it. the differences tearing it or in some other method, like a bag. no other law enforcement agency carries or transports the weapons in that fashion.

the ministration has continued institutional hostility toward the program continues to this day, as we can see with the administration costs budget submission for 2013. they want to kill the program by cutting the funding in half. when the funding should be increased so we can get more pellets into the program. -- more pilots into the program. we knew we would have to spend the rest of our careers to protect this program. i have in return for seven years, and here i am again. i will turn it over now to capt. tracy price to talk about the current program. >> thank you. i will be brief. i will make three main points. i want everyone to understand farming pilots is not a new idea. it has been going on for a long time. army pilots is safe. armed pilots were arming them is an effective method of securing an airliner.

it is irresponsible for the obama administration to propose to strangle this program did that. armed pilots, pilots have been arms from the dawn of commercial aviation to present day with a brief interlude from 1987 to shortly after september 11. it was during the brief interlude, that was fixed -- experimental time when we saw the september 11 attacks. understand that pilots were armed from the dawn of commercial aviation through 1987. there was no regulation. there was no training requirements. there was no incident. there is no record of incident or problem associated with pilots carrying guns for that long time. for a series of silly reasons, pilots were disarmed in 1987. we saw the results of that on september 11, the inevitable

result of having an undefended cockpit. then we rearmed pilots in 2003. the program has been extremely safe. the armed pilot program or the federal flight deck officer program has proven to be extremely safe. it is the third largest law enforcement agency in the country. many, many, many armed pilots, the actual number is classified, but it is huge. the safety record rivals or is better than any other law enforcement agency in the country. there were all kinds of predictions when pilots were rearmed after 9/11. predictions of a terrible host of consequences. pilots would get mad and to each other.

were pilots were on have accidental shootings. there were going to be all kinds of issues associated with -- none of that has happened. the program has proved to be extremely safe. not surprisingly, airline pilots are stable, responsible people we trust with our lives every time i get it on an airplane. we can certainly trust them with a handgun. the armed, program is in back as been discussed, the first line of deterrence in the last line of defense. if you're a terrorist group, the best in history for you was september 11, 2001. the most successful attack in history of any terrorist group. they would love to repeat the performance. the fact there are armed pilots, large numbers come in cockpits that an unknown -- nobody is exactly sure where they are -- provides an

incredible deterrent and effective deterrent that has caused terrorist groups to look to other ways to attack us. that is pretty armed pilot program is doing its primary function of deterring future attacks. that is our main goal. we want to create, raise the bar of difficulty to the point where tourists say, you know what? we're not going to be a tuesday's airliners as weapons any more and we're going to look to other ways. and they have. we have plug the hole of the armed pilot program cockpit takeovers in the airplane becoming a missile. the last thing i want to point out is there's a lot of discussion and secretary napolitano has irresponsibly suggested that we can rely on

the cockpit door, this new reinforced cockpit door that we have, as the way -- we can take away the pilots' arms because we have this new cockpit door. there is no such thing as an impenetrable door. the new cockpit door we have is better than the old one. i will tell you the old one was sent -- that was in place when the first pilots were rearmed after september 11. we got the new door almost immediately. few were willing to bet the lives of hundreds of people on an airliner or thousands of people on the ground on that door not been breached. that is an irresponsible thing to suggest, that we will but the lives of thousands of people on a door holding up. in fact, the door, by necessity,

it is open in flight. it has to be food and beverage service, a bathroom breaks, and operational reasons why pilots have to open the door in flight. it is a terrible, irresponsible assumption to make the weaken just rely on the cockpit door and everything will be fine. that is a terrible, dangerous game to play with the lives of americans on board airplanes, airliners, and on the ground. we have tried this army pilots with disastrous results. that is the new kind of idea that we experimented with irresponsibly from 1987 to shortly after 9/11. we saw the results of that. when tears break into a cockpit and find the -- finely pilots defenseless, there is no hope for the passengers on board the airplane. the armed pilot is the last resort, a final one of the sense that will save those people on board that airplane,

possibly thousands on the ground. the u.s. military stands ready every day to destroy commercial airliner filled with innocent passengers because the cockpit has been commandeered. it is irresponsible, the height of irresponsibility to not give those people on board that airplane, the last resort, final line of defense of an armed pilot in the cockpit. >> mike, i am sorry. >> i want to touch on a few items in summary. also, point out a couple of things as we have walked along. assumptionst of with security to assume we are catching everything that is coming through through passenger screening, cargo screening, perimeter screening is simply a fallacy. daley, i get reports of

different weapons found on aircraft from not only the member airlines cappa, but my brother and sisters at the air line pilots association as well, constantly the system is porous. things are getting through. we need a back up. when we assume the cockpit door will be the final line of defense and we take away the capability of the pilots to defend a prevent that error -- airliner from being a mass of weapons, we're not doing that. we are more vigilant than we have been in the past, but we're not infallible. to listen to take weapons away from the pilot is to assume in this case we've got everything up to the cockpit door and they're not doing it. we have had at least one recent incident where an off-duty ffdo, in speaking vaguely on purpose, was able to stop an individual from attempting to breach the cockpit door.

our federal flight deck officer had the presence of mind to intercede in the situation and subdue the individual. for the cost of $15 a flight, we have an extra layer of security, an extra layer of security to protect us. nobody had caught this in screening, nobody was aware of this person was going to attempt to do that. aboutw we're talking taking the weapons away from pilots and assuming we have caught everything. we already have evidence to the contrary. we have evidence in the last few years that terrorists have considered the fact pilots were armed. there have been several reports as terrorists consider ways of assaulting the united states they also consider that pilots are armed.

that is a deterrent to them. there are facts that can be proven that cannot be revealed here. based on the obama administration to look at this program and cut it in half is simply irresponsible. to assume security is not porous is irresponsible. this program is effective. a couple of things that have not been mentioned, it has been noted pilots would be able to participate in this program at no cost. we have figured on average a pilot spends over $10,000 of their own money to participate in the program. that is over six years. if you compare that $10,000 of their own money, to take time away from home, to drop a trip they are not paid for, to pay for their travel, pay for training, to pay to go to the reclassification, to pay for their own ammunition -- all of these things are carried by the pilot. when you take that $10,000 and

multiply it times the number of pilots, it is over $400 million. you compare that to the $22 million the federal government spends for the program, the pilots are paying over $400 million to participate in the program. as of this year, they ran out of money to bring any more pilots into the program. there are over 700 pilots would in to participate, to spend $10,000 of their own money to be the last line of defense. they say, we don't need you right now. in fact, we will cut the budget back. there are several requirements for federal flight deck officers to participate. they have to requalify with every six months, go to recurrent training for two days. this would reduce the number of facilities, increase the cost of the federal flight deck officers, limit the number of federal flight deck officers simply by cutting its budget.

consider what i said, $10,000 per pilot is what they spent over six years. if your to do a bar graph and look at it, the amount of money being spent by the pilots to participate enormous. the amount the federal government is spending is incredibly small compared to that. so why wouldn't you take these people? why would you not want these pilots armed? the congressman made a comparison from a federal air marshal and the ffdo. those were numbers we receive from tsa a while ago. as an aviator and airline pilot, i love when the fire marshals are on board. but it also want to see our pilots armed. for the price of an air marshal, 3000 river dollars per flight, the present to the air marshal's in the form of an aircraft, you can fill up all of business and coach with federal flight deck officers on a 777.

the amount of flights covered would be enormous. the two forces combined, federal air marshals and federal flight deck officers, last line of defense. the missing, we believe the door is sufficient. they're turning those folks away. we think that is a travesty. that puts us in jeopardy, but the flying public in jeopardy. we think is that only a misunderstanding of security and aviation, and from the comments i've heard indicate [unintelligible] we are more vigilant than we have been in the past, but not infallible. this current budget proves his in ministration this not support

this program and we have to go to the legislators for that support. we're asking for the support in this. the federal flight deck officer program is the most cost- effective program to counter terrorism we have at $15 a flight. it represents the third largest group in the nation and a group of people willing to spend incredible amounts of their own money to protect the public, protector airlines, and to protect themselves. so any changes to this, any changes to this program right now would be done at the expense of all of us. >> thank you. questions from the floor, again, raise your hand to be recognized and state your affiliation and your name. >> brian darling, heritage foundation. when you look back at the history of the creation of the program, this is not a partisan issue at all.

the leadership of barbara boxer of california and many democrats in the house has stepped up in support of this. it shows it has bipartisan support. as you mentioned, the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the house and senate creating the bill was part of what brought it into being. my question to you, maybe if you give as a history of the meetings to have had and the fact congress overwhelmingly supported this on the record on numerous occasions, yet for whatever reason, this administration wants to in the program? >> it was favored by almost everyone in congress. of course, it was early after 9/11, and we all have emotions. we all knew what had happened. it was relatively easy to convince -- but we did not make this a gun rights issue, because that is not what it is. it is a national security issue. we had great support from folks

who you think would actually otherwise be against it. it was both in the house and senate. there were a few holdouts. i think our argument was convincing. >> if i might add, life isn't a partisan issue. people all want to see preserved in terms of how we deal with terrorism. so we have seen a lot of support on both sides of the aisle. that is why this is such a disconnect. the context for which we're approaching several members of the homeland security, we have bipartisan conversations with counsel from both sides we were looking at, getting additional funding just for the additional pilots in the pipeline right now, over 700. they were in agreement and we were working toward that. that is why the budget was such a surprise because it was a complete disconnect from what we had been seen on both sides.

>> thank you. i wonder if you could enumerate the success of the program in terms of numbers of incidents as potential attacks you have thwarted? the countries that have ffdo? >> is that directed at me? >> anybody. >> as far as armed pilots and other countries, no, there are no other countries aren't in that case. we are unique in that case. for instance, there are numerous. some we have to be careful talking about because of sensitive security information. in general, i talked where the ffdo was able to thwart an incident did with the shoe bomber, and underwear bomber, and both of those cases were

people in the middle of the aircraft over the wing that stopped or saw those things. while i cannot point to specific incidents is other than the general when i talked about, i can assure you they are out there, that they have happened, and they're stopping things. it is effected. i hope that helps. >> if i can take a shot at that, i am aware in my airline specifically of a couple of cases where a federal flight deck officer was instrumental in containing a threat to the cockpit. that is really about as far as i can go with that, but i think the idea that we of not have any cockpit breaches since we started the ffdo program, so let's get rid of it, the threat

is gone, we tried that. we did it from 1987 to shortly after 9/11. we had a really bad cockpit reached, four of them. we lost 3000 americans. we learn that day this is a horrible, horrible experiments of disarming the cockpit of commercial airliners that have been armed from the dawn of commercial aviation until this day with that one brief time -- i do not think it is wise, i do not think it makes any sense to go back to that failed experiment. >> i think once this has happened, you know under have individuals that will come to aircraft in flight to cuba and have extended negotiations period for the aircraft will be returned to the states. the paradigm is gone.

the one we live and now is the aircraft will be used as a weapon of mass destruction, therefore, we have to assume any assault on the carpet is to take over these to her even a greater number of people. >> before the question, could i add an extra comment with regard to the numbers? coming from the inception of the program, we ran a survey through the winston group who survey the american people income up 85% of those surveyed said they thought their airline pilots should be armed. we rented of other programs. -- we ran two other surveys and they said they thought pilots should be armed. at the time of 9/11, we flew over 30,000 flights per day and had over a little over 100,000 commercial airline pilots. if you take the 80% number, we expect 80,000 pilots thought pilots should be armed something north of 50,000 or 60,000 polish republic actually volunteer to be armed.

now, we do not have that many. we have a significant number, but not enough. >> i am from senator barbara boxer's office. my question, you mention the air carriers expressed early opposition and concern. could you speak to their current position and whether not that is changed? >> i will have to defer that to my colleagues who are still flying actively. but i will tell you at the time, one of their major concerns -- think about it. if you own an airline and one of people to come fly with you, -- wanted people to come fly with you, would you display the attitude of we have a problem and addressing it or would you say we did not have a problem? to draw more people to come fly with you?

that was basically the synopsis of their concerns in the ata letter. their specific concerns like, how are we going to handle pilots when the government place to another that was basically the synopsis of their concerns in that the apa letter. there's the question of where are we going to store their weapons and all the other concerns they did not want to deal with, because in the airline industry everything have to think of costs money. >> if i might add to that, and they did to my senator barbara boxer in california as being a supporter of this program. change in the opinions of the airlines toward the federal flight deck officer program, the former ceo at american airlines had an article that mentioned it in american way magazine that is put in the seat backs, touting the success of the program. there have also been times when under certain security situations, it has been rumored, and i'm sure other folks from other airlines could probably repeat this, but some

management said that i wish we had an ffdo that flight. so the view has changed to the positive if. of the greatest compliment to the program is when we go out and talk about it, if i hear a lot of people say i did not know pilots were armed. they have forgotten about it because they are quiet professionals doing their jobs, performing their duty. they are there as a last line of defense if it needs to be activated. thank you. >> i'm with cnn, todd sperry. give me a brief [no audio] history lesson on the experiment and why the guns were removed. what led up to that? i just want to understand better from your perspective. >> airline pilots from the dawn of commercial aviation through

1987, through the mid 60's the air line pilots were required to carry firearms off whenever they had u.s. mail on board, which is a large number of flights. it was actually a requirement that existed in place for them to carry guns. in 1987, actually it was late 1986, there was a cockpit takeover. people do not know and do not remember. a guy broke into the cockpit with about 100 people on it. he had a gun. he shot the pilots and killed them and crashed the airline and everybody died. we had a situation where we had an unarmed cockpit. the result was the loss of an

airplane and all of the passengers. the faa response to that region by the way, that that was not a pilot. this was not a problem with a pilot at all. pilots are trying to live. the response to that was to then require pilots to began going through screening. pilots were then effectively disarmed. prior to that, pilots often backs. some estimates, up to 60% of pilots depending on the airline carried handguns. as of 1987 if there were no more armed pilots. it is really inexplicable why the faa chose that course of action. rational course of action, after that murder, it would've been to say, wait a minute, if only those guys had had guns in their flight bags, it might have saved these people, we need to

get more armed pilots and figure a way to encourage more armed pilots. faa response was completely irresponsible and backboards and i'm not sure if if anybody can explain why they took the course of action they did. pilots predicted at that time that there would be attempted cockpit takeovers, but there would be more and more. the captain named victor predicted to his wife, he said, and it, mark my words, there will be attempted if cockpit takeovers as a result of this. he died on september 11, 2001 when his boeing 767 was blown into the south tower of the world trade center. the other important elements of this thing to mention is that up through august of 2001, the regulation in the federal aviation regulation under which we all operate, the regulation existed that allow pilots to be armed.

there was a provision that would allow an airline, if they chose to, to go through a process to arm their pilots. i think, frankly, it was kind of an anti-gun sentiment that existed that is irrational as well, in my view. but that regulation kind of disappeared in a horrible coincidence, it disappeared in august. not that it was being used, but at least it existed. then in september 11, 2001 we had the attacks and surely thereafter be armed the pilots again -- we armed the pilots against. >> may i make a comment? i work with the gentlemen at the allied pilots association. culturally arming pilots and oftentimes a population or even police officers is against the

thinking in many other cultures. it is also not their population that is attack. if you go back to what happened in london with the bombers, that was not an attack on the u.k., that was an attack on a number of u.s. and canadian-based carrier's. the whole thinking has changed as to why the u.s. arms their crew members. the other thing is, if you take a look away pilots are trained, they are trained in layers of safety, layers of security.

it has been happening that way because it is a learning experience to prevent accidents, to mitigate the negative experiences. and what you have done is you have added another layer of security into this equation it is hard to prove a negative. we would not take out a layer of safety training that you done with the pilots. by doing what they are doing here is the support to take that away. >> one of things to point out, mark, is when we talk about these incidents, remember we have to be right every single time. the terrorists have to be right only once. >> i ask a question for my own purposes. from 2003 through january 2007 i was aviation policy adviser for the house, and security commission and i worked with several of you in that capacity.

my question was rational in terms of trying to get a grasp of the value added of this program and how you have advanced over the years. it is a perfectly rational question and it's from my own knowledge. >> i agree. >> did we help you answer the question? >> let me ask a question. i was looking at some tsa data. last month they confiscated 200 guns. help me understand, what do i make of that and how does that fit in with the discussion we have had here today? >> >> when you look at the vast majority of those confiscations, probably, and i get the reports on those, somebody inadvertently leaves it in their bag, i don't know the difference between accidentally doing that or

actually testing the system, that could be other question, but the fact those are caught does not mean things are not getting through. that is just what is being caught. we have issues of an airline industry also with the dea examining how many drugs are being brought on board aircraft. if something can be smuggled on an aircraft, just fill in the blank of what you want that to be. it could be narcotics, a firearm, and edged weapon. we are more vigilant. we are not infallible. a lot of the cases, there are large number of them that have a concealed carry and forget to take theirs off before they come to the airport. we have all seen there are people out there testing the

system. there are people always actively testing the system. to think that we have a static defense that cannot be penetrated. is a penetrated >> you could interpret the data as if they are confiscating 200 guns, there is potential is something to worry about, because people are still trying to get guns on planes? >> absolutely. >> the other argument that is important to remember is we are trying -- a theory under which we are operating is that we are going to make the cabin of a commercial airliner a completely weapon-free zone. there's going to be nothing there that one person could use to harm another person. we try to do the same thing in completely locked down federal penitentiaries and the control extremely carefully who gets in and out and who gets a strip search. every time we do a shakedown on the federal penitentiary, we find all types of weapons. it is unrealistic to think that we can never produce a security

system ever that will make a public venue like airline travel weapon-free. it is an unrealistic thing to do. in fact, the record of failure or success, however you want to look at it, the tsa security screening has amassed is virtually identical. it is an incredibly difficult thing we can do to find anything that the third person and make sure it never finds its way onto an airliner. we will never get there. >> this might sound counterintuitive, but the most successful security system is one that assumes failure with multiple layers. you have to assume that certain lawyers will fail. you might fail on the background checks or at the screening of the passenger or at the cargo. having all those multiple layers in their means somewhere along the line you will catch it.

