tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN May 25, 2016 1:00pm-3:01pm EDT
cedric, put that chart up. i have a chart that kind of crystallized what i think is the challenge that tsa is faced with. in fy '11, we had 45,000 tsos, 642 million passengers. fy '16, we have 740 million passengers and only 42,500 tsos. i guess the question that comes to mind, what do you think the number of tsos you need to address the problem we are faced with now? >> well, thank you for the question. i do think that we are at a lower staffing level than we
need to be to meet peak demands at peak periods, and we're working the staffing models now aggressively with the airlines to determine the right number. we're also looking to see what kinds of efficiencies we can gain in just the way we deploy people. so we found in chicago, for instance, that we converted 100 part-timers to full time. that's an instant gain of a workforce. we're using overtime hours to effectively convert additional part-timers to full time. and we added -- we're adding a total of 250 officers over the summer, 58 right now. that in conjunction with some operational adjustments we made have dramatically improved the situation at chicago. so i think that -- i don't have an exact number for you right now because we're reworking our staffing models completely to look at the way in which the airlines do it, but i do know that 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 to address the problems of wait time and other things presently within your budget? >> the reprogramming quest has helped considerably, because it's allowed me to immediately put resources. right now, the most effective approach is to get part-time to full-time, so that i can get trained people working longer hours who want to work longer hours, who would like to be full time. that reduces my attrition rate, so it increases my ability to avoid churn. and then it allows me to redeploy some of my canine teams to the airports of highest need. that addresses the problem in the top airports, but i don't want to see the problem cascade across the system, which is why we're looking at the potential for whether a second reprogramming request is needed to hire additional. >> thank you. some people are saying that the wait time has increased substantially after the airlines implemented baggage fees, that people rather than paying the
fees are taking additional baggage onto the planes to avoid the cost. and therefore, the wait time 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 baggage coming to the checkpoint than get checked. and volume at the checkpoint, you know, the volume of carry-on bags puts a lot of pressure on checkpoint operations. so we've been working aggressively with the airlines to first enforce the one plus one rule. we think that's very important, because if you bring four things through the checkpoint, a couple of those things are probably going to get gate-checked, anyhow. >> well, you know, i think one thing we ought to look at as a committee, the airlines are making several billion dollars annually off those fees. and if that has contributed to
the wait times and additional things, i think we ought to look and see if they can make a contribution toward this effort to alleviate the wait times. i think that's a reasonable thing for us to look at, and i look forward to this committee looking at that as a possibility. i was glad to hear your analysis of the bdos. there have been a lot of comment and criticism, quite frankly, about their use. and so, now if they're being deployed to address this crisis, i compliment you on doing that. with this wait time issue where we are, can you tell me what the airlines are doing to help address this problem as far as
tsa is concerned? >> yeah, i've been very pleased with what the airlines have been aggressively doing lately. so quite a few of the airlines have been hiring contract staff to take nonsecurity duties, everything from sitting at the exit lanes -- that frees up a tso to get back on a checkpoint -- providing people to run the bins from one end of the line back to the beginning of the line, doing what's called divest officer duties. that's the individual who reminds people to take off their shoes and their belt and so forth. turns out that's a pretty important position because a lot of people forget to do it, and that can slow things down if you don't have -- if you're not prepared by the time you get there. so, that's been very helpful. they're also providing people out in front of the checkpoints to direct people to other checkpoints. what we find is that oftentimes, particularly in airports where you have limited, you know, limited physical space in which to operate, you have multiple
small checkpoints that you can't see from one to the other. and sometimes you'll get a big line in one and there will be nobody in the next, but human psychology is such that once you're in a line, you don't want to leave that line to go to another one because you might find yourself in a longer one. so catching them before they get in line is important. and finally, the other thing they're helping us do with the huge increase in enrollments that we've seen in precheck, we have a lot of people who still walk into a standard line, not recognizing that that's not going to be an automatic precheck lane, so you've got to scrub the standard lines to pull people out. as many as 15% of the daily passengers we're finding are walking into a standard lane by mistake. and you've got to get them out of there. so the airlines have been very helpful in that respect. >> thank you. yield back, mr. chair. >> thank the ranking member. chair recognizes mr. king from new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, admiral, for your testimony here today and for your service. in new york, my understanding is that at jfk airport, there's an 82% increase in the -- increased
maximum time between 2015 and 2016. whether that's 82 or 72, it's still extraordinarily high. can you quantify what impact you expect from the additional officers you're going to be sending there? in other words will that 82 become 72, 52? is there any way you can make the equivalency between the additions and the subtractions? >> i don't know if i can put a percentage on it right now for you, but i can tell you we're already seeing a dramatic improvement at jfk. for example, yesterday, the maximum line wait we saw -- and it was just a spike -- was 39 minutes in a standard lane. and the maximum time we saw in a precheck lane was five minutes. so we're already seeing a dramatic improvement there. we have watched that very carefully. we want to make sure that we see that every day. you have very high volume coming through jfk yesterday -- >> is that because of the personnel or -- >> it's a combination of changing in some operational procedures, so using the personnel more effectively. one of the things that this
national incident approach, this national approach to it allows us to do is rapidly move good ideas around the system. and it's also the combination of some new personnel coming in, shifting some dog teams there. dog teams help considerably in terms of moving passengers. >> again, if we can try to quantify, your original goal under 25 million for precheck, >> right. >> it's nine or ten right now. if you got to 25, what impact would that have? >> i think it could dramatically transform the system, because then you would have many, many lanes open. that would represent roughly 50% of the daily traveling volume if you got to 25 million people. and you could keep many more lanes open in precheck. you could run the dogs more effectively in the locations where you still had high volume, but it would be on a smaller crowd of people. so, if we can continue to grow that population, i think that's the way. and the other thing it does for me is it gives me a trusted -- a known population. that's much more important,
particularly in today's world. >> the chairman mentioned egypt airlines. and maybe this is slightly off topic. but he also mentioned the insider threat. can you just say what you're doing on that? i know last year there was the ig report, the chairman mentioned charles de gaulle airport, where they had the 85 personnel. we have almost a million people behind the scenes that are insiders. how effective is our vetting process for them? >> well, i think it's far more effective this year than it was even last year. so, we've screened -- we've always screened everybody. there's, as you said, just under a million people who hold badge access of some type to an airport. it's not universal badged access, and there are varying levels of access. each one of those individuals is continuously vetted against the terrorist screening database. since december of this year, we now have full access to the so-called tide categories. this is the extended database of interest that doesn't necessarily indicate that you're
connected to a known or suspected terrorist, but there may be indicators. we now do recurrent vetting against that as well. we're piloting a project with delta airlines in two large airports to do now recurrent vetting against criminal databases, the so-called fbi wrapback program. the current requirement is every two years. i want that to be recurrent as well. assuming that goes well, then we will implement that full time by the end of the calendar year, and that will be continuous vetting against the criminal databases as well. >> so, are there training procedures in place for cooperation between the tsa personnel and the armed police at the airports? because tsa obviously is not armed, they can't make arrests. if they do spot something, how quick is the time response with the police officers? >> well, it can vary by airport, but we've got duress alarms at every checkpoint on every single lane of every checkpoint in the nation. we completed the installation of those just before the end of the calendar year. we train every day with police
departments. in fact, i just met with the association of law enforcement officers at their annual conference, and one of the topics was a discussion for consistent training across. and it's everything from active shooter training to response to emergencies to clearing contraband items that are discovered at the checkpoint. but i think we have a very good relationship, particularly in the largest airports where the potential for greatest concern can be. when you have nothing else to do, do me a favor and check out the relationship between tsa and the port authority of police of new york. >> yes, sir, i will. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes ms. sheila jackson lee. >> i thank the chairman and the ranking member for this hearing. admiral, thank you again for your service. i've often said in this committee and said to tsos and others that the transportation security administration are the first responders of aviation security, and i believe that's important to convey to your
