tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 25, 2016 8:00pm-12:01am EDT
>> will discuss what it means for education and the future of non-white individuals in the u.s. then, arkansas republican congressman, bruce westerman, joins us to talk about the republican budget and the current budget and spending impact the recent bipartisan agreement to restructure puerto rico's debt. and the presidential campaign and lgbt issues before congress. be sure to watch "washington journal" live thursday morning at 7 a.m. eastern. coming up tonight, peter neffenger testifies about increased wait times at airports. then a hearing on the iran nuclear deal.
and then a british parliament committee on how scotland would be impacteded if the uk leaves the eu. and the conduct of irs commission is looked into. peter neffenger testified about the agency's recent surge in wait times at t.s.a. security checkpoints in u.s. airports. he appeared at a house homeland security hearing. it is just over two hours. >> the committee on homeland security will come to order. the committee is meeting to examine the security challenges brought forth by increased passenger screening, checkpoint wait times. before i begin, i would like to take a moment of silence for the victims and their family of egyptair 804.
i now recognize myself for an opening statement. today we face a crisis at our airports. we have all read the headlines. three-hour long security lines, 438 american airline passengers stranded overnight in chicago o'hare, travelers from atlanta, charlotte and alaska waiting forever to be screened causing missing flights and further delays. more than 3,000 bags have failed to get loaded on to planes in time to phoenix. and 80% increase in wait times at jfk airport compared to this time last year. this is unacceptable. it is time for congress to act. administrator, the american people are angry and frustrated as we head into the busiest travel season of the year starting this memorial day weekend and they deserve answers.
this crisis didn't come out of nowhere. airports and airlines have been sounding the alarm for months. there is no doubt that part of the challenge we face is a high terror threat environment. the wait times are not soaring because of the longer lines but because of the increase in demand and the right people to put the right place at the right time. change is not happening fast enough. admir admiral, i know you are working to reform t.s.a.'s broken bureaucracies and i hope to hear how you will confront this situation. this committee and the house of representatives passed measures
to help this. our measures accelerate the expidited screening. unfortunately, the senate has failed to pass these bills which is unconsciousable in my judgment. i mind like to send a message to the colleagues in the other body: it is time to get moving. the american people are fed up. we will introduce another bill to attack this problem and i hope this time we can get it to the president's desk more quickly. in the coming months, we will take a broader look at the t.s.a. including the first authorization of the agency will will give us an opportunity to make wider reforms and long-term changes. we plan to take up legislation to enhance t.s.a.'s screening partnership program. as i noted, we must take into
account serious aviation threats we face. i think the events of the egyptian airliner demonstrate that. investigators are working to determine the cause of the egyptair crash but one thing is clear: terrorist are trying to bring down airplanes. i led a group to northern africa to look at the safe havens and walked away thinking screening is inadequate at some airports with direct flights. airports like cairo lack full buddy screeners to contact ied's, and lack screening employees on the terror watch list. this is a concern because militants are trying to recruit insiders and inside jobs to take down passenger jets.
we have seen this twice in recent months including in attack in somalia and one against a russian jet in egypt. this is not just a problem in the middle east or northern africa. this past december, the airport in paris that has 50 direct flights in the united states every day, they fired 70 employees who were suspected of having extremist connections. 70. we have to get help -- we have to help our foreign partners weed out these extremist. the house and this committee passed two bills to ramp up security at overseas airports and yet again these bills are sitting in the senate stalling, waiting for action. it is not thinkable. it is time for the senate to act
and the president will sign them into law. we cannot afford further delay because american lives are at risk. as we adapt to the evolving threat, we must make sure agencies like t.s.a. adapt their business models to keep travel flowing smoothly. terrorist would like nothing more than to undermine our own economy by allowing air transportation to grind to a halt. admiral neffenger, we have given t.s.a. the resources asked for to make screening more efficient, congress granted a recent request to reallocate 34 million dollars to hire 800 new t.s.a. officers before july and pay for additional overtime for existing personal. today we expect you to tell us how you are putting these resources to work and how you are going to address the crisis at our airports once and for
all. i want to thank the admiral for being here and thank you for your service to our countgy with that the chair recognizes the ranking member of the committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank you for calling today's hearing. i would also like to welcome administrator neffenger and thank him in advance for his testimony. to be clear the flying public expects and deserves efficient, space, secure, reliable air transit. the transportation security administration finds itself at the center of the federal government efforts to in sure secure passage of passenger and cargo. the important of this role can hardly be understated. the agency is at a critical point in its short history. t.s.a. is still implementing reforms after covert testing
last year revealed serious gaps in security screenings. now, long lines and record-wait times at airport checkpoints are having spillover effects throughout the entire aviation system. passengers are understandably anxious as they hear stories of fellow passengers who despite best efforts missed flights. asking passengers to arrive three hours before domestic departure is not acceptable. in addition to the stress of wearing the right clothes, deciding to check a bag, avoid pack and prohibited items, and make tight connections, the stress on the flying public is felt most severely by airline and airport personal. unfortunately, it is the men and women who are the face of t.s.a. who get blamed.
the transportation security officers. travel volume substantially increased this year, yet t.s.a. has failed to keep pace with this growth. as a result, there is an insufficient number of transportation security officers in our nation's airports. the current situation where we have too few screenings and far more passengers did not occur without warning. in fiscal year 2011, there were approximately 45,000 t.s.a. screening 642 million passengers. in fy 2016, t.s.a. had 3,000 fewer tso's screening roughly 740 million anticipated travelers almost a one million more passengers and 3,000 fewer
screeners. in fy 2017 budget, t.s.a. requested funding to hire an additional 320 tso's. for those of us familiar with travel volume trends, this did not seem like enough. more recently, t.s.a. has the chairman indicated, has announced its plan to onboard 768 tsos by june 15th. increasing staff and resources is a good thing but only if the proper vetting and training occurred before more are added. administrator neffenger, i want to know if t.s.a. has the money necessary to achieve its mission. at secretary johnson's request congress recently reprogrammed $34 million in t.s.a. accounts to pay for overtime and other costs associated with responding
to the wait times crisis. while these funds aid t.s.a. in addressing staff shortages in the short-term, moving money around is not a substitute for infusing new money into an operation. t.s.a. should have access to all of the aviation security flees collected by the flying public to bolster security. yet the passage of the budget act of 2013, t.s.a. is required to divert $13 billion collected in security fees toward the deficit reduction for the next ten years. this year alone, 1.25 billion has been diverted. presently i am working with the ranking member on the transportation committee in his efforts to make sure t.s.a. can attain the fees they collect and
put them back into our aviation system. in the absence of more money, new resources is absolutely important. congress and t.s.a. with the bandaid fixes are complex. patching and plugging holes is not the answer. moreover, dismantling t.s.a. is not the answer. many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are calling for a return to the pre-9/11 privitization model. after the downed egyptair plane is still under investigation this would not be the way to go. the benefits of privateization
are minimal. we need to look for long-term solutions. one solution, as i indicated and written a letter to a, is to assign the nearly 2500 tfo's assigned as behavior detection operation to the check screening. the spot pram has been subject to a joa review and it is questionable about its success. but we spent a billion dollars on this program and we could put that money to good use. i look forward, mr. neffenger, look around the committee room here, all of our members use the airports to come to work every week, i am sure, like i, they are anxiously awaiting your testimony. i yield back. >> i thank the ranking member.
other members are reminded opening statements may be submitted for the record. pleased to have admiral neffenger here today. admiral peter neffenger is the sixth administrator of the transportation skusht administration and leads security operation at more than 450 airports within the united states and a workforce of almost 06,000 employee -- 60,000. prior to joining t.s.a., admiral neffenger was the 29th comdodd of the coast guard. we thank you, sir, for being here and thank you for your service. your full written statement will appear in the record thchlt chair now recognizes admiral neffenger. >> thank you and good morning chairman mccaul, ranking member thompson and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i appreciate the committee's oversight of t.s.a. security operation and making sure our
agency has the important tools we need to accomplish this mission. since take the oath last year i have traved around the country and the world to meet with all levels. their sense of duty and commitment to the national security issue is exlimpery. last week egyptair flight 804 crashed into the mediterranean. we don't know what happened to the airplanes but it is a reminder of our mission. the threat is very real. and today i would add in just ten months i have undertaken a systematic and deliberate change
in the t.s.a. renewed focus on security, revised alarm procedures and made investments in technology and retained the entire workforce. we are holding our standards to high accountability and supporting thefront line officers in the critical mission. we have reinvigorated relationships with the airlines and trade and travel industries and working with congress and this committee to address our security mission. i am investing in our people and with the help of congress directed overhaul to how we train. we established the first ever t.s.a. acadmy and this training enables us to achieve consistentancy, develop a common culture and instill values and raise performance across the workforce. elimination of the arbitrary use of directed reassignments,
restrictions on permanent relocation cost, and significant controls on bonuses at all levels. we are overhauling management practices and conducting review of acquisition programs, building a planning programming and budget execution process and building a human capital management program for recruitment, promotion, assignment, and retention. screening mission requires a similar reassessment. we project checkpoints will screen 740 million people this year. in 2013, t.s.a. screened 643 million people. that is an increase of a hundred million people in four years while the full-time workforce has reduced by more than 12%. that and the renewed focus on security are significant contributors to the situation we face today. we have a challenge this summer which we are aggressively meeting head on. we stabbed a command center to monitor checkpoint screening
operations on an hourly bases and tracking volume, staffing, lane availability, and actually wait times and allow us to address concerns in real-time. it includes staffing from airlines and critical industries associations and are making daily calls to plan that day's operation and what we foresee in the coming days. our goals are to make sure we have effective screening and maximize the screening to achieve shorter line waits. we are providing more overtime and 768 new t.s.a. officers and with had help of congress we are moving part-time to full-time to help improve retention and moral and help with the wait lines. thank you for supporting these effor efforts. behavior detection officers have been given the go-ahead to go
back to the screening checkpoints. we have employed additional canine teams and activated a law enforce to be available to move to areas of greatest needs. we are seeing enrollments in t.s.a. pre-check that is more than three times what we saw last year at this time. to intensify the focus on mission effectiveness i brought in new staff. a new deputy administrator and other leaders. i directed changes at the airport levels. at chicago o'hare a new team is overseeing screening and with the support and talent of the workforce immediateed adjustments have dramatic improved the output even with the volume increasing.
we must match operation capacity to the demands of projected and real screening value. we are continuing to work with the department and congress to allow us to match resources with mission demands. finally ingressively pursuing long-term solutions to the growing val aof airline travel we established a new task force. one example is the public private partnership in atlanta where the first two automated lanes became oprationale this week and they are aushld improving efficiency and we look forward to the results of the first couple weeks that operation. we have similar efforts lines up. this summer travel season is going to be busy and in the short time, t.s.a., airlines, airports, and congress can improve the passenger experience while maintaining the security we need.
the t.s.a. is better to securing better efficiency while remaining focused on the terror threat. guiding principles that expressed in my administrator's intent is focus on people, commit to excellence and invest in the future. i will continue to do this in until we achieve success in every location and every employee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and the committee's support and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, admiral. i recognize myself for questions. all americans experienced the horror on 9/11 of airplanes being turned into cruise missiles against us and turning against us and bringing down the world trade center, hitting the pentagon and attempting to hit this building.
it still remains the crown jewel of aviation. we know that al-qaeda and the ar arabian peninsula is intent on this and we know isis pulled off downing a russian airliner. as mentioned in my opening remarks, i recently had the experience to go to northern sinai where isis exist, and went to the cairo airport that has a daily flight in the jfk and i have to say i am concerned about the state of security there. and i am concerned about the state of security at charles dugal where 70 extremist were weeded out of the process. this is the external operation that keeps me up at night. can you tell me, sir, what t.s.a. is doing to protect these last points of departure airports? particularly in the high threat areas. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and
like you i am very focused on the safetyf of inbound flights to the u.s. there are a number of things we do for last departure and first is foremost is working with the international community to try to raise global standards to the highest possible level. with respect to last point of departure airports we put additional standards and requirements for any airport intending to fly directly to the united states without stops and that includes screening of passengers, cargo, the aircraft itself and vetting of any individuals that are on board those flights coming to the united states. in addition to that, following the metro jet incident, we put a number of additional security measures in place at certain airports of interest and concern in the region that added significant and additional requirements to aircraft and personal intending to fly directly to the united states from those lpd's. >> there is legislation i mentioned in the senate that has
not been passed that would help you and give authorities to assist these airplanes overseas are flights coming directly into the united states. it has been stalled. when i didn't see full body scanners in cairo that concerns because of the non-metallic ied threat. this can be fixed but we cannot share proper intelligence with the egyptians to screen their passengers. i worry about this, sir. i hope i can work with you to expedite this process. i met with the egyptians and president and ambassador and i think they are working in good faith with the united states to insure the safety of americans. with respect to the lines, in the president's budget request there is a request for an additional 350 screeners.
however two weeks ago t.s.a. came back to the congress and asked to have $34 million reprogrammed and we granted that request for 768 t.s.a. workers which come online by the end of june or early july. but this was really not our first rodeo. why didn't see we this coming? >> that is a good question. as you know, when i came on board last year on the heels of the ig's results, it was immediately apparent to me that one of the challenges we were going to have is enough screening staff to man the ch k checkpoints effectively. as you recall, we stopped the practice known as inclusion and that is the practice of randomly assigning people from the lanes. one of the discoveries from our root cause analysis was that introduced unacceptable risk in the system.
