tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 26, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EDT
another. >> we don't know yet exactly what are the octant -- optimal targets with that integrated approach from all the brilliant winds that can convert john the question. giving those most rigorous trials to recognize it is important to maintain early public you for a molecular in genetic targeted to build those in to the next candidates for intervention we may have short-term success but if we couple that that goes deeper into a deeper for better approaches into the future. >> is inspiring to hear that but my colleagues and senator was struck by having
just worked through the budget at the committee level to be on the floor people can talk a good game but the fact of the matter is with sequester the house budget cuts below sequester on discretionary nondefense spending by $300 million. it is going to be devastating if the budget like that goes through it and the house republicans are willing to support that that nobody should ignore of with the value of support with this board and a family is to have got it already. i have heard speeches about how critical our deficit is and how we have to address our deficit a pair of
sacred come and everything else comes 2nd and it is very frustrating to sit here and here you testify in such good faith and here's that prospects for progress and know how many people this illness affects and be in an environment in which every tax loophole, no matter how disgraceful is viewed by some of us as more important than all of those issues. my time has expired. >> before i call on the former chairman -- [applause] -- before i call on the former chairman of this committee -- before i call on the former chairman of this committee, committee senator nelson, i do feel compelled to respond to the senators comments. alzheimer's affects people whether democrat, republican, it dependent males, females, caucasians, asians african-americans.
it it affects all of us, and it touches all of us. and the worst thing that we can do is to make this a partisan issue. [applause] and i have led the fight for more funding for alzheimer's for years. and we made not nearly enough progress but we have made some incremental process. and this has never been a partisan issue. so with so with all due respect to my dear friend from rhode island i would say if we want to achieve what everyone in this room wants to achieve and that is to get a doubling of the funding as soon as possible and then increase the funding to the $2 billion
that has been recommended by the council let's work together together. [applause] and i agree with everything the chairman has said. i just want to say that we do have come our colleagues will work together. we are fortunate one of them is the chairman of this committee but we do have challenges that are represented command i am not pointing out just republicans or democrats but there are members of congress who do not see the value in funding government agencies to do research. will we we will find is some colleagues will work in a bipartisan way. what we have to work at --
>> don't leave me out. >> and you are one of those. >> i i want advocates to work on realizing that it is time to hold everyone's feet to the fire regardless of party affiliation. reality must match rhetoric. you cannot engage in the rhetoric of my i support alzheimer's research and then vote to cut funding to nih. that does not work. there will be some in favor, and those are the people you need to focus in on, no matter what party they are command that is the issue that colleagues were discussing not everyone is as reasonable as the chairman of this committee in terms of working in a bipartisan way. some simply want to dismantle public funding of everything from many of the long-term care programs to in to, in fact nih funding. not you, but others.
>> sen. nelson, senator nelson, it is great to have you here today. >> it is great to be back to momentum chairman. thank you for that great partner that you were in leading this committee over the past couple of years. to those to those of you in the audience, you applauded to two things. you applauded higher money spending for nih for research. certainly that paragraph right there indicates that more is needed. over 5 billion for cancer, 33 billion for hiv-aids, 2 billion for cardiovascular command 586 million for alzheimer's. you also applauded bipartisanship. well i want to give you an
assignment. this committee is bipartisan, the way that it has been run the last couple of years in and the way it is being run now by the two leaders. but when money is being cut according to something called the sequester which is nothing more than a meat cleaver across the board of the entire budget and that happens to get nih as it did three years ago when doctor francis collins, the head of nih had to cancel 700 medical research grants to research institutions around the country including universities and medical research institutions.
that is going to affect the very thing about which you are so concerned. and so my assignment is that you need to have a prayer session with the members of congress who are voting to cut nih. now, let me say you are doing incredible work to make sure that your family is taking care of and we understand the sacrifice and unselfishness with which you approach the. it takes courage to raise awareness of the disease. thank you for being here and highlighting that. dr. hodes and dr. peterson it is great to see both of you again. thank you for coming back to update us
command thank you for your continuing work. when you have conversations with your patience can you broach the subject? do you tell them what they are going to have to plan? here is a report in the "washington post" that says that less than half of the people with alzheimer's reported that they have been told about the dementia. so what do you do when you advise your patience? >> i work with folks with dementia and all stages. what stages. what they hear is different at different stages. early on it is about diagnosis and available treatments. usually and subsequent visits it is about future planning which involves them
and their caregivers or surrogate decision-makers, assuring that they have a plan in place for what they want to do what is important to them, but also looking at what their financial situation is an understanding what is realistic for them to plan for the future. i recommend consultation with law attorneys. and ask caregivers to be realistic about what they can offer. that is important, that is important, giving caregivers permission not to take it all on their shoulders. unfortunately, i have to advise at times that our hospital system is the ultimate backup. if they get into crisis despite all of our planning's, that is where people have to go in our community and it is unfortunate because it is not a great place to be when you have cognitive impairment.
it is very much a part of my practice to do that. i think it is challenging for primary care physicians who take care of a broad array of patients to approach that routinely and practices command we are working with them to be in incorporating that. whether you have dementia or anything else, you have to talk with your families make sure that you are thinking about the what if's >> well, all of you this is one of the larger audiences for committee hearings in the months that we have started this new congress. i would take your concern your energy your activism
we are right on the cusp. the researchers out in nih will tell you this. we are on the cusp of finding cures for many different kind of cancers. we know more about cardiovascular and look at all of the advances in hiv-aids. they are even talking about taking some medicines attaching them to the hiv virus as a way to attack some cancers. it blows your mind what is going on. what we need to do now is to focus and get the research done to be on the cusp of solving this problem. >> thank you, sen. you
senator nelson. i no that senator kane is on his way. we will we will do a couple more questions in the hopes that he can get here. what good timing. [laughter] while he is getting set up, i we will follow up with a quick question. i was surprised to learn from your testimony that the diagnosis and treatment of patients with dementia is not a routine part of the clinical training for most healthcare providers. if you look at the trajectory of alzheimer's and there family and the number of people that will be affected in the near term that lack of training really surprises me.
