angry, it might break the deadlock of the perception that asking these questions could get you fired? >> is your point that it would be better the interview had been conducted by the fbi? >> either that or contact the department of defense and say we have a situation here with one of your officers who you have been promoting regular and looks like he is an officer in good standing, but an issue has come up and we will give the ball to you or whenever, but what you hear from people in the dod is that there were all kinds of indicators clear back to medical school that he took these positions and yet nobody said anything and you will hear from people over at walter reed that they said we were for getting him out of here and getting him someplace else because he was

asking all these questions. did you ever consider that your attacking religious people and all this stuff? they would not raise the issue because of fear of their career. i am just trying to get past that taboo that we seem to see in the military. it sure would help if you had a communication as to how could we touch base with you when we have a problem. >> i think under this new procedure, even an assessment guardian lead, which is our tickly for tips that may come in from the -- tip lead for tips that may come in from the general public anywhere else, that is shared with all personnel. >> that is dead. that was my question. that is very dead. -- that is good. that was my question.

that is very good. thank you very much. >> the interview may very well find that the person is totally innocent. so just for -- if the person was going off to the wrong path to do the wrong thing -- the very interview of the fbi may very well put pause in their mind and divert that. would that not be accurate? >> that is correct. >> so i think the more interviews the better. with [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tonight on c-span, a conversation on civility in politics with a look at whether civility is inherent in society or a threat to our democracy. now here is author henry brady talking about civility in congress and in government. >> i think we have to think about structural changes in some of our government institutions,

not necessarily real big ones. right now, i think it is a shame that you can force a filibuster and go home. you do not have to stay in the pit of the senate and complain about the law that you are against and do what you see in the old movies were somebody is filibustering, standing there reading stuff, staying there all night. you can go home and say look, i am not going to be there to vote and therefore we are going to filibuster. we should have the cost imposed on people who want to filibuster. if you want to stop discussion and compromise, then there is the cost imposed and all of us can watch on c-span -- at least some of us can watch on c-span -- and we can watch and see what folks are doing to try to make their case as to why the filibuster is a good idea. i think we would have less filibustering. filibustering has increased by a factor of 10 since the 1960's. >> we are less violent.

there is somebody who counts acts of legislative violence in our history. cts.x >> there is no question there is less violence in the world. there is a lot of data on this and less violence in our society as well. but i think violence is a different thing. we're talking about political stability and the willingness to compromise. you have areas like we have now where polarizing issues come each side has something to worry about. republicans do not want to lose tax breaks that are helpful to them. democrats do not want to loose spending that is helpful to them. you have tremendous polarization over those issues. then of course there are the social issues that i mentioned before. those kind of things cause a failure to be able to be civil

to one another and a failure to have compromised. >> joins us tonight it 8:00 eastern for the complete discussion of civility in politics in society. here on c-span. house majority whip kevin mccarthy talk to political journalists last week about the 112th congress, sequestration and the upcoming 2012 elections around the country. he also mentioned last week's victory by tea party candidate ted cruz and said it is an indication that what happened in the house in 2010 is starting to happen in the senate. >> you'll get a full 50 minutes of rep mccarthy. it is his fourth session with our heart healthy breakfast

club. his last was in march of last year. he hails from california's 22nd district which have some of the richest farmland in the world. he holds an nba from cal state bakersfield. he started a business with some lottery winnings and joined the district office of bill thomas, rising to become district leader. he served on governor schwarzenegger's transition team. in 2006, he ran for the seat representative thomas was vacating and shared the platform committee of the republican national convention. he was named chief deputy whip in 2009 and became whip in 2010. so much for a quick tour of his rapid rise. now on to the rich will recitation of mechanical details. as always, we are on the record. there is no embargo. there is no live blogging or tweeting during the breakfast.

c-span will hold the tape until 10:50 a.m. so that those of you who actually paid are not added disadvantage. we are adjourning at 8:50 a.m. so that representative mccarthy can get back to the hill. we will allow our guest to make opening comments and tn move to questions around the table. thank you for doing this. >> thank you for having me back. i appreciate the opportunity. just to give you a quick overlay, i guess, we have a few days left here until you have the august recess. then one of the biggest challenges we have for the rest of this weekend for going into the rest of the year is really going to be the debate on the economy and the best way to go about doing it. we will talk about stopping the president's tax hike, of one of

the biggest challenges i see out there. in this timeframe, with just last friday growth being lower to 1.5%, republicans have done a good job in this congress of trying to control spending. we are only the third congress since world war ii to cut discretionary spending year over year. mandatory spending continues to grow in the process. we will not get out of this problem by cutting. we have to expand the economy, grow the economy. that means you need overall tax reform. two years ago, the democrats extended the tax cuts. they said they did not want to raise taxes and a down economy. we still have a weak economy, and i think that still holds true. we should extend the tax cuts. an independent study shows that if the president's tax increase goes through, it will pay eight

and a half days and cut more than 700,000 jobs. we should propose extending it for a year and reforming the entire tax code system. make it flatter, fairer, more competitive as a nation. we think that is the right direction to go economically. we think that will continue to be a discussion. a lot of members have been out across the country listening to small businesses. i want to be brief but i will touch on one thing. if you measure growth in america and job growth in america, the best measurement you should always do is small business. if you take the end of the last recession, 2001, and you cover america to the beginning of this recession, 2007, think about that. 2001-2007, a lot of people say that was a good thing time of job growth in america, and it was, but if you look at who created those jobs, if you're a small business, 500 or fewer,

you added 700 million jobs. if you're a corporation, you cut 1 million jobs during that time. you look today, new start-ups for small business is at its lowest point in 17 years. if you want to get the country moving again, that is an early indicator of where the country will go based on who is taking the risk with small-business. if you look at small businesses and say why are people not creating them, we will tell you three main factors. uncertainty with the tax code system. uncertainty when it comes to regulations. uncertainty when it comes to health care costs. if you are able to eliminate the uncertainty, it would be one of the largest in u.s. and american history with no government money being borrowed -- stimulus in american history with no government money being borrowed. there is more cash on hand in america than any other time in the last 50 years, but if you ask people why they are holding

their money, uncertainty. that is why as you watch this new congress coming in, the items we have passed, from health care to regulation last week, to the rains act, now stopping the tax hike, it is exactly when you look at the country asking to unshackle and unleash what they have been waiting for. mr. shields read an article today were people ask why have we not on all the way? well, there is the frustration we have with the senate. i understand the senate can do what they like but the one thing i want the senate to do is first at least let the bills come up for a vote. if you have the majority, if you think you can beat them, bring them up. let them have a vote. but i think it really does to the core of the responsibility of elected officials, the first thing you should do is a budget. when we came and took the majority we produced a budget in four months. a lot of people sat around the

room and said politically, you will never survive. well we pass dead and we passed it again. we think -- passed it and passed it again. we think we have to show america what we're willing to do. the president passed a budget. no one has ever voted for it. the democrats never even produced a budget. i think that will play and. since we are outside the capital, i will touch on one part political. i am sure the election year has played into some of the policy and politics of what has gone on from the standpoint of the president, i do not know how many days it has been since he has met with his business council. he says he is too busy. the senate is totally up in the air of who becomes the majority. republicans will gain in the

senate. i think they will probably gain a majority. i think they could probably get up to 52. the presidential house is totally up and play. if you look at the statistics and the metrics, which i love to follow, their 3141 counties in america. think back to the last time obama 1. he only carried 875. you think it was a big election victory for obama, a big night? that is the lotus -- lowest margin of county carries to ever be elected president. he got his entire margin of victory from 29 counties. what that means is you divide the nation. three major statistics you want to look out for a president's reelected. right track, wrong track, approval rating and unemployment level.

all of those mean the presidency is in play. the house, and i do not just say this from being the republican whip, i believe the republicans maintain the house. democrats will go for the challenge of winning it back and they will focus on what is called the oregon state -- orphan states. the california, illinois and new york. california, it is only the third time since 1886, no republican won statewide sin california. we had redistricting done by a commission. we had a new open primary system where only the top two go forward. republicans did much better than the democrats or pelosi said she would do. if you look for the challenge of what is happening in california

now, republicans are in a good position. we have one district, district 31, the recruited a young hispanic mayor, raised more than half a million dollars, there is no democrat on the ballot in november. democrats been a tremendous amount of money. the central valley is more than 72% hispanic. the republican got 50% of the vote in an open primary. i think we out-recruited in california. >> can i ask your question? quite sure. i see talk about the presidency being in place -- and i >> you talk about the presidency being in play. a new poll shows the president has a significant lead. i was wondering what your response was to the romney international tour ?

does it filly with confidence and make you think things are going swimmingly? >> this race is going to come down to the wire i believe. his international tour i think was important from a couple of different perspectives. one, of venting frustration for the press. everybody can write in the way they want. i thought looking at what had transpired -- i mean, i believe this country is more than an idea. it transfers be on the world and when he sits with -- in poland, you see what america is able to accomplish and other countries as well. to be that began. i think it is important and it shows that romney is willing to be that began around the world. it raises human rights.

