tv Donald Trump Addresses Supporters in Lawrenceville New Jersey CSPAN May 20, 2016 4:55am-5:38am EDT
now in terms of, you know, their efforts and the amount of progress that they've made. they've applied tools to the limits that they can within the limits of current technology. but as beth said, there's some things that just can't be encrypted because the technology doesn't allow it. mr. lynch: d.o.d.'s funding in this area is much better than o.p.m.'s and some of the other departments. so are we using their personnel? have they come over and taken over this? mr. scott: absolutely. they're in there and side by side with the team at o.p.m. not only review but look at architecture and also build out the plans for the future nbib technology. so i'm pleased with where it's going. i don't think there's anybody who would say our job is done or that we're not, you know, interested in pursuing what lse we can do.
mr. lynch: the cost estimate. you know, we had some pilot programs that tell us it's somewhere between, you know, $100 and $500 per person for a private vendor to do this screening, this gathering of social media information. is that pretty close to what the -- in practice what we're finding? mr. scott: yeah, i would say some of the pilots that have run the estimates are within that range. clearly one of the things that will have to happen, and i think the pilots will inform this, some greater level of automation. as you can probably appreciate when you do a search, you get a ton of data that has to be sifted through and adjudicated and i happen to be a person who has a name that's shared with, you know, a professional baseball player, professional museum, a movie director and a bunch of other things. just a simple search would turn
up a bunch of crazy stuff that wouldn't be relevant. so some degree of automation ultimately is going to have to help bring the cost down of that. mr. lynch: all right. i see my time has expired. mr. chairman, thank you for your indulgence and i yield back. mr. desantis: the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie, for five minutes. mr. massie: thank you, mr. chairman, for conducting this hearing. i have a friend that says they should outsource this to the consultants that do opposition research on us, the politicians, because they seem to find anything all the way back to junior high. but on a serious note, though, you know, i see edward snowden as an example here in our notes as somebody who maybe you would have known something about it if you had done social media research. that may or may not be true but one thing that does stand out is the political contributions
are available online and they -- i suppose even before social media in the online availability of this they were available. so you already have an analogue or probably a way of considering where you should consider or not consider political contributions when doing background research. but now that you have social media available to you, there's another layer of transparency or layer of opaqueness that's een removed. you can see where somebody supports a political candidate or not. by the way, edward snowden and i have similar contribution histories. my colleague here suggested you should be suspect of anybody that supports me. my question is, mr. evanina, do you take into account political support when you're doing background research in social media? mr. evanina: we do not. it's important for committee to
understand the investigators who conduct background investigations are very well-trained and they follow the federal investigative standards and there are plenty f policy they put forth in their rigorous background information and they conduct it on information that's relevant whether or not you're capable of obtaining and holding a security clearance. so a political contribution would not be one of those. mr. massie: if they encountered somebody who in their social media supported a candidate who was strong on the fourth amendment and believed very strongly in the right to privacy and there are different interpretations of the fourth amendment. i'm not saying that people don't believe strongly in the fourth amendment. that wouldn't be a consideration? mr. evanina: absolutely not. it wouldn't have any predication on whether you could hold or maintain a security clearance. mr. massie: thank you very much. i yield back my time. mr. desantis: i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. kelly, for five minutes.
ms. kelly: thank you, mr. chair. many of us have become so accustomed to using technology in our day-to-day lives that it seems second nature to examine the social media accounts of individuals applying for security clearance. however, it's important to note that when incorporating social media into the background check process, a number of steps must be taken going far beyond reviewing friends, a facebook profile. ms. cobert, o.p.m. does background checks governmentwide. the data collection of these investigations are completed by federal contractors in part because we must comply with the various laws governing what information can be collected, used and stored by a federal government. is that accurate? ms. cobert: congresswoman, we work with federal contractors in the investigative process to enhance our capacity to conduct background investigations. they have to follow the same
federal investigative standards that mr. evanina referenced. the individuals from those contractors who work on investigations also have to go -- undergo thorough training against those standards and we work to ensure that is the appropriate training. ms. kelly: thank you. the incorporation of social media data is not as simple as it may sound to many people so i'd like to delve a little deeper how we get from a vendor running query from publicly available information to the point which we have valuable verifiable information for use in the adjudication process. again, to begin, contractors must have social media checks on security clearance applicants based on information by you, correct? ms. cobert: we are going to start with the social media -- the social media efforts with the pilot i mentioned. that will help us understand what kind of guidance we should be putting in place when individuals are conducting social media, searches to
verify that information to ensure we're focused on the pieces that are relevant to a security clearance, not the other issues that are not part of the process. that's why we're going to work through this in a pilot so we can create standards and processes that will get us relevant information, reliable information and protect information. ms. kelly: and your contractors will need proper training, proper guidance to do all of that? ms. cobert: they will need training, yes, they will. ms. kelly: once the information is collected, a human being will be needed to make a judgment and verify it does belong to the individual in uestion. ms. cobert: we are working to find the processes that will enable us to in fact match individuals. as mr. scott described, there are multiple tony scotts. so we are working through the pilot, and i think this will be an ongoing process to see where are the places we need human intervention? where is the area that technology will help with hat?