that's why on aircraft, we have hydraulic systems, redundant systems, there is redundant electrical systems and fuel. things that back up. because when you are up there, you cannot open the window and asked for help. what you have is what you have. i think the best security systems assume a level of failure of and have backups in there in an attempt to catch them. it's a lesson we've learned over a lifetime of aviation and try to make aircraft safer. >> i will ask our panel for your last thoughts. let me go around once again and see if there are any last comments or questions. is one in the back and then one in the front. >> one more question. the facility in new mexico has been mentioned several times as far as training goes. is that the only training

facility, if not, how many training facilities are there across the country? >> that's a primary facility for initial training. there's also two other recurrent facilities with a three-five- year re-deposition process. the reduction in the deficit will possibly bring that down to just two facilities. the problem we have their is the pilots that are being armed are from hawaii towards the east, people from all over. these pilots are doing this on their own money. they are traveling to these destinations. it is becoming more and more difficult to get to these destinations, to pay for their participation. countered that to the administration budget -- we don't want all these people that want to payton thousand dollars to participate in the program. so have the issue of shrinking the facilities and the desire not to accept these people that

want to spend our own money to participate. >> i'm from the heritage foundation. why is it only the federal government owes a responsibility to provide on-site security? why can we not create a partnership with the airline industry itself to provide its own security? >> if it's all right i will address that. conservative, limited government folks would like to see private property protected by the owner of that property. and that is fine. probably personally i tend to think that way myself. however, in the realm of what is realistic and in the realm of what can in fact be done and in the realm of what will bring -- there are all different kinds of people who think in all

different kinds of ways to get this accomplished, but that will not happen. there's one way for pilots to carry a firearm to protect his passengers, is cruel, and the people on the ground. that is, if he goes through, gets a background check, gets a psychological evaluation, but tens training at a federal law enforcement training center, becomes deputized. then and only then can that pilots carry a firearm and protect those passengers and crew. that's the only way that will happen. if we do away with the ffdo program in hopes of a panacea that some may think is the best way to go about doing it, there will be no more arms pilots. >> also to the point is when you are crossing multiple state lines, operating out of several different cities, it requires federal jurisdiction. we have seen something similar to this with safety. airline margins depend on how the airline operates and uses

its airline, but as one airline to do something and another one they will say it is costing too much over here, so any to cut back over the apparent we have seen that with traffic collision avoidance systems having to be mandated and ground proximity systems having to be mandated. with the federal government you have standardization and you have jurisdictional issues that are solved by having the federal government operates these. >> one more and then to our panel. >> is there any way for the airline industry to have to pay for this instead of the taxpayers, providing security for the airline industry? >> taxpayers will pay for it one way or another. ultimately, what the taxpayers are paying for is the security of this nation.

a legitimate function --i think everyone would agree --a legitimate function of the federal government is to defend the nation from attack. we were attacked on 9/11. the weapon of choice was a commercial airliner. it is the federal government;s responsibility to protect us and keep us safe from attack. that is the reason we created the federal government in 1787. with the primary impetus for doing that was to protect the nation. i discussed it is a legitimate responsibility of the federal government to make sure airplanes are not used as weapons against our country again. make sure cockpits are protected. >> based on the current federal budget for the program and the amount of money each pilot is paid to participate in the program, i would suggest to you, as i have done on the hill, that pilots should get paid and way over what -- -- that the pilots are spending much more than the federal government is

spending on its. >> i will go down the panel and see if there are any last thoughts or comments before we close. >> i will remind you that this has been an uphill battle for 10 years, a little over 10 years. it was an uphill battle to get the program initiated. there was great resistance to that. there's been great resistance during this last 10 years, in the procedures that have been outlined by the tsa that has discouraged pilot participation. we would like to see the funding retained, if not increased, to attract more. the program to achieve the deterrence that we had intended for in the beginning. >> i think the greatest compliment to this program is

when somebody says they did not know the pilots were armed. they are quiet professionals. the fact that they are spending a lot of their own money to participate in the program tells you that they are concerned with not only their own safety but the safety of the passengers behind them. i always get asked while i'm in the cockpit of going to get their ok? well, if i get there ok, you will be ok right behind me. this program is the most cost- effective to turn to terrorism out there. this program has the potential to expand incredibly and still be very. ,. -- very, very cheap. as you add more and more pilots to the program, the cost per flight drops. -- the program has the potential to expand incredibly and still be very cheap. it's very cost-effective. it's a very incredible program. considering that our security systems are porous and to assume we can start dismantling the security systems is a big

problem, saying we don't need this and that. it puts us in harm's way. >> i will summarize my thoughts by saying that airline travel is something that virtually nearly every american enjoys at some point in his life. lots of americans travel all the time. i see the same faces often on my flights. they are putting their trust in me, the pilots, the people in the cockpit. once we are airborne, that's all they have got. it is us and what we have on board, the redundant safety systems we have. it is irrational to say that we trust these pilots with our lives but we are unwilling or reluctant -- as the obama

administration has suggested -- we will try to limit their ability to defend that cockpit with a firearm. it is proven to be safe and effective. i don't know how many federal government programs can make that claim. >> let me sum this up with one observation. i work on all the homeland security issues from what's going on in the air to what's going on in local communities. what is disturbing about this issue if it is i see this as a larger pattern of behavior on the part of the federal government. this is not the only area where we have seen this happen. if in immigration enforcement, where states have wanted a partner with the federal government, in this program, helping the the federal government do its job, 287 g, deputize state and local law- enforcement and the use of some federal party they do things in their interests. that program has been largely

killed off by the administration. there's a provision in the law that established the tsa which allows airports to opt out of federal screeners. there's a half-dozen or so airports that were initially set up as pilots to do that and they run their own security. it is every bit as effective as the tsa screeners. the administration has put obstacles in a way of expanding that program. if we are going to build a process where the federal government is going to do everything to protect us, what is going to happen is we are going to wind up being less safe and less free and it will one the costing us a lot more money. we as a nation, the people that live here, have a part to play in protecting ourselves. it is in finding that balance that advances our freedoms,

preserves how we keep our economy free and open, and allows for the common defense. that is important. i think there are two really key factors here. i call them rights and responsibilities. there's good nest in having the people that are responsible for themselves take ownership of that responsibility. hurricane katrina, for example, the most effective responders in katrina were the victims. there were people in that community that cared about their community who did more and were more effective in organizing response than anyone else outside. it was the people at the local wal-mart that opened their doors and said we will help our fellow citizens. in many ways they were much more effective than anything fema did. when you look at surveys, people said the most effective help was some non-governmental organizations. 80% of the people said that.

if you bring the commitment and knowledge when you take ownership that someone else cannot. in this case, the pilot that lies that plane crash and that the airline, they care about that airline, they care about that pilots and they will give it a degree of commitment that nobody else really kampf, because they have a sense of ownership. exercising that sense of ownership is a very important part of being a free and open society. going with that, there's an element of responsibility. when you've own destruction or do things in the public space and are performing a public good, if there is a sense that you have an obligation to defend your own home, but you are also defending other people and

impact in the lives of other people. so you have a responsibility to exercise the right to defend yourself with a degree of due diligence and professionalism. and what you you see in the federal flight deck officer program is a quintessential example, of doing that exactly right. have people taking ownership of their own responsibility and technology? . and you have a program which insures you have a level of professionalism and that they are going to exercise that right responsibly. and if we cannot do something like this in our own defense, then i am not sure what we can do. the simple fact is, when you are at 10,000 feet and all alone in the cockpit, see something, say something does not covet. -- not cut it. thanks for coming today. the archives are programs at heritage.org. we have a paper the lobby.

it is also on our website that you can find and share with others. thanks for our panelists and thanks for coming. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next, remarks in the second anniversary of the signing of the health-care law by vice- president joe biden. >> on monday, the supreme court starts three days of hearings on the constitutionality of the new health-care law. here the oral argument in its entirety as the core releases

audio at around 1:00 eastern each day with coverage on c- span3 and c-span radio. the oral argument on c-span 3. >> this weekend on the presidency on american history tv. >> think of the fdr memorial, it was three designs before they got to a final plan. i think we should not be afraid of looking at this issue. we are building something for the centuries. we want to get it right. >> with the eisenhower memorial designed opposed by the family, a subcommittee discusses the memorial. part of american history tv this weekend on c-span 3.

>> joe biden was back on the campaign trail in florida to talk about the benefits of the two-year-old health care law. >> he spoke at the web more retirement community. other speakers include ted deutsche. this is 50 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. i am your congressman. it is great to be back. how is everyone feeling today? are you fired up? is everyone excited that the vice president is here with us today? i want to thank you for joining us on this incredibly important day. how many of you remember, two years ago today, the president signed into law affordable, accessible, health care for all? how many of you remember? [applause]

today is about the history that was made that day. it is also very much about our future. if the other guys get their way, we are headed right back to the failed policies of the past. you have heard them. you have for them on the campaign trail. it is all the same. what did they say about social security? let it go bankrupt. what did they say about medicare? let it go bankrupt. what do they say about america is a new health-care law? let it go bankrupt. what did they say to florida seniors? let them go bankrupt, too. do you know what is bankrupt? their ideas. it is up to us to protect the change we fought so hard for four years ago. it is up to us to protect the promises that president obama and vice-president biden kept. [applause]

if we do not get to work today, today, and if we do not get fired up, the historic health care law, that will be history. that is what we are here for today. it is my great privilege and my great honor to introduce someone who stands up for our values every day. who worked tirelessly on behalf of floridians. who stands up for all americans, as the leader of the democratic party, my great friend and neighbor, debbie wasserman schulz. >> thank you during much. it is great to be here. wonderful to be home back in broward county.

thank you so much. [applause] i am so proud and so privileged to be able to stand in the chamber of the u.s. house of representatives, fighting side- by-side on behalf of seniors, on behalf of working families and the middle class every single day. this community was so smart and so wise to send him to represent you in the united states capitol. thank you so much. good job. [applause] i am so excited, so thrilled to

be able to be home. to talk about the tremendous progress we have made. it has been three years since president obama and vice president biden were elected and handed the largest set of problems at once of any administration in history since fdr. i mean, really. they set about tackling them one by one. we have gone from bleeding 750,000 jobs a month. three years later, we have had 24 straight months of job growth in the private sector. we have focused on the middle class and working families. [applause] we had a fight her alongside president obama and the vice president of the united states. joe biden and his more than 40 years of public service has given -- i did not mean that as a joke. it is remarkable. from the time he was 29 years

old, joe biden has made a commitment to help improve the quality of life of all americans. he has been in their scrapping and scraping and standing up for working families. he is able to partner with this president. through history, vice-president have seen the ups and downs. some of them are fully embraced by the president. others were swept under the rug or put in the corner. a vice president biden was selected by the president and serves with the president as a full partner and an adviser. he is a friend to all of us here in south florida. it is wonderful to be here with you. [applause] i am so excited, so thrilled

that we are here. on the two-year anniversary of the affordable care acting signed into law. that is a big deal. it is very personal for me. a lot of the know that i am a breast cancer survivor. like so many millions of survivors like me. the affordable care act lifted that burden, lifted that angst, so that when it is fully implemented, we will no longer have to worry about being dropped or denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. [applause] more importantly, for me as a representative of this community, a representative of thousands of senior citizens, a representative who has stood on line behind seniors at the drugstore when the pharmacist brings them their prescriptions and five or six come to the counter and they can only take two or three of them home. they're too expensive. because of the ridiculous gap in coverage in the prescription drug plan. it will finally be closed thanks to the affordable care

act. [applause] 3.6 million seniors have already seen a reduction in those prescription drug cost. that is important. it is incredibly important that we make sure that we continued to transform medicare from a sick care system -- what do so many seniors talk about? how often are you talking about your next doctor's appointment? and that you are not feeling very well. the affordable care act has made it a prevention and wellness program. now you are entitled to a free wellness visit. you can go get a check of this because you want to make sure it to stay well. that is what you should be

dealing with health care in this country. thanks to president obama and vice president biden, we have done that. finally. finally. let me tell you, we have a lot at stake in this election. the other side, mitt romney, the other candidates, what to reverse all that. they talk about wanting to pull the affordable care act by the roots and fully repeal it. and replace it with nothing. no new ideas. they want to take us back to the time when insurance company bureaucrats would be making decisions about what kind of care you could have. they want to -- they revealed, by reintroducing the ryan budget plan. mitt romney fully embraced this

proposal to end medicare as we know it, to turn it into a doctor program. to make sure that safety net was no longer there for you when you turn 65. that is unacceptable. [applause] that is why i am so proud to stand with the president and vice-president every single day as the chair of the democratic national committee. i can tell you we will never lets you down. ted and i will fight every single day to make sure the safety net for seniors, the medicare program is preserved. we will never again let you go back to the time when seniors could become medically bankrupt, to the time when children have to worry about how

they would have to care for their aging parents. that is why we need to make sure we do everything we can for the next 227 days to send barack obama and joe biden back to the white house. [applause] so now it is my great privilege to really introduce the most important person in the room. i think the vice president will agree with that. because it is not the vice president. i want to make sure one of our favorite residents, a passionate advocate for making sure we have medicare preserved as a safety net for our seniors and he was committed to the reelection of the president and vice president of the united states.

is my privilege to introduce your neighbor and friend. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone. it is an honor to be here and to introduce vice-president biden. my name is harold goldberg. i have served as the volunteer president of this community. as a native of pennsylvania, i think the vice president and i have a lot in common. some other things we have in common are even more important. we share the belief that health care should be right in america. right for all, not just for the wealthy few. we both believed it was wrong that america was the only

developed country in the world where you could go broke just because you got sick. we both are grateful that two years ago, our president, barack obama, signed into law historic changes to right that wrong. the law is already helping millions of our grandkids. as many of us in no, it is making a huge difference for seniors. one of the most important ways it is helping us is by closing the doughnut hole. that means a lot to me. like most of us, i have had some aches and pains over the last few years. i take prescriptions for some

breathing issues. the bills are adding up. athe last time i went to the pharmacy, i asked them how close i was to hit in my limit. we figured out my insurance will cover my medicine until about may or june. just a couple more months. for the rest of this year, i'd be on my own. that is why i will be spending the rest of this year fighting to reelect president obama. [applause] the health care law is already saving seniors money on our prescriptions.

when it is fully up and running, president obama will close the doughnut hole completely. [applause] when the other guys talk about repealing health reform, what they really mean is that they will reopen the doughnut hole completely. they are telling us that when the going gets tough, we are on our own. that would hurt almost everyone here. it would hurt a whole lot of folks in florida. it would hurt a lot of seniors all across america. it is going to be a tough fight, and i am glad we have vice-president biden in our corner. when he goes out there and fights, he is fighting to protect our economic security and our health security.

it is my great honor to introduce him to you now. please join me in welcoming vice-president joe biden. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much. my taking my coat off does not mean the speech will be longer. howard, thank you very much. thank you very much for being here. folks, this is the second of

four speeches that i will be making this spring on what is at stake from our perspective. what is at stake for the middle class in this election. the issue i will focus on today, with your permission, is retirement security. i have to tell you, i come at this issue from a slightly different angle than it is usually talked about. my dad used to have an expression. my dad said, don't tell me what you value. show me your budget. i will tell you what you really value.

like many of you, i had the privilege of having my mom and dad live with me in my dad's final months and my mom's final years. neither my siblings nor i could separate the security of my mom and dad from our own well-being. neither my siblings nor i could separate the needs of our parents from the needs of our children. this is all family. we talk about it like it is an either-or proposition. this is about to we are. this is about what we value. that is how our parents lived their lives. and how we lived hours. i was raised in my mom and dad's house. like many of you, as you grew

up, there was no alternative. i think that is what is missing in this debate today. how the connective tissue. the notion we are all in this together. every generation, every generation. there is no question that the baby boom generation puts incredible pressure on medicare and social security. the number of seniors will be doubling by the year 2040. are we going to strengthen it and sustain these programs of medicare and medicaid now and for the future? or are we going to use these challenges as a pretense to do what so many have been trying to do from the beginning? dismantle both of these programs. i said to the overflow room, which were kind enough to -- i went to see them before i came to see you -- at the end of the day, we have been around enough to know that it is not just what you hear or see, what you

feel, what you taste, what your heart tells you. what your heart tells you about whether or not someone speaking to you means what they say. the one good aspect of growing older is that mechanism gets more acute. we understand better. the president and i believe that every american, after a lifetime of hard work, should be able to look forward to security and dignity that social security and medicare provide. [applause] it is about dignity. it is not just about health.

