Eric Swalwell

I think that the administration, and you particularly, have done a very fine job and had a very measured response.

The Boston tragedy reminds us that the threat continues to be real as far as what we face with respect to terrorism.

I think making sure that stewardship is taking place with our stockpile has never been more important.

These cuts could lead to the ending of research at this recently completed world-class facility.

I am grateful that my colleague on this Committee, Ms. Lofgren, has been a tireless and fierce advocate for our laboratories.

I scratched my head wondering why we would want to make our passengers and crew more vulnerable today than they were since the policy was implemented and why we would want to recklessly and dangerously put them at risk.

That number cannot get better, but it can get worse with this new policy.

I believe we can have a risk-based security program which all of the witnesses agree upon, including Mr. Borer, and still protect against sharp objects, which if used dangerously on an airplane can hurt the staff, can hurt our flight…

Before I begin, may I enter into the record and have unanimous consent that I enter opposition to TSA's announced change regarding the prohibited items list...

I would just conclude, Mr. Chair, by saying, you know, for 11 years we have not had an incident, since September 11, and I think largely because of a lot of the good work TSA has done and so that is why I am asking, why now, and why do we…

But just because this is a new threat does not mean that old threats still exist.

So I ask, how does allowing sharp objects on board now accomplish the goal of maintaining zero planes being taken over, or having zero incidents involving sharp objects?

That begs the question, can that number get better? The answer is no. But it also begs the question, can that get worse? To me, the answer is, yes. It can get much worse.

After September 11, zero planes have been taken down by sharp objects where sharp objects would have been used.

I want you to expand on talking about all of the above, because it sounds like we can find as many winners as possible when we have an all-of-the-above approach.

And also to say that the President is not pro-science because he supported subsidies, also, I think, doesn't help the debate.

I thought they were very politically charged. And to say that only politically connected folks are the ones that are receiving preference in our subsidies, it ignores the facts.

As a prosecutor, it is frustrating to me that it seems like we spend most of our time defending against the threat.

Right now in this era of sequester, and we don't know how long this is going to last, but we do know that the threats are going up and the money to fight the threats are going down.

If we don't have their cooperation or participation, we can't truly protect against the threat.

I want to know what we can do to better educate.

I am also concerned that if we sneezed from a cyber attack, the rest of the country could catch a cold because of the ripple effect.

My district is in Northern California and it includes northern Silicon Valley and it is really the cradle of innovation.

It sounds like we can find as many winners as possible when we have an all-of-the-above approach.

It just divides us further.