ms. kelly: mr. evanina, can you speak to the areas that need human beings for data? mr. evanina: this cannot be stated in terms of number one identity resolution, as my colleagues mentioned, the ability to identify bob from -- mr. scott mr. from scott and all that goes with it, the resources that will take to make sure we're firmly in agreement that mr. scott is mr. scott. then if we find out about scott, is it investigatively and adjudicatedly relevant? if it does it will be put in the same box. i want to reiterate that social media identification of information is in the same box of all other tools and techniques vendors have. ms. kelly: and even after we have verified individuals, additional manual processing is needed in order to analyze, interpret and contextualize
information, particularly photographs. is there any way to fully automatic the analysis of -- automate the analysis of photographs? mr. evanina: i want to go back to the ability to maximize any time of automation we can to acilitate the effectiveness of this tool. i want to inform the committee at the end of the day no matter what we identify, the adjudicator is a fundamentally government role so the adjudicator will make the ultimate decision, it should be a value add to whether or not he should get a clearance or not. ms. kelly: thank you. i yield back. mr. meadows: thank you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, for five minutes. mr. mulvaney: i thank you for coming out. i have a couple random questions. mr. evanina, i want to go back to and you used the same terminology and maybe i just
don't understand the issue and full disclosure, mr. massie and i are sort of the libertarian leaning wing of the party. you mentioned there were civil liberties concerns, i think, in doing this research in the first place. don't get that. what civil liberty of mind could be at risk from you doing research on me? mr. evanina: well, i don't think in terms of the previous pilots and this particular policy, in order to get -- we had to negotiate strongly to ensure that each individual who applies for a security clearance we are going to protect their privacy and civil liberties at the same time collect the information we deem information to make sure they get a clearance. mr. mulvaney: again, i am not trying to split hairs with you. we had a very similar discussion when folks want to come into the country on vary yause visas. the lady who shot the people in san bernardino came on a fiance visa and we didn't do any social media on her and one of
the arguments we got from customs enforcement it would violate her civil liberties to o and do that, ok. if i come to you and i'm asking for a job or i'm asking in my current job to get a security clearance, can't you get my permission to go look at everything? mr. evanina: yes, sir. when you apply on an f.s. 86, the first thing you get to do is consent for the government searching you, not only with regard to social media, but all your other financial, medical records you consent to on f.s. 86. mr. mulvaney: i have a right to waive that and do i, correct? mr. evanina: correct. mr. mulvaney: there is absolutely no privacy issue in the front end when you're doing your background check on me, correct? mr. evanina: as long as you consent to it. mr. mulvaney: good. we're all on the same page. the real privacy concerns comes with what mr. lynch mentioned which is, what do you do with the information on me after you have it? because while i consent to let you go and get it, i certainly
don't consent with you going giving it to other people. i think the people focused in our civil liberties, what are you doing after you have it. so that's the question in civil liberties. what do you do with it? and i want to go deeper than social security numbers. what are you doing with mr. massie's medical records when you're doing research on him. especially him. his mental health records. ctually, i've got it right here, it's pretty interesting. but now everybody is hard wired to say, my social security number is important, i hope they're taking care of that. but what about stuff on its face that doesn't look leek it would be damaging to us. maybe mr. scott went to marriage counseling. not illegal and i don't know if that's true, i'm not suggesting that it is, i'm just saying as an example.