is that changing now in your judgment? why do you think there is not more emphasis but on that training? >> there is emphasis as far as setting milestones for medical education through residency training. it is incredibly variable what individuals get. most will get training in older adults, but not specifically cognitive impairment and working with dementia. and what they get probably is not enough. in my experience each of us have our own individual personality and experience when you throw a disease that affects your thinking ability on top of that and it looks different with different individuals. so it takes a lot of experience and training to work with
these individuals and their families, and you need to do that. there needs to be more emphasis and time on this. this goes for medical providers, frontline staff whether office assistants, people answering the phone assistants, people answering the phone and scheduling appointments and medical communities, and working within our -- outside the medical community in our larger communities with education and training for identification. we have done a lot in the banking community about looking for exploitation and that sort of thing. we need to continue that much like a one-time we were training hairdressers to talk with their clients about evidence for physical and emotional abuse. doing similar things with other people in the committee to help us identify individuals having issues so that we can work with them.
>> thank you. >> thank you, mdm. chairwoman. thank chairwoman. thank you for filibustering a bit until i got here. this was deeply important to me. particularly i want to thank you so much for doing the work that you are doing to really educate and demonstrate the challenges of early-onset alzheimer's. such a difficult thing. obviously in the midst of a difficult thing to try to help others is really laudable. i want to express my appreciation to you for that. the challenge for family members and caregivers it is a hard thing. can i begin by expressing my gratitude for your. >> thank you very much. we're here we have been fortunate and blessed with some of the great fruits of
this country of ours. you see people struggling and single head of households who don't have anyone, any resources and are dependent totally upon their system -- the system. you see how they are falling through the cracks. you realize that if your going to stand for something it has to be more than just yourself. and coming from brooklyn, from humble beginnings and having had a chance to me one of the greatest human beings i have ever met my wife, the nicest person who taught me how to give and what philanthropy was all about. i no what we have to do. it is not about us but the folks behind us, those folks at night when you can't sleep because you no there is a person in another room that is going through holy
hell. you have to get up and go to work or go and help change in or go quiet them down or just have to be able to hold them. you understand that if your going to stand for anything stand for people who need the help the most. they caregivers needed command we have got to make a difference. i am blessed to have a great partner but also because of the opportunities we have been afforded to try to give back. thank you. >> we don't necessarily choose what happens to us but we choose what we do with it. you guys have made a good choice, and all who are here trying to be a beacon of hope in a situation that can seem hopeless but for which there is reason. >> sen., i have learned one thing in life, you play the hand you are dealt, but you play it to when. >> i want to asked to the other witnesses, especially
those from the research committee talk to me about early-onset alzheimer's and what the research is telling you. how how is it different, or is it not really different? is it the same medical condition as later onset, or is it different in significant ways that we understand, if you could? >> thank you, senator, for that question. early-onset disease is really divided into various stages and is defined by the age of onset. we have learned is probably the same disease process. having said that a person who is affected by alzheimer's in her 50s versus someone in their 80s may have different contributions to the clinical picture. they look the same forgetful, develop problems with thinking activities
with day-to-day living living, but in the older person there is the anchor lloyd and other pathologies vascular disease and other things. and a younger onset person it is more likely to be a pure form of the disease with the emirate protein, but both are comparable. treatments that are likely to be effective for young onset will work for old onset and vice versa. it may also be a slight predilection toward a more genetic contribution and the younger onset disease, as with most diseases. when they occur earlier in life they tend to be more genetically loaded, but basically the biology of the diseases are quite comparable, late and early-onset. >> any other answer to that question? how about the caregivers side because we have folks
are representing organizations that do work with caregivers. i am certain you have already testified a good bit about recommendations you might have for us, just the sheer numbers of caregivers it is staggering. what are the kinds of things we ought to be considering at a policy level to make the caregiving task a little bit -- lighten the load little bit. >> thank you, senator. i am here on behalf of caregivers. there are many caregivers in this room that have different stories, many of them for miami a lot. they are all different. we share similar things, the same sorrow, pain the same hope and the same vision that this is going to end in our lifetime and we will fight until the end.
one of the things we are here and collectively coming together as one face asking for what we need now. what we need now is for the hope act to be passed in this congress and we needed because it is going to improve caregiving, care planning services for individuals like myself families,, families, those living with dementia. once they receive their diagnosis they walk out of the doctors offices receiving a diagnosis and knowing what the next steps are. that diagnosis will be in the medical record and follow them and go with them wherever their lives may take them, whether them, whether they begin to them develop diabetes or anything else. this document, hey, this patient has alzheimer's. give the best possible care
that i can. and so and so we need this to be passed in this congress. we needed now. for my situation, it is a little little different because i am five or six years down the road. care planning services did not happen for me exactly the way that i would have wanted it to. it can help a lot of other people millions of people and we need that to make this easier because it is hard, and we need help to carry this burden because we are carrying at the best that we can. >> thank you very much, and thank you, madam chair. [applause] >> thank you, senator. senator tillis i get to ask another question. my question is for both.
it was mentioned earlier that you look at delirium as well. i am wondering if there is research that shows that delirium and older people after surgery where a general anesthetic has been involved which i have seen cases of can be a trigger. is there a link? can that be a trigger? is there a link between the delirium that you sometimes see an older people after an operation that involves a general anesthetic and dementia? >> good points.
