the center of health statistics. "washington journal" >> in 11 days, watch coverage from the democratic and republican conventions. continuing our tradition of showing every minute of every party convention since 1984. in a few minutes, a look at gun rights and personal liberty. and one hour, john pistole on aviation security. >> i started as a copy boy in " the new york times." .> this sunday, walter pincus

>> they built a $4 million facility for the band which is about 40 people. it has separate rooms for everybody. if he spent $4 million on an a la -- elementary school a thing somebody would raise questions. -- i think somebody would raise questions. >> which is more important, wealth or honor? it is not as said by the victors four years ago, it is the kind of nation we are. is whether we possess the will and determination to deal with the economic questions. all things do not flow from wealth or poverty.

i know this first hand and so do you. all things flow from doing what is right. >> look at what has happened. we have the lowest rates of unemployment, home mortgages in the 28 years. 10 million new jobs, over half of them high-wage jobs. 10 million workers getting the raise they deserve with the minimum wage law. >> c-span has been that every minute of the conventions since 1984. you can watch live on c-span, c- span radio, and a strained online at c-span.org starting august 27. coming up, the independence institute holds its 10th annual

alcohol, tobacco, and firearms party. as you watch, let us know what you think about the discussion using twitter. the hash pack -- the attached tag is on your screen. -- hashtag is on your screen. >> can i grab your attention, please?

all right. all right. settle down. i want this group to behave. we have loiters in the crowd. listen up. we have a few things i want to tell you before we get rolling. no. 1, there are actual media here with cameras. afterwards we will have some questions and answers. feel free to stand up. there is a funny looking guy carrying a microphone. he is obviously compensating for something. do not worry about him when he puts the microphone to run the. welcome to the 10th annual

alcohol, tobacco, and firearms party. i cannot believe we have been doing this for a decade. c-span is here. there is somebody there who is on the floor and can i get up to change the channel. i thought we might ought to explain the what the party is all about for them. the alcohol and fiat -- alcohol, tobacco, and firearms party was a great brainstorm we had over a decade ago when we saw what was happening with the growing any state. the perks of adulthood started slipping from us bit by bit, piece by piece. we need to do something not just to rally around the perks of adulthood, but to actually celebrate the perks of adulthood. what better way to celebrate drinking, smoking, and shooting then drinking, smoking, and shooting.

gladly the lawyers -- the lawyers do not let us do that in the same order. but we are working on it. it is not just about people who do not want you to have your 64 ounce soft drink. it is not just about not eating trans fats, it is about people so very intolerant to they want to use government to get you to live the way they want you to live. they want you to be so much like them they feel comfortable using divisive government to take away the perks of adulthood. they are very tolerant of people with different lifestyles as you should be. but if your life style is to smoke a cigarette, we do not tolerate you. all i am saying is that in america, having a drink, having

a smoke, like eating a nice fat the doughnut, drinking a big slur p are whatever your decision is should not be perverse. government should not be there to take it away but to protect your rights to do so. [applause] every year we celebrate the perks of adults could. this started out with a handful of us getting together. now it is known throughout the country as one of the must attend parties. i cannot tell you how exciting it is to come out here to colorado to one of the best sporting ranges around and play 10 holes of shotgun in and then come back for brandy and cigars. what i have realized is, what hacks off the left so very much

is to see the right having fun. if i could encourage you this afternoon, grab the alcoholic beverage of your choice, a good stogie from our friends at smoker friendly, some margaritas from coyote gold. kick back and remember, every time you are having a good time and smoking a cigarette, there is a liberal out there who loses a little part of her own heart. to talk about the freedoms that we enjoy and the freedoms we want to protect. freedom is not allowing people to do things that you approve of, freedom is about protecting people's rights to do things you find it distasteful. let me introduce dave kopel, our

second amendment research extraordinaire. we cannot do what we do without him. [applause] >> thank you. what i would like to talk about today is two things that come together. one is, what is wrong with a book -- michael bloomberg and the second is what is wrong -- michael bloomberg is the head of this faux grass-roots organization called "mare's against illegal guns." it finances the center of the gun prohibition movement in the country today. very wealthy with lots of lobbyists in d.c. and state capitals around the country. they have some bucks.

it is not exactly what it seems. they have 12 people who got their names off this list when they said "i never signed up for this, you put my name on it without asking me. or you told me it was against illegal guns. it turns out you are against guns and general." there are also 19 people -- 19 who have now left office because they were under indictment or because charges are pending or they have to resign or the prosecutor did not bring the case. there are 19 and criminals in "mayors against illegal guns," and that means they have a

higher crime rate than people who carry permits to carry illegal weapons. the proper way to refer to this group is "a legal mare's against guns." i would say on the other hand they have done one important service. there are a lot of people who wonder if there is an afterlife for not and how could you know for sure. one mayor who was in this group passed away. yet after words "mayors against illegal guns" was distributing letters signed by this now deceased mayor. if there is any doubt, the governor proved there is an afterlife.

what we see out of michael bloomberg and his crowd consistently and including their attempts to exploit the recent murders in aurora and wisconsin and every day is it is undifferentiated hostility toward gun ownership and people who own -- especially people who own firearms for protection. we know this is rather hypocritical because when michael blumberg says people should have guns for protection, i guess he has his fingers crossed. if you can get the entire new york police detail to follow you around with machine-gun nests. maybe he feels there is a difference there. they put out these terrible libels against people including saying the only reason a person

would own an ar-15 rifle is because they want to be a mass murderer. what a horrible thing to say about millions of americans who have made the ar-15 the best selling rifle in the united states of america. what a malicious falsehoods to say about our police who frequently carry an ar-15 in their squad cars in circumstances where they might need a rifle for backup. a lot of civilians use them for target shooting, some defense, for hunting game up to the size of the year. the police have those firearms among others because they want to harm a lot of people. they have them for legitimate purposes, and especially for protecting themselves and other people. what we do at the independence institute in our legal work on the gun issue is almost always

we file a joint amicus briefs with police organizations, with a huge coalition. our amicus brief was filed not only for the independence institute of for the two major organizations that train law enforcement in firearms use. these are the trainers for the rest of the police, the international educators and law enforcement firearms. and what we consistently say with the police is there is one key principle that has two manifestations. guns in the wrong hands are very dangerous. we need stronger laws to try to keep guns out of the wrong hands and to punish them and put somebody away so they can not in

danger somebody. at the same time, guns in the right hands protect public safety. they help civilians protect each other. we also need strong laws to make sure there are guns in the right hands to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to purchase, own, use, and carry firearms. 40 years ago there were virtually no gun laws in colorado and most of the united states of any sort. the reason that the gun debate in this country has finally settled down after four decades as it has in colorado and after all we went through after columbine is we have come to a consensus based on common sense and we have added a lot of laws to strengthen trying to keep guns out of the round hands and a lot of laws to protect the rights of law-abiding people.

the most important of these laws in colorado -- which is the same thing we are fighting for in maryland -- is the right to carry. colorado oppose the right to carry law was written by the sheriff's of colorado. it ensures a lot of biting the adult who has a safety training class and obtained a permit to carry a handgun for lawful protection. that is our single most important colorado reform. [applause] we worked on this issue for over a decade to make it become a lot. what a difference it already has made. you know what happened in december 2007 when an evildoer went into the sanctuary of the new life made a church and colorado springs. 7000 people there. he had already murdered four people and he came in their

intent on mass murder. because of the county sheriff's of colorado and our right to carry, a church volunteer was lawfully carrying a handgun in the church. she stopped the killer. she saved over 100 lives that day. [applause] we want laws like that everywhere in the country. we have them in 48 states. maryland is coming soon. it is the essential that -- the protection of the right to bear arms be protected nationally. one of the things we are going to be promoting very much of the independence institute is stronger laws on the mental health. there is lots of ways government spending can be cut starting with corporate welfare, which is illegal by four different

clauses of our colorado constitution. we ought to cut that out. one of the things we want to promote from here on in including the next session of the legislature is better funding for mental health services. not only sensational crimes in aurora but a lot of homicides that happen that never dig camera crews from around the country are committed by people who are seriously mentally ill who 30 years ago or 50 years ago would have been institutionalized. we want to take money out of the hands of corporate welfare -- of the special interests and put them into the community interests of a strong system of mental health in colorado. [applause] so we know what is wrong with michael bloomberg. let me tell you what is wrong with john caldera. he was talking about --

>> on the mental health thing? >> your not supposed to talk about that part. when he referred to our alcohol, tobacco and firearms day as the perks of adulthood. that is fine to characterize alcohol and tobacco in those terms. it is not right on the firearms side. let me tell you about two places in the world. one is western australia. there was a study done of aborigines who were in prison. they had been convicted of crimes. one group of aborigines had -- to both of the criminals had guns. one group of the imprisoned criminals had missed used guns in a crime. the second group -- these were people in prison for committing felonies.

they had never misused a gun against a human being. what was the difference between the two? it was the ones that have never misused again have been taught about guns by a father, uncle. they learned about shooting sports and acquired an attitude of trading guns with irresponsibility and saw them as something you use to shoot some game and not something you used to harm an innocent person. another study in rochester, new york, they did a study overtime and tried to find 16 year olds most likely to become juvenile delinquents. that means they did not study girls at all. if you want to study crime, you only have so many people, you focus on the males. they tracked them over the years.

the youth who at 16 and illegally owned a gun -- maybe they bought it from somebody on the st. -- had a very high rate of being arrested for serious crimes including gun crimes. the youth who legally owned a gun. it said they had a shotgun and it went hunting with their dad or where rifle shooting with their uncles. they had essentially no crime rate of any kind. how young people are socialized about guns is hugely important in future outcomes. contrary to this positive socialization that some of the young people in western australia and rochester had is the tremendously negative association that comes through too much of our media, particularly television entertainment and the movies. people who produce these

horrible pornographic obsession with violence, quentin tarantino movies. they say that has no influence on people. i am sure that is true for the large majority of people. sitting in has no affect on what people ever do, is it kind of out -- is it odd they sell advertising. what a waste that must be. how strange as it these movies and tv shows have sold product placement. coca-cola pays us money and we will have a character drink coca-cola. on the other hand, it never has any affect on them. likewise, the reason that now with the culture war against smoking is you are not supposed to show characters smoking in a movie that young people are going to see. on the other hand, what people

see does have an affect. hollywood will say we make sure when a 15-year-old goes to a movie he will never see somebody lighting up a cigarette but he will see this massive violence and gun amiss use. i do not think it is fair to say that never has an affect on anybody. we are not for censorship, but we are for counter programming. that is part of what atf day is about. introducing some of you to the shooting sport, giving others the opportunity to participate more often, and hoping all of you go out and spread that concentric circle of introducing your friends, your co-workers, your neighbors, and especially young people you know to the responsible shooting sports, which as you know is a culture of safety, responsibility, self control, discipline, and really so many things that exemplify

exactly what is right about america. one of the things we are handing out is from our friends at the nra since 1871, america's oldest civil rights organizations and a mass education organizations as well. they have been teaching people about shooting safety with a focus of young people ever since 1871. there are lots of materials you can take and we encourage you to do that. one is the nra qualification program. it is about the size of a magazine. it shows you how on your own whether you like your guns or sporting clay or 22-caliber will -- 22 caliber rifles. target shooting you can go through and earned the school patches and metals as you work your way up in proficiency. everybody can do it.

we encourage you to do it yourself and hope as many people as possible -- you bring in as many people as possible. on this issue, we are not only on the pro-choice side, we are on the pro-life side as well. what we are doing here every day at the independence institute is to fight for those life-saving values of safety, responsibility, american constitutional rights. we're not just protecting those rights in colorado. we are making sure the rights are protected as we did in the macdonald case. we look forward to the day where even the people in the most oppressed parts of the united states under the sweltering heel of michael bloomberg will regain their rights to smoke a cigarette or a cigar, to drink a big gulp of soda, and to own and carry a handgun for lawful

protection because it is a civil right of every american. [applause] >> we have always had a tradition -- a terrific tradition of bringing great communicators to the party every year. we have had occurred just -- christopher hichens, fred moore. i appreciate having steve moore who i swear has never touched a gun in his life. as he was shooting somebody said it "he says he works for the wall street journal, but it looks like he works for the new york times." the media is changing. the way we get our information is changing. online publications are more and

more important and valued it. there is one little site that has the people at huffington opposed looking over their shoulder every day and that is the daily caller. it is one of the best portals for news in the country. one of our longtime friends there, the editor of the daily collor has been a great friend of ours and freedom and a real enemy of nanny is some as long as i can remember him. let me introduce david martosko. [applause] >> i guess some of you read "the daily collar." actually, i have a major announcement before i really get started. it is always breaking new ground on news reporting. since we are smashing barriers all the time i would like to announce who will inaugurate a new section -- lgbt section,

lasagna years tobacco. we are the only ones with a guns and tear section. i am writing a cigar a column called "cigar hunter." we have a wonderful the senior editor who reviews the years. i suspect right now tucker carlson is cooking marinara sauce. i am glad to be back here. i spoke on a panel in 2009 with andrew bright hard. i will never forget riding around in a van and the window was open and he was howling at the moon. i don't him and said, what is with the hooting? he said, if you are not having fun and letting it all hang out,

there is something seriously wrong with you. he became famous and maybe even more so after his untimely death for heating big government hides to tell us what we should do and how we should do it. what we sometimes forget is that brietbart despised the nameless, faceless bureaucratic nightmares to try to control what we do behind dark curtains. i hated them, too. i really do. i hate that they are smog. they believe they can tell us all what is best for us. i hate to they have tax payer funded jobs to tell us what is best for us and to do it outside the cold truth of common sense. i even hate the sleep well at night, do you not a little bit? i think i know what brietbart is

up to right now. i think he is rollerblading around heaven and probably doing it with cs lewis. not because he finally found religion or he read "the chronicles of the aria." in the 1948 lewis wrote an essay called "the humanitarian view of punishment." part of that included people who inflict punishment on each other for no good reason. this is what he wrote. of all tyrannies -- a tyranny exercise for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. it may be better to live under robber barons then under omnipotent moral busybodies. their cruelty may sometimes sleep, it may at some point be

associated. for those who torment us for our own good will do so until know and because they do so with the approval of their own consciousness. they may be more likely to go to heaven, but more likely to make a hell on earth. i am not drinking, but i am smoking a cigar to cs lewis. dave is right. basic freedoms are crumbling all around us. somehow michael bloomberg manages to never be photographed in his nanny costing, but i think he dresses like that on weekends. first he went after salt at restaurants. people who are allowed to have access to a salt shaker without supervision. who is bloomberg to tell us what to put in our food anyway?

if you are on a major dose of hypertension drug and you go around slurping soy sauce and licking margherita glasses, you are a moron. screw you. being a more on with a modicum of freedom beats letting some know it all create a nerf plan for you to live in. that is what they are trying to do. bloomberg has decided a soft drink bigger than 16 ounces should be beyond the reach of men and women. we should mark this and reticulate and come up with silly names for it. here is what i love about the controversy. this tends to bring up the best in americans. we rally in against it and do something. a friend of mine at the patent and trademark office tell me something remarkable. she said shortly a few weeks after bloomberg announced his soda crackdown, somebody made an injury to find out if a new kind of soda had been patented yet.

it is a cylindrical paper cup. it has a movable bottom. you go to the counter at subway and they sell you a 16 ounce soda. it can only contain 16 ounces because the bottom is have rick up the cup. you take one shove with a straw and now you have a 24 ounce cup. that is a big screw you to michael bloomberg. the animal rights people always get their undies in a twist about something. the problem is there was some nincompoop in city government whose mind was so open and he had such an open mind that his brain fell out.

the important thing is these candidates, they did not outlaw consuming it. the outlawed selling it. he ingenuity kicks in. there was a group of eight restaurants, fine dining restaurants. they called themselves "the duck easies." here is what they started to do. previously they would sell you a $50 plate and collett the complementary crustinee. here's what they did. this'll be for $50 -- isolde you the plate and gave it to you as a garnish. eventually the law was needed. the repealed the law. back in the new york they have not gotten the memo yet.

