>> 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 hungry 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] >> in 11 days, watch gavel-to-

gavel coverage of the republican and democratic conventions. live on c-span. in a few moments, or washed your discussion of the accountability of the presidency. -- a "washington journal" discussion of the accountability of the presidency. then i'll look at the future of journalism and online activism. >> chris christie will be the keynote speaker at the republican national convention in tampa. he told reporters this week that his 20-minute speech will focus on the case for mitt romney rather than the case against president obama. mitt romney will be introduced by florida senator marco rubio. your front row seat to the republican national convention, august 27-30. >> i started as a copy boy in

"the new york times". i was in a training program for "the wall street journal" carrot >> it this sunday on c-span's key when they. walter pinkus talks about his views on extravagant u.s. spending overseas. >> they built a $4 million facility. which is about 40 people. it's got separate rooms for everybody. he spent $4 million on an elementary school, i bet somebody would raise questions. >> more with walter pincus sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c- span's "q&a". 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." -- like it since. 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 coming 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. 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 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 deal done last yera. -- last year. 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. 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.

it sounds good, like in europe. where doctors don't get paid if you come in and you're sick. 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 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 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 states more responsive to voters. he is an adviser to the hill and blending case foundation. -- bill and melinda gates 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. 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. tos just take a new law require a present 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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. they 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. 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 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. -- the idea of courage. we do not have man like

churchill or roosevelt. -- western civilizations have had the idea of courage. 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. 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. 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 on c-span talking about whether obama or rounding is an -- or romney 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. chief executives of both parties face the problem of, even when they tried to leave, they are dealing 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. 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 party participation. for the encouragement or discouragement of third-party participation what i would say, if you are a strong advocate for third party, whether it is the green party, the constitution party, the peace and freedom party, you share the need to bring leaders to washington were willing to work across party lines. green or constitutionalist members to come here and find members with whom the work -- agree on some things, if not all things, will make the system work better and make it easier to satisfy policy goals of yours who have been contacting us today. host: buffalo, democrat line. caller: i wanted to point out --

you touched on this earlier, but the one thing in politics that really disenfranchises and disgusts people the most is the money in politics. i am wondering if you guys would back a punt -- constitutional amendment to over -- overturned citizens united, takeaway corporate special interest money. other countries around the world make voting mandatory, like australia. i wanted to get your comment on it he would back something like that. those of the main problems -- it is on a tuesday, a workday. people work all day, they are with their kids. what about making it a mandatory day off for everyone in the country, or making a weekend? money and politics, just one day where people can vote -- it is very discouraging.

guest: you are absolutely right. that is exactly right on on a number of issues. there is a need for additional campaign finance reform. we need to take a look at the way voting is conducted in this country. a perfect example -- a system as polarizing as this one becomes dysfunctional so quickly. the debate over voter i.d. loss. you have people saying suppression, suppression. on the other hand, people say fraud. let's assume that there is a reasonable compromise, a reasonable solution that can be arrived at in the middle, rather than standing in their respective ideological and zone screaming at each other. did the two sides to come together at the 40 yard line and work on a solution to the kind of problem jeff is talking about. our organization sponsors -- focuses more on the processes of government and campaign reform. we have done as much as an

organization can with our proposals for government. i have done a lot of work myself over the years in the areas of political reform. i think you are rightly concerned about the amount of money involved in the political process. you are absolutely right. the process of voting and how it is conducted -- you are right. well-being concerned about political reform, take a look at what happens once elected representatives to washington. you'll find that our making congress work and are making the presidency were proposals will do a lot to encourage people to vote, if for no other reason than they will see their elected representatives get something done. host: voter i.d. laws are in the news. a pennsylvania judge has upheld a gop-back level. states that have a voting id laws -- those in red have stricter laws. non-photo i.d. required states are in the yellow.