it is about dignity. it is about our dignity. if we had any doubt about the clarity of the choice, just how high the stakes are regarding both these programs, we got a reminder a couple of days ago from a good man. a guy named congressmen ryan. i disagree fundamentally with him, but this is a smart, decent guy. he is a republican leader. this week, congressman ryan reintroduce the republican budget, embraced by every republican candidate for president. they made a clear choice. the choice they made was in order to save "the programs,"

they lower the standard of living for those on medicare rather than asking the wealthiest among us to help deal with the problem. you may remember the first ryan budget. nothing subtle about it. it dismantled medicare within 10 years, it was a voucher system. the average senior would be paying another $6,000 a year out of pocket for the medicare benefits they now receive. their action to the nation was not very subtle either. after an overwhelming rejection of the last year's ryan budget plan, they went to work to drafting another one. if you take a look at it, it did not change anything they're trying to do. if you do not change much, what is the difference between these two budgets?

the way they talk about it. literally the way they talk about it. do not take my word for this. all of you are adept with computers. go on line to politico.com. a well respected publication that all of the major newspapers look to. read an article that was in yesterday's or the day before. how paul ryan sold his budget plan. he sold it to all of his colleagues by telling them there is a new way to talk about what they will do without getting hurt politically. he told them they could win this debate this time would essentially the same plan if "you use the right poll tested words." go look at the article. if you use words like bipartisan, fix medicare, choice, the american people will

not punish you. the american people, though, are not about to be fooled. i've more faith in the american people that i think our republican colleagues to of being able to cut the wheat from the chaff here. [applause] the vast majority of the american people, whether they're democrats or republicans, not there is a fundamental difference between us and republicans on this issue. we believe in strengthening medicare. they do not. make no mistake about it, the

republicans in congress, if any of them get their hands on the white house, i promise you, you'll see medicare ended as you know it. it is not just about medicare. it is about the other benefits for seniors they want to undo. we passed a law to close the doughnut hole. saving the average senior $600 just this last year alone. that will increase. they want to repeal it. they simply said they want to repeal it. we passed a law to provide for preventive services. thank god my mother had two financially successful children. not me. [laughter] we would get my mom's

prescriptions. we would have to lie to her and tell her that it was all covered. we all chipped in about $6,000 a month. at the very end, when she needed some care, she had somebody there to help with her lunch. she always ask me, show me my checkbook. she had dignity. [applause] this is about what these guys do not get. it isn't more about whether or

not my mother and father got the care they needed. it was how they got the care they needed. when my kids went off to school, we sold the house we had and we build another house. on the ground floor, it was on a hill, i built a whole suite for my mom and dad. they would not move in. my whole life i had somebody living with me, and i will not do that to my kids. you know the deal. everyone of you feels that. what did they want to do? she knew it would cost 20% she would have to pay to get a checkup. she did not want to ask her kids.

obviously, if we knew, we would have worked something beforehand. but she did not want to ask her kids. how many times do you feel that pain? and you do not know what it means? how many of you wonder whether that thing that just happened to you, is a harbinger of something more serious? you just want to go ask the doctor. folks, these guys want to repeal all of that. in the process, i would argue, that they will be repealing that sense of dignity. they want to repeal all the things that i have mentioned. the end result, you'll have to pay at least $600 more a year for your drugs, 20% for your visits to the doctor.

he will see medicare change. we would be so much better off as a country if we spend a lot less time and energy fighting off these efforts to dismantle medicare. i mean dismantle it. if we spend a little more time together, working to figure out how to strengthen medicare, we can make medicare solvent again. we do not have to cut it to make it last. look, in our health care law, we have already extended the life of medicare until 2024. we have on coverage and recovered over $10.7 billion since we have been in. if our republican colleagues would join us, we could reduce the cost of medicare by $100

billion just by doing one thing -- saying drug companies cannot charge medicare any more than they charge any other federal program. [applause] they cannot charge our elderly anymore they charge our veterans. that is $100 million. we could save another $20 billion by asking the very wealthiest of us, those who could easily afford health care, if they have retirement incomes that are significant to pay a little more. that would add another $20 billion. there is a lot more we can do. it requires somebody on the other side who wants to preserve the system. they really care about preserving the system and not getting it. we are prepared to sit down. we are prepared to sit down and work with our republican colleagues. we talk about all of these

things. not one single thing was able to get done. if he did not start from the premise that this program -- this program medicare must be reserved in its current form. social security is in better shape. here again, republicans develop an approach that they say saves social security for the next 75 years. they do it by cutting the benefits. some salvation. a plan like the one governor mitt romney introduced would cut social security benefits for your kids and grandkids -- it would cut by $2,200 a typical worker would get in his 40's. here is the thing. here is something nobody has

noticed. gov. romney and the rest of supported a thing republican leaders call "cut, cap,and balance." that is another one of those new republican party plans which are probably the right attested words. who can cut, cats, and balance? nobody knows what it really means. nobody knows what they intend. like so many of the most damaging things, it looks and sounds innocuous. let me cut through and tell you what it means in plain english. the cut are significant cuts in social security benefits. they say, do not worry, you will not be cut as if all you care about is yourself. as if -- the thing that i get

angry about. they look at people like you and me and think all that we care about after all you have done for the nation -- all you care about is yourselves. after a lifetime of you not only caring for yourself but caring for all the people you love, caring for your community. they turned around and said, as long as we tell you you will not be cut, you do not mind if your children and grandchildren and your younker neighbors and friends and up having to pay. they do not understand us. the cap is teh cap on what we ask of the wealthiest americans, the top percentage of americans and what they pay to make this country work. the balance that they talk about is the balance the budget on the backs of seniors and middle- class americans.

why? so they can preserve -- this is not your father's republican party. they can preserve a one trillion dollar tax cut. a new one trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthiest americans. that is not hyperbole. that is what this is about. gov. mitt romney supports cut, cap, and balance which is another demonstration there is no daylight between gov. romney and republican leaders on the most important leaders facing this country. not even his etch a sketch can change that. we can resolve the challenges social security is facing. we can do it and good faith. we did it before. i was there in 1983. in look like social security was going to run out of money. in 1983 i sat down in a room

with leaders like republican bob dole, the chairman of the finance committee, ronald reagan, tip o'neill -- we should hands. everybody gave something. we preserve the system through 2020 a. you know in your gut what i know, it is about willing to put politics aside just for a moment. put it aside for a moment to preserve the single most important initiative in american history, social security. some of you remember, i remember, these two guys will not remember? some of you and i remember. remember a day when we did not have social security, we remembered a day when our parents did not have social

security and remember what it meant. we remember. what we need today is just a temporary, like they say in grade school. a timeout. just a timeout. say, ok, what are we going to do to deal with preserving both these programs? and that is what is missing this time, folks. it was there in 1981, 1982, 1985, and 1989. because the republican party today is fixed on one thing, additional tax cuts for the very wealthy. we tried to put 400,000 teachers back to work and 18,000 cops back to work because city budgets are being crunched. we said we will have a tax on every dollar after the first $1 million you make. that would have paid for the whole thing. no republican would vote for that. millionaires were calling me

saying they were for it. i come from the wealthy state of delaware. the people of there, the people who have the money, knew they should be paying just a little more than that. folks, these guys will not budge a single inch on a $1 trillion problem. we know we have to bring our budget back into balance. was a democratic president who last balanced the budget, i will remind you. [applause] and folks, the day that president obama and i were sworn in, that they were sworn in, that magnificent day on january 20, looking out on a million people on the mall watching, we were handed that day a gigantic deficit and an economy that was in free fall. and we moved ahead. we moved ahead to get the economy moving again, but we also moved ahead to begin to cut the deficit. last year, with the help of my two colleagues, we cut spending by $1 trillion.

we also made a deal with republican friends to cut it by another $1.2 trillion and set up as supercommittee. remember? what did they come up with? nothing. and we are on our way, on the cusp -- cusp of negotiating, i was doing most of the negotiation, for an agreement that would cut the overall deficit by something like $4 trillion. but republicans walked away from it. why? because they wanted to maintain every major tax cut for the very wealthiest and have them move in perpetuity. look, they want an additional $1 trillion in tax cuts. when you say that, it is like $1 trillion -- you cannot even calculate that. let me put it this way. of that $1 trillion, $813 million of that $1 trillion tax

cut will go to households making over $1 million a year. 315,000 of the wealthiest families in america, average income $3.1 million a year, would get a $100,000 tax break per year for the next 10 years. look, we're not asking anybody very wealthy to change their standard of living. i am serious. we're not asking them to do anything they cannot do now. $3.1 million, you do not need another $100,000 to maintain your home, to drive your vehicle, to vacation where you want to vacation. but when we ask you to take a 20% cut or a 30% cut in your medicare or your social security or your children, that changes the standard of living.

ladies and gentlemen, we do not think it is fair, and we do not think it is right. more importantly, we do not think it is in the interest of the economic growth of this country. either you preserve medicare and fix social security and brought down the deficit or you spend another $1 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthiest. you cannot do both of these things. you cannot do both. and we refuse. we refuse to shift the burden and responsibility of putting america's fiscal house in order on the backs of those who will have to change their standard of living, who have played by the rules, who have worked hard all their life, and have earned their retirement benefits they are getting. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, like so many of you, i came from a family where medicare and social security made a

difference in the lives of the people i loved the most. i am not sure, as i said, that these guys remember what it was like when folks did not have medicare. but i can remember, a lot of you can remember. there was not -- it is not a time we want to go back to again. 17 million men and women would be struggling in poverty without social security. just that alone. before medicare, nearly half of all americans aged 65 lacked health care. one half of all americans lacked health care. these programs have afforded the elderly -- i do not like the word elderly anymore, man. i am not big on that word. [laughter] for years, i used to rip up the aarp books i got. but i am not ripping up my social security checks. know what i mean?

but i do not like elderly. those of us who are more mature. [applause] but i tell you what, it is about our independence. it is about the dignity everybody craves. they argue that cutting now is the only way to save programs for the next generation. i read an article in the paper today here about that. that is not how i see it. retirement is multi- generational. it is a matter that matters to your children. if you have a decent retirement, everyone of you, it matters to your children. because if you do not, your children feel obliged to step up. caring for a parent is a privilege and one that any honorable child would try to undertake. but for some families, it would

come at an incredibly high cost. because they are struggling so badly themselves. the cost for my family was de minimus because of the circumstance my mother's four children were in. because a lot of families, you know, they cannot get their kids to college, having trouble paying the mortgage, out of the job, and the added burden of looking at mom and dad and knowing they do not have the health care they need. they are having to make these choices that you talked about when you go into the drugstore. that is something that is multi- generational. and families are stretched thin. it forces hard choices. i say families. not when we are stretched thin. when our children as well are stretched thin. this is more than access to health care. it is about who we are. the last thing my mother and father wanted to do was to be a burden to meet and my siblings. social security and medicare helped them live independently right to the very end, preserved their dignity, and most temporarily from my father's perspective, their pride. so if they choose to cut social security and make vouchers for medicare, rather than asking for a shared responsibility for all, they're not saving the next generation.

they are putting an incredible burden on the next generation. they are doing that right now. [applause] and to make it even harder for the middle-class at a time when we know if we want our economy to be strong, the middle class has to be strong. they are tearing the bonds that connect us generation-to- generation at the moment we should be strengthening those bonds. this year, you're going to make some choices about what you want, do you want to lead this country, and who will speak up for you and speak in the way you want on this and many other issues. on this issue, i ask you to do one thing, as i said at the beginning, when you look at obama and me, when you look at our opponents, take our measure. i used to say as a kid, look me over. if you like what you see, vote for me. if not, vote for the other guy. but look this over. look into your heart.

ask yourself the question after all these speeches are done -- who do you believe? who do you believe is genuinely committed to preserving the dignity of people in terms of their health care and other basic, basic ability to live? thank you all very, very much. i love you. thank you for having me. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪

♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> next, remarks by mitt romney in louisiana and senator mitch mcconnell of kentucky. then, president obama announces his choice for world bank president. tomorrow, the former army judge advocate talks about the charges

against army staff sergeant robert bales. jacobean simon discusses the work force cuts in the budget for 2014. andrew taliban has details on the debate between the pentagon and justice department. -- andrew tilghman has details on the debate between the pentagon and the justice department. >> i heard an argument growing in my parents' bedroom only to be shocked by the deafening sound of my mother's job being crushed. i remember as my mother's head was on the chopping block of our kitchen. >> for five seasons, sonja sohn work on "the wire."

she started a program to help high-risk youth and their families. >> we're not looking for you get your ged, you get a job. what has unfolded is that what we want to see is and also in the lives of the community. >> more, sunday night at 8 eastern and pacific. cox on the day before the louisiana republican primaries, mitt romney was in the state talking about his plans to repeal and replace the current health-care law signed by president obama at two years ago. the event was held at clear view mall in louisiana. this is about 25 minutes. [applause] >> thank you.

thank you. thank you. hello there. hello there. thank you. you're very kind, thank you for getting out this morning. sit down. sit down, now. i love you, too. i appreciate the chance to be with you and to talk to a bit about health care. i wanted to say thanks to my chairmen it of the state's. -- thanks to my chairmen in the state. it is important that we get a republican in the white house and get this country back on track with good jobs and a bright future and i intend to be the republican. [applause]

this is a great experience so far and i hope it will continue to be so right through november. i have had the chance to go across the country and meet everyday americans and learned a great deal about their lives and you come away more optimistic, in some cases inspired as you see what americans are doing across the country in tough times. i am buoyed by the results in --linois, a good when they're a good win there. i was in illinois speaking with folks there. i met one couple that was talking about their lives, they have a couple of kids in college. and mom had stayed home to help raise the kids. she had decided to get out into the workforce again. they're living on a pretty thin margin.

she is working so that her kids won't have to amass massive loans. i thought, isn't that amazing, she is paying the cost for her kids' education. it is amazing what people will sacrifice for their kids and the future. i met the business owners of interest an. one man decided to leave an advertising agency and start a business with his son. they make and sell amplifiers. he did it interesting calculation, he calculates what he has to pay in federal income tax, state income tax, real estate tax, gasoline tax. they concluded that they spend

roughly 65% of what they make goes to the government at one level or another. that is not good news. i met a fellow who worked for the city of began and landscaping company and he said he is doing pretty well, he has quite a few folks that work for him and his challenge is paying for the gas. it's amazing to see what people are struggling with. they are unhappy with what they have seen so far with this

president. gas prices have doubled. the deficit is massively larger. the national debt -- the president, by the end of his four years, will have put almost as much debt on this country as all the prior presidents combined. and of course, you have 24 million people out of work or under-employed. so, this presidency has been a failure. at the center of this failure is this piece of legislation back here, obamacare. i say that for many reasons. one, you notice the white house they do not have any big speeches going on. that is for one reason. most americans want to get ridi want to get rid of it too.

and there are a lot of reasons for that. i see medical of uniforms today. you may have your own reasons. it is interesting how many doctors are unhappy about obamacare and went to see it repealed. not just their own profession and their own work, but also concerned that young people coming up through educated ranks are not going to want to become doctors in the future because of obamacare. obamacare represents. but it hurtthere was another one pointed target from florida. he said even if it was a perfect piece of legislation, and it is trillion of additional federal spending. not $1 trillion. it is more like double that. obamacare is massively more expensive than had originally

been estimated and we cannot afford more government spending. we also cannot afford morethe president raised $500 billion in taxes to pay foryou think, that is just going to the companies that there providing health care products, but those companies have to get paid for the products they sell and they will add to the products they sell the cost of additional taxation. by the way, it is not a tax on their profit. it is a tax on their sales. this goes directly into the price of the goods that will be some point or another, that is all of us. the president also said that if

you wanted to keep the health care you had you would be able to do that. except now we know that they are you going to change things after obamacare gets put in30% have said they will drop coverage for employees when obamacare is involved. for those americans that thought they would keep the health care they wanted, they are going to be surprised when their employer drops them from the health care coverage they have had. this is a piece of legislation that is very different than what being sold by the administration. that is one more reason why i think it needs to be repealed. we learned some other things about it in the last few weeks. told they have to provide after pills, sterilization and contraceptives.

despite the fact that these very features violate the conscience of the catholic church itself. so the legislation not only is people to lose the coverage they wanted liberty in this country. i will not go through the whole list, but the american people have taken a hard look at obamacare. i go to events now and then and i see signs being held up by members of the aarp. medicare." if i am president, i will preserve medicare. i will not cut $500 million out of the medicare that we have. [applause] it is critical that we repeal obamacare and also replace it.

it is not just repealing it. i am the only person in this race who has laid out what i would replace it with. i want to describe for you a couple of things i would do. the people of america deserve -- you have probably heard that i the president has been giving waivers to the unions and friends and so forth that heels -- that he feels deserve a freedom and i will get them free from obamacare. [applause] how will you care for the people who are uninsured? butwhat kind of health care opportunities will they have? that states have always had to care for their uninsured.