good data. the 1st, delirium can be succeeded or followed by decreasing cognitive function at a progression of dementia. the answer appears to be yes. yes. so also for general anesthesia even if there is not delirium. they can be a short-term decline in cognitive function. the the failure to recover relatively quickly is also predictive. both of these do seem to be capable of affecting the functional decline. >> i agree. it pertains to it pertains to the issue of what we call cognitive reserve. how much resilience it has to respond. sometimes the people who are developing dementia and then undergo general anesthesia
they may have a lower threshold for becoming a hilarious. so it may contribute to the downward decline, but it also may just be a stress test on the system that is starting to gradually fail and consequently be a harbinger of what be -- what could be dementia in the future. it is common. >> in your response also be because i have been discussing this issue for a couple of years with anesthesiologists where you work and others on whether they should be doing more with older patients to be careful about what kind of anesthetic they use. could you eliminate us to mac. >> it gets to why we are here. we need new research. clinically i see people who
seem to be functioning quite well before surgery and i think as we have more research now there are changes happening my suspicion is that it is those people we see that have to decline ever -- after. that is kind of how i have thought about it. definitely in an older population more assessment prior to major surgeries if it is a a plan process so that he can understand risks going in so that people can incorporate that into the decision-making is important as outlined we need more research into anesthesia and how we can do the right
thing for them. >> if i may this is a sufficiently important issue. established a professional interest group so this is a hot topic with regard to resilience and cognitive function. >> i was not aware of that. >> an extremely good and important question. research directed at this includes approaches to using range function during anesthesia with an attempt to monitor the level of anesthetic with an eye toward brain affect and the cognitive outcome. that is
and identify from the most promising research in when we see the population of 65 years old and over go up about 65%, in a state that is growing as an increasingly large population. we have the compelling physical reasons to do something that promotes this outcome and i want to thank you all for being here, i want to thank all the folks in purple. and i want to thank you for being here and for advocating and encouraging you to reach out and also to explain the transformational opportunity we have to make this a priority.
>> thank you for talking about this. we need to understand what is going to bankrupt our program. it is the suffering of families and the economics that moves congress to do this. and we need to focus on caregivers as well. each of you has talked so much about the debate and discussion today. i think that you have given us comprehensive looks at a devastating disease. as the cochair of the task force and the senate that we will continue making sure that we are keeping the focus that we
are educating our colleagues and that we are increasing the funding. we can't do it without your help and as i said, we have an amendment that i'm going to ask her help on with the budget and it we are increasing the funding level that nih gads for alzheimer's research and i'm hoping that you will urge the senator to support that amendment and i want to thank all of you for traveling all over the country to tell your personal stories and to help advance the fight.
the color purple represents the alzheimer's movement. it is my hope that someday soon the color purple will also represent those who survive alzheimer's. [applause] and we are going to keep the record open until friday come april 3, so maybe additional testimony or information for the record is part of this. i would like to thank all of my advocates who are here today and everyone who participated in today's hearing, including my staff who has worked hard to share a commitment. this concludes the hearing and i would like to thank you for
[inaudible conversations] >> coming up on c-span2, a hearing of the tsa prescreening program followed by the state treasures of tennessee and washington state on the fiscal health of state. and later the awards dinner. >> on the next "washington journal" lieutenant colonel james talks about the desertion trial against bowe bergdahl. and california representative loretto sanchez come a member of the armed services and homeland security committee discusses the debate over defense spending and the presidents decision to stay
in afghanistan through 2015. as always we are going to take your calls and you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter as well. >> the house foreign affairs committee examines the administration strategy to combat isis. this includes retired general john allen. that is live at 8:30 p.m. here on c-span2. >> wednesday sergeant bowe bergdahl was charged with desertion, ms. behavior, and shirking important and hazardous duty.
>> good afternoon, ladies and hellman, thank you for coming to fort bragg here today. i am the spokesman for the u.s. army forces command we are here in regards to the disappearance of bowe bergdahl in afghanistan. due to the specific and legal nature of and information i'm about to provide, i am unable to take your questions, but our staff here can provide you with a copy of this statement and points of contact to address your question at the conclusion of this statement. the statement follows. the u.s. army forces command has thoroughly reviewed the army's investigation surrounding bowe bergdahl and his disappearance in afghanistan and formally charged him under the armed forces uniform code of march 25
2015. he is charged with desertion, intent to shirk duty and ms. behavior before the enemy by endangering the safety of a command and has been a part of this hearing. again, he is charged with one count of article 85 desertion with intent to sure duty and one count of article 99 behavior before the enemy by endangering the safety of a command unit or place.
regarding the next steps a culinary hearing is a legal procedure under the uniform code of military justice designed to determine whether there is sufficient evidence and is required before a case can be tried by general court-martial. legal experts often compare an article 32 preliminary hearing to a civilian grand jury inquiry. the article 32 hearing will take place in houston texas. specific scheduling details of the hearing will be announced at a later date. following this hearing and receipt of the officer's recommendation the report will be forwarded to a general
court-martial authority who may refer the case and refer the charges to a special court-martial and dismiss the charges or take any other action deemed appropriate. there are potential punishments associated with it. article 85 of the uniform code of military justice desertion with the intention to shirk important or hazardous duty carries a maximum potential punishment of dishonorable discharge total forfeiture of all allowances and a maximum confinement of five years. article 99 of the code of military justice, endangering the safety of a command carries
a potential penalty of a dishonorable discharge and reduction to the rank below and all forfeiture of allowances and possible confinement for life. the specific legal elements associated are available within the written statement provided today. command officials cannot discuss or disclose the findings of the 2014 investigation while legal actions are pending at respect for the judicial process and the rights of the accused and to assure the proceedings of fairness and impartiality. the army 2014 investigation into the disappearance and capture in afghanistan is currently being treated as potential evidence in the article 32 culinary hearing.
this concludes our statement. thank you. >> next come a hearing on the future of the transportation security administration's pre-check program which allows expedited screening at airport for preapproved passengers. c-span cameras were there for the 90 minute portion of the hearing open to the public. >> i hope that that is not a bad omen. you know?