it raises freedom in many places. that is what the president should do, should lead. any time you go around the world, it is not going to be perfect. in a time of need in salt lake city when the olympics was not doing well, the comet romney and and he was the turnaround. he showed -- they called mitt romney in and he was the turnaround. he showed he could perform. republicans have to win ohio and florida. we have to win north carolina. we have to win virginia. those of the states that have gone for the president, and and we can win any other state. it is going to be competitive all the way through. every time the economic numbers come out, the president goes back to what he does not want to talk about, his economic policy. i remember when they controlled the ball and the president said

i need this stimulus past and unemployment will never go above 8%. more than 40 months later, it is still above 8%. he does not want to talk about policy. he wants to make the race about romney. romney needs to talk about the economy and who is the best to deal with it. >> last question from me. what did you take from the texas primary about the continuing power of the tea party and loyalty within republican ranks? >> well, i think what is happening in the senate has happened in the house. it just has not gotten to the senate yet. think for a moment. in the house, we saw something revolutionary. people are tired of the gimmicks of the past. 63 democrats lost the election in the last one. i have a philosophical belief that minorities do not tax

majorities. majorities' lose majorities. if you watched 2006, 2008, these big sweeps come in, but they lost it based on the policies on which they voted. i came in in 2006, the smallest republican class since 1940. think for a minute. who is up for reelection in the senate? those people who came up in 2006. they never had to go before the voters for what they voted for. of those new 89 republican freshmen, more than 40 had never been elected before. they came from small business communities, being leaders there, finding solutions. that same thing that shown in the house is going to get to the senate. my other philosophy, the senate is like a country club. the houses like stopping at a

truck stop for breakfast. we are a microcosm of society and we reflect a first. the senate has not had an opportunity to reflect it yet. it has changed, not just from the perspective of one believe, but a change that they want washington to wake up. there's anger from both parties and they do not want business as usual. >> i want to get to the point of uncertainty causing constipation. [inaudible] cannula but that uncertainty in tell us what would be the principal features of -- can you

look at that uncertainty and tell us what would be the principal features of your reform? >> i appreciate the question. one thing we have done, just to what you back, we have been holding inside my office these listings sessions with members on what tax reform would look like. if you watched this week, our legislation stops the president's tax increase. if you lose the uncertainty of losing 710,000 jobs. bennett puts a free market principles and there. it is not what you -- then it puts a framework of principles in there. if you read through it, it's as the number of brackets limited to two from 25. corporate rate cannot be over 25. it sets a framework from where you start from. in our budget, we have shown

some of that, and the discussion has shown some of that. then we lay the framework of a time line to get it done. it is not just a discussion that you're going to stop the tax hike. if you just do that for another year, that could build uncertainty. but let some overall tax reform so we can compete. when i go round the country, i hear the challenge all the time from our economy is competing worldwide. it lays out a framework some more ideas can gather. it lays out a time off line the timeline and the framework of principles. that takes the politics out of it. if you have an idea, let the idea work at the end of the day. it shows the american people we're serious about tax reform. it shows a time frame that can do it. it shows a framework of what it will deal with.

tax reform will not be easy. when you deal with ending loophos a lot of people come out of the woodwork to go after you. when you lay the principal down, you know what has to be within, so that takes a little of the discussion and gives a broader perspective. >> our colleague from the washington post wrote a column a few weeks ago called the worst congress ever. it alleges that things are broken in washington and the republicans had a great deal to do with that. i want to know what you think of that series that this may be the worst congress ever and what responsibility do house republicans bear for that?

>> referring to congress or the senate? >> congress writ large. >> i disagree with the house of representatives. if you watch congress and you have followed it, look at the framework. let's take the last six years. in the last six years, four of which under democratic control, you never had an appropriation bill. you never even offer an amendment. bills were brought to the floor without being read. what the house has done now, not from a republican perspective but from an american and transparency perspective, anybody can offer amendments. you do not see these big omnibus approach bills. we have taken them one by one. anybody can offer anything.

and the floor determines which route it will go. you have even watched in the process, take the two-engine situation. people would argue that in ohio that is jobs. you have republicans and the speaker from ohio or the will of the floor one-out. that is what the american people want, and honest debate. everyone gets elected based on a certain number when we do redistricting. those people should have the voice. that is a big change in congress that you can go back 10-12 years in the process. i think it is healthier, drives to the notion that the idea can win, so you have to come up with better ideas, and your idea is going to be challenged. it does not matter if one party controls. that is a much better congress. now, having referred to the

senate, i would probably agree with him. one, bills do not come up. you cannot have the challenge. you do not even produce a budget. i mean, i would sit back and the first way i would score an individual, have you done the fundamentals of producing a budget and passing one? and if you have not, why have you moved on to anything else? we did one in four months. there is merit to it when you talk about the senate. when you talk about the house, i see great improvement and more improvement for us to do. >> what was the point in revealing obamacare more than 30 times? >> there are different avenues of what we brought up with an air. if you're going -- in there. if you're going to criticize us because we will fight for something we believe in and not give up, i will take the criticism. we believe in making it better. we believe in making reforms, so

we try harder. >> you mentioned that in california that you do not have a single statewide elected official in the legislature. for those of us that a watch that over the years, it is pretty clear that one of the biggest reasons is the alienation of latino voters from the republican party in california. on the national front, that same pattern seems to be developing a lot of it has to do with immigration. are you going to try to bring an immigration bill next year and what would it do? >> and the immigration bill you do is going to have to be bipartisan. at the end of the bush administration, one was tried and not able to be achieved. it is a big challenge for both parties. it is a big challenge for our nation as a whole.

we are a country of immigrants. we want to be able to maintain that. we want to be able to maintain and protect our borders. at the same time, we want to still be the magnet the people want to come to as the world. it is a challenge from all -- i do not know exactly what that would look like, but if you take that issue away and look at congress as a whole, i am not sure congress, regardless of the issue, i can take big massive bills because i do not believe the trust of the american people massive bills.r you may have to break up into different portions of the issue and take segments to be able to move forward. >> historical and that issue, others as well but that issue particularly, when you take up

the pieces, the pieces get defeated individually and the only way to pass the bill has been to come up with an overall package where everybody gets something and nobody gets everything. >> it is the same thing about an appropriations bill. >> what you have not gotten one pass through both houses of that argument seems pretty dead. >> that is the senate's problem. >> but you know that. >> you can dislike congress like the rest of the american people do. i can agree with that. if you're going to judge based on past congresses, and that is fine, but i was not here. >> how would you do immigration? >> semifinished--- let me finish my a question. we have passed seven appropriations bill. that is different. if we-- i do not know what the

immigration bill will look like. i believe if you are looking for principals and from work to make it happen, it will take by partisanship. if i look at the structure of what has gone through the house, big comprehensive bills die. what will i judge about that? i watch the republican president put it big comprehensive bill try on both sides and it tried -- its died. my goal is to solve problems. i would rather learn from somebody else's mistakes because i do not have enough time and live to make all of my own mistakes. if i want to solve a problem, i will probably have to take it by pieces. you are judging based on an >> congress. was it what the makeup is of the next congress. >> i was struck by the fact

people question or the most conservative members of the house and senate and in your chamber. could you talk about how that process was in their involvement? on the sequestered you talk about a framework for reform going forward. obviously the sequester falls into that. you have had republicans talking about this this week. how do you see congress dealing with a sequester over the next few months? >> i have sequestration and the -- ok. the six months. no one can sit back and say government will be shut down. you have watched both sides come together, reid and banner announce -- john boehner

announced there will be a conclusion. some wanted three months instead of six months. i do not think there was any debate if we would get to a cr. from one stand. you look at where we have been able to control the growth of government. the argument between three months and six months, everybody looks at -- you have a lot of living things from tax increases coming, sequestration, it could be in other debt limit. this could all hinge into a lame duck scenario. you could have a new presidency and congress and senate. six months gives a little bit of a longer time. some say if you put it out further it is not everything collapsing at once. the argument being giving yourself more time to do things. it gives the flexibility. it does not mean you cannot do

things earlier. that is a better way about going about it in the short time. if you watched what republicans have done in our budget, we took up and dealt with sequestration. it was one year ago week of $497 billion from military. those were planned cuts. when you cut the military, it is programs you want to look at when you make cuts. you cannot say, i will cut half a billion dollars. when you make your house payment, you cannot send them 10% less next month. you cannot cut programs 10% across the board. we have been trying to find ways we can solve this. we put in our budget. i think there is a coalition of democrats and republicans trying to build something. i know harry reid said he will

not bring it up before hand. it is almost an education to america what sequestration means. we found other places you can make the cut. do a better planned scenario of what the military looks like. that issue will continue to grow and go into the framework of the election in november. i hope we do something sooner. being the whip, i do not look forward to a lame duck. >> thank you. congressman mccarthy, it sounds like from listening to you almost a slam dunk that republicans in the house are going to extend all of the bush tax cuts. they are not going to back down. if that happens and if the senate in turn of votes to extend a 98% and the house stays

firm, can you picture a scenario where the american people are upset at republicans for holding up the entire process for not backing down? >> i can see the american public upset for washington as a whole. cutting another 710,000 jobs where growth continues to slow. we had 11 recessions since world war ii. this has been one of the longest lasting recessions. i think it is on the policies of washington that extended it longer. 1982 was a much deeper recession. if you measure the growth out of 1982 compared to now, we would have 40 million more jobs. stimulus, what did it do for us? let's take that question of what you just gave me.