management, to you and to certainly the line officers, supervisors and others who go out every day to do this great work. i also want to acknowledge the chairman and ranking member of this committee, because they have led an enormously bipartisan committee that's only focus or main focus is the security of the nation. this makes this a pleasant 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's difficult to call yourself the reprogrammed government. it's hard to reprogram for infectious disease. it's hard to reprogram for military. it's hard to reprogram for the security of the nation, particularly in aviation security. so i understand that we may be getting 700 tsos coming this summer. i want to follow the line of questioning that our ranking member had with this particular
graph here, and it is stark between 2011 and fy '16, particularly with the increase in travelers. and i think we might even get any more. so, i understand we may be getting 700. i understand at a point we may be getting 1,600 and then 2,500. can you put that in perspective when these numbers will come to add to the tsos? >> yes, ma'am. the 768 that we're hiring right now should all be on board by june 15th. so, we're hiring them now. so they're rolling into the system. but we should have them all trained and on board by june 15th. >> june 15th, all right. >> that's right. and then they will add to that. that's in addition to the normal hiring that we're already doing. so, that's on top of the 200 new officers a week that we're putting out of training currently. >> is that fy 16 can we expect 162,500 -- >> the 1,600 was the number i
was scheduled to lose in fy 16. so congress allowed me to keep that number. >> that's somewhat of a plus, but you didn't lose them. >> yes, ma'am. >> what's the -- >> 768 is the plus on top of the 1,600 we would have lost. we had already cut some into that number to meet the fy '16 targets. >> does that make the 2,500 additional or -- obviously 16 and 7 is 23. what do you think you're going to get in fy '16? >> we'll keep the 1,600, plus the 768 on top of that. so that gives us roughly, 2,300, 2,400 or so. >> does that include the potential reassignment, redeploying of bdo's which i think is an excellent idea, particularly having them be at a point where they can assess
-- stationary point where they can assess almost every individual that comes through. >> that gives me additional capability on that of that. that's real capability right now. we're moving those in right now. then the conversion of part-time to full time. we have quite a few part-timers that would love to be full time. but eventually they can't wait long enough for a full time position to open. we have a high attrition rate. >> let me ask you a series of questions. i congratulate you on flexing one of my concerns is training, training not only the new recruits but training the existing tso's. that ties into the numbers we reflected on dealing with accuracy, i'll make that general point. i'd be interested in your work on accuracy and also on the training. i would hope that we could actively engage in training, ex-military and i indicated some time ago college recruits. i'd like you to comment on that. the last question is, chicago
was the epicenter. everybody's eyes were on chicago besides arizona and the equipment failure. if you can finish your questions by saying what is the immediate response to chicago? which is an example of what other cities are facing. >> immediate in chicago -- this is -- when i talk about chicago understand we're also doing the same thing at the other top airports. chicago was a preventible incident, in my opinion. when you look at what happened, this was a surge that was anticipated, it was known. it was a failure to get some things done in advance of that. we've proved that by fixing it pretty quickly. in chicago, among other things, we had already planned to put additional officers in there. so of that 768, 58 of those individuals are coming into chicago by the end of this week. so there will be a total of 58 new. we converted 100 of our part-time officers to full-time officer and pushed a lot of overtime hours so they can use overtime hours. you have to be careful with
overtime, but it's very effective of taking part-timers and giving them more hours, many of them want those. we moved additional k-9's, these were teams we planned to be moving. we accelerated the move into chicago. the total of that has 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. and that was with significantly higher volume. with targeted additional resources, efficient use of the resources and a management team that understands how to run that daily tactical operation, you can make a big difference. that's what we're doing at each of the big airports. >> recruitment? >> fortunately right now we do not seem to have trouble meeting our recruiting targets. we have large pool of people
that have been pre-vetted. that's why we were able to rapidly hire the 768. we had a large pool of available applicants that had been screened that were looking for work. i still want to work on bringing more of that back in house than is currently done. we work through a private contractor to do our hiring and recruiting right now. >> i'll get your other answers in writing regarding the institute that -- in georgia -- about how you can utilize that better. and let me just conclude by thanking the tso's all across america for the great service they do for this nation. i yield back. >> chair recognizes mr. rogers from alabama. >> thank you mr. chairman. admiral, thank you for being here and your service for our country. i think you're a good man, a competent man who has been given an impossible task to administer the tsa. the tsa has wallowed in its own bureaucracy for more than a decade.
and over that period of time, it's built up a lot of bad habits that have come to fester. you spoke in your opening statement about making the tsa more responsive organization, lean and smarter. i want to help you do that. to that end i plan to introduce tsa to a security focused organization by reforming and greatly expanding the screening partnership program. having worked on these issues for more than a decade, i've seen that tsa can do a mission when it's given a clear succinct mission. my bill is going to allow airports to hire private contractors capable of making day-to-day operations and making tsa the driving force to oversee security based security strategies. these changes will get more out of your organization than any summer rush band-aid bill could ever do. you can build effective
strategies instead of trying to decide who is going to work the morning shift at reagan airport. i want to talk to you about this program. last year the gao determined tsa is not fairly comparing the cost of government-run screening operations with their privately run sbp counterparts. in november, i requested that tsa release more accurate cost data to congress and gao. 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 sent a letter to remind you of that. it still hasn't showed up. it's been 191 days since i requested that information. can you tell me when i'm going to receive the accurate cost comparison that gao says we need to get? >> yes. gao set a deadline to the end of june. we're working closely with them in order to meet the deadline. we're on target.
we've been meeting with gao regularly and that it meets the recommendation that they made as well as an accurate accounting of the costs. because i need the same thing. >> by the end of june i can count on seeing that? >> yes, sir, we're on target to meet that deadline. >> excellent. next, you talked about the k-9 screening programs. i'm a big fan of that technology, i believe it's the most effective that we have in our toolbox. but i went out to lackland a couple months ago, i've been out there several times. but i was looking at some of the training they're doing, what you refer to as passenger screening k-9's. that's been held out by tsa to me as being the same as vapor weight k-9's. in fact, what i saw was nothing comparable to vapor weight k-9's. they were training k-9's to basically work the lines at an airport. which means you have to go up to
the passenger, the k-9 has to smell them personally or right at them. as you know from vapor weight technology k-9 technology we use at the capitol, union station, grand central station in washington, many places the k-9 doesn't have to come close to the passenger. they can detect the air up to 15 or 20 minutes after a passenger has disturbed it. can you tell me why that's being done at lackland in such a narrow scope instead of more effective vapor weight training? >> here's how i understand it. and i've cautioned i'm speaking without the benefit of an expert next to me. when you look at a passenger screening line, it's a slightly different dynamic, because you've got an enclosed line of people. as i watch those dogs operate, what they're doing is -- if you notice they're moving their head around a lot. because they're checking for vapor. we typically put enclosed panels
next to the stanchions where possible, or enclose the checkpoint behind a panel. so the dog is doing two things, it's both checking the vapor as somebody goes by them, but it's also sniffing the general vapor in the air. my understanding is they had to modify it somewhat for the very specific nature of the way people line up in queues. but let me get a more complete answer to that. >> that's fine. that's 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 even get to the line. and they can detect the air that's been disturbed by somebody who has walked by in recent 15 or 20 minutes without having to come up to a person. that's a valuable deterrent. and putting in past the checkpoint in case the machine doesn't detect something. these, again, are assets that don't have to come up to the person. and unfortunately, for some
people it's uncomfortable to have a dog come up and smell them. wouldn't bother me. i'm from alabama. but, now, some folks would be bothered by it. with that, i yield by, mr. chairman. >> thank you. chair recognizes mr. longaman. >> thank you mr. chairman. for holding this very important hearing. admiral, thank you for your testimony and service to our country. i agree with my colleague you have an impossible task on your hands but an important one. clearly, the wait times at airports that traffic and people are having to deal with are unacceptable. my constituents and people around the country are demanding quicker lines. i know that is our goal. one of the priorities you and secretary johnson laid out as part of your ten-point plan is doubling down on r&d at tsa.
