i can tell you every single senior leader he talks to at t.s.a., this is the topic of discussion. i don't want you to think that it's not a priority. mr. lynch: ok. mr. livingston: i got to go back to the original point i made. he needs the right team to do it. mr. lynch: sure. mr. brainard: i work in a field operation and i'm responsible for everything in the state of kansas. i was at maine last year. iowa 10 years. indiana before that. i can tell you there is a stereotype that they care about customer service. that's not accurate. there are a number of airlines who partner with t.s.a. successfully every day. there are a number of airports who partner with t.s.a. successfully every day. we are the only entity that deals with three constants -- departures, arrivals, connections. and when we're not doing our job as efficiently or effectively as we can, they have the right to be upset about that and we need to find a solution. the problem we have right now is the previous leadership team oversaw -- that oversaw t.s.a. put in a plan a without a plan b. if we had the plan b we would

not be here right now and that's reflective upon that leadership. and i don't think there is a day that mr. neffenger doesn't come to work and just -- he didn't get full disclosure when he took the appointment, probably, and god bless him for being here and he's trying to cheerlead this. that's why we're at where we're at. we did not have a plan b when we put in plan a. mr. lynch: mr. chairman, i want to thank you for your indulgence. mr. mica: let me turn to mr. palmer. mr. palmer: mr. rhoades, i believe you used to work alongside former acting head ken casprisin at minneapolis-st. paul. he's stated before that thousands of airport workers who are only subject to random checks are the single greatest threat to aviation security. now t.s.a. employees are regularly rooted out from being caught rummaging through baggage or for inappropriate behavior

which is obviously good we're catching them. my concern is by these reports there are only three u.s. airports that currently require employee security checks, atlanta, miami, orlando, and in atlanta they had a major gun running operation busted in 2014. additionally, we have reports there are some 73 employees at about 40 airports who potentially have terrorist ties. at some point is the t.s.a. causing more insecurity than it solves? i mean, frankly as a very frequent traveler, at that gives me concern that screening process may identify potential terrorists but yet they continue to work there. mr. rhoades: so let me try to answer that question, sir. i believe if the t.s.a. was mandated to screen every

employee at airports it would require much more resources. i am unqualified to professionally comment on how much of those resources it would require but what i can say is that the minneapolis-st. paul airport, there are i believe over 10,000 people that work at that airport. now obviously some of them come during various times of the day in various shifts and certainly the insider threat has received a new focus based upon world events. what i will say, we are resourced in f.t.e. based upon our mission. our baggage and passenger screening. again, i'm unqualified to comment whether we should also receive resources in that. i can say that's not our specific focus. mr. palmer: let me put it this way. we are talking about basic screening, right? mr. rhoades: yes, sir. mr. palmer: every staff worker goes through screening to get into office here. in terms of being able to do their job, if you know you have

to go through a screening process you show up early. is that unreasonable? mr. rhoades: no, that's not unreasonable, sir. i think what our administrator has done rightfully so is reducing some of those access points at those airports. if you are aware of what's called sida badges and access points, those are available to some employees. however, again, i don't have any data to suggest or talk intelligently with respect to how many access points. i can say at minneapolis the number of access points have been reduced and we continue to reduce them. mr. palmer: well, just think about for a moment. if we know the t.s.a. thinks there's 73 potential people -- employees with terrorist ties, there could be potentially others and we are not screening them. it doesn't give you a high comfort level. mr. rhoades: i don't disagree with you, sir. mr. palmer: mr. brainard, i'd like to follow up on mr. duncan's questions regarding

wasteful spending in which you all described expenditures such as $330,000 spent on an absentee regional director in minneapolis-st. paul. $12 million project that was over budget three times its original amount. and i could almost ask for a hearing just on project overruns. $336,000 on an app that you, mr. brainard, described as being as effective as a ouija board. and i'm sure the more we continue to hear from other employees at different airports we're going to continue to hear similar stories to that effect. you might be aware that last april the t.s.a. aviation security advisory committee released a report concluding they could not afford full employee screening and that it would not reduce the risk of overall public safety despite numerous reports from inside the t.s.a. speaking out the warning to insider threats. when you look at this other

spending -- mr. brainard: thank you for the question, sir. when it comes to spending, another example where they could have put the money toward making something like that happen, when they did the directed reassignments i went from iowa to maine. i had received near perfect evaluation. there was no vacancy in maine. the federal security director in maine received a perfect evaluation. he was being sent to wisconsin. between the two of us, you are talking in excess of a quarter of a million move that was earmarked. one in jacksonville got sent to iowa. there was no vacancy. all these federal security directors were performing in excessive standards. no federal security director had more experience. the maine operation, which is a wonderful operation, was smaller. the one in wisconsin to arkansas, the one in north carolina to los angeles, his spouse from los angeles to washington. the f.s.d. in west virginia to san diego. there was no reason for these moves.

i don't know what the price tag is on all those moves. but we could have certainly used that funding more appropriately. mr. palmer: well, and that just brings me back to the point i was trying to make with mr. rhoades that you're spending all this money and we know that not every t.s.a. employee is up to standard. i mean, potentially 73 may have terrorist ties. but we're spending all this money and we're not investing in the security apparatus that we need to make sure absolutely positively certain that we have the very best people on the job and we're protecting our airports. dr. -- i saw you shaking your head, dr. livingston. i presume you have a comment. mr. livingston: sir, full disclosure. just like my partner here, we're from the same area as well. i'm from -- mr. palmer: well, i'm from hackleburg, alabama, and i live in hoover. by the way, today is the

five-year anniversary of the tornados that went through alabama with such devastating impact. mr. mica: i thank the gentleman. did you want to finish your response, mr. livingston. mr. livingston: to answer your question, sir, there needs to be greater oversight. i was part of the office that identified that original 73. we didn't have access to the list. i was actually part of the team that decided we needed to notify nctc that we needed to generate letter back to them to say we don't have access. and i was part of the secure flight team to say we needed to do a better job screening. there is an opportunity to do screening and there is a better opportunity for t.s.a. do better monetary discipline. $10 million price tag spent on a watch floor. yes, sir, there is a need to be more prudent with taxpayers money. anytime you see an example of waste, fraud and abuse we need to do better. mr. palmer: i thank the chair and i yield back. mr. mica: i thank the gentleman.