>> okay. >> the committee on security homeland security subcommittee on transportation will come to order. i now recognize myself for an opening statement. i would like to thank our witnesses for their participation in this hearing. we know that your time is valuable and we appreciate you taking time to be here today to discuss the future of this program. i would like to talk about victims that were attacked last night. transportation security officers have the important responsibility of securing our nation's aviation systems and once again we have seen the law enforcement personnel act swiftly and bravely to protect passengers from a security threat and i commend them all for that. i commend the law enforcement personnel in new new orleans as
well as where their service and dedication keep them safe. over the last few years they have adopted a risk race approached passenger screening in the implementation of the pre-check program. the tsa project has garnered a positive response for moving away from one-size-fits-all approach to aviation security. the tsa project has fundamentally changed the way americans think about passenger screening in a post 9/11 world and i believe that we are continuing to expand. however, in order to do so, this program must go and mentor in a manner while also improving the public and reducing security risks to aviation. they should not be at the expense of any objectives and i'm concerned that several
initiatives related to this do not meet these criteria. one such initiative involves a real-time threat assessment to identify passengers or a legible for pre-check on a flight by flight basis for use of such tools including explosives detected in technology and behavior technology and while this program may help to reduce wait times it has not been shown to reduce risks for aviation. on the contrary. passengers who go through this process and pay $85 for screening have not seen the benefits that were promised to them. this is largely due to the fact that passengers that did not enroll and are unfamiliar with the check are being ushered into
expedited screening with litter to know information about this process. this is at best confusing and at worse infuriating. they act as the travelers who have been conditioned for a decade in addition to this experience many travelers face through the conclusion, questions remain as to overall effectiveness of the program and the government accountability office released a report and found that they failed to detect effectiveness. whether they are testing this but have not yet included the overall managing process. their failure to conduct such situations while they have cited the random nature of the
program is a positive, i believe that the benefits of this unpredictable program have not been shown to outweigh the risk. and finally we recently learned that a convicted felon was allowed to use ptech screening as part of the tsa risk assessment program. the risk assessment determines project eligibility by using risk algorithms built into the secure system and grant passengers on a flight by flight basis. we understand that even though the document checker recognizes it as it allows for pre-check screening. because of the pre-check, and it is important that they have
better judgment fortunately we all share the same goal which is to protect the millions of passengers who use our nations transportation system every day and for this in mind the subcommittee looks forward to today's dialogue on how to enhance us going forward. i would like to thank each of you for being here today and before we get to the statements i want to introduce a member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from new york for any statements that she may have. >> thank you mr. chair. i want to thank you for convening this hearing and i want to note this disturbing incident that happened in new orleans last friday when an individual assaulted multiple tsa officers. it's a chilling reminder of the risks and transportation security officers face every day on the frontlines of the efforts to protect passengers and maintain the security of our nation's aviation sector.
it is a difficult and dangerous and often thankless job. but i want you to know that i feel safe saying that i speak for everyone up here and that our thoughts and prayers and gratitude is with you all. we are committed to developing the center checkpoint for your safety as well as that of the passengers you protect. i want to thank you for convening this important hearing so that we can examine this ptech program, which as i understand it is one of the risk based initiatives aiming to maintain effective security and also maximizing efficiency. when this became law it authorized us to establish requirements to implement trusted passenger programs and use available technology to expedite the security screening of passengers who participated in such programs. this allows the tsa to that passengers on the front and with
a pre-check process. these passengers can allocate as to focus on travelers that we know less about. i understand that more than 1 million people have submitted their information in order to participate and that in that make sense to me and seems like an appropriate balance between effectiveness and efficiency and i also want to a but you know that i understand that certain populations who have not undergone this are sometimes permitted to use the expedited pretexts screening and that is something that doesn't make sense to me and suggest that this balance sometimes tips too far and maybe at this expense of security. i look forward to hearing the comments of all of the panelists. certainly that was committed as we learned from last week's
report to the department of homeland security's office of inspector general and that is simply inexcusable. of course it's beneficial to use the pretext that we can concentrate resources on passengers who are unknown to us and pose the highest potential risk. but passengers such as this individual who is known to us and clearly posed enormous risk is given access to the to the pre-check lane, it demands we take a hard look at the message being used to calculate that risk. so that is why we are here today. to examine the risk of expanding the pre-check beyond the vetted preapproved passengers to reassess the methodology used and to assure that we never allow this to compromise security. i'm looking forward to hearing from all of the witnesses here today and i also want you to know that we are working with the ranking member on legislation that will be introduced and that our hope is
that the information that we gather will be a better informing that measure. and i think all of the witnesses for joining us today and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. i want to recognize the ranking member, the gentleman from mississippi mr. thompson, for any statement he may have. mr. thompson is a very busy man and it's an honor to have him here and i very much appreciate his input as well as the guidance on this subject matter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding today's hearing. i appreciate the committee's willingness to take a look at the security vulnerability with how we are administrating the pre-check program. i have long believed that the tsa should have a trusted traveler program where individuals identify as low-risk
travelers and provide an expedited airport security screening. when the tsa was established in 2001, congress granted them the authority to establish a trusted traveler program. it took years for them to get over the initial reluctance about modifying this operation for trusted travelers. john pistole deserves great credit for recognizing the potential of the trusted traveler program and integrating the pre-check program into the tsa risk-based airport screening operation. it just makes good sense to provide expedited screening to passengers that have submitted biographical information and bigger prints and have been fully vetted. today there are 1 million known low-risk travelers in the pre-check program and that is a
good start given that about 2 million people fly every day in the tsa needs to continue to work to bring more americans into the project are grim. the focus of today's hearings are those that are legitimately low-risk and it's on what they have called a real-time intelligence based method to identify passengers on a trip i took basis for expedited physical screening. this includes nations airports and the protocol that has not been validated as effective security approach. they have independently found that these have created security
vulnerabilities. last week the inspector general released information about enhanced security screening and suffice to say that the terrorists of the traveling involved should have resulted in the tsa determining that enhanced security screening was in order and not expedited screening. this is one incident that i'm sure would never have come to life if not for the courageous employees who came forward to report it. commonly referred to as a whistle blower. this includes the classified information that i have seen
that this is the case. as such i believe that the situation demands legislative action and together i will be introducing legislation to address these known vulnerabilities regarding expedited screening. it's important that they have not had a permanent leader to address the security portability that has come to life and i look forward to working with the leadership of the subcommittee to bring concerns to get timely action to address the security portability and with that chairman and ranking member thank you for your prompt attention to this critical security matter. >> all the members of the committee we are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses today on this topic.