i appreciate that the promise of new technology to expedite screening, but can you preview some of what we can expect? >> i do think we need to do a better job of both research, development and incentivizing the private sector to come forward with ideas. but here's an example of i think what we can see, if you look at the atlanta airport today. we opened two new automated screening lanes down there. this is not something new, it's been in use in europe for a number of years. but these are -- you think about a standard lane, you walk up to a lane, there's a table there. you put your stuff up on the table and slide it along the table until you can engage the conveyer belt. it's an automatic system. it's got an rfid tag and barcode that ties it to you. there's a photograph taken of yourself and an x-ray. there are five stations at which people can line up.
so you don't have to go single file. take five people at a time. they cycle in as they fill their bins up and it goes through. london heathrow has said they've seen anywhere from a 20% to 25% increase in throughput at the same level of effectiveness. so we're very excited about that. as you look at increasing passenger volumes, at some point, you reach capacity with a manual system and then you have to look to automate things. i think the tsa needs to work closely with the system to get it more automated and bring more technology in. >> can i ask you on the automated part so i'm clear. so that part is automated but there's still a human in the loop actually looking at what's in the carry on baggage being screened? >> there's still somebody reading an x-ray right now. we're also working with software companies to determine how effective machines can become at identifying prohibited items so you can put humans into the work that humans do best and at the same time moving machines to what they do best.
we're also looking at changing the way we do identity matching. i look at -- when i look around an airport and see the kiosks that distribute boarding passes. there's up ikly some type of an id reader on all of those. if you can get id technology in there there's things we can do that can automate the identity check process as well. >> let me shift over to one of the -- i may come back to technology in a minute. so tsa has publicly stated its goal for precheck is having 25 million enrollees, my colleague, mr. king, asked about the enrollees in the precheck system what that would mean if we actually had 25 million. right now currently tsa only has 2.76 million people enrolled. what is tsa's plan for expanding precheck to further reach that goal of 25 million enrollees? >> i just want to clarify the 25
million is all trusted travellers, global entry, nexus and century. we're at about 9.5 million of total trusted travellers. they have enrolled in some program with the federal government. there are a couple things we need to do. first of all is to expand the enrollment opportunities. i don't think we have enough enrollment centers out there. we currently have one vendor that provides the contract enrollment services. hoping to expand that this year to additional vendors under a new contract. the second thing is to make those centers more available to do more mobile enrollment to streamline even further the application process. we do have an online application process now, but you have to show up to do your fingerprints. we're working with airlines and traveller reward programs, many of the airlines are now offering mile redemption for precheck. microsoft corporation recently bought precheck for all of its travellers. and many of the travel reward programs are providing the ability to trade in your miles or points for precheck.
>> so currently to enroll in precheck an individual has to pay a fee of $85 to be enrolled for five years. however, for those that fly once or twice a year, this may not be feasible or practical and could distract from tsa's efforts to broaden enrollment. has tsa thought of alternatives to paying $85 for precheck? can you detail any thoughts on that? >> those fees go directly to cover program costs right now. it's -- it would be challenging to -- under the existing contract, to change the fee structure. that's why we encourage people to look if they're members of trusted traveller programs of some sort, there's opportunities being offered through various programs to get direct reimbursement or direct vouchers for precheck. >> i know my time's expired. if you could on a follow up, perhaps in writing going back to the technology issue. in deploying new screening technology, i wonder how we can
ensure that we avoid the mistakes of ait, so i know my time has expired. but i'll yield back. >> chair recognizes mr. perry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good to see you, admiral. let's talk about bonuses, tsa requested almost $80 million for bonuses and performance awards for fy 2017. as i'm sure you're aware it's been revealed that the assisted administrator received almost $90,000 in bonuses over a 13 month period. let's just start with -- what -- how -- what do you do to get a bonus? what did the assistant administrator do to receive $90,000 in just bonus, right? so we're talking, you know, i don't know what the rate is for an inspector, but at least one. we could hire one with the bonus. what i think most of the american people view as a historic critical failure right now looking at the lines and the throughput. i wonder what you got to do to
get a bonus at tsa and i think they're wondering what you got to do. >> i wasn't here then. when i discovered that, in my opinion that's completely unjustifiable. it's appropriate to have the ability to reward good performers in any line of business. so my belief is first of all you follow existing policy in opm. so the first thing i did was eliminated the practice of multiple bonuses to any one individual. i've dramatically changed that. and my goal is to push more reward bonuses out to the people in the organization that do some of the real frontline work. i can't justify the level of bonuses that were provided in the past. i can tell you i stopped that. and i watch it very carefully and i put significant management controls on it, including requiring oversight by the department of homeland security of anything. i don't want anything happening inside tsa when it comes to bonuses to senior executives. >> so the program does still exist, i think --
>> it's a program across the federal government. >> right. do you know if you do know, how much was spent by tsa last year on bonuses? i'm trying to juxtapose that with $34 million reprogramming for 768 inspectors and trying to get a -- >> i don't have the number. i'll get you the number. i don't have off the top of my head. >> well, thank you for that. moving on, there was a gao report regarding employee misconduct, specifically attendance and leave. and one of the things they found that penalties for misconduct and failure to attend were lower than tsa's own guidance and recommendations. let me just ask you this, if you know. do unexcused absences and tardiness create problems in staffing and staffing checkpoints? >> it can.
it depends on what the reasons are for it, but if you have significant numbers of unexpected -- it will dramatically affect your ability to staff. >> so, of course, that is directly correlated to increased wait times if folks aren't there. do you know if that's something that has impacted to the point that you're taking look at that? >> we are. one of my concerns if we don't have staff in place when we expect to have them in place, what's the reason behind that. did we give people leave when we shouldn't have given them leave, or did they just not show up? if they didn't show up what would be the reason for that. that's part of the calculus to determine how you're ready for a daily tactical operation. >> do you know what some of the disciplinary actions for employees with excessive tardiness, what actions you would take, the reports said they were -- the penalties for misconduct in the past had been lower than generally -- the own guidance by tsa? >> you know, as i look at it, i think back to my military experience, when you get
guidance, sometimes that guidance will give you the maximum penalty allowable. and you may or may not need to assign that. so i think it really is a case by case look, if you've got specific cases that you're interested in, i'll be happy to take that for the record. but my opinion is there may be a valid reason why somebody doesn't show up on time even if it shows you real problems for them not showing up. maybe they should have called, they didn't call. so the level of discipline or punishment you give really is a case by case study. it's hard to give a blanket answer. >> i understand. i was looking for a range there. you probably know the subcommittee i chair was looking into the misconduct for investigation into the misconduct. of course the penalties associated with correlation with increased wait times. >> i'm very interested in this problem. i want to get to the root of management issues throughout the
organization. >> appreciate your time. yield back. >> recognize mrs. watson-coleman. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you, administrator neffenger. you have an incredibly difficult job and i'm glad you're the one that's in it. i'm very concerned about the wait times. i really do believe that the airlines by allowing people to carry two or three bags instead of one bag carrying them on the aircraft contributes to the wait -- the amount of time it takes to go through the lines. i know you need additional resources. i'm interested in knowing at some point the answer to mr. thompson's question about how many do you think that you need. i know it's uneven sometimes going through even the precheck lines where they're telling you take your shoes off and belt off. i'm like, i thought that's why i was in precheck, that i wouldn't have to do that.