we will learn from one another. we will have good plans and bad plans. there are differences between states. in my state, we have roughly 7% of our population uninsured. the solution for massachusetts is quite different than the solution for texas where 25% of the people are uninsured. different states have created different approaches. i will take the medicaid dollars that normally come from washington with mandates and strings attached and block grant that money back to the lieutenant governor. with those dollars, they can care for their poor and

uninsured the way they think best. second part, right now, almost all people that have insurance are getting it from their employer. nothing wrong with that. a lot of folks like being able to do that. you might wonder, why is it that i buy my automobile insurance myself but my health insurance comes from my employer? why the difference? a long time ago, we decided to give corporations a tax deduction if they buy insurance for you. you do not get the deduction if you buy it for yourself. why is that? why is it you cannot buy your own insurance if you want to as opposed to getting it from your employer? and get on the same tax advantage basis that your employer gets? what i want to do is make sure we return to individuals the opportunity to have the same tax advantage that companies get. i want small businesses,

individuals to be able to buy insurance on the same tax advantaged basis that we currently get from employers. let's level the playing field. [applause] i happen to believe if we do that, you will see greater competition between the insurers, they will find different types of policies. that match the needs of individual citizens. we're going to find them -- allowing -- well, we're going to have to allow this, which is people being able to buy insurance across state lines the way we deal with auto insurance. buy from other places. we're going to have to focus on getting the cost of health care down. you might say how are you going to do that? insurance is a small parts of the cost of health care. the real cost of health care is the provider, the hospital, the doctor, the nurses. all the people in provide us our health care, the pharmaceuticals. how are we going to get those health care costs down?

i believe that one way of doing that is to create greater incentives for us as patience, as the people who receive health care to shop around. too look for the best product at the best price. what do i mean by that? i was with an orthopedic surgeon the other day. he said, i found it very interesting, when a person who has a health savings account comes into my office and i tell them they need to get an mri, they asked me or they can get one at the best price. who'll do m.r.i.'s at a good, low price? when i have people who do not have any stake at what the cost will be, they have already passed the deductible, they do not ever ask me. they will just go wherever because they do not care what the price is. in our health care system, many times, we do not care what something cost because we will not pay a dollar for it. if we do not care, it is going to get more and more expensive.

because the people selling it to us, if we don't care what it costs, they sure as heck would like to get the price up. we find health care costs going up and up. instead of the government mandating price and cost control, i would like to have individuals have a greater incentive to shop around. to make this act more like a market. [applause] obamacare, in my opinion, is the wrong direction. obamacare substitutes government intrusiveness for the dynamics of individual responsibility, individuals being able to pursue different options, and for the dynamics of a free market. i believe in the marketplace. i believe in consumers pursuing their own dreams. i believe in individuals being able to make their own choices. as i look at this administration, i see obamacare as one more example of a president pursuing his attack on economic and personal liberty. [applause]

this nation and this economy is fueled by freedom. free people pursuing their dreams, living their lives in the way they think best, or what have driven america to be the most powerful nation on the planet. when the founders crafted the declaration of independence, they chose carefully their words. we were endowed by our creator with certain rights. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [applause] in america, we are free to pursue happiness as we choose. we get to select our course in life. by virtue of that, people have come to this place seeking freedom, seeking the opportunity, seeking a brighter future for their children.

by virtue of them doing that and coming here with this innovative spirit, they have built enterprises and had innovations that change the world. that's who we are. as you crush that, bureaucrats by bureaucrats, attacks by tax, you crush that innovative spirit, you crush what is that has driven america to be the economic powerhouse of the world. that is what is happening. every innovation is a product of a dream. as someone who had an idea. dreams are fragile. this administration crushes dreams. and dreamers. we have to stop it. we have to restore to america the principles that made us the hope of the earth. and i will. [applause]

you look at this administration's agenda. virtually, from day one, everything they have done has made it harder for dreamers and innovators and entrepreneurs to pursue economic liberty and freedom. whether it was proposing higher taxes, the president wants to raise the marginal tax rate from 35% to 40%. i told you about the guy making amplifiers. he calculated that the government takes 65% of what he makes. well if that 35% goes to 40%, it will go to 70% of what hawaii he makes goes to government. -- what he makes goes to government. think what that does for the spirits in this country. dreamers when they say, if i am one of those lucky enough to be successful and make a profit, which is not the majority. it is small minority. if i am one of the lucky ones to be successful, the government wants 70% of what i make.

i might as well not do it. and you got to borrow the money anyway to do it. i got to borrow the money and then i got pay that back and then if i'm successful, i got to pay the government -- it is like when you compare the risk with the return, a lot of people are going to say i'm not going to do it. that is what happens when you kill economic freedom. i hear how regulators are crushing our capacity to develop energy resources. the regulators and the president said no to the keystone pipeline. bringing in oil from canada. how in the world do we miss that test? now president is saying well, he is going to build the bottom half of that. let's connect it to the oil. let's actually connect it to the oil in canada. [applause]

most people in this room do not give a thought about something known as dodd-frank. this financial regulatory bill. you hear about -- you don't think it affects you all on a direct basis. you all. i'm not -- i'm not trying to pretend like i'm from louisiana. it does not affect everybody in the room, but it does affect everybody in the room on a personal basis because it makes it harder for community banks to make loans and to renegotiate loans. if you have looked over the last few years, the big new york banks are getting bigger and the community banks as they look at all of these regulations, have pulled back. it is the community banks that make loans to small business people that are starting enterprises and it is small businesses that pull people out of recesses. one reason this recession has been so hard to pull out of is because community banks have had

a hard time making loans to these individuals that wourled would normally be starting businesses. these regulators, whether it is banking, energy, health care, these folks are making it harder for this economy to get going again. as a result, you have all these people at of work. -- out of would recollect. -- out of work. people who are seeing sliding paychecks. i mean downward. the median income in america has dropped by 10% in the last four years. people in this country are having a hard time. their incomes are down and the cost of gasoline is up. the cost of health care up. food costs are up. people have having a hard time. i missed one. >> government spending is up. >> yeah, government spending is up. there is no recession going on

in washington, d.c. the president had added about 140,000 government workers. this has simply got to end. there is story of about jerry clower hunting for raccoons. i guess he is fighting with a bobcat up in the tree. this pain has to end one way or another. this overreaching by the government has to end. we have to return to the principles of our nation. [applause] so this i can guarantee you. if i am lucky enough to become president of the united states -- [applause] >> thank you.

i'm going to get that waiver from all the states for obamacare and i'm going to go to work to get it repealed and replaced with something that does bring down the cost of health care. it allows free-market dynamics to be part of health care. but allows you to be able to pick your own plan. your own ininsurer and to buy one whether it is from louisiana or another state. by virtue of doing these things, we will reinstate the type of economic freedom that has made america a powerhouse. and leader of the world. i love america. i love what this nation stands for. [applause] it is time to end of this anti economic liberty agenda out of washington. and return to the principles that make it such a great nation. i will have is my inspiration the declaration of independence. and as my blueprint, the constitution of the united states. [applause]

only one more thing i want to say. i need you to get out and vote. you have a contest coming up and i would love to have your help. you have a lot of delegates. i probably will not get all of them, but i want to get as many as i can. i want to ask you to get out there and vote. give me a good sendoff. illinois did. puerto rico did. we have a conservative team down there in puerto rico. they lowered taxes. by the way, home sales are up 50% under this administration. our policies work. theirs don't. we're watching that right now. i need your vote, i need your help. together, we will get rid of obamacare. and return the economic freedom that has made america the great

thank you. powerhouse we are. thank you. great to be with you. >> mcconnell says the affordable care act was "biggest mistake done in recent history." and ought to be undone. now he speaks with capitol hill reporters on the second anniversary of the health care law. next week, the supreme court will hear arguments challenging the constitutionality of that legislation. this is about 25 minutes.

>> i think kentucky is going to win it. with a coach of the year, not a single one of his starters made the first, second, or third team. not one of them. not a bad showing so far with not a whole lot of talent. [laughter] we have to talk about something else. >> baseball? >> i'm a little surprised that there wasn't a birthday cake at the white house to celebrate the second anniversary of obamacare. we have all noticed that not a lot is being said about the new law. people that were involved in passing it.

i think there is a pretty good reason for that. after two years, it is pretty clear that it is full of broken promises. almost everything that was said about the law, predictions about how it would turn out have not worked out. they said it would protect medicare, obviously, it doesn't. it took $500 billion out of medicare. it provided costs for new entitlement programs. they said it would bring about you were premiums, we know that that hasn't happened. they said it would lower costs, that hasn't happened. they said taxes won't go up and we know right in the legislation there are $500 billion in new taxes. they said if you don't like your plan, you can keep it. we know that is not working out.

so i think we can pretty safely say that the reason the american people like this law even les now than they did two years ago is because nothing, essentially that was promised is occurring and will occur. even in the jobs front, we know the number one issue in the country. analysts have said that the law is "arguably the biggest impediment to hiring, particularly hiring of less-skilled workers. the cbo director said that it will be 800,000 fewer jobs over the next decade. so as we go to the supreme court arguments, ironically enough, i just finished a biography of

chief justice marshall. it is called "definer of a nation." there were a huge number of significant decisions defining what the constitution means. the commerce clause was a big part of the number of those decisions. the supreme court and the nation has been wrestling with what the commerce clause means for 235 years. once again, it will be before the supreme court. if you think about the argument that will be made next week, the plaintiffs will argue essentially this. if the federal government, under the commerce clause, can order individual americans to buy this product and tell each individual american what kind of product they must buy, because that decision, the failure to make a decision could affect the health care of someone else and is

therefore interstate commerce. if the court upholds that, could the federal government order you eat carrots? could it order you to quit smoking? could it order you to lose weight? all of those decisions you could make, could arguably have an affect on the cost of health insurance for someone else. none of us know what the supreme court will do, but it strikes me that if this is permissible under the commerce clause, it is essentially gone. that it is meaningless and kind of a relic of ancient times. so, so those are the arguments that will be made. i think it will be a surprise to a lot of us and i think a lot of you that the court will be looking at the tenth amendment

implications of the massive medicaid mandate in obamacare. in my state, for example, as every other state of the union, the current struggle to pay for medicaid at the state level is already causing college tuition to go up. i'll tell you why. the two biggest items in every state budget are medicaid and education. as medicaid goes up, education funding goes down. they pass it along to universities and they raise tuition in order to make up the difference. that is already a huge problem. in my state, we're going to add almost 400,000 people in a state of 4 million to the medicaid roles. what are the constitutional applications of that? i am not sure.

initially, we thought, the tenth amendment granted to the federal government's specific powers and reserve everything else to the state. maybe the reason the court wants to hear the medicaid argument is because they may conclude that the federal government could make states do so much that they are taking over state budgets. i don't know. i think that was a surprise to many, the court decided it wanted to hear arguments related to medicaid as well. summing it up, it is a mess. this law is a mess. the single worst piece of legislation that has been passed certainly in the time i have been here. the single biggest step in europeanizing america. look at what is going on in europe. we have a debt the size of our economy which makes us look a lot like greece already. and we are adding this on top of it. whether the court finds it constitutional or not is a

mistake. there are plenty of mistakes you can make that are not constitutional. obviously, our hope is that the court will find this lot constitutionally deficient. whether or not it does, it was still a huge mistake for our country. as i have said before, i think if i were setting the agenda, i felt like we would have an obligation for the american people to begin the process of trying to repeal this law. let me make one observation about one other mattered and i will throw it open. you'll recall a skirmish in the majority leader and i had over scheduling which is not my responsibility. i indicated that if i had his job we would turn the export-imposht back. the regulator said we don't have time. i think we already know that we don't have time to do the xm bank, but we will turn to the effort to raise taxes on energy

monday and spend next week, incredibly enough, having a discussion about what a good idea it would be to raise taxes on energy when gas is at $4 a gallon. i look at that and i say we ought to do something about the price of gas, but it wouldn't have taken very long to clear the xm bank. a significant number of my members were in favor of it and it struck me that we could probably work that in. let me throw it open. >> hhs issued a regulation on friday calling for all new health care plans to cover, without co-pay all food and drug administration approved contraception methods, procedures, for all women with

reproductive capacities. do you support splournsviding cost-free sterilizeation -- providing cost-free sterilizeation procedures for all women? >> i don't have any comment about that. as a regulation, it cannot last week? we will talk about it in my office. >> experts say that it will send the insurance market -- what can congress do at that point? would you work -- can you fix -- >> that is a really interesting question. the way forward after the supreme court's's decision almost has to await the supreme court decision. a lot of it depends on what they do. i think most people look at it if they are as opposed to obama care as i am, they believe the individual mandate is kind of the linchpin of it. but i think we're kind of

discussing hypothetical of what they would do with this or that is probably not productive. we've had some conversations about it, as you can imagine. i think we'll probably have to wait to see what the court does. yes? >> on hypothetical, say the mandate is constitutional, what does it mean for republicans that have opposed health-care reform? >> something can be constitutional and still be a big mistake. this is a disastrous step. in the direction of europeanizing the country. even if it is constitutionally permissible to do it, there are plenty of things that we should not do the but they are constitutional. it ought to be undone. >> they said this election is probably the last chance you will have to repeal the law before it goes into effect in 2014.

that by the time you get to 2014, you're too far down the road to try and urn wind it. -- unwinet. what are your thoughts on that, and what will republicans do? >> is hard to look past the election. the american people will speak this november. you always hear people in my line of work say this is a really important election. i think we have done the country -- this administration and its compliant congress in 2009 and 2010 a lot of damage to the country. obviously, i hope the american people will give us the supporters here in congress we need to undo a lot of that. i had rather not speculate about what might be the situation on down the road. >> you say that the law is full of broken promises about everything that was said about the law. everything. would you acknowledge certain pieces to the law are popular and working? >> there are two things that test well and the democrats talk

about pre-existing conditions and about the ability of young people to stay on their parents' policies until they are 26. look, in a 3,000-page bill, i'm not surprised that there are a couple of things you will be able to point to and these both test well in the polling and i think they will make every effort to try to get people convinced that this 3,000-page bill was all about those two things. they certainly are popular. no question about it. >> would you quickly move to restore -- >> you're asking me a question i can't answer or i'm not going to answer. what i can tell you is if we have a different majority here next year swrerks an obligation american people. not a single republican voted for this, to do everything we can to get it off the books. and replace it, to use a medical metaphor, what we did was take a

meat axe to the best health care system in the world when we should have used a scalpel. and we would like to undo this huge mistake at the earliest possible moment if the american people give us the support to do it. >> what do you intend to replace it with if you able to actually repeal it? >> well, some of the things we talked about, which i would view as scalpel-type adjustments to the finest health care in the world would be things like interstate sales for health insurance, being able to buy health insurance across interstate lines. medical malpractice. we don't think the problems we had in health care and we certainly do have them, require a massive overhaul of the current system and a raid on medicare and the kinds of cuts they made to hospitals and hospice and nursing homes.

you know, all of us know people who are serving on the board s of hospitals, nursing homes, hospice, they are struggling under these providers and every time we talk about trying to get a handle on entitlements, pretty soon there are not going to be any providers to take care of the people that we're putting on the rolls. a good example of that is medicaid. we're eagged massive number s of people to the medicaid rolls. >> is there a precedent for having legislative response? >> having legislative response to what? >> to what the court decides? i know you say if republicans -- win back the majority one of the first things you would try do is

refeel health care law. are there things you can do on the floor even before that to try to make a point about whatever the court decides? >> i think i have already answered that. i think it is impossible to know what the reaction to the court decision would be before we have a court decision. >> this>> where do you think tht and the deficit are going to be after this decision? relevant to gas prices or health care. as you know, voters talked a lot about having that under control but then when you confront them with the choices, they do not want to cut medicare or social security. how big of an issue will that be? >> we all know things like jobs

and the economy our number one. the obamacare mistake is a job killer. it is directly related to the number one subject on the minds of the american people. i think they do care about debt and deficit, but you are absolutely right. if you look at what people are most concerned about, it is down the list. i forget exactly how far down the list. if you are asking me if it is a huge campaign issue, i think it is a camp -- a campaign issue. not bigger than the economy or the bigger than obamacare. whether or not it becomes an issue in the campaign is an issue for our country. when you have a debt the size of our economy and you have suffered a credit downgrade, erskine bowles called it the most predictable crisis in american history. regardless of what is discussed in the campaign, this is a big

issue for our country. it is not going away. it will still be there after the election. yes. "it's a there was so much passion with the tea party, town halls, but thousands of people at the capitol -- do you think that the tea party is as strong and influential as they work? do you expect that passion to still be there? >> i think the passion that brought about the rise of the tea party had a lot to do with the issue we are talking about today. i believe the passage of obamacare, although the party came into existence before christmas eve 2009, i think obamacare is a metaphor for all of the excess of this administration -- the stimulus, the debt, the takeover of the health care, the nationalization of these two long program.

i think all of the folks involved in that movement understand the single most important thing we can do is replace the current occupant of the white house. it would be an assist if they were able to shift the majority in the senate. >> at the beginning of this congress, you offered an amendment to repeal the entire law. some members of your conference wanted to repeal the entire law. of course, you can press for an amendment. are you going to try to do that again? >> that is a good question. this has been an ongoing discussion within our conference. we are thinking about it. we know where everybody is. we have had of the vote to oppose obamacare and to repeal obamacare. every single republican voted to oppose the law and the first place and to repeal it later. it is a matter still under discussion.