in doing that, i knew that would dramatically increase the -- knew -- people to the standard lanes and we were not staffed enough. congress was gracious in granting to halt further reductions. we planned to drop 1600 in fy 16 and when we got the appropriation bill in december we did accelerated hiring. the additional 768 is on top of what we requested for fy 17 and in my opinion it is necessary to meet the challenge of the increased volume. we vob working to move that. -- have been. there is a lag associated with getting the funding and getting hired. >> i agree with that. you have a lot of part-time employees and do you intend to make a second request to re-program monies that have been
assigned to t.s.a. to move part-time employees to full-time? >> i think it is important because it drops my attrition rates and it is instant capability i can put to use. we are working through the administration now on whether there is a need for a second reprogramming request. >> 20% of your employees are part-time and they are trained to do the job in my judgment and seems that would cause overnight ramping up of the personal force to deal with the long lines. we know we anticipate those going into the summer season. as i mentioned earlier, we plan to introduce legislation, we met with 30 airport authorities, and over 30 airline representatives, they expressed concerns there wasn't the property coordination at the local level with the field security directors at t.s.a., they didn't have
flexibility, the staffing model didn't reflect the peak time the flights were coming in and in large part this would solve a lot of these staffing problems if there is better communication at the local level and these localal director -- local directors were empowered to make decisions on what is happening at the local airports. do you agree with that? >> absolutely. last fall i brought the security directors together and directed them to take responsibility for their local region. i have given them full authority. i like to institutionalize ideas like that. >> that is what this legislation would do. require t.s.a. to assess its staffing allocation model and mandate they get local input from the airlines and airports. would you agree with that? >> absolutely. that is what we are doing right now and i would like to make it
a permanent practice at t.s.a. >> another element is t.s.a. behavioral detection officers who roam around the airport, about 3,000 of them, if they can be redeployed to the front screening end process that would help solve a lot of problems. i think the ranking member mentioned this. do you agree that would be an appropriate response? >> well, we are redeploying the behavioral detection officers now. behavorial detection is still important but it is how you use it that matters. i can use those officers at things like document checking positions and places where they can still monitor and look at behavior, but at the same time directly contribute to the efficiency of the checkpoints. >> and finally, do you support the concept of expanding t.s.a.'s pre-check program which i think moves people in the long
lines to the pre-check lines which i think would solve many of these problems as well. >> absolutely. that is one of my fundamental priorities is to dramatically expand the pre-check population and the capabilities to enroll people in pre-check. >> i know they are putting a lot of blame on you but we passed the bill from this committee to expand the t.s.a. pre-check program which would have helped this situation and yet it is sitting there in the senate. stalled in the senate. they could have helped this problem months ago. it is unthinkable the senate hasn't acted on this. i call upon the senate. sometimes they don't listen to us in the house. for the sake of the american people, it is time for the senate to act on this important legislation. with that, i recognize the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
i have a chart that kind of crystalizes what i think is the challenge t.s.a. is faced with. in fy 11, we had 45,000 t.s.a. 642 million passengers. fy 16, we have 740 million passengers and only 42, 500 t.s.a. workers. i guess the question that comes to mind is what do you think the number is you need of workers to address the problem we are faced with now? >> well, thank you for the question. i do think we are at a lower staffing level than we need to to be to meet peak demands at peak periods. we are working to determine the
right number and looking to see what kinds of efficiency we can gain in the way we deploy people. in chicago, we found for instance, we converted a hundred part-time to full-time. that is instant gain of workforce and using overtime to effectively confort part-time to pull-time and adding 250 officers over the summer and 58 now. that and other changes have dramatically improved the situation in chicago. i don't have an exact number for you because we are reworking the staffing models to look at the way in which the airlines do it but i know we need a higher staffing level than we currently have. >> and i look forward to you coming up with the number. do you have, presently, the resources the address the problems, the wait times and other things presently, within your budget?
>> the reprogramming has helped because it lallowed me to immediately put resources. the most effective approach is to get part-time to full-time so i can get trained people who would like to be working longer hours and that reduces my attrition rate and increases by ability to avoid churn. then it allows me to redeploy some of my canine teams to airports with higher needs. that addresses the problems in the top airports but i don't want to see a cascade across the system which is why we are seeing if a second reprogramming request is needed to hire additional. >> thank you. some people are saying the wait times increased after the airlines implemented baggage fees and that people rather than paying the fees are taking additional baggage on to the planes to avoid the cost
therefore the wait times, getting to the plane increases because of the increase in baggage. have you all looked at that as an issue? >> well, i will tell you we see about four times the number of bags coming to the checkpoints than get checked. volume of the carry on bag puts pressure on the checklines operation. we are working to enforce the one plus rule. we think that is important. if you bring four things to the checkpoint a couple are probably getting gate checked anyhow. >> one thing we ought to look at as a committee is the airlines are making several billion annually off those fees and if that has contributed to the wait times and addition things i think we ought to look and see
if they can make a contribution toward this effort toto elimina the wait times. i was glad to here your analysis of the ddos. there has been a lot of comments and criticism about their use. if they are being deployed to address this crisis i compliment you on doing that. with this wait time issue, can you tell me what the airlines are doing to help t.s.a. address this problem? >> i have been pleased with what
the airlines have been aggressively doing lately. quite a few airlines have been hiring contract staff to take non-security duties like sitting at the exit lanes and that frees up a tso to get on the checkpoint. providing people to run the ben from one end of the line to next, doing the job of the individual taking off shoes and belts and whatever -- that is an important position because people forget to that that and that can slow it down. they are providing people out in front of the checkpoints to direct people to other checkpoints. we find often times, particularly in airports where you have limited physical space in which to operate, you have multiple small checkpoints that you cannot see from one to the other and sometimes you will get a big line in one and nobody in the next.
but human psychology is such that once you are in a line you don't want to leave the line to go to another because you might find yourself in another so catching them before you get in line is important and the other thing they are helping us do with the increase in enrollment in pre-check we have people walking into the standard line not recognizing that is not an automatic pre-check lane so you have to scrub the standard lines. 15% of the daily passengers are walking into the standard line by mistake and you have to get them out. the airlines have been helpful. >> yield back. >> thank you. chair recognizes mr. keen from new york. >> in new york, my understanding is at jfk airport there is an 82% increase between 2015-2016. can you quantify what impact you
expect from the additional officers you will be sending there? will that 82 become 72? 52? a any way you can make the percentage of subtraction and addition. >> we are seeing dramatic improvement at jfk. the maximum line wait was 35 minutes in a standard lane and in a pre-check line was five minutes. we are seeing a dramatic in pro improvement. we watch that daily >> is that because of increased personal or -- >> it is combination of changing in operational procedures. using the t.s.a. more effectively. this national incident approach allows us to rapidly move good
ideas around the system. and the combination of new personal coming in and shifting dog teams which helps in terms of moving passengers. >> if we can try to quantify. your original goal was 25 million for pre-check. there is nine or ten. if you got to 25, what impact would that have? >> i think it could dramatically transform the system. that would represent roughly 50% of the daily travel voluming if you got the 25 million people. you could keep many more lanes open in pre-check, you could run the dogs more effectively in the locations where you still had high volume but on a smaller crowd of people. if we can continue to grow that population i think that is great. the other thing is it gives me a known population and that is much more important particularly in today's world. >> chairman mentioned egypt
airlines and the insider threat. there was the ig report and the chairman mentioned the charles degall airport. what about the people behind the scenes that are insiders? how effective is our vetting process? >> i think it is far more effective this year than last year. we screened everybody -- as you said, just under a million who hold badge access of some type to an airport. it is not universal and varying levels. each individual is vetted against the terrorist screening database since december of this year we have full access to the so-called tide categories and this is the extended database, doesn't indicate you are connected to a known terrorist, but there are indicators and
wevet against that. we are piloting a program with delta airlines to do the so-called fbi rat bat program. the requirement is every two years and assuming that goes well that will be implemented full time and continuous vet against the criminal databases as well. >> are there procedures in place for cooperation between the t.s.a. personal and the armed police at the airports? t.s.a. is obviously not armed and can't make arrests. if they do spot something, how quick is the time response with the police officers? >> it can vary by airport. but we have direct alarms at every checkpoint on every single lane of every checkpoint in the nation. we completed the instillation of those before the end of the calendar year. we train every day with police departments. i just met with the association
of law enforcement at their annual conference. one topic was the discussion for consistent training and it is everything from active shooter training to response to emergency to clearing contraband items at the checkpoint. i think we have a very good relationship particularly in the larger airports where the greatest potential is. >> if you will check out the relationship between the t.s.a. and the port authority police. >> yes, sir, i will. >> the chair recognizes ms. shield-jackson lee. >> thank the chairman. admiral, thank you for your service. i have said to this committee that the transportation security administration are the
the very important people. i want to acknowledge the chairman and ranking member of this committee because they have led an enormously bipartisan committee that only focus, or main focus, is the security of the nation. this makes this a present experience because we are committed to getting the job done, if you will. we want to get the job done with you and so i want to emphasize a thought that it is difficult to call yourself the reprogram government. it is hard to reprogram for infectious diseases, the military, and the security of the nation particularly in aviation security. so i understand that we may be getting 700 tso's this summer and i want to follow the line of questioning the ranking member had had with this particular graph.
it is stark between 2011 and fy 16 particularly with the increase in travelers and i think we might get more. can you, i understand we may be getting 700, 1600 and then 2500. can you put that in perspective of when these numbers will come? >> the 768 we are hiring now should all be on board by june 15th. we are hiring them now. they are rolling into the system but we should have them all train and on board by june 15. >> june 15th? >> that is right. they will add to that and that is in addition to the normal hiring we are doing. that is on top of the 200 officers a week we are putting out. >> is that fy 16, we can expect 1600 and then 2500? >> well the 1600 was the number i was scheduled to lose in fy 16. so congress allowed me to keep
that number. >> that is somewhat of a plus you didn't lose them? >> yes, ma'am. this 768 is a plus on top of the 1600 we would have lost and we cut some into that number to meet the fy 16 targets. >> that makes it 2500 additional or? obviously 16 and 7 is 23 but what do you think you will get in fy 17? >> i think we'll keep the 1600, plus the 768 on top and that gives us 2300-2400. >> that includes the potential reassignment, redeploying of body behavioral officers? i think that is a great point being them at a station point where they can assess every individual. >> no, that gives additional capability on top and that is real capability we are moving in
now. the conversion of part-time to full-time. we have quite a few part-time that would love to be full-time but eventually they cannot wait long enough for a full-time position to open up so we lose them. >> one of my concerns is training not only the new recruits but training the existing workers and that ties in the numbers that we reflected on dealing with accuracy. i will just make that general point. i would be interested in your work on accuracy and the training. i would hope that we could actively engage in training ex-military and i indicated c college recruits. chicago was the epicenter. if you could finish by saying
what is the immediate response to chicago which is an example of what other cities are facing? >> immediately in chicago, when i talk about chicago, understand we are doing the same thing other other top airports, well chicago was preventable incident in my opinion. when you look at what happened, this is a surge that was anticipated and known, it was a failure to get things done in advance of that. we proved that by fixing it quickly. in chicago, among other things, we have already planned to put additional officers in there. of that 768, 58 of those individuals are coming into the chicago by the end of this week. there will be a total of 58 new. we converted00 part time officers to full-time and pushed overtime so they can use them. you have to be careful with overtime because you don't want to burn up the full-time workforce but it is effective
for part-time getting more hours. we movered additional canine teams. we planned to moved them but accelerated the move into chicago. the total of that resulted in a significant change in the chicago picture. the chicago tribune reported in today's paper that the longest wait time was 15 minutes yesterday. that was with significantly higher volume. so it tells me that with targeted additional resources, efficient use of those resources and then a management team that understands how to run that daily tactical operation you can make a big difference. that is what we are doing at each of the big airports. >> recruitment? >> we don't seem to have trouble meeting the recruiting targets. we have a large pool of people that have been pre-vetted. that is why we were able to rapidly hire the 768 because we have a large pool of available people.
i still want to work on bringing more of that back in-house. we work through a private contractor to do our hiring and recruiting right now. >> i will get your other answers in writing regarding the institute in georgia about how you can utilize that better and let me conclude by thanking the tso workers all across america. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes mr. rogers from alabama. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral, thank you for being here. i think you are a good and competent man who has been given an impossible task to administrator the t.s.a. the t.s.a. has waddled for a decade and over that period of time built up a lot of bad habits that have come to fester. you spoke in your opening
statement about making t.s.a. leaner and smarter and i want i teep you do that. i plan to introduce legislation to transform t.s.a. to a security operation by expanding the screening partnership program. having worked on these issues for more than a decade, i have seen t.s.a. can do a mission when it is clear. by bill will allow more private property managers and make t.s.a. the driving force to oversee intelligence based strategies. it will get more than any summer rush bandaid could do. you can spend time conducting covert testing and building strategies instead of trying to doicide who works the morning shift at the airport.
it was found the t.s.a. is not comparing government run screening with private owned one. in november, i requested more accurate data be released to congress and your agency promised to deliver that information within six months but it never came. in march i asked you personally for the data during a budget hearing and then sent you a letter to remind you. it still hasn't showed up. it has been 191 days since i requested that information. can you tell when i am going to receive the accurate cost comparison gao says we need to get? >> yes, sir, and i agree we need to do a better job and they set a deadline for the end of june and we are on target to meet it. we have been meeting regular to make sure they concur with our
findings. >> by the end of june? >> yes, sir. we are on target that deadline >> next, you talk about the canine screening programs and i am a big fan of that technology and believe it is the most effective in the tool box. i went to auckland and we looked at the training you are doing and what you refer to as passenger screening canines. that has been held up by t.s.a. to me as being the same as vapor weight canines and what i saw was nothing similar to vapor weight canines. they were training canines to basically work the lines at an airport which means you have to go up to the passenger. the canine has to go smell the person or right at them. as you know from vapor weight canine technology used at the
capitol, grand central station in washington, and many places, the canine doesn't have to come close to the passenger. they can detect the air up to 15-20 minutes after a passenger disturbed it. can you tell me why that technology is being trained in the more narrow scope instead of the more effective vapor wait training? >> i will get you a fuller answer are the record but here is how i understand it. i caution i am speaking without the benefit of an expert next to me. but when you look at a passenger screening line, it is slightly different dynamic because you have an enclosed line of people. as i watch the dogs operate, you notice they are moving their head around a lot because they are checking for vapor, we typically put enclosed panels where possible, or enclosed the checkpoint behind the panel. so the dog is doing two things. it is both checking the vapor as
somebody goes by them but sniffing the general vapor in the air. my understanding is they had it modify it for the very specific nature of the way people lineup in queues but let me get a better and more complete answer to that. >> that is fine. that is much better than doing nothing and much better than the equipment we use. but as you know, you can put these assets out in a foyer area before people get to the line, and they can detect the area that has been disturbed by somebody that walked by in 15-20 minutes without coming up to the person and that is a valuable det det deterrent. they don't have to come up to person and unfortunately for some people it is uncomfortable
for a dog to come up and sniff them. wouldn't bother me. >> the chair recognizes mr. langevin. >> thank you. the wait times at airports that the public are dealing with are not acceptable and my constentients and people around the country are demanding quicker lines and i know that is the goal. one priority you and secretary johnson laid out is doubling down on the rd and t.s.a. i appreciate the promise of new technology to expedite screening and can you preview what we
should expect? >> thank you. we need to do better with research and incentvising the public to come forward. if you look at the atlanta airport, we opened two automated screening lanes down there. this has been in use in europe for years. you walk up to a standard lane and there is a table and you put your stuff on the table and slide it until you can engage the conveyer belt. this is fully automated. the bin returns automatically and there is a photograph and x-ray of your stuff. you can take five people up to the checkpoint, they cycle in as they bill fill up the bin and it goes through. london heathrow has seen 20-25
percent increase in through put at the same level of effectiveness so we are excited about that. as you look at increasing passenger volumes, at some point you reach capacity with a manual system and have to look to auto mate things. i think the t.s.a. needs to work closely with the system to get it more automated and bring in more technology. >> that part is automated because there is a human person in the loop actually looking at what is in the carry-on bag? >> there is still somebody reading an x-ray and we are working to determine how effective machines can become in identifying items so you can put humans into the work they do best and using machines for what they do best. when i look around an airport
and see kiosks that distribute the boarding pass there is id reading on that and there are things we can do that can automate the identity check process as well. >> let me shift over to one of other thing. i may come back to technology in a minute. t.s.a. publically stated its goal for pre-check is having 25 million enrollees. ... right now we now we have 2,760,000 people enrolled. what is tsa's plan for expanding pre-check to further reach for expanding pre-check to further reach that goal of 25 million enrollees? >> i want to clear by 25 million is all it trusted travelers.
right now we are at about nine and a half million trusted travelers, people weapon rolled in some program of the federal government. there are couple things we need to do. first of all we need to expand the and roman opportunities. i do nothing we think we have enough enrollment centers other. we are currently have one vendor that provides contract enrollment services. we're hoping to expand that this year two additional vendors under a new contract. the second thing is, to make the centers more available and to have more mobile enrollment and to streamline the application process. we do have an online application process now by still at the shop to do your fingerprints. we are working with airlines and travel reward programs, many of of the airlines are now offering mild redemption for pre-check, microsoft corporation recently bought pre-check for all of its travelers. many of the travel reward programs are providing and willing to trade in your miles or points for pre-checked.