i'm happy that you have an academy and that you're training people now. i've got a question about this issue of partnerships. there have been a few instances where airports have threatened to privatize as alternative to federalized screeners, which i'm more comfortable with. there are articles and statements that believes the spv provides marginal if any difference. is there any measurable difference between the screening partnership programs versus federalized screeners, or is the problem a resource problem that would be shared by tsa and private screeners alike and could we be certain they'd be equally concerned with the security measure as they would be with the convenience of getting through the lines quicker in. >> first, it's important to understand that even a private screening contractor works for the tsa. it's contracted to the federal government, contracted to tsa. and it's a tsa management staff
that runs that. i think that's important because from my perspective, national security is a federal function. you need national standards when it comes to that. in my mind -- so when you look at performance, it's roughly the same. we train them to the same standards. in fact, they train at our tsa academy. the flexibility i get with a federal workforce is -- so this national deployment force i mentioned, these are tsos that volunteered to be deployable. we have about 250 of those. i can do that with a federal resource. i can't reach into a private resource without working a contract issue. if i need to surge, it gives me the ability to do that. i can also move personnel more rapidly from place to place as i need to. that's a benefit as a manager of having a workforce that works directly for me versus contracted to me. >> thank you. you talked about there is one
vendor that you work with on the precheck program and that the $85 that one has to pay really only covers the administrative expenses. so when you are going to expand this opportunity to other vendors, do you think that that will create competition and reduce the cost associated with that? >> i really hope so. in fact, that was one of the things that we built into the request for proposal was to look for ways to reduce the fee. and i think competition can do that. >> or if not reduce the fee, at least how some of that fee to be used to ensure that you-all have the resources you need to do the job that needs to be done. >> we looked for flexible options of how you would fund this and pay for it in a different way. >> tso employees -- i know that the part-time employment is something that you really have a lot of turnover in because
people need full-time jobs. but i'd like to know how much a -- an incoming tso gets as a full-time employee. what is that salary? >> you know, i -- i don't want to get the number wrong off the top of my head. it depends upon location obviously. let me get you the number for the record. it's -- i want to say it's around $30,000, but let me -- >> do you have a high turnover rate in the full-time employees? >> no, actually, our full-time workforce is pretty stable. we have about 25% turnover rate in the part-time workforce. >> one of my colleagues mentioned the relationship you have with the police. i think it was mr. king particularly singling out the port authority police of new york and new jersey. i had meetings with them. and they tell me there's like one police officer assigned to a terminal. do you find that there's enough police capacity and support in
the terminals? >> i've 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. by i'm finding in the large airports that for the most part, they understand their mission, they take it very seriously. they're working the public areas of the airport. we also have a reimbursement program as you know that reimburses them for the time they spend in and around the checkpoints. we put duress alarms to enshire there's as rapid a response as possible in the event of an emergency. >> mr. neffenger, i just need you to know that i agree that you've got an extremely important job to do. and for me, i don't care sometimes about being inconvenienced. i want to get on the airplane and know i'm getting there safely. i appreciate what you have to contend with. i just want to make sure i
understand what you need so i can fight for what you need and your agency has the resources it needs. thank you very much. and i yield back. >> chair recognizes the chairman of the transportation subcommittee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sir, neffenger, good morning. i appreciate the collaborative effort we're working on with my subcommittee. in fact, we met for an hour and a half the other day at your offices. i appreciate the frank discussions and your commitment to getting things done and putting politics aside. something piqued my curious i don't seety talking today. that is the fees surrounding precheck. there's a precheck building in the senate now extensively because the senator wants the fees to go to the general treasury. i want to talk about these fees a second. what does that $85 go towards? >> as i said, it primarily covers the full program cost. there's a component that reimburses the fbi for the background checks that they do.
that's a fixed fee that the fbi charges to conduct the background checks. there is a component of the fee that covers tsa's administrative cost because it's a self-funding program. it pays for the overhead and the staff. and then the bulk of the fee then goes to the vendor to cover their costs, both for these -- the physical enrollment centers and their personnel. >> okay. if that $85 was taken away, goes right to the general treasury, who would pay for all those costs? >> we'd have to find the money someplace. >> so $85 is in fact the cost, and you want to enroll ten more people, that means $850 million you would have to find somewhere else in your budget is that right? >> that's right. >> kind of insane isn't it, to think of that? >> well, i like self-funded programs. >> just want to make sure i understand it. it directs tsa to partner more
closely with the private sector, have competition, if you will, in the precheck program. that would help drive cost down. that's the goal of it. with that being said, do you believe that that bill would help you achieve the higher numbers with precheck? >> that bill codifies what we're trying to do right now, which is to increase competition in the private sector, with the hope that that competition drives the cost down. >> good enough. with respect to -- i want to talk to you just for a second about the bonuses that were given out. is there a system at tsa that -- whereby subordinates can nominate superiors for bonuses and put them in for bonuses? >> apparently there was a system that allowed that. that system doesn't exist under my leadership. >> so you stopped that? >> i absolutely have. >> i commend you for doing that. i don't understand how -- >> right now, it requires approval by me and then -- and then seconding by the department for any bonuses awarded to
senior executives. >> if i may switch gears one more time. i want to expand a little bit here. the international organization that basically certifies the minimum level of competence for airports is that correct? >> that's correct. >> do you realize once someone hits that level that's it and that's all you care about? >> we're signatory to the treaty. that sets a standard around the world for security. from myperspective, i think you have to continuously pay attention to these standards and try to drive them up even higher. i recently met with the council in montreal. there's a general assembly this year. i pished for an aggressive security agenda and we continue to drive that. in advance of that, we look at every place that services the u.s. directly and we put significant additional requirements in place to ensure we're comfortable with the screening and overview standards
that they're using. >> so i just want to ask a couple things about that. with respect to the last point of departure airports, we have a bill in the senate now awaiting approval. that's why i'm interested in this area a little bit. how important are these lpds to have body scanners at the airports? >> well, i think body scanners may be the right answer depending on where you're looking. what i'm most concerned with, are they effectively screening. i can understand why some places might not have a full body scanner. if they don't, then they have to have other things in case to be equivalent to that. you can do that by full-body patdowns, trace detection, there's other means to do that. >> is that equipment important to have at these airports? >> we like to see that and we've been working with acao and other foreign partners to push that type of equipment out. in the absence of that, then i want to see additional
requirements that would make up for the lack of that as we try to build that capacity. >> how about document verification machines, trying to authenticate documents? are they important as well? >> that's important to me. if somebody's flying to the united states, i want to know who they are. >> if you had an airport that didn't have body scanners and didn't have explosive trace detection equipment, didn't have document verification machines and had troublesome if not incompetent k-9 teams, would those types of airports that have those things lacking, would that be a cause of concern to you? >> i would pay very close attention to airports like that. i want to make sure they meet appropriate standards for us. >> last thing i'll ask about this, i apologize mr. chairman. that is the personnel at those airports, is it important for you to know how those personnel are trained and whether or not they're given adequate security background checks? >> that's part of what we try to verify when we go to last points
of departure to determine are they meeting standards appropriate for us to fly into this country. >> thank you, i yield back. >> their recognizes there payne. >> thank you, mr. chair, ranking member. administrator neffenger, you have a very difficult job here. and 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 are safe along with the tsos. you indicated that the tsos with the behavioral detection training are being integrated into checkpoint document checkers. you also said that the fsds have been granted unprecedented flexibility. would you have a problem with
the fsds using a bdo for checkpoint screening yourself? >> if they determine that that's 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 that they would be redesignate iinin newark liberty into a national airport starting in october. potentially increasing the number of lights arriving and departing from the hub. how is tsa prepared to deal with the increased air traffic in the larger number of passengers that will come in with this designation? and i know there have been great efforts over the past week to
aleleviate 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, you know, what we've done to this point will need to be re-evaluated and looked at again. i know several tsos are coming online as well as we move forward. but what would you do to take a look at that knowing that this is going to change? >> yes, sir. and in fact, what the -- this increased collaboration with the airlines and the airports is helping us to foresee problems like this in a way that we hadn't in the past. i don't want to get caught by surprise by something like that. as you say, if you increase flights dramatically, we've got to be prepared to receive those. we've been working very closely with the airlines and that airport to understand what that might look like, when we think we'll begin to see that so we can get well in advance of that. i know that a couple of the