two years ago, the same question rose to the american people. the makeup of congress was a little different. democrats controlled the house, too. 139 democrats voted to extend it. the president roh you should not raise taxes in a down economy. 86 democrats still reside in the house. are they going to flip-flop and think something is different? bill clinton believes he should not raise taxes in a down economy. 710,000 more jobs lost. if we are serious about changing this economy and making america competitive again, eliminate some of the uncertainty. i think the american public are tired of continual and short- term and taking politics over people. if the president said two years

ago it was wrong, why is it right now? this is right, did this come from his business council? no, he has never had time to meet with them. he has had over 100 fund raisers. they are tired of the gimmicks. they are tired of the process of washington. just solve the problem and move on. >> we are going to try to squeeze in the following in 20 minutes. >> something that stymied the house so far, you represent an agricultural district. your caucus does not seem to know what it was. can you let up the road map in the farm bill arrangement and will you have to get an extension? >> thank you for the question. if i go back and i studied the

house. our transportation bills come out of committee. they are five-year bills. the committee studies these and these are the big items of the committee. the floor itself does not know because you go late into the night. the last amendment was at 2:00. it became controversial. you do not move them directly to floor. you allow both sides to see what is in them. maybe that is different in past congresses. i believe we will get the farm bill done. one thing i think that has started working better between the house and senate is conferencing. every time we go into conference we get back out. same thing with transportation. same thing with faa. before you did not go to conference.

because the democrats farm bill last time did not deal with the disaster. the only ticket four-years because they extended spending on other items, we will have to go in and fix this. we will deal with the disaster because what has gone on up there, especially for the cattle. we will take care of that. the farm bill does not expire until the end of september. we will find a way to move to get into conference and come back with full bill. >> what do you mean by -- reauthorize and complete by conference before september 30? >> i always have goals. that is my goal. >> will you say a quick sentence about how bad your district has been hit by the drought. >> the old saying in california has always been, whiskey is for drinking and water is fighting. our water comes from the north and down to the south.

we have had a drought four years. ours is done more about man-made decisions about whether you can pump based on an environmental issue. i have communities where you have 40% unemployment. has anybody even a baby carrot? two families in my district grow 80% of the carrots in the country. there is no such thing as a baby carrot. it is a big carrot chopin they charge you more and it is healthier. it is innovation. cesar chavez is buried in my district. when the nation had a depression in the 1930's, you have a dust ball across the drought in the middle part of the country. people put everything in their tracks and went to california.

the hopes of a better future. they came and they work in our fields. those people who were in line for food one year and a half ago, they are handing out food -- the carry capital of the world, there were carrots from china they were giving out. this is because the ability to pump and bring water down, a court decision based upon a face that did not originate from their. we have watched land get plowed under. we have watched small communities, many of them highly immigrant communities with 40% unemployment. we have been hit with a drought that was man-made, even when you had 136% snowcap. you watch the draft getting worse for other reasons.

-- the drought and getting worse for other reasons. >> what is the likelihood of getting this done before the land back? you voted for the sequestration would year ago. you said defense cuts were a bad thing. was that not the point of it? did you not realize this would happen? walkt's walk back and through the debt limit scenario. inside the debt limit, the discussion became, if you want to raise the debt limit, let's have the ability to cut as much as we want to raise. speaker john boehner had many discussions with the president. there came a moment in time where leadership has to rise up and make a decision. not from parties, but from individuals whether you can come to an agreement. the president could not come to an agreement. he walked away from the talks.

john boehner turned to harry reid and laid out the framework. harry reid ask for one thing. he said, i need a super committee. i cannot deal with 60 votes. we had the last 1 -- i do not want people from the outside and it. let's set this up. how do you know you will ever get it done? if not, we will make the cuts you want to get to. it will make it so painful people will have to actually do it. my study of the super committee, republicans put a proposal out, senate democrats try to come to a conclusion. house democrats never produced a plan. it did not seem like much they

wanted to get something done. the goal was to find the cuts. it has never been my belief that all the power rests with the super committee. the goal of the debt limit was to find the cuts. if they did not in the super committee, it went across. that does not mean that congress cannot act and find cuts as well and it is better planned. if they were not able to achieve a, that does not mean we cannot. we have a responsibility. that is why in our budget we proved it could work. we put a plan out there. it takes away sequestration for a year. it gives you the ability to solve it out for the other end. we have already shown we can cut $497 billion. from that framework, i have always said, we wanted to find the cuts. we believe we can. we have proven be can do it and

get off the floor of the house. this goes back to my earlier point. something has to happen in the senate. >> will it be done before the lame-duck? >> do not criticize me because i am hopeful. a kid from bakersfield. if he were to ask me that question years ago people would say that is just as crazy. maybe we can get it done before the land back. >> prior to mitt romney's candidacy, did you know -- [unintelligible] >> i followed the olympics early on. what got me interested and it was mcdonald's would give me the scratch off and i would win fries if we won the 100 yard dash.

i am upset they still do not have the game. >> you did talk about the three factors of presidential election, presidential job rating, and the unemployment rate. 16 elections from harry truman to dwight eisenhower to george w. bush and barack obama, the president is elected with one dramatic exception, they have been immeasurably more likable. every measurement shows president obama despite of the economy and in spite of the job ratings, is considered more likable. what would be your advice to mitt romney where he has not broken through on a personal level. this is a guy he would like to have a beer with them.

>> i think all things you bring up are true. i think what happens also in the nature is the time in which you run. if you take me for a moment, i knew -- i think the time that i would equate the similarity is to 1980. in 1980 i was in junior high or starting high school. i would read about japan about to surpass america in our economy. today we think about maybe china or india. i watched iran bank hold us hostage every day. you watch iran today trying to hold the world hostage. every generation improved on the

generation before. 1980 was the first time it hit 50.4% of americans who believed the best days of america is behind us. you ask that question today 74%. we had an energy crisis and he said put a sweater on and turn the heat on. we battled the soviet union for the best form of government whether it was the free market or communism. we have the same battle today in america itself that is really a struggle for what size of the government you want. i think it is a different place for this election. i think people are talking about what they wanted america to look like. if i was mitt romney, but i would do is a couple of different things. every city i would go into an event, i would first stop at staples. why would i stop at staples?

who do they sell to, every small business around. just go in. mitt romney has achieved some remarkable things in his life. mitt romney is probably the last person to talk about it. he does not go and sell himself. he is based on action. if i look at where america is at, they like obama. they probably want to go golfing with obama. he does a lot. it want to join him. in the time of the place where america is, i want somebody who can make sure the trains run on time and get the place moving again. when you look at the skill set -- i think this will happen. the american public does not have a description of who mitt romney as. one of the best things i saw described was when he was at

bain capital and one of the employees' children got kidnapped in the new york. what did mitt romney do? he sent everybody up there. it was not based on a running for an office in the future. was based on a friend in a time of need. all hands on deck. when america had a problem with the olympics, they brought him in. did he go make a political because he was running profits? no. he took a risk on different companies. some signs -- sometimes successful and sometimes not. yo are correct that likability is a big factor. the time and place of what is happening today, it will not be the biggest determinant. people are hurting. people want to get back to work. the one to look at the person who would go through and have the best skill set to put the country back to work. i would emphasize that more than

anything. when you go into a convention, i would give the narrative of who mitt romney and who he is. i think america would pay more attention than. they will have to come back and a lot of people will like the decisions he makes. also what they will liked is that it is not so political. it is a little more based on policy. >> i have been wondering. baby carrots are really -- >> you can buy the little ones that are small. have you ever seen a carrot perfectly round of like that? i will take up to my district that let you see. >> yesterday in connecticut and another judge found that doma

was unconstitutional. nancy pelosi put out a statement saying that banner -- john boehner and eric cantor and you had found ways the more tax dollars defending doma in court. i wonder what your response is to her calling this a waste of taxpayer dollars. how long do you plan to keep funding doma? >> i have not seen her press release, but what you talked about from what transpired for the house to be engaged, it is not the subject itself but the idea that what one individual can decide, even though something is lost, what is up held and what is not. the rule of law keeps america strong. when you break down the rule of law, you break down society. the idea that the house defends

what becomes law is a very responsible item to have. from my perspective, that is what you find -- i do not want to see within our constitution somebody decides, that is law, i just do not like it. we have a court system, we have a rule of law to go through. i think you have to go through the system to determine that. >> you and john boehner and eric cantor are trying to sign a medicaid. >> i think it is a responsibility in the house and as americans to defend the rule of law for america. it is not based upon what the issue is, it is based upon what this country has -- what this country is created on. if we will allow one person the power to determine something even though individuals have passed it, i think that is wrong no matter what it is.

you have to go through and you have to have a check and balance and have a system to make the answer. if that is the case, what law is really lot then? it goes to every subject. >> yesterday he said he will not run for reelection. he blames it on polarization of congress. did he contact you to talk to the leaders? were you involved in any part of this decision? >> another member had resigned, not based upon that. there are a lot of issues that transpire. steve has been a tremendous member who served here since 1994. that is a long time to serve. i know people get frustrated. i know we do not have term limits. this is a place that can wear you down and where you out.

the voters have the power to decide who is there. if steve says he is frustrated, i still see how things have changed for the better in the short amount of time we have been the majority. i will have disagreed that from that premise this place can get things done. >> he is from ohio. he is very close to the speaker. i believe they had these talks. >> two minutes left. >> you guys have a bill and has the votes. does it? could you overcome the various amendments that might be proposed to it. there were reports that eric cantor had some questions from robert dole on the floor about another abortion bill. why was this one under

contention? >> what was the first one again? >> postal. >> u.s. postal service needs to be reformed. for anybody who believes there will not have to be tough decisions -- i was at a town hall last night. i had a postal worker ask me this question and said, a stamp is not that much. people go out there and start mailing stand. how many people have sent something in the last day? how many have sent an e-mail? technology changes everything. how much does your business changed in the last 10 years because of technology? >> i feel confident. how about you? >> we have to make rules. that committee is working at it. i think we will be able to get

something moved and get it done. proposal has more support the what the senate has been proposing. that is something that will be further discussed. i was not there with it -- when the discussion -- i do not know if that was the discussion they had with the leader. >> the leaders scheduled the floor. >> do you have any other concerns about holding out on an abortion bill? >> directly to us? i do not schedule before, so i do not know that they really come to me for that judgment. . i have members that discuss everything with me. >> is there enough concern you should not be voting on a before in -- before the election in november? >> how many suspenses did we

have yesterday? he portrayed as being the only one. there are a lot of issues that come before us. i think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. >> thank you. we appreciate it. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] cahoo >> on news makers this week,