let me remind the witnesses that the entire statements will appear in the record and our first witness assumed this on march 10 2014. previously he served as a director of criminal investigations at the food and drug administration. prior to that he had a distinct career with the department of justice beginning in 1987 as assistant u.s. attorney. i will note that he had excellent on-the-job training doing complex organize cases as to die. welcome sir. >> good afternoon, chairman ranking member mr. thompson, but numbers of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify about pre-check initiative. my public testimony will focus only on the unclassified version
and the majority will be found is either classified at the secret level or contained sensitive security information and i look forward to discussing the complete result in greater detail once we move into this closed session. in october 2011, we piloted pre-checked at many airports. after that program ended, congress directed the tsa to certify by the end december 2013 25% of passengers are eligible for expedited screening without lowering security standards. they also directed the tsa to outline a strategy to increase the number of passengers eligible for the screening to 50% by the end of december of 2014. to accomplish these goals, the tsa did the following. first the granted some government populations ptech eligibility.
and third it implemented risk was to allow others to receive ptech eligibility. finally it established the pre-check application for membership. these actions have resulted in an increase in the population eligible to receive the pre-check. this includes a project initiative to determine what processes and procedures they use to bet the applicants properly and second how the tsa assesses the continued eligibility and how they test the processes for timeliness. we conducted fieldwork on this and we determine that as a concept this is a good start. however they need to modify this with the processes and we also determined that the pre-check communications need improvement. the specific findings are
classified or contained sensitive information. in addition we responded to a disclosure concerning the use by the tsa secure flight program that may create a gap in aviation security and inspection results are likewise have been delivered to the subcommittee. finally to further illustrate the modification project vetting and screening processes, we issued a report this month that found a notorious felon was granted the project as a result of the risk assessment rules. we reviewed the allegation after receiving information alleging that the felon was improperly cleared for pre-check screening. we are concerned that as evidenced by this incident, such rules are inadequate to ensure that low-risk populations receive the screening. as a result we recommend that they were limit pre-check
screening or other individuals have determined are part of the trusted populations. tsa has not accepted the majority of the recommendation and this concludes my prepared statement and i welcome any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have. >> obviously her testimony will be somewhat limited until we get into the secure torsion of the hearing. unless what you can talk about here i appreciate your input. we appreciate all of you being here and of course mr. fletcher who is a chief risk officer at the transportation security administration and in this position he is responsible for developing and driving the long-range strategic vision and objectives with respect to risk-based security and risk managed activities and the chair now recognizes mr. fletcher to
testify. >> good afternoon distinguished members of the subcommittee and i appreciate the ability to appear before you. we are trained in responding to emergency situations [inaudible] be administered travel to meet with and was inspired by the resilience of all involved. i'm confident that i speak for all when i say thank you to all of the tsa law enforcement and airport personnel for their swift responses to this attack. >> this includes a well-trained workflows and transport force
intelligence analogy and the federal air marshal service. for nearly one decade they applied these layers in a one-size-fits-all approach where nearly every individual was talked about. the tsa began to implement an intelligence driven the space approach to aviation security and this remains intelligent and adaptive as demonstrated by nonmetallic explosive devices. these devices remain one of the most serious threats to aviation. one way to address this is to implement what has become more invasive and then to apply these measures probably to every passenger. another way to deal with this is
three dozen policy decisions implemented by the tsa over the past four years. the idea of this is by no means novel. this means the trusted traveler program and recommends the risk-based priorities to detect the assets and adopt practical and cost-effective means by while balancing civil liberties. we are able to deploy the limited resources to more effectively manage risks with higher risk travelers while facilitating. this risk management involves identifying and communicating the risk and then deciding whether to accept this to a acceptable level including the costs and benefits by any actions taken.
this continues providing the most efficient way to enhance the value that they provide to the american people as we fulfill our counterterrorism mission. as noted by the 9/11 commission, perfection is unattainable and this is unsustainable. the risk management is not a no risk approach, trying to eliminate all risks result in burdening the aviation industry and creating greater pressures. a key component is the tsa pre-check application program launched in december 2013 and over the past 12 months they have talked about more than double the original productions. we have exceeded many of these and use in travelers indicate
that more than 15 million u.s. travelers not currently enrolled in the pre-check program are likely having a 21 million undecided. these are our target market and the key to realizing there's is the continued collaboration with private sector partners. the industry and stakeholder partners are vital to the implementation of security and is essential in helping them establish and expand this program which now includes 11 airlines representing over 85% of domestic travelers with many lanes operating at 100 and three airports nationwide. they play an important role with airports and airlines and is compelled committed to fielding solutions that can enhance the
current security posture. thank you for the opportunity and interest and support and i look forward to your questions and i thank you. >> i'm not sure if you timed it, but you are within a few seconds of being right there. that's really good. i also want to make it clear to you that the pre-check program is the best example of what thinking outside of the box can do. we are not here today to cast this we are here to make sure. >> i thank you for being here today. we are talking about this with the government accountability
office. we have been there since 1991 amateur recognizes her to testify. >> good afternoon, chairman. we thank the ranking member and the other members of staff and pleased to be here to discuss this implementation and oversight. three weeks ago during the week ending march 3, nearly half of all u.s. aviation passengers receive expedited screening for one of three main reasons. either because they were in and rolled or selected for a one-time pre-check based upon the automated risk assessment or because they were randomly assigned to screening at the airport through the managed inclusion process. my remarks today reflect the findings with the gao recently issued report on the screening and support this as a way to
operate and improve passenger experience, assuming that they properly assess and mitigate passenger risk to ensure that security is not compromised. in a recent report we found that the tsa uses several methods to assess passenger risk including pre-check applicants. or accepts passengers because they have already had a similar assessment. such as trusted traveler programs. in other cases they enroll this in a pre-check aced upon the of affiliation with a specific group or may not have had a background check and examples would be members of the congressional medal of honor society to receive the highest u.s. award for valor against enemy forces. in contrast to the groups and
rolled in the pre-check, another group of passengers on a per flight one-time basis resulting in this automated risk assessment. they use information on each flight based upon a set of risk rules. the score determines the likelihood that a passenger could receive this for that trip. a random group are selected for expedited screening through the managed inclusion process and they recognize that these passengers are of unknown risk and not low risk. using expedited screening with this they developed a real-time threat assessment based on part on detection activities and explosive detection capabilities to screen out the passengers. the managed inclusion results in
a higher level of security compared to standard security screening. gao has this based on their past work and in november of 2013 on the behavior detection and an aussie program they have not demonstrated that they can reliably identify these by those indicative of fear and deception. the officials told us that they have a revised indicator for the program and rules for using them and have started pilot testing a new approach in a few airports. furthermore the tsa has not yet demonstrated that the overall managed inclusion process is effective at providing this level of security. they told us that this is under way and is expected to be completed in 2016.