the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay. mr. clay: thank you, mr. chair. mr. livingston, t.s.a. cut its screening staff over the past couple of years, anticipating that the precheck program would help speed up the overall process but not enough passengers have enrolled. news reports have indicated that morale inside the t.s.a. is extremely low, which is likely a factor contributing to staffing shortages that's affecting t.s.a. security. reports indicated travelers are arriving at security checkpoints where not available queues are available for general screening and i can attest to that going through st. louis' airport. i'm part of the precheck program, but it's more often than not it's closed. and i'm told by officers that

they don't have enough people to staff it. is there a long-term strategy to fix the morale issue and the employment issue? i noticed -- go ahead. mr. livingston: yes, congressman, i know there is a plan. we are putting 200 extra t.s.o.'s through the academy each week. both counterparts can talk about the screening process but i can tell you from a precheck standpoint i know we're putting more advertising out to get more people enrolled. we're dutiful to get more people into the program. we're trying to show them the advantages of doing that. precheck is a high priority to the agency, sir, and we're trying to get more people into that. once we do that, the more people that are in precheck we think could sustain that much better. i'd let my counterparts -- mr. clay: here's the point. the excuse i get at st. louis airport is we don't have enough

officers to staff it. so, you know, is that just something they're telling me? mr. livingston: sir, there is a staffing issue. i know the administrator has talked to o.m.b. about staffing issue. i know there is a long-term strategy. it's a resource issue both money and people. turning the switch is going to take some time but he's addressed that. i think he has a short and a mid and a long-term plan. he's working with senior staff to do that. i think both these gentlemen who are working in the airport can tell you what they're doing daily. mr. clay: some have suggested shifting t.s.a.'s controversial behavioral detection program to regular screeners. so let me go on. mr. rhoades, i have a question for you. mr. rhoades: yes, sir. mr. clay: kind of concerned about this article i'm reading

about a mohamed farah from minneapolis. are you familiar with him? mr. rhoades: i am. mr. clay: he's part of a iman and part of an influential somalia group. he said there is a ongoing pattern of racial profiling and harassment by t.s.a. agents at the twin cities airport. he said recently he was asked by an agent who says, quote, hay, were you going to make a run for it if i hadn't given your ticket back? and the only response he's gotten from t.s.a. and the congressman from that area, mr. ellison, is that they take these complaints seriously. well, i think it's a little bit more than that. he's also been given a t.s.a. control number from the agency's redress program and he said it

doesn't help either. so what can we do for mr. farah that would change the conditions that he experiences every time he goes through your airport? mr. rhoades: thank you for that question, sir. you may not realize there is a "new york times" article that was published this morning about profiling. you may know that in my opening statement i was asked to profile somali imans and community members visiting me in my office. those are facts. it is written in my mid year evaluation that i provided to this committee. so mohammed is a director of ka joog. i was not there at the checkpoint so i can't speak to what was said. what i can say is whether your you're black, white, male, female, somali, jew, hindu, we

should treat you the same. and it doesn't matter if you're flying on whatever airlines, you should be treated with respect. again, i'm not either taking mohammed's position or refuting his position inasmuch as i'd like to say when we get to know people of the somali community, they're hard working. they want to be american citizens. my mother was an immigrant. my mother was a japanese national, became a u.s. citizen and took her oath of citizenship in boston, massachusetts. mr. clay: well, how are you going to change his experience? when he encounters your agents, your officers? mr. rhoades: with any investigation or inquiry, you got to get the facts.

we can have a passenger support specialist, have someone assigned to him in the future when he flies out to make sure things like that don't happen. mr. clay: have you disciplined the officers that he encountered? mr. rhoades: i don't have the names to those officers. mr. clay: your camera footage can identify. you have identified these officers. mr. rhoades: again, i don't have those facts. what i am suggesting is in my own experience with respect to the t.s.a., they've been less than forthcoming in addressing my complaints. >> sir, has somebody from t.s.a. gotten back with these questions? mr. clay: i'm realizing this guy is being mistreated here. mr. livingston: would you like somebody from t.s.a. --

mr. clay: yes, i certainly would. mr. livingston: i would get back to you with somebody from t.s.a. mr. clay: sorry. mr. mica: no problem. hopefully the gentleman will get a response. let me question the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter, now. mr. carter: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for being here. we appreciate your presence here today. i want to start with you, mr. brainard, if that's ok. as i understand it, at one point you were assigned in iowa, is that correct, in the midwest? mr. brainard: yes, sir. mr. carter: while you were there in iowa, you received the highest performance rating that you could possibly received while you were working there and i also believe you received a federal security director of the year award? mr. brainard: yes, sir. i received the federal director of the year award. one of the two top awards you can receive in our agency and a number of other types of awards from local stakeholders, partners, fusion centers. mr. carter: right.

ok. well, then as i understand it, they tried to reassign you to maine? mr. brainard: yes, sir. mr. carter: they tried to reassign you to maine. mr. brainard: they reassigned me to maine. mr. carter: after you received all these accolades and awards? mr. brainard: yes, sir. mr. carter: do you believe that was their way of trying to get rid of you, to reassign your position? mr. brainard: well, i can't speak to their motives. it would be unfair for me to speak to their motives. i speak to facts. mr. carter: was it a bigger airport? mr. brainard: no, smaller airport, less complex. fewer employees. mr. carter: why would an agency -- obviously they wouldn't have given you these awards if they didn't think you were doing a good job and put you at a small airport where your skills and abilities would not be as useful. mr. brainard: according to them, the reason for the reassignment, my skill set was needed for that particular operation. unfortunately, there was another security officer who had been a

high performer. that's the reason they provided. each of the federal security directors who happened to be the longest serving directors in t.s.a., there was a caveat. there were three federal security directors i was aware of they did not move but they had to sign an agreement to stay at their duty station one year and then they would retire and they forfeited their right to take any type of litigation against the agency. three people were provided an exemption with the caveot they had to retire. july -- i think this is worth mentioning. there was a vera announcement which reminded everybody putting pressure on people to retire is a prohibited practice. mr. carter: and you did relocate to maine? mr. brainard: yes, sir. mr. carter: when you relocated to maine was that a financial hardship? mr. brainard: oh, yes. mr. carter: was there a vacancy near where you were before or -- mr. brainard: no.

there was no vacancy. there was in maine a sitting federal security director. there was no vacancy. and if there had been a vacancy, there were certainly other people there at the operation qualified to fill these positions. it's important to note when you're moving this particular skill set around the country we have some 750 assistant federal security directors and deputy security directors and the men and women that fill those positions most of them are more than qualified to fill those positions. mr. carter: let me ask you, how much would it cost t.s.a. to relocate you to portland, maine? mr. brainard: they earmarked $100,000. mr. carter: i have $113,000. does this happen elsewhere, mr. rhoades? mr. rhoades: sir, it happens everywhere. as you may read in my written testimony, i'd like to call the example of mark haut.

this was a man that was moved from charlotte to los angeles. when he moved from virginia over to charlotte, the agents paid paid him $197,000 for that move. during that time two of his sisters and brothers died. his wife after he got a directed reassignment to los angeles was given a directed reassignment in los angeles back to washington, d.c., on the opposite end of the united states. that's the punitive nature of directed reassignments and high costs. mr. carter: let me make sure i'm understanding this now. this is taxpayers' money that we're paying this? mr. rhoades: yes, sir. mr. carter: we could potentially talking about millions of dollars in taxpayers' money -- mr. brainard: you are talking about millions of dollars. mr. carter: and not only that, but it also causes the employee financial hardship? mr. brainard: i'll offer think. when i moved to iowa my counterpart in jacksonville couldn't come. he was off on medical. so you know what they did?