--'s get to alexandra alexandria, virginia. caller: good morning. i think what we have here is a pleasing message but no pleasing results. what we need at this time is an independent congressional review board that will look at all legislation proposed, that will infringe on the rights of american citizens. especially those -- where we will hold people indefinitely without charges. we need an independent review to look at those legislation's and give a 30 day period before those lost happen. this is not done right now. this is very dangerous. i want to comment -- the same

politician who supported the idea of removing a legal latino kids from schools in california. give me a break. guest: the idea of the independent review board is something we are talking about, albeit in a more targeted and focused cents. in making congress and the presidency work, an independent, nonpartisan, reliable budget and economic integration center so they can work from the same set of facts. implementing the idea at a broader level makes sense if that is effective. the issue of immigration -- yet one more issue weren't overly poor a lot -- over the port polarized political process. between self-deportation an amnesty, there is a set of solutions. our system does not allow for it.

we think our reforms will help this on all the issues that your callers have brought up today. >> clarke says, the partisan talk and behavior in our representatives and candidates -- the american people seem to be the main cause. what should they take -- how should they take responsibility? guest: citizens have the ultimate authority to either reward their elected representatives or remove them from office. given the hundreds of thousands of people who have joined no labels, we believe the hundreds of thousands of people who have already joined, conservatives and liberals alike, want their representatives to go to washington to represent their beliefs, but also want them to work together, to cooperate. it is the citizen's responsibility to say, mr. or madam member of congress, you have done a good job of working across congress party lines, we

will reward you by returnee to congress. or, you are not getting anything done, we will replace you with somebody who is. that is the responsibility of the american citizenry. that is why increased voter per dissipation is so important. when congress demonstrates they can get the job done, legitimately addressed these issues, you'll see voter turnout increased. that will make the system worked the way it is supposed to. host: the co-founder of no labels. we have talked about their system for making the presidency work. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the alliance for health reform is hosting a forum on the availability of dental care. live coverage at 12:15 p.m. eastern. >> this weekend, on american history tv, 75 years since amelia earhart's failed attempt to circumnavigate the globe. former flight surgeon and crash investigator shares his findings

on her life and disappearance. also, more from "the contenders ," syriza looks at key political figures who ran for president and lost but changed history. >> will we tossed it before the seed of -- tyranny? i say, segregation now, tomorrow, and forever. >> former alabama governor george wallace. american history tv, this weekend, on c-span. >> which is more important? wealth or honor? >> honor. >> it is not, as set four years ago, the economy, stupid. it is the kind of nation we are. whether we still possess the determination to deal with many questions, including economic questions, but certainly not

limited to them. all things do not flow from well or poverty. i know this firsthand, and so do you. all things flow from doing what is right. >> look at what has happened. we have the lowest combined rates of unemployment, inflation, and home mortgages in 28 years. look at what happens. 10 million new jobs over half high-wage jobs. 10 million workers get to the right they deserve with the minimum wage law. >> c-span has aired every minute of every major party conventions since 1984. now we are in the countdown to this year's conventions. you can watch our live coverage, every minute of the republican and democratic conventions, live on c-span, c-span radio, and online at c-span.org, all starting monday, august 27.

>> a discussion of american nuns and the catholic church. from sister mary hughes at the leadership conference of women's religion and she will talk about the relationship between -- they were stunned by a report that the conference goes against the teachings. a coalition of american nuns who previously got little media attention. the leadership conference of women religion. the leadership conference, which we are about to learn about more today, involves the director of many orders and sisters representing 80% of the 56,000 nuns in the u.s..

its members are involved in teaching, nursing, caring for the poor, and spreading the gospel. in april, however, the vatican released a surprisingly critical report that said nuns are involved in radical salmon as an and theology at odds with the formal catholic doctrine. the vatican says bishops would be appointed to assume control of the group and reform it for the leadership conference directors did not seem to welcome such reform. the vatican move provoked outrage among many lay catholics as well as priests to support the sisters. many conservative catholics and church leaders say the leadership conference should be reined in. the vatican said the leadership conference should focus more on opposing abortion and gay marriage. many members of the leadership conference publicly supported president obama's health care bill. long before congressman paul ryan was the vice presidential contender, the leadership