>> so currently to enroll up person has to have fear of $85 to be enrolled for five years. however those who fight once or twice year, this may, this may not be feasible or practical and could distract from tsa's efforts to broaden enrollment. has tsa thought of any alternatives to paying $85 per pre-check? can you detail any thoughts on that question marks. >> most of those fees go directly to cover program costs right now. it would be challenging, under the existing contract to change the fee structure. that is why we encourage people to look at if they are members of trusted traveler programs of some sort than there is opportunity been offered through various programs to get direct reimbursement or vouchers for pre-check. >> i know my time has expired. if you could just on a follow-up or perhaps in writing going back to the technology issue. in deploying technology and wonder how we can ensure how we avoid mistakes of ait. i know my time has experienced
expire. i will yield back. >> we recognize mr. perry. >> think mr. chairman. good to see admiral. let's talk about bonuses a little bonuses a little bit. tsa requested on state million dollars for bonus and performance are awards for fy 2017. as i'm sure you're aware it has been revealed that the assistant administrator received almost 90,000 dollars dollars in bonuses over a 13 month period. so let's just start, what you do to get a bonus? what did the assistant administrator due to receive $90000 in just bonus right question marks so we're talking, i don't know what that rate is for an inspector but at least one, we could hire one with the bonus and then what i think most of the american people of u.s. a historic critical failure right now looking at the lines and the throughput. i wonder what you
have to do to get a bonus at tsa, and i pick their wonder what we have to do? >> i was not here that i what i discovered, in my opening that is completely justifiable. i think think it is appropriate to have the ability to reward good performers in any line of business. so my believe is first of all you follow existing policy and opm, the first thing i did was eliminated the practice of multiple bonuses to any one individual. i have dramatically change that. my goal is to push more reward bonuses out to the people in the organization that do some of the real frontline work. i cannot justify the level of bonuses that were provided in the past, can tell you that i stopped that. i watch it very carefully. i put. i put significant management controls on it including requiring oversight by the department of homeland security of anything. i do not want anything happening inside tsa when it comes to bonuses to senior executives so, the program does still exist to
a certain extent. do you know how much was spent by tsa last year on the school year in bonuses. >> i'm trying to that with a $34 million reprogramming for 768 inspectors. i'm just trying to get. >> i do not have the number at the top of my head. i will get you the number for the record. >> thank you for that. moving on, there there was a gao report regarding employee misconduct, specifically attendance and leave. one of the things they found that penalties for misconduct and failure to attend were lawyer than tsa's own guidance and recommendations.
let me just ask you this if you know and if you have done your own studies. do unexcused absences and tardiness create problems in staffing and effectively staffing checkpoints? >> it can't. it depends on the extent on which it happens of the reasons there are for. if you have significant numbers of unexpected, it would dramatically affect your ability of staff. >> of course that is struggling correlated to increase wait times of folks are there. you know if that is something that it has impacted to the point that you are taking a look at it? >> we are taking a look at it. one of my concerns is that we understand that we don't have staff in place when we expect to have them in place, what is the reason behind that. did we inadvertently get people leave when we should not of given family. or do they just not show up. if they didn't show up what would be the reason for that. that is all part of the catalyst to determine how you are ready for a daily tactical operation. >> to note some of the disciplinary actions are for employees with unexcused absence or excessive tardiness? do you know what actions you take because the report says the penalties for misconduct in the past have been lower than generally lower than your own guidance by tsa? >> as i look at it back to my military experience when you get
guidance sometimes that guidance will give you the maximum penalty allowable. you may or may not need to implement that. i think it really is a case-by-case look. if you if you have some specific cases that you're interested and i'll be happy to take that for the record. my opinion is this per there may be a valid reason why someone didn't show up on time even if it cause you some real problems of them not showing up. maybe they should've called a mating call, so the level of discipline or punishment you give it really is a case-by-case study. it is hard to give a blanket answer. >> i understand. i was kind of looking for a range there. you probably look know that the subcommittee i chair is in conducting our investigation into the misconduct in the penalties associated and potential correlation with the increased wait times. we are looking for to working with you. >> i am very interested in this problem. i want to get to the root of management issues to the. >> i appreciate your time.
thank you mr. chairman i yelled back. >> i recognize mrs. watson coleman. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you administrator, you have an incredibly difficult job and i am glad that you are the one that is in it. i am very concerned about the wait times. i really do believe that the airlines and by allowing people to carry two or three bags instead of one bag went there caring one onto the aircraft contributes to the weight, the amount of time it takes to go through the lines. i know you need additional resources and i am really interested in knowing at some point the answer to mr. thompson's question about how many do you think that you need. i know that that it's uneven sometimes and going through the pre-check lines with her telling to take you to take your shoes and belt off and i thought that's why was in pre-checked i would have to do that. i'm. i'm happy that you are training people now. i have an issue in a question
about this issue partnerships because there been a few incidents where airports have been to privatize as an alternative which i am more comfortable with. there has also been articles of statements of those who believe that the f -- they provide any benefits for wait times. is there any measurable difference between partnership programs that versus federal ice screeners. or is the problem a resource problem that would be shared by tsa and private screeners alike, can we be certain that there be equally as concerned with a security measure as they would be with the convenience of getting through the lines quicker? >> thank you for the question. first it's important to understand that even a private
screening contractor works for tsa. it is contracted to the federal government, contacted to the tsa entity as a management staff runs that. i think that's important because from my perspective national security is a federal function. in the when it comes to that. when you look at performance, it's roughly the same from we train them the same standards in fact they train and are tsa academy. for my perspective the flexibility i get with the federal workforce is that for this national deployment force i mentioned mentioned this in our tso's who volunteered to be deployable for surge events and others. we have about 250 of those. i can do that with the federal workforce, can't work into private workforce without working a contract issue. so if i need to surge it gives me the ability to do that. also i can move personnel more rapidly from place to place as any to. so for my perspective that is the benefit of the manager of having a workforce that works strictly for me versus contracted to me. >> thank you. he talked about the fact that there's only one vendor that you work with on the pre-check
program. the $85 that one has to pay really only covers the admin straight of expenses. so when you are going to expand this opportunity to other vendors, do you think that would create competition reduce the cost associated with that? >> i really hope so. in fact that is one of the things we built into the request for proposal. it was to look for ways to reduce the fee and i think competition can do that. >> or, if not reduce the fee at least allow some of that p to be used to ensure that you all have the resources you need to do the job that needs to be done. >> what we looked for were flexible options to how you would from this and pay for. >> tso employees, no the part-time employment is something that you have a lot of turnover and because people need full-time jobs. i would like to know how much an
incoming tso gets as a full-time employee? what is that salary? >> i don't want to get the number rung up the top of my head. it depends on location obviously, they get locality pay to try to make it equivalent. let me get you the number for the record. it is around 30,000, but i want to get that number. >> to have a high turnover rate in the full-time employment. >> know our full-time is pretty stable it runs between eight and 9%. we have about a 25% turnover rate in the part-time work for. >> one of my colleagues much of the relationship that you have with the police, i think it was singling out the port authority police in new york and new jersey. i had meetings and they said that there is like one police officer assigned to a terminal. do you find that there is enough police capacity and support?
>> i have been looking at that pretty hard. as i travel around i meet with the various law-enforcement agencies that work in the airports. some have more capacity than others, there's no doubt about that. what i'm finding in the large airports is that for the most part they understand their mission, they take very seriously, they're working the public areas of the airport, we also have a reimbursement program as you know which reimburses that for the time they spent in and around the checkpoints. we put alarms into every school chest checkpoint so that there is a rapid response in event of a emergency. >> i just need you to know that you have an extremely important job to do. for me, i do not care sometimes about being inconvenient, i want to get on the airplane and know that i'm going to get there safely. i appreciate what i appreciate what you have to contend with. i just want to make sure that i understand what you need so i
can fight for what you need so that i can make sure that we are safe and that your agency has the resources it needs. think of a much and i yelled back. >> the chair recognize the chairman of the transportation subcommittee. >> thank you mr. chairman. good morning. i want to stay preliminary that i appreciate the effort for working with the subcommittee, tracking on behalf of the offices. i appreciate your commitment of trying to get things done and politics aside. the something peak my curiosity today, that is the fee count for pre-check. there's a bill in the senate now that they want to see. [inaudible] talk about the fees with that. what is the $85 going towards? >> is a set of primarily covers the full program costs. there's a component that reimburses the fbi for the check that they do.
there's a component of the fee that covers tsa's administrative cost into self funding programs. the pace for the overhead and the staff to do that. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> who pays for those costs. >> we would have to find the money someplace. >> so let's say $85 is in fact the cost and you want to roll ten more people, that means 850,000,000 dollars he would have to find somewhere else in your budget is that right? >> that is right. >> that's kind of insane isn't it. >> i like self funded program. >> the bottom line is i want to make sure that we understand the the direct tsa to partner more closely with the private sector and have basically competition if you will in the pre-check program and that would help
drive cost upper that's a goal of it. with that incentive do you believe that bill would help you achieve the higher numbers in pre-check? >> what that bill does is codify what we're trying to do right now which is to increase competition in the private sector with the hope of that competition driving the cost down. >> okay. good enough. with respect to i want to talk to you about the bonuses that were given out. their system and tsa whereby subordinates can nominate superiors for bonuses or put them in for bonuses? >> apparently there was a system that allow that. that system does not exist under my leadership. >> you stop that. >> i absolutely have. >> there is a system any stop that, i commend you for doing that. i don't understand -- >> right now it requires approval by me and then secondly by the department for any bonuses awarded to senior executive. >> and if i may switch gears one more time. i know we we talked
about a lot of different topics. the international organization that certifies the minimum level of competence for airports is that correct. >> that's correct. >> to rely on how many hits the ik a level and that's all you care about? >> as you know that were signatory to the i ko treaty, and that sets us a standard around the world for security. from my perspective you have to continuously pay attention to the standards and drive them up higher. in fact i recently met met with the i ko counselor in montréal. there's a general assembly this year and i push for an aggressive security agenda and we continue to drive that. in advance of that we looked at every place that services u.s. directly away put a significant additional requirements in place to ensure that we are comfortable with the screening and overview standards that they're using. >> so i want to ask a couple of things with that. with respect of the last point
of departure airlines, that's what i'm interested in, how important are these lcds to to have body scanners at the airports? >> i think body scanners may be the right answer depending on where you're looking. what what i'm most concerned with is are they effectively screening. i can understand why some places may not have a full body scanner, they don't have one they have to have some of the things in place to equip and to be equivalent to that. you can can do that by full-body pat downs, by explosive trace detections another mean. >> is explosive trace detections important to have at these airports question. >> again we like to see that. we have been working with i ko and other partners to push that equipment out. in the absence of that i want i want to see some very stringent additional requirements that make up for the lack of that as we try to build the capacity. >> how about document
verification machines are they important as well? >> that's important for me. if someone's going to the united states want to know who they are. >> so if you took out all three, if you head and apart without body scanners, explosive scanners, explosive trace equipment, didn't have document verification machines, and had trouble, if not incompetent canine teams, with those airports have those things lacking with a because of concern for you. >> i would play very close attention to airports like that. i want to make sure that they meet the proper status for a smack in the i will ask about this, and that is the personnel at the airport is it important for you to know how the personnel are trained and whether or not they are given adequate security background checks? >> that is part of what we try to verify when we go into for less points of the parts sure to
see if they're meeting standards that are appropriate for testifying to the question. >> thank you. i you'll back. >> we recognize mr. payne. >> think mr. chair. mr. -- you have a very difficult job here and i just want you to know that a lot of us appreciate your efforts in making sure that the final checkpoint before our citizens get onto airplanes safe along with the tso. you indicated that the tso's with behavioral detection training are being integrated into checkpoint document checkers. you also said that these have been granted unprecedented flexibility, would you have a problem with the fsd using a bd
over checkpoint screening yourself? >> if they determined that is their highest need at that moment, i have no problem with that. they have that authority to do that. >> okay. in april the faa announced they be re- designating north liberty international airport which is by district as a level ii slot controlled airports starting in october. potentially increasing the number of flights arriving and departing from the hub. how is tsa prepared to deal with the increase their traffic and the larger number of passengers that will come in with this designation. i know there have been great efforts over the past week to alleviate some of the time in newark and we appreciate you looking at that and trying to be helpful as possible.