the department of health and human hygiene, the next thing that comes up is movie popcorn. there are going to limit the size. after that will come the size of your milk shakes and from pacino's. you cannot be trusted with these things. -- fraauchinos. he may be right. a breast feeding might be healthier. fine. whatever. i suppose the next it will ban breast feeding if there is more than 16 ounces in there. [laughter] am i a little nuts for smacking around michael bloomberg so much? the latest polls show 65% of americans are against limiting

soft-drink sizes in the new york. my question is, what is wrong with the rest of the 35% of people? they are probably the same idiot to think it is a wonderful idea for the u.s. be a to change the menu in their cafeterias on mondays to celebrate meatless mondays. this is the federal agency that inspects and grades stake. they said the rules and regulation for how you sell bacon. because of a bunch of vegetarian activists, the only cruising you can get on monday is a salad with tofu. -- the only excuse seen -- cusine you can get there is a salad with tofu. i tried to be a vegetarian once. it was the aug. 45 minutes of my life. if you want to be a vegetarian,

a unitarian, a libertarian, i do not care. just keep it to yourself and do not force it on people. once lee said the daughter announced she was going to be a vegetarian on in the simpson. homer's said, wait a minute. you are telling me you are never going to eat animals again? what about bacon. and she says, no. him? no, dad. this all come from the same animal. >> and he says, sure a magical wonderful animal. i never liked lisa simpson. she reminded me of every anti- everything person that i enjoyed mocking at a safe distance from dartmouth college. i realized later in life what we would tell jokes at their expense. not because they were different

or mysterious or because we were threatened by them. it was because they were never happy about anything. never. they were at an ivy league school is about to have the world by the proverbial cajones. it did not give them pleasure. how many people have the scene who are generally happy people? how many gun control activists are content with their lives when not controlling yours? how many and tie sugar crusaders minutes to go through life without a constant scowl on their faces. they are scared some where somebody is enjoying a lollipop. i do not know any anti tobacco nazis ever cheerful in the morning. i am not cheerful until i have my breakfast cigar. enjoying freedom and your own course through life is fun. sometimes the work without a net, but it is fund. -- it is fun.

we are here to shoot guns until the air today. i shot some really badly. smoking cigars, drinking something handcrafted for the sole purpose of enjoying it. the simplicity of it all, it is making everybody in this room happy. i can see it. you are enjoying yourselves. the only thing that will make it better next year is we need an ice-cream sundae station over there. we need a chocolate river back there with some oompa loompas would be great. you have to understand there is a logical argument be made for the anti-social, anti sugar,

anti meet nannies, michael bloomberg, the humane society of the united states. they are saying not smoking, not eating meat is the patriotic thing to do because as health care changes and we all start sharing resources and it becomes a public thing, they say my cigar smoking will put health expenses on all of you. that is nonsense. fat people and smokers are the most patriotic people in a america. but that may, i am not a skinny man and i write a cigar column. i will die six weeks early because of that and i will save the health-care system hundreds of thousands of dollars. they should name a street in ohio after me. i am a hero. why worry about being overweight? 200 years ago, if you did not have job in your trunk they did not want to paint your body. -- junk in your trunk they did

not want to paint your body. that meant you were not part of the peasant class. the rich and the famous, their life expectancy was 45 years old. the un says the life expectancy average four american adults is 78. i think we are pushing the limit of the human body's ability to bounce back from things. at a certain. if you prevent yourself from dying of lung cancer you will go from alzheimer's disease. anxiety is a health risk. happiness, psychiatrist will tell us, can be as beneficial to bring chemistry as the best drugs that can get out. even better that the -- even better than the healthy food our first lady pushes on sesame street. where did this all come from? they came from the modern public health establishments.

the public health movement. more than a not, i think it is a complete miss an obstacle to our happiness. originally it was about curing and stopping epidemics. 100 years later, we cheered and eradicated measles, mumps, the black plague. something that used to kill millions of people. now it is never heard of. now, you have to reinvent yourself to stay relevant because there are millions of government grant dollars at stake. if you price yourself out of the market by being irrelevant, the money dries up. the public health people had to find something else to do. public health mostly has become a social science instead of a hard science, and that is the problem. we have a lot of quasi-academics

who cannot cut it in the laboratory. they are regulating ourselves in taken shrinking our dessert portions because that is all they know how to do. i used to represent an organization called the center for consumer freedom. they tell me now that there is a professor at you see san francisco who is on tv claiming ugar is so dangerous and toxic the government should regulate it like alcohol. on tv, he nods in the approval like he received some great wisdom from the man on the mountain. it is sugar for crying out loud. i cannot wait for the next remake of williwaw cut where they will all be eating broccoli. of course the public health

theocracy is coming after cigars. they have been working on a rulemaking procedure that would take cigarette regulations and apply all of them to cigars. you get the tax increases. no more buying a cigar over the internet. the rationale is that 16 year olds are spending $16 of their disposable income. that is what they say. we have to keep cigars out of the hands of children so we cannot buy them on the internet. nobody is arguing about whether or not the fda has the authority to do this, because they clearly do. that is no excuse. it is not. compared to the nazi osha regulations they have to deal with every day of the year, maybe restricting cigar's does not seem like a big deal.

these things never seem urgent until it is yours. eventually something you care about will be scorned by the government. do what john suggests. it is a heck of a lot of fun. i do when you to know a little bit more about the daily caller. it is unlike any other news organization in america. our reporters are fearless, hungry. editors do not have any sacred cows. during the primary process we went after an awful lot of republican pretenders. we did that take marching orders from campaigns, political parties. that puts us in a shrinking minority of u.s. newsrooms. i would like to leave you with this thought. most of the problems in the mini culture -- and that talk about

social science versus hard science -- most of the problems arise because those two branches of discipline operate like very different pieces of machinery. hard science, the kind of say, gee, what causes cancer, they operate in a way that is very good and honest about rethinking conclusions on the basis of new evidence. galileo, einstein, stephen hawking -- we may not always understand what they are talking about but we trust they are playing fair. we trust if they get something wrong, the next generation of scientists will correct them and not try to cover it up. there is a built in humility and hard sciences. social sciences are an awful lot like political -- they move in

one direction only. nobody has ever apologized as far as i know for the great society and said, we should do this in a different way or outcome based education. the self-esteem movement among that little kids, a total failure. the marriage penalty, i am waiting for an apology because i am married. nobody will ever apologize for telling college kids that a degree in ethnic studies or wind studies will make them unemployable. if that describes any of you, i am very sorry. i am not sorry for saying it, i am just sorry. social sciences are subjective. the definition of success can be whatever you wanted to be. there is nothing oppressive to point to, it is your contention is that count for everything.

it's been in large soda's does not make the body mass index card down, he will say i tried. i will always remember the and the paper cup with removable bottoms. government cannot change human nature as much as it tries. they can make themselves feel good and purposeful and they can do it with your tax dollars and hold press conferences and issue reports and guilt trip ordinary americans into being less happy and content. do not get sucked in. the best revenge against a nanny culture does not come when we pass and moan and put up a fight. it comes with a smile and technology are happy and they are not. hilda solis eric -- i am sincerely happy to john for having me come out.

i will say please visit the on a daily basis. our average puts us above the boston globe, the daily tribune, the rolling stone. [applause] if america, we are changing the face of on land news month by month, step by step, reader by reader. if you do not read it, download the ipad app. i am filing cigar columns twice a week. i was here in denver at a place called cigar on 6th. they have a barber shop in the back or you can get a haircut while the smoke. is that uncle? i will read a column about that and i will probably read about some of the people i have met today. i just wanted to be a positive day.

i am so grateful to have met so many of you. two of the clay pigeons i missed, i will get you next time. thank you very much. [applause] john said i should take your questions. >> one wonders sometimes why god gave us canine teeth. he knew someday we would have to tear plastic. [laughter] >> that is not really a question but i will tell you on the subject of vegetarians. i have relatives who are vegetarians. fine. do your thing.

i have been in the situations where vegetarians will look at the menu and said what is the vegetarian entrees. i have never seen anyone at a vegetarian restaurant say "where is my lamb chop?" we do not do that. we are far more tolerant. i wish people at peta would wake up and smell the coffee. >> why is it that so many republicans seem to favor freedom for alcohol, tobacco, and firearms but oppose things like colorado amendment 64 that would legalize marijuana or oppose medical marijuana initiatives that help people with their pain. >> i think not enough of them have smoked a yet. -- smoked it yet. >> being a lifelong registered

democrat i can tell you lots of times republicans are wrong it. i will be very honest. i tried to make marijuana in college. he paid for his tuition by selling it. he felt a generous one day. i think it is a fine cause. we should write something about it at the dialy caller. >> if you had a chance to read the editorial that blames gov. romney for the fact that the media ran with senator reid's accusations of the taxes paid for 10 years. what that said about journalists if you saw the editorial. >> i think it is fair to say that the romney campaign did not respond terribly aggressively. it was that it had to be people three degrees of separation away

from him. it would be nice to see republicans with republicanspiss and vinegar to call someone a liar to their face. what is also true is the online the world, they responded very quickly. within three hours of him making the accusation, there was a mem going around . by midnight that night it was the no. 1 trending thing on the twitter. if you do not know what that is, it is a man having relations -- let's just say it is jerry sandusky. now, the urban dictionary has now inserted a new definition of harry reid. i will leave it to you to go and read it or read the piece we

published last monday about it. that stuff is not going away. people do not put things out there for political gain, c'mon talk about it. is just as silly as the tax thing. i think the romney campaign could have responded more forcefully. it is a long the campaign season. they have 90 days to go. >> do you speak at college campuses? what is the reception you get? >> it has been a long time since i have spoken at a campus. >> i speak at law schools often. there are lots of open-minded people interested in ideas. it is a good thing. colleges are not as bad as you might think reading the forced to media reports. >> with that said we are both

available. >> would you comment on global warming. >> i think it is at a unique crossroads of hard sciences and social science. the hard scientists are coming to the recognition -- the founder of global warming said we were overzealous. we overshot the runway by a lot. the problem is the social scientists that are relying on the early judgments for their programs are not walking back. al gore will buy 1000 deaths and marry a republican before he will walk that back. the hard times are starting to evacuate -- the hard scientists are starting to evaporated bit. and they are saying, no, you are wrong all along. it will come to one of those

things as one of the most aggressive and deceptive hoaxes in the history of science. that is what i think. >> i am an associate policy analyst at the cato institute in washington, d.c. cato's expert.o' in his view, there is some global warming. it has been hugely exaggerated by professional hysterics. the responses to that likewise often really do not make much sense. saying this is the reason we have to take over your entire life because of this alleged

crisis. the ones i know and listen to say at the least be cautious about people who say this is a new reason why you have to give up all of your freedoms. >> anyone who has ever bought a car bank credit, i have a wonderful mormon temple in israel to sell you. >> how many reporters do you have? >> including reporters, editors, and people who do both -- i do not know. i think the editorial side is around 20 people. they are all highly energetic people. a lot of people a very young. a lot of people who are not journalism school graduate so people who are not tainted. we also have the business side

to the daily caller. every news organization in america, you may think they are in the business of telling you the news, but they are in the selling ads business. do you know why newspapers have gone the way of the dodo? craigslist. they made revenue on classified ads. you can do that for free now. that is why the new york times shrink their page. they are stopping their print edition entirely. that is the way it is. the nice thing is we are on the cutting edge. we are going directly to consumers. i think numbers show we are giving them mostly what they want. >> what will the daily caller

think of the paul ryan pick? >> i would just say it is a great indication the romney campaign believes the election will all be about economics and not much out. paul ryan brings economic, budget, and job credentials to the table. i think they made a calculation. we will see if they are right that economics and "it is the economy, stupid" will be everything in november. we will have to see if they made a good calculation. >> one of the things that happen in november is the ryan pick will cause a national conversation about doing something serious about the fiscal crisis this country is heading towards. it is important to that if mitt romney is the next president

that he come and not just because people got tired of obama or this or that, but they come in with a mandate to work american people to work with congress. congress knows we really have to do something before we end up like greece and california. we are not far away from that happening. i will go back to being a democrat. if you believe in the legacy of franklin roosevelt and lyndon johnson, and say, we do not want these things. the whole thing blows up in the country collapses financially. if you believe social security and medicare, properly managed, should be around, not just for this generation, but for the generation after that. it provides long-term stability in the united states. you want them to be there for your children, then you will vote to support paul ryan.

he is the one who is going to fix them so they cannot last the long run. obama is going to drive this country into a fiscal disaster which will kill social security, medicare, along with the rest of the economy. [applause] all seriousness aside, i cannot wait to see paul ryan debate joe biden. >> it will be interesting to see if he gets flustered. i will give it back to your host. [applause] >> stick around after we say goodbye. we have shooting prizes. eric does not want to leave because we have the worst shooter prize. i want to thank you. for a decade, we have been doing this fun saturday. it is something that a lot of

americans do on their own. it is one of those things that we should celebrate, the daily freedom we have. i am thrilled. for those people who are joining us on c-span, i know this is not the average committee room. someplace in abc basement or some panel. this is how america lives. we are out here in this beautiful colorado land. i want to thank the folks at pine creeks sporting clubs for their hospitality. i want to thank some great sponsors. coloradopen.com. i want to thank everyone for being a part of this. for those of you watching at home, take a step outside. it is ok to turn off c-span.

grab a cigar, get a lesson, maybe have a martini. enjoy the freedoms. when you do, remember us. we have been doing it long before it was fashionable. i want to thank you all for being here. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> if you missed any of this, we will show it to you again later tonight just after 11:00 p.m. eastern. we can see your tweets on this event. here is what you have to say. one person tweets -- another one --

thank you for your tweets. the conversation continues on our facebook page. we asked the question, what is the role of government in regulating what people eat and drink? log on to add your comment. you heard the speakers mentioned michael bloomberg. we wanted to let you know that he will be part of our prime- time lineup tomorrow night. he and rupert murdoch discussed immigration policy and their advice for the presidential candidates. you can see that friday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> i started as a copy boy at the new york times. i was in a training program after i got out of the army for the wall street journal. >> this sunday on q&a, walter pincus talks about his various jobs as a journalist, his views

on u.s. spending overseas, and his criticism on the defense department post a budget policy. >> they built a $4 million facility for 40 people. it has separate rooms for everybody. if he spent four million dollars on an elementary school, it would raise questions. >> more with walter pincus, a sunday night at 8:00 on q&a. >> in 11 days, watch coverage of the republican and democratic national conventions live here on c-span. continuing our commitment of showing every minute. in a few moments, the head of the psa on aviation security. in a little more than an hour, a discussion about the accountability of the presidency. after that, we will reassess the look at personal liberty and gun rights. the look ate-air

personal liberties and gun rights. this week, some say there are serious problems with fraud in the u.s. election system. >> there is a whole series of things you have to do to make sure you have an election with integrity. that everyone is confident that the person who got the most votes is declared the winner. >> said it at 10:00 eastern. one woman talks about the largest bank failure in u.s. history, the collapse of washington mutual. part of our book tv weekend on c-span to. chris christie will be the keynote speaker at the republican national convention this month. he told reporters that his 20 minute speech will focus on the case for mitt romney rather than a case against president obama. mitt romney will be introduced

by florida senator marco rubio. tune into the live gavel-to- gavel coverage for your front- row seat to the republican national convention. next, a look at aviation security with the head of the transportation security administration. he spoke with terry moran in late july. this is a little more than an hour. >> thank you and good morning. john, i wanted to begin by saying thank you. thank you for your service. i think someone in your position does not hear that a lot. partly because of the feelings in the general public. we will get to that. let's talk about aviation security. the big question. we can break it down from there.

how safe are we when we fly? how do you assess the threats? what keeps you up at night? >> thank you. thank you for having us here today. for everybody else. i think the context for what we do is importantth. the tsa was created in the aftermath of 9/11. we are safer now than we have ever been. we are part of a global supply chain. i will talk about cargo a little later. passenger security is what most people care about. how we engage with our partners throughout the continuum for national security. i see tsa as part of a national security mission. we have heard about the last couple of days, the cia, and the intel and law enforcemen

services in forming what we do on a daily basis. locally with the fbi. the law enforcement officers and sheriff's deputies. all of that information comes in. it comes into tsa every day as far as the classified grief that i get. we take that information and translate it into something that we can help prevent the next possible attack. we are at the other end of a continuum. all of the great work we have heard about in terms of dod, removing safe havens, all of that. the things that have been contributed to the place where we are today. we can talk more about that. we know we face an adversary regardless of how much they have

been affected through the dod and other actions. we know they are continuing to try to come up with innovative designs, concealment, and deployment techniques. >> they are still very keen on airlines. it is such a spectacle. 9/11 had such a demonstration affect. let's talk about those threats. what does keep you up? what kind of threat of a most concerned about? >> the focus is domestically from the standpoint of the workforce. people v meet -- who you meet. there are 275 airports around the world to have nonstop flights to the u.s. we check the standards for all of those airports. a minimum they have to have

before we will allow passengers and cargo to come to the u.s. we make sure that is passing. one of the challenges and one of my concerns is that sometimes, for whatever reason, it could be something like negligence, or as bad as an insider. someone who may be taking a pay off. they except drug shipments to come through. they think they are allowing a drug shipment to come through. that is what i am concerned about. you focus on aviation. the interest in trying to do something in a plane, whether it is a passenger, whether it is cargo, if they can achieve that, all the billions of dollars, whatever we have spent it just in the u.s. in the industry in terms of trying to raise the bar to detect and deter terror,

they will have succeeded. we saw from the magazine after the human cargo plot, they said, it only cost them $4,000 to devise and chips those devices -- ship those devices. the u.s. government and the industry spent a lot of money to try to make sure that they were not successful another time. >> that is a pretty good return on the investment. having them spend that money. let me ask you about how tsa has responded to these threats. i wonder if i can put the question this way -- there is a public confidence and public appreciation problem for tsa. i wonder if part of that is because the public might get the sense that you are primarily a

reactive agency. they have the printer cartridges. someone tries to like a shoe on fire, we have to take off our shoes. there is a liquid threat, and we have to take our liquids out. it seems like we are one step behind. is that fair? >> i think it is in the 10 year history from the standpoint of trying to develop the predicted intelligence we did not have on 9/11 where actions could be taken to detect and deter. >> do you net? >> we are much better situated. there is no guarantee. in terms, there is no 100% guarantee. i am a strong proponent of that. a risk-based intelligence approach to aviation security. to that point, i think we have

to focus on how we can take the intelligence that is so much more robust and with improvements in technology, how can we make better decisions in terms of pre-screening people so we can expedite their physical screenings? i think the one size fits all construct after 9/11, we have to treat everyone as a possible terrorist. we have progressed with the technology and intelligent. we have moved away from the one- size-fits-all construct. we saw the two million passenger who has gone through a project. -- pre-check. we can pre-screen them.