conference said they opposed congressman ryan's budget because they have heard it before, a position that bishop's council has taken. a group of sister is allied with the leadership conference began a tour in june called "nuns on the bus." a tug-of-war between the traditional power center of the church in rome and a religious or renegade in the new world is taking place. it could be another temporary britain the church which could subside. with us is the past president of the leadership conference, sister mary hughes based in new york. she received her bachelor's degree in elementary education in english, earned a master's of science from hunter college, a master's and doctorate from columbia university, and a certificate in public

administration from st. john's university. she began her work as a teacher in brooklyn and by the mid- 1990s, she was a chair person of the education department of iona college in new york. elected her and she lateral returned to iona by was reelected in 2007. she has served as the north american representative of the dominican sisters international and was invited member of the university of saint thomas aquinas in rome. in 2009, she began a three-year term and the presidency of the leadership conference of women religious, a term that ended last week at the end of the group's annual assembly in st. louis. that assembly announced it wants a dialogue with the bishops over the issues in the vatican report but will not sacrifice its integrity. sister mary was one of the nuns working on that statement. give a warm press club welcome

to sister mary hughes. [applause] >> thank you so much for that warm introduction and welcome. it is a privilege for me to be here. in all of my time in religious life, when i first entered and began teaching, i really never had an aspiration to teach and went over the age of seven. [laughter] i am always surprised to find myself and apply such as this and it is truly an honor to be here. i would like to maybe start off with a little background on what the leadership conference of women religious leaders is and is not for the leadership conference of women religious is often referred to as the ltwr established in 1956 and formally recognized in 1959. this happened at the request of pope pius xii who asked that the sisters for organization.

they did not want to do it. they have the national education association and the catholic health association. that was enough for them. because the vatican requested it, they did it. to see voluntary membership organization. the members are the elected and or appointed leaders of apostolic women's community. when i use the term 'apostolic' it is those countries that engage an active work and our world as opposed to contemplative were cloistered orders and their primary work is prayer and they do not interact with society and the same way. it has a threefold purpose -- it tries to assist its members personally and communally to carry out more collaborative lay their service of leadership and their congregations in order that we might better refer to the mission of christ in today's world. it tries to foster dialogue and

collaboration among religious congregations in the church and in the larger society. it also starts to develop models for initiating and strengthening relationships with groups concerned with the needs of society so as to maximize the potential of the conference to affect change. the fundamental stance is one of being a full ecclesiastical community and the church. what we are not is a theological society. we are not a biblical society. we're not a formation conference. there are separate entities and the church that cover all those thingsnor are the teachings of the church necessarily the primary focus of our assemblies.

it is a leadership conference. the primary function is to support the leaders in the complex roles ahold in today's world. for instance, one of the most profound meetings i experienced was some years ago. the focal point of the conference was a panel of women religious leaders, each of whom have experienced having kids murdered, some in africa or else salvador or here. they talked about how they handled the crisis and the media. each of us sat there. we would never find ourselves in the same role. it was incredibly moving. even barbara marx hubbard talked about the role that she feels women religious could play in bringing a greater onus to the world that has become so polarized. one thing that has evolved in the discussion and -- we hear

talk about love and the sisters but it is just the lcwr. but they are [laughter] sisters] the sisters who are the members are elected by their own sisters. we don't hold positions for life. i was a member of the lcwr from 1995-2001 and now i'm a member from 2007013. then we go back into the ranks and our sisters again. it is hard to separate the criticism of the lcwr from sisters in general because as leaders we are elected by our community. whether they like custer didn't like us, they would stand behind us and they do. there has been a tremendous amount of support and involvement among the membership of all the women's

religious congregations in this country. a typical assembly, to give you a taste of it, we might have a speaker or two. there is the business of the organization. each year, we elect a president elected and if there is directional statements that we are proving, they come before the whole body for approval the leaders are standing in the place of the members. we do not act independently of them. one of the things we often do is have resolutions often in areas of social justice. more often than not, the same resolutions coincide with resolutions that are cast by the u.s. conference of catholic bishops. for instance, the u.s. conference of bishops has a stance against nuclear proliferation of weapons. we have a similar kind of