but if this comes in october, naturally but we have done until this point will need to be reevaluated and looked at again. i know several tso's are coming online as well as we move forward. would you take a look at that knowing that this is going to change? >> yes sir. in fact what this increase collaboration with the airlines airports is helping us to receive problems like this in a way that we had not seen in the past. i do not want to get caught by surprise by something like that because as he save you increase space dramatically we have to be prepared to receive those. we've been working closely with the airlines and that airport to understand what that might look like. when we think will begin to see that so we get in advance of that, i know couple of major airlines there are already
considering something they might deal with in respect to increase automation at the checkpoint and increasing availability and we are pushing resources into newark and will continue to do so. >> we had an incredible subcommittee hearing just the other day. we had several of the airports come in and really share with us and i think with the chairman there and the willingness to try to work with tsa on these issues , they were quite a few major airports and hubs that were here to speak. moving forward we would like to continue to get that collaboration that we think might not have been there to this point or not to the level it needs to be. let me just say also that i have been echoing this every opportunity that i have gotten
this past several days. we really need to look at our tso's and see what the compensation level is for them. they have a very important job. they are the last line of defense for some catastrophic situation to happen. i do not know how many people can raise a family on what we might think is 30,000 dollars in this country, so we need to even look at the compensation of the tso's and understanding that they have a thankless job first of all. they are on the front line and they should be compensated in a manner of what the imports of their job is. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes --
>> thank you mr. chairman. at the the beginning of your testimony said that your first point of focuses is the focus on the mission. i pulled pulled up your mission statement for tsa and it says, protect the nation's transportation system to ensure freedom of movement for people in commerce. i've been reading reports and your agents in the midst of this crisis and making sure that in the increase of terrorism threats that people are able to fly safe and we don't have another terrorist attack in america. that also people are able to move quickly to get to where they need to be. but i've seen reports that your agents are being pulled to support things like presidential campaign events, concerts, sporting events, and other things. i do not see that anywhere within your core mission in your core responsibilities. so my first question is, under what authority is tsa screening americans on their way into a sporting or concert, or presidential campaign rally and
secondly, where does that fit into the priorities. if everything if everything we've heard today about the importance of keeping our transportation save and making sure that people can get there in a timely member manner and diverting a crisis, where's the priority of supporting these events that have nothing to do with your core mission? >> right now we provide support to secret service when they asked, under an intergovernmental service agreement. we currently have details, there is standby. we have 75 people on standby to assist with the presidential security events over the course of the summer we will likely be asked -- >> events or campaign? >> will likely be asked to do this at convention. wherever secret service is. >> the reports has been over 250 events. >> we have hundred 50 events. >> we have support of events around the country. i've been working with people to
let them know that were in our own crisis right now and would like to have as many of those people back as possible. >> so prioritization, you don't get to say no? >> with secret service we support that because that is a pretty important mission and for the federal government we are the screening experts. >> look, i agree it's important to make sure that people attending these large-scale events are say. but i do not see that anywhere in the core competency of tsa. in your mission, do you agree mark. >> our core mission is transportation security speemac's a possibly would you agree that we can work on a better way that people going to concerts are safe, while allowing you to focus on your core mission? >> i would like to be fully focused on my car mission. >> okay, thank you. secondly i sent you a letter on april 12 asking a number of questions related to the issues that are hearing today. i asked if you get back to me by april 26, about 29 days ago, have not heard back yet. i am wondering what i might be getting an answer to that letter?
>> let me find that i don't know i. >> and mr. chairman i ask unanimous consent to chairman i ask unanimous consent to put my letter into the record and ask to re- respond in writing to that. >> without objection. >> tomorrow the subcommittees going to be holding a hearing bring representatives of airports, my seo of the airport is going to be there and she participated in a roundtable we had last week where we had a very fruitful and vigorous discussion on some of their concerns and ideas. a couple of things that we're seeing going on in a small airport like tucson, people are paying $85 to go to pre-check, there given their biometric information to the government. then there showing up at the airport in the pre-check lane is closed. we have two terminals and on average the pre-check lane is only been over five hours a day for the two terminals with little to no flexibility. this is a concern we are hearing from around the country. if people are going to spend the money and the time to go through that pre-check lane needs to be open. are you aware of this issue and is there anything in the works to rectify this? >> ask him i am aware of this issue. my goal is to get the pre-check lanes open throughout the day so that they are available when passengers arrive. some of that is a staffing issue
and some of that is a scheduling issue. the focus that we are putting now on daily, hourly operations is showing us where we are having a problem. some of that is best practices across the system. some of that is availability for people to go through that. in the absence of that the other thing we're doing is dramatically changing the way we move people through. so you you move pre-check people to the front of the line and you get them through and a pre-check way even if the standard line, opening up the pre-check lane or the line even if you don't have enough people to open that lane at that moment. so you lane at that moment. so you have to build enough capacity or enough volume to justify pulling the bodies off the opening pre-check lane. my goal is to make sure that if we are in the promise of a service to people that we can deliver that service. >> one of the other things at the roundtable and i'm sure we'll hear tomorrow on the record is the feeling by the airlines and airport authorities
that the lack of flexibility by the fses to work in partnership with the airline and airport authority to make tactical decisions. they feel like there's a top-down approach coming from washington, dc. in tucson this is worse because we are part of the spoke operation where fse is in phoenix. even if you're giving flexibility to that person, the leader in tucson is still stuck with top-down answer coming out of washington, d.c. and sometimes phoenix. are you willing to relieve some of that and allow more bottom-up decision-making so that the leader on the ground for tsa, at that airport can make -- >> absolute, that's the message i been sending out consistently. i go back to my military model. if i'm a field commander and i have resources i know it my mission is and i want to be able to do that to the best my ability and reach out as any. >> they are told that their hands are tied in their being directed by washington, d.c. when the project open. >> i have new leadership now that is not following that model. i've made it very clear that they do. i am checking on that to make sure. >> things of that should not
dangerous places in the world to help keep our people say it tsa has expressed a willingness to turn to these programs despite requests from airport operators. we have had committee testimony were the american can cargo airlines testified support to that and that a patient security council moving towards the certification program can you tell us given the will supply and growing demand what tsa can do to improve the situation to incorporate nhtsa screening -- i am open to that i have had conversations about that.
>> do you have the resources to move forward? >> by the oversight staff that? i have the staff that i have for the current k-9 program and they can work with private vendors but the challenges associated we have to work with local law-enforcement there is a protocol if the dog finds something what do i know -- what do i do now? >> you think the inhibiting factor isn't money? >> is coordinating with local law enforcement. >> party that is the willingness to explore this. >> you have said in so many groups. >> i think we should i take
we should explore the options particularly it with cargoes screening and other types better off airport property that have to be done. >> we work to this committee and law-enforcement it seems to function with this as well and looking at those taskforce models it is important to upgrade and that serves as a very visible deterrent. >> with predictive data it is relatively straightforward we're doing that right now with the airlines but i have focused daily now that i intend to become operative beecher includes the airlines in the airport's to be a more realtime and not just after the fact but more so what is
coming and then in realtime. >> keep me informed in terms of the canine -- k-9 program banks for everything you are doing under the tough situation and i yield back. >> thank you for your candid this to this committee we saw the shooting in lax last year of vulnerability of the transportation hub does the tsa have a role of the non to caria? >> we do with setting standards and expectations my primary role is the checkpoint in the baggage area we work very closely to guard the public areas as
well. >> that may have happened before your appointment with that covert testing with the vulnerabilities and some changes had been they have you found that have improved the ability to do with the checkpoints? >> there is a roll going into details with an open setting but we have a ways to go buy it is significantly improved for that training that we did in the change of focus helped considerably considerably as i met with the attorney-general that will take place over the course over the next few months but don't give the exact schedule but i look forward to working with him if he validates what we're finding
>> with your efforts to get more people on free screening is that just a delay over to a free screening? >> no. you can move almost double the speed of the pre-check lines so right now even with a dramatically increased numbers 92 percent late less than five minutes for their screening so that is a significant improvement. >> you think that would uphold? >> because now we can work more consistently open those planes and more of them that volume now gives me the ability. >> i yield back.
>> i represent one of the biggest economies in new orleans is tourism so he talked mardi gras or jazz best or any of those events selassie want is have a good time but then a bad taste in their mouth because they waited in the airport like. specifically, do we have the ability to grant over time if they do need more employees? >> yes. we do grant that. >> can we have a hard working agents in we did have an incident last year were had to use deadly force but it was done by the book what about k-9 teams?
that worked tremendously well can we get a permanent one where do recall on the list? >> i will give you the exact priories but i would like to expand our passenger screening k-9 beyond a we currently have right now a push them to the largest airports and my plan is to back fill those as to bring war on board. >> i have read in the know about your goal to increase the pre-check passengers let me just say i'm opposed to the baggage peas i think it is abominable the price of gas has gone down an airline ticket prices have remained
the same i think baggage peas is another way to dig into their pocket but at the same time it pushes the kerry wants through the security checkpoints so the margin of error now that we have millions up more bags i think at some point if you want to push them to preach check bent the airlines cannot chair when dash charge baggage these the nimby to help the american people so do think the number of bags with through the checkpoint is problematic? to read there is a lot of pressure about four times of
what is checked so that is why we encourage the airlines to help in force that one plus one rule every additional bag comes through is a potential slowdown to the process because what i of noticing once you get to the gate also said the flight is will be will complementary check your bag so the you have this back up at the checkpoint than once you get there to the gate they say now we will check them for free if they're going out to do that into that on the front and to alleviate your pressure to help us protect the american people so i would hope you would look at that. i will switch topics a little bit space know you're going out to bid for your
itn your secure flight program and i would ask that you look at using shared services from your payroll and others that have a great software development team i think they can help you get your need to market and service a little faster than your processing think will save a tremendous amount of money so i asked your entertained using a shared service to develop the software for the secure flight program you were looking for. >> and a. >> thanks for being here. mr. teeeighteen name from georgia and part of the jackson airport is one of
the busiest in the world and it is a major problem with the backlog by just stepped outside a few minutes ago to have a picture taken with some visitors and they were telling me this morning. this morning one common to be had to wait 30 minutes. it is unacceptable what is happening. i want to make sure we're on the same page. until recently opened in the south checkpoint with the radio frequency identification hopefully that will help the we have spoken before about privatization and as julian big on privatization in the airports are indicating
beyond the scope of a bureaucracy i don't get the warm and fuzzy feeling your increasing privatization congress pass the screening partnership program what you doing to implement that? you need to be on the other side of the table to oversee this as opposed to being here. >> we made a lot of changes to streamline the process i was concerned it takes a long time i have said repeatedly i will work within the airport i have directed airports like atlanta to talk to san francisco. there are things that we can
do we're somewhat tempered -- hibbard but his contract to the federal government. >> you say you are hampered? >> we follow the contract the rules. en to give fans had the opportunity. >> i want to streamline the process. because it is up to the airport to determine if we advertise availability. and to bring that person what has changed over the
past year. >> a couple of other things. that is where you do the training. civic i train the private screeners as well. >> cannot get the same type of training but it appears to me by these conversations that is the problem with the local senior tsa representatives that they're not communicating. >> you mean those in the field?
that is why there was some leadership then structural changes. we already had that authority in my opinion. to drive the last operation -- operations from headquarters. >> but i feel like what is happening is we're creating a giant bureaucracy that will never be broken down. and then to go towards privatisation. that is not performing to the al but no the first things they taught as with the georgia legislature it will stop digging. i encourage you to look to the privatization that is the route.
>> i yield back. i appreciate you being here it has been a large -- a lot of warning. :your comments on the of philosophy of getting passengers through through the checkpoints quickly and how you balance that. >> first and foremost, you learn the lesson of hard way suite was imperative that we refocus not the fault of the front line workforce if you do that so that was the first base a lot to ensure you do that as unfair as efficiently as possible isn't exclusive but there
are efficiencies to be gained but the work i undoing is the management piece that is the greatest opportunity to fix that. tsa still operates the way it was in the past 30 years with the software and the x-ray machine. and to process people really well. >>. >> and how tsa works with individual airports. but are you getting that kind of support when they
build a new terminal? to provide input and guidance how to decide is such a way to improve the efficiencies? and folks forget that. are you getting the, a&m support from the airport personnel of the non security past hysterically have gotten great support from airlines and airports so with the appropriate checkpoints. but tsa needed to do a better job in in beijing at the local level we always
had to a good relations but with individual airport. so we work hard at pushing to get them the engaged with the current challenges and find that if they have plans to modernize the infrastructure. with some new space and allows us to operate better. >> blast one is a comment not a question line now we are talking about the big airports but flying back to washington d.c. from texas i appreciate your willingness
to work with us with this small town in airports benefit from the economic vintages some things you. >> thanks for being here today earlier this week kelly hogan was removed from his post another committee hearing talk about the $90,000 bonuses as well i want to ask a couple questions what is his eighth annual salary? >> beginning level is 180,000. >> can you confirm if he is on paid administrative leave? >> yes. he is.
so that is $500 a day and according to the policy i would like to read that for the record. is states managers must decide with the continued employer workplace they pose a threat to others against government property to the jedi government interest. so in the case of him, mr. neffenger which applies? >> we are resolving this. to wanted to make bell leadership change and they did for a new direction going forward. we are working the process and we will work very rapidly. >>. >> so why is he made the
choice on paid administrative leave? >> a very short-term decision to make the neck steps and move forward with the new direction. >> i will respect that so short term can you give us an idea? >> i intend to determine that this week. >> of their places to dig out of those voluntary expenses the one that testified from maine with the 100,000 expense it is it correct you no longer operate under those procedures? >> i discontinued that and i kept the expenses. >> i appreciate that.
with a new chief of operations fell oversee daily allocation of forces and according to your web site those war security operations is responsible for the airport checkpoint in baggage screening operations. is that a fair statement? so are you had a place where you can reveal any long-term plans at this point? >> not a this point. but that overall culture of the tsa of but they expected and what the taxpayer should expect briefly
philosophically we have heard several members talk about that today. odyssey with your background you would not have taken on this position listee felt there were improvements to be made or done. you to share those specifics public to hear the purview what you could turn this in the right direction. >> we have a tremendous work force and i don't say that lightly. how i got to different lines they come from all walks of life with undergraduate degrees and former military so what gave me immediate help was not only a passion and dedication that is one
of the toughest jobs of government. of those 13 ended -- 13,000 individuals who have to remain professional and committed. they did clear focus from leadership fight think about my time in the military it to take people from all walks of life to focus on duties with that response that we have it is a clear sense of purpose i was surprised to discover at tsa there was no true formal training program. to me that is foundational summit is very important faceoff that found in the canopy for the first time
ever the first up the wanted to get that work force connected in a way they had before so now we have a consistent training program and then to teach them so we need to do leadership training and skills training the reason i believe the ship can turn nizolek get the military post vietnam everybody said it was a broken organization and it turned itself around by doing those things to focus on the mission to read engaged with the work force and training across the board. and we already see some good signs and then it is up to
the chairman but i do appreciate your answers. >> thank you for being here today. we have had hearings on security breaches of improper screening employees of airports and vendors we have hearings of the security failures with the investigation that as many as 95 percent of those items that get through those aviation workers but i say
bad not to lay blame with few bayou were brought in at a challenging time for the tsa and there is work to be done and i have noticed you have taken pro-active steps to rectify these problems. , who. it is adjusting convenience to travelers they do have a security risk having them in the and secure area at another tsa is working every day the estimate you have attributed some of the long lines to the personnel departure in the previous year's end the agency has
not yet replaced some of those polled said through the appropriations committees we have repurchased $34 million for the hiring of additional tsa agents. the have concerns additional agents it is and just about getting screeners to the airport but to allocate those resources is strategically to alleviate those long lines that we are seeing. if this stakeholders' repeatedly said they thought the staffing model was fundamentally flawed nobody wants to sacrifice but if we can improve efficiency without sacrificing safety i know that is something we all want to get to i have
heard in the past tsa had the capability to match the work force the passenger load but it dropped instead uses a system with changes to deal with with weather-related delays. is that correct? >> we do use electronic time and attendance system that we still have that flexibility. >> are you looking at commercial technology solutions with airport passenger flow? isn't if so when would that be deployed?