we are operational in 19 airports. 35 by the end of the year. i know some people have been through the pre -check. i think it is helping redefine the image of tsa. a number of other things we're doing internally. to move away from the one-size- fits-all construct. >> i want to take a step away from aviation security and asked about the procedure. most people in this room travel a lot. they would eventually qualify. if we were to look around, we are a pretty much in the script. i wonder if -- a pretty homogenous group. i wonder if you are concerned about a two-tiered system exacerbating what we have in

this country, the sense that the insiders have the game rigged. that there are two systems and that is hurting confidence in institutions. >> only slightly. i am focused on how we can do it in the most efficient way. the focus is, how can we make sure that everybody has the highest level of confidence that when they get on a plane, there is not a suicide bomber or something in a checked bag that could bring the plane down. most people look at the aviation security and have high confidence. everybody agrees on that. that is a goal we need to focus on. the question is, how do we best execute on that mission? i have heard a lot of opinions of -- from a lot of people on how to do that.

there are some great ideas. i welcome those ideas. it really gets to, we have differentiated between passengers for a long time. when i traveled, i would go to the ticket counter and show my credentials. they would give me a form to fill out. i would philip outcome but it would sign it. i would take it to the exit leg. -- i would fill it out. they would sign it. i would take it to the exit leg. i would get on the plane armed. i thought, it cannot expand that? we started with the airlines. if you have been flying for years, it is possible you are a terrorist. it is much less likely. we are not in the business of eliminating all risk. we are in the business of

managing risk. as we try to do that, the more we can learn about somebody ahead of time. what that allows us to do is spend more time on those who are selected. as others have mentioned, it is the unknown. we know everybody's name, date of birth, and gender. beyond that, not much. and that you are not on the watch list. i want to make sure that we can focus on the unknown. while improving the physical screening experience for the passengers while expediting their screening. >> we will let the chips fall where they may. let me come back out of left field and ask you on the other side, as part of the risk-based security intelligence, do you profile on the basis of

ethnicity, country of origin, religion? if not, why not? >> the short answer is, no. we do not do that. >> why not? >> we try to determine everything about a person as possible based on their willingness to share. because of the constitutional system, we do not do that. other countries are very successful in using profiling. there is a fair amount of debate on that question. would we be better if we profiled? i do not think so. one of the things i saw when i first came over, a terrorist has no face. the idea it may be someone from 9/11, it could also be a 24- year-old son of a prominent

banker and a foreign country who is african who may not meet somebody is profile. what profile do we use? is it the israeli model? if the fit this category, the better plan on the three hours. -- if you fit this category, you better plan on three hours. that works under israel's laws. 11 million passengers a year. we have 12 million zero week in the u.s. the scale of it, the professionalism, the work force, having already served in army for two years. the bottom line is, we do everything we can to differentiate, not profile, based on intelligence. >> when you think about the risk-based security you are trying to install, looking

forward, when you think of the data capabilities that are coming on line, how did those two meld together? hug you apply the risk-based model? -- how do you apply the risk- based model? >> it is all voluntary. when i talk about the strategy, it is based on a voluntary system other than the watch list. if you make a reservation for an airline ticket, you are agreeing to have your name put against the terrorist watch list. that means what the focus is on trying to identify, not only what the airline has in terms of frequent fliers or what we have because somebody has signed up for a global entry program. it is one way you sign up. even if you are not a frequent flier, if you want to sign up

you do that through the global entry program. you just need to have a passport. given those structure is, what we are looking to do is expand the tsa's pre-check concept more broadly. i mentioned the 2 million passengers as of yesterday. longer term, i would like to see more people going through more pre-check deciated lanes so we can focus on higher risk. recognizing there is no guarantee. >> you want to get people into the pre-check line, because you know who they are. >> the more we can do that -- two years ago, i looked at, i did not see the current contract as sustainable long term. either from a resource perspective or an engagement

with the traveling public. those who control our budget. that is what this is all designed to provide more effective sharing. >> let's talk about the insider threat. in this country and in britain, we have had examples of people who are employees of the airlines or airports who have been involved in plots. given the sheer scale, the number of employees involved in civil aviation, what is the nature of the insider threat? how much cooperation the you get from airlines and airport authorities in addressing what seems to be a pretty big vulnerability? >> it is a concern for everybody in the industry. it is something we focus on to try to identify somebody who may

pose a threat. that is where we are largely dependent upon the entire community, the law-enforcement community, which has come in the past, identified insiders before the airlines. i can think of several examples. those who may have connections with others who are a concern. that is based on someone who has said, you'd better take a look at this person at this airline or airport. that is something that happens on a not-infrequent basis. when we are talking about a global supply chain, a global passenger chain, the one weak link can be a challenge for all of us.

>> how you address that? in the united states, you have better partnerships with the airlines. how do you address the potential we clink? a baggage handler in pakistan or russia or wherever? >> that is the challenge. we do it through the partnership with the aviation security counterpart. also, being informed by security intel services. the example, going back to the cargo plot, being shipped out of yemen. whether there was an insider, that is still debatable. it was outstanding intelligence, in this case, by another service, that gave the tracking numbers for those two packages. but for that intelligence, those packages were on route to

chicago. it is that type of information ionalziing operat that is critical for us. the same thing goes for the insider threat. the belief is that the host a service would identify and take appropriate action. if not, it becomes a challenge. >> it raises the question of cargo. you touched on it earlier. this is another area where it seems there is a significant vulnerability. you cannot examine every piece of cargo going on an airplane. how'd you address the cargo vector? >> it is a vulnerability in a different way. there is a whole different screening protocol. in the u.s., all cargo and all

checked bags are checked through explosive detection equipment. that is the confidence we have in the u.s. if that equipment only identifies a couple of explosive chemicals -- depending on what type of equipment you are talking about. hundreds overseas. here in the u.s., it is calibrated to detect the most common types. what we found with the underwear plot part two, a different type of explosive had been used in the previous one. we have gone back and read calibrated all of the equipment. even working with our canines to have them trained to detect this different type of explosive. when we look at the

international -- the global supply chain, the issue is, what is the capability of the coast airport in terms of detecting explosives? we just signed an agreement with the eu where we recognize the eu national security program. instead of the tsa going to inspect and validate the cargo program, it was a huge of the taking. the eu took on the responsibility of establishing a national program. we recognize that. that is a way we move forward in partnership to say, how can we love all our resources and not try to be the one agency or

department that does all things at all places at all times with all people. >> a couple more and then we will open up the questions. the tsa is still a very young organization. it came from a career in the fbi. compare and contrast. i wonder if you have a moral problem sometimes. everytime you turn on your computer, it is a do not touch my junk stored. -- story. the poster kids for everything that everyone resents. had the force this organization going forward? >> -- how do you forge this organization going forward? >> the tsa is just 10 years. there are a lot of challenges.

that is through training, for example, all officers are going through tactical communications training. they had not had. it is customer service. we were talking in terms of what targets. how can you be escalated -- you de-escalate the situation. the human response is to get agitated right back and say, i am in charge. the offices are just about done with that training. we have also started tsa academy at the federal law enforcement training center. we started the first class is for supervisors. we have over four thousand

supervisors, some of whom had not received any leadership training. they had not received any mentoring, training. immature organizations -- we also do not have an office of professional responsibility, opr. deconstruct after 9/11 -- the construct after 9/11 was a director heading each airport. they would give out discipline based on what they thought was appropriate. there was no standard system. i brought over an opr trainer. we set that up. use the reports about someone being fired, that is under this construct.

all of these things are designed to encourage better customer engagement, passenger engagement. >> last question before we open it up, this is one front in the struggle between nation states. the united states and multinational killers. who is winning? >> clearly, we have had success, the u.s. government, in terms of not a repeat of 9/11. since 9/11, imagine the shoe bomber. -- you mentioned the issue bomber. two russian airliners were brought tdown. 90 people killed. we look at the liquids plot from the u.k. in 2006.

the cargo plot. the most recent underwear plot. the detection capabilities depend on where the person would have gotten through the global airline system. we have these threats. the question is, how can we keep it situated to mitigate or manage risk without trying to eliminate risk. everyone assumes risk. they are assuming some risk. the idea is, how can we mitigate or manage the risk. >> just to follow up, we have foiled plots. there are other consequences. the money, you mentioned. tens of billions of dollars. the sense that america has lost some kind of pride or some kind of personal autonomy.

the fear that the shadow that we live under. are they accomplishing the goals they have of disrupting our society? >> it is a debatable point depending on what perspective you want to take. clearly, there have been significant changes since 9/11 as to how we go about preventing another catastrophe. there is a huge interest in doing that. i think where people disagree, people can always disagree, on how do we best do that. i think the answer is not going back to pre-9/11 days. it is working smarter, more efficiently. what we're doing with the security initiative, those of you with children 12 and under, those of you who know people 75 and older, for those people 75 and older, we did a fair

analysis with great help from the bureau. to say, where are terrorists? based on age, we made the decision to do expedited things for children 12 and under. members of the military, they are part of the pre-check program. we will be expanding that. the great facilitator of that. we have all of these initiatives to try to move away from the one-size fits all. to give the public greater confidence. >> ok. let's open it up to questions. there are microphones at each side and in the back. let's start right here.

if you could identify yourself. fire away. >> good morning. i am with ibm. when we think of tsa, we think of the airports. i heard a story that someone had been stopped on the road. is that someone you are planning to do more of? is it connected to airport security? are there any of the things you anticipate doing? >> something is not right with that. we do have a visible protection response. they partner with state and local law enforcement. some 97% of our budget is focused on aviation security. a small amount is focused on surface transportation. buses, trains, passenger trains, trucks, things like

that. what we do is partner with the local agencies and state agencies to do the teams which are designed to be random, and predictable -- unpredictable shows of law enforcement. we know from the fbi, the briefings, in the u.s. and the u.k., terrorists are deterred by three things, a visible police presence, canines, and cctv. we know from the london bombers, cctv, they did not care about. one of them looked at that camera. he said, it did not matter. he was going to be dead. it was like, so what.

we will do surveillance. in washington, d.c., if they see no police presence -- next tuesday, there may be a team that has 10 to 20 people. >> airport security, do you need to redefine that out where? i was in libya, saudi armory's looted. -- i saw the armories looted. >> it is not an issue in the u.s. that we have seen. we do not know of any in the u.s. it is a concern. perimeter security, from time to time in the u.s. -- in utah, we had a pilot who was wanted for murder.

he was able to get into a small regional jet. he was not able to take off. he caused some damage. >> you need to beef up the perimeter security. >> the airport have the responsibility for it. we help them with it. we set the standard. they do it. >> next question. >> my daughter lives in london. she tells made the bricks use irish of identification. -- brits use iris identifi cation. >> in certain airports they do. any metric is good. proving that the person who has access is that person. it is not a help for what that

person is thinking. i use the example of an investigation i worked on in the fbi. the flight took off from jfk. it crashed on the coast of rhode island. i helped lead the recovery effort. the bottom line was, we found the forensics that showed why -- the explosion. the co-pilot took the flight down. there were 30 egyptian officers on board. the belief was he wanted to kill those officers. iris scans would have proven he was the co-pilot. it is why we have moved to known crewmembers. the most known and trusted people on the flight.

if we cannot trust them, we are in trouble. over 27 dozen times a day we do trust our lives to the flight crew. we want to expand the use of biometrics. it can be very costly. the question is, who pays for it? is it on the u.s. tax payers? the employees pay for it? >> you like it. >> i love it. it is a question of the cost. >> how about over here. way in the back. what's good morning. i am with boeing. we are in support of risk-based screening. you like to have something that is more like global entry and less like frequent-flier.

people can get into frequent- flier programs without a background check. what are you doing about trying to look at a hybrid of global entry. i know you do not want to make it $100. a lot of business travelers are willing to pay money. if they are traveling within the u.s., to get into a system and do the background checks and be able to do that. what a year looking at with respect to some type of hybrid system? with background checks, fingerprints, things that are not in a frequent-flier program. >> we're working on that. the expansion of the security provision, particularly as it relates to pre-checks. we have been in discussion with

several companies including one airline that are proposing something where they would bear the cost. the question is, is it a fee that the u.s. would be charging? all kinds of things, it takes years. what we're interested in is private-sector proposals. that looking at some melnow, would do that. the passenger would bear the cost. we see that as a key enablers for the expansion, the broad expansion. >> it does raise the question, the two-tiered system where you can buy your way into better treatment. you can buy your own government. >> $100, that is for five years. $20 a year. if the fly once a year, even if you never fly.

at $20 a year, it is hard to argue that is an onerous cost. that is our position. >> fair enough. this gentleman right here. >> good morning. good to talk with you again. a question for you on funding. it is a challenging environment. two things. one being the explosive detection systems that were deployed after 9/11. they are 10 plus years. there should be recapitalization effort. if you can give us color on the funding issue. the air cargo screening. funding for deployment of systems. you have to forfeit 50 airports. -- have 450 airports where they might be deployed.

if he could give us some information on that. >> the recapitalization is a key issue with the life cycle coming to what was originally proposed as the useful life cycle. what we are finding is some of the equipment is doing well beyond the life cycle. we did a budget presentation on monday. the budget year goes into effect october 1 a year from now. there will be continued funding. it is a question of what level. same thing with what we are doing in terms of the air cargo. the funding is there, it has been. it is at reduced levels. as is the government budget in terms of being reduced. i do not know for 13 or 14 yet.

the belief is that those key technology enablers will be maintained. they have to be, otherwise we grateful abilities which is not good for anybody. >> -- we create vulnerabilites which is not good for anybody. >> did you get support for your budget request? >> yes. it is interesting. there is a lot of focus. on how we can do a better job. when it comes to a budget, there is support for those things we described. when it is all said and done, there is a realization, these are key issues we need to make sure we did not greet vulnerabilities on -- create vulnerabilities on. >> fallen upon the budget question, it seems the other

side of the coin is taking an internal look at the 21 levels of security. which ones are the most effective. can you speak to that? >> for those who have followed, we talk about 20 different levels of security we have. 17 of which are primarily tsa responsibilities. the intel is one of the key ones. for the last year, there has been an efficiency review at tsa. all the things we had been doing. one example is our behavioral detection officers. they engage or observe passages. a classic example, a bdo would have been useful, on christmas

day, 2009. he was walking to his date with his bomb. what i would have loved it is to have an officer in plain clothes off to the side. a uniformed officer walking towards him. he sees the canine, bought officer, what i would have loved is to see, how does this person respond to that? does he continue walking, knowing that there is probably vapor coming off? the officer might observe something? that is the whole premise. in two airports, we have taken that to the next level based on some best practices to do what we call a program.

some of you have been through boston logan. you have had a brief conversation with an officer about your travel and plans. the whole idea is, how can we learn more about people. it is not so much about what your answer is, it may be intrusive to some people. you can decline. it is more how the person responds. critics say, you have not cut any terrorist. that is true. we are not aware of any terrorists trying to get on flights. there was a report a couple years ago that said, the program does not work because there have been 19 or 20 terrorists, 24. these terrorists, almost all,

we're not bomb throwers. the finance there is going to raise money to send back to whoever. that person is just a businessman or woman who is going to do their work. it is different from a terrorist who is going to blow up a plan. there are different manifestations. that is one example. we do a number of different things we are looking at to try to provide the most effective security. the review is still ongoing. along with the review of our headquarters structure. we have done some real reorganizing to create better efficiencies. a realization that our budget is less than it was last year and will probably be less next year. >> this gentleman right here. >> another budget question, what do you see happening to the level of the 60,000 strong labor

force? >> 60,000 is not only the front line for us, the management for that, it also includes federal air marshals. they are a part of tsa. and all of the different components. we have 47,000 security officers. about 14,000 of those are part- time. if you travel a lot, when it is really busy, monday and friday, we have a part-time workforce to cover those times. noon on a wednesday, it may not be so busy. we do not have as many people's back at that time. that is one of the responsibilities we have. one of the challenges is to try

to professionalize the work force, more part time, people may say, that makes more challenges. it is not that simple. some of our offices are part- time, some are full time. right now, the budget is focused on becoming leaner, more efficient, how we deploy that workforce. there is no discussion about reducing the size. there have been questions about -- i had a hearing six or seven weeks ago where the chairman of the committee of oversight ask what we would do with a smaller workforce. my response was that would be a challenge. >> you feel you are immune from work-force cuts? >> i would not say immune. our current budget envisions full staffing. 14 looks, that is all -- yeah.

what's next, right there. -- >> next, right there. >> i am very concerned about the protocol. i assume it is a lot different than a regular airport. as the former owner of a plane, it seems like you got in and just took off. >> the general aviation area is under review. we are not talking about the 1%, we are talking about the 1% of the 1%. when you fly on your own, whatever it is, the fact is there are different levels of security. we have tried to address that through rulemaking.

we work closely with industries. there is a rule in process that will address a sign, which come of vulnerability, perimeter security, locks on the plainnes. when that is published, we will get comments and move forward. in it is in and nobody's best interest to have an airport -- it is not good for the industry, the airport, anybody. the industry has been very responsive in terms of voluntary issues. we identify it vulnerabilities. here is what you should do, generally. it is not in the form of a regulatory action. . time,see from time to that can be an issue. the access to the large, wide

bodied planes with extra fuel, that is our highest concern. the fact that somebody might get into a small cessna, that is not a good thing. from an over all u.s. government and industry perspective, what is a return on investment from time to lock down every airport as we do for commercial aviation? that is part of the dialogue. >> you are willing to tolerate a greater risk due to potential consequence? >> it is a recognition that we cannot guard against all things, all places, all times. we can do more to try to do that. the cost to the taxpayers and the industry would be high. there is the question of, what is our return on investment.