stance. we have a resolution calling for immigration reform. there is a similar resolution. we have a resolution that the uccsb has come out against the paul ryan budget setting the provisions are unduly cruel to persons who are poor. we would stand in union with the usccb in this particular relationship. although we are situated in the united states, we have sought to keep the lines of communication between ourselves and the vatican open. it has long been the practice of the leadership conference to support its presidency and executive director so that they might travel to rome each year to visit a number of the

vatican offices and communicate about the work that is going on there and we in turn can talk about what is happening here. such offices would include the office on consecrated life, the justice office, the office and into religious dialogue, the office on the pastoral care of migrants and so on. we usually stop to see the un ambassador to the united states. we visit the leaders of other religious congregations. so often, when we were in various vatican offices, particularly the work on immigration and migrants, they would be talking about their trust and we would be able to augment the conversation by speaking about the work of the sisters here in the united states. we found so often that our work coincided with the efforts of

the various vatican offices to go on. in 2001, the president of the lcwr requested a meeting with the office of the congregation of the doctrine of the states. they just have not met with them in some time. we don't primarily work with doctrine issues. they had not seen a need. they replied that would like to meet with the president but they wanted them to be prepared to speak about three issues -- or the nation as being reserves to man, the next was on the primacy of homosexuality. did the primacy of jesus and homosexuality -- and on homosexuality. we went and the subject was never brought up. each year since then, we go to the office of the congregation for doctor and fate and we sat there and we asked if they had any questions.

it is usually very cordial. we were surprised when in march, 2009, a letter announcing the doctrine assessment was addressed to the current president. we took it to the franciscan sisters. another way in which we fought to keep our ties with the vatican is we meet annually with the anuncio to the united states. we have always had fruitful, positive discussions. one of my last conversations with the last archbishop was if he had any questions. this was after we had the letter announcing the doctrine assessment. he said in his very charming way, i only wish i could duplicate his italian accent,

he said i receive many questions about many things and many letters but i have not about you. that is the best news anyone could really want to hear. when we had the information on the doctrine assessment, we responded candidly and as fully and as completely as we could. in some areas, we found the erroneous attributions. sometimes, it might have been a comment that someone had answered on the floor but it was not the substance of the talk and i got reported that way. we corrected some of that information. quite honestly, the lcwr does not seek to have a much roster, persons who speak against the church. this is not the case of sisters over and against the church. we are a part of the church.

the lcwr is recognized by the vatican and we are very aware of that relationship and very grateful for it and very respectful of it. and in between us submitting the record format, we were back in the office the next year. i specifically asked if there are any new questions. is there anything else they need collaboration on. no new questions. we know now that the report was already written. it was not yet revealed to us until april 18 when we were issued the assessment and the mandate. when the presidency spoke, we were truly stunned. we thought things were going well. we met then in assembly last week from august 7-10 in st. louis, missouri.

more than 900 of us were gathered in that room. it's typical assembly might have 650 or 700 during the apostolic visitation is there are more. i don't remember the last time we had this many women come together. it was really at great sacrifice to the congregation. many congregations look at their own resources. one congregation usually sends two but this year they sent all of their membership. the way the assembly body went about making decisions about how to move forward, i think is as important and historic as the decision itself. there were no fiery speeches. there was no denigration of the vatican or anyone else. we spent significant time in

contemplative silence, contemplative listening, and contemplative prayer. we had also placed a priority upon being able to listen to minority voices in the room and honoring that perspective. in the end, on the last day, when the press release was crafted and it was read to the assembly body, that was the only time that people got up and stood up and cheered. i often say if you put five of us in a room and ask us to decide a room color, we might not achieve consensus but here we have more than 900 people in a short space of time going in one direction. i was wishing some of the members of congress could be in the room to see another way to do things. [laughter] you also need to know how grateful we are for the media