>> working with the airlines directly we have a whole staffing model with the airlines in particular had a very senior level to say here it is read anybody wants to look at the staffing model i think there is work to be done to be flexible and agile enough to meet the demand i am learning there are responding to their peak periods and we saw in chicago the key adjustments that are made the day we had the challenges it dramatically decrease to. >> i am glad to hear you are engaging in that regard and to that point of the staffing model.
are you taking into account the different layouts structures of different airports? there are 15 screening checkpoints but denver only has three. is that something that has been taken into account? >> you have to do that because some airports are big and open with a lot of opportunity to run efficiently but other are very constrained by space with multiple small checkpoints throughout the airport is you have to manage those. >> given that same vein i want to ask this question to you think that federal security director should have more flexibility to determine the local leads of the airports?
>> cry a give complete flexibility but not only to have so much staff to gore around but within the hour resources currently allocated in working with the local airports and airlines and they have the capability to come to me. >> before being here today for your candor and testimony. >> tomorrow morning at 9:00 the transportation committee will hold a hearing with airline authorities and the look forward to that perspective tomorrow. members of the committee may have additional questions and please respond in
writing. >> i did ask for unanimous consent for a letter to read minister cater neffenger. >> without objection pursuant to committee rules thank you for being here today admiral i know that you are a newcomer and the challenges are great but we look forward to working with you to solve these problems for the nation and we thank you for your service. >> we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations]
what has been happening behind the scenes and what are they doing in anticipation of what may happen in philadelphia in july? >> guest: democrats are concerned of lack of unity in the party and they want to have some type of deal between bernie sanders and hillary clinton so the party can come together to defeat the culture of in the fall. sanders is spreading to all the way to the convention so
as part of the dealmaking that debbie wasserman shultz to endorsed clinton in 2008 would step down because sanders supporters have felt she has tilted the steel -- the scales in clinton's direction in san set debates on weekends when other people are doing other activities and recently in the wake of bed chaotic democratic convention in nevada where supporters sought the establishment was not fair how they're allocating delegates so there is real attention directed at ted b. wasserman scholz we have spoken to senior level democrats to said she has to think about stepping down to help the party. there is no indication so in
the last couple hours we had many high-level including the it's a policy or steady haulier or the vice president give us a statement she does have support or whether she will step down to appease the sanders supporters. >> host: there is a democratic senator supporting clinton but there has been a lot of meetings over 48 hours what color plates to deliver her head-on. in these are clinton supporters. there's only one sanders supporter in the senate so the -- they are clinton backers because to the requested anonymity
precontracted the idiots -- did diaz year not disputing those conversations but we get the sense they have heard about them. is and clearly before she was tapped to head that in 2011 she is a survivor in the fighter she is clearly fighting to keep her job she does not want her head of the plate. >> so what public role will she played in philadelphia in july? brother that is all on the platform or the nominee in the concerns that was
expressed to us certainly as it was right now with that chaotic scene. is interesting today after we ran our story is now suggesting she should step down now and sanders himself as if he does not want her to continue as chair and also endorsed her primary opponent so there is no love lost right now between the two. >> host: why is she the target why is there so acrimony and dash her? >> ceramic is how she has handled a few things where including senator reid he was upset at the sanders supporters who very upset at
the establishment. they wanted sanders to come out and condemn the violence with a lot of commotion in people were very upset and sanders back to his supporters he did not condemn violence or chastise his supporters and debbie wasserman shultz expressed disappointment with that also fireback yes sanders supporters and that is the tone of the campaign and the party where republicans appear more unified and who would have thought that would be the case a couple months ago? because the party that is not unified usually loses in the half to be unified one way or another as well as
joe biden or barack obama to broker a peace agreement after everyone votes in the last primary is june 14 in washington d.c. democrats want to end their they want sanders to bounce out at that point but the sanders campaign says superdelegates don't vote until the convention he has every right it is a very tense time in the democratic party right now. >> and they're discussing dropping the party chair the reporter including the managing editor who was on the phone. thanks for being with us. >> madam secretary, if probably give 72 of our
one. [inaudible] >> they shearing will come to order last week a commander of the islamic security guard made headlines around though world that iran could wipe out in less than eight minutes remember this is a savior ron that secretary kerry is promoting as open for business and sadly for months this year agreement few things have surprised me and i expected iran to continue full speed ahead with the intercontinental
ballistic missile program and it has. testing to icbm said the does the secretary of defense says, intercontinental means able to reach from there to hear. we have also seen the testing of ballistic missiles and in case we misconstrue their intent was the word israel must be destroyed that was in farsi but also in hebrew. this will surprise that variants and dismal human rights record continues the torturing continues with two more americans have been taken hostage. ended is a surprise with $100 billion to strengthen the revolutionary guard and others responsible for these abuses.
i am not that surprised that iran they have that program but it was this committee that shows that central flaw that shows nuclear understructure kept in tact in iran does not have to cheat instead it just must wait out the clock but what is astonishing is the link the obama administration does goes to accommodate iran it is bad enough it essentially rewrote counterterrorism was read as hardy responded to the missile test the administration told ss
sanctions is terrorism on their human rights in ballistic missiles to be fully in force after the agreement but now it says those non-nuclear sanctions will undermine the rand agreement what has happened? now the policy amounts to walking:eggshells the obama administration those beyond the agreement to purchase material used in the production as one policy experts summed up we should not pay them for something they should not produce in the first place but the state department takes its advocacy to a new and disturbing level to
capitulate major non u.s. banks that is steadily permitted but encouraged we are acting as the business development of the islamic republic of iran. international businesses must deal with the reality of the revolutionary guard corps not the administration's fantasy where investment can be pushed into the country they hear the warnings of the financial action task force that sets the globe will and the official that was responsible to pass legislation that former
treasury offical was responsible for most of the sanctions architecture that squeezed iran as he wrote in "the wall street journal" why is washington pushing nonbanks that is illegal for american bankers? with the international task force is no banks should be doing last week secretary kerry went so far to sell european leaders are looking at ways to use subsidize investments. where does this stop? iran is still pushing for access to the u.s. dollar given the lack of a new resolve to stand up we are right to pursue legislation and prevent that from happening in a now turn to the ranking member.
>> thank you mr. chairman i am grateful the administration has kept up to speed on the nuclear deal i know there are many areas where we continue to work together on this issue. we're glad to have your voice of the mix and also secretary, mr. szubin you're doing great work even the with your hands tied behind your back there is talk to do what we can to curb the rogue regimes and terrorist groups but that would be to bring your nomination up for a vote. commentary analysis is the
latest cottage industry and i'm sure at this point you know, i oppose the deal i thought we could have done better than we need to ensure that we hold their peace to the fire with the respect to those destabilizing activities and with that implementation to cut through speculation in political noisemaking to give a clear picture how things are moving forward we keep hearing because he has not realized that windfall from sanctions relief it tries to drum up business for iran in this sounds like a political attack i don't think we should make any consensus to iran but it is reasonable for the united
states to clarify what type of transactions against the of lot. businesses continue to shy away and iran's leaders have no one to blame. with human-rights abuses and of ballistic missile program. dennis r. the financial action task force will designate everyone as a high security. and maybe we can shed light and how the united states has responded. i like to hear her but we plan to do it as the president wrote that denies
states reserves the right to maintain and enforce sanctions for those continuing concerns when circumstances warrant. little deep we should be shy about the new sanctions but after the ballistic missile tests late last year but the test was the clear violation of the resolution for a nuclear deal but if anybody continues to rebuild the terror tunnels to stockpiled thousands of rockets is fair to say there would not exist the assad regime to prop up
we are joined by steven, he serves as the lead coordinator for iran nuclear implementation of the department of state and prior to his appointment, he served as the ambassador to poland and state department. we have mr. thomas countrymen who is assistant secretary in the bureau of nonproliferation. he is a senior member and recently served as the deputy of secretary for european affairs. adam is acting under sec. for the office of terrorism and financial intelligence at the department of the treasury. he previously served as directory of treasury foreign asset control. we welcome all three of our witnesses back to the committee and without objection, the full
prepared statement of these witnesses will be made part of the record. members here will have five calendar days to submit any statements or questions or any extraneous record for the record >> thank you very much. it's great to be back here with you again today to talk about where we are in implementing what remains one of the highest priorities of the obama administration. it's a very comprehensive plan of action. so far the j poa has been very cooperative and i think it's important that we recognize what an accomplishment that is towards advancing not only our national security but that of our closest friends and allies, particular those in the middle
east. because of our efforts to date and our success in this agreement, the security of the united states and our partners has been enhanced and in conversation with allies and partners from around the world, we regularly regularly hear support from our closest friends for our deal. as a day in january, they they had completed dozens of specific actions to limit freeze, or roll back its nuclear program and subjected to greater transparency. it included shipping out 25000 pounds, 98% of iran's supply, of enriched nuclear material, cutting its centrifuged program to more than two thirds and subjecting itself to tight controls going forward. destroying the core of the reactor which would have permitted the production of nuclear grade material. they reduced the time it would
take from roughly two months to more than one year. these actions were complemented by the historically comprehensive verification and monitoring measures specified in the jc poa. iran is now subject to the greatest monitoring and verification regime in the history of nuclear power. they provide us with confidence that if they should break out of their commitment, such an attempt would be detected and we would have ample time to respond. at the same time in this deal, we, we have preserved our ability to snap back penalties that made this deal possible in the first place. as of now we have had not had to take those measures because iran is fully compliant with the terms of the deal. as the eye aea verified in february and i expect it will minutes next report in the coming weeks.
we lifted the secondary sanctions on iran in an effort to provide greater clarity to the public and private sector about what was lifted and what remain in place, we have been participating in outreach at the request of our foreign partners and foreign governments in order to explain u.s. commitments under the jc poa. as long as they continue to meet their commitments, we will continue to meet our commitments on sanctions. we have always recognized that the jc poa would not resolve all of our concerns with around and in fact those concerns are still very much active. instead, the jc poa was specifically aimed at addressing the most urgent issue of
ensuring that iran does not have a nuclear weapon. thanks tour efforts to date, we have made significant progress toward that goal and we remain safer because of it. i look forward to your questions later on. >> thank you. >> think investor. >> mr. countrymen. >> members of the committee, i want to thank you for your service and in particular for this invitation. it is always an honor for me. ambassador mole has laid out our progress in the successful implementation of the joint comprehensive program of action. my bureau is focused upon giving full support to those implementation activities and among a number of functions, i would emphasize helping to assure that the atomic energy agency has the independence, the expertise and above all the resources needed for full implementation of the jc poa.
thanks to the support of congress, i am happy to say that the iaea in fact has sufficient resources and expertise to do this mission. in the future, besides the iran mission, the iaea does a number of other functions that are central to u.s. security and i look not only to this administration in congress but to future administration in congress to ensure that the iaea continues to have those important resources, both for implementation of this agreement and for the full range of its functions. in the interest of diligent implementation of the jc poa, it would be extremely valuable for the senate to confirm a holly highly qualified individual, laura holgate to be our full-time confirmed ambassador to the un mission in vienna. while the threat of a nuclear armed iran has been addressed
through implementation of this agreement, we recognize recognize that like every previous arms control agreement negotiated by any administration and arms control agreement does not change the full range of behavior of the partner or adversary with whom we are negotiating. so there remains a need, as both the chairman and ranking member have noted to address the full range of serious misbehavior by the iranian regime. the particular responsibility of my bureau is to address the ballistic missile program of iran as well as a number of other proliferation related efforts in the conventional field as well. we do this through the rigorous implementation of sanctions. that is by designating, in partnership with the department of treasury, those entities entities in around responsible for the weapons program.
we have designated every major entity in iran associated with the ballistic missiles program. we will continue to do so as new information becomes available. at the same time, i will give you my personal opinion that it is not un resolutions or designations or sanctions that cause iran to change its calculus and its interest in the ballistic missile program. what we can do to slow and deter and make their missile choices painfully expensive to the iranian regime is rigorous enforcement of tree strategic trade control. we do that not only in partnership with the wide range of u.s. agency but in partnership with more than 40 countries under the missile technology control regime with more than 100 partner countries under the proliferation security initiative and as a result, all the the legally binding restrictions on missile
technology for iran that are contained in un resolutions are successfully implemented, not to the point, and i admit this first, of preventing iran from a continued interest in these programs, but i can sure you of our continued diligence in using, not just declaratory statement but actual tools of export control to slow iran's progress. of course, beyond my bureau's purview we purview we work closely with our regional partners including the cooperation council and israel to bolster their defenses against a continuing military threat from iran. we have no intention of reducing our focus on iran's other programs, even as we continue with the successful implementation of the jc poa. thank you and i look forward to your questions.