-- cornyn.nyn join us at 10:00 and 6:00 eastern on c-span. >> we have to be really clear about the very many ways that we own the ourselves and that we own our history. that we make decisions that our history is phenomenal, of vital, and a special. >> julianne malveaux. your questions and tweets.

in depth, live at noon on c-span 2 "book tv." >> on your screen is a report that came to the president from his council of advisers on science and technology. the report is entitled "realizing the full potential of government held spectrum to spur economic growth." two members of the council of advisers on science and technology are joining us this week on the communicators. on the left is craig mundie and on the right is mark gorenberg. mark gorenberg is a venture capitalist out of silicon valley. if you would, start by telling us, what is the presidential council of science and technology. >> it started back in the fdr

days. this has 21 members. it is chaired by the president's science adviser. also eric lander who is a co- chair and a vice chaired by bill press. we work on a number of reports that were done the forest them education, manufacturing, nanotechnology, health i.t., a number of other issues. the text of this study in the fall as you talk about looking at the full potential of federal spectrum. >> summarize this report that you all gave to the president. >> in the report, we make a series of recommendations that stand -- span a range of issues beginning with the question of,

what should the strategy be long-term for the country in order to avail itself of the benefits that come from the new technologies and electronic and software technologies that are available today. for a variety of reasons, they have not been able to be broadly deployed. speaks to creating measurement systems within the broadness of spectrum by the federal government and order to accelerate the movement from a classical model of spectrum allocation to the new model. the report basically identifies a specific strategy. how the process could begin early, even though the complete transformation if it is to be done will probably take as long as 20 years or more. >> also joining us ispaul kirby. >> the report calls for the immediate identification of 1000

mhz spectrum for sharing with wireless carriers. it also says that should be the norm rather than reallocation. the wireless industry has reacted coolly to this. one of their allies even said this report and other reports are providing cover for the department of defense. basically, they do not necessarily want to give of the spectrum. how realistic is it a report will be implemented as their result of this opposition? >> that is up to the white house to decide how they want to move forward on the report we put together. in terms of the situation itself, we are looking at dizzying demand. we are following on the broadband plan that came out two years ago. that called for the accessing 500 megahertz of spectrum for

commercial use. making that available. the growth even since the broadband plan has been greater than expected. if you look as some of these studies coming out there now, those studies look at an economy of perhaps 4.5 trillion dollars by 20/20, a huge growth not only in spectrum as we use it today but also in new ideas like the internet and things. if you look at that, you can say that may call for 50 times more spectrum. if you look at current technology and increasing spectrum, that might give you two times. if you look at it today with lte, that might be five times. to get to 50 times you have to go to a new ibf. the clearing of allocation of

federal spectrum is not sustainable as you saw in the recent report that just came out regarding the 1755 band that called for over 10 years $18 billion and a lot of disruption. what we looked at -- it is interesting that people consider us to be forward thinking. we think we are actually being very pragmatic and conservative. in the report, we are looking at using technologies that are available today and deploying those technologies really around the policy to start to create these spectrum superhighways. but to get spectrum to the commercial users sooner. we think perhaps within three years by implementing this. we are only looking at federal spectrum. >> i have one thing -- there is

a lot of commentary as he mentioned from some of the traditional cellular interests. when we sat as science advisers and looked at the aberdeen need for spectrum over the long term, we conclude -- aggregate need for spectrum over the long term, we conclude there will be many applications in the private sector and government environment. the ultimate sustainability is not whether you can clear enough spectrum to make the traditional cell phone industry happy. we do not think that is even possible. when you look at the broader demand overtime, there is no possibility to do this without a fairly radical transformation of how we think about allocating and managing spectrum. >> let's go to randall stevenson who is the ceo of at&t. he said technical solutions are nowhere near prime time.

the report talks a lot about using various technologies to try to enable the spectrum sharing. i am curious if you have any more reaction to the criticism of the technology. >> by the way, randall stevenson who is a great ceo, we agree with the comments that he is making in his op-ed that came out at the beginning of june. then he did a speech for about one hour or so right after that. if you look at what he said, he said that it will be 6-80 years if you cleared and repacked spectrum for them whether it is federal spectrum and sharing technology that he talked about -- smart and tennis will be five years or more. -- antennas will be five years or more. we actually believe in what we put forward, we are espousing the same.

we're not talking about -- although we mention the technologies in the report, it's easy and our recommendations, we do not talk about the deployment of those technologies at all. the talked-about technologies here today already being used. we talk about database technologies and the idea of using a spectrum access system which is a evolution of the technology craig has been involved in for 10 years. we talk about the deployment of small cell. small sell technologies as you know will -- as you know, we will be shipping more units than a macro cells. we're talking about simple technologies for sharing that are already deployed like the five gigahertz band or the way they have deployed medical body units appeared we're actually talking about using the technologies today. we think if we can create the

backbone, that will be the sperling litmus to move these other technologies forward. we will see those in the 5-10 years that will happen. we will be more likely to see them if we can get superhighways' going. >> go ahead. >> i was going to add a thought. many of these technologies do not have to be advanced substantially to even begin. today the whole world uses a lot of blue tooth and whifi. even the carriers are offloading in high-density mature areas a lot of the data traffic from the cell phones of to these essentially wifi cells that are very small. you could take the existing cellular systems adjuster to shrink the cell size systematically, which would require no new spectrum or

technology. you would essentially get increased three use even with the classical architecture is. as mark mentioned, we are not betting the farm on the idea there has to be an a media introduction of radical new technologies. we do think overtime each of these additional technical changes creates another multiplying effect in terms of spectral efficiency. that is what we think overtime you can occur in much greater capacity and utilization of the total spectrum that we are getting out of the correct model of a location. >> monday is the chief research and strategy officer for the microsoft corporation. mr. mundie, and other privacy concerns when sharing the space with the federal government? >> no. schering is a word that implies

a lot of things with a lot of people. -- hsaring is a word that-- sharing is a word that implies a lot of things to a lot of people. it does not imply there is access from one radio system to another one, whether they were two private systems or a private one and a government system. those are completely resolved. i do nothing there is any privacy issue at all. >> in your report, you write shared access to federal spectrum should be governed according to a three tier hierarchy. federal primary systems would have the highest protection. secondary licensees must register deployments and use a database and may receive some quality of service protection, possibly in exchange for fees. general access users could have access to unoccupied spectrum. could you explain that a little

bit further? >> if you look at the idea of employing the federal spectrum and saying, ok. he would have in different areas a federal user be the primary incumbent. you could then have people who could get an exclusive secondary access. that could be current lte systems, small cells looking for quality of service, almost like a carpool lane or a highway. and in general access, you could have the idea of people who do not have exclusive access to the spectrum sharing that. in some ways similar to unlicensed but not licensed spectrum, a way it would be registered or could be automatically registered so that there could be track of all this in a database. >> i think sometimes people get very animated about this question of federal pre-emption or priority. there are two things important

to realize. we have these situations if you will even in the wireline telephone network. the government has had the ability to preempt traffic on the classical phone lines or even the cellular networks and emergency situations. i think always there is a need to reserve some kind of capability for government in specific situations. here we think instead of the only being an emergency, when you look at the aggregate use of spectrum measured over time and over geography, there is lots and lots of places and times where people can have very sustained use of this, even if there comes a moment for the government says i have a plane or exercise or boat that needs to operate in the harbor. you may have to move out of the way for some period of time. when you look at the aggregate

gains, we believe they would dramatically away the risks associated with it or the disruptive effects of that kind of tiered model of priority. >> the assumption is the government is not using the spectrum that often. when they do need to use it is very important. that is in small areas. it is infrequent times. is an such a way where it is not very destructive as craig is sitting to particular users, particularly ones that when a secretary -- a secondary use. one argument the commercial world has used is a federal agencies are not using the spectrum as often. that is a reason they should be giving the spectrum for use to the commercial world. if that is true, in this system it is a bigger benefit to them in terms of how often they will be used to that spectrum.