attention that has surrounded this. we did not plan for this. it was the convocation to the doctrine of the states that put this public. it made the assessment and the mandate public. the press and the media coverage i believe has been thoughtful, probing, and insightful. in so many ways, the press coverage has encouraged and challenged have the sisters to be more articulate about who we are and what we do. we just did hour before and we did not think it was important to do advertising and this caused us to step up to the plate. in the past, we have often lamented the usage nun jokes and the caricatures that were far too prevalent. the level of conversation has been significantly raised and we are very grateful to you for helping us do that. we also hold in our hearts deep

gratitude for the thousands of women and men who have been in support of the work of the sisters. there were thousands of letters and e-mails that poured into the national office and hundreds that or sent to each of these presidents separately. women gathered for our assembly, more than 1500 letters were delivered right to the hotel. they distributed the letters and it was really the centerpiece. each table had a sense of the level of imports. the letters of support were not just cheerleading. it was people pouring out their own fate stories and in some instances, their own struggles and saying it we could help them find a way to speak.

we're not talking about changing church doctrine. we're talking about a place to speak or raise questions. there is support evidenced in so many ways and that was profoundly encouraging to us. there are certain things that are clear in our response. it is the deep desire of the membership to stay within the church and not move away from it. you may have heard speculation that the sisters will move out of the church or the leadership conference will become a non- canonical entity. only run can confer that. we could not ourselves decide to change the lcwr that way. we could all withdraw and form something else but that was clearly not the desire of the membership.

we derive our strength from the sacramento life of the church. -- sacramental life of the church. we love the gospels, we follow the example of christ, and we believe our essential and necessary get should be offered to the church. a charism is a gift that each leader of congregation brought. in my congregation, the dominican, we have a love for truth and preaching is very much what we do. the sisters of mercy have a preeminent focus on the mercy of christ that they mfs. each congregation brings its gift, it is a gift to the total church. at the same time, because we work with those who are nderserved, we bring challenges to the church and that is the key.

there was a document of the second vatican council that challenged religious congregations to renewal and reform in 1965. the teachings of the vatican council are the highest teachings of the church. religious women took these seriously and were obedient to the will of all holy seed. -- holy see. we need to find the ways to engage in honest, respectful, and loving dialogue. pope paul vi issued an encyclical in 1964 that outlined principles of the affected dialogue. this would seem to be a moment to reclaim those principles for the sake of the church and for

all belong to call this church their home. it seems manifestly clear that our annual visits to rome and the committee participation l ofcwr members on the committees are insufficient . there are diocese in which there are wonderful and honest communications between the bishops and their religious congregations, that is not present in every place. there has to be a way get better communication. as we look at the assessment, it went back to something in 1997 where we said that it was disturbing to them in 1997, why did it take so long to say it? it might better have been resolved in 1997 when the current leaders lcwr could have responded to it in person.

it was also clear from the membership that they did not desire that we allow the mandate and the assessment to consume all of our time going forward. immediately following the assembly, the presidency and the executive director met with the archbishop and he met with the board of the leadership conference. dialogue and the listening has already begun. that we continue to do. in terms of going forward in addition to that direction, pa sistert farrell, the outgoing president, offered six guidelines by which we might navigate these rough waters. we're going to continue to do this in a contemplative fashion. if the prayer and a

respectfulness could bring 900 women in a common direction, we have to believe that prayer will continue to bring healing and change of corporate real wedding is not about winners and losers. we believe strongly that acharisms of our congregations operate prophetic voice to the church. that is not what my will or intention is. it is honed by a deep asceticism and deep listening. we work so much on the margins. we fall of love with the people we work with. many of those people feel excluded from the church. women go back to the center, we raised those questions. that is not to finance.