they t.d.y.'d an assistant federal security director in iowa, put that person in a hotel for nine months. nine months. they put her in that hotel for nine months and they didn't fill that position until january of 2015. mr. rhoades: sir, ed goodwin from florida, he was given a directed assignment. he was supposed to replace jay in des moines and he had -- his parents were 89 and i believe 95 years old. one of them had alzheimer's. his daughter was a high school senior in her last year of high school and he was underwater in his mortgage and they gave him a directed reassignment. you know what he did, he quit, he resigned. and that's what he -- and "the new york times" wrote about him as well. that's what our agency does to people they want to run out. mr. carter: ok. we got a number of moving parts here. you know, we got the -- what i consider to be wasting

taxpayers' money and i'm very concerned about. we've got another concern about whether this is intentional and a way to get rid of employees or to discipline employees. mr. chairman, i just have to tell, i'm pretty disgusted right now and i'm looking forward to have another hearing. from what i understand we are going to be doing that. certainly we want to get to the bottom of this. mr. chairman, i'll yield back. thank, y'all, again for being here. mr. mica: i thank the gentleman. i'll recognize the delegate from the district, ms. norton. ms. norton: thank you, mr. chairman. could i just say to all three of you that we very much appreciate your service and appreciate your courage in coming forward. i chair the equal employment opportunity commission. i'm very interested in this kind of alleged retaliation. it's interesting that when

congress passed title 7 itself it passed retaliation provision in the statute. it's very, very important and, of course, if there isn't any sense that one cannot be punished for coming forward, it is very, very heavy presumption against coming forward. so i was interested to hear about -- it was not -- i don't remember even though i had to essentially reform the entire agency creating new parts of the agency, bringing together people. i don't remember anything called directed reassignments. in my view, i can think of no more powerful instrument in the hands of an agency. you testified i think it was you, mr. rhoades, somebody just

quit. mr. rhoades: yes. ms. norton: if that was the intention it certainly worked. mr. livingston, let me just start with you because you reported that you indeed did suffer discrimination at t.s.a., is that right? mr. livingston: yes, ma'am. ms. norton: and what was the basis for discrimination? mr. livingston: it started with the disability harassment and then it was based on my veteran status. they were making fun of me with my service-connected disability. it started at e.e.o. i found against the senior s.c.s. for preselection. then it started with the sexual harassment. another s.c.s. asked me to lie and i refused. then there was another case where i reported serious security violations and it started that same official is the one that testified against me in my e.r.c., or my probationary period.

ms. norton: it seems like one thing leads to another. mr. livingston: if you tell the truth in t.s.a. you will be targeted. i call it the lord of the flies. you either attack or be attacked. mr. rhoades: ma'am, if i may. ms. norton: yes. mr. rhoades: i was accused of going native. ms. norton: going what? mr. rhoades: going native. ms. norton: explain that, sir. mr. rhoades: ma'am, it's a slang term where i was visiting mosques in my official working with the somali community where jeh johnson, my secretary, tells me he wants to conduct community outreach and my supervisors accused me of going native. i take that to mean i'm somehow converting to islam. i'm acting as a native. it's a disgusting, bigoted term, and when i think of that within the context of my written mid

year evaluation that tells me to profile somali people, i'm disgusted by it. going native? i'm truly disgusted by it. ms. norton: now, this committee -- the house unanimously passed a bill called the federal employee anti-discrimination act to help hold managers accountable. you know, the kinds of retaliation that would happen below your level perhaps is apparently better taken care of. i was an original co-sponsor. it looks like most of the committee was. this is -- this bill, by the way, is pending in the senate. it hasn't passed the senate yet. but it would require the agencies to keep track of every single complaint.

somehow for the string of issues, mr. livingston, for example, you indicated there would have to be a tracking of the complaint through inception and resolution. do you think this would help bring some additional level, mr. livingston -- any of the three of you -- i'll start with you, mr. livingston, through the process? mr. livingston: yes, ma'am. anytime there's checks and balances and you track that i think that's a good thing. ms. norton: see if something funny is going on here. with the string of -- you see the string of -- mr. livingston: yes, ma'am. i think t.s.a. has a management protocol problem. i think if you can track and show the process -- and i know the committee has looked at it for years, i think if you can

show that, because all these leaders are not bad. some are very good. exceptional. i can name several. but all it takes is somebody to circumvent that process and now you ruined the good work of many. but if you track that and you quantify it and you can show the progress of the well-intended, i think everybody benefits. if you have toxic, cancerous leaders that are injected in this process, it undoes all the good work that the well-intended leaders do. and that's why mr. neffenger needs a team around him that can do that. in this process you're talking about, this tracking, this mechanism the numbers in the data doesn't lie and it's forever. once you put it into the record and once you track it, it's consistent overtime and that's what we need is consistent, persistent, quality leadership because factual data will make us better. ms. norton: mr. livingston, they gave me something of what you said to staff indicating these nondisclosure agreements stand in the way.

i notice -- and of course, i'd like to know whether you think our bill that says that you can't restrict the employee from disclosing waste, fraud and abuse to congress, special council or the inspector general, whether that reaches far enough? mr. livingston: i think we overuse the nondisclosure agreements in my agency. i think every legal case we have ends in one and i think that's an abuse of the power we have. i did write a statement to that. i will look for it very quickly and read it to you. every case from a misconduct or e.e.o. ends into an n.d.a. at worst it shows our problems. at the least it shows a cover-up. every case can't be an n.d.a. we should have public disclosure. we should show the public what

we're doing it and if we're hiding it we're hiding something. mr. mica: i thank the gentleman. we'll recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney. mr. mulvaney: i thank the chairman and i wish that mr. lynch had stuck around for a few minutes because he said something i thought mr. brainard handled it very well. i'll go back just for the record and i think mr. lynch mentioned at the end the airlines were interested in moving product, moving people through and i think mr. brainard, you handled that extraordinarily well. i know some folks who work there and their families fly, nair friends fly and they care just as much about safety as we do. it's probably just as inaccurate to say the airlines only care about moving product as it would be to say all you care about is safety. that you don't care about the folks who have to stand in line and how long they do. in fact, i look to a longer conversation about who cares let less about it, cooperation or bureaucracy. i guess they're tied. i want to talk about the way the

employees are treated. is anybody familiar with the circumstances at charleston, south carolina about kimberly barnett? just something we talked about here today. she complained about her supervisor falsifying records in her area. it was the k-9 use of the dog. she went to the o.s.c. which is where she was supposed to go and made the complaint in june of 2014, and by november of 2014 she was fired. she was fired over a completely different allegation regarding using inappropriate language when her car got struck by a bus. so i wanted to mention her because this is -- it's more than just you, gentlemen. we heard your stories. but i think everybody from every one of our districts could bring some of these stories in. but let's talk about how to fix it and if it can be fixed. mr. livingston, you hit the nail on the head. your exact language was accountable leadership which i agree with.