over time, we believe through the mechanisms we have argued for in terms of incentives and putting other pieces of funding in the white house, those federal systems will become more and more efficient. therefore less intrusive to the secondary commercial user. they will make it easier overtime to clear some of the systems and move them around to other locations. we think this is a way to ease into the issue of getting much better shared use. by the way, the other. i think that is important to make is that over 50% of the spectrum up to the 3.7 did the band is shared as well but in ace that equate. it is a much more efficient use. >> our guests are two members of the president's council of advisers on science and technology. is a venture capitalist from

silicon valley-- mark gorenberg is a venture capitalist from silicon valley and craig mundie. >> a number of parties have made the case, federal agencies have to be assured that to their spectrum, their operations will not experience interference. the report actually mentions there could basically be a shut off of commercial operation of their is harmful interference. mr. mundie mentioned databases rolling up slowly. can you give us a sense of what kind of assurance you think the federal agencies will need? has the technology developed quickly enough to give them the assurance that they will be able to continue to operate on a sharing regime without

interference? >> in a sense, implementing all of these things is a little bit of technology and a lot of operational of these capabilities. at the tail end, a little bit of regulatory control to ensure the right deterrents are in place to keep people from doing the wrong thing. part of the reason in our proposal of this transitional model of these stacked priorities is it allows us to get started immediately before the time we're a government radio system might be modified to be more inherently able to operate in a shared environment. a lot of the quest we had was to say, how can you make use of technologies that are currently demonstrable and are in the process of getting rolled out in the united states and outside of

the united states and piggyback on the progress that has been made there in both of the regulatory and the developmental since over the past 10 years and use that to accelerate the transition in this? each of these choices can be made banded by a band. there does not have to be one giant database in this data controls everything all the time. it may be practical to do that. that is not a prerequisite to start to move in this direction. we identified an area in the spectrum where the government has a lot of uses like maritime radars. while that is an important use while a ship is operating a denture a particular area, that will typically only be near the coast or the great lakes. the rest of the country is reserved for boats that will never be there to operate radars. our view is if the government is willing to know this is the idea

of registration, what the devices are, they have the ability to come back on anybody who violate said. these kind of violations happen today. you have amateur radio operators or others who intentionally or accidentally star in treating some where they're not supposed to be. the fcc has been forced those issues. yes, there will be some technological activity. you will have to take conventional methods and you will have to have the contract made with the federal user. these have been done on an ad hoc basis already. sharing radar with other applications. it is not like this is without precedent. what we are trying to do is say there is a general architecture that will allow this to become the norm as opposed to things that are done on an ad hoc basis one after the other.

>> we believe a system like this can be applied to federal spectrum regardless of frequency, we look more at the higher frequencies. let's say 2700 and above are particularly well suited to small cell. everybody is converging to an idea that in the 3550 bandit, which was the first analyzed by the anti i a, they looked at it against large macro towers and created exclusion zones around the coast. that is not that interesting. if you put in small cell technology into these areas, whether they have a priority access or whether they have a general access, you can shrink the exclusion zones significantly and at the same time give much better solace to the federal government will have a clear area to operate. >> it could more than make --

members of congress love auctions because it brings in money. how can you convince lawmakers reject some democrats have been very favorable about the report. one republican commissioner and some aides were less favorable. how can you convince them, or will you try to convince them that it is ok if we do not give the auction revenues now because it will create more than enough for the economy. >> we are looking only at federal spectrum. if you look at that, the auctions started in 1994. having $53 billion created by auctions. over 90% has come from repressing spectrum for commercial real use. there has really only been one significant successful auction of federal spectrum. that was in 2006.

that netted a little more than $5 billion. that is also being used -- will score that over 10 years. realistically it should be considered over many more years than that. that is only a few hundred million dollars a year. in total to date from federal auctions. if you look at the report that just came out, that talked about $18 billion. they are not even planning right now to auction that because the cost of clearing would be greater than what they suspect will come in. when you look at federal spectrum, the amount of revenue they were going to get any way would be relatively small. in our proposal, we look -- once you have created a spectrum access system and you have the idea of a secondary users, you have a system already set up where you could have a number of different types of revenue models. you could have user fee models. you could have recurring revenue

models. you could have option models. in fact, we could be looking at a system where we perfected former options to be used. these may be smaller geographic auctions. these may be secondary smaller timeframe auctions. we think you can open this all up to a large number of options in the secondary use and that could bring in quite a bit of revenue overtime in these federal bans which today it is unclear if they even will bring in future revenue. >> i think it is also important -- the question i would pose back to them, have they ever used bluetooth or wifi? these are on a completely unlicensed, totally shared environment with no databases administered. you can go all the way around the planet today and there is a huge economy built around the use of why fight, the sale of

equipment and-- wifi, the sale of the equipment. every one of these things is essentially aiding the economy if you will. that is where the title of the report talks about the impact of making a strategy choice like this. it does move you away. our belief is over time, implementing this moves us from an artificial shortage that we have today in the availability of spectrum to one where spectrum appears to be abundantly available. people who want an application in any domain should be able to get immediate access to some spectrum to do their problem. in that environment, we think it will basically but the economy up further. the indirect revenue that comes from economic growth we think will dwarf that. one of the things in their report, there is a citation to a

recent economic study done in europe about making a fairly specific allocation of spectrum into a new larger unlicensed band. they estimated that these few mhz put into the model in europe would be the rough equivalent of an 800 billion euro stimulus program. >> actually billion. >> i think whether you look at it as an academic economist or practically, what has happened with stimulus greeted by the arrival thewifi and bluetooth in less than a decade, you should have some comforts that these things could really happen. >> officials from the white house and because commerce department were complimentary of it. have you gotten a sense that the plan for the president to issue the memo you call for any time soon? if so, when?

>> as market said earlier, it is ultimately the president's choice about what he does in terms of the report. it is safe to assume that we would not issue the report in a complete backing. there has been a lot of discussion with all the stakeholders in the white house, throughout federal agencies, and many of the commercial companies, even those that are in some was complaining about different aspects of the report, the world -- they were all party to the discussion before we completed writing it. it is not like we went into a closet and produced this and started dropping it on the president's desk. there was a lot of thoughtful process that went into the development of it. we are pretty hopeful that the president will move to act on the recommendation. exactly how, that is up to him. >> why 1000 mhz? where did that come from? >> first of all, we look at the

demand that we see it will be huge. the other is, why 1000 mhz? when the broadband plan came out, they started to identify spectrum. a look that up to 2.2 gigahertz and then keyed in on 1.5 gigahertz or 1500 mhz and should be analyzed. from that was started to look through that and say there should be -- there could be a good opportunity how it will evolve with 2730700. what does a megahertz is a combination of need for demand for sharing with the federal government. -- 1000 mhz is a combination of need for demand and sharing with the federal government. >> there is a technical basis for why we want the big goal. our model in the long-term is that we should not be giving people tiny slivers of spectrum

to operate in. the new architecture is that are emerging and software to find radios and other related technologies really operates better if they get to range across a much broader junk of frequencies. that is where we think you will get higher overall utilization. the military moved to these architectures years ago. not for spectral efficiency but to make it harder for people to jam them. the inverse of that will be a benefit. if you can get a lot of people operating across a much broader band, you are likely to get better spectral efficiency over the long term. to get everybody into the model will require all radio systems are we are protected from the classical 100 year-old model to the new model. that is why we claim the entire process will take two-three

decades. we cannot go up and get the satellites and service them and change their radios. some systems have a lot lifetime and he would not be able to get them all we are detected. i believe over that period of time and with a lot of it happening sooner, these things will actually happen. >> the report says that implementing all this could take decades. you mentioned earlier during the show something could occur in a few years. three years from today if the president were to issue the memo, what would you think would be realistic three years from today? >> first of all, we looked at starting a pilot almost immediately. one is too great a steering committee of industry leaders, ceos, and the equivalent in the companies to start to help move the strategy for word in a way that is practical to them. second is the idea of doing

immediate sharing in two bands. the fcc is working now on rulemaking for the 3550. as one ofwe think that could beh existing white space technology. that is something that could be started almost immediately after the regulatory process goes through. we look at creating a test city which are large scale which will give solace to industry and to policymakers a that this sharing concept can be practically done and also that they can get solace they have been tested overlong period of time. in terms of what can be done in three years, we feel we can get early spectrum access up. we believe we can start to look

at receiver protection limits that will make this all feasible. i know you've talked about that in previous interviews. when you put all of that together, with small cell technology, it says you can get started in these bands and have something up and running in three years. >> we are out of time. >> i was going to say, i think when we have seen other changes like this, when people got excited about wi-fi, you saw this rapid evolution of that technology. my belief is if the president signs this and the spectrum starts to become available, i think we will see very rapid adaptation of even things like the lte system that carriers are now deploying modified. it starts with the idea that they want to aggregate frequencies within these bands that are being given to them that they are different around the world.

they are building and architecture that has this flexibility. if they have not made the final leap to realize that they should be able to segregate those carriers into these sharing abnds. bands. >> and craig monday and mark gorenberg. have been talking to them about their report. thank you, gentlemen, for joining us from washington, the microsoft studios. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> this weekend on american history tv, was the turning point of the civil war gettysburg or the battle for richmond? >> robert e. lee's emergence as a successful field commander marked a decisive moment in the eastern theater that in turn

spur from a shift to larger direction of the conflict. >> and gary gallagher of the june 1862 pedals that drove the union army away from the confederate capital tonight at 10:00 p.m. sunday, more from "the contenders." >> i would remind you that extremism is -- and the defense of liberty is -- >> barry goldwater, the 1964 republican candidate who lost to lbj. in the weeks ahead, the political parties are holding their platform hearings in advance of summer conventions with democrats voting next week and on their final recommendations in detroit. followed in mid august as

republicans start their process in tampa. the covers of the conventions begins august 10 with the reform party in philadelphia. followed by the republican national convention beginning monday, august 27. then the democratic national convention starting monday, september 3. >> last week, the new transportation security administrator testified on misconduct allegations of tsa screeners and about disciplinary procedures. from the house transportation subcommittee, this is just under an hour.