-- defiance. it is one the church to be all it can be and so that we can hopefully find a greater place that those who are on the margins might also feel at home in the church. that prophetic voice will continue. we have solidarity with the marginalized. when you were the people who are very poor or lived under oppression, they don't have a need to keep up appearances. through their eyes, they often see what needs to be unmasked. we try to look at our world through their eyes because they inform us. it will be through community with carousels and community -- with ourselves and with persons like yourselves long to find a

place to solve things differently and the examples of the very polarized world in which we live now to is so difficult sometimes to have a discussion on any thing. already the campaignads are hyped up. you are red, you are white, you are black and white -- where is the avenue where people can sit and work together? we believe very strongly that the church is the body of christ and that all parts of that body have to find a way to be at home in it and be able to talk with one another and be able to work with one another. we will do this in a way that is not violent. it will not be by yelling or screaming or defamation. it will be from a deeply peaceful place. in order to do that, that relates back to the contemplation -- it is allowing the time to listen so the

voices we might offer is not necessarily our own voice that comes from my place where we believe the spirit of god as speaking. we will move forward in joyful hope. there are many who have asked that this is possible. as people of the gospel, we always live with hope. we believe if we introduce -- maybe this is our gift to the church -- to bring a different stance, to invite into dialogue with those who might differ with us so that together we might come to a greater truth. thank you very much and the look forward to the opportunity to respond to your questions. [applause] >> if the vatican decides not to have a dialogue with your group, what is your next move?

to all the nuns get to vote on what you do? >> first of all, the dialogue has already begun with the archbishop. that is very promising. i have met him. he is very cordial. he certainly seemed to demonstrate the capacity to listen. as i understand, the board meeting had an honest exchange of a dialogue has begun. in terms of voting as to what to do, it is the leadership at the congregation's that have the vote on what will come next. they also placed a vote confidence in the presidency that as they move forward, the use their best judgment. we have confidence that they will. as far as our members, we did the best we can to keep the members of our congregations in formed.

i think most of us have had separate meetings with our own congregation to say what has been going on to allow this sisters to have their own voice on this. in my own congregation, because i was the one to receive this, they have been incredibly supportive. as a matter of living in joy and hope as we move forward. >> how parthenons orders leaders -- how are the orders's leaders appointed? >> by neither, in my own congregation, they elect the leaders. there's a whole process by which delegates who have a status of the congregation agree to a level of education and they are involved in an election or a discernment process where the congregation might ask what needs they have and who might be

the best women in our congregation to do this. there are some congregations who is head organization is in rome. in a few instances, the congregation itself nominates people and the affirmation would come from their own leadership headquarters but not from the bishop and not from the vatican. >> have there been similar tensions between the nuns in rome or u.s. bishops previously? >> the one that occurs to me was in south america at the conference of latin america religions. there was a doctrine assessment some years back and there were about to publish a book and it had to be withdrawn. their leadership was withdrawn and the vatican appointed leadership for that organization.

we have been conversations with of those leaders who were present at that time. they have given some helpful direction, most of it similar to what we came out with ourselves. we want to stay centered and keep the dialogue open and that is where the understanding grows. >> if the dialogue fails, what does it mean for lcwr becoming independent? >> i think it is too premature to answer something like that. we are hopeful the dialogue will continue. if it doesn't, the members have to come back. given our love for the church, we don't do anything that will split the conference. you could goal of to any conference and there is another one in the country. they follow a more traditional

-- i would have to look different to join the conference. there is different ways and they are all valid. as part of the diversity that are within the church. it would be too premature right now to venture a guess on the eventual outcome. >> what authority does the vatican or the bishops have a over lcwr? >> it is the vatican that has the ultimate authority. i don't know the ins and outs by they look for feedback from the bishops. in many dioceses in the country, there are wonderful relationship physicians who have been supportive of us. there is a member of the conference last of this was a matter of doctrine or duality?