>> the people affected have a lot of clout. >> they may. everybody in this mill you has a lawyer. i hear a lot of lawyers. [laughter] then i wake up and start the day. [laughter] that is my opinion. some are very vocal. >> be right back here. this lady here. >> i am the spouse of an active- duty marines. my question is, i have had the opportunity to fly from japan here, i have noticed that they did not require us to take out shoes off -- our shoes off because they have a device we can go through. if we have bottled water, they

are able to put it in a device that can detect what they are looking for. why do not have this? is this in the works? >> let me start with the liquids. the issue with the liquids came in after the 2005 plot. we have bottled liquid scanners in the u.s. we have nearly 1000 of those. it does cause additional time and processing. it slows down the checkpoint for passenger and causes additional work. we can do that. we do that for medically necessary liquids. those that can exceed the 100 milliliters, 3.4 ounces. we are working with the industry and technology to improve that

so it can be a more expedited fashion of doing that. we are working with the eu in terms of trying to facilitate the flow of those liquids and particularly perfumes and liquors. tamper evident bags. i have a meeting on monday with the eu and canadians and australians. that is one of the issues we will be discussing. on the issue is, there is different technology. there is not technology that allows for the full range of security screening other than for metals -- metal objects. in terms of explosives, whether it is c4 or tatp, there is no

good technology that allows for the efficient detection. it is a policy matter. in the eu, s theyhoes to stay on -- they allow shoes to stay on. with our high confidence passengers, you are allowed to keep your shoes on. we are working on expanding that. right now, we are in the process. it is not there. >> why do we have to take our shoes of domestically? what is the risk? >> it depends on whether there is another richard reed who has decided, let's exploit something that was tried previously. probably, it would probably be on a regional jet. the question is, what risks are

we willing to take? if it is that flight that is blown up because of somebody with a shoe bomb, and you are on it, that is not a good thing for you. as we saw with the liquid plot, oftentimes, it is not just looking at onetime. we're looking at multiple flights and multiple venues for the maximum effect. if you have wanted, that is a terrible thing. if you have won two -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, that is a problem. we get to where we have high possible conferencing technology or we get to the person and the technology then we make different policy decisions. >> ok.

a few more here. the gentleman here. >> i know this is a topic on aviation security, but i would like to address the issue of real security. i am always pleasantly surprised how relaxed and easy it is to get onto a train at union station. it is so easy for summit to put a bag on a train, get off the train and have -- for somebody to put a bag on a train coming get off the train and have the train blowup. what would do differently if there is an explosion on a seller gone to new york? >> that is a good question. it gets to the heart of where the risks. from what we have seen overseas, from the madrid bombing, what we have seen in india and pakistan in terms of

rail -- there have been more people killed and injured in rail attacks than in aviation over the last 10 years. so the focus is what could we do differently? there is a lot we could do. there has been a fair amount of discussion. we could do similar screening at the railways as we do checkpoints. there is not a lot of appetite for doing that. what makes real trouble so efficient and easy and positive is the idea of published schedules that are predictable. but then you have the open architecture. the ability to get on and travel basically unhindered. you will probably see viper teams working with amtrak. but those qualities are what

make a day attractive target to terrorists. getting back to the other part of your question. i think it is because 9/11 involved aviation in the u.s., that is our major sector. as we look at rail safety, there are a lot of things that are done, could be done more, but at significant cost and that is a public policy debate that congress and two administrations have decided not to invest heavily in that area. >> this gentleman right here. if seems like the benefits of pre-check have an artificial joint. is there any thought about changing that? >> we have addressed several folks. if your pre-chat then you walk through a metal detector as

opposed to the head -- the body scanner. to exploreg different where is that may include the body scanner as part of a pre-chuckling. it is more difficult to do that. -- pre-check lane. it is more difficult to do that. it is not resolved yet. >> i want to follow-up on the body scanning, particularly the back scanner device. we are a country that is over- tested medically. there is concern about radiation exposure that we have in all kinds of places. how do respond to critics who say, in particular the back scanner device, is expensive -- is excessive to exposure of radiation to the public? >> before deployment been

continuing, done by whether it is john hopkins, fda, some other studies that have been done saying that the exposure is so minimal but it is the equivalent of flying a 30,000 feet. on a cross-country flight, how much radiation you get, the three-minute exposures would you get when you go through ait. you'd have to go through 5000 times in a year just to make that minimum safety standard. you have to go 15,000 times in one year. they are receiving much more naturally occurring radiation. the whole idea between having

two types of technology is trying to get beyond the current technology to get to a breakthrough technology to detect a small thread with the dust alarm revolution possibility and not be dependent upon one technology and one manufacturer exclusively. out of the 750 or so we have around the u.s., all have been or will be converted to automatic target recognitions. >> to cloud the private area. >> manner woman, midgetman or woman, it will be the same. >> do you -- man or woman, it will be the same. >> do you store these images? >> no. >> promise? >> yes. [laughter] >> on the question about by

country, you answered about individuals. does that mean that mogadishu vs. barrett vs london, there is no change in white -- vs beirut vs london, there is no change in what you pay attention to? >> in terms of travel patterns and histories and things like that for non-u.s. citizens we may look at it. it is not profiling, but if you have been to yemen six times -- the times were bomber is a good example. he had been from where he lived in connecticut and new york five times over the past several years -- he is from pakistan. is that an issue? not necessarily. but they would be added to the watch lists as a selectee or

derogatory intel and they will be made no fly. in terms of generics, it is more -- it is not profiling based on ethnicity or race, but based on behavior patterns. >> so the trip wire would be repeated trips to pakistan, for example. >would it be repeated trips to ireland? quite possibly. we know there have been. -- >> possibly. we know there have been. the whole risk-based german intelligence is just like that -- risk-based driven intelligence is just like that. is this summit we should be focused on based on travel patterns or history or something

like that? -- is this someone we should be focused on based on travel patterns or history or something like that? we are clearly a beneficiary of the law-enforcement community and the homeland security infrastructure. we are a hybrid agency. we have some law enforcement and federal air marshalls. we are a hybrid because we are also a regulatory agency. >> right back there. >> i would like to revisit the congressional help you are getting. the stories are somewhere between 88 and 108 subcommittees and committees in congress and that oversee this. knowing that you're not going to criticize the congress having an oversight role, being an tsa andrator anin the

being a regulator, having to report to so many and how you resolve it? >> well -- [laughter] obviously, congress has a key role in providing oversight. all of those things the art are important as their representatives of the american people. we have to respect it. we spend a lot of time ipreparig for briefings that are really important for us. we had the chairman of one of our appropriations committee come to one of our facilities where we test all new technologies prior to it being deployed.

in the post-9/11 narrett, getting something in pushing it out, that is not -- post-9/11 and, getting something i pushing it out, that is not the way. some jurisdictions have tried to bring us in. but the deputy secretary is here and speaking later. i think she can probably speak far more comprehensively for the department than tsa. we appreciate trying to engage -- some of you have called witnesses on panels alongside tsa or a second panel and that provides some of that

perspective and concept that they might not have otherwise. >> we will take a couple more questions. i want to follow-up on one thing in particular. that is a surgically implanted explosives, how do you detect and stop it? >> that came from yemen last summer, the summer 2011, where they were looking at ways to defeat our current regimen, including the body scanners, which would depict or pick up anomalies. the intel was that they would in plant explosives in people so they could get through any type of security. fortunately, we have not seen that. there has been some follow-up reporting on that from the summer of 2011. we have worked with our international partners. ithere are some things you have

to be doing, some of it within guidance and some of it with regulatory action. that includes making an assessment and resolution of any concerns for somebody who may have had recent surgery. it becomes a very challenging proposition. >> it would defeat her current machinery. so you have to look at the intelligence to defeat it. >> the two things that we would have on a surgical implant, there would possibly be some type of a port that the initiator could be injected through with a syringe and do it that way. but the other possibility is to

avoid detection, somebody behaving strangely and have a typical tap down. >> we have time for a couple more. >> yesterday, there was a number given saying that there were over 800,000 people in the united states with top-secret or elevated clearance or more. by definition, they have had pretty good background checks. given that you now have the pre- check population that you don't have to worry about making counterintelligence targets and treat people differently and in the interest of trying to maximize the energies of the staff you have, has there been any consideration using all of that background on those people, many of which are in this room and have frequent-flier status, to reduce the time you spend on that particular population? >> yes. in fact, we have taken that up

and we are in agreement with general clapper to have current members in u.s. government employees, something that is on an agency-based decision. we have two or three agencies that are included. other agencies are joining. is all voluntary. -- it is all voluntary. it is optional. the beauty of it from my perspective is that the information that that person is a traveler is imbedded in the bar code. the member of the intel community -- the security

officer at the checkpoint knows whoever you are. there are no interested groups of people and individuals that we want to continue to expand to. that is where the private industry input will be critical. >> ok, the last question. >> i wanted to find out what you learn specifically from the british case, the ba worker getting specific e-mails that were admitted in british courts asking detailed questions about where does he work, what kind of access did he have to cabin crews and made a big point of discouraging him from meeting to join him in yemen. but there was a very

interesting amount of court records on that. i was curious if you had any comment. >> yes, the situation is that he was looking for a trusted insiders. and through a couple of cutout, he found it in british airways and they had an exchange of information. to your point exactly, he did not want kareem to be an operative himself, but to be recruiting others. that all was identified. with some help of the u.s. community, the recruitment effort was identified and the appropriate steps were taken. and the two people that he contacted were handled within the system. to me, that is another example where intelligence is a key to enable us on the front before

anyone is able to get to a checkpoint or have an insider opportunity to do something bad. >> do you have the sense that they are very ngry to get inside? >> absolutely. yes. that is the challenge. not so much in the u.s., but overseas. >> thank you very much. thank you once again for your service. best of luck to you and your team. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> in 11 days, watch gavel to- caviled -- -- two-gavel coverage of the national conventions. in 45 minutes, the independent institute look at gun rights. after that, we will review the comments of the head of the tsa.

>> on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we will speak with michael grunwald about his book "the new new deal, the hidden story of a change in the obama era." general david walker will take your questions about the national debt. and we will talk about childbearing and fertility rates with stephanie ventura from the cdc national center for health statistics. and adam thomas from georgetown university. "washington journal" is on at 7:00 a.m. eastern everyday. >> this weekend, on american history tv, 75 years since amelia earhart's failed attempt to circle blow. .

also, more from "the contenders." >> i draw the line in the dust and tossed the gauntlet before the field of tyranny and i say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever. >> this sunday, former alabama gov. george wallace. american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. >> which is more important? well, we are honored -- wealth or honor? it is the kind of nation we are. it is whether we still have the wit and determination to deal with the questions, including economic questions but not limited to them. all things flow through wealth

and poverty. we know this. all things flow from doing what is right. >> look at what has happened. we have the lowest divider rate of unemployment, inflation and home mortgages in 28 years. look at what happens. 10 million new jobs, over half of them high wage jobs. 10 million workers getting the raise they deserve with the minimum wage law. >> c-span has aired every minute of every major party conventions since 1984. and now, we are on the countdown to this year's conventions. you can watch our live coverage, every minute of the republican and democratic national conventions live on c-span, c- span radio, and c. -- and stream of online at c-span.org. now, a discussion about the accountability of the presidency, from "washington

journal." this is 45 minutes. host: dan schnur is the co- founder of no labels. your organization has been going through the branches of government in washington and looking for ways you think they can be improved on. what is wrong with the presidency? guest: first of all, i want to make it clear to your viewers that we are not targeting this president or any other individual was held the office. rather, the structure of the presidency and the executive branch. we think it could stand some reforms, just as we think congress could stand some reforms also. we do not come at this unnecessarily from the left or the right. what we want to see is government functioning more effectively than it currently does. what that means is a lot of things, " what it means in particular is getting the parties to work together more effectively, getting the leaders of both parties to engage in more ongoing conversations with the american people. we have a multi point plan, which i will shamelessly plug now, called "make the presidency work."

it has outlined several reforms, and it is accompanied by "make congress work," which i mentioned earlier. thank you very much. host: here is "make congress work." guest: there are several things we're proposing that we think can bridge the gap that develop in washington between the leaders of the parties and the branches. number one, we think it is important for there to be quarterly, bipartisan leadership meetings. regardless of the political circumstances or whether the president is up or down, every three months, the president, he or she, republican or democrat, ought to be required to get together with the leaders of both parties to make sure that legitimate conversation takes place across party lines. host: would those be public? guest: the members and the president would certainly appear in public before and after the meeting. we think they deserve some

privacy. the most important thing in our mind, libby, is making sure this conversation takes place at all, because under this president and those of the other party, wants if not years go by before a substantive conversation between leaders of a party and leaders of the other. we think that is unfortunate and needs to change. host: one of the ideas no labels has is having question time like in the uk "back in 2010, president obama attended a house republican retreat to debate the health- care law before a few hours at least, we saw our leaders truly engaged each other and we've not seen anything like its sense." guest: one of the hallmarks of the british system is that the prime minister visits parliament on a regular basis. we think that eight similar leave regularly scheduled public exchange between the president and congress would be

very beneficial not necessarily with a partisan advantage, but for the american people, who want to see their elected leaders engaged in honest, unscripted dialogue. host: how do you keep that from becoming political points, political issues fly back and forth, essentially grandstanding before the public? guest: we think that if this takes place on a regular basis, instead of being a super bowl- confrontation-type event, if it is on a regular basis, the members will recognize that their constituents want to see a more forthright conversation and don't want to just see the javelin throwing that takes the place of a recent conversation in washington. by the way, libby, as important as it is for the president to talk to congress, we think that he or she should talk more frequently to the american people also. we are advocating for the president told a monthly news

conferences, every 30 days, high poll numbers, low poll numbers, it doesn't matter. every 30 days, hold an event with the press corps, and the more often that takes place between the president and congress and the president and the people congress represents, the more likely we are to bridge the partisan divides that have taken over washington. host: dan schnur is the co- founder of no labels. if you would like to join the conversation - let's run through a couple more things that no labels is calling for. one is fast-track legislative authority. why is that significant? guest: i am so glad you brought that up. as many of your viewers know,

even critical, well reasoned legislation can be bogged down in the process leading congress. the president has the authorities when it relates to trade agreements to fast-track that legislation -- in other words, congress can not attach any amendments or slow down the process. they simply have to vote up or down. we think that a president, democrat or republican, ought to have a broader fast-track authority. what they want to be able to do twice every year is to say that this legislation is so important that i want congress to vote up or down on it. no stalling, no killing it with amendments. you have to say yes or no great ever present in the site for him or herself, whether it is jobs legislation, environmental production, criminal justice, the president can say that this is so important that we cannot afford to wait. congress, you say yes or no. host: two other ideas are making parties pay for presidential fundraising, but also using the

line item veto, but with a twist. guest: let's come back to line item veto and a second, because the first of the two he raised sends a powerful message to the people did president obama, like president reagan and pleasant clinton before him, traveled very frequently to raise money for his reelection campaign. what is standard operating procedure for both parties is to attack on a single official event along with a series of campaign fund-raisers said that the american taxpayers can pay for the cost of air force one and secret service and all the other attendant costs it takes to move the president around the country. we don't think that is fair. that is an unfair cost imposed on the american taxpayer. what we're proposing is that any political activity takes place during presidential travel, the president's party, the democratic national committee or the republican national committee, is going forced to incur those costs. it is perfectly legitimate, but

the american taxpayer should not be forced to pay for it. host: and a line-item veto? guest: it has been judged by the courts that the president should not have the ability to strike a very specific language from legislation, but through this process, we think that we can give the president a bit of a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer to move legislation to the goals of his overall agenda. one other quick point, libby. i mentioned at the beginning that in addition to making the presidency work, no labels also has a process called "making congress work." i know you talked to one of my colleagues about that last week, but it is worth reminding viewers that we target these reforms toward both branches of government, and we have a multipoint reform for congress as well, that if congress does

not fulfill its responsibility to pass the budget on an annual basis, it does not get paid. we had several members of congress saying they support this. for voters or non-voters who are increasingly disgusted with congress, take a little bit of heart in knowing that there are dozens and dozens of members of congress in both parties who are willing to support legislation that would require them to give up pay if a budget is not passed. and your viewers can get the full list of those members of congress on our website, nolabels.org. host: antoinette in ohio. caller: i am so glad i got got up. i think more emphasis should be

put on the economy. this country is in deep trouble. anytime you owe $16 trillion to another country, i don't see how we can even survive like that. more emphasis should be put on this problem. and why we have obama with all his promises and promises and no results, more debt. guest: boy, antoinette, i am so glad you asked that question, and, libby, we're lucky we got her on the air right away. we've been talking about the reforms with been proposing in almost an abstract way, and what antoinette did is a great service in reminding us that these are not abstractions. there is a real-world impact of the paralysis on capitol hill

and in washington, d.c. what concerns our members so much, and hundreds of thousands of members, liberal and conservative across the country, is this oncoming fiscal apocalypse that is likely to hit next year. the reason we are proposing these reforms, the reason we want a more bipartisan structure in congress, the reason we want the president and congressional leaders talking to other more frequently, one of the reasons for that is so that our electoral leaders can take on the challenges that antoinette is talking about. we are working very hard -- we are gathering in new york city to ask congress to come together to take on the nation's challenges. antoinette, i am so glad you raised that question, because it reminded us that these reforms are designed to encourage principle the conservatives and principal the

liberals not to abandon their ideological principles, but to find ways to work together across party lines and deal with the economic and fiscal challenges that antoinette is talking about. host: "the miami herald" is talking today about swing states and economic swings. "how will this affect the presidential election?" looking at states like colorado, florida, nevada, and virginia. we're talking with dan schnur, co-founder of no labels' campaign, "how to fix the presidency." hi, scott. caller: thanks for having me on line. i really appreciate your ideas and things like what this group is doing. however, i would say that labels are