>> i would like to welcome everybody here today and thank the new director for testifying. congratulations on your new appointment. we confidence in your abilities. you are to oversee -- terrorists have proven time and again in their commitment to affecting our nation's aviation systems. having said that, the majority of americans did not support the government's approach and when they hear that some people at tsa who are supposed to ensure their security are engaged in gross misconduct, it makes matters worse. accepting bribes from drug smugglers, sleeping or drinking on duties, this kind of negligence has contributed to tsa's shattered public image.

the other federal departments struggle, but tsa interacts with the general public in a very frequent and personal manner. the fact that tsa's high-profile cases have contributed to its image problems and growing lack of support. i believe tsa has an oversized work force. i think the number of employees could be reduced with more attention paid to training. it is just a small percentage of the overall work force involved in criminal or negligent behavior but it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the bond. perception is reality. i did not convene this hearing to rehash the details of misconduct or to vilify every employee. this hearing is a chance for tsa to describe efforts to quickly identify and remove employ is his lack of judgment can further damage to their image. i believe the american tax

payers are owed this information. i believe the frequency of this is a symptom of a larger problem we have examined before. tsa is responsible for overseeing the screening and conducting the screening. . we have seeing a poor performance being covered up by management. one of the most disturbing examples occurred last year in honolulu were screeners and supervisors were living in what could go through without screening for explosives. off their federal security director was in on it. one of these cases is to many but there have been other disturbing cases since then including southwest florida, jfk and newark. i look forward to receiving information on efforts to tackle this. tsa has taken some action under the administrator's the ship, including the creation of the new office of professional

responsibility. while i support the administrator adding bureaucracy -- adding bureaucracy is not generally a good solution. i recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. davis, for any opening statement he may have. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. ms. lee could not be in attendance. i am sitting in in her setead. tead. i will read her opening statement and she may join us before the end of the hearing. i would like to take this opportunity to thank mr. halin ski for joining us today in his new role as deputy administrator at tsa. as you know, this congress, we have focused on the efforts by the federal government to power and strengthen our front-line employees. transportation security offices working at our airports across

the country our first line defense against terrorism. through our work on the oversight committee and the previous congress, the committee found these workers suffer from high injury rates, attrition, and low morale. until recently, there was no hope for them to obtain the necessary work place protections. collective bargaining rights or protections that other federal employees enjoy. today, we are closer to achieving this goal and in turn establishing a workforce that can place a greater focus on that the security mission at hand. the lack of workplace protections for screening personnel combined with poor workforce management increases costs and decreases security. collective bargaining rights will ensure that tso's are regarded with the same authority

as other security personnel. we can have confidence that these rights will not interfere with the proper steps being taken to address criminal activity and our failure in the training program. as we explore today's hearing topic, i must caution you and we must make it clear as to what type of misconduct we are referring to. in one instance, we may be discussing criminal activity in. tso's engage on the other hand, we must take a closer look at instances when tso's failed to comply with standard operating procedures at check points and what steps are taken to identify this activity and address some vulnerabilities in the training and enforcement programs. this hearing is an opportunity to question tsa about how it

ensures that screening procedures are followed and how it determines whether the remedy for misconduct should be disciplined or remedial training for tso's. proper training is critical to the security of our aviation system. that is why i, along with my democratic colleagues, have consistently called for providing tso's with additional training when ever egregious missteps occur. i look forward to hearing more from tsa about how the most recent reorganization has been undertaken and it will address these concerns. in recent hearings, my colleagues of the other side of the aisle have stressed the importance of determining adequate staffing levels in order to create efficiencies that to not compromise security in our airports. in these tight budgetary times, it is incumbent upon all of us to find ways to be more

efficient without compromising cured. we cannot cut corners when it comes to transportation security. i look forward to hearing from mr. halinski on the staffing security model. i would also expect to hear from him on the cost of outsourcing of screening operations. finally, i hope he can solve a mystery we have tried to unravel for over a year -- that is how headquarters reorganization reduce costs and create efficiencies? with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. opening statements may be submitted for the record. we are pleased to have a distinct witness, mr. john halinski. he assumed his new position in

jly. he previously served as the head office of global strategies. before joining tsa, he served 25 years in the marine corps. we thank you for your service. the chair recognizes mr. halinski. >> good morning, chairman rodgers and distinguished members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to testify. since tsa's inception, commercial aviation has been of primary target for al qaeda as evidenced by repeated an unsuccessful attempts to attack our system. in recent years, we unmitigated threats related to liquid explosives in 2006, the christmas day under were bombing and 2009, the cargo explosive bombing in 2010 and concerns about surgically implanted devices this year.

the threat continues to evolve which is why tsa uses intelligence. our transportation security officers screen more than 1.8 million people per day. our work force is dedicated to the security of all passengers and our leadership is committed to employing risk-based, intelligence-driven intelligence operations to reduce the abilities.ur 10 years after screening operations began, our work force is the verse. it succeeds -- approximately 1/4 of our work force or 15,000 personnel are veterans of the united states armed forces who bring the same dedication to serving their country that they did well in military uniform. our work force has considerable on-the-job experience with the average tso serving for six years. we train and expect our work

force to carry out critical security missions with professionalism and respect. most travelers have a positive experience at the airport. of the 6 million passengers screamed each year, we are contacted by 750,000 travelers, and less than 8% are from passengers registering a complaint. this belies the near constant criticism and embellish allegations of improper screening repeated as fact by many individuals despite evidence to the contrary. we have been focused on evolving l of our work force. through the use of technology, we have invested in more specialized screening approaches as recommended by the 9/11 commission. since the inception of tsa, we have used intelligence to make adjustments to the prohibited

items list. this allows our work force to focus on high-threat items. based this on an analysis of intelligence and our commitment to mitigating risk. in addition to the administrators expectations of hard work, professionalism and integrity from everyone, he has committed to providing the most effective security in the most efficient way. we are engaged in a transformation to better allocate resources. our mission requires the work force with specialized skills that can adapt as threat to the fall. maintaining and enhancing our employ capability is a high priority. to be successful, we hauled our work force accountable for meeting expectations for hard .ork, professional exemism it is a matter of loyalty that tens of thousands of employees that take pride in carrying out our missions and do it well that we take prompt and appropriate

action when we identify employees who do not meet our standards. the administrator established the office of professional responsibility. patterned after a similar function within the department of justice. the purpose is to ensure that allegations are investigated and discipline is fair across the agency. in closing, what unites everyone at tsa is our mission. we are aware of why tsa was created. our employees, some of whom are your neighbors and constituents, choose public service to ensure that the horror of 9/11 never happens within our country again. our work force is committed to serve and protect the travelling public as a genuine and admirable. i am proud to serve with tsa, and am committed to supporting it to make them better. i'm committed to defending them when they are criticized, and i am committed to holding them accountable when they fail to meet standards.

this is what our mission requires. thank you, and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. the chair recognizes himself. do you believe that the criticisms of tsa by many americans are reasonable, yes or no? >> sir, i would say when i looked at the statistics we have, which is we screen 600 million passengers per year, and we have engagement who actively come in contact with 750,000. less than 8% are criticisms. when you look at the large amount of passengers going through, i think that statistics speaks for itself. i will say that in any large organization -- an organization of 60,000 -- that is like a city. you have crime. he will have people in this city you do not do things that are

proper or make mistakes. i am not saying we are any different from any group of americans. i am saying we are exactly alike. we will hold them accountable when they do something wrong. we have demonstrated that recently with the creation of opr and trying to streamline the process when we identify problems in our organization. >> do you think the criticisms by the american people are reasonable? >> sir, i would ask you if you could provide us what the criticisms are. i have not seen a lot of statistics about criticisms. >> have you been out and public lately? i hear it every time i go to wal-mart or church. >> yes, sir. i saw an interesting effect on the media and the press we get. we have tracked since 2009- reporting in the meeting and -- negative reporting and found there were 13,000 reports in the

media. we looked at the number of blocks, and there are 5000 blogs. of them, 80% of those are negative. one interesting piece i find as a former marine is that it is very easy to put a comment in a blog and not put your name on it. when we see criticism we are going to address criticism and the vulnerabilities. i give you my word on that. >> you talked about the office of professional responsibility. can you tell me more specifically what you intend to do now that you are in charge to more rapidly try to eliminate this problem to the extent humanly possible? >> yes, sir occurred when we see an issue with an employee, we are very committed to resolving it. i would like to take you one moment occurred >> specifically, what do you intend to do differently that has been

bdone before? >> yes, sir. when we have personnel that have committed stealing, drugs, or lack of security. those personnel are terminated. >> that is a new development. >> number two, when we cannot conclusively identify bad behavior, we conduct an investigation. we created the office of professional responsibility to ensure there is consistency. an investigation is held. we have consistent review of the process. if a proper, our employees are held accountable for misbehavior. it sends a strong signal. i'd like to go back to your opening comments when you identify issues in some airports. i view that as a positive thing. we are policing our own. we are identifying problems and conducting the appropriate

action. in some cases, it is termination occurr. >> is the new contract you are about to sign the going to inhibit you? >> because it is a sensitive negotiation, i think it would be inappropriate for me to discuss. i do not think it is a proper to discuss that. i am more than willing after the negotiations to give you a full briefing on exactly what is entailed on that issue, sir. >> after the negotiations are complete, i would rather do it in public because the public needs to know. one of my concerns all along has been that when the tsa do have somebody that, for example, makes serious errors in judgment like when people are going through the magnetometer. they aren't terminated. they are not disciplined.