she may have hit the nail on the head. it does not mean we should not be a great deal more prudent and respectful as we go forward. >> what are you willing to compromise and what you willing not to compromise on? >> the body of women religious agreed upon certain principles that were important to us. one is that we would stand and our integrity and i believe they should stand on bears but we have to find ways. it would be resistance if there was anyway to reshape this. we don't see ourselves as our role to discuss church documents that are assemblies. a number of our women are theologians. we have a wonderful university

in this country. throughout the country, when religious avail themselves to ongoing education and wonderful lectures at various universities. to us, it seemed repetitive to try to set up a way to do that at our assembly. we're focused on leadership skills and how do we prepare our members to live in this complex society. i think that resistance would come up there was an effort to change the nature of the conference. >> your group as one of several including catholic bishops conferences that expressed deep concerns earlier this spring about the paul ryan budget saying is a failure from a moral standpoint. willie continue to speak out about this now that he is a vice presidential candidate? >> just a word of clarity t,he

lcwr did not sponsor'nuns on the bus." the information was communicated to us and we did not support it monetarily. is important to separate that. it is the network that have spoken so much on paul ryan's budget. i believe it made an effort to meet with them as they went to wisconsin. we don't normally speak out against any candidate. we have tried to give to politics separately. as we go forward, it is error consensus that by the practices that are detrimental to the poor, it would not be something we could support. >> as your group asked to talk to mr. ryan about his budget plan?

>> we have not. >> how many members are there in your leadership conference and how many do they represent? there are 1500 women with leaders in this conference. there are 56,000 in the united states. >> as your group and cursed the church to ordain women as priests? -- encourage the church to encourage ordaining women as priests? we don't have a speaker to talk about ordaining women. people have viewpoints on this but we are very aware of what our canonical status is so we have never had an assembly

where we invited speakers to speak publicly on the ordinance of women. >> do you think the vatican crackdown is a payback for many of the sisters supported health care reform? >> there is a lot of speculation as to the reason why and that is one of them. some have drawn the inference that because so many sisters support of health care reform that meant we are against the church on abortion and that is not at all the case. the difference between the bishops conference and the women's conference as we differ in our interpretation of the reading of the bill. several important cases have already upheld and none of that money has been used for abortions. >> our young women expected to answer the call to the old

order when they're most reform -- reason reference in the case they will be violent or not acting in conjunction with their souls. silenced or rebuke in acting in conjunction with their conscience? present themselves for rowley order. -- holy orders. that is reserved for those who have studied for the priesthood. there is a concern about that. some collectors we received, i happen to read one in particular they said this is why i terminated my discernment. on the other hand, if women are looking and interested in joining an intelligent, well- educated, articulate group of women who can speak on behalf of the port and will not -- the poor and will not compromise. we await you with open arms at our door. >> how do you reconcile your

boughs of obedience and light of vatican? >> obedience as a very decent sense is listening. -- at its deepest sense is listening. it is listening carefully. in the principles of dialogue that pope paul's roman 6 outlined "talks about how board met this that each person makes every effort to understand the perspective of the other. i think we're not there yet. when we are sure that the dialogue is taking place, i think we will both be changed by the capacity of the dialogue. i think some folks have a kind of conduct of obedience that if you are a superior or you feel you are, that is what is often called lying about obedience. -- a blind obedience. in the religious community, ithe

once on this is something we said and the talk about it. we will sit there and talk about the reasons why she should or into account. that is the kind of obedience that we will follow, one that incorporates the listening and agrees that were should be. >> why have we not heard from your organization about the accusations of sexual abuse of children? >> the accusations of sexual abuse are awful scandal in our church. it has been a very painful moment for priests and bishops and cardinals. many are helpful and minister without question and great

generosity and integrity. many of our sisters have written letters when one of their man support. we would never use the sinfulness of some members to denigrate reputation of the whole. we work with survivors and victims and to try to support them. we were the ones who went and uncomfortable with. our loyalty is split and a number of directions. it is split with very good people who desire to govern the church well. it is also for the sake of those who have been abused and the ongoing feeling.