can you name to me a federal agency that has that? mr. livingston: i used to work at the nuclear regulatory commission and i worked at the department of the navy and they had it. mr. mulvaney: maybe it's a function what we do in this committee but since we've see the bad stuff all the time we can tell you again and again, we can bring you examples of leadership breaking down, leadership not being accountable, of folks not being able to fire people. we can do -- you could have a hearing here every single day how poorly the v.a. is run for those same reasons. you mentioned one of the challenges the agency faces is personnel. i think you said it was staffing and then it was money. i feel it's incumbent upon me you haven't cut your budgets. your budgets have been fairly flat the last couple years. when you tell me every day this summer will be the day like thanksgiving is, why is that? it can't just be money. in fact, it can't be money because we really haven't changed the money that much.

mr. livingston: we are in a perpetual human resource model whether where we're always losing and recruiting people. we don't have a model where we recruit and maintain and if you don't sustain top quality people then you're not going to get the best work force. if we're always recruiting because we're always losing, you're not going to get the best people. if you don't take care of the people that you hire, they're not going to stay. if you don't care of the people that you hire and get them into a career development leadership program and if you don't take your best people and groom them for bigger, better positions, if you don't send them to the top level schools and don't invest in them, if you don't make people feel important and if you don't make people care about them, they're not going to say no matter where they are. mr. mulvaney: i agree with that wholeheartedly. anybody here who's ever had to hire or fire people

or run an organization probably agrees with that statement. >> if people think you care about them, they will take a bullet for you. >> which leads me to my question, why are we doing this? you describe some of the same frustrations we have with sony bureaucracies. -- with so many bureaucracies. unaccountableout leadership, we hear that in here every single day from every single agency we bring in. my question is why are we doing this? why would it be letter to let private services to services functioning? you defend the agencies as to why the federal government needs to be doing this? we have had contractors coming here before. there is always the threat hanging over contractors. we don't have that with the tsa.

i ask you to defend the federal role. as are we doing this federal government? >> i would like to take a stab at that. one of the essential elements of government is -- i grew up as an army ranger. a ranger lives and breathes, a leader is responsible for his or her unit. responsible for everything that unit does or fails to do. when they are failures there must be consequences to those failures. we don't have consequences in tsa. entire people and the chain of command would have been released. >> we would fire them and replace them with somebody else. >> i would suggest whether it is private, whether we stay, my view is irrelevant.

it requires the most essential ingredient and i work for kraft foods and marketing. intangibles,the but that is why we are all here. failures of accountability, failures of performance. >> i will cut you off. i don't want to take away, but that frustration is embodied and experienced in this committee every single day. >> your recognize. >> you are on the sheet. are you aware of examples of an investigation as you believe specifically to move in from an agency? examples? >> i know the morale survey was -- i know

the investigation in miami was used as an instrument. >> what do you do if you get yourself in trouble after they go after you? >> anytime you report misconduct and tone favorite people, it goes against the favorite people. you report 35 dish you report security violations. it seems to go against the grain. >> the idea was to establish a respect for the people.

if you don't say something you are considered a weak leader. i think if you say something you are considered an outsider. i had another one say if she files a complaint, it is our word against hers. i said i'm not going to lie. he says if you don't, we not going to work with you. obviously i was on the outside from the get go. i was stunned another one would ask me to lie. happening something and were going to report it? >> absolutely i did. >> could one of you give a background on how integrity tests are conducted at the

airports? >> i can give you some insight. the integrity testing went into high gear shortly after a media story about ipads were taking place and our tsa officer will come out and they will run test items through cash cards, money, dvds, and things like that. items that come out, when they conduct the integrity test they will come to these items and the federal security director will get a call and we will be notified of the outcome. generally speaking they will ask if you can recover them for us through lost and found. i will give an example that certainly you will appreciate. one of the items they are notorious for planting our pens. they will throw a 10 on the floor and tsa picks it up and turns it in. out a couple of

investigators and literally interrogate them and push for a resignation or proposed removal for theft. i know this because they have done it at -- i know because they have joked it is the most successful test they have had. when he picked up the pen and threw it in the garbage because he did not put any intrinsic value on the pen. .t was a $200 pen in my operation i happened to be the worst offenders of picking up tens. the irony of all this when talking about testing is you hold the people in the field to the highest standard, the people at headquarters to the lowest standard. we have people picking up tens and they are sending out these criminal investigators. it is commonplace for them to come out and threaten people with a criminal prosecution. they will take a not criminal case to a local prosecutor as part of the fairness actors say

they are spending 50% of their time on criminal investigations. and they take and hold the field to a much different standard of accountability. at oure people headquarters abusing their staff members. words they put a stupid plastic pen on the ground. >> i can go to cvs and get something that looks just like it and i couldn't tell the difference between that and a seven dollar pen. i have never seen a passenger in turn a pen to the lost and found at the airport. if that is not a most ridiculous use of taxpayer money, i don't know what is. do you think they ever target individual employees or individual airports? >> i have never seen any indication the tests are conducted for any particular reason.

i think that portion of the test is. i think integrity testing is actually essential. the only people that hate to see theft in the workplace more than the american public are the unemployed. >> thank you for the extra time. >> thank you. let me yield to mr. cummings. he is going to yield. >> i'm going to have to go to another meeting, but i want to thank you all for being here. you have provided some very significant testimony. we need to see the entire picture. but we certainly cannot have a situation where the even worry about

retaliation, let alone be the victim of it. think you will that concern from both sides. again i want to thank you all. we have to find a way to cut out that layer you were talking about, those people who seem to want things to go the way they have been going, and the way they have been going on is not healthy. and it takes away from the of the agency and its effectiveness and efficiency. know they are going to explore this. but this idea of people being sent from one country to another , if that is about retaliation, i will tell you something, to me that is criminal.

family -- families are so important. and the families that have to go through that help, life is short. i will yield. thank you. think the ranking member for those comments. i just wanted to make sure i understand the difference between the legitimate use of tools for management and its abuse. i asked before about these assignments, and i can see how it opens itself due to abuse. internally, they have begun to take some action. such a problem within the agencies. i want to ask about directed reassignments.

i want to know if it has been misused. we see this all across the government. this is the capacity of the to ask the employee to move every four years. see that in the state department, we see that in the services of the united states. it from theee national park service. i think a former administrator suspended the tour of duty they would whereby be moved every four years. >> you are speaking to mr. carraway. he was the administrator between

the transitions. he not only saw the detrimental effect it had on the culture of our work, he also had been subjected to it himself. he had walked that will -- walked that mile. in onr. neff injured came 2015, here -- he reaffirmed to hold what mr. carraway had done. sure if they have tried to do it since mr. carraway put a freeze on it. there are some things you don't find out about until the bells are run. but he did freeze that process. when you sit down and look at the information, it is crystal clear. >> it was a problem in that agency. not unusual in having this tour of duty.