there have been some pretty egregious actions if they were in the private sector, they would have been terminated. the truth is, the overwhelming majority of tsa employees and screeners are good employees trying to do a good job, but we cannot let the organization be tainted by bad folks. my time is expired. i recognize mr. davis for five minutes. >> thank you very much. welcome. let me ask you, in 2006, the dhhs office of the inspector general reported that covenant aviation security officials at san francisco international airport compromise covert security testing. they informed their contract screeners that testing was occurring. do you believe that such

misconduct by a company with a contract for screening services constitutes a breach of the public trust? >> first, let me say i am not familiar with that case. i had not read that. i would say that when ever, whether a private or public company, we identify an issue in our work force we tried to take the appropriate action that is needed. >> let me ask you -- what would happen if that was found to be the case today? >> sir, i believe if we found something like that going on, and we would it take the appropriate action. i believe we would be discussing that with the company that is there, and we would take action based on a review of the process. i cannot say what that would be because i would not have the facts until i was able to sit across the table and discuss it. ou andt a moment ago, yio

the chairman had some dialog relative to the newly established office of professional responsibility, which was created to ensure timely, fair and consistent discipline throughout the agency. however, it is my understanding that most decisions on discipline are still made at the local level by federal security directors. if that is the case, then how will the office of professional responsibility be able to ensure fair and consistent discipline in that it is being applied when it is not the entity making such decisions in what apperaed to be a majority of the cases? >> i think it depends number one on the case. the office will review all cases.

there is a review panel that consists of two individuals from opr. they do a paper review of the case. i'd like to say, we have 60,000 employees. our office of professional responsibility is a small organization. we are concentrating -- is a new organization. we believe it is the right approach. we are trying to be consistent. there is a review process. >> let me ask you. that being the case, how will the office of professional responsibility coordinate with exclusive representation to ensure the terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties are not violated? >> sir, i would like to say that we are in a very sensitive negotiation on collective

bargaining. i think anything i say could be taken out of context and i do not want to jeopardize that negotiation. but we would love to do a public forum as chairman rogers said on all aspects of the agreement with the union. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i recognize the gentleman from california. >> first of all, let me thank you for your service in the marine corps, and i appreciate that. i presume the confidence and the dedication you showed as a marine is the same dedication your showing us today, helping us with challenges. i want to put on the record, i think we are safer today as a result of the work that has been done by dhs and tsa. i'm safer when i go in this weekend i'm going with my granddaughter on a flight. when they turn 5, they come

with granddad. i feel more confident and safer today than i did in the days right after 9/11. i appreciate that work and i appreciate the work of tsa employees. i think the fully body scanner may be one way of reducing complaints. as someone that had many body searches, it is not a pleasant experience. there are many ways that i think can lead to complaints. i think the rapidity with which people can go through the body scanners and a lack of having full body searches is an improvement. i'm a supporter of the screening partnership program. i was pleased in the a announcement that sacramento international airport, which has

been striving to get permission from tsa to pursue that, that the the announcement that they can pursue that has gone forward. i appreciate that. is there any evidence that there is any difference in terms of the level of complaints you have from those airports that have tsaemployees versus those that have screening partnership program employs? >> our analysis between the federal laws work force and the spp found that from an operational standpoint, there are basically no differences. i would say that our analysis has indicated there is a slightly higher cost curve >> i understand. i do not want to go into that because we have strong disagreements on that. you came up and your folks forgot to put the additional costs of pension and so forth in there. we brought it down from 13% to

3%. i do not want to get into that question. i do not think there is any problem with examining it, but i have had some real problems with the numbers i have gotten from tsa over that time. let me ask you this. how do you recruit screeners? what are the key qualifications that you look for? and have you changed it at all in light of some of the complaints we had about some of those who have been on the job in the past? >> sir, we actually have a good process to recruit screeners. let me start, if you allow me to walk through that process. we recruit through a variety of different processes. what we are looking for because it is a key to good security is we are looking for a very diverse workforce. i am not talking about race or age, i am talking a combination -- experience, several things it

-- because it is very important because if you're born to be successful and security cannot look to one lands. have to look through multiple lenses. when we do our recruiting, our personnel are vetted against a criminal database and a terrorist database and abetted against their financial records. once they come in, they are given a fairly extensive training regimen. they have to pass a series of tests, knowledge on screening, knowledge on our standard operating posrocedures. as they progress, they rae given recurrent training on a continual basis. >> is their awf period of probation? >> i would have to get back with you on that. >> what about your recruitment of veterans? >> we actively recruit veterans. 25% of our work force carrot >>

how do you recruit them? >> we use a lot of the internet. we have programs where we look at the transition assistance program with dod. i think that is a good program. i myself went through that program and it does identify opportunities. >> how many criminal cases do you have on going? >> i will have to get back with you. i am not sure exactly. >> can you give us the type of offenses, i would appreciate that. thank you. >> the chair recognizes my friend and colleague from minnesota? for 5 minutes. >> thank you heard welcome aboard, sir. thank you for your dedication. he stepped into the breach. thank you for doing that. i cannot think of a better guide than a marine. thank you. you come from a very professional organization, and i hope that what you have learned in the corps will be transferred down to the troops.

i think that being a marine corps will help you. i look forward to seeing the transformation in the tsa. the majority, the old saying that 95% of your workforce is good but 95% of your work is spent on 5% of your people. that is probably what you are experiencing now. i understand and appreciate your sensitivity regarding union negotiations as a 17-year union member going to negotiations, i understand would your concern on saying something may be taken out of context and affect negotiations. i totally get that and understand that. one of the things when i went through negotiations, one of the strong proponents of that i have always been said is that you

never negotiate safety. that is one thing that i hope you'll take to bear when you negotiate with unions, that safety is not negotiable. it is one way or the other. hopefully, we will always lean on the side of safety. with that said. in your testimony, you mentioned a training to de-escalate difficult situations. one of the bills i have is a tsa bill making sure that our warriors come back from overseas in uniform with orders and a military i.d. that they get expedited screening. do you have special training for members of the armed services? >> yes, we do. ever we start a new program or we initiate a program, what we have as extensive training of our screeners. in this case, military personnel

to recognize a couple of things. we think the partnership we established with dod is good. not just returning veterans up wounded warriors and their families. we have established a good program. it has been great to work with d.o.d. in this capacity. and we are very committed to supporting them and carrying that out. >> the reason i asked the question. i heard several stories from service members were forced to remove their boots and when there were traveling on orders. i take it personally. i just recently it was returning in minnesota, i saw a major returning from afghanistan. i was excited because of the bill we have was able to press for. were you able to get your expedited screening? he said, what is that? it was not even offered a theory he is in full military uniform -- he is in full military

uniform. i was very disappointed that this bill that we fought so hard for is not being deployed. we just had a hearing about that a couple of weeks ago. so anything that you as a veteran yourself, anything you can do to move this along, you're in violation of the bill already because it was supposed to be fully executed. anything you can do as a marine and also the head, i would appreciate your expediting that. can you tell me if any steps have been taken since then to train any -- to change the training for members of the armed services coming back? our people aware of this act? are they aware when they see a service member in uniform that they are to offer expedited screening? >> yes, sir. we are very committed to working with the dod we established a good partnership. 40 airport. 4

we are doing the best we can to get the word. with look at the military is one of our models for the risc-based heck.ity programi in pre-c >> ok, sir. you do understand it is the law, signed by the president heard >> i absolutely understand the law. >> i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes himself for a second round of question. to make sure the audience of here and on c-span understand the incidences' i am concerned about, i want to describe a few of them. last year and honolulu, 45 employees were fired and suspended including the federal security directorate for failing to screen checked bags. also, in jackson, mississippi, a

security director was arrested for stabbing a co-worker. the individual was previously a screening supervisor at chicago o'hare. in newark, screening supervisors were fired for being caught sleeping in front of monitors used to detect explosives. this year at fort myers, five employees were fired and 38 others including supervisors and the federal security director were suspended for failing to conduct random screening this year at dulles airport, a supervisor was arrested for running a prostitution ring. given these examples, can you tell me your thoughts about tsa's ability to oversee these supervisors to conduct the screening? >> yes, sir. first, with the incidence in honolulu, newark and fort myers,

the measures we have taken in place are starting to show for which. quite frankly, why i say that, because we are placing our own. we identified an issue. we conducted an investigation the parties involved have been terminated as they should have been. there were not in accordance with the way we operate. in the case of jackson and dulles airport, those are criminal cases. i believe that was occurring when these individuals were off duty. and they have been handled appropriately. both individuals have been arrested and terminated. i would tell you on supervisory training, one of the things we initiated in our transformation is the creation of the office of training and work force engagement. why? we had training in several key different areas. we have consolidated training to become much more efficient. part of the training we are doing in georgia is what we call, and i want to get a correct because i screwed up a

couple of the hearings ago on an acronym -- esso training. the this particular training is a new and it specifically addresses supervisory screening techniques and operations. our culture of accountability and integrity. we are trying to get the entire supervisor work force trained in a short period of time. >> what period of time? >> 18 months. >> every supervisor? >> absolutely. we believe the creation of this office a major step to refocusing our efforts to become an efficient, counter-terrorism organization where we hold our people accountable and increase integrity. >> i am glad to hear you are talking about 18 months. last i heard, you were looking at a much longer time line. that is a great improvement.

tsa represents everything wrong about the federal government -- bloated bureaucracy. would you put the chart up? help navigate this. when you look at the bottom right-hand side of the screen, there is a green box. that is when somebody is identified as having done something criminal. what we through the process of what happens after that person. -- let's say is caught stealing something. where did they go? this seems confusing. >> to be honest, i have never seen that slide. it seems confusing. let me simplify the process. we have a couple of different processes. if an individual is identified as committing an act of theft, drugs, and we do test for drugs or lack of screening, what we do it immediately if we can prove immediately, we terminate the employee. >> do you believe that would be

inhibited by your new contract? >> once again, i will go back to what i have said before. i feel that if i discuss any aspect of the collective bargaining agreement at this critical time, i could jeopardize that negotiation. i would prefer to give you of the full treatment anbriefing as concluded. >> if you're not able to fire people for stealing, we're going to have a problem. >> if we catch an individual who is stealing, involved in drugs or committing acts of lack of security is to terminate that employee immediately. if we can not approve it immediately, what we do is we conduct an investigation that goes to did dhs i.g. or its internal. if the allegation turns out to be true, it is taken to the office of professional responsibility. they have 30 days to conduct a consistent approach to dealing out a proper action.