>> a wanted to ask you about the shooting death of trayvon martin. do you think this is a time to reexamine "stand your ground" lost? the justice department is now investigating. based on what you are looking at, do you agree a civil rights law has been violated? >> is an incredible tragedy. i am glad it is being investigated and we will take a look at it as the investigation moves along. >> cardinal red looks pretty good in late march, does it not? i wanted to ask you about the transportation and highway bill.

some are thinking you might oppose that. >> the principal reason -- transportation is very popular in our conference, but it ended up having some no-votes, including my own bread there was a provision in their bite, i believe, senator bingaman that would have prevented the innovative efforts of governors like mitch daniels to do outside-the-box funding mechanisms for their state highway systems. it involved the public-private sector effort. wildly successful. yet the bingaman of? at prevents any state from engaging in that sort of outside the box solution to save transportation problems. we do not have enough money generated by the gas tax to take

care of all the infrastructure needs we have all in this country. why in the world would we want at the federal level to prevent creative and innovative governors from clearing some out of the box way to meet the transportation needs? that was my principal motivation. senator corker felt it violated the budget control act. there are different points of view about that, but i thought it was at an absolute outrage at a time when we should be encouraging state governments to engage in really innovative ways to meet our transportation needs. the most successful in the country was mitch daniels in indiana. >> what should the house do? >> i hope they will not go home with that. they have had a number of discussions about how to go forward on the transportation bill. we have had enough challenges

over here without giving them advice. >> do you think you passed the three-month extension? >> we will certainly do some kind of extension. i will take one more. >> a lot of conservative groups are urging congress [unintelligible] are you concerned that position will prevent -- >> i do not know if it is my hearing are your voice, but i am have a hard time understanding. i think i covered that. we could do that very quickly. we need to schedule it. as i said earlier, we found time to turn to trying to raise the

price of gas at the pump. it looks like that could dominate next week when we could have passed this in a day or so. ok. thanks everybody. >> president obama has nominated dartmouth's college president to head the world bank. pauling the announcement, the president is asked about the trayvon martin case. this is about 10 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. [no audio] >> good morning, everybody. [unintelligible]

the president of the world announced he would be stepping down in june, in february. i immediately began to search for someone to fill his shoes. despite its name, the world bank is more than just. the banks it is one of the most powerful tools we have to reduce poverty and raise standards of living in some of the poorest countries on the planet. in a world that is growing smaller and more connected in every day, that is a critical mission, not just for those struggling but for all bus. when we reduce hundred a world or helping farmers recover from a flood or drought, it strengthens the entire world economy. when we put an end to preventable disease, all of us are safer because of it. when entrepreneurs can start a business that creates jobs in their country but also opens up new markets for our country. all tamale, when a nation goes from poverty to prosperity, it makes apparel stronger and more secure for everybody. that is why the world bank is

so important and that's why the leader of the world bank should have a deep understanding of the role the development plays in the world and the importance of creating conditions if where assistance is no longer needed. i believe that nobody is more qualified to carry out that mission then dr. jim kim. it's time for development professionals to lead the world's largest development agency. that's why today after a careful and thorough search i am nominating dr. jim kim to be the next president of the world bank. he has spent more than two decades working to improve conditions in developing countries around the world. as a physician and an anthropologist he co-founded partners in health and led a world health organization ledto treats 3 million patients with hiv/aids. is made hiv, the fight against the dreaded disease and promotion of public health a cornerstone of my development agenda, building on some of the

outstanding work that was done by president bush. if we pursue these efforts around the globe because it's the right thing to do and because of healthy populations enable growth and prosperity. i am pleased that jim brings this particular experience with him his new job. he was at harvard medical school and has earned a macarthur genius fellowships and. and. for the last three years he has served as the president of dartmouth college. after immigrating to this country from korea at age 5, he went on to become president of its high school class, quarterback of the football team, point guard of the basketball team. and he's a five handicap in golf, i just found out. i am a little resentful about that last item, but he doesji it hem has truly global experience. he has worked from asia to africa to the americas, from capitol small villages. his personal story exemplifies the great diversity of our country and the fact anyone to make it as far as he has as

long as they're willing to work hard and look out for others. his experience makes him ideally suited to forge partnerships all around the world. i could not be more pleased to nominate jim for this job. i think i can speak for secretary clinton and secretary -- secretary geithner brightener if when i say that we are looking forward to working with him. i also want to take a minute to thank bob zelnick once again for all. -- zoelleck once again for his hard work. his hard all for the last five years he's made the bank more transparent, help to shore up progress made in places like afghanistan, he has raised billions of dollars to help some of the world's poorest communities. jim is the right person to carry on that legacy and i know his unique set of skills and years of experience will serve him well. if i am grateful to him for his

willingness to serve. i don't think the world bank could have a better leader. thank you. >> thank you. >> you are going to do great. all right. >> there's allegations of lingering racism in our society. the stand your ground law in florida. can you comment on the trayvon martin case? >> i am the head of the executive branch and the attorney general reports to me, so i have to be careful about my statements, to make sure that we are not impairing an investigation that is taking place right now. but, obviously, this is a tragedy. i can only imagine what these parents are going through. when i think about this boy, i think about my own kids. i think every parent in america should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative

that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulled together, federal, state, and local, if to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened. so, i am glad that not only is the justice the problem is looking into it, i understand now that the governor of the state of florida has formed a task force to investigate what is taking place. i think all of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how did something like this happen. that means that we examined the laws, the context for what happened as well as the specifics of the incidents. my main message is to the parents of trayvon martin. if i had a son, he would look like trayvon. i think they are right to expect that all of us as

americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and that we will get to the bottom of exactly what happened. >> dr. kim as a korean born physician. he has -- he outlined the finding of a report on the global aids epidemic. in this portion, he talked about the role of churches in

combating hiv/aids. >> let me just say, if you call evangelical church is the american consorted organization, you can trace their participation in a number of ways. i credit them with bringing to the attention of president bush and jesse helms and others the problem of hiv deaths in poor countries. they are the ones who who really pushed the republican politicians to move forward on those programs. they played an extremely important role in bringing attention of the number of deaths. they were losing their missionaries, the stars of their work, in poor countries. i commend them on that. in terms of the role of conservative organizations in areas like prevention, what we know is that we will never really know for sure exactly what particular intervention led to a particular change in a person's behavior. and so, what we recommend is

that the full range of prevention interventions must spare this is abstinence message and, certainly for children. behavior change when it's relevant and can be helpful. and condom usage. we know condoms prevent the spread of hiv very effectively. when you take one of those out, you are putting an individual at risk. so this is our position, are there particular conservative groups who want to focus more on one than the other, yes, there's no question there are groups and would like to see abstinence-only programs, to which we flatly say you can do that but you are really pulling three legs out from under the chair. >> you can see the entire event with dr. kim on c-span.org. the selection of the world bank

president will be made next month. the united states at the world of the largest economy and the largest percentage of the vote. dr. kim is expected to travel around the world on a listing to work, to rally support for his nomination ahead of the vote. next, a heritage foundation forum on a program to arm and train an airline parlance. then, a house hearing on hezbollah operatives in the u.s. after that, president obama announces his choice for world bank president. >> on monday, the supreme court starts at three days of hearing on the constitutionality of the health care law. here the oral arguments for yourself as the core releases audio around 1:00 p.m. eastern each day with coverage on c- span3 and c-span radio. at c-span.org add your comments. our coverage starts with washington journal and continues through the day.

then, the oral arguments on c- span3. >> the genetic scientists have a rough date for when the hiv epidemics starts. there is not that much hiv, yet in some places, there is a ton and it did incredibly destructive. understanding that these two categories exist allows you to think, ok -- what are the factors that keep this virus moving and what can we do as a world to end it? >> on afterwards, the history of aids sunday night at 9:00. part of a booktv weekend on c- span2. >> in a moment, a forum on forming an airline pilots.

this was during a house hearing on the 2013 budget request. >> this program is comprised of volunteers that often pay more out of their pockets of than it cost to be -- caused to protect our nation. in fact, the -- to provide protection for each flight deck officer cost the nation $15. i have to believe that is probably one of the most cost- effective programs in the united states government. these people volunteer their time and money. they are a vital deterrent for

our country. quite frankly, they are the last line of defense when it comes to air piracy. my question would be what would you -- did you make this cut? did it come from the president? where did it come from? >> the reduction for the federal flight deck officer program is predicated on the fact that the program is not risk based. you will have an sfdo whether someone is on a flight or not. we are moving to a risk-based system. that is where we are putting money into. >> i fully agree with risk- based systems, but i also fully agree a $15 federal flight deck officer as a last line of defense on an aircraft is absolutely essential. would you agree a federal flight deck officer would be the last line of defense? >> there are many layers of defense steny before people even

get their tickets. one thing i continue to emphasize is the checkpoint at the gate, which has caused some concern, is only one of many players. useful.'s have been i do not know about the $15 figure. as we look around the universe of things we want to do in the aviation environment, like i said before, we have to find places to cut. that was one of them because it is not risk based. >> i fully understand risk based. again, i will ask the question -- is the federal flight deck officer of the last line of defense for the travelling public? at quite i think an armed cockpit door probably is. >> i have spoken to a federal flight deck officer. i know about the cockpit door.

i'd tell you, speaking from the position i have flown as a pilot and as a federal flight deck officer, you may think the flat -- flight deck door is the last line of defense, but it is that armed pilot in the cockpit that would be the last line of defense. thank you for your comments, though. will your attention to this program be phased out? >> i think the budget request shows it is our intention to reduce it, yes. but we have not predicted its demise. we just think we can do it with less. >> what kind of message do you think it sends pilots willing to join this program on their own dime, take personal vacation days off of work, pay for their own lodging to train for the privilege and honor of protecting their fellow citizens -- how you think it will affect the program? >> representative, obviously in

a difficult budget we had to make difficult decisions and this was one. >> again, ma'am, going for the last line of defense, the most efficient program i think that you have in protecting the travelling public, i would strongly encourage you to reevaluate that position. also, it has come to my attention by in line with the president's budget request, norad has requested two smaller sites to be eliminated. active-duty combines with the air national guard there. a vital mission from these two fighter wings -- how is this going to affect you in responding to threats? after 911, these guys were

flying 24/7. they deployed in a lot of different places. i see my time is about to expire, but can you comment on that quickly? >> there are several other similar type things all around, particularly, the northern border. the analysis is that those operations can be covered from a consolidated center elsewhere. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> minnesota republican congressman met bird preservation of a federal program that trains and arms flight crews. operating since 2003, the program will be cut in half. congressman cravat is a retired airline pilot. he says army pilots are the last line of defense against terrorist attacks and the proposed cuts will effectively discontinue the program.

a panel of speakers also opposed the cuts. this is about 19 minutes. -- 90 minutes. >> we are really pleased with the congressman and are pleased to host this event. it has been over a decade since september 11. we have learned so much on how to make this nation safe. -- nation safe and preserve our liberties and keep our economy moving. we have thwarted at least 45 terrorist attacks since 9/11.

all but three of those were stopped by people doing the right thing. we know what works and what does not. when you see your government start to do things that do not make common sense, that are actually walking away from the kinds of things that are proven and effective, it is very very frustrating. we want to take time out and talk about one of those today that is really worthwhile. thank you to the congressman, thank you to the panel. it is my honor to introduce represented chip cravak. he has experience as a navy pilot. he was a northwest airlines pilot. that gave me the opportunity to -- gave them the opportunity to live on in the united states and travel around the world. he decided to make northeast

minnesota his home and represent the eighth district from that state. he was honored with several awards and citations, including the joint service commendation medal. he has a bachelor of science degree from the united states naval academy. that is ok. i went to west. . my wife went to the naval academy. i am over that brigid he has a master's degree in education and from the university of west florida and he has also attended the naval war college and national defense university. you could not ask for anybody with a better resonate. please join me in welcoming the congressman. [applause] >> that is ok, bob. not everyone can make it in to predict into the naval academy. i want to thank everybody for coming here today.

i also want to thank brian darling for the work he is doing. i would also like to take the time to thank lieutenant-colonel eakins and also capt. tracy who gave me great insight on how this program actually got started. of course, the advocates currently working with us. special thanks for all the work you have been doing as well. how this all started -- i had my eight-month old in my arms. the babysitter came in and said, "there is an airplane that just hit one of the twin towers." i said it must of gotten a little too close for a sightseeing trip and hit one of

the towers. she said, "no, it was a big airplane." i was thinking of all the approaches and how could that have happened. i went through all the scenarios in my mind how that couldand then i turned on the television and saw all of the scenarios. that is how it started. i was glued to the television. little did i know that i lost two friends. a companies mate and a classmate of mine. this is personal for me. my country was under attack. i lost some friends. when i heard the secretary nicole itano -- napolitano a

marginalized the dedication, the efforts, and the necessity of the federal flight deck program, i took that personal as well. one of the three things i would like to touch upon what -- is what it means to our national security, the benefits of the program, and the challenges that i see on the horizon. 9/11 woke us up. as a pilot that flew countless hours, going through countless amounts of security, we knew our security was wheat. this was a reality check. nowhere in any scenarios would we have thought that an aircraft would have been taken over by terrorists and used as a weapon

of mass destruction. the reality now, as it was then, is that we live in a dangerous world. with varied and morphing threats. all screaming at the airport can reduce threats, the enemy is constantly probing our weaknesses. i think we are doing a good job for passengers coming through the airport. you have to remember that the threat does not stop there. it is for anyone who is in the shadow of the aircraft back in touch it. there are many threats associated with a passenger gets on the aircraft. we needed that assets. we understand we're going through a risk based screening.

i support that. so that we focus our resources on known or unknown threats. we must also, it is imperative, that we also have that safety net necessary in case of a failure of the system. in conversations this morning, we have already seen failures for those that touched the airplane. we cannot pick up a newspaper without seeing how drugs are being placed on airplanes or how packages are being stolen. this is somewhat of a weakness we must address and we must be able to counter if the situation occurs. ffdo's are the last line of defense and the chief deterrent. onesately, they're the that are going to stop the

terrorists from entering the cockpit and allowing that aircraft to be used as a weapon of mass destruction. before they walk on the aircraft, and they sit in the cabin, they are not sure if they surrounded by officers willing to take charge. even more so, behind a cockpit door, there may be a federal flight deck officer ready to greet them. aviation security is a multi layer approach. on the ground and in the air. as soon as you buy your ticket, security starts. you go through it automatically. you're going through security measures. i must emphasize those that get

into the shadow of the aircraft are equally important. we may have a passenger come through our screening process without a problem. but if there is something on the aircraft maker and attach themselves to, that is where the threat occurs and where the federal officers come into play. in the air, there are multiple sources able to stop a terrorist attempt. passengers are the heroes. we saw that happen on flight 93. and other naval graduate a cap -- a vote academy graduate. air marshals are the next to protect the coppola. the reinforced door is a deterrent, but it is the federal flight deck officer that is going to stop the threat

reinforced doors are important. they will slow the progress of any attacker. again, it will be the federal flight deck officer that stops the threat. air marshals and officers are 18. they were altogether. the program, just to get in the program, you have to be the best shot of any enforcement. they are only present on him and the number of flights. they expand the deterrent even more and ability to respond to the unexpected threat, which may be the achilles' heel of a risc based program. according to the estimates, ffdo's cost $15 per flight segment.

to protect an aircraft, to protect the potential of thousands of people, the officer costs $15 per flight segment. though the actual numbers are classified, they defend over 100,000 flight segment some months. 1.5 million flights per year. thousands of them have been certified through the program despite the budget has not grown since inception. currently, ffdo's are not allowed to receive reimbursement for expenses related to training. for example, i am a former federal flight deck officer. i went to new mexico for training. i did it on my days off. it was my own cost to go down there.

to qualify parsee year, -- twice a year, i spend money on my own ammunition to make sure when i am qualified in six months that i do well. i take that as a personal goal to ensure and the best officer i can be. remember, the federal officer does it on their own time. they do it because they are americans. they believe in this country. >> they do it because of the honor they feel they must protect their passengers and their fellow americans. like i said, many undergo personal expenses. for pilots, if you're not flying, you are already gone 15 to 16 days a month, going away to spend their own time once again so they must or so they actually pay for the privilege of defending this great country of ours. despite all this, even with the challenges the federal flight

officers have, the country has been growing of dedicated volunteers that have the sacrifices to protect americans in the flying public. the consider it an honor to do so. the first 44 federal flight deck officers that graduate in 2003 at a budget of $10 million for it that grew to $25 million in 2004 and kept that level since 2004. but this funding is being eroded by a carved out for crew defense, about $1.4 million out of that program. last year, due to the funding levels, not one federal flight deck officer could have a background check. this is a challenge for us. the federal flight deck officer program is not expanding. it is contracting under the current open administration, for proposing to cut the program in half. sending it to an eventual

course, in my opinion, of elimination. janet napolitano hazmat is quite -- has made this quite clear to me that they wish to erode the program down and cutting back and does not fit now the risk-based intelligence based security they're looking at. while i applaud the secretary, again, using this analysis, they're always must be a safety net. to capture those who might slip through the security based screening. but even as we focus on threats of higher unknown risk, and we must always remember that we cannot allow anything to slip through the cracks. one of the bus cost-effective ways to reduce the risk, increased deterrent, and also respond to the safety of passengers and the flying public. the secretary also fails to

understand the thread. the threat does not necessarily come through the terminals of an airport. the threat is in the shadow of the airplane as well it is a double threat and all threats must be analyzed. that is what the safety net must always be there. in the testimony before the committee of homeland security, she said the armed cockpit door was the last line of defense. as i have already said, it is the armed pilot that will most definitely be the last line of defense from using an aircraft as a weapon of mass destruction. that is why i'm very proud that our staff will be introducing very soon a fully offset the -- bill, doubling the program from $25.5 million to $50.5 million for fiscal year

2013. our goal is to enable the program to cover all qualified volunteers and increase the security level for the national public. i don't want anyone to be holding their kid and sing another airliner go into a building. i don't want another passenger from minnesota say, let's roll, and overtaken airplane knowing there when the plunge to their own deaths to protect the united states. that should never occur. at $15 a flight segment, i think we can pay for it. thank you. [applause] >> we have time for some questions. if you have a question, raise your hand. wait for the microphone. also, state your name and affiliation.