>> thank you for inviting me to appear today to discuss our implementation of the joint comprehensive plan of action, the joint jc poa. very soon after i joined, we saw the progress they were making in their covert nuclear program and understood this was a security threat of the highest order. from that time the talented women and men in my office have devoted literally tens of thousands of hours to address this threat. it's been something i have never seen. working with them to identify and track companies and their movement of funds through accounts. working with the private sector here and abroad to's hold
sanctioned violators accountable and working with our diplomats and foreign counterparts to make clear to iran that the price of their nuclear program was complete isolation from the international community. and working with you and congress, particularly on this committee and a bipartisan effort to sharpen our tools, deepen their impact and bring iran to the table. after nearly a decade, decade, the accumulated pressure had its intended effect. iranian people rejected what their government had laid forth. it brought about elections and a peaceful solution to what had been one of the worlds most largest security threat. there were months away from having the material needed for a nuclear weapon. we are safer now because of this. since iran has kept its end of the deal, we must must uphold ours. it is in our natural national
security interest to make sure it works as intended and stands the test of time. it is important that we fulfill all of the commitments we made in the deal. iran is already seeing benefits under this deal. it has been able to open new bank accounts. it has been able to gain access to billions of dollars in reserve and its oil expert export to europe have returned to a better level. that said, some banks continue to have concerns about doing business in iran. some our are concerned about their financial transparency. the world standard-setting body for money laundering and counterterrorism financing. others are concerned about corruption and regulatory obstacles to conducting business in iran and others are concerned about their provocative behavior with its ballistic missile
testing. iran has to understand what every country in the world understands which is businesses want to go where they feel safe, where they don't see massive controversy and where they can be confident that transactions are going to operate normally. as iran pursues more business it is important for iran to address such problems and create an environment in which businesses feel secure. i've talked a bit about the sanctions relief that we have delivered but i also want to be clear about what this deal does not mean. first, a certain limited exception, the primary embargo on iran remains in place, including the prohibitions on u.s. persons in iran and those accessing markets and bank. along these mind, let me say clearly that we have not promised nor do we have any intent to give iran access to the u.s. financial system or reinstate what's known as the u-turn authorization. additionally, we have maintained all of our sanctions designed to counter iran's activity outside the nuclear file. they have been the leading
sponsor of terrorism and play other negative role in destabilizing the region. under under our current sanctions regime we've dedicated more than 200 officials on the ground including the irg there's subsidiary and others who we continue to target and expose. that also includes major rate iranian defense missile work. indeed since the implementation of the jc poa, we have continue to to target new iranian actors including chief supporters other ballistic missile program and money-laundering individuals. indeed, i can tell you that after many years of targeting has blood, today the group is in its worst financial shape in decades. ultimately we have been and will remain clear eyed about the
nature of the threat posed by iran and we will continue to combat these threats using the range of tools at our disposal including our sanctions and by designating new targets as appropriate. i want to thank this committee again for inviting me to appear today and i look forward to our continued work with your committee and to answer your question. >> thank you and i do appreciate your work in terms of targeting has blood. the legislation that was passed in the committee passed in december and your implementation of that is appreciated. you noted in your testimony that the united states has, in your words, no plans to give iran access to the u.s. financial system. i appreciate that clarification, however that hasn't been the source of our concern. let me be specific here. does the united states have any plans to offer iran the ability to access offshore dollar
clearing facilities to allow for dollar-denominated transactions and easy ability to trade internationally or are there plans for the administration to allow the iranians to conduct large scale dollar transactions and dollar clearing in any form? your testimony, as i heard it studiously avoided that question so let me put that to you. >> thank you chairman for the question and i welcome the chance to clarify an area that i think has been a subject of a lot of confusion and concern. our sanctions, our primary sanctions in the u.s. control what u.s. actors can do and what they cannot do. it governs the conduct of u.s. actors anywhere they reside in the world. for example, branch of the u.s. bank in europe and east asia has to behave like a u.s. person here in washington or here in
new york. our sanctions on the other hand do not control the actions of non-us persons. whether or not the currency they are using is the dollar, the euro, the pant pound or the yen. to be very specific, every foreign bank in the world has u.s. dollars in their possession it is, thankfully the international currency of choice for international trade. that means banks in europe, japan, china, they all hold dollars in their vault. our sanctions don't extend to those dollar bills. foreign actors aren't under our jurisdiction if they choose to give those to any actor including an iranian actor. so i just want to be clear as to the contours of our jurisdiction in response to offshore dollar clearing. >> but that seems to have a different intent than the response the treasury secretary gave me when i asked him in the financial services this
question. i asked the treasury secretary, i think it was two months ago if he stood by his testimony during the agreements consideration which we were assured they would not have access. instead of shutting the door right there, they said the focus was on making sure iran gets relief and two months since the president still has not responded to my letter on this question, so there has been ample time for the administration to bring absolute clarity to this question and the concern is that while iran would not be allowed direct access to the dollar, you could structure a scheme offshore that would have similar impact. so, i just remind you, it's treasury itself, your department has declared the entire area as a money laundering concern. that means any financial transaction with iran or any
offshore scheme that is set up risks supporting the regime's ongoing illicit activities including ballistic missile activities and everything else. let me go to a question for assistant secretary countrymen. >> can i just clarify something. >> yes, you can clarify it but iran is pushing this. i see what they're pushing for, but go ahead. >> i just wanted to clarify, secretary lou has made himself clear on the record in public and we look forward to responding to your letter to be clear in writing as well but he said exactly what i have said today and i know he was looking forward to me being here to relay his view on this. iran will not have access to our financial system. >> personal perfectly fair but when i asked the question the focus was making sure iran gets relief. so, let me go to the next question.
this is to assist the secretary countrymen. last question i will ask here. in your testimony, you put stock in the new un security council resolution and its provisions related to iran's ballistic missile program. now, it's well documented that before the deal iran was legally bound by un security council resolutions not to test ballistic missiles. here's the problem in the negotiation per the first problem, one that members of the committee are already aware of and that is the administration agreed to a change. instead of saying shall not, the change was iran shall be called upon not to. so that was watered down. but there's other language in their, new language that focuses on iranian missiles designed,
and this is something that frankly i missed, designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons while it previously focused on missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, okay. so what was the rationale for using the words missile designed to be capable of instead of simply missiles capable of? >> if i could ask that. >> i don't know the answer. i was not involved in the negotiations. i will get you an answer if i can. i would note that the new resolution does not change the prohibition of any kind of ballistic missile capability to iran. >> but wait, you have the iranian foreign minister saying that that word in these negotiations, he said it took me seven months to negotiate so everybody knew what it meant.
what they're saying now is with the change that iran shall be called upon not to rather than not to, that they can go forward full speed with the program and that's what they're doing. as we sit here, that's what they're doing. it's not as as though they are hiding the intent. they combine that with the rhetoric death to america, death to israel. i just think we have a situation. >> let me let you respond. >> i don't think they've ever had in their to continue to develop ballistic missiles and neither have they slowed down doing so. >> but here's what we've got. we've got a situation now where the security council, what can we point to where we can say the security council now is taking action against iran's missile program? none that i can see. >> i understand we have fewer rhetorical points to make. i don't focus on the rhetoric.
i focus on the active effort to reduce their efforts. i understand their interpretation is different than ours. >> but our difficulty here is that we've now given russia or we've given beijing the ability to interpret this differently. we have forever a less effective constraint on iran's missile program than we had before and on top of that, we now see iran asserting this in the international community and we don't see the pushback from the united states. this is the point i wanted to make. my time has expired and i'll go to our ranking member from new york for his questions. >> thank you mr. chairman. let me ask you this. when congress was considering whether to oppose a nuclear deal with iran, where their various
statements of the non- nuclear behavior,, were those things outside the scope of the deal? >> since implementation we've heard a different message. >> no new sanctions. we've heard that from the administration. no new sanctions even if they are outside the scope of the deal. so can you clarify for the administration's position because i thought we were told that in their support that we could stop additional sanctions and it would not violate the jcp oa. if iran had launched missiles and we wanted to penalize them, that would not but heads with
the jcp oa, but now we hear differently so would the administration veto none no new sanctions against iran? thank you ranking member angle. let me. >> let me also say when you give the answer that the nuclear sanctions violate. >> i would also ask mr. malta come in after i give the the answer to add his input. to the contrary you have seen the administration introduce more sanctions in the area you
are talking about. we have been continuing on our path to knock out the key proxy that these companies are using to procure materials and move money. we've been very consistent on that from our statements announcing the deal and throughout, including including less than two months ago new designations against on air and against the missile companies within iran that work with the industrial group. with respect to new legislation, the administration's view consistently has been that there is no inconsistency with the jcp oa if it is outside the nuclear space so long as it doesn't undermine and interfere with our commitments to fulfill what we
committed to fulfill in the deal then the question becomes very much what specific legislation looks at and what are the details. >> i think the president has the authority under existing law to sanction iran and the president has which i support, i think it's not so terrible to have congress come up with new sanctions if we feel iran is violating its agreements. certainly the launching of the ballistic missile, the cherry chairman spoke about that with death to israel on it. to me that as a provocation. when they continue to support terrorists, that's a provocation. i think sometimes it's important for the congress to speak out on these things.
we've been having a lot of hearings on iran in the implementation of j poa and some of our previous hearings, some of our witnesses have said if the congress would have come out with new sanctions it would give it that little extra edge. it would really send a message to iran that we are aware of what they're doing and were not tolerating it. it's true that the president could implement and has the authority to implement new sanctions without the congress acting but i think it's important that the congress acts. i just hope that the administration would seem to lessen its objection to congress coming forward with new sanctions because after all when the jcp oa was put in front of the congress we were told specifically that it would not affect further sanctions against
iran for things other than their nuclear program which would be terrorism and ballistic missiles and some other stuff. that continues to be our view. i do want to point out that congress sanctions comparable contribution continues to be very potent right now. i failed to mention that's i'm glad i have the opportunity. when we announced new sanctions that have to do with iranian actors, thanks to congress in your efforts, those sanctions do not just touch u.s. actors. they have secondary or extraterritorial effects around the world which means of the financial institution in east asia, africa, europe, africa, europe or the golf engages in transactions with any of the missile actors or human rights actors, thanks to congress they face the secondary sanctions, namely a cut off, a potential
cut off from the u.s. financial system. those are supercharged sanctions and that's only thanks to congress effort. those stand those stand behind every designation that we issue even since the implementation. >> that's a good point not by the chairman and i both feel so strongly that congress needs to continue to be involved and if we need to issue further sanctions it does not violate our obligation under the jcp oa to do soap and i'm just wondering quickly if you can add anything to that. >> thank you very much, they stated very clearly that we new sanctions on iran's behavior outside the scope of the nuclear agreement would not be a violation of the jape see poa. we been very clear about that publicly as well as directly with our iranian counterparts when they try to make that argument. we've been very clear throughout the negotiations and recently with our last meeting with the iranians we had sanctions on such things as missile launches which are inconsistent with the
security resolution and those actions will continue to have consequences from the united states government. there's no doubt about that in the congress. >> we go to chris smith of new jersey. >> thank you very much. thank you for your very vigorous oversight of the iranian deal. let me just a couple of points and mental ask a question or two. this week, as we all know, our nobel peace prize president lifted the arms embargo on a cruel dictatorship to iran. they asked them not to do it and he did it anyway. words are cheap in washington. two weeks ago i had a hearing right here with the wife of a
man, a human rights defender that i had met in 2005. he's a tremendous man. he's fighting for fundamental human rights. he is in prison. many of us said if you're going to give something, please ask very specifically for the release of these prisoners and not just people and get nothing in return. officials repeatedly testified that the deal in no way would impact our pressing iran on human rights yet administration has only sanctioned one iranian official for human rights abuses iran is a cruel dictatorship that uses torture to hurt and even kill people. why is that the case? why is there not more robust efforts on human rights. secondly credibility and messaging, even if it's clever and aggressive needs to be honest.
a may 5 new york times article paints a highly disturbing insight into the administration with the deal and the american people, the new york times piece magazine notes that the narrative that was wrote shaped the a story of in iran deal that began in 2013 with an infection led by the ronnie regime. they point out it was actively misleading to convey in impression that people would follow up and say things have changed. they state in the article that we created an echo chamber with an onslaught of experts cheerleading for the deal. he said they were saying things that have validated that we had given them to say. he also points out that he was able to spoonfeed 27-year-old reporters who knew nothing about this foreign-policy and then
they with these so-called experts constantly in the echo chamber. that's not the way to do a deal. it needs to be honest and transparent. when you do things like this, you're duping our ranking number and i felt the sense of, are we missing something here and the more we looked at the deal with the more we knew that was true. what's your view of this new york times magazine piece and finally, last time you were here i asked you a very specific question about the iranian material and you set it have been taken out, put on a russian vote vessel and that we didn't know where it went. we know where it is now? has there been been a u.s. validation as to its whereabouts and whether or not it's under lock and key? >> thank you very much for those very good questions. on human rights, there there has
been no doubt about the strength of u.s. dealing with this disturbing human rights situation in iran. we made that very clear publicly in repeated reports and i can affirm to you that in every meeting in which i participated with sec. carrie with iranian counterparts, we made very clear our concerns and in fact, it, it was those concerns that really motivated our effort to get every human rights violation as a serious one. we are most concerned with the human rights of americans. our concern about that motivated our very hard work to win the release of american detainees in iraq earlier this year. i know secretary carry feels passionate about these issues and will continue to remain engaged. as for the other issue, i've
never seen an international agreement that has had greater transparency than the iran nuclear deal. it was released in full to the public on the very date. >> i'm almost at a time, we could read the it for protocol, could we, i don't know what they're doing. do we take we take them for the word? transparency, that has a little*on it i would suggest. >> they continued to report to report and will continue to do so. we briefed the congress dozens of times throughout the negotiation and since then we have been available in open and close session to do so. finally your question about the material that was removed from iran, to russia. i was in russia last month and can confirm that material is secure in russia. there is no risk of its further proliferation.
i would be very pleased to discuss that in close detail with session with more detail. >> people in this country want us to get along with everyone around the world. we long for peace and there are those who say that sanctions contradict that. when you look at what iran has done in syria, hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million people killed by ashad with funds provided, weapons provided, thugs, thugs provided by the iranian government, when you see people killed by barrel bombs in searing gas, we realize that the right response to the iranian regime cannot be combined.