we have previously reported on challenges that they have faced designing studies in accordance with this establish standard. this is important because poorly designed studies do not produce reliable results and are not a good use of resources. to ensure that the tsa planned testing yields results, we recommend that they ensure the managed inclusion testing adhere to established standards. dhs concurred that they plan to implement a systematic evaluation of the process and if implemented appropriately, this would address the intent of the recommendation and increase the likelihood that the testing would increase liable results about the effectiveness of the managed inclusion process. chairman ranking member this concludes my statement and i look forward to your question. >> thank you for your testimony, we appreciate your participation here as well as
the entire panel. i'm going to concentrate my questions on one area possibly two, the first area is management inclusion. as you heard from the testimony today so far, managed inclusion is one of the exceptions, if you will, to this program and it's one of the ways that it has added to the pre-check program. it's a pulmonary matter noting that it's something that people pay for. they pay for it and it is a service as well as a risk-based security method. it allows the tsa to better focus on higher risk travelers by getting the ones that are lower risk in the pre-check program and the fact remains that people are paying for that service, if you will quicker
access into the secure area of an airport. so with that i would like to talk about managed inclusion. to start with, if you could just briefed me and give us a good reason that the tsa went to management inclusion to start with. >> i think the genesis was really the super bowl in new orleans, we were anticipating this and found that they more than doubled the peak volume of passenger traffic. and so the airport was part of the challenge and it really becomes how do you eliminate the risk of this large crowd of people being an attractive target for a suicide terrorist attack. there's a lot of discussion and
the idea of doing a real-time threat assessment on passengers is a combination of detectives detection screening went passenger screening canine teams and what it would provide as far as sufficient value to provide those travelers with an expedited screening process. that proved to be a very successful endeavor. as we look at the success of that the question became is there a way that we can systematically expand that kind of concept to improve the efficiency and at that time we had very low volume of the pre-check passengers and i think today we are about 40 or 50% come at that point we were three or 4% and so we have a lot of inefficiencies in the process where we had dedicated this at many of the larger airports but it was significantly underutilized and the wait times
were becoming excessive. so we began expanding and managing inclusion as a way of talking about a real-time threat assessment of the passengers and that includes to be able to afford them an expedited screening experience as far as managing wait times and improving the efficiency of the process. >> thank you. a couple of things here. you mention one mentioned one of the things being resources and reducing the risk by having a large crowd in the nonsecured area of the airport. >> yes sir. >> expand is to better marketing and it's growing at its own merit does that change the calculus for wanting to use this? >> it actually does. >> it does come and that is
ultimately our goal. we want to dramatically expand the application program. >> so do we. >> as i indicated in my statement, we believe that it upwards of 36 million travelers that could benefit. we are targeting those that are taking three or more trips per year even added 85-dollar cost with a per screening experience for the expedited process is worth them spending the money. it is a challenge marketing and communications is quite frankly not something that the government does well in many instances. so it is a marketing challenge and we have engaged a professional firm to help us with the brand positioning as well as the creative content and we have done the broadly
expanding of the partnerships and our goal is to dramatically improve the number of travelers and so my calculation is that sustain a 50% screening rate with an entirely enrolled population, we need 25 million americans in rolled in the pre-check and today can mind with the existing low risk populations, members of congress and etc. and the customs and border patrol and we have about 6.5 million. so we need to quadrupled the number of individuals and that will take is a good amount of time to do that is ultimately our goal and we would like to be able to significantly dialback on this and a risk assessment and replace that current volume with us. >> thank you.
i know i'm over time, but following a briefly, two things. from a resource standpoint and i know that that's one of the situations from the program, is it fair to say that there is a significant number of employees at work on a part-time basis? >> i think it's about 23% of the population. >> if you could just address the fact that you know the high peak traffic hours isn't it possible for the tsa to better utilize the part-time employees to deal with these high traffic areas and not resort to management inclusion? >> is a credible part-time resource, again like everything that the tsa has been trying to do taking a balanced and measured approach, i cannot work for example, my experience when i was at the chicago o'hare and airport it's difficult for me to work a 20 hour per week
part-time employee job come in two hours in the morning to cover this and then have them often bring them back for two hours in the afternoon. that is an unreasonable expectation for an employee that is working a part-time position. and so there is a balance between the use of part-time employees and having them at the checkpoint when a passenger volume requires it and i believe that we do a credible job and we have actually done a credible job today. i'm not sure that there's much more we can get in regards. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the subcommittee for five minutes for questions. >> thank you. i'm going to direct my questions to you. i think it's important for us especially in light of your comment that you would like to take the universe of people that go through the tsa pre-check
lines pursuant to management inclusion or risk assessment you would like to decrease that number and increase the actual number of people that go through the project process. kinesis hinkley tell us what that process is from a person applying today are approved. >> today they have provided a set of biographic information and provided a photographic proof of identity and proof of citizenship and they provide their fingerprints. we do a security assessment and are they a u.s. citizen, a resident, we do a threat assessment, are they listed in the terrorism database and i think that we say that that will
typically happen in two weeks, it typically happens i believe within days three or four days that the individual has been vetted and also approved they can also go on a secure website and retrieve that electronically. it is a relatively painless process, if you will. >> what would disqualify someone from obtaining pre-check status. >> there's a list of criminal disqualifier's that are permanent. then there is a list of interim disqualifier's as well a criminal conviction that may be a qualifier. there are convictions that are permanently disqualifying and an example of that i think you
have alluded to in your opening statement, the conviction of terrorism espionage against the government those would be permanent disqualifier's. i can certainly provide the list to the committee. >> are there any obstacle is that you have encountered at the agency during this pre-check process getting relevant information from other agencies, whether it be the fbi or the watch list, are there any impediments? >> i do not think that there is impediments with the way the process is designed but i do believe that there are opportunities to improve upon the process. so today we do not have for example, we do not have recurrent vetting for disqualifier's. and we do not continually that
for disqualifier's, we have been working closely with the fbi on an initiative that they have recently fielded capability for that will allow us to do that and we do not have legal authority to do that on our own accord because in this instance we are not a law enforcement agency so we cannot run our own as customs do as investigative law enforcement agency. and we believe that that is an important enhancement as we move forward. >> i was going ask you if you have a plan in place as you have answered this for recurrent vetting. so all you have to do is qualify you as a law enforcement agency or you would do what appears that you are doing now with partnering with another agency that could carry out the recurrent vetting and then sharing the information with you? >> that is correct.