that complex the time frame much quicker. we believe the process is streamlined and more effective and it is consistent across the board. >> the office of professional responsibility at 30 days it can terminate or suspend? there is no other step beyond that? >> we will do an automatic review. there is no other stuff. there will be a letter. a 14-day period where the person has the ability to respond. and then there will be a final adjudication. we're trying to streamline. we cannot tolerate misbehavior, sir. i would like to say again, we have 60,000 employees. they are good employees. if i may make one comment. we see a lot about surveys with tsa employees and they said this or that. there is one striking piece that every survey we have that stands out among our employees, and that is a commitment to our mission. they truly believe, because they

are not the best paid folks out there in the world, that they are there to protect the travelling public, and that is their mission and we take it seriously. we will not tolerate. i will not tolerate misbehavior or criminal conduct. we will take appropriate action. i give you my word. >> that is good enough for me. i recognize mr. davis to the next round of questions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. am i correct understand that discipline is and not one of the terms of the contract? >> i was in the marine corps for 25 years and we used to say name, rank and serial number. i'm going to go back to what i said previously. i believe if i talk about any piece of this negotiation it could jeopardize it. understand all your concerns, and i will gladly come back and talk to you about complected bargaining in future. we would love to do that. i feel that we could jeopardize

a sensitive negotiation, sir. >> let me ask what role does the newly established office of training and work force engagement play in a determining whether or not there is a need for discipline or a need for additional training? how do you separate? >> yes, sir. we've created two new organizations. we created the office of training and work force engagement to reduce redundant training. and to centralize it to become more effective. we are utilizing the facilities, which we believe is demonstrating a cost efficiency. and they are focused are not training and messaging internally to our work force. messaging of accountability and integrity. the office of professional responsibility, on the other hand, is there to work with the

leadership of tsa and provide consistency when we talk about doing in areas of discipline or his behavior within the organization. >> earlier this summer, the house took several votes on amendments to the homeland security bills and several of those amendments focus on policies and specifically targeted at the screen or work force. in one in particular, would have banned tso's from wearing badges and stripped the office of title from screeners. i'm trying to understand how would prohibiting screeners from wearing badges and stripping them of their title enhance aviation security? if you have any? >> i don't have an opinion on

that. it never came to fruition. i do not have an opinion. i did -- i have a strong belief in our screening work force. when you have 60,000 people, 1/4 of which are veterans that are looking annually as 6 million people, and to make a decisiongo and no-go, it is an enormous accomplishment. i truly believe that. they are out there defending the public every day you hear stories, there are misconceptions out there. we are no more different than any other organization in this country. we are made up of americans who are committed to protecting this country. that is the things i want to work with the organization to make sure we gained a reputation in the future, sir. >> in your new role as deputy administrator, what do you see as the biggest challenge?

facing the screen workforce? >> i think there are a couple of challenges. one of the things we would like to work on it is the perception of our screening work force. we are working at that, we better message we are and what we do, because i believe it is a good story. so we want to improve the efficiency. i think we are doing that through training, to education, and we want to ensure we are supporting the work force. i have found in previous positions of leadership when you talk about accomplishing commission which i believe we do, the second piece is taking care of personnel. and you do that through training. you do that to defend them and at the same time for holding them accountable to standard. that is what i plan to do, sir. >> thank you very much. i would certainly say that you demonstrate a tremendous level of training as well as a tremendous level of discipline, and i think you are going to manage this quite well. thank you very much.

i have no further questions. >> the chair recognizes a second round of questions. >> thank you. you are breath of fresh air, sir. thank you very much. i appreciate your step in to the bridge. i truly think you are going to bring pride and professionalism back to this organization by holding people accountable for what they do it in their actions. what i think you're going to do is taking those great people that work for tsa, you are going to be enforcing them and making sure they are recognized for for they are and what they do and bring a lot of pride back to this organization that we took so much pride in after 9/11, that brought this organization for parry i think you're exactly what they need right now. i appreciate that. in your testimony, you said that prior to 2006, we have 45,000 full-time equivalent tos's.

the same functions were carried out by 25% fewer personnel while passenger volume remains about the same as it was in 2006. earlier information provided by dothe tsa would seem to indicate that the tsa is not operating with 25% fewer tso's. can you comment on that discrepancy? >> absolutely. what i would like to explain it as is when the written statement talked about 45,000 with a 25% last doing screening operations, what we have done, and it is based on comments by the 9/11 commission, we looked at trying to increase our security capability to of layered effect. we have taken those personality and created what we consider to be an exceptionally good, later

security approach, including peter detective officers. our transportation explosive specialists, training officers. we are not going to receive that number. we know our limitations. we know we have been more effective in increasing mcnamara of in fact by utilizing, and not only that but increasing the ability of our people to develop within the organization, to jump from a screener to a behavior detection officer, to look at other areas. it is a two-pronged approach three one, we are more affected because we are carrying out the tenants of the 9/11 report. two, we are increasing opportunities for our work force to make them more professional by giving them opportunities to do other things. >> you brought up an interesting point. bdo's. are you finding them to be effective? >> yes, sir. one example that happened

yesterday where two of our bdo's in miami identified a kidnapping victim, call in law enforcement, and the person that was kidnapped was identified and the police came in and she, how am i going to say this? we stopped the kidnapping through the quick thinking and the abilities of our bod. i believe the program is effective. it is essential for the risc- based security program. if you have a security program, you have to look at it from many aspects. you cannot have one piece of technology that fits all. you have to incorporate technology and the human factor and bdo's do that. >> after speaking with you and you think that they are affected, i will go with you and support you on that. hopefully, we will not have

another round questioning bod's future. regarding software, you talked about the misconduct tracking system developed by lockheed martin. your testimony being delayed until 2013. >> sir, what we are trying to do is, it is one of those things with technology. we would like to get there tomorrow. we are working on that. we are doing the old marine style, fat finger-- fact fingering. it takes more time. >> good luck with that. thank you for stepping in and taking on this position. with that, i yield back. >> the chair recognizes himself for another few questions. i want to pick up where we left off and talking about what happens when you determine somebody is guilty of misconduct.

and what you described was clear to me. i would like to understand the tsa's office of inspection, is that the first place to go to determine if there was a problem? >> yes. if we determine there is an issue we turn it over to our office of inspection. >> they are the ones that send it on to professional responsibility? >> they will ask the department, i.g., if they want to take the case or not. the department will say yes or no. if it's no, then we will conduct the investigation. >> in opr? >> no. it is the department of homeland security inspector general. >> if they decide they do not want to pursue it, then you are saying opr will? >> no, sir. the department inspector general can accept the case or not. if they determine that will not accept it, then the office of

investigation will conduct the investigation and the results are then turned over to the office of professional responsibility to make a decision on whether there was an issue or not in what the discipline should be accordingly. >> what road, if any, does the office of human capital have in this process? >> the office of human capital is an advisory-type organization. because one of the concerns we have is the equal opportunity process and the mspb process. it is the process of where an employee can complain that they are being treated unfairly. our office of human capital is there to work with that employed. they are there as an adviser to opr or to the office of investigation to what roles are for federal government employees, to quit advisory.

>> excellent. as you have heard, we are pleased to see you in this position. as you are probably aware, i have been on the armed services committee for 10 years and i have been urging dhs and folks in management to do more to replicate what they do in dod, because it is the largest of our federal entities and they figured things out that a lot of new agencies -- and you are the third largest federal agency. i think a lot of the learning problems they have experienced and given that you are a 25-year marine veteran, i think you realize they figured it out, too. i applaud you for your service and i expect you will be apply those lessons learned in the military towards your job. what we have a long way to grow, i think you are the right guy to do it. i wish you well. i recognize mr. davis for any

more questions he may have. >> thank you. i do have one. in the past, we have expressed concerns regarding diversity in the agency. unfortunately, we continue to be disappointed as we look at numbers we receive from headquarters on this matter. it is my understanding that in your previous role as leader of the office of global strategist, you maintained a highly diverse office including women and minorities. could you share with us your thoughts on a strategic plan, if you have one, to make sure that the headquarters team represents that kind of diversity that you have experienced in other opportunities? >> let me go back to what i said earlier about diversity, because

i believe that it is of vital for security operations to have an extremely diverse workforce. you cannot look at the security situation to one lens. the key is active recruiting. i believe the plan that we have in place is addressing that. there is always room for improvement across the board in any organization, and we look to address that in the future, sir. >> thank you very much. and i think that you are absolutely correct in your assertions about that particular issue, and we look forward to watching the progress. thank you very much. i have no further questions. >> i thank the gentleman and i think what this theory has demonstrated is that tsa does acknowledge that it has an image problem and a problem with some

of its employees. i think also the fact they put you in this position and the things you have outlined for us today are good evidence you intend to take it seriously. i applaud you for that. i would remind mr. halinski that some members will have questions that could not be here. we will hold a record open for 10 days. i ask you to respond in writing within 10 days. with that, this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] cable satellite corp. 2012]