the house was divided on the iran deal but we were united on one thing, sanctions work. thanks to to you and your predecessor, you proved they work by making sure that they work. some believed that the sanctions got us a good deal. some believe the sanctions would of got us a better deal. the only agreement was sanctions work. i join with the ranking member and saying that we ought to have sanctions and i think you for clarifying that that will happen. i know that the department of treasury does additional designations so you are doing your job and we need to do our job bypassing statutes. is it correct to say that the administration's view is that simply reauthorizing the sanctions act would in no way violate the jcp oa? >> to be honest congress congressman, we are aware of interest in this house to reauthorize the ifa. we don't believe that we need to
act on it now because it's valid through the end of this year. >> sometimes congress likes to get our work done. i didn't ask you the house schedule. we might want to get our work done sooner or later. is it a violation of the jcp oa to simply keep our statute going the way it was the day the jcp oa was assigned? >> 's or i would be hesitant to speculate because i know under previous efforts to re-extend it there have been other things added onto that. >> again, if it were published in the exact language that existed on the day the jcp oa was signed, would that be a violation of the jcp oa? >> while again sir we would have to look at what was actually published. >> you know what's published, you don't want to answer the question. technical legal question, you
talked about branches of u.s. banks. does that apply equally to subsidiaries or does it depend on how its authorized? >> it does depend. >> you need legislation saying that the u.s. bank that owns a subsidiary would be subject to penalties if it allowed its subsidiary to do what the branch could not do? >> the distinction does exist and that's not unique to iran. that cuts across the program. >> of course. >> i can tell you in practice, i don't know of a single subsidiary or financial institution that is considering doing this business considering their global platform. >> i'm not aware of a problem either, but new legislation would be helpful. you referred to the airline and congressman henry and i had sent a letter to the eu ambassador saying that you should designate
that airline under the sanctions per they cannot fly without round service. they are now getting ground service from two companies, airport handily and ahs group which is based in germany. these same service companies also service u.s. airlines and put aside the terrorist risk of having the handlers do both. with the treasury department consider listing these two airport handling companies from doing business with them christmas. >> thank you very much for your comments. we can't say who we will designate in the future but the continued ability of them to fly around the world as if they are legitimate has been raised in
every capital that i visited and i don't believe it should be treated like a regular airline. >> the way to do it would be to designate these handlers and i . out that our friends in the ukraine ask us for so much you would think they would have listened to you when you made that point and as we made that point here. we have three major auto manufacturers including the at chrysler and mercedes investing in auto manufacturing in iran. it's only a matter of time before the product of these investments, which are also being made by volvo, will be used by the i rgc. would investing in auto factories that are producing transportation for the i rgc be sanctioned? >> any type of material support would be sanctionable. >> what if you build an auto factory that sells its trucks to the i rgc?
>> typically what we are looking for is if we are looking at a company that is working with designated terrorist group, investment in a firm that creates cars that are subsequently appropriated by the i rgc would be somewhat appropriated. >> not appropriated, just sold. you can't say, my auto dealer cooperates with me. i take my auto in for service and he's a cooperative guy. are you saying auto manufacturing facilities that sell trucks to the i rgc are going to be uncooperative? >> no, but i might like the name of your auto dealer because i don't have that experience. [laughter] what i'm saying is what were looking at in going after new designation targets are looking for those working with terrorists.
>> i would ask you to look at these investments and in addition to sanctioning those who do the wrong thing, warning those who are thinking of doing the wrong thing, whether you choose to do it publicly or privately, and i look forward to giving you the address of fiat chrysler, volvo and mercedes. i yield back. >> thank you. i think his point is more banks, more ticketing agents, more, more ground service providers and other countries that are providing support should be sanctioned. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i would like to thank you and the ranking member for taking very seriously the responsibility that we have to oversee what we disagreed on with you in terms of the congress disagreed with you,
many of us did, on this agreement with a regime in iran. the jcp oa was the purpose, i take it was and what we were told was to basically prevent iran from at some point obtaining the capability of mass destruction on what it considered to be under the command of the great satan, meaning israel in the united united states and anybody else who disagrees with them. they did not want to have the right to obliterate their enemies or at least not the right but the capability and this agreement was supposed to prevent that and today we have
three witnesses for basically saying that it was a good agreement and it's brought us to a safer world. what is concerning to me is when we go back, and as the chairman has pointed out that the agreement is so has flaws and perhaps some intentional flaws. one flaw would be that it expires after a certain length of time and so we can see iran moving toward that goal unimpeded now to get themselves to a point after expiration they will be able to then have the power and the force that they want, but even more disconcerting to me is that the flaw is that the treaty may well have contained what i call weasel words, i was a journalist
for a number of years and it is very easy to find out when someone really is trying to lie to you without lying to you. they do as they put something in , they word something in a way that appears to be accomplishing something that is not accomplishing. as the chairman just pointed out in his questioning that the actual words were changed to make them less enforceable. now shouldn't that be a warning sign to anybody who really takes this treaty seriously and how do you explain that? >> they had two or three examples where, let me give you one that i'll ask you about.
basically, we have a situation where a rocket is designed and as long as it's not designed to carry a nuclear weapon, the iranians now, because we changed, there is a weasel a weasel word put into the treaty that they now can work and obtain that nuclear weapons delivery system as long as it wasn't designed to be a nuclear weapons delivery system. that was changed to the point before where they would not have been permitted that. why was that changed? >> as i noted, i was not involved in the negotiation of that word in negotiation. i do not agree that this is a dramatic difference difference in the effect of the resolution. >> okay it's not a dramatic difference. in one word it absolutely prohibited them from getting a rocket that could deliver a nuclear weapon system. after the wording it permits them to have a because the
strict definition of what the word is they now have an opening to possess a nuclear weapons delivery system. that's not dramatic? that's huge. except it's been hidden with weasel words. >> there remains an absolute prohibition in that resolution of anyone. >> missiles that were designed to deliver nuclear weapons, not technology that can achieve that goal. the fact is if he can carry a nuclear weapon, even if it's not designed to do so, maybe it's maybe it's designed to put up satellites. we don't want them to have that if that indeed will permit them to drop a nuclear weapon in washington d.c. with a missile
using as a delivery system. you don't call the automatic, that is very dramatic and i think the people of the united states and we have been dissed served, there's been a disservice to us in our security by this type of, and i say weasel words again, by this type of deception. i believe it's a deception to make people think you're actually accomplishing something you're not accomplishing. let me tell you, the interpretation, this is not a problem of interpretation. this is a problem with actually a negotiation failure that we have obviously reached an agreement with them, which is a regime that murders their own people and we've reached an agreement with them which they know will permit them to achieve their objective. this was not a good treaty to begin with. i appreciate your testimony but obviously i disagree with it. >> we go to gerry connolly of virginia. >> thank you and welcome to our panel. mr. ambassador, the iran
agreement addressed their support for hezbollah, right? >> no. they addressed. >> will certainly it address the issue of money laundering. >> no. >> syrian asad support? no. >> terrorism? >> no sir. >> no sir. >> yemen. >> no sir what about expression of death to america or death to israel. surely we address that? >> no sir. >> what did it address? >> it address limiting the capability to develop material to build a nuclear weapon. >> will that's a unique approach. surely in the cold war, with the soviet union we had a different model. we addressed every negative
behavior the soviets were behaved and in every agreement we approached including the reagan administration. is that not correct? on like this agreement. >> no so sir, that's not correct. >> will let's get to this agreement. did this agreement require iran to modify the research reactor and fill the reactor with concrete? >> yes sir did they do that? >> yes sir. >> oh my lord. did it require the reduction of installed centrifuges from 19000. >> yes sir. >> and they did did they achieve that? >> yes sir, they did did. >> did it require iranian enrichment be reduced? >> yes sir.
and did they achieve that? >> yes sir. did they also reduce their stockpile and the rest of it was shipped out of the country? >> yes sir they did that. >> and you witnessed where it's being stored in russia? >> i confirmed in russia where it's being stored. >> today agreed to the inspection and limitation on center fuse production and uranium mines and mills under surveillance by international offices? >> yes or. >> and have a complied. >> yes. >> and has the international accounting agency verified that. >> yes sir. >> and have we verified that. >> times up. >> yes sir we have. >> really? well i have to admit, here's this second hearing, we've had over 30 hearings in this and oh my gosh, i tell you, i was worried. i had trouble sleeping when i listen to my colleagues predict
cheating, stealing center fuse invasion, and i hear you tell me well maybe they wanted to do that but they didn't and so now that were having hearing on compliance, were talking about every thing but compliance. were talking about other behavior. other behavior which is to be condemned. that is to be condemned. i condemned it. did the agreement prohibit for any purpose? >> have we prohibited under this agreement at looking at new sanctions on unrelated behavior, that is to say unrelated to the nuclear agreement. >> that's correct. >> so were not prohibited? >> were not prohibited. >> we could have other sanctions for their support to has blood, for for example. >> yes, absolutely. >> yes or. >> the gentleman asked the question early on. >> would you like an answer to
that or. >> the gentleman will withhold. >> otherwise i would but i'll have time. >> these are a smokescreen for not addressing the main issue and the other argument used which is clever but still flawed is perfect is the enemy of good. the fact that we couldn't achieve them forever first wearing any nuclear ability means this is flawed. i thought we hadn't even talk to them for 30 years so to get to them to comply to this seems to be some kind of achievement. why don't you comment because my time is up. >> yes sir, we believe it is an achievement. we believe that we and our
allies are considerably safer because of the achievements. while it is true that certain restrictions on iran's capability on it stockpile and so forth experience expire after a certain period, their commitment to access is in prematurity so whenever they believe they are moving to develop a nuclear military applet application, it will report as such regardless of when that happens and we have every capability through the law and previous executive orders to respond immediately to put back in place the very pressures that brought about this deal in the first place. we are very confident that we have the tools to make sure that
the security from this deal is long-lasting and if it's not we can change and turn the tables and go back to the status quote. >> now to the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you. i yelled ten seconds to mike colleague. >> just to answer his point which was yes, in the reagan administration, it was different, the fact is that the reagan administration our goal was to bring down the soviet union and even as we negotiated with them on various treaters treaties, we had efforts across the globe to bring down that government which is exactly what we should be doing with this regime and were not doing. >> again, thank you so much. >> i want to thank also congressman emma the ranking member elliot ingle. i was grateful to actually vote with both of them opposing this dangerous deal. sadly as we hear more and more about it, it becomes more
dangerous and it's so sad that we have a routine which is oppressing the people of iran and they continue to proclaim death to america, death to israel. that has not changed. i just just find it incredible. my concerns, have been verified through the iaea report and that is that early march the head of the international atomic energy agency disclosed that certain agreements reached under the deal limit inspectors from publicly reap porting on potential violations by the regime. the director general of the iaea which is ensuring iran is in compliance is that he is no longer permitted to release
can say though are nonexistent including the amounts of low enriched uranium and iran, and the advance hundred huge research and activities. that should be really easy to say yes or no. then the development of missile technology and testing, to me it is incredible and very revealing. there's only one reason to be developing an intercontinental ballistic capability and that is to deliver a nuclear weapon. in the past month we have the spectacle of iran testing a weapon so people who would be affected would understand and that is in hebrew is stated that israel would be wiped out the map. this was on a test. how can we possibly trust a
machine that decided such defiance in the aftermath of this danger steal? >> i do not trust them for the that i can spit. >> will great, what measures are there and i'm grateful that i work with men in the nda we have a requirement that there be a response to missile testing, is there anything in place to let the american people know what is going on? >> i am sorry, what's going on. >> to identify a missile test test and what the implication of the missile test is by iran. >> there is a lot of information, some of which is not appropriate for this form but we are always prepared to brief members on the full range of information that we have about iranian missile test. >> will american families are at risk, they they need to know. i yield the balance of my time. >> go to mr. davis. >> thank you mr. chairman, thank you to our witnesses, i
appreciate the testimony with respect to the compliance i think are many of us who in fact supported the steel we are pleased that in fact compliance requirements have been met or that iran has taken steps required. i think part of the challenge for us though that we are told during this process that get in the nuclear issue off the table was so critical and that we actually could expect iran would engage in additional destabilizing activity and impact people suggested some of the resources they would would have access to and some of the political needs the regime would have would cause them to be worse in many areas. in terrorism and human rights and other areas. so we were assured that this would give us an opportunity to push back hard in these other areas because the danger of a nuclear iran would be off the table. i was persuaded by that. i'm very interested to hear the administration efforts with respect to pushing back hard and
i want to air in human rights. what has the administration does is since this signing of a jcpoa with regarding to imposing sanctions on human rights violators in iran? by all accounts there has been an increase in human rights violations i think apart by the regime is destroying that there still -- what has demonstration done since the signing of the jcpoa with the regards to the human rights violation in iran, if anything anything. >> thank you for the question. as i mentioned earlier to congressman smith, the obama administration is deeply concerned about the human rights situation in iran. in confronting that situation we have a variety of tools available at our disposal. sanctions are certainly one important part. >> i probably should be more precise with the question. >> i know you raised it in meeting.
has the demonstration does anything with the imposition of sanctions and nt entity with a jcpoa and respects to human rights violation? >> there has not been a specific section on human rights cases. >> not one? >> but we have managed to address human rights concerns for example by getting americans out of -- >> i appreciate that. my point is the existing shanks sanctions regime has not caused a single imposition. the second question is there's been a discussion about additional sanctions. i think everyone acknowledges the jcpoa deals with nuclear sanctions and that none nuclear sanctions obviously remain a tool. i would ask that you recently expressed some concern about the overuse of sanctions, and that sanctions be in position and they can impose costs.
other circumstances in which you think we should be imposing additional sanctions on iran particularly in context of the ballistic missile testing? it appears as if it is not a violation of jcpoa according to the administration but clearly a violation of security council 2231. if additional sanctions are not a useful tool what you suggest we do to dissuade or put pressure on iran not to engage in this various in the various activity? with respect to ballistic missile. >> thank you congressman. i want to clarify the quote that you are referencing about the potential overuse of sections was made in a broader discussion about this tool as we move potentially ever certain into a new administration and how to use this tool, the tool sanctions both on the congressional side and the executive branch side and a judicious way that will preserve its influence. it was not made with respect -- >> no, no i understand. >> with regards to their ballistic missile program we
need to keep the pressure on. i find particular in particular the brokers who are helping to mask the ultimate end user and that is who this group that i mentioned earlier, that is who i ran missile agencies are using to get the parts they need in violation of u.s. security council violations. the more we can expose those actors, but the individuals involved in the company the better we are. that public effort is not the only thing we have going. obviously their strategic interjections going on from which he was seen the paper and some what she would not. we have have our own version of that in a financial sense. which is payments that are being made to broker procurement of dual use items where were sometimes able to block those payments mid- transfer which not only causes real damage to the procurement effort but also can
sometimes spark a lots of useful intelligence from the affected individual. >> but am i correct in assuming that it be useful in terms of sending a message to the iranians that congress and the united states is serious about stopping their ballistic missile system and stopping their gross violation of human rights by enacting additional sanctions in a nonnuclear sphere as an expression of congress and ultimately the american people's strong condemnation of ballistic missiles where human rights violations. that it would would actually strengthen your hand as the ministration to know that the iranians to know that there members of congress that feel very strongly about this reflecting the sentiments of the american people and we are committed to using all the tools at our disposal outside the jcpoa, not involving nuclear sanctions to really effectively dissuade them and persuade them and impose costs on them for engaging in ballistic missiles testing or human rights violations. >> i think the focus of this part of congress on the nonnuclear threats has been and
remains essential and frankly the fact that it has been a bipartisan focus has been in extremely powerful and it does give us leverage and talk into iranians and international allies. with respect to the enactment of new sanction legislation what i've said to the chairman which is as a technical matter the deal is talking about nuclear sanctions. as a practical matter if legislation were to undermine the deal by taking off the table commitments that we have put on the table, that would be a problem. honestly we do not want to see legislation interfere with our fulfillment of the jcpoa. >> understood, thank you very much. i you'll back. >> mr. randy weber of texas. >> take you chairman. ambassador, you said in your opening comments that jcpoa had been successfully in implementing cutting information by more than two thirds and increasing the breakout time by two months until more than a year. so it it is your estimation and that we went from two months - 12 months and in your opinion we gain ten months.