that is not without the cost. so this is a program for that particular service and there is a cost associated. >> so it all comes out of the same pot we met. >> those costs would have to be absorbed by the individual applicant. >> i'm talking about this in terms of tsa and there is already a built in cost structure there and i don't think that that is going to rake the bank is a recurrent that ground check that the up he i can do. very quickly, recently there was a report that since 2007 when the training was an officer put into place for the present day there were approximately 30,000 people that were pulled out of the line based on observations
of the behavioral detection officer. so of those people that were taken out of line, of that universe, less than 1% actually had instance where it resulted in an arrest. so do you think the training is sufficient given that kind of in terkel data that maybe they are not looking at the right thing and maybe missing people that truly do this. >> i will say this they have been very helpful as we revamp this program and as was indicated we have just completed an analysis for each of the indicators and we are in a process and we have completely
revamped the training program and if i go back to 2007 i would absolutely agree with your position but i believe that we have hit significant strides and my understanding is that with the exception of two recommendations, one that we defined the program and the other the most recent one about taking a holistic view of management inclusion. then all recommendations have been closed. >> that was not an attack at all. >> i understand that. >> am one of those people that like to talk about how if you implement a plan come you have to review it to see if it is achieving the goals and i appreciate your openness as well as your willingness to take the recommendations about how this is done. and i appreciate the fact that
you're willing to take these recommendations as well as how it can be better if. >> we have actually established a coalition with the private sector privacy groups that sign a nondisclosure agreement that allowed them to gain access to information that will help us inform the program and make sure that we are achieving the right balance between what we believe is an essential layer of our security regime and concerns about civil rights and liberties. ..
aware of data the dancers the specific question. >> you log data very aware of any? >> i am aware tsa has taken another look at the literature that is underlying each of the indicators they are testing the use and the rules up the airports and we're waiting to see how they are implicated in practice. >> as of this hearing we are awaiting data that with luck at the program to say it works? >> i have not reviewed evidence from tsa demonstrating the behavioral indicators are working as
they intend in practice. >> as i go to the chairman in breaking member i support the pre-check program but i want to have sound side ian's behind it not just the ability to look at somebody or someone that didn't go through that stand for eight lot while trying to have this hearing is through the pre-chex line there is a science as well as who they are. more specifically talk about this whistle-blower they knew someone was said
to. >> when we engaged after the whistle-blower complaint with the tsa lawyer did not feel the power to make that decision and checked with the supervisor. when understanding is the recommendation is to clarify exactly what authority and has if it does have that empowerment. >> when he checked with the supervisor what did he said? >> he ordered that person to go through the pre-check plane. >> so basically we led a domestic terrorist get on a play that through pre-check so that person and traveled had applied through the regular pre-check program
lot with that status have spent? civic several disqualifying -- as'' criminal offenses that would have disqualified them from the pre-check. >> can you share with the committee what the tsa o's are going through now serve they feel empowered so they can stop at that point? >> immediate the then head of the security operations issued written guidance to use the field that reinforced uh discussion in critical skills bill into the program over several years followed up by information that went to lose the entire work force
over the next several weeks that every individual t yes so here's the consistent message. so we're in the process to not overlook the standard operating procedures within the language about critical thinking is clear on our intent is those the tso does not feel inhibited where lack of a power grid to exercise that discretion. that is the key to aviation's security to let the news that experience and judgment to exercise individualize instruction. >> feeling that one system has occurred for were never extend we can provide that we should i will urticaria
cute look at what you are doing with the end result that there are a no anomalies that allows someone with an obvious. record to be disqualified. >> has you know, we rely heavily on information from national law enforcement and intelligence community so every is feted and watched either initially as inhibited not allowed to fly for a pianist screen or printed from be eligible for expedited screening. in this instance this individual was not liked and
is not in the national terrorist screed the database. then is a discussion that is ongoing between tsa because it is the intelligence security regime we have to have confidence that if there is day domestic terrorism suspect they have appropriated defied. that is the glitch in the system. if that individual was watch listed they would not have been allowed to be expedited screening eligible. on. >> we now recognize other members for five minutes each.