>> last year, when i hired and is a federal security director, i did not sign a liability agreement -- a mobility agreement. the tsa signed a -- signed an agreement. if you want to be a candidate you sign a mobility agreement. what they did is they established a mobility process with the federal security directors and started moving them around. they did not have a business reason to do it. we are certainly able to articulate that. >> that happened in november 2014. i received my directed reassignment. you are just calling the same thing, it directed reassignment. what is important to understand

is on the night of february 19, 2015, my former federal security director called on his cell phone. i heard every word he said. i suspended that action. that did not go through 80 -- through an executive resource council. it goes back to a point i want to reinforce here. if we are going to ignore them or work around them or lie about them, then it is going to affect us. >> you can call it a tour of duty reassignment. my friends and colleagues on the other side have the same view about the minimal attention even at your level, that civil servants even half. a bill pleased we passed

ourselves, just waiting for the senate. take a bill to do something about this. i noticed on march 24 of this year, the president administrator, a detailed explanation about why this ployee must be re-signed -- reassigned. any other option it seems to me is important. does that help the situation? >> this is a question of using policy in such a way that you can push an agenda. there would be legitimate reasons you can to a directed reassignment. you may have somebody who is not performing well. you may have some but he who is abusive to the workforce. you may not be able to determine somebody who has not reached

that level. you are prepared to sit down and have an options meeting. you being at this location is not going to work. there are circumstances in which do aould do a written -- directed reassignment. this goes back to do you have a policy in place that governs this. i will tell you a comment i heard and i will say it in this hearing, because there are 300 witnesses to the previous deputy administrator, where they were talking about ethics and accountability. that is the mentality that these people have. they don't care if you are going to file an eeo. it is very difficult to get them to accept a complaint. there needs to be legitimacy with this. that is why these types of moves are absent.

>> they ended my probationary. the argument was made they had no proof. >> i very much appreciate your indulgence. our committee moves unanimously on this. the nuances are quite different. , do youwhere the agency really hold people accountable? let's put it in writing about why the employee must be reassigned. let's look at what the options are. there may be no option. i particularly appreciated your explanation. reasons. some what we are here discussing and not the reasons that are used across the government, but the abuse of these party policies. i thank you very much for your

testimony. >> by law to conclude and thank all the members for their participation. particularly for you all coming forward. i have set you have confirmed some of our worst suspicions. it takes some brief people to come forward, especially from an agency that is renowned for retaliation, has grown to renowned for getting its employees and those who step forward and reported some of the problems are paying some pretty high penalties. it is abusive to you, to the system. i was one of the people who created tsa way back after 9/11 as the chair of aviation subcommittee.

the president wanted it on his desk by thanksgiving. we try to structure something that would replace what we had. i think there should be a federal responsibility. we changed from having the airlines in the private sector there weren't federal guidelines in place and they fail to be put in place. away with it, i said change the rule. the most shocking testimony are diffuse heard today, and what they have done to you all is uncalled for and horrible. mr. livingstone talked about the intel analysis capability. that really scares me, the most important responsibility of that

agency is to connect the dots. i'm going to ask the administrator to take action to revamp that activity. that is the most important government responsibility, intelligence gathering the information, all the stuff we need to keep people from doing damage. to testify and are familiar that is one of our weak spots, that is scary. we did everything from washington, that was a disaster, we have tried to localize some of the hiring and other activities.

is so big, is it they can't think out of the box. you have people in control. administratorhe but you can have people in control who are vengeful, who have taken actions that are just unacceptable. if you have to have somebody , so be it.t vacancy what you have described is an and thenauthority, 197,000 on one of them. so the intel bothers me. we have got to get that piece of the puzzle there.

i don't care what you put there, private, public screeners, things will get through. if we spent some of that money looking at people who pose a even screening people who are working behind the scenes, we have a hearing on that. they don't have a passport number, they don't have social security numbers. miami and orlando, and there is one more airport where they are's -- where they are screening the workers. they check them and they can go through, as you know. they have cameras, they have all kinds of things that are not

allowed. and they have chemicals, but they have access to the aircraft, which they can do a lot of damage to. some of that where it can be better spent. would you agree with that. >> i'm glad some of the union folks came. when i wrote the bill i made certain that the tsa and tso have the ability to belong to a union. i strongly believe in that right of every american worker. i don't think anyone should be forced to join a union. provision, theo five privates greening under -- private screening under federal observation.

it's not a question of union representation, and i don't think people should fear public versus private, even the tsa folks. involve some competition and i heard you all speak to that. again we need to protect that right. some can get fired because that is the way we set up. it sounds like some of the wrong people are getting removed. and in the private screening they increase the compensation to retain better people and be more flexible in scheduling. that is one reason i favor that model under federal supervision.

i cited a history of what has been going on with the delays. said there was no plan b and that we expect a meltdown the summer. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> if i can say something with that, federal security directors are working with their staff, working with the airlines. we have faced challenges. be confident we are going to able to find workable solutions as long as we are keeping partnerships with our stakeholders. >> you had a lot of good workers out there. we need a better way of rewarding and retaining the good tso workers, get rid of some of the bureaucrats at the top were causing most of the problems.

there they felt threatened, particularly by me. bureaucracy.huge they are very domineering over the bureaucracy. them in my airport. always left that option open, what my local airports requested to opt out, and they came down and he told me the reverend was so intimidated. and so threatened. that it took years to get us to consideration of the opt out. lawi had to change the where they must accept the application, rather than when we set it up. it was permissive with the language shell.

took two years more as they thwarted our congress's attempt. we have 450 airports. wyoming is different from jfk. with the right balance of public-private operations, i would never take the federal government out. are a lot of junior members here. nobody understands the significance of intel analysis situation. maybe you have a different opinion? >> i want to go on record saying while you don't have into leadership, you have some top intel professionals working the office. the advanced analytic part

functions very effectively. he is gettingu great intel support from them. it will continue to function even better. >> i put the resources there. it has worked out well. another thing is you have these lines that extend out from the airports. you saw what happened in brussels. it was an attack on the american airlines. we decided the attack in los angeles. a are looking for the easiest targets. the tsa provides a layer of protection. we have air marshals, we have pilots who are armed. thing we have, and they have always come to the

when the passengers found out what is going on. the passengers beat the living hell out of anyone who pose as a true risk. the airline staff, i have to give them credit. my concern, we have built this huge bureaucracy. they have their vengeful way of controlling the agency, which shouldn't be. i'm not happy to hear there is no plan b. we cast a lot of responsibility for making it work.