-- are important. the line item veto has been part of his the democratic line for a long time. our values were shaped by the depression and the drought. i do not mind labels. i think they are ok. my concern is that last summer, we have democrats willing to say, we will cut. we will find other sources of revenue. republican says no. we have signed a pledge to grover norquist. we are not doing anything with taxation. nor revenue enhancement. it is either cut or nothing. i do not know if there is going to be middle ground or if there

is one side who has pledged allegiance to a third-party organization that is on elected that has values -- if we had those things during the be the b-2, we would not have had world war ii. -- during world war ii, we would not have had world war ii. guest: we believe people should have strong ideological principles. this is not an organization for the metal. -- for the mushy middle. we have democrats and top republicans who like those labels. as proud as they are of their partisan and ideological labels, and understand the importance of being able to put those labels the size in order labels -- put those aside in order to work together

to deal with the types of public policy challenges the nation is facing. scott also raises an important point about pledges. if we have a suggestion that no member of congress take any place other than the place of office, whether it is republicans taking no taxes pledge or the democrats. an excellent point was raised, the inability of the parties to get to be concealing. -- to get the debt ceiling deal. most of the authority of reporting i have seen suggests that both president obama and speaker boehner were both pulled back by the basis of their respective parties. he kind -- the bases their parties. host: a lot of the elements to make the presidency work -- what about the lead up to the

campaign season? we talked about presidential fund-raising. ron reis from colorado and says, how loud a message would it have been for a party not to run negative as? -- negative ads? guest: it sounds like i am continuing to change the subject back to making congress work. we are really of ideas that we talked about in the context of congress. we talked about forbidding-than the-for being negative bank has to be run by -- forbidding native as to be run by opponents -- negative ads to be run by congressional campaigns. because it poisons the

well so much. there is a 3% undecided vote left in this country. the romney and the obama campaigns spend a lot more time and energy going negative and they have in the past. they need a negative message to rev up the troops. that is what both campaigns are doing. more and more voters take a broader, more reason to look at the political field at the presidential level and the congressional level. when you have more voters more open-minded about their choices, it creates is -- creates more of a dis unincentive to go negative. -- disincentive to go negative.

caller: i like what you are saying. its towns like europe. it is sort of like in europe. where doctors don't get paid. my main thing is, how do you compete against money? you, yourself asserted that there was an nbc poll and these polls are conducted by the same media outlets that are controlled by corporations, nbc, abc, fox news network. we all know that. those people are controlled by corporations. the same people who do not want tax incentive not want people to be able to throw him off -- to control the results.

we just half republicans give a -- we just had republicans give a man a rubber stamp, two un fundy's wars, -- unfunded wars. you guys do not bring it up. they are sitting here -- we have an economy that has been going crazy for a long time. we have a vice presidential pick who did not have a budget plan when george bush was in power. host: and e-mail came in and said, the 1 ft. congress to become a rubber stamp for the president --do you want congress to become a rubber stamp for the president? the president already has too much power. guest: we think that by giving the congress, not unlimited fast track authority, but

letting the president of the united states have half two bills that congress can and should vote on up or down is an effective way of giving the present tools -- giving the president tools without changing the balance of power. similarly, we want to streamline the appointments process to make it easier for a president to put men and women in place in her administration. congress recently voted to streamline that process, giving up a little bit of their authority, recognizing the need to do so to make the administration work effectively. on the flip side, if the president were willing to come to congress requesting an answer session of the type we talked about earlier, that ships -- shifts authority back in the other direction.

we are not looking to offset the balance of power between branches of government. we want both branches to do the jobs they were elected to do. host: dan schnur, co-founder of no labels was director of communications for the 2000 presidential bid of john mccain. other experience and background includes a bipartisan statewide organization devoted to making face more responsive to voters. -- making state government more responsive to voters. he is an adviser to the hill and blending case foundation. no labels polled 1100

registered voters last month and it showed that 86% of respondents said the effectiveness of the presidency could be improved with the rights reform. talking about ways to improve the presidency with dan schnur. jason, a republican is up next. calm i would like to make a comment on the gentleman who said -- caller: i would like to make a comment on the gentleman who said he liked labels. instead of taking care of our the veterans benefits or our social security or medicare, it seems the the government likes to use labels to destroy our liberty. on top of that, pakistan and saudi arabia were directly involved with 9/11. that hurts my feelings. thank you. guest: jason has strong frustrations about the way

government does or does not address issues that are of most concern for him. we talked about the debt limit on the first call. i think we can use jason's colorado to broaden the conversation. -- call to broaden the conversation. for a voter that is rightfully frustrated, whatever your top priority is, you have every right to be frustrated. we encourage you to look at our proposals. once you do, you would agree that as people view scientists showed, -- the poll you cited showed, people want government to do the right thing. we have a process in place to do that. easier for congress to take on policy changes you talked about

-- processes we have in place to do that make it easier to take on the policy changes you talked about. most of the proposals we are talking about do not require constitutional change. they do not required statutory changes or new laws to be changed. congress and the president can decide without passing new bills to implement these kinds of reforms. it's just take a new law to require a present to hold -- a president to hold monthly news conferences. it does not take a new law for congress to set a new calendar. we propose that congress spend three weeks in washington doing the people's business and then go home for one week and spend time with their constituents. this is just common sense.

host: here is a poll conducted last month. 93% of respondents agreed that regular meetings between the president and congress should occur even if they are between opposing parties. fund raising activity should be paid in full. a 2% say the president should be -- 82% say the president should be given authority to remove individual provisions from a bill and resubmit them for a vote set up for down to congress. -- a vote up or down for congress. also on the list are regular meetings for congressional leaders. guest: one of those things of particular importance is having nonpartisan accounting of the nation's fiscal situation presented to congress and the president on a regular basis.

but and and having them work on -- and rather than having them work on their own numbers, budgetary information of both sides can use in the faith. it would go a long way to a bridging the gap that exists between the two parties. host: mike is an independent. -- a democratic caller. good morning. caller: how you expect for the president to get anything done when on the first night of his inauguration, republicans were at undisclosed locations planning to take down the president. before he proposed his first anything. they will not vote on their own bill if he is for it. how do you expect the president

to give anything done? guest: that is that flee the point. -- that is exactly point. we are trying to address the poisonous, hyper partisan atmosphere that exists in washington in both parties, where both sides decided to shoot first and ask questions later, when both sides automatically assume the worst of the other party rather than looking for common ground. we think regular meetings between the two sides of congress and to the meetings between congress and the president can lower the volume to some degree and to make it less likely that on a knee-jerk basis neither republicans or democrats will attack the other side and they will take an extra minute for reasons conversation. host: let's hear from maria in new jersey.

caller: i think we have the worst parts of a parliamentary system. in australia, there is a lot of talk and mocking of each other. we have a presidential campaign that is centered on gaffs and mocking each other. the constitution party has no place here. ron paul dropped out. washington said the death of our country would be too much adherence to parties. we need a no confidence vote. we have no address of grievances here. -- we have no redress of grievances here. we are being sold down the river by international corporations. our borders are unprotected. we have illegals coming and being given things where they did not pay their dues. no one is seeking to impeach the president for his executive orders.

granting amnesty and other things. i think what we need to do short of a complete revolution is to have some way for the general public to voice an incredible lack of confidence in the people up for election now. host: when you watch the question time from the british parliament, you did not find it to be a productive exchange. caller: i think it is a total farce. host: let's get a response on her comments and the belief that americans should have their voices heard. guest: most important is that employers -- is that americans do have a way of addressing their dissatisfaction with their elected leaders. it is the next election. one of the biggest problems that exist with washington is that the most thoughtful voice in -- the most powerful voices

in politics tend to be those that discourage cooperation across party lines. one principal liberal or conservative in congress decides they want to work with another party has allowed and strident voices discouraging that cooperation. they need to say working together is not a bad thing. it is a good thing. every two here's our four years or six years, americans do have a -- every two years or six or that years, americans do have a voice. theynt to make sure that are hearing from people who understand that in order for the country to take on public policy changes, people need to work together. we think our policies can help congress accomplish those things. at the risk of being totally

shameless, they can find it at that no labels -- at nolabels.org. host: 90 million americans may not vote in november because they feel disenfranchised when they are making a silent protest. jessica will to our facebook page and said the problem is apathy and people wonder why our country is a mess. they do not have a reason to complain later, but they will anyway. here is the headline from usa today. the no vote. 90 million americans may not vote in november. it could be a landslide for president obama. but it probably will not be. they look into why these people choose not to vote. do you think your reforms could affect these people? guest: i do not necessarily agree with the viewer who wrote

in suggesting the problems with people not voting his 1 phase in apathy. i teach at the university of -- not voting is apathy. i teach at the university of california at berkeley. young people who vote in such young numbers volunteered their time in their community in higher numbers than -- higher numbers than any generation in recent american history. it is not because they cannot hear. -- it is not because they're apathetic. it is not because they don't care. it is because they look at a political system that they think is broken. they think if they want to make a difference, rather than going

out to vote, fe would rather clean up a park for healthy kids learn how to read or bring meals to shut ins. we have to get across to young people that volunteering is a noble activity, but if you want to make change happen, you make it at the ballot box. one of our primary goals is demonstrating to the american people that it does not have to be black and white. it doesn't have to be a hyperpolarized filler -- hyperpolarized kill or be killed atmosphere. people in both parties can work together. we can seek voter participation go up in a significant way -- c. voter participation go up in a significant way. -- see voter participation go up in a significant way. caller: i think there are some labels that are needed. there are labels that revolve around the intangibles. one of the things that was 10th civilizations that have is the

idea -- that western civilizations have had is the idea of fair rich. we do not have man like churchill or roosevelt. -- western civilizations have had the idea of courage. have men like churchill or roosevelt. we don't have a man like kennedy. somebody who can unite the people. barack obama sounded like a leader, but once he got into office, he was anything but a leader. i remember working at fedex. fred smith had intend to those of a leader and people would get behind him and say, we are behind you. when the company started, there were employees who were willing to pay for the fuel or whatever it takes to get the job done, we will do it. when the company started, people were willing to pay for the fuel in the trucks because

there was not enough money to go around. i think we are missing that. it is not a brothel, for sure. i believe that that is not barack obama for sure. mitt romney is an unknown quantity. if you look at the democrats, there is something in their eyes that is telling me -- david axelrod had the look of a man like a deer in headlights. we do not need that. we need someone who steps up and says, here is the baton. guest: he's been a lot of time -- you spend a lot of time on c- span talking about whether obama or rounding is an effective leader. i will leave that for those conversations. i teach politics and communications and 90 k class in leadership. one of the things we try to get across to our -- i teach politics and communications and i teach a class in leadership. we tell them that leadership is a team sport.

no matter how eloquent, he or she cannot lead by themselves. chief executives of both parties face the problem of, even when they tried to leave, they are -- even when they do are dealing ilead, they with a system that is so polarized that members of the legislative body make it impossible to get anything done. oh, unlike clinton and bush, faced challenges -- obama, like bush and clinton face challenges. we can create an environment where leaders can flourish, where men and women who actually wants to lead can bring their ideological principles to washington and want to work together with people to get something done. we want to make easier for them to do it. and create the kind of leaders

to wasalking about in hington. host: and e-mail says, why haven't you mentioned the other parties like the green party? guest: they represent the overwhelming majority -- the democrats and the republicans. no labels does not have a specific plan for the encouragement or disbursement of -- or discouragement of party participation. if you are a strong advocate for a third party, you share the need of bringing leaders to washington who will work with us party-line split a principled green party member or constitutionalist can find people to work with and agree on some things but not all things will make the system work better and will make it easier to satisfy policy goals. host: buffalo new york on our

democrat's line. caller: good morning. the one thing in politics that discuss people the most is the money in politics. i was wondering if you with that -- if you would back a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united. to touch on another point as far as early voting goes, certain countries make early voting possible. we knew that something like that -- would you that something like that? that have to work all day and then stand in line all evening to vote. how about making it a mandatory day off for everybody?

there are a number of things that disenfranchise people. there should be one day -- there is just one day when people can go. guest: you are right. there is a need for additional campaign reform in this country. we need to take a look at the that is an important example of how our system becomes dysfunctional so quickly. look at the debate over voter id lost. on the one hand, people are saying suppression, suppression. the other side is saying fraud, fraud. let's say there is a reasonable solution that can be arrived at somewhere in the middle. you get the two sites in the discussion to come together and work together on a more productive solution to the kind of problems he is talking about. our organization sponsors the

processes of government more than campaign reform. we have done as much as an organization can on our proposals for governance. i have done quite a bit in the area of political reform. we are concerned about the right of money involved in the political process. you are right about the process of when voting takes place. even while being concerned about political reform, take a look at what happens once your representative to get to washington. taking the presidency work proposals will do a lot to encourage people to vote or no other reason than they will see their representatives get things done. host: a pennsylvania judge of health a gop backed measure. we see the states that have voting id laws. those in red have stricter laws. non-stricts laws are in lighter colors.

caller: what we actually need at this time is an independent congressional review board that will look at all legislation proposed that will infringe on the rights of the american system, especially those passed at 1:00 in the morning under the pretense of national security back with people in jail without charges. we need the review board to look with those legislations before those laws become inactive. it is not done right now, this is dangerous.

we need to pay attention to this. these are the same politicians who, many years ago, brought the idea of removing illegal immigrants from public schools. have a nice day. guest: he raises an important point on a couple of issues. the independent review board is something we are talking about whatever -- talking about. an independent, nonpartisan budget and economic the economic board to present to congress to work with the same set of facts. final -- finally, immigration -- one more issue where the process has failed the american people. somewhere in between self deportation on one hand and

amnesty on the other, our politicians cannot get to them , but they think reforms will help the road >> it seems like the american people are the main cause of partisan talk and behavior in our representatives and candidates. what should citizens due to take responsibility? >> this is the responsibility of citizens, and citizens have the authority to reward the elected representatives or remove them from office, and we believe given the people who have the joint, we believe the hundreds of thousands of people who have already joined, principled conservative and principled liberals alike wanted their representatives to go to washington to represent their beliefs. they want them to be able to

cooperate. it is the citizen's responsibility to say, you have done a good job of working across party lines. we are going to reward you, or you are not able to work with other people. you are not getting anything done here again we are going to replace you with someone who is. that is why increase voter participation is important. when congress demonstrates they can get the job done and address these issues, that is when we see voter turnout increase, and that is when we see the system worked the way it is supposed to appear good >> we have been talking about the campaign to make the system worked. >> thank you, and thank you to your callers also appear a good- 11 days, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the republican and democratic conventions. now get a front door seat to the convention.

next, a personal liberty and gun rights. then the aviation security. after that of " the washington journal" discussion of the accountability of the presidency. >> the alliance of health reform is hosting a forum on the availability of dental care in the u.s. live coverage is here on c-span at 12:15 p.m. eastern. >> i was in a training program after i got out of the army. >> this sunday on "q&a" walter pincus talks about his various jobs as a journalist, his views on extravagant u.s. spending overseas, and his criticism of defense department budget priorities. >> it is about 40 people, and it has got separate rooms for everybody.

if you spent $4 million on an elementary school, i bet you raise questions. >> more with walter pincus sunday night at 8:00 on "q&a." the new jersey congressman told reporters his speech will focus on the case for mitt romney rather than a case against president obama, and mitt romney will be introduced by former senator marco rubio. turn to seize them for your front row seat of the convention return to c-span for your front row seat of the convention. >> now the annual convention of the tobacco and firearms party. this is an hour.