major airlines there are already considering some things they might do with respect to increased automation at the checkpoint and we're pushing resources into we had several of the airports come in and really share with us and i think with the chairman there they heard a willingness to try to work with tsa on these issues. there were quite a few major airports and hubs here to speak. so moving forward, we would like to continue to get that collaboration that we think that might not have been there to
this point. not to the level it needs to be. let me say also i have been echoing this every opportunity and i have gotten them past several days. we need to look at our tsos and see what the compensation level is. and for some catastrophic i don't know how many people can raise a family on $30,000. we need to look at the compensation of the tsos and understanding that they have a thankless job, first of all. they are on the frontlines. they should be compensated in a manner which is the importance
of their job. >> i would agree. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes -- >> at the beginning of your testimony you said your first point of focus is a focus on the mission. i pulled up your mission statement and it said protect the transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. i have been reading reports in making sure the increasing terrorism threat. if people are able to move quickly. i have seen report thags your agents are being pulled to support campaign events. i don't see and under what authority is tsa screening
americans and concert and where does that fit into the priorities. about the importance. in this manning crisis, where is the priority of supporting these events that have nothing to do with the core mission. >> right now we provide support to the secret service under an intergovernmental service agreement. we have detailed -- i should say stand by. we have 75 people on stand by to assist with the events over the course of the summer there have been events that they supported. i wanted to let them know they
are in our own crisis. >> we support that because it's an important mission. >> i agree the people are safe, but i don't see that in the core competency of tsa. and allowing you to focus on the core mission? >> i would like to be fully focused on the core mission. >> i sent you a letter i asked if you would get back to me and i was wondering when i might be getting an answer to this letter. >> may i ask consent to put my
name into the record and ask him to respond as part of the hearing. >> without objection. so ordered. >> tomorrow they will be holding a hearing bringing the records of airports. they will be there which i appreciate. she participated in the round table where he had a fruitful and vigorous discussion. in a small airport like tucson, people are paying $85 to go through precheck. then they are show think up at the airport and they are closed. we have two terminals and on average they have only been open five hours a day. with little to no flexibility. this is a concern we are hearing from around the country. if people are going to spend the money, it needs to be open. is there anything in the works to rectify this? >> i am aware of that issue. my goal is to get those precheck
lanes open so they are available when the passengers arrive. some of that is a staffing issue and some is a scheduling issue. the focus that we are putting now on daily and hourly operations is showing us where we are having that problem. some of that is best practices across the system. some of that is availability of people to go through that. in the absence of that, it's dramatically changing as we move people through and you move them to the front of the line and you get them through in a precheck way. opening up the precheck line, even if you don't have enough people to open the line at that moment. you have to build the capacity or volume to justify pulling the bodies off to open a precheck lane. my goal is to make sure if we are going to promise a service to people, you can deliver that. >> tomorrow on the record, the
feeling by the airlines and the airport thrds. they will make tactical decisions & even if you are giving flexibility to that person. are you willing to short of relieve some of that and allow more bottom up decision making so the leader on the ground at that airport can make it? >> absolutely. that's the message i have been sending out consistently. they are back to the military model and i have resources and i know my mission. i want to do that to the best of my ability and reach out as i need. >> their hands are tie and they're directed by washington, d.c. >> i have new leadership that is not following that model.
i made it very clear that they do. i am checking on that to make sure. >> things like that shouldn't take an act of congress. >> it took an act of me. i said it is this the way things have to happen. >> great, thanks and i'm sorry for going-over. >> no problem. the chair recognizes mr. keating. >> thank you and your staff for helping us and providing feedback on the billie introduced that passed the committee in a bipartisan fashion. i spoke with the airport operators in the more formal process in which they can share predictive data. how many seats on a flight and where the flights are and try to make it as lifetime as functional as possible. i want to know where you are on that and how easily that can be
done. number two, several federal agencies utilize the canine programs. we use this in the state department. we use it in the most dangerous places in the world to help keep our people safe. they express the willingness to turn to the programs despite requests from airport operators. we had committee testimony where the airlines from american association have testified and expressed their support for that. the dhs aviation security advisory is 16-1 in support of these recommendations, moving towards a toifgz program. can you tell us, given the minimal supply and the growing demand what tsa can do to improve the situation and incorporate more canine screening and whether or not there is an openness to these programs? >> i'm open to that program and i had a number of conversations
with people about private screening. >> do you have the resources to move forward and expand that then? >> if by resources you mean an oversight staff, we have the staff i have that manages a current program and they can work with private vendors who are interested. the challenge associated is we have to work through local law enforcement. if a dog finds something, what do doi now? >> so you think the inhibiting factor is not money or the number of these resources available? it's coordinating with local law enforcement?
i think we could and should explore the options when you are thinking about cargo screening and other types of things that are off the airport property that has to be done. there is value there. they also serve as a visible deterrent. >> no doubt with dogs. it is relatively straight forward a& the operational cell that i have includes airlines and airports to provide that data. in more realtime. not just after the fact. it doesn't help me to find out
what happened last week. it's more important to find out what's coming and do something about it. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes mr. donovan. >> thank you for your candidness with your committee. we saw the shooting in brussels and the vulnerability of our transportation hubs. is that the jurisdiction of state and earlier to patrol a&
changes have been made. have you found the changes have improved our ability to detect things going through our check points that shouldn't and is there data that supports that? >> i won't get into details, but i can tell you our testing told us we are improving significantly. it is improved over the measures we took and the retraining we did and the changes in focus helped and i recently met with the inspector general. testing our improvement that will take place over the course of the next few months. i look forward to if he is val
>> the last thing people would like is to have a bad taste in their mouth because they missed their flight. specifically, do the fsds have the ability to grant overtime if they need more employees? >> they do. i pushed a lot of overtime. they do and we had an incident last year where he had to use deadly force and it was done by the book.
>> what about k-9 teams and that's another thing we expressed. they worked tremendously well. can we get a permanent 1 and as you expand the plan or implement it, where would we fall on the list? >> i will get you the exact priorities for the record, but i would like to expand our passenger screening program beyond what we currently have. right now i have pushed the canines to the largest air force where we experience the biggest challenge. my goal and plan is to back field that saz we bring them on board. i will find out where new orleans is on the priority list. >> i read and i know about your goal to increase precheck passengers. one idea that i think -- let me say off hand, i'm opposed to the baggage fees. it's abominable and the price of gas has been low for the last
year so airline ticket prices have remained the same. baggage fees is another way to make excessive money. it pushes the carry ones through our security check points that means our margin of error if it's 1% or .1% now that we have millions of more bags because airlines are doing their fees, at some point they will prohibit them, but if we want to push people, why don't we say anyone who wants to precheck, the airlines can't charge you baggage fees. that would drive people to precheck and not stick it to the airlines, but help the american people. do you think that the number of bags going through our check point is problematic. >> there is a lot of bags about
four times at what gets checked. so this is why we encourage the airlines to help enforce that 1 plus 1 rule. >> you can continue to watch this hearing on screening delays on c-span.org and opinion to leave facebook and twitter comments. we leave it to take you live to the state department briefing with deputy spokesman mark toner. an audit concluded that hillary clinton disregarded cyber security by using a private e-mail server and they are expected to ask about that issue. >> to meet the challenge of radicalization to violence as well as terrorist recruitment. state and u.s. a.i.d. will work with key international partners to advance all five objectives using the full change of diplomatic, development and
speech today of the george washington program on countering violent extremism. turning to liberia, today in new york are, the un security council had a resolution that ends the arms embargo and this reflects the significant and steady advances of the people and the government towards resoring peace and security for all liberians. person 12 years after the end of the brutal civil war and the council's imposition of sanctions, the people made important progress in building kmugzs and healing the wound wounds of the past. this is how multilateral tools encourage the progress we have seen over the past decade in liberia. the first question yesterday, i will go ap today. go ahead. >> can i start with the ig report on the e-mail practices?