check advancing that. i will say it is improved. there were more people in pre-check then were on the other lines. they use the dogs and people in line to get into tsa. they are checking people as they come in before they can get to the blind to take up people like they did in brussels. suggestions that i hope you all can take back. i know you have tried palm -- tried positive suggestions. iton't think any of you did

to being vengeful. you have the best interest in the public. not as many questions as comments. we will have the administrator in a couple of weeks here. remarks? committee certainly has some level of influence. imagine if every year you had to run for reelection. >> my contract expires every 24 months. had toour people, they recertify for their job. i would hope looking forward, one of the things we can certainly do better is find a better option, people are

getting incredibly stressed out. what you don't hear about are the success stories that happen every day. i know some people -- we have a great people and the wonderful opportunity. >> again, it starts from up here. you will work from certain constraints from what flows down. >> we have brought some very serious issues here today. inmer back into the original 2009. we can agree on some of the things that will be addressed now. the prime opportunity to

advance the operational success of tsa. none of the things that we hear are personal. >> speaking in the betterment of tsa. if we can take a look at how the executive resource council points to these at tsa, that may be a way for you to exert your control over tsa. that is where -- that is the nucleus for everything. not sure it isn't effective in the best interest. several things you have said over and over. >> you can imagine my frustration.

they have ignored me, they try to do every they can. since we have created -- i have never seen anyone come forward. most people have been afraid to come forward. they even put bags over their heads. you all are very brave. i think you would do it again, because you are trying not to be mean towards anyone or vindictive, but to better the operation. >> i wanted to thank you for the opportunity to speak before the committee. i hope i communicated issues along with resolutions after reflective thought.

i appreciate the opportunity to be heard. wish theis one thing i committee would have oversight on is the directive reassignment policy. this is not personal, it is .rofessional as a party suggestion i would do an audit of all the tsa programs. you cannot fix a problem unless .ou diagnose it correctly the tsa has demonstrated the responsiveness at times has not been there. however embarrassing it is. healthieror us to get we have to diagnose the problem and take our medicine. all three of you stepping forward. i think it will be a

constructive hearing and constructive path forward. there will be no further business for the committee. this meeting is adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2016] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption contents and accuracy. visit ncicap.org

>> at a campaign rally in indianapolis, ted cruz announced that he chose karly feerna as his running meat if he wins the republican nomination. he is currently more than 300 delegates behind donald trump in the race. this is 50 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the next president of the united states of america, ted cruz. [applause] ♪

mr. cruz: god bless the great state of indiana. [applause] mr. cruz: elections are about choices. the republican party faces a choice today. america, i believe, want to unite behind a positive, ,ptimistic, forward-looking conservative campaign based on real policy solutions to the problems. [applause] mr. cruz: and the american

people deserve a real choice in november. [applause] an cruz: a choice, and not echo. a meaningful distinction. november and the american people are given a choice between two big government liberals, two washington insiders enmeshed in the corruption of washington, then we as a republican party will have failed the american people. , when you tell you run for president, one of the choices you make is the choice of selecting a vice presidential candidate. [applause]

mr. cruz: this is a choice that you are telling the american people, this is an individual who i trust. and even more importantly, this is an individual you can trust to lead this country, no matter what might happen. [applause] any responsible candidate for president would have spent much time assessing probable -- possible candidates, thinking through the pros and cons, studying who these people , andpraying about it examining the potential candidates. the characteristics that you look for in a vice president are, indeed, the same characteristics you look for in

a president. [applause] all,ruz: first of knowledge. do they know enough to do the job? do they know where jobs come from? do they understand why jobs are leaving america? do they understand why manufacturing jobs are being driven overseas? carrierunderstand why has left indiana and gone to mexico? do they understand what is happening in the economy? do they understand the constitution or bill of rights? are these words on a piece of paper or promises to protect? [applause] and security. threatsunderstand the

facing us in the world, the threats that potentially endanger your children and mine? does this person have the experience and knowledge to do the job? secondly, you look to judgment. do they have the judgment and ntle of a bear the ma job whose responsibilities gray the hair of every person to hold that office? do they think through decisions in a rash and impulsive way? do they pop off the handle at whatever strikes them at any given moment? or do they think through carefully, measured? around assemble a team them who are smarter than they are? there is an old adage in management that a's hire a's,

and b's hire c's. [applause] mr. cruz: if you see a leader that deliberately surrounds himself with people that are not capable, informed, skilled, and would never stand up to that leader, it tells you that leader is not a leader, but rather someone not at all secure in who they are. [applause] mr. cruz: and the third thing you look to his character -- is character. are they honest? do they have core principles that come from there -- their gut? to be announced

today and amended tomorrow. when they look in the mirror, is it based on whatever is trending on twitter? or do they have a foundation? [applause] to character,gral how do they treat others? how do they treat others, especially those that they do not have to be nice to? everyone knows how to kiss up. everyone can be nice to their boss. that is not complicated. but how do they treat the clerk at the convenience store? how do they treat the average man and woman? how do they treat the average

american citizen? how do they treat the vulnerable ? that reveals everything you need to know about character. after a great deal of time and thought, after a great deal of consideration and prayer, i have , if to the conclusion that i am nominated to be president of the united states, that i will run on a ticket with my vice presidential nominee, carly fiorina. [applause]

[applause] [chanting "carly"] born in texas. [applause] mr. cruz: the very first thing i liked about her. carlton fiorina, known throughout the country simply by the name of carly. [applause] an extraordinary leader.

she started working as a secretary at a small firm. and she climbed the corporate ladder to become the ceo of the largest technology company in the world. [applause] and the first female ceo in history of a fortune 20 company. [applause] mr. cruz: a graduate of stanford and m.i.t. carly is brilliant and cable the yet she experienced the hardscrabble world of being a woman professional in the business world. i say that as a son of a pioneering computer programmer, my mother, who started in the 1950's. i say that as the husband of my

z, who spentcru two decades in the business world. over and over again, carly has shattered glass ceilings. but in addition to being a woman of extraordinary intelligence, she is also a woman of deep principles. she served as the chairman of championingon conservative principles. she has studied the threats facing our national security of y serving as chairman of the cia's external advisory board and if you look to the criteria

that i laid out, starting number knowsth knowledge, she having spent a lifetime, how to produce jobs. how to raise wages. [applause] she knows firsthand that the key to economic growth is not government and more and more government but less and less government. my opponent in this race, donald trump, like hillary clinton and bernie sanders looks to government as the answer for every problem. carly knows firsthand from decades in the business world, running one of the 20 largest

corporations in america, where jobs come from. [applause] and she respects the bill of rights and constitution. [applause] if a candidate views the bill of rights as an occasional inconvenience, something to be talked about one day then ignore the rest, if a candidate views religious liberty is cast aside when it is inconvenient, if the candidate views the second merely a as suggestion, they don't have the grounding to be president. carly respects the constitution and the bill of rights to

and she understands the threats facing america. she understands this is a dangerous world and in naming her my vice presidential nominee, i am also telling you she is someone you can be confident and if the occasion arises to be commander-in-chief. [applause] mr. cruz: we need a president who is not neutral between israel and the palestinians. [applause] mr. cruz: we need a president who will not keep in place the iranian nuclear deal but will rip it to shreds.