>> can i grab your attention, please? all right. settle down. i want this group to behave. we have loiters in the crowd. listen up. we have a few things i want to tell you before we get rolling. number one, therare actual media here with cameras. afterwards we will have some questions and answers.

feel free to stand up. there is a funny looking guy carrying a microphone. he is obviously compensating for something. do not worry about him when he puts the microphone to run the. welcome to the 10th annual alcohol, tobacco, and firearms party. i cannot believe we have been doing this for a decade. c-span is here. there is somebody there who is on the floor and can i get up to change the channel. i thought we might ought to explain the what the party is all about for them. the alcohol, tobacco, and firearms party was a great brainstorm we had over a decade ago when we saw what was happening with the growing any state. the perks of adulthood started

slipping from us bit by bit, piece by piece. we need to do something not just to rally around the perks of adulthood, but to actually celebrate the perks of adulthood. what better way to celebrate drinking, smoking, and shooting then drinking, smoking, and shooting. gladly the lawyers -- the lawyers do not let us do that in the same order. but we are working on it. it is not just about people who do not want you to have your 64 ounce soft drink. it is not just about not eating trans fats, it is about people so very intolerant to they want to use government to get you to live the way they want you to live. they want you to be so much like them they feel comfortable using divisive government to take away the perks of adulthood. they are very tolerant of people with different lifestyles as you should be. but if your lifestyle is to smoke a cigarette, we do not tolerate you.

all i am saying is that in america, having a drink, having a smoke, like eating a nice fat the doughnut, drinking a big slur p are whatever your decision is should not be perverse. government should not be there to take it away but to protect your rights to do so. [applause] every year we celebrate the perks of adulthood. this started out with a handful of us getting together. now it is known throughout the country as one of the must attend parties. i cannot tell you how exciting it is to come out here to colorado to one of the best sporting ranges around and play 10 holes of shotgun in and then come back for brandy and cigars. what i have realized is, what

hacks off the left so very much is to see the right having fun. if i could encourage you this afternoon, grab the alcoholic beverage of your choice, a good stogie from our friends at smoker friendly, some margaritas from coyote gold. kick back and remember, every time you are having a good time and smoking a cigarette, there is a liberal out there who loses a little part of her own heart. to talk about the freedoms that we enjoy and the freedoms we

want to protect. freedom is not allowing people to do things that you approve of, freedom is about protecting people's rights to do things you find it distasteful. let me introduce dave kopel, our second amendment research extraordinaire. we cannot do what we do without him. [applause] >> thank you. what i would like to talk about today is two things that come together. one is, what is wrong with michael bloomberg and the second is what is wrong with john caldera. michael bloomberg is the head of this faux grass-roots organization called "mayors against illegal guns." it finances the center of the

gun prohibition movement in the country today. very wealthy with lots of lobbyists in d.c. and state capitals around the country. they have some bucks. it is not exactly what it seems. they have 12 people who got their names off this list when they said, i never signed up for this, you put my name on it without asking me. or you told me it was against illegal guns. it turns out you are against guns and general. there are also 19 people -- 19 mayors who have now left office because they were under indictment or because charges are pending or they have to resign or the prosecutor did not bring the case. there are 19 criminals in "mayors against illegal guns,"

and that means they have a higher crime rate than people who carry permits to carry illegal weapons. the proper way to refer to this group is "illegal mayors against guns." i would say on the other hand they have done one important service. there are a lot of people who wonder if there is an afterlife for not and how could you know for sure. one mayor who was in this group passed away. yet after words "mayors against illegal guns" was distributing letters signed by this now deceased mayor.

if there is any doubt, the governor proved there is an afterlife. what we see out of michael bloomberg and his crowd consistently and including their attempts to exploit the recent murders in aurora and wisconsin and every day is it is undifferentiated hostility toward gun ownership and people who own -- especially people who own firearms for protection. we know this is rather hypocritical because when michael bloomberg says people should have guns for protection, i guess he has his fingers crossed. if you can get the entire new york police detail to follow you around with machine-guns.

maybe he feels there is a difference there. they put out these terrible libels against people including saying the only reason a person would own an ar-15 rifle is because they want to be a mass murderer. what a horrible thing to say about millions of americans who have made the ar-15 the best selling rifle in the united states of america. what a malicious falsehoods to say about our police who frequently carry an ar-15 in their squad cars in circumstances where they might need a rifle for backup. a lot of civilians use them for target shooting, some defense, for hunting game up to the size of the year. the police don't have those firearms among others because

they want to harm a lot of people. they have them for legitimate purposes, and especially for protecting themselves and other people. what we do at the independence institute in our legal work on the gun issue is almost always we file a joint amicus briefs with police organizations, with a huge coalition. our amicus brief was filed not only for the independence institute of for the two major organizations that train law enforcement in firearms use. these are the trainers for the rest of the police, the international educators and law enforcement firearms. and what we consistently say with the police is there is one key principle that has two

manifestations. guns in the wrong hands are very dangerous. we need stronger laws to try to keep guns out of the wrong hands and to punish them and put somebody away so they can not in danger somebody. at the same time, guns in the right hands protect public safety. they help civilians protect each other. we also need strong laws to make sure there are guns in the right hands to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to purchase, own, use, and carry firearms. 40 years ago there were virtually no gun laws in colorado and most of the united states of any sort. the reason that the gun debate in this country has finally settled down after four decades as it has in colorado and after all we went through after

columbine is we have come to a consensus based on common sense and we have added a lot of laws to strengthen trying to keep guns out of the round hands and a lot of laws to protect the rights of law-abiding people. the most important of these laws in colorado -- which is the same thing we are fighting for in maryland -- is the right to carry. colorado's right to carry law was written by the sheriffs of colorado. it ensures a lot of biting the adult who has a safety training class and obtained a permit to carry a handgun for lawful protection. that is our single most important colorado reform. [applause] we worked on this issue for over a decade to make it become a

law. what a difference it already has made. you know what happened in december 2007 when an evildoer went into the sanctuary of the new life made a church and colorado springs. 7000 people there. he had already murdered four people and he came in their intent on mass murder. because of the county sheriff's of colorado and our right to carry, a church volunteer was lawfully carrying a handgun in the church. she stopped the killer. she saved over 100 lives that day. [applause] we want laws like that everywhere in the country. we have them in 48 states. maryland icoming soon. it is the essential that -- the protection of the right to bear arms be protected nationally.

one of the things we are going to be promoting very much of the independence institute is stronger laws on the mental health. there is lots of ways government spending can be cut starting with corporate welfare, which is illegal by four different clauses of our colorado constitution. we ought to cut that out. one of the things we want to promote from here on in including the next session of the legislature is better funding for mental health services. not only sensational crimes in aurora but a lot of homicides that happen that never dig camera crews from around the country are committed by people who are seriously mentally ill who 30 years ago or 50 years ago would have been institutionalized. we want to take money out of the hands of corporate welfare -- of the special interests and put them into the community

interests of a strong system of mental health in colorado. [applause] so we know what is wrong with michael bloomberg. let me tell you what is wrong with john caldera. he was talking about -- >> on the mental health thing? >> your not supposed to talk about that part. when he referred to our alcohol, tobacco and firearms day as the perks of adulthood. that is fine to characterize alcohol and tobacco in those terms. it is not right on the firearms side. let me tell you about two places in the world. one is western australia. there was a study done of aborigines who were in prison. they had been convicted of crimes. one group of aborigines had -- to both of the criminals had guns. one group of the imprisoned

criminals had misused guns in a crime. the second group -- these were people in prison for committing felonies. they had never misused a gun against a human being. what was the difference between the two? it was the ones that have never misused again have been taught about guns by a father, uncle. they learned about shooting sports and acquired an attitude of trading guns with irresponsibility and saw them as something you use to shoot some game and not something you used to harm an innocent person. another study in rochester, new york, they did a study overtime and tried to find 16 year olds most likely to become juvenile delinquents.

that means they did not study girls at all. if you want to study crime, you only have so many people, you focus on the males. they tracked them over the years. the youth who at 16 and illegally owned a gun -- maybe they bought it from somebody on the street -- had a very high rate of being arrested for serious crimes including gun crimes. the youth who legally owned a gun. it said they had a shotgun and it went hunting with their dad or where rifle shooting with their uncles. they had essentially no crime rate of any kind. how young people are socialized about guns is hugely important in future outcomes. contrary to this positive socialization that some of the young people in western australia and rochester had is the tremendously negative association that comes through

too much of our media, particularly television entertainment and the movies. people who produce these horrible pornographic obsession with violence, like quentin tarantino movies. they say that has no influence on people. i am sure that is true for the large majority of people. sitting in has no affect on what people ever do, is it kind of out -- is it odd they sell advertising. what a waste that must be. how strange is it these movies and tv shows have sold product placement. coca-cola pays us money and we will have a character drink coca-cola. on the other hand, it never has any affect on them. likewise, the reason that now with the culture war against

smoking is you are not supposed to show characters smoking in a movie that young people are going to see. on the other hand, what people see does have an affect. hollywood will say we make sure when a 15-year-old goes to a movie he will never see somebody lighting up a cigarette but he will see this massive violence and gun amiss use. i do not think it is fair to say that never has an affect on anybody. we are not for censorship, but we are for counter programming. that is part of what atf day is about. introducing some of you to the shooting sport, giving others the opportunity to participate more often, and hoping all of you go out and spread that concentric circle of introducing your friends, your co-workers,

your neighbors, and especially young people you know to the responsible shooting sports, which as you know is a culture of safety, responsibility, self control, discipline, and really so many things that exemplify exactly what is right about america. one of the things we are handing out is from our friends at the nra since 1871, america's oldest civil rights organizations and a mass education organizations as well. they have been teaching people about shooting safety with a focus of young people ever since 1871. there are lots of materials you can take and we encourage you to do that. one is the nra qualification program. it is about the size of a

magazine. it shows you how on your own whether you like your guns or sporting clay or 22-caliber -- 22 caliber rifles. target shooting you can go through and earned the school patches and metals as you work your way up in proficiency. everybody can do it. we encourage you to do it yourself and hope as many people as possible -- you bring in as many people as possible. on this issue, we are not only on the pro-choice side, we are on the pro-life side as well. what we are doing here every day at the independence institute is to fight for those life-saving

values of safety, responsibility, american constitutional rights. we're not just protecting those rights in colorado. we are making sure the rights are protected as we did in the macdonald case. we look forward to the day where even the people in the most oppressed parts of the united states under the sweltering heel of michael bloomberg will regain their rights to smoke a cigarette or a cigar, to drink a big gulp of soda, and to own and carry a handgun for lawful protection because it is a civil right of every american. [applause] >> we have always had a tradition -- a terrific tradition of bringing great communicators to the party every year. we have had occurred just -- christopher hichens, fred moore. i appreciate having steve moore who i swear has never touched a gun in his life. as he was shooting somebody said it "he says he works for the wall street journal, but it

looks like he works for the new york times." the media is changing. the way we get our information is changing. online publications are more and more important and valued. there is one little site that has the people at huffington post looking over their shoulder every day and that is the daily caller. it is one of the best portals for news in the country. one of our longtime friends there, the editor of the daily caller has been a great friend of ours and freedom and a real enemy of nanny is some as long as i can remember him. let me introduce david martosko. [applause] >> i guess some of you read "the daily caller." actually, i have a major announcement before i really get

started. it is always breaking new ground on news reporting. since we are smashing barriers all the time i would like to announce who will inaugurate a new section -- lgbt section, lasagna guns beers tobacco. we are the only ones with a guns and gear section. i am writing a cigar a column called "cigar hunter." we have a wonderful the senior editor who reviews the years. i suspect right now tucker carlson is cooking marinara sauce. i am glad to be back here. i spoke on a panel in 2009 with andrew breitbart. i will never forget riding around in a van and the window

was open and he was howling at the moon. i don't him and said, what is with the hooting? he said, if you are not having fun and letting it all hang out, there is something seriously wrong with you. he became famous and maybe even more so after his untimely death for heating big government hides to tell us what we should do and how we should do it. what we sometimes forget is that brietbart despised the nameless, faceless bureaucratic nightmares to try to control what we do behind dark curtains. i hated them, too. i really do. i hate that they are smog. they believe they can tell us all what is best for us. i hate to they have tax payer funded jobs to tell us what is best for us and to do it outside the cold truth of common sense. i even hate the sleep well at

night, do you not a little bit? i think i know what brietbart is up to right now. i think he is rollerblading around heaven and probably doing it with cs lewis. not because he finally found religion or he read "the chronicles of the narnia." in the 1948 lewis wrote an essay called "the humanitarian view of punishment." part of that included people who inflict punishment on each other for no good reason. this is what he wrote. of all tyrannies -- a tyranny exercise for the good of its

victims may be the most oppressive. it may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. their cruelty may sometimes sleep. for those who torment us for our own good will do so to no end because they do so with the approval of their own consciousness. they may be more likely to go to heaven, but more likely to make a hell on earth. i am not drinking, but i am smoking a cigar to cs lewis. dave is right. basic freedoms are crumbling all around us. somehow michael bloomberg manages to never be photographed in his nanny costume, but i think he dresses like that on weekends. first he went after salt at restaurants. people who are allowed to have access to a salt shaker without

supervision. who is bloomberg to tell us what to put in our food anyway? if you are on a major dose of hypertension drug and you go around slurping soy sauce and licking margherita glasses, you are a moron. screw you. being a moron with a modicum of freedom beats letting some know- it-all create a nerf planet for you to live in. that is what they are trying to do. bloomberg has decided a soft drink bigger than 16 ounces should be beyond the reach of men and women. we should mark this and reticulate and come up with silly names for it. here is what i love about the controversy. this tends to bring up the best in americans. we rally in against it and do something.

a friend of mine at the patent and trademark office tell me something remarkable. she said shortly a few weeks after bloomberg announced his soda crackdown, somebody made an injury to find out if a new kind of soda had been patented yet. it is a cylindrical paper cup. it has a movable bottom. you go to the counter at subway and they sell you a 16 ounce soda. it can only contain 16 ounces because the bottom is halfway up the cup. you take one shove with a straw and now you have a 24 ounce cup. that is a big screw you to michael bloomberg. the animal rights people always get their undies in a twist about something.

the problem is there was some nincompoop in city government whose mind was so open and he had such an open mind that his brain fell out. the important thing is these candidates, they did not outlaw consuming it. the outlawed selling it. human ingenuity kicks in. there was a group of eight restaurants, fine dining restaurants. they called themselves "the duckeasies." here is what they started to do. previously they would sell you a $50 plate of foie gras and call it the complementary crustinee. here's what they did. they sold you for $50 -- they sold you the plate and gave the foie gras to you as a garnish.

eventually the law was moot. the repealed the law. back in the new york they have not gotten the memo yet. the department of health and human hygiene, the next thing that comes up is movie popcorn. there are going to limit the size. after that will come the size of your milk shakes and frappuchinos. you cannot be trusted with these things. he may be right. breast feeding might be healthier. fine. whatever. i suppose the next it will ban breast feeding if there is more than 16 ounces in there. [laughter] am i a little nuts for smacking around michael bloomberg so much? the latest polls show 65% of

americans are against limiting soft-drink sizes in the new york. my question is, what is wrong with the rest of the 35% of people? they are probably the same idiots who think it is a wonderful idea for the u.s. be a to change the menu in their cafeterias on mondays to celebrate meatless mondays. this is the federal agency that inspects and grades stake. they said the rules and regulation for how you sell bacon. because of a bunch of vegetarian activists, the only

cuisine you can get on monday is a salad with tofu. i tried to be a vegetarian once. it was the longest 45 minutes of my life. if you want to be a vegetarian, a unitarian, a libertarian, i do not care. just keep it to yourself and do not force it on people. once on "the simpsons," lisa the daughter announced she was going to be a vegetarian. homer's said, wait a minute. you are telling me you are never going to eat animals again? what about bacon? and she says, no. ham? no, dad. those all come from the same animal. and he says, sure a magical wonderful animal. i never liked lisa simpson.

she reminded me of every anti- everything person that i enjoyed mocking at a safe distance from dartmouth college. i realized later in life why we would tell jokes at their expense. not because they were different or mysterious or because we were threatened by them. it was because they were never happy about anything. never. they were at an ivy league school is about to have the world by the proverbial cajones. it did not give them pleasure. how many people have the scene who are generally happy people? how many gun control activists are content with their lives when not controlling yours? how many and tie sugar crusaders minutes to go through life without a constant scowl on their faces. they are scared some where somebody is enjoying a lollipop. i do not know any anti tobacco nazis ever cheerful in the morning. i am not cheerful until i have

my breakfast cigar. enjoying freedom and your own course through life is fun. sometimes you work without a net, but it is fun. we are here to shoot guns until the air today. i shot some really badly. smoking cigars, drinking something handcrafted for the sole purpose of enjoying it. the simplicity of it all, it is making everybody in this room happy. i can see it. you are enjoying yourselves. the only thing that will make it better next year is we need an ice-cream sundae station over there.