do you agree with what seems to be the essential conclusion regarding past secretary of state hillary clint an's e-mail practices that she played by her own rules? >> well, i will try to address your questions. i'm at a bit of a disadvantage and the reason why is as often happens in washington, d.c., this report is not due for public release until tomorrow. i know that some media did receive leaked copies of the report. i am somewhat limited and didn't want to talk about the conclusions in great detail until that has been released publicly. what we have been say iing and e
process is that was something that secretary kerry is something they asked the oig to do. they have made recommendations. we have already complied with many of those recommendations in the report. you will see them. as well as other federal agencies are facing in trying to ensure proper record keeping and accountability for e-mail traffic. >> you gave a background cleaving that was an anonymous spin. again, you can try your question again. >> you said you would address the question.
>> here's the problem, brad. we don't talk about leaked documents. we don't often address them and we do this across the board. >> you did this morning in a conference call. >> we had to address through a background briefing and i take objection that it's some kind of spin effort. we were trying to get out there on background to talk about some of the findings since it was out in public. >> i understand you have limitations, but i think that there institutional questions that ought to be addressed. one of the findings in the report was that the secretary clinton or the oig found no evidence that secretary clinton sought approval for the use of the private server.
it also quotes the officer who is part of irm and the assistant secretary for security as saying they believe that she had an obligation to ask them and if they had been asked they would have declined it. declined to approve it. the report also explicitly states that the under secretary of management discussed the issue with the top staff. they are directly responsible for the bureaus for irm, correct? people can't see your nod. >> do they have both reports? >> yes, that's correct. >> why didn't the under secretary of management who is responsible for the two bureaus that complained that they should have been asked, but weren't to
approve this, why didn't he raise it? >> let me try to address the issues you raised. first of all, about whether secretary clinton was required to seek approval. we talked about this in the past so i feel like i can speak about it on the record. is that -- while not necessarily encouraged, there was no prohibition on using personal e-mail. the only requirement is that the regulations do state this. these records need to be preserved and looking back with 20-20 hindsight, we have records management and cyber security policies that would make it hard
to approve this kind of outside system to replace your official e-mail. secretary clinton said publicly and she would not make the same choice again. she also said she did not seek specific approval for this system. i am aware that the officials are in the report, they wouldn't have gotten the alliance to conduct official business. she said she would not have made the same choice again. i don't want to relitigate all of that. i'm not sure that the report
gets into the assigning blame on that. >> one thing here. the report says you state that there was no absolute prohibition on the use of personal e-mail which is true. however beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011, the department revised the foreign affairs manual and issued various memoranda discussing the obication to use department systems in most circumstances. so there was an obligation to use department systems in most circumstances. correct? are you disputing that? >> if you are quoting the chapter and verse, i'm not going to dispute that, but appellant prohibited. >> in occasional circumstances, but it was to do it in every circumstance. the obligation is in most
circumstances, ufd is the department systems. when you say it's not prohibited, you are right, but not right if you use that statement toing is it was acceptable to use it in most circumstances. secretary clinton used it in every circumstance, correct? >> again, in answer to your second question, while people were aware of her use of personal e-mail, no one a full and complete understanding to the extent. >> some people did have a full and complete understanding like she did. >> again, that's a question for her and her team to answer. >> there is a reason i'm raising this and it's an institutional question. you guys have an interest it would seem to me in securing the communicatio communications.
right? >> yes, we do. it's not just for her to ask, but surely isn't it for the people around her, including the under secretary of management who did discuss the issue with her top aides to raise these issues. >> i'm not sure what you are referring to. he did discuss the issues. >> on page 38, it said in august 2011, the secative secretary for management and secretary clinton's chief of staff and deputy chief of staff in response to the secretary's request discussed via e-mail providing her with a black ber tow replace her personal blackberry because this e-mail has been released for her personal e-mail server that is down. the under secretary of
management and chief of staff discussed this via e-mail. they are responsible for the two bureaus, irm and ds who said they believe the secretary had an obligation to ask for approval to do this and if they had been asked, they would have said no. i don't understand why their boss wouldn't have addressed this issue because he is responsible for both of them and discussed it with the top officials in the department including the chief of staff. >> it is our understanding that the full extend of her use of private e-mail was not clear to senior staff and what you are referring to is the two. >> the chief of staff didn't know this? >> again, people were aware she was using it. i can't speak to that specifically. you are talking about the under secretary for management. >> he didn't know. >> all i can say is just to
finish my response, i think what you are referring to is knowing to use an expression, 20-20 hindsight, the officials said they would not have approved. i think secretary clinton said as much. she looking back would not have done the same course of action. i also want to say -- >> did they make an effort because some people did know it. she knew it and the chief of staff knew it and the management was aware she had a personal e-mail. >> i do think we knew -- >> replacing it and know that was rejected. i don't get why the department has an abication to secure communications would not at a senior level responsible for diplomatic security wouldn't have raised this and flagged it as an issue so you would be in keeping with your own rules.
>> so again, without wading too much into the details of this given that it's not public yet, a couple of things. one is that we have said in the past that oush record keeping -- we could have done a better job. they are going back before to secretary clinton. we recognize that. the fact that she turned over 2,000 pages of her e-mails and i think the oig recognized that in some ways and mitigated the past problems. you are talking about -- and i
get your question which is, was there knowledge and if there was, why weren't steps taken? i am not going to relitigate that. i am not. the oig report has conclusions and recommendations. we have worked to address them. we acknowledge that. we need to do a better job with the record keeping and we believe we are doing such. we have taken steps to meet all of the recommendations that the report has made and in fact they said we are in compliance or that they consider all eight recommendations have been resolved. >> i got one more on this. in the background briefing, one official said repeatedly that the reports said that we didn't do a great job.
the phrase great job and didn't do a great job appear nowhere. the report's conclusion states that the department and the office of the secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and manage effectively the legal requirements in cyber security risks associated with the data communications and in the opening one-page summary it said management weaknesses at the department contributed to the loss or removal of e-mail records, particularly created by the office of the secretary. the weaknesses include a limited ability to retrieve the records in accessibility of electronic files and failure to comply with the departing employees and a general lack of oversight. do you believe that the official was truthful in stating we didn't do a great job?
great job, he said that the phrase is not there and what it said is there were systemic weaknesses and management weaknesses and a general lack of oversight. the weakness is on background and they should be accountability with the accuracy of it. we didn't do a great job that the report said that when that is not what the report said. there were systemic failures and management and why do you believe that official is correct. we like many federal agencies were not doing enough to meet the requirements of records management and preservation.
i think we acknowledged that and we acknowledged it on the record, but yet moving forward we believe we have set in place and at or under the direction and efforts to fully comply and meet and improve our records management and preservations system here at the state department. again, i don't mean to broaden the lens here, but agencies across the government have been working to adapt unbelievably enough because e-mails have been around for a while. the fact that we live in an e-mail-dominated business environment and we were relying on this print and file system which is inadequate.