>> i am brian from the heritage foundation. thank you for coming and getting this presentation. my question is, you touched on this a little bit, but what can congress do to fight back? clearly, the obama administration wants to end the program. the evidence is they want to cut the program in half as part of their budget. janet napolitano has publicly stated her intent to not include an her version of a risk-based system. how can congress fight back? towe're introducing a bill counter it right now. the program has remained stagnant the last years. with no new flight deck officers come on board. the program, not only stop the threat program, but also a chief deterrent. the terrorists will think twice before they realize when the

open that cockpit door that they will have an armed, highly trained pilot behind it. what we need to do on the level of congress, introducing this bill and lobbied hard on the hill for this program. quite frankly, when i come to congress, and i understand we're in a budget crunch, that is why this is offset by another program within the tsa for over to personnel. but this program is the central part of the safety net program. we cannot be this on the hill and i think i can get a lot of colleagues to sign and push this through. >> thank you for being here. you mention background checks were no longer being performed on pilots. how long has that been going on? was that a function of at defunding aspect of the program

or just administration? >> the next panel will probably be better to ask. as i can understand, there has been a backlog because of the amount of funds available, the backlog of getting new pilots into the program because of the background checks. background checks are expensive. we want to make sure those flying the aircraft with a weapon should be doing just that. i strongly support having a full background check, but give us the funds to do it to make sure we can get remained in a program and increase it. again, it is the least expensive program i think on the hill. i cannot see any other program for $15 a flight segment to protect an aircraft from being used as a weapon of mass destruction. i do not lead to underestimate the deterrents that a federal flight deck officer has. just the sheer program itself, knowing there may be an armed

highly trained pilots on that flight deck, would achieve deterrence that is from a terrorist thinking twice about using a commercial airliner as a missile. do not underestimate that. if they see the program is going to be cut in half, to them, that is a window of opportunity. >> congressman, i went as to a broader question about tsa. the bureaucracy now has a bigger budget and the fbi, one of the largest federal work forces. could you give a broader assessment of tsa, where you see it going in the future, things should be doing or not doing, the strengths and weaknesses?

>> with any program, there are strengths and weaknesses. what the tsa does it is a highly valuable function and they do it well, but we have to be smarter and use a risc-based on intelligence-based issue and i agree with that. one bill we were able to pass, for example, military people coming home on orders in uniform with their id cards are going to be treated like the heroes they are and be a to go through expedited screening process. the same type of expedited screening process of their frequent-flier travel and programs have. instead of having our troops come home from afghanistan just trying to get home to their families, you see them in their stocking feet and t-shirts going through tsa. that is not how we treat our returning warriors. using risc based analysis so we can focus on the unknown or known risks and then allowing

those considered low risk go through expedited screening process. using that type of security basis, that is why it is absolutely imperative that we strengthen the safety net associated with it. that is why the program, dollar for dollar, probably has the most effective way of knowing this as a deterrent and also to stop the threat. >> thank you very much for your time, sir. my name is mark weiss. i am with the spectrum group in washington. i used to be the deputy chairman of security for the pilots at american airlines. in the past, the program had always been treated as a really unwanted stepchild.

it never really had the support from the tsa, no matter who the demonstrators seemed to be. at this point in time, as the fan program becoming a little more robust, have they been more supportive of the ffdo program? >> they realize, the men and women that are federal air marshals, they do a fantastic job. there on the road constantly. they have a tough life. i respect highly what the fams do. do not take away from this that i would want to cut the fam budget or degrade what they do. i do not. they work in tandem. i do agree with your analysis

that the ffdo program was not embraced, so to say, by the tsa. that is why there is some discussion that i would like to see possibly and working within congress and taking the program out of the tsa and possibly putting it in the doj. i think it might be the competing interests there might be alleviated. >> any further questions? join with me and thanking the congressman. [applause]

>> i am excited to introduce the panel. these guys have done this for a living. i will introduce them all right now and order and then we will run down the road and taken to their comments, then open it up to the floor for questions and comments but al aitken is retired marine corps colonel, a veteran pilot. retired from american airlines. he was one of the founders and principal leaders and pushing for the establishment of the program. then we have mark karn. his the security director for

the coalition of airline pilots association and secure the chairman for the allied pilots association and also an american airline pilot and has been flying for 14 years. tracy price is commercial airline pilot for the past 25 years, 19 years as a boeing 737 capt. for a major u.s. airline and also founding publisher and chairman of national organization that did help create the ffdo program. you have a wealth of experience and not just flying, but also with the program itself. i cannot think of better panel of experts. let's just go in order. >> do you want us at the podium? >> it is up to you. i tell you what, i will just sit right here. thank you very much. i want to discuss a little bit

about the inception of the program, the history of it. the obama administration had institutional hostility toward the concept armed pilots, specifically the ffdo program since the beginning. i was chairman of the washington pundits for the allied pilots association back in september 2001. after the aerospace reopened, approximately four days later, i was on one of the first flights out of washington for dallas for our first board of directors meeting at which we set policy at the apa with a goal to arm as many of the united states commercial airline pilots as possible to defend against another repeat of the 9/11 attacks. there were other efforts going on at the same time. the air line pilots association, alpa, some in the

leadership said we cannot be wyatt earp and sky king at the same time. the vast majority of alpa pilots disagree. apsa was derived from that. my friend creek to well over -- grew it to well over 55,000 members, about half of which were pilots, but the rest were just cooks and bottle washers from all over america who thought pilots ought to be armed. at the same time, senator bob smith from new hampshire with young brian darling working for him introduce legislation to armed america's airline pilots.

that all resulted in the transportation security act 2001 signed into law november 19, 2001 and that is the act that created the transportation security administration. here is what it said. the pilot of a passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier in air transportation or interstates air transportation is authorized to carry a firearm into the cockpit if the undersecretary, meaning the tsa, approves, if the airline approves, if the firearm is approved by the tsa, and if the pilot received proper training for use of the firearm. well, we went to work. several meetings with the tsa and several letters to secretary of transportation fell

on deaf ears. they did not want to have a thing to do with us. in fact, the administrator said, i will not allow pilots to be armed. that required a 10-month extensive lobbying effort with congressional members and staff. and although some in the alpa leadership leaned towards a limited program of 2% public cap and a two-year provision, would certainly have kill the program very early on, an amendment by rep removed those limits and the bill was passed 310-113 in the house of representatives. in the senate, they always wanted a full blown. although, there was opposition there as well from the airline transport association. they sent a letter expressing their concerns against the program in a sign it by 21 airlines ceo's.

then tsa administrator testified before congress with the same programs almost identical to the ata better. despite that ,hr5005 was passed overwhelmingly 90-9 with one absent. that established the department of homeland security and inside of it, the army pilots against terrorism act, which mandated the ffdo program. the undersecretary transportation for security shall establish a program to that because volunteer pilots of air carriers providing passenger air transportation. it has some procedural requirements it set a deadline

of three months for the tsa to create the program and that same three months for them to start training pilots. notice i said the word "passenger." that was not in the previous language. that basket and late one night just before passage, which basically carved out the cargo operations. let me ask you a question. isn't the boeing 767 full of fuel and boxes just as lethal weapon as a boeing 767 full of passengers? there was a three month deadline, but the tsa took five months. in all the meetings we had with it to see a ministration helping to design this program, they complained. in fact, the newt minister of tsa complaint and one of our

meeting saying, we have such a short notice, just three months but i said, actually, you have had 15 months. you decided not to create this program. they also refused to accept a database we handed to them with 10,000 volunteer pilots on a cd that could have got them started contacting pilots and putting them into the program right away. they refused to accept it. they refused to accept a program outline we divided or developed in concert with the fbi. some agents of the fbi had designed a cockpit protection program. they did not want to have anything to do with that. we also started a professional standards program within the

group of pilots that would eventually be armed. they ignored that. there were also hostile to the design of the program itself and designed to discourage participation. they created excess of background checks that were redundant to the background checks that we already had just become an airline pilot. with regard to security, financial, and criminal background checks. their initial weapon choice was inadequate. we called it the barney fife pistol. it was a six-shot revolver. we produced a video that showed them it was inadequate to the job. we had in enactment of terrorist actors attack the cockpit. we were not able to handle it with the six-shot revolver or the tasers they asked us to use. we ended up with a more appropriate weapon. also the carriage procedures the design were a logical and -- illogical and unsafe.

it required us to transport the weapon, except when the cockpit when we could carry it. the differences tearing it or in some other method, like a bag. no other law enforcement agency carries or transports the weapons in that fashion. the ministration has continued institutional hostility toward the program continues to this day, as we can see with the administration costs budget submission for 2013. they want to kill the program by cutting the funding in half. when the funding should be increased so we can get more pilots into the program. we knew we would have to spend the rest of our careers to protect this program. i have in return for seven -- sevenetired for years, and here i am again. i will turn it over now to capt. tracy price to talk about the current program. >> thank you. i will be brief. i will make three main points. i want everyone to understand

farming pilots is not a new idea. it has been going on for a long time. army pilots is safe. -- arming pilots is safe. armed pilots were arming them is an effective method of securing an airliner. it is irresponsible for the obama administration to propose to strangle this program did that. armed pilots, pilots have been arms from the dawn of commercial aviation to present day with a brief interlude from 1987 to shortly after september 11. it was during the brief interlude, that experimental time when we saw the september 11 attacks. understand that pilots were armed from the dawn of commercial aviation through 1987. there was no regulation. there was no training requirements. there was no incident.

there is no record of incident or problem associated with pilots carrying guns for that long time. for a series of silly reasons, pilots were disarmed in 1987. we saw the results of that on september 11, the inevitable result of having an undefended cockpit. then we rearmed pilots in 2003. the program has been extremely safe. the armed pilot program or the federal flight deck officer program has proven to be extremely safe. it is the third largest law enforcement agency in the country. many, many, many armed pilots, the actual number is classified, but it is huge. the safety record rivals or is better than any other law enforcement agency in the country. there were all kinds of predictions when pilots were rearmed after 9/11. predictions of a terrible host

of consequences. pilots would get mad and to each other. -- and shoot each other. were pilots were on have accidental shootings. there were going to be all kinds of issues associated with -- none of that has happened. the program has proved to be extremely safe. not surprisingly, airline pilots are stable, responsible people we trust with our lives every time i get it on an airplane. we can certainly trust them with a handgun. the armed, program is in back as been discussed, the first line of deterrence in the last line of defense. if you're a terrorist group, the best in history for you was september 11, 2001. the most successful attack in history of any terrorist group. they would love to repeat the

performance. the fact there are armed pilots, large numbers come in cockpits that an unknown -- nobody is exactly sure where they are -- provides an incredible deterrent and effective deterrent that has caused terrorist groups to look to other ways to attack us. that is pretty armed pilot -- proof the armed pilot program is doing its primary function of deterring future attacks. that is our main goal. we want to create, raise the bar of difficulty to the point where tourists say, you know what? -- terrorsts say, you know what? we're not going to be a tuesday's airliners as weapons -- able to use airliners as weapons any more and we're going

to look to other ways. and they have. we have plug the hole of the armed pilot program cockpit takeovers in the airplane becoming a missile. the last thing i want to point out is there's a lot of discussion and secretary napolitano has irresponsibly suggested that we can rely on the cockpit door, this new reinforced cockpit door that we have, we can take away the pilots' arms because we have this new cockpit door. there is no such thing as an impenetrable door. the new cockpit door we have is better than the old one. i will tell you the old one was sent -- that was in place when the first pilots were rearmed after september 11. we got the new door almost immediately. few were willing to bet the lives of hundreds of people on an airliner or thousands of people on the ground on that door not been breached.

that is an irresponsible thing to suggest, that we will but the lives of thousands of people on a door holding up. in fact, the door, by necessity, it is open in flight. it has to be food and beverage service, a bathroom breaks, and operational reasons why pilots have to open the door in flight. it is a terrible, irresponsible assumption to make the weaken just rely on the cockpit door and everything will be fine. that is a terrible, dangerous game to play with the lives of americans on board airplanes, airliners, and on the ground. we have tried this army pilots -- disarming pilots with disastrous results. that is the new kind of idea that we experimented with irresponsibly from 1987 to shortly after 9/11. we saw the results of that. when terrorists break into a cockpit and find the pilots defenseless, there is no hope

for the passengers on board the airplane. the armed pilot is the last resort, a final one of the sense that will save those people on board that airplane, possibly thousands on the ground. the u.s. military stands ready every day to destroy commercial airliner filled with innocent passengers because the cockpit has been commandeered. it is irresponsible, the height of irresponsibility to not give those people on board that airplane, the last resort, final line of defense of an armed pilot in the cockpit. >> mike, i am sorry. >> i want to touch on a few items in summary. also, point out a couple of things as we have walked along. there's a lot of assumptions with security to assume we are catching everything that is

coming through through passenger screening, cargo screening, perimeter screening is simply a fallacy. daley, i get reports of different weapons found on aircraft from not only the member airlines cappa, but my brother and sisters at the air line pilots association as well, constantly the system is porous. things are getting through. we need a back up. when we assume the cockpit door will be the final line of defense and we take away the capability of the pilots to defend a prevent that airliner from being a mass of weapons, we're not doing that. we are more vigilant than we have been in the past, but we're not infallible. to listen to take weapons away from the pilot is to assume in this case we've got everything up to the cockpit door and they're not doing it. we have had at least one recent

incident where an off-duty ffdo, in speaking vaguely on purpose, was able to stop an individual from attempting to breach the cockpit door. our federal flight deck officer had the presence of mind to intercede in the situation and subdue the individual. for the cost of $15 a flight, we have an extra layer of security, an extra layer of security to protect us. nobody had caught this in screening, nobody was aware of this person was going to attempt to do that. yet now we're talking about taking the weapons away from pilots and assuming we have caught everything. we already have evidence to the contrary. we have evidence in the last few years that terrorists have

considered the fact pilots were armed. there have been several reports as terrorists consider ways of assaulting the united states they also consider that pilots are armed. that is a deterrent to them. there are facts that can be proven that cannot be revealed here. based on the obama administration to look at this program and cut it in half is simply irresponsible. to assume security is not porous is irresponsible. this program is effective. a couple of things that have not been mentioned, it has been noted pilots would be able to participate in this program at no cost. we have figured on average a pilot spends over $10,000 of their own money to participate in the program. that is over six years. if you compare that $10,000 of their own money, to take time away from home, to drop a trip they are not paid for, to pay for their travel, pay for training, to pay to go to the reclassification, to pay for

their own ammunition -- all of these things are carried by the pilot. when you take that $10,000 and multiply it times the number of pilots, it is over $400 million. you compare that to the $22 million the federal government spends for the program, the pilots are paying over $400 million to participate in the program. as of this year, they ran out of money to bring any more pilots into the program. there are over 700 pilots would in to participate, to spend $10,000 of their own money to be the last line of defense. they say, we don't need you right now. in fact, we will cut the budget back. there are several requirements for federal flight deck officers to participate. they have to requalify with every six months, go to recurrent training for two days. this would reduce the number of

facilities, increase the cost of the federal flight deck officers, limit the number of federal flight deck officers simply by cutting its budget. consider what i said, $10,000 per pilot is what they spent over six years. if your to do a bar graph and look at it, the amount of money being spent by the pilots to participate enormous. the amount the federal government is spending is incredibly small compared to that. so why wouldn't you take these people? why would you not want these pilots armed? the congressman made a comparison from a federal air marshal and the ffdo. those were numbers we receive from tsa a while ago. as an aviator and airline pilot, i love when the fire marshals are on board. but it also want to see our

pilots armed. for the price of an air marshal, 3000 river dollars per flight, the present to the air marshal's in the form of an aircraft, you can fill up all of business and coach with federal flight deck officers on a 777. the amount of flights covered would be enormous. the two forces combined, federal air marshals and federal flight deck officers, last line of defense. the missing, we believe the door is sufficient. they're turning those folks away. we think that is a travesty. that puts us in jeopardy, but the flying public in jeopardy. we think is that only a misunderstanding of security and aviation, and from the comments i've heard indicate [unintelligible]

we are more vigilant than we have been in the past, but not infallible. this current budget proves his in ministration this not support this program and we have to go to the legislators for that support. we're asking for the support in this. the federal flight deck officer program is the most cost- effective program to counter terrorism we have at $15 a flight. it represents the third largest group in the nation and a group of people willing to spend incredible amounts of their own money to protect the public, protector airlines, and to protect themselves. so any changes to this, any changes to this program right now would be done at the expense of all of us. >> thank you. questions from the floor, again, raise your hand to be recognized and state your affiliation and your name. >> brian darling, heritage foundation.