and the second criteria, judgment. it was seven weeks ago today that carly endorsed our campaign. endorsed, initially before that announcement, she and i sat down and talked at a great length. one of the things that struck me, she said, i have a condition for endorsement. i said, what is it? she said, i don't do anything halfway. if find doors, i want to be all and. i want to be working and campaigning in making the case to the american people. [applause] mr. cruz: that is the kind of condition that you like to hear. her condition was my endorsement

is not just an empty rubberstamp. commitmentr a full because carly looked at me and said our country is in crisis and we've got to do this together. [applause] since that time, i have seen her day in and day out on the campaign bus going from stop to stop to stop she is . she is careful, she is measured, she is serious. she doesn't get overly excited or rattled. [applause] and you know, we also that. one of the earliest debates carly confronted donald trump.

a man with the characteristic understatement said of her, look at that face. and everyone of us remember that grace, the class, with which carly responded. responded to donald that she knew exactly what he was saying and that every woman in america knew exactly what he was saying. one of the great principles they bullies, they feed off of fear. they feed off of people who cower in the quarter when they yell and scream. they don't know what to do when a strong, powerful woman stands

up and says, i am not afraid. [applause] mr. cruz: the third characteristic that is important for a president is character. at the end of the day it is all about character. if the president is a no good scoundrel. if the president is a narcissist everett if the president is notive and angry, they will and cannot be a good president. and for anyone who doubts that we only need to look at the past seven years to see what happens.

a good president must have known struggle to read must be able to understand those who are struggling. if you have always lived a life of privilege. if you have always been told you that hashosen one, real impacts on the job you can do as president. when carly started as the in anary in a small firm environment that was not always welcoming to women, she knows what it is like to struggle in the workplace every day. she has also faced personal struggles. including being diagnosed with breast cancer. battling cancer and surviving. [applause]

mr. cruz: as a son who was by my mother's side when she battled breast cancer, i know how devastating that disease can be and i know what testament it is that she came back ready to conquer the world. [applause] carly has known the loss ofluding her stepdaughter to a drug overdose. on the planetin commensurate with the pain of a parent losing a child. carly has struggled through that and going through those personal

struggles, everyone here has faced personal struggles but it is when you are facing the void, the abyss, that you find your character. you find who you are. you find your ground. [applause] maybe that is why carly is not intimidated by bullies. has faced challenges a lot worse than someone bellowing and yelling and insulting her face. [applause] mr. cruz: let me tell you on a personal level, heidi and i have become friends with carly. we have spent time with her on the campaign trail. we have left and watched games together. we have marveled at this crazy

wild journey and i will tell have come to a dore carly. on the bus, on the campaign trail, she makes up songs and sings them. our girls, mind you they are regularlyfive, both text carly. let me tell you, carly may become the first vice president a veryory to have impressive fluency with heart and smiley face emoticons. and when you are texting with a five-year-old girl or an eight-year-old girl, those are highly valued.

now listen, some might ask, why now? it is tradition of the vice-presidential nominee to be announced at the convention. it is unusual to make the announcement as early as we're doing. i think all would it be knowledge of this race, if anything, it is unusual. where we are now, the mainstream media executives and a are allon lobbyists trying to tell the american people the race is over. let me tell you where we are right now. now, nobody right is getting 1,237 delegates. [applause] thereot getting

and donald trump is not getting them. and the hoosier state is going to have a powerful voice. so why make this announcement now? well for one thing, if we are to number one, win the nomination. number two, win the general election we must unite. and carly is a vice presidential nominee who i believe is superbly skilled, superbly gifted, at helping unite this party. bring us together so we steerage

and united as one together. secondly, i make this announcement today so you the voters in indiana, nebraska, south dakota and washington state and california and across the country, so that you will go know what you will get. [applause] the voters deserve to know. you do to have a candidate who change as the wind blows. you deserve to know exactly where a candidate stands. [applause] the final reason for making the decision now is to

give the american people a clear choice. elections are about choices. across this country millions of americans are struggling with an economy that is not working, with the obama clinton economy that is stagnant. are seeing the bill of rights under salt religious liberty and , the 2nd amendment violated by the federal government. court hanging in the balance, a president who abandons our friends and allies whether it is great britain or whether it is israel. and the president who is unwilling to stand up and confront radical islamic terrorism and defeat isis. some in the media will say, wouldn't it be easier just to throw up your hands and say surrender? donald trump has won some of the race.

so we should step back and let him win them all. if we nominate a candidate who is a big government, new york liberal, who is a washington insider, who agrees with hillary onnton and barack obama issue after issue after issue, and whose lobbyist campaign manager has told us he is only playing a part, this is only a role, he is lying to us, then we, as a republican party, will have failed profoundly for this country because the men and women of indiana know if we give people a clear choice between freedom and tyranny, between

prosperity and poverty, between vulnerability and weakness and peace through strength, that the american people will choose the constitution and jobs and freedom and security over and over again. [applause] mr. cruz: the difference between carly and me on the one side and donald trump and hillary clinton on the other side could not be starker. if you want someone that will stand and fight for the working men and women of this country, fight for the men and women with calluses on your hands, fight for the single moms, fight for the young people, fight for those who are struggling and

want to achieve the american dream, then do not go with the washington insiders who sold us down the river. [applause] mr. cruz: this ticket is about the future. it is about our children. it is about our grandchildren. the stakes of this election, we are not simply wagering on a sporting contest. we are involved in a fight that everyone of us is privileged to be here to be fighting to save the greatest country in the history of the world to make , sure the next generation has every bit as much freedom and opportunity as each of us. [applause] mr. cruz: and with that, i am

anased to introduce to you extraordinary leader, my friend, and the next vice president of the united states, carly fiorina. ms. fiorina: hello, indiana.