it was set in motion and your question or allegation not with standing, we acknowledge it. >> i don't think the cloak of anonymity should be sufficient for not telling the truth. are sorry, brad. the cloak of anonymity that we set up that do background beliefings to add depth and context on the record. for a lot of obvious reasons to give you guys more information or share the inner workings. there is not an effort to spin this. there is not an effort to hide or see the information, but i will acknowledge one of the reasons we did this acknowledging the fact that other people who were privy to
this report before it was publicly released chose to leak it to members of the media. none of us are clean on this, so to speak in a sense that you guys all got the report leaked to you or many of you did, but not all of you. in an attempt to address this, we held the background telephone press conference to try to address your questions. we had no choice, but it is always our pref tleans this is released publicly. >> that's the questions. the implication on the call is that the department didn'ty educate people enough. wouldn't clinton as the head of the department, isn't that her responsibility and not the department's responsibility to her? >> so first of all, you are right in that we have said that we did not do a good enough job in processing and outprocessing
to put it in a bureaucratic way. our senior officials. even as an institution so that people were aware of what the regulations were. i will only say that a lot of these have only been thought about and formulated since she left office in 2013 specifically. that was when she came out with new and improved recommendations and looked at this. >> the report said the guidance was considerably more detailed and sophisticated by clinton's tenured and her security practice should be evaluated accordingly. be that as it may, you reference again that not everyone knew that the past secretary used her e-mail and wasn't that her responsibility? there is no other way they would have known. >> as an institution we could
have done more too. >> that's her responsibility. it said here secretary clinton had an ob gigz conduct the business with their offices and not they had an obligation to learn independently about it. you talking about -- i'm sorry, i thought you were talking about the apologies. it was her responsibility to inform the department about regulations. >> again i will go back to what i said before. >> i don't know again.
>> i know there were attempts and none of them were successful. i would have to refer you to them. >> how do you know that? the report did not say none were successful. >> i apologize. i misspoke. i will say and i would refer you to secretary clinton's team for questions about the security of the system. let's go to carol. >> this morning on the call there was a fair amount of discussion about the facts that when there was a com pir pairson made with the secretaries that used it almost exclusively and on that section that brad just quoted, they said that the rules were clearly in line or clearly
in place by the time the secretary came in. they were much more sophistic e sophisticat sophisticated. when you compare with secretary powell and what secretary clinton did, even though many people said it was said that this was a problem going back several administrations. do you not see a difference between secretary powell and secretary clinton did? >> again, i'm not going to litigate from the podium or compare and contrast. what we said is the policies and the regulations with the use of e-mail have only really been clarified in the past several years.
up until that point, understanding that it was not encouraged, but not prohibited. this is an evolving process in the sense that not exclusively to the state department and many agencies are struggling with how to preserve and manage roerts keeping for e-mail use. there circumstances where senior officials sometimes do have to use personal e-mail. >> it was reportedly said this was a problem. >> i recognize that. >> given in the report was secretary howell.
so it would seem they go out of their way to try to twish between the two. do you not see a difference? >> they kwish between -- >> between the circumstances. in that section he quoted. >> for has been an evolving understanding of the challenges in record keeping and we need to do a better job and i believe we are on senior officials and they understand these constraints. >> do you believe the secretary acted improperly? >> i'm not going to make that judgment. >> what's your reaction to the swap in. >> i had one about the e-mail.
>> we will get to you, but we run through. >> so this may already be known, but am i wrong to assume that all of secretary clinton's e-mails in the state department's possession would have been released to the public via the page or do you have a number of e-mails that didn't meet the standards and were not involved and you are holding her e-mails that we haven't seen? >> what we have released through the monthly process that all of you love was 55,000 pages of e-mails that secretary clinton provided to the department. at the time she said she does not have access to any
work-related e-mails beyond those she turned over to the department. >> you said she did not keep them? >> beyond those she curned over to the department. >> in answer to your question, we have all the e-mails she turned over and found in additional things when you have replies, in this case is a case of such an example. >> how many do you estimate you have that have not been made public? >> i don't think it's a large number. i think there stray examples like this. >> some of them seem to be quite relevant in this november 2010 e-mail in which one of her chiefs suggests she set up.
>> relevant to what? >> it wasn't a request. it was an offer by her to release her work. >> well, whatever the case is, some of the e-mails you have seemed rel vand to her decision to keep a private e-mail which is especially the entire question. i'm wondering if you are interested in releasing them. >> i can't speak to that. >> there has been in there not already. >> if she had quinn them on the account, would it be to the state department to decide which
ones were personal or would it be her team that they would offer through the process? >> the ones you released are what you decided were rel vand. would she have had the ones to decide? >> the reason i asked is for example, whether i would have the first right to say here is my first official and they would be vetted properly. >> can i take that and decide what secretary carriy's system. secretary kerry relies on his could for work. the e-mails are automatically ark offed and this is part of the advancements he made. any e-mail he sends is
automatically copy and saved electronical electronically. again this speaks to the fact that we are complying and this approach does comply with the act as well as e-mail records management requirements. >> he sends and receives the computer here in the building. the access to the mobile device? >> both, i believe. >> back to justin's question. has the state department released all the e-mails that secretary clinton turned over? >> yes. >> why on the background call was there a discussion that they admitted was released to the public? >> it was in part of those e-mails he turned over. if i explained that poorly, i apologize. she only turned over what she still had in her possession. that does not exclude the fact that there other responses and relies. you know how e-mail works.
there was the body of an e-mail that was not reflected in the e-mail. there can be. >> it's not a large number though though. >> did this come to the e-mails in the past year? >> i don't believe so at all. we were simply going through and we were clear about this. almost tediously. systematically, we went through the 55,000 pages of e-mails that she gave to us through the process. we edited and upgraded them as necessary. before we released them publicly and we only dealt with secretary clinton. >> they were not in compliance and wall all we have been hearing about is that the
secretary was in compliance. >> we haven't said that either. i believe brad can yell at me because i'm waiting to the hospital findings. they did say that the fact that she did turn over this large effort to do so. that mitigated the lack of compliance previously. i get it. >> it actually implying the opposite of what you are saying. this mitigates and lessens and dampens it and if you rob a bank and return the money, it is a mitigating aspect, but doesn't mean you didn't rob the bank. >> first of all, let's back away from that. we didn't say that.
i can't say it enough. we had to do it and we are doing a better job in processing the senior officials. we are doing a better job at making sure that from the top down, they understand the record keeping and management and all we can do is before looking and try to improve and correct the system we have. there was no restriction and regulation. >> you admit they made mistakes. >> the matter for the fbi to decide whether they are going to bring charges. >> there other -- thank you, but there other reviews out there that we can't speak to. legitimate points.
>> one other question. i want to follow-up on brad's question. you with regard to hacking attempts, you had confirmed that there were efforts to hack into the secretary's e-mail? hack in. that's why i believe that none of them were successful. >> here's my next question. brad asked you how do you know you weren't successful. do you have a reason to think there was? and brad pointed out that i misspoke. thank you for giving me the chance to clarify. it doesn't address the security of her system including the hacks that were successful. for that i would have to refer
you to her team to talk about whether there were. >> to your knowledge? >> there were not. i don't know that that's a comprehensive knowledge. i apologize for this. if we are exhausted -- >> just a very quick question. >> when the report gets leaked or somebody breaks the embargo, the organization lifts the embargo. similarly, the report is everywhere. why are you keeping it and why don't you e lease it. >> i would refer to you to the department of the inspector general. they are not under the state department's authorization. they are a separate entity. >> and the second you mentioned,
just the former director who spoke at the national press club. they have clarified that they have not been using state.gov. >> for has been a mixture. >> this is not the technicality. the point is that they have put into place and the procedure that was not followed. you have a deadline to put everything on the web. you won't have copies and all archives will be on the beb and also what about the 30,000 e-mails that she deleted? did she keep them, even if you
have personal e-mails, you don't delete them. >> you will have to direct that question to her. >> what is your reaction to the recent swap deal between kiev and moscow. >> we welcome today's news about the fact that she was returned to ukraine. as you note, the government of ukraine did make the humanitarian decision and two service member who is were captured on ukrainian soil. we are delighted she is home. she was captured in combat and taken against her well and we believe this is an important opportunity and it's an
opportunity for all under the agreements and we believe it sets the right stage and should provide the impetus for the recommendation. we want to see a sustained ceasefire and the election under the ukrainian law and the with trawl for the full control of international borders. these are the steps that need to be taken. >> in his speech, he said he intends to return the same way he brought back. are you concerned about that? >> what's the implication there? >> in his statements when he said he wants to bring back crimea the same way they brought it back.
she said she intends to return. >> first of all, let's take a step back. it was russia who opened illegally and remains in crimea. we believe that crimea should be returned to the rightful owner, if you will. which is ukraine in terms of eastern ukraine. we have been clear that russia and the separatist that is it backs actively in ukraine and they need to comply with the commitments that they made which provides a path to resolution in this conflict. as for the future plans, hopefully she will reconnect to her family.