>> yes, sir. >> that's math. you also said that we have preserved our abilities to snapback penalties. you further said that at the request of our foreign friends and i'm paraphrasing on this, we have been explaining the lifting of our sanctions. so, the explaining of lifting of those sanctions, that discussion time is going to be, is that going to take a month or two? >> we try to be responsive, congressman to to whenever our international partners express questions about u.s. law and u.s. procedures. not just on iran but on anything. since the implementation date was reached in the agreement back in january there has been a flood of requests, mostly from the world set financial centers in asia. >> so that really is my answer, flood of requests from around the world. in the event that iran would get very aggressive
and start doing things again that we felt was a snapback sanction was in order here, it would take time, would it not to explain to our friends around the world as to why we think they violated it and why we think and is necessary? >> i do not think it would take that much time. >> how much time do you think would take? >> to notified the world of an eye randy violation? >> know to explain why snapback, and to get there by and why snapback sanctions were necessary. >> i think, certainly if we decided to step back we would make it and it instant announcement of that. i cannot speculate if there be question. >> would it take a month or two? i'm gonna leave it at that could i'm running short on time. it's not going to be instantaneous. i think snapback is the wrong word there. you said it is not sanctions that un resolutions caused iran to change its pursuit of weapons, it's not sanctions or un resolutions but tray control.
i notice you do not reform your remarks he pretty much spoke from the heart i guess as it were. so if trade control was really the force that we needed, didn't we have them go in the right direction? >> the sanctions having them going in the right direction? , they were hurting. >> if you'll give me just a moment i will make a distinction between sanctions that are intended to impose an economic cost and change behavior, and that is something that my colleague mr. -- specializes in. and strategic tray control, which is how the united states cooperates with countries around the world to ensure that states
of concern and nonstate actors do not get their hands on dual use technology, whether it is nuclear, or missile related, or anything else. >> so you are saying the force behind the sanctions was the tray control of all of our friends that we're talking about. >> there have been a number of institutions in place for years. the missile technology, control regime, 40 most advanced countries in the world on ballistic missile technology that cooperate against providing that kind of technology to countries like iran. the proliferation security initiative started under the bush administration and they are back -- >> i get what you mean. the denial of of access to her monetary system via somewhere up there and in one of the sanctions, great? >> yes. i would put that again i'm not trying to make fine distinctions but i would say more in the category of economic sanctions. >> but i want to go on this because he did say supercharge sanctions could be used. describe for us if you would, the difference between normal sanctions, lesser sanctions and supercharge sanctions? >> i be happy to. i did not mean to coin a new
term is really not that term. >> when i was in high school supercharge and was something different but go ahead. >> what i meant was to refer to the reach of a targeted sanction. so to give you a specific specific example. if we target a human rights actor in democratic republic of the congo, that binds the action of u.s. bank in u.s. countries, foreign actors actors are still permitted without any fear of u.s. to do business as long as they keep their transactions out of the u.s. they cannot be brought in their transfers through us but if they want to do it locally that's fine. when it comes iran, what congress did was to say no. anyone who does business, anywhere anywhere around the world in whatever currency, with iranian actor that is on the blacklist faces a potential cut off from the financial system. that is what i was referring to is a greatly augmented sanctions designation. >> thanks for that distinction i you'll back.
>> mr. meadows of north carolina who was instrumental in the hezbollah sanctions, he was the driving force, the driver behind the bill that this committee put out, mr. meadows. >> thank you mr. chairman that i think think you for your leadership on that particular effort. all of these sanctions and as we talk about this it gets very confusing and so we have removed some sanctions left some in place, to the average elected official, do we have a really
the intellectual discernment to describe which is sanction is which and when it should be applied and what it should not be applied, is that easily done? >> i sure hope we have that capability, that's up my offices there to do. >> but that's not necessarily what my office or other elected official offices in terms of figuring out sanctions and how they should apply and if they apply in every case, is that correct? so if we have a question you are the go to person to figure out whether we are complying, is that correct? >> will be happy to provide any consultation on that. >> since we're talking today about compliance or talking about centrifuges and all kinds of other things, ambassador, can you tell me why when we look at the jcpoa, were talking about centrifuges, they were quoted to be made in operable and you have change the light language to be disabled and most of the centrifuges from what i understand has a been turned off and put in a storage place in iraq, is that correct? >> , the centrifuges that have been dismantled have been all of the equipment. >> all of them are disassembled is that what you're saying?
>> they are allowed 5060 to be operating. >> i'm talking about the 19,000. they disassembled all of them and they can be put back into place very quickly? that's your sworn testimony. >> that's right. >> so are they being stored in iran? >> yes, sir. >> so how long would it take them to get them out of storage and put them back in operation if they decided to do that today? >> if they decided to do so it would depend, some of them are stored -- >> they got rid of some of on that weren't actually in use, so what i'm talking about is the ones that they were supposed to dismantle, how long would it take them to take them from storage and get them back. >> this all factors into our calculation a breakout time. it was really be a matter of several months. >> that is not my question. it's a great answer to a question i did not ask. how long would it take to take the centrifuge from the storage and actually get it back in
place again and play, switch? >> again, depends on the centrifuge, depends on depends on the location. all of this, the storage is completely, sir under monitoring full-time. >> i did not ask that. that is two answers to questions i did did not ask. i ask you how quickly, from the storage could they be back in place? >> which centrifuge and from which a location do you mean? it depends. >> let's take some of the centrifuges of the 19000 that we put into storage. what would be the fastest time they could get one of them that is most operable and put it back in place? the fastest time. >> sir, i don't have an immediate answer for you. i would have to consult -- >> seven days? >> i would have to check check with a technical engineer. >> let me tell you the reason why i ask. i have a letter here that went to owner pat mcquarrie, from you
which by many descriptions is a pro-iranian marketing material suggested that we are to do more business with iran. it says we need to check on sanctions and asking the governor to do that of which they don't have the expertise, they have asked me about the expertise in terms of compliance. why would you send a pro-iranian marketing letter to my governor? who instructed you to do that? >> with respect, i disagree. >> or someone described it is that you can disagree, so will discriminate who does who instructed you to do that. >> in the agreement, the united states government committed to inform state and local authorities about changes in the nuclear situation in iran. >> so you sent a letter like this to all 50 states? >> that's right. because the united states government committed to doing that. >> so in doing that, you went to great lengths, number paragraphs to talk about how great this is and all of that and set a just
saying that you need to look at changes your laws as it relates to that, why was it in such a pro-iranian manner question asked. >> sir, i disagree i disagree that it was in a pro-iranian manner. >> will i be sleeve this is something you release to the press so they know all about it question work. >> i did not release it to the press. >> we will let them do that. the other question is, is sense we have our ally, israel and many of them are under attack by a bds movement, is the state department going to send out a similar letters saying that states should not have actually embark on a bdf movement for all 50 states for our ally, israel? >> i'm sorry, a bds movement? >> boycott. >> sir -- >> sir the problem is you would know what that was.
>> mr. scott, of tennessee. >> think mr. chairman. mr. countrymen, did i hear you say that it was your believe that iran never intended to slow its it testing of the ballistic missiles question work. >> i don't know about and never, difficult to talk about intent but the record shows that they have had a consistent, steady program program of ballistic missile development for missiles at various range similar to that in a number of other countries in the region and beyond the middle east. >> and it is your job to apply sanctions for violations? >> it is my job with the support of a number of agencies, both to apply strategic trait controls to inhibit iran acquiring the technology and in cooperation with treasury others to apply sanctions to entities in iran and outside of iran that violate those restrictions.
>> and you stated in your written testimony that all the sentient authorities that we need are already in place and we are repeatedly using our own domestic authorities to sanction entities involved in iran's ballistic missile program and will continue to do so is warranted. you can say that you have the authority to deal with it but that brings hollowed the iran, north korea and in syria nor liberation act of 2006 which levies u.s. sanctions on entities connected with iran ballistic activity as implemented by your office. but the gao study commissioned by this committee from last year shows the state department to be completely delinquent in applying the sanctions. the report that triggers designation for sanctions over 2011 showed up in december of 2014, 36 months late. the last reports that on the deputy secretary's desk for more than one year according to gao. the state department needs to comply with a six month reporting cycle and minimalize the delays in its ability to
impose sanctions, would you agree? >> i read the gao report, it is a good one. i agree that we have been slow, i would not say delinquent. i would not say delinquent. i would think the report did a good job at stating the important verification process that we have to go through in a complex, interagency process. i'm determined to do better. >> they also stated that political's concern such as international negotiations and relations with countries involved with transfer delayed the state implement in the process, and you grew that? >> no. >> so the ben rhodes, and has nothing to do with protecting the presidents legacy in your opinion question work. >> i don't know which, you are referring to. >> the echo chamber, the fact that they were trying to hide the fact that this is not really good deal. but you said that you are not really completely delinquent. do. do not think that 36 months behind on a six-month window is
completely delinquent? >> you think if you wanted to report every six months you would get in in adequate report. i think that we have to do better and faster. >> okay they're shooting shooting missiles now, were agreeing that there are missiles that israel needs to be abolished and you're saying that we have all the people in place to apply the sanctions. that is not very comforting when we're looking at two-three year delays in a program where we have a deal that is designed to curtail the development of nuclear weapons but a ballistic missile is the essential component to delivering these that only to israel but to our allies in the united states. you say that you have to do better does not give me much comfort. where are the delinquent reports right now? where they in the process? >> first, i would note that that is not our only tool. it is a congressional mandated tool we take that very seriously. we wanted to to be a good decision process and one that can be justified and explained fully to you when it
is delivered. we have other tools available if we need them in order to move against individual entities. in terms of where we are in the port, i am hopeful that you will get the 2013 report in the very near future. the 2014 report is well in preparation, and as i said we are trying to -- >> do you know who's the desk there are now on where they're at? for talk about reports from three years ago on a six-month window. you know where they're at? >> yes. >> who has them question work. >> they are in the process and i think they will be completed shortly. >> you're not going to tell me who has him, you're just to tell me you're going to do better, were three years behind, there shooting missiles, were in the middle of a deal that secretary carry all but admitted is not a
matter of if it feels but a matter when it fails which could be one year, two years, three years. so you're applying sanctions were two or three years at reports that is happening now is our you're telling us? >> i'm telling you that we have things in the primary entities involved in iran's missile program and if we rush this to you any sooner it will not make a dramatic change in the entities that are already sanction. >> or the president may look bad? >> pardon me. >> or the president may look bad as the ga o reported that the reason for the delay. >> the gao snack rectum at and that point. >> we are now going to mr. lee of new york. >> thank you. investor you referenced earlier historic verification and monitoring regime, have you read the verification regime outlined between the iaea and iran? >> i am not a where of any side deals, which do you mean. >> i am referencing the deals between the iaea and iran to decide how the jcpoa is going to be implemented. what governors the verification of the iran nuclear deal. >> no, iran iran and the iaea
have a confidential safeguards agreement that just like every member of the iaea. >> have you read that? >> no sir i have not. >> i would just offer up for you for secretary carry who is here a few months ago, it is difficult to vouch for a historic verification and monitoring regime when you do not know what the historic verification monitoring regime is. all you know is what contained in the jcpoa but you don't know what's included in the agreement between the i aea and iran especially since we reassociate press reports of how iran might be collecting some of their own soil samples, responsible for collecting some of their own nuclear sites. as we read what the associated press reports as the verification of the jcpoa, if you have not yet read it it is impossible to say that it is a
historic verification and monitoring regime because you don't know what it is. the administration says it's not built on trust is built on verification. why hasn't the obama administration, why didn't the sign the asked the iranians to sign the jcpoa? >> why did we asked them to sign a? >> why didn't we ask them to sign it? >> the jcpoa is a political agreement and it evolved that way in the course of negotiations that in order to preserve our ability to exact to the kind of penalties and the kind of nipple ability and agility that we would have two exact penalties in agreement that we are not implemented correctly, we believe it served our interest best to have this as applicable agreement. >> so i would assume that if you head bug cars in your lives, your houses, you send many agreements, you have signed your name down all sorts of things, i would imagine if there was an example that we need to come up with, of something where you should get a signature that the jcpoa is a great example of something where u.s. the iranians, would you mind signing it?
the administration decide not to. what is a political commitment, secretary carry has referred to the jcpoa not as a treaty, and the reason is because he said he would not have been able to get a pass. that's what he said right here. the reason why this is not a treaty is because he would not be able to get it passed. we dig this answer, but moving on. but moving on. he says it's not an executive agreement it's a political commitment. what is a political commitment as defined by the obama administration? >> a political commitment is an official policy of the united states government that we are fully committed as a government to implementing the deal on its terms. as a political commitment we or any future government is free to withdraw from that agreement with a minimum of legal difficulty. we have decided that. >> i'm sorry you're allowed to withdraw from the political commitment without legal difficulty? >> that's right.