we need a chocolate river back there with some oompa loompas would be great. you have to understand there is a logical argument be made for the anti-social, anti sugar, anti meat nannies, michael bloomberg, the humane society of the united states. they are saying not smoking, not eating meat is the patriotic thing to do because as health care changes and we all start sharing resources and it becomes a public thing, they say my cigar smoking will put health expenses on all of you. that is nonsense. fat people and smokers are the most patriotic people in a america. but that may, i am not a skinny man and i write a cigar column. i will die six weeks early because of that and i will save the health-care system hundreds of thousands of dollars.

they should name a street in ohio after me. i am a hero. why worry about being overweight? 200 years ago, if you did not have junk in your trunk they did not want to paint your body. that meant you were not part of the peasant class. the rich and the famous, their life expectancy was 45 years old. the un says the life expectancy average four american adults is 78. i think we are pushing the limit of the human body's ability to bounce back from things. at a certain point if you prevent yourself from dying of lung cancer you will go from alzheimer's disease. anxiety is a health risk. happiness, psychiatrist will tell us, can be as beneficial to bring chemistry as the best drugs that can get out. even better than the healthy food our first lady pushes on sesame street.

where did this all come from? they came from the modern public health establishments. the public health movement. more than a not, i think it is a complete miss an obstacle to our happiness. originally it was about curing and stopping epidemics. 100 years later, we cheered and eradicated measles, mumps, the black plague. something that used to kill millions of people. now it is never heard of. now, you have to reinvent yourself to stay relevant because there are millions of government grant dollars at stake. if you price yourself out of the market by being irrelevant, the money dries up.

the public health people had to find something else to do. public health mostly has become a social science instead of a hard science, and that is the problem. we have a lot of quasi-academics who cannot cut it in the laboratory. they are regulating ourselves in taken shrinking our dessert portions because that is all they know how to do. i used to represent an organization called the center for consumer freedom. they tell me now that there is a professor at the university of san francisco who is on tv claiming that sugar is so dangerous and toxic the government should regulate it like alcohol. on tv, he nods in the approval like he received some great

wisdom from the man on the mountain. it is sugar for crying out loud. i cannot wait for the next remake of willy wonka where they will all be eating broccoli. of course the public health theocracy is coming after cigars. they have been working on a rulemaking procedure that would take cigarette regulations and apply all of them to cigars. you get the tax increases. no more buying a cigar over the internet. the rationale is that 16 year olds are spending $16 of their disposable income. that is what they say. we have to keep cigars out of the hands of children so we cannot buy them on the internet. nobody is arguing about whether or not the fda has the authority to do this, because they clearly do. that is no excuse. it is not.

compared to the nutty osha regulations they have to deal with every day of the year, maybe restricting cigars does not seem like a big deal. these things never seem urgent until it is yours. eventually something you care about will be scorned by the government. do what john suggests. it is a heck of a lot of fun. i do when you to know a little bit more about the daily caller. it is unlike any other news organization in america. our reporters are fearless, hungry. editors do not have any sacred cows. during the primary process we went after an awful lot of republican pretenders. we did that take marching orders from campaigns, political

parties. that puts us in a shrinking minority of u.s. newsrooms. i would like to leave you with this thought. most of the problems in the nanny culture -- and that talk about social science versus hard science -- most of the problems arise because those two branches of discipline operate like very different pieces of machinery. hard science, the kind of say, gee, what causes cancer, they operate in a way that is very good and honest about rethinking conclusions on the basis of new evidence. galileo, einstein, stephen hawking -- we may not always understand what they are talking about but we trust they are playing fair. we trust if they get something wrong, the next generation of scientists will correct them and not try to cover it up. there is a built in humility and hard sciences. social sciences are an awful

lot like political -- they move in one direction only. nobody has ever apologized as far as i know for the great society and said, we should do this in a different way or outcome based education. the self-esteem movement among that little kids, a total failure. the marriage penalty, i am waiting for an apology because i am married. nobody will ever apologize for telling college kids that a degree in ethnic studies or wind studies will make them unemployable. if that describes any of you, i am very sorry.

i am not sorry for saying it, i am just sorry. social sciences are subjective. the definition of success can be whatever you wanted to be. there is nothing oppressive to point to, it is your contention is that count for everything. it's been in large soda's does not make the body mass index card down, he will say i tried. i will always remember the and the paper cup with removable bottoms. government cannot change human nature as much as it tries. they can make themselves feel good and purposeful and they can do it with your tax dollars and hold press conferences and issue reports and guilt trip ordinary americans into being less happy and content. do not get sucked in. the best revenge against a nanny culture does not come when

we piss and moan and put up a fight. it comes with a smile and acknowledge you are happy and they are not. i am sincerely happy to john for having me come out. i will say please visit the on a daily basis. our average puts us above the boston globe, the rolling stone. [applause] if america, we are changing the face of online news month by month, step by step, reader by reader. if you do not read it, download the ipad app. i am filing cigar columns twice a week. i was here in denver at a place called cigar on 6th.

they have a barber shop in the back or you can get a haircut while you smoke. is that not cool? i will read a column about that and i will probably read about some of the people i have met today. i just wanted to be a positive day. i am so grateful to have met so many of you. to all of the clay pigeons i missed, i will get you next time. thank you very much. [applause] john said i should take your questions. >> one wonders sometimes why god gave us canine teeth. he knew someday we would have to tear plastic.

[laughter] >> that is not really a question but i will tell you on the subject of vegetarians. i have relatives who are vegetarians. fine. do your thing. i have been in the situations where vegetarians will look at the menu and said what is the vegetarian entrees. i have never seen anyone at a vegetarian restaurant say "where is my lamb chop?" we do not do that. we are far more tolerant. i wish people at peta would wake up and smell the coffee. >> why is it that so many republicans seem to favor freedom for alcohol, tobacco, and firearms but oppose things like colorado amendment 64 that would legalize marijuana or oppose medical marijuana initiatives that help people with their pain.

>> i think not enough of them have smoked it yet. >> being a lifelong registered democrat i can tell you lots of times republicans are wrong. i will be very honest. i tried marijuana in college. my roommate paid for his tuition by selling it. he felt generous one day. i think it is a fine cause. we should write something about it at the dialy caller. >> if you had a chance to read the editorial that blames governor romney for the fact that the media ran with senator reid's accusations of the taxes paid for 10 years.

what that said about journalists if you saw the editorial. >> i think it is fair to say that the romney campaign did not respond terribly aggressively. it was that it had to be people three degrees of separation away from him. it would be nice to see republicans with enough piss and vinegar to call someone a liar to their face. what is also true is the online the world, they responded very quickly. within three hours of him making the accusation, there was a meme going around. by midnight that night it was the number 1 trending thing on the twitter. if you do not know what a pederast is, it is a man having relations -- let's just say it is jerry sandusky. now, the urban dictionary has

now inserted a new definition of harry reid. i will leave it to you to go and read it or read the piece we published last monday about it. that stuff is not going away. people do not put things out there for political gain, come on, talk about it. is just as silly as the tax thing. i think the romney campaign could have responded more forcefully. it is a long the campaign season. they have 90 days to go. >> do you speak at college campuses? what is the reception you get? >> it has been a long time since i have spoken at a campus. >> i speak at law schools often. there are lots of open-minded

people interested in ideas. it is a good thing. colleges are not as bad as you might think reading the forced to media reports. >> with that said, we are both available. >> would you comment on global warming. >> i think it is at a unique crossroads of hard sciences and social science. the hard scientists are coming to the recognition -- the founder of global warming said we were overzealous. we overshot the runway by a lot. the problem is the social scientists that are relying on the early judgments for their programs are not walking back. al gore will die 1000 deaths and marry a republican before he will walk that back.

they are saying, no, you are wrong all along. it will come to one of those things as one of the most aggressive and deceptive hoaxes in the history of science. that is what i think. >> i am an associate policy analyst at the cato institute in washington, d.c. i defer to cato's expert. in his view, there is some global warming. it has been hugely exaggerated by professional hysterics. the responses to that likewise often really do not make much sense. saying this is the reason we

have to take over your entire life because of this alleged crisis. the ones i know and listen to say at the least be cautious about people who say this is a new reason why you have to give up all of your freedoms. >> anyone who has ever bought a carbon credit, i have a wonderful mormon temple in israel to sell you. >> how many reporters do you have? >> including reporters, editors, and people who do both -- i do not know. i think the editorial side is around 20 people. they are all highly energetic people. a lot of people a very young.

a lot of people who are not journalism school graduate so people who are not tainted. we also have the business side to the daily caller. every news organization in america, you may think they are in the business of telling you the news, but they are in the selling ads business. do you know why newspapers have gone the way of the dodo? craigslist. they made revenue on classified ads. you can do that for free now. that is why the new york times shrink their page. they are stopping their print edition entirely. that is the way it is. the nice thing is we are on the cutting edge. we are going directly to

consumers. i think numbers show we are giving them mostly what they want. >> what will the daily caller think of the paul ryan pick? >> i would just say it is a great indication the romney campaign believes the election will all be about economics and not much else. paul ryan brings economic, budget, and job credentials to the table. i think they made a calculation. we will see if they are right that economics and "it is the economy, stupid" will be everything in november. we will have to see if they made a good calculation. >> one of the things that will happen in november is the ryan pick will cause a national

conversation about doing something serious about the fiscal crisis this country is heading towards. it is important to that if mitt romney is the next president that he come in not just because people got tired of obama or this or that, but they come in with a mandate to work with congress. the congress knows we really have to do something before we end up like greece and california. we are not far away from that happening. i will go back to being a democrat. if you believe in the legacy of franklin roosevelt and lyndon johnson, and say, we do not want these things. the whole thing blows up in the country collapses financially. if you believe social security and medicare, properly managed, should be around, not just for

this generation, but for the generation after that. it provides long-term stability in the united states. you want them to be there for your children, then you will vote to support paul ryan. he is the one who is going to fix them so they cannot last the long run. ama is going to drive this country into a fiscal disaster which will kill social security, medicare, along with the rest of the economy. [applause] all seriousness aside, i cannot wait to see paul ryan debate joe biden. >> it will be interesting to see if he gets flustered. i will give it back to your host. [applause] >> stick around after we say goodbye.

we have shooting prizes. eric does not want to leave because we have the worst shooter prize. i want to thank you. for a decade, we have been doing this fun saturday. it is something that a lot of americans do on their own. it is one of those things that we should celebrate, the daily freedom we have. i am thrilled. for those people who are joining us on c-span, i know this is not the average committee room. someplace in abc basement or some panel. this is how america lives. we are out here in this beautiful colorado land. i want to thank the folks at pine creeks sporting clubs for their hospitality. i want to thank some great sponsors.

coloradopen.com. i want to thank everyone for being a part of this. for those of you watching at home, take a step outside. it is ok to turn off c-span. grab a cigar, get a lesson, maybe have a martini. enjoy the freedoms. when you do, remember us. we have been doing it long before it was fashionable. i want to thank you all for being here. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> michael bloomberg will be part of our prime time lineup tomorrow night. he and rupert murdoch discuss immigration policy.

you can see that friday night here on c-span. in 11 days, watch coverage of the democratic and republican conventions. in a few moments, the head of the tsa on aviation security. and a little more than one hour, a washington journal discussion on accountability of the presidency. >> on washington journal tomorrow morning, a talk with michael grunwalk, author of "the new new deal." david walker will take your questions about the national debt. we will look at child-bearing and fertility rates with stephanie ventura and adam

thomas. >> c-span, created by american cable companies in 1979 brought to you by the public service -- as a public service by your television provider. >> which is more important, wealth or honor? it is not as if -- that is not said by the victors four years ago. is the kind of nation we are. it is whether we still possess the wit and determination to deal with many questions including economic questions, but certainly not limited to them. all things did not flow from wealth or poverty. i know this first hand and so do you. all things flow from doing what is right. >> look at what has happened. we have the lowest combined rate

of unemployment, inflation and home mortgages and 28 years. look at what happened. 10 million new jobs, over half of them high-wage jobs. 10 million workers getting the raise they deserve with the minimum wage law. >> >> we are in the countdown to this year's conventions. you can watch the live coverage every minute of the republican and democratic national conventions live on c-span, c- span radio and online at c- span.org starting monday august 27. >> next a look at aviation security with the head of the transportation -- the transportation security administration, john pistole. >> thank you and good morning.

john, i wanted to begin by saying thank you. thank you for your service. i think someone in your position does not hear that a lot. partly because of the feelings in the general public. we will get to that. let's talk about aviation security. the big question. s talk about aviation security. the big question. we can break it down from there. how safe are we when we fly? how do you assess the threats? what keeps you up at night? >> thank you. thank you for having us here today. for everybody else. i think the context for what we do is importantth. the tsa was created in the aftermath of 9/11. we are safer now than we have ever been. we are part of a global supply chain. i will talk about cargo a little

later. passenger security is what most people care about. how we engage with our partners throughout the continuum for national security. i see tsa as part of a national security mission. we have heard about the last couple of days, the cia, and the intel and law enforcement services in forming what we do on a daily basis. locally with the fbi. the law enforcement officers and sheriff's deputies. all of that information comes in. it comes into tsa every day as far as the classified grief that i get. we take that information and translate it into something that we can help prevent the next possible attack. we are at the other end of a

continuum. all of the great work we have heard about in terms of dod, removing safe havens, all of that. the things that have been contributed to the place where we are today. we can talk more about that. we know we face an adversary regardless of how much they have been affected through the dod and other actions. we know they are continuing to try to come up with innovative designs, concealment, and deployment techniques. >> they are still very keen on airlines. it is such a spectacle. 9/11 had such a demonstration affect. let's talk about those threats. what does keep you up? what kind of threat of a most concerned about? >> the focus is domestically

from the standpoint of the workforce. people v meet -- who you meet. there are 275 airports around the world to have nonstop flights to the u.s. we check the standards for all of those airports. a minimum they have to have before we will allow passengers and cargo to come to the u.s. we make sure that is passing. one of the challenges and one of my concerns is that sometimes, for whatever reason, it could be something like negligence, or as bad as an insider. someone who may be taking a pay off. they except drug shipments to come through. they think they are allowing a drug shipment to come through. that is what i am concerned about. you focus on aviation.

the interest in trying to do something in a plane, whether it is a passenger, whether it is cargo, if they can achieve that, all the billions of dollars, whatever we have spent it just in the u.s. in the industry in terms of trying to raise the bar to detect and deter terror, they will have succeeded. we saw from the magazine after the human cargo plot, they said, it only cost them $4,000 to devise and chips those devices -- ship those devices. the u.s. government and the industry spent a lot of money to try to make sure that they were not successful another time.