[applause] >> carly. carly. today, i am proud and humbled and honored to announce i have accepted senator 's offered to be his nominee for the vice presidential nomination. [applause] know, ted cruzu could not be more right in what he says. there is a lot at stake. this is a fight for the soul of our parties and the future of our nation.

and there are some who would say, a lot of people saying, why have the fight? i have had a fight all my life. what matters is whether the fight is worth having. this is a fight worth having, this is a fight worth winning, and with your help, we will win this fight. [applause] this fight is about far more than a ticket. it is about more than ted cruz and carly fiorina. it is about a fight for all of us. for our party, for our future, for our children's future. last night, the establishment, the elites said, it is over. donald trump won. because you and

people across the great hoosier state, people across this w donald trump and hillary clinton both will be disastrous. donald trump and hillary clinton are two sides of the same coin. they are both liberal, we know that. but you know, hillary clinton, like so many politicians, she has made her millions selling access and influence from inside the system. donald trump has made his billions buying people like hillary clinton. they are not going to challenge the system that has sold us all down the river. they are not going to challenge the elite, they are not going to challenge the crony capitalists, they are not going to challenge the washington insiders, the lobbyists. gosh, their campaign is filled with them. no, they are not going to

challenge the system. they are the system. [applause] carly.y, carly, ms. fiorina: you know, ted mentioned that it has been seven weeks since i endorsed him. i voted for him before i ever had a conversation with him about endorsing him, and of course that is what you will have to do on tuesday, vote for him. but, good for you. now you can get a few more to vote. we have been traveling. around the country. i have come to know ted and heidi and caroline and catherine.

i know two girls that i just adore i'm so happy i can see them more because we travel on the bus all day we get to play we get to play ♪ i won't bore you with anymore, rses,hey have four ve caroline and catherine. here is what i have come to know about this man who must be the next president of the united states. he is a fighter, too. he has been in lots of fights. he has fought for religious liberty. he has fought for our right to bear arms. he has fought over and over in front of the supreme court so many times, and he has won all of those fights. [applause]

ms. fiorina: you know there are , people who say, he has made some enemies. listen, as someone who has challenged the status quo all of my life, that is how you get from secretary to ceo, you challenge the status quo. it is the only way we solve festering problems and lord knows, we solve festering problems. the only way you solve problems is, you actually have to challenge the status quo, and i will tell you something about challenging the system and the status quo. you do more than ruffle feathers. you do more than rock the vote. you make enemies. so i am reassured and i am proud of some of the enemies that ted cruz has made. [applause] it means he is going to fight. and this is our fight. let me tell you something else about this man.

those two girls that i adore, caroline and catherine, let me tell you how much they adore their dad. i have watched ted and heidi, they are partners, a couple that rely on one another, just as my husband, frank of over 30 years, and i rely on each other through good times and bad. ted is a lot of fun. he is brilliant, a constitutional attorney. but he is a lot of fun. in fact, he mentioned watching a basketball game. you know, we were on the bus and we were watching the final four, the very last game, villanova and north carolina. here we are in the final, if you remember that game? you are a basketball state, right? you remember that game. it is 4.38 seconds to go in the game, and without knowing what the exciting finish would be, here is ted cruz putting money

on the game. everybody has the money on the table. he is a heck of a lot of fun, but more than that, he actually is what he says he is. he is who he says he is. you know, ted mentioned that 2nd debate, and one of the things that i got asked in that debate was -- and i have been asked almost every day, well, will you support donald trump if he is the nominee? and i said them what i have said every week, he does not represent me, and he does not represent my party. [applause] but here is something else i said in that second debate. i said, you know, there is an old saying, tough times build character.

that is not true. tough times reveal character. character is revealed over time and under pressure. character is revealed in the pattern of someone's life, not in what they choose to say behind the podium, and i can tell you that the character of ted cruz has been revealed over time and under pressure and in the pattern of his life. [applause] ms. fiorina: he is a principled fighter. he is a man of character and conviction, and he understands the importance of the constitution to the future of this nation. [applause] i have to take a moment and explain why the constitution even matters because there are some people that say, it is a dusty relic , it was written so long ago.

let me tell you why it matters but to tie you why it matters i , need to go back and tell you a little about myself. when i was a little girl of eight years old, i was in sunday school one morning. my mother was my sunday school teacher that year. she looked at me and the rest of the class and said, what you are is god's gift to you. what you make of yourself is your gift to god. [applause] i have traveled and lived and worked all over the world for decades. i have seen people and every possible corner of the globe and in every conceivable circumstance, and i can tell you that, indeed, each of us , all of us are gifted by god. [cheering and applause] each of us. each of us and all of us. we have the capacity and the desire to live lives of dignity

and purpose and meaning, and we know and it has always been true that work done well brings us dignity, and family brings us purpose. faith gives meaning to our lives. cheering and applause] and that is true. all over the world. and when people do not have the opportunity to work, they lose dignity. once families are afraid purpose becomes uncertain. when people become disconnected from faith, they lose meaning in their lives. if everyone has the desire and capacity to live a life of dignity and purpose and meaning, we must ask ourselves now, why is it that more things have been more possible for more people for more places here than anywhere else on earth because knowing the answer to

that question is what we will save the future of this nation. cheering and applause] i am keenly aware, keenly aware that it is only in this nation a young woman can start out the way i did, typing, filing, answering the phones for a nine person real estate firm and one day go on and become the chief executive of what would turn in to the largest technology company in the world, run for the president of the united states, and run now for the vice president of the united states. [cheering and applause] that is only possible in this great nation. [cheering and applause] and the reason it is possible, the reason it is possible here and only here is because our founders knew what

my mother taught me, that everyone is gifted by god, all of us are equal in the eyes of god, everyone has potential. and so they said, we are going to found a nation on a radical, visionary idea that here, in this nation, everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [cheering and applause] that was there way of saying, everyone has the right to find and use their god- given gifts to fill their otential, and they said that right comes from god and cannot be taken away. cheering and applause] and so this became a nation where groups who worshiped flourished and innovation flourish and more things became more possible for more people from more places.

the constitution rightly enshrines liberty and gives us the chance to fulfill our potential, but our founders knew something else, that it has always been true throughout history -- and i used to study history -- this lso is true, power concentrated his power abused. [applause] and so the constitution is rightly understood not just for the document that enshrines our rights and liberties but a document that prevents a concentration and abuse of power. we have grown way too far from the constitution. [applause] reality is, for the last decade republicans and democrats alike, too much power and money are concentrated in the hands of too few.

>> yes! [cheering]00:44:55 >> we must restore liberty where it belongs, in the hands of the citizens of this nation, small businesses, communities and states. that is why having a constitutional conservative in he white house matters because the president in order to fix what ails us, must restore our constitutional values. [applause] our entrenched political system, our system of crony capitalism works ifyou are a big company but not if you are a small company. it works if you're wealthy or powerful or well-connected, like donald trump or hillary clinton, as a poor, as a poor example, but it does not work for the rest of us. ours was intended to be a citizen government, and now we must restore, and a president ted cruz will restore.

power belongs in the hands of citizens and communities and the states of this great nation. cheering and applause] what is at stake now is the future of our nation. the potential of our nation. will this be a nation where every american, regardless of the circumstances, has he opportunity that comes from their god-given gift? will we be one nation, indivisible, under god, with liberty and justice for all or not? our country is being taken away from us by the elite, crony capitalists, special interests that have captured both parties. they are taking away not only what we tre

what has made this nation of place of possibilities for so many people. americans, people of that we musts time take our country back. [applause] crowd: carly. carly. carly. carly: this is the fight of our time. toelieve ted cruz is the man lead that fight. prepared to stand by his side and give this everything i have, to restore the soul of our party, to defeat donald trump, to defeat hillary clinton, and to take our country back. [applause]