ever heal from all of those scars. to be available -- some would argue, had been greater conversations with women earlier, maybe the abuse scandal would not have gone on for so long. that is speculation but i think is helpful to have women's voices in the mix as well as men's. >> do you think the attack on the sisters is an attempt to change the subject of abuse by priests on children? issue. catholic reporter." in all truth, there are multiple facets that are here. this is so complex, it is hard to say it would be any one thing. it could be a factor for some >>. in 1979, the head the l ofcwr

ask the pope about women and ministries. has that caused the vatican to watch the minister more closely? >> that is all speculative. she did not ask for the ordination of women. she s of the church was going to be open to having more women involved. we all have different degrees of culpability in responding to questions. i think that was a question that was very forward thinking and it's time and it was a challenge. i really cannot say whether it focus of attention and leadership conference or women who were disenfranchised. do you believe that nuns should devote more of their focus to

approving of abortion and gay marriage? opposing abortion and gay marriage? >> on the abortion question, i think it is not a matter -- we oppose abortion but we do it in a different way than the bishop. the bishop has operated politically and their republican their demonstrations that take place. gigot they are public in the demonstrations that take place, and there voice from the pulpit, a voice we do not have. really well. there are sisters in summary of our congregations to work for pro-life critics -- clinics. women in our high schools or in our colleges against abortions

and it has helped them get the necessary support they need. every time we open a clinic or a place where homeless mothers and their children can now come to get the test tech support they need, all that is supporting the right to life, even our literacy programs helps mothers to be better mothers for their children. they say now they can lead to their children and talk to theirall that is pro-life work. i think it is a matter of enlarging the conversation a bitas sisters aids, it will be less stamina to endure. in terms of gay marriage, we have not really been asked to speak about it.

we have not had a discussion on it and we don't usually speak out on those doctrine issues. i mail surprised when they ask us to talk about these things. you don't want to get in the wayit is unlikely we will speak on gay marriage. >> pope benedict changed catholic doctrine said that the use of condoms need not always be a violation of catholic law. should we believe that a similar for contraception? >> that is hard to speculate at the beginning of july, there was a wonderful article called sin is not simple. it went into defining what is involved in commiting. we look at the end result. the really important question is what was the motivation?

the example that the author used when someone might go in andif they ask why they rebelled, they would get a legitimate answer. the issue of freedom of conscience on any issue outlined by the church would always be motivations. it might be violent not to use the contraception. those are things that require a lot of discussion before when comes to a conclusion.

it is unlikely any conclusion for one person would be the same conclusion for the second. face of vatican reforms? ways. it is our integrity as a leadership conference, we want to be able to offer leaders the kinds of opportunities and the kind of skills and exposure that might better enable them to lead in this complex time. if there weren't effort to turn us into something that only discusses church teaching, that is not as useful. there are other ways they can do that. i read the document on my own and discuss them with people locally. i don't really go to leadership conferences to discuss church doctrine. i come out of a college

background. in colleges, you put out any number of ideas and you discuss them and you don't necessarily agree with them. it stimulates thought bennett that is the value of financial leadership conference. can catholicism survive the rift 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 sebody 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 oerbecause th 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. sic 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 stion 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 . . 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 gavehe knew someday we would hao 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. ans 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]

>> figures that this event mentioned mayor michael bloomberg. he and rupert murdoch discuss immigration policy. you can see that 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. in 10 days, watched dabbled-to- gamble of the democratic national convention. in a few moments, the head of the tsa on aviation security. and, in a little more than a surgeon general regina benjamin on preventing illness. >> we will speak with michael grunwald about his new book called "the new new deal."

david walker will take your questions about the national debt. and we will look at child bearing and fertility rates with stephanie ventura from the cdc national center for health statistics and adam thomas from georgetown university. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> which is more important, wealth or honor? it is not as it was said by the victors of four years ago, the economy, stupid. it is the kind of nation we are cared it is whether we still possess the will and determination to do with economic questions, but not solely to them. all things to not flow through wealth and poverty. all things flow from doing what is right. [applause] >> look at what happened.

we have the lowest rates of unemployment, inflation and home mortgages in 28 years. look at what happens. 10 million new jobs over half of them highway 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 democratic and republican national conventions live on c-span, c- span reo and streamed live at c- span.org all starting live on august 27. >> next, the look at aviation security. he spoke with terry quran at the aspen security forum in late july. this is a little more than an hour.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> 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? 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 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