>> you concerned about the country being put into conflict once again? >> she was a soldier imprisoned while in combat in eastern ukraine fighting separatists and russian troops on the ground at the time. i don't know what her military future holds, but i think she is speaking from that perspective. >> the question on the new taliban leader. i wanted to check to see the designated list under the u.s. >> he is not. you requested if he was on the terrorist list? he's not. >> how do you react that he rejected the peace process? >> rejected the peace process. >> they rejected the peace process. >> look. we would hope he would seize the opportunity to choose peace and to work towards a negotiated
solution. we hopes he makes that choice now. i have to move quickly. >> i am asking for as a matter of fact. is he going to be the next target if he going to predict w we might target in the national security interests of the united states. . >> adjerba jean, prisoner released today, the journalist, khalid, do you have anything on that? >> we've seen those reports. we -- we'll have more to say welcome. we welcome her release. >> does the department have any reaction to prime minister abe saying he will not visit pearl harbor? >> president abe saying he will not -- >> visit pearl harbor? >> exchange for the visit. >> yeah. no, i mean we've said this before. look, our relationship with japan is strong, strategic.
we have built a partnership over -- with them over the past 70-plus years that is durable and forward looking with an acknowledgement of the sacrifices and the pain that preceded it. please. >> visiting pearl harbor? >> [ inaudible ]. >> the foreign minister said the american bombings in japan was extremely regrettable. have you ever feel the pressure from japan to ask if the united states to apologize? >> you said -- >> japanese foreign minister said yesterday united states atomic bombing of the city were extremely regrettable. >> of her roche ma? >> yes. >> the president is going to visit there. secretary kerry history visited
her roche roche ma. we acknowledge the pain of the past and look forward to building a stronger future and, you know, with that in mind, that we need to move beyond the conflicts and suffering and sacrifices and build a stronger alliance with respect to that. please. >> just a quick one if you can dispense with it fast. like the fifth day in a row but formally announced the defense minister of the israeli government. do you have any comment on that? >> i do. we have seen reports of agreements reached to expand the coalition. reports from israel describing it as the most right wing coalition in israel's history and we know that many of
its ministers said they oppose a two-state solution. this raises a legitimate questions about the direction it may be headed in, headed, rather, and what kind of policies it may adopt. ultimately we're going to judge this government based on it actions. we will work with this government as we have with every israeli government that preceded it with the goal of strengthening cooperation and remain steadfast in our security of israel and two-state solution. thanks, guys. do you want to do the background. >> watch today's state department briefing on our website at c-span.org. more on the hillary clinton e-mail story from the hill. in november 2010, long-time aide houma abedin suggested hillary
clinton consider using an official department e-mail account or releasing her personal clinton e-mail.com address to the state department. clinton might want to consider the move aba dean said so her messages would not be going to span but clinton appeared to reject the proposal from her then deputy chief of staff for operations. let's get a separate address or device, but i don't want any risk of the personal being accessible, she responded. more at the hill.com. hillary clinton's presidential opponent senator bernie sanders has been campaigning in california ahead of that state's june 7th primary. here's one
of his campaign ads. >> what choice do californians have in this election? the biggest one of all. the power to choose a new direction for the democratic party to break the back of a corrupt system of campaign finance that keeps a rigged economy in place, stand up to wall street and make the wealthy
pay their fair share, fight for tuition-free public colleges
and universities. it's a long way to washington but you can send them a message they can't ignore. i'm bernie sanders and i approve this message. >> madam secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states. ♪ [ applause ] the libertarian party holding its national convention this
weekend. we will have live coverage saturday night at 8:00 eastern as the candidates face one another in a debate. then on sunday at 9:45, the party chooses its presidential and vice presidential nominees. live coverage on c-span. news organizations have begun reporting that virginia governor terry mcauliffe is under federal investigation for campaign contributions. this picture courtesy of the "new york times." here's more from a reporter covering that story. >> questions about a chinese donor and governor terry mcauliffe's own finances all part of an fbi inquiry in matt zapotosky has been looking into all of this for "the washington post" joining us on the phone. thank you for being with us. >> yeah, thanks for having me. >> first the timing of this announcement. why now? >> well, i wouldn't say it's an announcement. cnn reported yesterday that federal investigators were looking into terry mcauliffe. they reported particularly that
they were interested in a campaign consideration he received from a chinese businessman. they have some sources and we were able to confirm pretty quickly that, indeed, federal prosecutors in the eastern district of virginia and those in the public integrity section of the justice department were interested broadly in terry mcauliffe as to why now, i think it's just because reporters had been pressing or reporters got some word now. >> who is this chinese businessman and what did he contribute? >> he contributed $120,000 to terry mcauliffe's 2013 campaign and inauguration. he's a guy who you could read reports on-line about his name is wang lang. he's closely linked to the
chinese government, member of the national people congress, contractor who's building some embassies for china but also a permanent u.s. resident, which is important here because foreign citizens can't make political contributions or contribute to u.s. elections, but him having u.s. permanent resident status makes him eligible to donate to mcauliffe so that $120,000 contribution may be at its face is not a problem but there could be other problems with it. >> of course governor mcauliffe's attorney quick to say that mr. wang is a legal resident, has the ability as you indicated to contribute to terry mcauliffe's gubernatorial campaign. that seems to be an easy issue to resolve. seems to be more questions since this has been a year-long investigation you're reporting that investigators are looking into his own personal finances. what have you learned on that front? >> that's what we understand. we understand that investigators
are not just looking at this one guy, but they're looking into a lot of financial dealings that terry mcauliffe has had, both campaign contributions and personal deals which which he's been involved. what they would be looking for there is sort of public corruption next u.s., would he ever give in a contribution or was he given straight up money or gratuity and then do something official in exchange for that. that's sort of the classic public corruption what federal prosecutors would be most interested in. it might be tough to prove here. it's very hard just for reporters to look through and see anything that is obviously criminal, but i guess we'll see. >> do you have a sense if there is anything there? >> i mean, i will say that my sense from talking to people who are familiar with this case, is that at the end of the day,
there probably isn't a there there. there's maybe some suspicious financial transactions, i don't know a lot of specifics on those. to substantiate this criminal corruption charge proving terry mcauliffe did something in exchange for a payment, at least so far, they haven't found the evidence they would probably need to substantiate that. gun to my head had to make a prediction i would say there isn't, but the investigation is still very much ongoing. >> as your story points out governor mcauliffe is a fairly wealthy man on his own right. >> he is. he released some summaries of his tax returns when he was campaigning. he's a millionaire several times over. he's been involved in a variety of business deals and made a lot of money personally off of those. and, of course, there's nothing wrong with that. you know. he's a rich guy and a lot of that is public. >> the connection between terry