when you look back at the history of the creation of the program, this is not a partisan issue at all. the leadership of barbara boxer of california and many democrats in the house has stepped up in support of this. it shows it has bipartisan support. as you mentioned, the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the house and senate creating the bill was part of what brought it into being. my question to you, maybe if you give as a history of the meetings to have had and the fact congress overwhelmingly supported this on the record on numerous occasions, yet for whatever reason, this administration wants to in the program? >> it was favored by almost everyone in congress. of course, it was early after 9/11, and we all have emotions. we all knew what had happened. it was relatively easy to convince -- but we did not make this a gun rights issue, because that is not what it is.

it is a national security issue. we had great support from folks who you think would actually otherwise be against it. it was both in the house and senate. there were a few holdouts. i think our argument was convincing. we had solid support. >> if i might add, life isn't a partisan issue. people all want to see preserved in terms of how we deal with terrorism. so we have seen a lot of support on both sides of the aisle. that is why this is such a disconnect. the context for which we're approaching several members of the homeland security, we have bipartisan conversations with counsel from both sides we were looking at, getting additional funding just for the additional pilots in the pipeline right now, over 700.

they were in agreement and we were working toward that. that is why the budget was such a surprise because it was a complete disconnect from what we had been seen on both sides. >> thank you. i wonder if you could enumerate the success of the program in terms of numbers of incidents as potential attacks you have thwarted? the countries that have ffdo? >> is that directed at me? >> anybody. >> as far as armed pilots and other countries, no, there are no other countries aren't in that case. we are unique in that case. for instance, there are numerous. some we have to be careful talking about because of sensitive security information.

in general, i talked where the ffdo was able to thwart an incident did with the shoe bomber, and underwear bomber, and both of those cases were people in the middle of the aircraft over the wing that stopped or saw those things. while i cannot point to specific incidents is other than the general when i talked about, i can assure you they are out there, that they have happened, and they're stopping things. it is effected. -- effective. i hope that helps. >> if i can take a shot at that, i am aware in my airline specifically of a couple of cases where a federal flight deck officer was instrumental in containing a threat to the cockpit. that is really about as far as i can go with that, but i think

the idea that we of not have any cockpit breaches since we started the ffdo program, so let's get rid of it, the threat is gone, we tried that. we did it from 1987 to shortly after 9/11. we had a really bad cockpit reached, four of them. we lost 3000 americans. we learn that day this is a horrible, horrible experiments of disarming the cockpit of commercial airliners that have been armed from the dawn of commercial aviation until this day with that one brief time -- i do not think it is wise, i do not think it makes any sense to go back to that failed experiment. >> i think once this has happened, you know under have individuals that will come to aircraft in flight to cuba and have extended negotiations

period for the aircraft will be returned to the states. the paradigm is gone. the one we live and now is the aircraft will be used as a weapon of mass destruction, therefore, we have to assume any assault on the carpet is to take -- cockpit is to take over these to her even a greater number of people. >> before the question, could i add an extra comment with regard to the numbers? coming from the inception of the program, we ran a survey through the winston group who survey the american people income up 85% of those surveyed said they thought their airline pilots should be armed. we ran two other surveys and they said they thought pilots should be armed. at the time of 9/11, we flew over 30,000 flights per day and had over a little over 100,000 commercial airline pilots.

if you take the 80% number, we expect 80,000 pilots thought pilots should be armed something north of 50,000 or 60,000 polish republic actually volunteer to be armed. now, we do not have that many. we have a significant number, but not enough. >> i am from senator barbara boxer's office. my question, you mention the air carriers expressed early opposition and concern. could you speak to their current position and whether not that is changed? >> i will have to defer that to my colleagues who are still flying actively. but i will tell you at the time, one of their major concerns -- think about it. if you own an airline wanted people to come fly with you, would you display the attitude

of we have a problem and addressing it or would you say we did not have a problem? to draw more people to come fly with you? that was basically the synopsis of their concerns in the ata letter. there are other concerns, where are we going to store their weapons. they did not want to deal with them. >> if i might add to that, and they did to my senator barbara boxer in california as being a supporter of this program. the change in the opinions of the airlines toward the federal flight deck officer program, the former ceo at american airlines had an article that mentioned it in american way magazine that is put in the seat backs, touting the success of

the program. there have also been times when under certain security situations, it has been rumored, and i'm sure other folks from other airlines could probably repeat this, but some management said that i wish we had an ffdo that flight. so the view has changed to the positive if. of the greatest compliment to the program is when we go out and talk about it, if i hear a lot of people say i did not know pilots were armed. they have forgotten about it because they are quiet professionals doing their jobs, performing their duty. they are there as a last line of defense if it needs to be activated. thank you. >> i'm with cnn, todd sperry. one led up to the removal of gun

s? i just want to understand better from your perspective. >> airline pilots from the dawn of commercial aviation through 1987, through the mid 60's the air line pilots were required to carry firearms off whenever they had u.s. mail on board, which is a large number of flights. it was an actual requirement that existed in place for airline pilots to carry guns. in late 1986, there was a cockpit takeover that people don't know and don't remember, where a guy broken to the cockpit, pacific southwest airlines that had about 100 people on its he had a gun, the pilots and killed them and crashed the airplane and everyone died. if so we had a situation where there was an unarmed cockpit and the result was a loss of an

airplane and all the passengers. the faa response to that -- and by the way, that guy was not a pilot. this was not a problem with a pilot at all. the pilots were trying to live. . fia response to that was true then require pilots to begin going through screening. the pilots were then effectively disarmed. prior to that, pilots often carried handguns in their flight backs. some estimates, up to 60% of pilots depending on the airline carried handguns. as of 1987 if there were no more armed pilots. it is really inexplicable why the faa chose that course of action. rational course of action, after that murder, it would've been

to say, wait a minute, if only those guys had had guns in their flight bags, it might have saved these people, we need to get more armed pilots and figure a way to encourage more armed pilots. faa response was completely irresponsible and backboards and i'm not sure if if anybody can explain why they took the course of action they did. pilots predicted at that time that there would be attempted cockpit takeovers, but there would be more and more. the captain named victor predicted to his wife, he said, and it, mark my words, there will be attempted if cockpit takeovers as a result of this. he died on september 11, 2001 when his boeing 767 was blown -- flown into the south tower of the world trade center. the other important elements of this thing to mention is that up through august of 2001, the

regulation in the federal aviation regulation under which we all operate, the regulation existed that allow pilots to be armed. there was a provision that would allow an airline, if they chose to, to go through a process to arm their pilots. i think, frankly, it was kind of an anti-gun sentiment that existed that is irrational as well, in my view. but that regulation kind of disappeared in a horrible coincidence, it disappeared in august. not that it was being used, but at least it existed. then in september 11, 2001 we had the attacks and surely thereafter we armed the pilots against. -- again.

>> may i make a comment? i work with the gentlemen at the allied pilots association. culturally arming pilots and oftentimes a population or even police officers is against the thinking in many other cultures. it is also not their population that is attack. -- was attacked. if you go back to what happened in london with the bombers, that was not an attack on the u.k., that was an attack on a number of u.s. and canadian- based carrier's. the whole thinking has changed as to why the u.s. arms their crew members. the other thing is, if you take a look away pilots are trained,

they are trained in layers of safety, layers of security. it has been happening that way because it is a learning experience to prevent accidents, to mitigate the negative experiences. and what you have done is you have added another layer of security into this equation it is hard to prove a negative. we would not take out a layer of safety training that you done with the pilots. by doing what they are doing here is the support to take that away. >> one of things to point out, mark, is when we talk about these incidents, remember we have to be right every single time. the terrorists have to be right only once. >> i ask a question for my own purposes. from 2003 through january 2007 i was aviation policy adviser for the house, and security

commission and i worked with several of you in that capacity. my question was rational in terms of trying to get a grasp of the value added of this program and how you have advanced over the years. it is a perfectly rational question and it's from my own knowledge. >> i agree. >> did we help you answer the question? >> let me ask a question. i was looking at some tsa data. last month they confiscated 200 guns. help me understand, what do i make of that and how does that fit in with the discussion we have had here today? >> >> when you look at the vast majority of those confiscations, probably, and i get the reports on those, somebody inadvertently leaves it in their bag, i don't know the

difference between accidentally doing that or actually testing the system, that could be other question, but the fact those are caught does not mean things are not getting through. that is just what is being caught. we have issues of an airline industry also with the dea examining how many drugs are being brought on board aircraft. if something can be smuggled on an aircraft, just fill in the blank of what you want that to be. it could be narcotics, a firearm, and edged weapon. we are more vigilant. we are not infallible. a lot of the cases, there are large number of them that have a concealed carry and forget to take theirs off before they come to the airport. we have all seen there are people out there testing the system. there are people always actively testing the system. to think that we have a static

defense that cannot be penetrated. >> you could interpret the data as if they are confiscating 200 guns, there is potential is something to worry about, because people are still trying to get guns on planes? >> absolutely. >> the other argument that is important to remember is we are trying -- a theory under which we are operating is that we are going to make the cabin of a commercial airliner a completely weapon-free zone. nothinggoing to be there that one person could use to harm another person. we try to do the same thing in completely locked down federal penitentiaries and the control extremely carefully who gets in and out and who gets a strip search. every time we do a shakedown on the federal penitentiary, we

find all types of weapons. it is unrealistic to think that we can never produce a security system ever that will make a public venue like airline travel weapon-free. it is an unrealistic thing to do. in fact, the record of failure or success, however you want to look at it, the tsa security screening has amassed is virtually identical. it is an incredibly difficult thing we can do to find anything that the third person and make sure it never finds its way onto an airliner. we will never get there. >> this might sound counterintuitive, but the most successful security system is one that assumes failure with multiple layers. you have to assume that certain lawyers will fail.

-- layers will fail. you might fail on the background checks or at the screening of the passenger or at the cargo. having all those multiple layers in their means somewhere along the line you will catch it. that's why on aircraft, we have hydraulic systems, redundant systems, there is redundant electrical systems and fuel. things that back up. because when you are up there, you cannot open the window and asked for help. what you have is what you have. i think the best security systems assume a level of failure of and have backups in there in an attempt to catch them. it's a lesson we've learned over a lifetime of aviation and try to make aircraft safer. >> i will ask our panel for your last thoughts. let me go around once again and see if there are any last comments or questions. is one in the back and then one in the front. >> one more question. the facility in new mexico has been mentioned several times as far as training goes.

is that the only training facility, if not, how many training facilities are there across the country? >> that's a primary facility for initial training. there's also two other recurrent facilities with a three-five-year re-deposition process. the reduction in the deficit will possibly bring that down to just two facilities. the problem we have their is the pilots that are being armed are from hawaii towards the east, people from all over. these pilots are doing this on their own money. they are traveling to these destinations. it is becoming more and more difficult to get to these destinations, to pay for their participation. countered that to the administration budget -- we don't want all these people that want to pay a thousand dollars to participate in the program. so have the issue of shrinking the facilities and the desire

not to accept these people that want to spend our own money to participate. >> i'm from the heritage foundation. why is it only the federal government owes a responsibility to provide on-site security? why can we not create a partnership with the airline industry itself to provide its own security? >> if it's all right i will address that. conservative, limited government folks would like to see private property protected by the owner of that property. and that is fine. probably personally i tend to think that way myself. however, in the realm of what is realistic and in the realm of what can in fact be done and in the realm of what will bring -- there are all different kinds

of people who think in all different kinds of ways to get this accomplished, but that will not happen. there's one way for pilots to carry a firearm to protect his passengers, is cruel, and the people on the ground. that is, if he goes through, gets a background check, gets a psychological evaluation, but tens training at a federal law enforcement training center, becomes deputized. then and only then can that pilots carry a firearm and protect those passengers and crew. that's the only way that will happen. if we do away with the ffdo program in hopes of a panacea that some may think is the best way to go about doing it, there will be no more arms pilots. >> also to the point is when you are crossing multiple state lines, operating out of several different cities, it requires federal jurisdiction. we have seen something similar

to this with safety. airline margins depend on how the airline operates and uses its airline, but as one airline to do something and another one they will say it is costing too much over here, so any to cut back over the apparent we have seen that with traffic collision avoidance systems having to be mandated and ground proximity systems having to be mandated. with the federal government you have standardization and you have jurisdictional issues that are solved by having the federal government operates these. >> one more and then to our panel. >> is there any way for the airline industry to have to pay for this instead of the taxpayers, providing security for the airline industry? >> taxpayers will pay for it one way or another. ultimately, what the taxpayers are paying for is the security of this nation.

a legitimate function --i think everyone would agree -- a legitimate function of the federal government is to defend the nation from attack. we were attacked on 9/11. the weapon of choice was a commercial airliner. it is the federal government;s responsibility to protect us and keep us safe from attack. that is the reason we created the federal government in 1787. with the primary impetus for doing that was to protect the nation. i discussed it is a legitimate responsibility of the federal government to make sure airplanes are not used as weapons against our country again. make sure cockpits are protected. >> based on the current federal budget for the program and the amount of money each pilot is paid to participate in the

program, i would suggest to you, as i have done on the hill, that pilots should get paid and way over what -- -- that the pilots are spending much more than the federal government is spending on its. >> i will go down the panel and see if there are any last thoughts or comments before we close. >> i will remind you that this has been an uphill battle for 10 years, a little over 10 years. it was an uphill battle to get the program initiated. there was great resistance to that. there's been great resistance during this last 10 years, in the procedures that have been outlined by the tsa that has discouraged pilot participation. we would like to see the funding retained, if not increased, to attract more. the program to achieve the

deterrence that we had intended for in the beginning. >> i think the greatest compliment to this program is when somebody says they did not know the pilots were armed. they are quiet professionals. the fact that they are spending a lot of their own money to participate in the program tells you that they are concerned with not only their own safety but the safety of the passengers behind them. i always get asked while i'm in the cockpit of going to get their ok? well, if i get there ok, you will be ok right behind me. this program is the most cost- effective to turn to terrorism out there. the program has the potential to expand incredibly and still be very cheap. it's very cost-effective. it's a very incredible program. considering that our security

systems are porous and to assume we can start dismantling the security systems is a big problem, saying we don't need this and that. it puts us in harm's way. >> i will summarize my thoughts by saying that airline travel is something that virtually nearly every american enjoys at some point in his life. lots of americans travel all the time. i see the same faces often on my flights. they are putting their trust in me, the pilots, the people in the cockpit. once we are airborne, that's all they have got. it is us and what we have on board, the redundant safety systems we have.

it is irrational to say that we trust these pilots with our lives but we are unwilling or reluctant -- as the obama administration has suggested -- we will try to limit their ability to defend that cockpit with a firearm. it is proven to be safe and effective. i don't know how many federal government programs can make that claim. >> let me sum this up with one observation. i work on all the homeland security issues from what's going on in the air to what's going on in local communities. what is disturbing about this issue if it is i see this as a larger pattern of behavior on the part of the federal government. this is not the only area where we have seen this happen. if in immigration enforcement, where states have wanted a partner with the federal government, in this program, helping the the federal government do its job, 287 g, deputize state and local law-

enforcement and the use of some federal party they do things in their interests. that program has been largely killed off by the administration. there's a provision in the law that established the tsa which allows airports to opt out of federal screeners. there's a half-dozen or so airports that were initially set up as pilots to do that and they run their own security. it is every bit as effective as the tsa screeners. the administration has put obstacles in a way of expanding that program. if we are going to build a process where the federal government is going to do everything to protect us, what is going to happen is we are going to wind up being less safe and less free and it will one the costing us a lot more money. we as a nation, the people that live here, have a part to play in protecting ourselves.

it is in finding that balance that advances our freedoms, preserves how we keep our economy free and open, and allows for the common defense. that is important. i think there are two really key factors here. i call them rights and responsibilities. there's good nest in having the people that are responsible for themselves take ownership of that responsibility. hurricane katrina, for example, the most effective responders in katrina were the victims. there were people in that community that cared about their community who did more and were more effective in organizing response than anyone else outside. it was the people at the local wal-mart that opened their doors and said we will help our fellow citizens.

in many ways they were much more effective than anything fema did. when you look at surveys, people said the most effective help was some non-governmental organizations. 80% of the people said that. if you bring the commitment and knowledge when you take ownership that someone else cannot. in this case, the pilot that lies that plane crash and that the airline, they care about that airline, they care about that pilots and they will give it a degree of commitment that nobody else really kampf, -- really can, because they have a sense of ownership. exercising that sense of ownership is a very important part of being a free and open society.

going with that, there's an element of responsibility. when you've own destruction or do things in the public space and are performing a public good, if there is a sense that you have an obligation to defend your own home, but you are also defending other people and impact in the lives of other people. so you have a responsibility to exercise the right to defend yourself with a degree of due diligence and professionalism. and what you you see in the federal flight deck officer program is a quintessential example, of doing that exactly right. have people taking ownership of their own responsibility and and you have a program which insures you have a level of professionalism and that they are going to exercise that right responsibly. and if we cannot do something like this in our own defense, then i am not sure what we can do. the simple fact is, when you are at 10,000 feet and all alone in the cockpit, see something, say something does not covet.