stricken accordance with the committee's practice at the start of the hearing on the subcommittee. >> talk about with the program what is the objective? what are you trying to accomplish? >> it is multiple objectives :the objective is to have the efficiency of the free check clean - - pre-check how to read to a much more effective job to have the standard screening that risk that is the target
for a terrorist attack selected tsa to a comprehensive analysis of the entire process reducing it to pre-check be the tossup of a kuwait? >> i don't believe it is the flip of a korean spirit that was not screened through the teeeighteen program? >> the opportunity looking at them individual component part to manage inclusion it as a system we believe there provides the better security proposition is is more effective security based off of the analysis to date civic gravy i admit confused my understanding is you have
someone with an eye patch and is there randomly sends somebody through the pre-chex line or those that paid to go through that laid is said to the application process. is a that a high risk? they're debt -- not go into the machine that we have told the world is so necessary. spitzer if they are exposed to day is significantly higher screening prior to the random selection process a human there substitute
additional screenings with random selection for the nit is part of that process. >> but how do people feel that paid through the process that allowed others to get in line with them? to rec i have heard negative complaints about the traveling public about the managed exclusion process. part of the desire to do dial's the tools back so it is said diffidently less contributor to the screening process to replace the fuel population in is because of the feedback we have gotten because it provides a lower risk proposition.
horsey risk assessment rules? >> but if you have those that would not have a problem but we have very limited numbers of canine teams and although we have been trying to change ship but currently we do have the death places to house them and demanded to inclusion program is a reckless practice to take people who have not been through that to put them into a laid with low level of screening because they have paid it to be vetted that makes them less of progress. hope you rethink the program it is reckless.
>> with that i yield back. >> they give for your courtesy is when as a committee that i hold very dear and i thank both of you for your in the ship which i hope they can attend after another hearing. that we think the witnesses for causally providing us what the thank all of those as part of the transportation security administration agent the thousands upon thousands of tso officers that put their lives of the line to save
our lives papaya want them to know how much i appreciate them. and with that loss of life to bring out to losses angeles let me offer my concern for that tso officers from new arlen's. in to hear my point if you talk about securing the airport i do believe with the engaged bluetooth the protocol there is not even half which is a local law
enforcement if he did to buy the local airports for the first news report cave routed is the tso officer that shot the perpetrator who had a machete and they realized of passengers did not understand the intent to not know if you is a terrorist raid deranged individual but it was the brave back to of local law enforcement. i will be raising the question of the protocols to be established the cities is save money by not have the appropriate army law-enforcement pledged are
your tso norm? to make they are not to make approximately how many? >> full-time or part-time about 40,000. >> 84 that. i feel much safer with these downfalls them before and 11. so they're not armed with their monitoring the world's largest airports? >> correct. >> i believe without can figure out any classified information and still one of the more attractive terrorist our airplanes and airports and transportation roads is said general assessment? the racket is accurate.
>> we have tso but no consistent understanding. of wood to be careful so let me jump to the point but with a person convicted of domestic terrorism was the progress to set them through >> i will have to check the securities operations did an inquiry in and fell 1/2 to find out. >> trading is crucial if the tso had the authority they did dye use it then you have a trading problem in terms of the tso knowledge and
obligation to a and a sword the and the supervisor that was approached british visit in the inspector general's put them into a love the person to go forward? to reflect the tsa has a rule with the check point based on the belief that could be put into words. >> bed this decrease. >> my colleagues have been period generous with a double issue where the person needs to be stuffed aim not saying fantod
travelers public duty to protect tate and officers. we have been very fortunate to if the reports are accurate the number of guns that are stopping at the security check point are more than we might imagine is a weedy to compliment those issues of trading. the other thing is introducing the no-fly fighters -- fighters legislation by to have that bill presented to give extra help that is scrubbed to make sure you have the most current individuals of the no-fly list particularly those of foreign fighters provide help the agency will review my legislation because i am looking for tools for the tso opposite
to do their jobs. but never for one when they attempted to do the right thing in the fed the issue of of security row of the upper ridder park drive that i had the bill i see that i don't but also i will get this in writing. i am a trustee and we move to an experienced of with the right to get a report if it is of the paid process. >> into showing interest in the subcommittee's work and your thoughts and comments. wade now recognize mr. radcliffe for five minutes as you know, i of a
former chair is the arm prosecutor serving after an 11 believing it and the mission of the testimony to inform the opinions of the subcommittee. and i am also the base of the -- testimony when the man concerned about is the tsa more flexible programs that allow for realtime assessments of a potential risk as opposed to the project which allows travelers likely to qualify in segment but mr. roth you
to talk about the incident involved with the and i guess love regis start their. and i will ask the question is why is the tsa using managing fushun to expedite the pre-chat client for those individuals that apply go through more rigorous procedure to gave the benefits of what that offers >> we have talked about managed inclusion it even has security value but we haven't spent time talking about risk assessment.
when the deal underlying principles is the vast majority want to get to their destination as quickly and efficiently as possible to represent no threat to so to i defy ways to expedite so there is a balance the zero measured approach to all programs. if we look at managed inclusion or end initiative of risk assessment could revoke debt with the impact on the passenger our right
industry may be the with the policy implications is this the right policy for the agency to adopt? is it politically acceptable bayou, is it powerful or palatable to the american people? so we take a thoughtful approach to that proposed the a underlying basis of the rules with aged gender and itinerary information that we have then collecting fully from 2010 and restarted that the very beginning of the program with the small slice of record players that was extended eligibility but that is that the only review. we have the independent analysis completed by one of the federally funded groups
in 2013 and worked very closely with intelligence analyst from 13 different agencies headed by the national counterterrorism. a review in 2014 by the homeland securities institute so all of those independent reviews validated the fundamental principles behind that with opportunities for improvement as has the inspector general. and from proposition from the american people and take a measured approach for british inclusions.
>> ica that my time is expired but the yield back subject the lab of brief second rounds you can ask polyps in a moment. i now recognize myself. i apologize for the rapid fire but was hoping somebody else would ask. convicted felon issue. is there any doubt, i will rephrase were they in error when they picked that convicted felon for there pre-check? to rec data believe there is if they presented as terrorism there should have
been from that screening database. >> so obviously this for said would not have passed the pre-check status. >> he would not have been accepted. >> so that is self-evident self-evident:that managed inclusion approach are not as a row as doing the pre-check background check? >> i agree with that. shifting gears from a marketing standpoint so much to be taking out of that other projects sometimes