>> that is a pretty good return on the investment. having them spend that money. let me ask you about how tsa has responded to these threats. i wonder if i can put the question this way -- there is a public confidence and public appreciation problem for tsa. i wonder if part of that is because the public might get the sense that you are primarily a reactive agency. they have the printer cartridges. someone tries to like a shoe on fire, we have to take off our shoes. there is a liquid threat, and we have to take our liquids out. it seems like we are one step behind. is that fair? >> i think it is in the 10 year history from the standpoint of trying to develop the predicted intelligence we did not have on 9/11 where actions could be

taken to detect and deter. >> do you net? >> we are much better situated. there is no guarantee. in terms, there is no 100% guarantee. i am a strong proponent of that. a risk-based intelligence approach to aviation security. to that point, i think we have to focus on how we can take the intelligence that is so much more robust and with improvements in technology, how can we make better decisions in terms of pre-screening people so we can expedite their physical screenings? i think the one size fits all construct after 9/11, we have to treat everyone as a possible

terrorist. we have progressed with the technology and intelligent. we have moved away from the one- size-fits-all construct. we saw the two million passenger who has gone through a project. -- pre-check. we can pre-screen them. we are operational in 19 airports. 35 by the end of the year. i know some people have been through the pre -check. i think it is helping redefine the image of tsa. a number of other things we're doing internally. to move away from the one-size- fits-all construct. >> i want to take a step away from aviation security and asked about the procedure.

most people in this room travel a lot. they would eventually qualify. if we were to look around, we are a pretty much in the script. i wonder if -- a pretty homogenous group. i wonder if you are concerned about a two-tiered system exacerbating what we have in this country, the sense that the insiders have the game rigged. that there are two systems and that is hurting confidence in institutions. >> only slightly. i am focused on how we can do it in the most efficient way. the focus is, how can we make sure that everybody has the highest level of confidence that when they get on a plane, there

is not a suicide bomber or something in a checked bag that could bring the plane down. most people look at the aviation security and have high confidence. everybody agrees on that. that is a goal we need to focus on. the question is, how do we best execute on that mission? i have heard a lot of opinions of -- from a lot of people on how to do that. there are some great ideas. i welcome those ideas. it really gets to, we ha differentiated between passengers for a long time. when i traveled, i would go to the ticket counter and show my credentials. they would give me a form to fill out. i would philip outcome but it would sign it. i would take it to the exit leg. -- i would fill it out. they would sign it. i would take it to the exit leg. i would get on the plane armed.

i thought, it cannot expand that? we started with the airlines. if you have been flying for years, it is possible you are a terrorist. it is much less likely. we are not in the business of eliminating all risk. we are in the business of managing risk. as we try to do that, the more we can learn about somebody ahead of time. what that allows us to do is spend more time on those who are selected. as others have mentioned, it is the unknown. we know everybody's name, date of birth, and gender. beyond that, not much. and that you are not on the watch list. i want to make sure that we can focus on the unknown.

while improving the physical screening experience for the passengers while expediting their screening. >> we will let the chips fall where they may. let me come back out of left field and ask you on the other side, as part of the risk-based security intelligence, do you profile on the basis of ethnicity, country of origin, religion? if not, why not? >> the short answer is, no. we do not do that. >> why not? >> we try to determine everything about a person as possible based on their willingness to share. because of the constitutional system, we do not do that. other countries are very successful in using profiling. there is a fair amount of debate on that question.

would we be better if we profiled? i do not think so. one of the things i saw when i first came over, a terrorist has no face. the idea it may be someone from 9/11, it could also be a 24- year-old son of a prominent banker and a foreign country who is african who may not meet somebody is profile. what profile do we use? is it the israeli model? if the fit this category, the better plan on the three hours. -- if you fit this category, you better plan on three hours. that works under israel's laws. 11 million passengers a year. we have 12 million zero week in

the u.s. the scale of it, the professionalism, the work force, having already served in army for two years. the bottom line is, we do everything we can to differentiate, not profile, based on intelligence. >> when you think about the risk-based security you are trying to install, looking forward, when you think of the data capabilities that are coming on line, how did those two meld together? hug you apply the risk-based model? -- how do you apply the risk- based model? >> it is all voluntary. when i talk about the strategy, it is based on a voluntary system other than the watch list. if you make a reservation for an airline ticket, you are agreeing

to have your name put against the terrorist watch list. that means what the focus is on trying to identify, not only what the airline has in terms of frequent fliers or what we have because somebody has signed up for a global entry program. it is one way you sign up. even if you are not a frequent flier, if you want to sign up you do that through the global entry program. you just need to have a passport. given those structure is, what we are looking to do is expand the tsa's pre-check concept more broadly. i mentioned the 2 million passengers as of yesterday. longer term, i would like to see more people going through more pre-check deciated lanes so we

can focus on higher risk. recognizing there is no guarantee. >> you want to get people into the pre-check line, because you know who they are. >> the more we can do that -- two years ago, i looked at, i did not see the current contract as sustainable long term. either from a resource perspective or an engagement with the traveling public. those who control our budget. that is what this is all designed to provide more effective sharing. >> let's talk about the insider threat. in this country and in britain, we have had examples of people who are employees of the airlines or airports who have been involved in plots. given the sheer scale, the number of employees involved in civil aviation, what is the

nature of the insider threat? how much cooperation the you get from airlines and airport authorities in addressing what seems to be a pretty big vulnerability? >> it is a concern for everybody in the industry. it is something we focus on to try to identify somebody who may pose a threat. that is where we are largely dependent upon the entire community, the law-enforcement community, which has come in the past, identified insiders before the airlines. i can think of several examples. those who may have connections with others who are a concern. that is based on someone who has

said, you'd better take a look at this person at this airline or airport. that is something that happens on a not-infrequent basis. when we are talking about a global supply chain, a global passenger chain, the one weak link can be a challenge for all of us. >> how you address that? in the united states, you have better partnerships with the airlines. how do you address the potential we clink? a baggage handler in pakistan or russia or wherever? >> that is the challenge. we do it through the partnership with the aviation security counterpart. also, being informed by security intel services. the example, going back to the

cargo plot, being shipped out of yemen. whether there was an insider, that is still debatable. it was outstanding intelligence, in this case, by another service, that gave the tracking numbers for those two packages. but for that intelligence, those packages were on route to chicago. it is that type of information ionalziing operat that is critical for us. the same thing goes for the insider threat. the belief is that the host a service would identify and take appropriate action. if not, it becomes a challenge. >> it raises the question of cargo. you touched on it earlier. this is another area where it

seems there is a significant vulnerability. you cannot examine every piece of cargo going on an airplane. how'd you address the cargo vector? >> it is a vulnerability in a different way. there is a whole different screening protocol. in the u.s., all cargo and all checked bags are checked through explosive detection equipment. that is the confidence we have in the u.s. if that equipment only identifies a couple of explosive chemicals -- depending on what type of equipment you are talking about. hundreds overseas. here in the u.s., it is calibrated to detect the most common types.

what we found with the underwear plot part two, a different type of explosive had been used in the previous one. we have gone back and read calibrated all of the equipment. even working with our canines to have them trained to detect this different type of explosive. when we look at the international -- the global supply chain, the issue is, what is the capability of the coast airport in terms of detecting explosives? we just signed an agreement with the eu where we recognize the eu national security program. instead of the tsa going to inspect and validate the cargo program, it was a huge of the taking.

the eu took on the responsibility of establishing a national program. we recognize that. that is a way we move forward in partnership to say, how can we love all our resources and not try to be the one agency or department that does all things at all places at all times with all people. >> a couple more and then we will open up the questions. the tsa is still a very young organization. it came from a career in the fbi. compare and contrast. i wonder if you have a moral problem sometimes. everytime you turn on your computer, it is a do not touch my junk stored.

-- story. the poster kids for everything that everyone resents. had the force this organization going forward? >> -- how do you forge this organization going forward? >> the tsa is just 10 years. there are a lot of challenges. that is through training, for example, all officers are going through tactical communications training. they had not had. it is customer service. we were talking in terms of what targets. how can you be escalated -- you de-escalate the situation.

the human response is to get agitated right back and say, i am in charge. the offices are just about done with that training. we have also started tsa academy at the federal law enforcement training center. we started the first class is for supervisors. we have over four thousand supervisors, some of whom had not received any leadership training. they had not received any mentoring, training. immature organizations -- we also do not have an office of professional responsibility, opr. deconstruct after 9/11 -- the construct after 9/11 was a director heading each airport.

they would give out discipline based on what they thought was appropriate. there was no standard system. i brought over an opr trainer. we set that up. use the reports about someone being fired, that is under this construct. all of these things are designed to encourage better customer engagement, passenger engagement. >> last question before we open it up, this is one front in the struggle between nation states. the united states and multinational killers. who is winning? >> clearly, we have had success, the u.s. government, in terms of not a repeat of 9/11. since 9/11, imagine the shoe

bomber. -- you mentioned the issue bomber. two russian airliners were brought tdown. 90 people killed. we look at the liquids plot from the u.k. in 2006. the cargo plot. the most recent underwear plot. the detection capabilities depend on where the person would have gotten through the global airline system. we have these threats. the question is, how can we keep it situated to mitigate or manage risk without trying to eliminate risk. everyone assumes risk. they are assuming some risk.

the idea is, how can we mitigate or manage the risk. >> just to follow up, we have foiled plots. there are other consequences. the money, you mentioned. tens of billions of dollars. the sense that america has lost some kind of pride or some kind of personal autonomy. the fear that the shadow that we live under. are they accomplishing the goals they have of disrupting our society? >> it is a debatable point depending on what perspective you want to take. clearly, there have been significant changes since 9/11 as to how we go about preventing another catastrophe. there is a huge interest in doing that. i think where people disagree, people can always disagree, on

how do we best do that. i think the answer is not going back to pre-9/11 days. it is working smarter, more efficiently. what we're doing with the security initiative, those of you with children 12 and under, those of you who know people 75 and older, for those people 75 and older, we did a fair analysis with great help from the bureau. to say, where are terrorists? based on age, we made the decision to do expedited things for children 12 and under. members of the military, they are part of the pre-check program. we will be expanding that.

the great facilitator of that. we have all of these initiatives to try to move away from the one-size fits all. to give the public greater confidence. >> ok. let's open it up to questions. there are microphones at each side and in the back. let's start right here. if you could identify yourself. fire away. >> good morning. i am with ibm. when we think of tsa, we think of the airports. i heard a story that someone had been stopped on the road. is that someone you are planning to do more of? is it connected to airport security? are there any of the things you anticipate doing? >> something is not right with

that. we do have a visible protection response. they partner with state and local law enforcement. some 97% of our budget is focused on aviation security. a small amount is focused on surface transportation. buses, trains, passenger trains, trucks, things like that. what we do is partner with the local agencies and state agencies to do the teams which are designed to be random, and predictable -- unpredictable shows of law enforcement. we know from the fbi, the briefings, in the u.s. and the u.k., terrorists are deterred by three things, a visible police

presence, canines, and cctv. we know from the london bombers, cctv, they did not care about. one of them looked at that camera. he said, it did not matter. he was going to be dead. it was like, so what. we will do surveillance. in washington, d.c., if they see no police presence -- next tuesday, there may be a team that has 10 to 20 people. >> airport security, do you need to redefine that out where? i was in libya, saudi armory's looted. -- i saw the armories looted.

>> it is not an issue in the u.s. that we have seen. we do not know of any in the u.s. it is a concern. perimeter security, from time to time in the u.s. -- in utah, we had a pilot who was wanted for murder. he was able to get into a small regional jet. he was not able to take off. he caused some damage. >> you need to beef up the perimeter security. >> the airport have the responsibility for it. we help them with it. we set the standard. they do it. >> next question. >> my daughter lives in london. she tells made the bricks use

irish of identification. -- brits use iris identifi cation. >> in certain airports they do. any metric is good. proving that the person who has access is that person. it is not a help for what that person is thinking. i use the example of an investigation i worked on in the fbi. the flight took off from jfk. it crashed on the coast of rhode island. i helped lead the recovery effort. the bottom line was, we found the forensics that showed why -- the explosion. the co-pilot took the flight down. there were 30 egyptian officers on board. the belief was he wanted to kill

those officers. iris scans would have proven he was the co-pilot. it is why we have moved to known crewmembers. the most known and trusted people on the flight. if we cannot trust them, we are in trouble. over 27 dozen times a day we do trust our lives to the flight crew. we want to expand the use of biometrics. it can be very costly. the question is, who pays for it? is it on the u.s. tax payers? the employees pay for it? >> you like it. >> i love it. it is a question of the cost. >> how about over here. way in the back.

what's good morning. i am with boeing. we are in support of risk-based screening. you like to have something that is more like global entry and less like frequent-flier. people can get into frequent- flier programs without a background check. what are you doing about trying to look at a hybrid of global entry. i know you do not want to make it $100. a lot of business travelers are willing to pay money. if they are traveling within the u.s., to get into a system and do the background checks and be able to do that. what a year looking at with respect to some type of hybrid system?

with background checks, fingerprints, things that are not in a frequent-flier program. >> we're working on that. the expansion of the security provision, particularly as it relates to pre-checks. we have been in discussion with several companies including one airline that are proposing something where they would bear the cost. the question is, is it a fee that the u.s. would be charging? all kinds of things, it takes years. what we're interested in is private-sector proposals. that looking at some melnow, would do that. the passenger would bear the cost. we see that as a key enablers for the expansion, the broad

expansion. >> it does raise the question, the two-tiered system where you can buy your way into better treatment. you can buy your own government. >> $100, that is for five years. $20 a year. if the fly once a year, even if you never fly. at $20 a year, it is hard to argue that is an onerous cost. that is our position. >> fair enough. this gentleman right here. >> good morning. good to talk with you again. a question for you on funding. it is a challenging environment. two things. one being the explosive detection systems that were

deployed after 9/11. they are 10 plus years. there should be recapitalization effort. if you can give us color on the funding issue. the air cargo screening. funding for deployment of systems. you have to forfeit 50 airports. -- have 450 airports where they might be deployed. if he could give us some information on that. >> the recapitalization is a key issue with the life cycle coming to what was originally proposed as the useful life cycle. what we are finding is some of the equipment is doing well beyond the life cycle. we did a budget presentation on monday. the budget year goes into effect october 1 a year from now.

there will be continued funding. it is a question of what level. same thing with what we are doing in terms of the air cargo. the funding is there, it has been. it is at reduced levels. as is the government budget in terms of being reduced. i do not know for 13 or 14 yet. the belief is that those key technology enablers will be maintained. they have to be, otherwise we grateful abilities which is not good for anybody. >> -- we create vulnerabilites which is not good for anybody. >> did you get support for your budget request? >> yes. it is interesting. there is a lot of focus. on how we can do a better job.

when it comes to a budget, there is support for those things we described. when it is all said and done, there is a realization, these are key issues we need to make sure we did not greet vulnerabilities on -- create vulnerabilities on. >> fallen upon the budget question, it seems the other side of the coin is taking an internal look at the 21 levels of security. which ones are the most effective. can you speak to that? >> for those who have followed, we talk about 20 different levels of security we have. 17 of which are primarily tsa responsibilities. the intel is one of the key ones.

for the last year, there has been an efficiency review at tsa. all the things we had been doing. one example is our behavioral detection officers. they engage or observe passages. a classic example, a bdo would have been useful, on christmas day, 2009. he was walking to his date with his bomb. what i would have loved it is to have an officer in plain clothes off to the side. a uniformed officer walking towards him. he sees the canine, bought officer, what i would have loved is to see, how does this person respond to that?

does he continue walking, knowing that there is probably vapor coming off? the officer might observe something? that is the whole premise. in two airports, we have taken that to the next level based on some best practices to do what we call a program. some of you have been through boston logan. you have had a brief conversation with an officer about your travel and plans. the whole idea is, how can we learn more about people. it is not so much about what your answer is, it may be intrusive to some people. you can decline. it is more how the person responds. critics say, you have not cut any terrorist. that is true. we are not aware of any

terrorists trying to get on flights. there was a report a couple years ago that said, the program does not work because there have been 19 or 20 terrorists, 24. these terrorists, almost all, we're not bomb throwers. the finance there is going to raise money to send back to whoever. that person is just a businessman or woman who is going to do their work. it is different from a terrorist who is going to blow up a plan. there are different manifestations. that is one example. we do a number of different things we are looking at to try to provide the most effective security. the review is still ongoing. along with the review of our headquarters structure.

we have done some real reorganizing to create better efficiencies. a realization that our budget is less than it was last year and will probably be less next year. >> this gentleman right here. >> another budget question, what do you see happening to the level of the 60,000 strong labor force? >> 60,000 is not only the front line for us, the management for that, it also includes federal air marshals. they are a part of tsa. and all of the different components. we have 47,000 security officers. about 14,000 of those are part- time. if you travel a lot, when it is really busy, monday and friday,

we have a part-time workforce to cover those times. noon on a wednesday, it may not be so busy. we do not have as many people's back at that time. that is one of the responsibilities we have. one of the challenges is to try to professionalize the work force, more part time, people may say, that makes more challenges. it is not that simple. some of our offices are part- time, some are full time. right now, the budget is focused on becoming leaner, more efficient, how we deploy that workforce. there is no discussion about reducing the size. there have been questions about -- i had a hearing six or seven weeks ago where the chairman of

the committee of oversight ask what we would do with a smaller workforce. my response was that would be a challenge. >> you feel you are immune from work-force cuts? >> i would not say immune. our current budget envisions full staffing. 14 looks, that is all -- yeah. what's next, right there. -- >> next, right there. >> i am very concerned about the protocol. i assume it is a lot different than a regular airport. as the former owner of a plane, it seems like you got in and just took off. >> the general aviation area is

under review. we are not talking about the 1%, we are talking about the 1% of the 1%. when you fly on your own, whatever it is, the fact is there are different levels of security. we have tried to address that through rulemaking. we work closely with industries. there is a rule in process that will address a sign, which come of vulnerability, perimeter security, locks on the plainnes. when that is published, we will get comments and move forward. in it is in and nobody's best interest to have an airport -- it is not good for the industry, the airport, anybody. the industry has been very

responsive in terms of voluntary issues. we identify it vulnerabilities. here is what you should do, generally. it is not in the form of a regulatory action. . time,see from time to that can be an issue. the access to the large, wide bodied planes with extra fuel, that is our highest concern. the fact that somebody might get into a small cessna, that is not a good thing. from an over all u.s. government and industry perspective, what is a return on investment from time to lock down every airport as we do for commercial aviation? that is part of the dialogue. >> you are willing to tolerate a

greater risk due to potential consequence? >> it is a recognition that we cannot guard against all things, all places, all times. we can do more to try to do that. the cost to the taxpayers and the industry would be high. there is the question of, what is our return on investment. >> the people affected have a lot of clout. >> they may. everybody in this mill you has a lawyer. i hear a lot of lawyers. [laughter] then i wake up and start the day. [laughter] that is my opinion. some are very vocal. >> be t