-- not cut it. thanks for coming today. the archives are programs at heritage.org. we have a paper the lobby. it is also on our website that you can find and share with others. thanks for our panelists and thanks for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> >>, a house hearing on

operatives in the u.s. then " announces his choice for world bank president. -- president obama announces his choice for the world bank president. and senator mitch mcconnell. >> on monday, the supreme court starts three days of hearings on the obamacare and law. hear it for yourself as the court releases' audio each day with coverage on c-span 3 and c- span radio. listen and add your comments. our coverage starts on monday morning with "washington journal," and then the oral argument on c-span 3. >> peter king says there has all along operatives' capable of launching an attack -- hezbollah operatives capable of launching

an attack. the committee also heard from former fbi and treasury department officials. this is two hours and 15 minutes. >> good morning. the committee on homeland security will come to order. the committee is meeting this morning to examine the threat to by iran and the foreign terrorist organization hezbollah. we wish her mind the audience -- audience today the chair wishes to thank our guests at and cooperation of maintaining order. and i recognize myself for an opening statement. since 9/11, america's counterterror officials have

focused on finding al qaeda operatives inside america, as well as homegrown islamic extremist, ready to perpetrate violence against our people. as iran moves closer to nuclear weapons, and there is increasing and concern over war between iran and israel, we must also focus on iran's secret operatives and the number one terrorist proxy force, america. hezbollah, which we know is in that is right. we know that hezbollah operatives are here. the question is whether these has blood operatives have the -- hezbollah operatives have the capacity to carry out attacks on the homeland, and how quickly they can become fully operational. more than 20 several -- federal investigation since 9/11, identified by the investigative staff offer a chilling view of iranian and has blood operations inside the united states. just this week, in new york city, another trial has begun of a building superintendent

who was charged with attempting to provide weapons and support and supplies to hezbollah. we stand with our major ally, israel did it puts us in the middle of the extremist regime with iran as it moves dangerously closer to making a nuclear bomb. iran has responded with its trademark terrorist brutality overseas. we have seen this before in reagan 1983, and renault series in 1992 and 1994. -- buenas aires in 1992 and 1994. and if iran had its way, washington dc also would have witnessed terrible carnage in the smoky rooms of a popular local restaurant only a few months ago. many terrorism insiders were stunned last october by the

brazen plot by intelligence services to assassinate the ambassador and bombing are washington's capital. i commend the dea for supporting this attack on the capital in -- for thwarting this attack on the captiol in light of last year's farm and last in light of the hezbollah cases prosecuted since 9/11, in light of hezbollah attacks overseas, we have a duty to prepare for the worst. today's investigative hearing is the beginning of this committee's effort to size up the serious threat by one of international terrorism's most violent murder gangs. how many iranian and hezbollah terrorist are here already? the highly disciplined soldiers of hezbollah are trained to lie low for years or decades. those who have gone up against this enemy for our government

estimates the number to be a minimum in the hundreds. also, there are 55 iranian diplomats at the un mission in new york and another 29 iranian officials here in dc, according many of whom who must be officers. presumed, our intelligence their comrades -- of these un mission types were removed from the un mission and sent back to iran after the nypd cop and -- caught them photographing the city's rail systems since 9/11. additionally, as the nypd will point out today, there have been five other events, including and involving the iranian diplomatic personnel, which almost certainly constituted hezbollah reconnaissance operations against new york. many mistakenly assumed that operatives were incapable of a

fund-raising through froglike cigarette smuggling and counterfeiting. officials have told us they are most capable of inflicting its network of fund-raising into a terror force capable of great violence on orders from its leaders in iran or lebanon. in 2009, the obama administration said that it is the most technically capable terrorist group in the world. our witnesses, this is a victory chris, the former fbi agent, will explains that -- specifically chris, the former fbi agent, will explain that there are operative training in weapons and a spy craft.

these were people prosecuted in the united states as operatives years ago. chris will go into that in more detail. some of the cases have had combat experience in lebanon. the numbers are greater than they may seem from looking at the federal docket. other suspected of permit -- ives were deported without their background being disclosed. it has been said that iran is under pressure and it appears to be "more willing to conduct an attack inside the united states in response to real and perceived u.s. actions that threaten the regime." these threats are real. they can be sooner rather than later. as a committee and as a government, which cannot afford

to ignore this threat. i now recognize the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson, for his opening statement. >> thank you for calling this hearing today. as a home and security committee, we are charged with responsibility of ensuring this nation's security. we must ask unpopular questions and see cancers which may make people uncomfortable. the hearing does not pose a question, it makes a statement. iran, the threat to the homeland. i hope that a hearing can provide support for the statement. given that no current federal officials have said and asked to testify, i am concerned about whether that testimony will be based on current information. it is unusual for us to have a

hearing about a perceived involving the security and safety of this country within our shores. before begin to venture into this territory, a word of caution is in order. when we examine our relationship with another country, we cannot look at any particular moment in time and pretend that it tells a whole story. we cannot view the politics and culture of any country by seeing a snapshot version. our nation's relationship with iran cannot be understood by looking at this moment in time. our major break with iran came in 1979 when employees of the embassy were taking captive and held as hostages for 444 days. this presented a direct threat

to the united states. we did not go to war with iran. in 1988, iran operating through hezbollah, kidnapped and murdered a u.s. marine. we did not go to war with iran. in 1996, they supported a terrorist group the bombed towers and attacked and killed 19 u.s. servicemen. we did not go to war with iran.

. .

the criminal element of speeding did not occur to them here. they assumed it must have been profiling. i do not think there is a non- traditional profile. law-enforcement is aware. i cite the fbi that we do now that hezbollah is interested in seeking out people who may not fit what they believe we would see as a traditional profile. meaning someone from lebanon,

someone from certain places in london a non. some of the towns and villages in the south. not everybody from these places is in hezbollah. there are and certain things they might think we are looking. the fbi has noted there are hezbollah operatives that are in rocky or otherwise. that is something we should be aware of. >> it is a possible they would solicit persons who are of american ancestry? >> we have not seen that as much as we have seen sunnis recruiting people who converted. there is a small number of that type of thing. my concern is their ability to leverage criminal networks of

the types that we have discussed. these are non-muslim and they are not hezbollah. by virtue of working together, they can do things on behalf of the group. we know that hezbollah leverage is criminal associations here, in europe, for operational purposes. in part to get around the restrictions. >> when we talk about the networks, are they likely to be persons who are from the country? >> not the criminal networks. not necessarily. in the charlotte case, almost all the individuals were from lebanon with the exception of some of the people they married. some real and many sham marriages. >> are you getting close that we should not worry about persons

born in this country becoming a part of any of these criminal activities? >> nodded off. anybody is liable to get involved. that is what makes these relationships so powerful. >> is there reason to make sure our vision is broad and we do not exclude persons simply because they happen to be from a given place? >> exactly. >> would you say a word? >> we have to have sat 360 degree vision and not be locked into a certain paradigm. it is logical, and this group acted logically in having a white american female driving the cigarette boats up to detroit. -- loads up to detroit. they thought they were being profile. they got notice when they were buying the cigarettes.

they began to send other people who were not nearly as noticeable to buy the cigarettes. the short answer is we have to have full vision. we cannot get locked into when paradigm. i do not think we are. i think there is a realization that we cannot, interested does not work a dark mustache and arket certain way -- wear dark mustache and look a certain way. >> it is not one word of testimony or no question from either side which disputed the fact that there are hundreds of hezbollah operatives in this country. they are capable of being turned operational. it is a question of when and

where and when the decision is made. i want to make the record clear. we heard prior from law enforcement and what was brought out in questioning from both sides. i believe that hezbollah is a threat to the country. it is a growing threat and it has gone from terrorist financing to be incapable of fully operational activities against the country. i want to thank the witnesses and mention that they may have additional questions and we would ask you to respond to them and writing. the record would be held open for 10 days. without objection, we are adjourned. >> president obama announces his choice for bank president. in remarks on the second anniversary of the signing of the health care law by mitch

mcconnell of kentucky and mitt romney. starting april 1, see the winners in this year's video documentary competition. the constitution and you. students from across the country showed which part of the constitution was important to them. we will air the top 27 videos on c-span and meat to the students who greeted them during "washington journal" each day. congratulations to everyone who participated in the competition. president obama has nominated kim to head the world bank. following the announcement, he was asked about the treyvon martin case. this is about 10 minutes.

>> announced he would be stepping down. he has been a strong and effective leader and when he told me about his plans, i began to search for someone to fill his shoes. his shoes. the world bank is more than just a bank. it is a tool we have to lower poverty. in a world that is growing smaller and more connected in every day, that is a critical mission, not just for those struggling but for all bus. -- all of us. when we reduce hundred a world or helping farmers recover from a flood or drought, it strengthens the entire world economy. when we put an end to preventable disease, all of us

are safer because of it. when entrepreneurs can start a business that creates jobs in their country but also opens up new markets for our country. all tamale, when a nation goes from poverty to prosperity, it makes apparel stronger and more secure for everybody. that is why the world bank is so important and that's why the leader of the world bank should have a deep understanding of the role the development plays in the world and the importance of creating conditions if where assistance is no longer needed. i believe that nobody is more qualified to carry out that mission then dr. jim kim. it's time for development professionals to lead the world's largest development agency. that's why today after a careful and thorough search i am nominating dr. jim kim to be the next president of the world bank. he has spent more than two decades working to improve

conditions in developing countries around the world. as a physician and an anthropologist he co-founded partners in health and led a world health organization ledto treats 3 million patients with hiv/aids. is made hiv, the fight against the dreaded disease and promotion of public health a cornerstone of my development agenda, building on some of the outstanding work that was done by president bush. if we pursue these efforts around the globe because it's the right thing to do and because of healthy populations enable growth and prosperity. i am pleased that jim brings this particular experience with him his new job. he was at harvard medical school and has earned a macarthur genius fellowships and. for the last three years he has served as the president of dartmouth college. after immigrating to this country from korea at age 5, he went on to become president of its high school class, quarterback of the football team, point guard of the basketball team. and he's a five handicap in golf, i just found out.

i am a little resentful about that last item, but he doesji it -- does it all. hem has truly global experience. he has worked from asia to africa to the americas, from capitol small villages. his personal story exemplifies the great diversity of our country and the fact anyone to make it as far as he has as long as they're willing to work hard and look out for others. his experience makes him ideally suited to forge partnerships all around the world. i could not be more pleased to nominate jim for this job. i think i can speak for secretary clinton and secretary -- secretary geithner brightener if when i say that we are looking forward to working with him. i also want to take a minute to thank bob zelnick once again for all. -- zoelleck once again for his hard work. his hard all for the last five years he's made the bank more transparent, help to shore up progress made in places like afghanistan, he has raised billions of dollars to help some of the world's poorest communities. jim is the right person to carry on that legacy and i know

his unique set of skills and years of experience will serve him well. if i am grateful to him for his willingness to serve. i don't think the world bank could have a better leader. thank you. >> thank you. >> you are going to do great. all right. >> there's allegations of lingering racism in our society. the stand your ground law in florida. can you comment on the trayvon martin case? >> i am the head of the executive branch and the attorney general reports to me, so i have to be careful about my statements, to make sure that we are not impairing an investigation that is taking place right now. but, obviously, this is a tragedy. i can only imagine what these

parents are going through. when i think about this boy, i think about my own kids. i think every parent in america should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulled together, federal, state, and local, if to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened. so, i am glad that not only is the justice the problem is looking into it, i understand now that the governor of the state of florida has formed a task force to investigate what is taking place. i think all of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how did something like this happen. that means that we examined the laws, the context for what happened as well as the

specifics of the incidents. my main message is to the parents of trayvon martin. parents of trayvon martin. if i had a son, he would look like trayvon. i think they are right to expect that all of us as americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and that we will get to the bottom of exactly what happened.

>> dr. kim as a korean born physician. we covered his appearance in 2005 when he outlined a report on the global aids epidemic. in this portion, he talked about the role of churches in combating hiv/aids. >> you can trace their participation in a number of voice. i credit them bringing to the attention of president bush and others the problem of hiv deaths in poor countries. they are the ones who pushed the republican politicians to move forward on this program. they have played an extremely important role on bringing attention of the number of

deaths from the epidemic. they were losing their missionaries and i commend them on that. in terms on -- of the roles of conservative organizations like prevention, what we know is that we will never really know for sure exactly what particular intervention led to a particular change in behavior. what we recommend is that the full range of prevention must be applied. this is abstinence for children, behavior change when it is relevant, and of course condom use. we know that condoms prevent the spread of hiv. anytime you take one or the other out of it for ideological or political reasons, you are putting a country at risk. this is our position. are there particular groups you

want to focus more on one than the other? yes, there is no question. there are groups who would like to see abstinence-only. we say you can do that but you are pulling three legs out from underneath the chair. >> you can see the entire event at c-span.org. the selection of the president will be made next month. united states has the largest economy and has the largest percentage of the votes. doctor kim is expected to travel around the world to rally support for his nomination. mitch mcconnell says the affordable care act was "the biggest mistake in recent history." now he speaks with reporters about the second anniversary of a health care law. then the supreme court will

hear a challenge -- challenges about the constitutionality of the legislation. this is about 25 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> >> i think kentucky is going to win it. with a coach of the year, not a single one of his starters made the first, second, or third team. not one of them. not a bad showing so far with not a whole lot of talent.

[laughter] we have to talk about something else. >> baseball? thatm a little surprised there wasn't a birthday cake at the white house to celebrate the second anniversary of obamacare. we have all noticed that not a lot is being said about the new law. people that were involved in passing it. i think there is a pretty good reason for that. after two years, it is pretty clear that it is full of broken promises. almost everything that was said about the law, predictions about how it would turn out have not worked out. they said it would protect medicare, obviously, it doesn't. it took $500 billion out of

medicare. it provided costs for new entitlement programs. they said it would bring about you were premiums, we know that that hasn't happened. they said it would lower costs, that hasn't happened. there are $500 billion in new taxes. they said if you don't like your plan, you can keep it. we know that is not working out. i'd think we can pretty safely say that the reason the american people like this lot even less now than they did two years ago is because nothing, essentially, that was promised is occurring or will occur. even in the jobs front, we know the number one issue in the country.

analysts have said that the law is "arguably the biggest impediment to hiring, particularly hiring of less- skilled workers. the cbo director said that it will remain a hundred thousand fewer jobs over the next decade." so as we go to the supreme court arguments, ironically enough, i just finished a biography of chief justice john markham. it is called "definer of a nation." there were a huge number of significant decisions defining what the constitution means. the commerce clause was a big part of the number of those decisions. the supreme court and the nation has been wrestling with what the commerce clause means for 235 years.

if you think about the argument that will be made next week, he will argue essentially this. if the federal government, under the commerce clause, can order individual americans to buy this product and tell each individual american what kind of product they must buy, because that decision, the failure to make a decision could affect the health care of someone else and is therefore interstate commerce. could the federal government order you eat carrots? could it order you to quit smoking? could it order you to lose weight? all of those decisions you could make, could arguably have an affect on the cost of health insurance for someone else.

none of us know what the supreme court will do, but it strikes me that if this is permissible under the commerce clause, it is essentially gone. that the commerce clause as meaningless and a relic of ancient times. those are the arguments that will be made. i think it will be a surprise to a lot of us and i think a lot of you that the court will be looking at the tenth amendment implications of the massive medicaid mandate in obamacare. in my state, for example, as every other state of the union, the current struggle to pay for medicaid at the state level is already causing college tuition to go up. the biggest items in every state budget are medicaid and education. as medicaid goes up, education

funding goes down. they pass it along to universities and they raise tuition. that is already a huge problem. in a state of 4.3 million -- what are the constitutional applications of that? i am not sure. initially, we thought, the tenth amendment granted to the federal government pacific powers and the rest was given to the states. they may conclude that the federal government could make states do so much that they are taking over state budgets. i think that was a surprise to many, the court decided it

wanted to hear arguments related to medicaid as well. this lot is a mass. -- law is a mess. the single worst piece of legislation that has been passed certainly in the time i have been here. look at what is going on in europe. we have a debt the size of our economy which makes us look a lot like greece already. and we are adding this on top of it. obviously, our hope is that the court will find this lot constitutionally deficient. whether or not it does, it was still a huge mistake for our country. if i were setting the agenda, i felt like we would have an obligation for the american people to begin the process of trying to repeal this law.

i will throw it open after this. you'll recall a skirmish in the majority leader and i had over scheduling which is not my responsibility. they said we don't have time. i think we already know that we don't have time to do the xm bank, but we will turn to the effort to raise taxes on energy monday and spent the next week, incredibly enough, having a discussion about what a good idea it would be to raise taxes on energy when gas is at $4 a gallon. i look at that and said that we ought to do something about the price of gas, but it wouldn't have taken very long to clear the xm bank.

a significant number of my members were in favor of it and that injured me that we could probably work that in. >> hhs issued a regulation on friday calling for all new health care plans to cover, without copiague, all fda approved contraception methods, procedures, for all women with reproductive capacities. cost for sterilization procedures, for all women. >> i don't have any comment about that. as a regulation, it cannot last week? we will talk about it in my office. >> experts say that it will send the insurance market -- what can congress do at that point?

[inaudible] >> that is a really interesting question. the way forward after the supreme court's's decision almost has to await the supreme court decision. a lot of it depends on what they do. i think most people look at it if they are as opposed to obama care as i am, they believe the individual mandate is kind of the linchpin of it. [inaudible] discussing hypothetical of what they would do with this or that is probably not productive. as you can imagine, we will probably have to wait to see what the court does. yes? >> on hypothetical, say the mandate is constitutional, what does it mean for republicans that have opposed health-care laws? >> something can be