it's not illegal but it's not the type of thing you want to have public. what are you doing to protect that information? not just the number data, but the meat of the stuff you might find on anybody you're looking t? mr. evanina: i'll pass this to my colleague, but i want to say, the only retention of data is what is relevant to completing the background investigation. if it's not related to you obtaining a clearance it won't be retained. mr. mulvaney: so let's focus on that one word. nothing is not retained. once you have it, it's someplace. even if you hit erase on the hard driving it's someplace. what are you making sure that the stuff you don't retain really isn't retained? ms. cobert: it is used for the investigative decision but
there are very specific guidelines about how that information is used. we have specific tpwhrines about records retention, consistent with nara and their policies and a core element in the cybersecurity design of our systems particularly as we go forward is how do we make sure we've got appropriate protections in place for all that information, not just social security numbers. but there are very explicit policies around records retention, around records sharing. both externally, and within the government this information was fwathered for a specific purpose. that's what it was used for. there are guidelines around that in place. mr. mulvaney: just a quick question, i honestly don't know the answer. when the data was hacked that mr. scott mentioned before, was it just social security numbers or other information as well? ms. cobert: it included a range of information not exclusively
social security numbers. mr. mulvaney: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. meadows: i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. lieu, for five minutes. mr. lieu: thank you, mr. chairman. my questions are for mr. evanina. thank you for your service and i support incorporating social media into background investigations. i have a broader concern, whether race or ethnicity play a role in security clearance denial or granting. recently, four american citizens were arrested and indicted for espionage and then all charges were drop. these were in different cases and it turned out the government got it wrong. and the one fact that was the same among these cases is the defendants looked like me, they happened to be asian americans. their lives were turned upside
down because of what our government did. the "new york times" has asked our government to apologize. i wrote a letter signed by over 40 members of congress asking the department of justice to investigate. since i wrote that letter, our office has been contacted by federal employees who happen to be asian american, alleging that their security clearance was denied because of their race or ethnicity, so my question to you is, does race or ethnicity play a role in federal background investigations? mr. evanina: absolutely not. unequivocally not. i don't believe there's ever been a situation where an investigator used race or ethnicity for the determination f clearance. number two the situation you referenced , in 19 years in the f.b.i., i can assure you the f.b.i. does not conduct investigations relevant to whether your race or ethnicity comes to play. mr. lieu: thank you.
let me ask you a question about how this policy will be implemented in terms of social media. let's say a japanese american federal employee has a facebook page and friends of this federal employee living in japan or relatives, post on that facebook page. does this federal employee become more suspicious because of that? mr. evanina: absolutely not. the only issue would be if on that public facing facebook page there's derogatory or negative information that is relevant to an investigation, will result in a followup lead. otherwise it would not. mr. lieu: thank you. the u.s. government under the obama administration runs something called the insider threat program, where federal employees are asked to report on other federal employees who may be suspicious. is race or ethnicity allowed to be taken into account under that program?
mr. evanina: first of all, the task force is housed within my shop, and again, unequivocally race or ethnicity has no part in the insider threat process or the criticality we have across the government. mr. lieu: are federal employees, when they're given training on the insider threat program and how to report, are they given that training about race and ethnicity play nothing part? mr. evanina: any training crosses all boundaries, not just investigate i, that's part of our federal work force and fabric as americans. but in terms of the task force, race, ethnicity or other type of genre of covered classes is never a part of the task force. we are number one mission is to identify potential insiders. spies. espionage matters. or those who seek to to harm to others. mr. lieu: could you provide my office with guidance on how you train federal employees? mr. evanina: absolutely. mr. lieu: i've gone to a number of national security events and
briefings and -- i think it's not a sket that our -- secret that our national security establishment looks very nondiverse. there's been rumors of the state department having trouble attracting minorities. i wonder if that has anything to do with security clearance. could you provide my office with who gets security clearance based on race or ethnicity? mr. evanina: i'm sure i can. mr. lieu: thank you. i yield back. mr. meadows: the chair recognizes himself for a couple of questions. let me follow up on a couple of clarifying things. you've put out a new policy, we applaud that and thank you for that. is there any practical reason why we would not p asking them for their online identities?
mr. evanina: as part of the s-86 application, when you write your name, it's asked do i have any other names or aliases i go by. mr. meadows: but i'm talking online identities. witter, facebook, i have actually twitter accounts that don't actually have my name associated with them and yet i would tweet out things based on that. so is there any reason why we wouldn't ask for those types of things? mr. evanina: i don't believe it's a legal issue. i think it's a policy issue. we have to have some clear differentiation between what is investigatively relevant and we can get to those areas. mr. meadows: but social media, that would be relevant. there's no expectation of privacy other than you could make the case if i'm wanting to be private about it, i'm not putting my name, but if you just ask for those online identities, would that, online
identities be synonymous with an alias? mr. evanina: they could be. mr. meadows: so if there's no legal or practical reason not to do it why wouldn't it be part of your now policy? mr. evanina: the policy is a start. r. meadows: are you willing to look at that particular component of asking for online identities mandplabe report back within the next 60 days to this committee? mr. evanina: i think we're willing to look at all aspects of social media. mr. meadows: but specifically with regards to that question, i'm not asking you to give me a definitive answer, just get back to this committee on what your opinion is on why you should or should not do that. mr. evanina: yes, sir. mr. meadows: ms. cobert i'm going to finish with you, it's something from in the past, il8d like to ask you work regard to the c.i.o. and i.g. relationship, how would you characterize that from where it has been and where it is today
and if you could speak to hat. ms. cobert: thank youening -- thank you congressman. we have been working across the agency to strengthen our ffectiveness of our dialogue with the c.i.o. and i believe we've made real progress in a number of different areas. we've set up a ka dense of regular communications at my level with the inspector eneral, currently acting inspector general. biweekly basis we meet and get an overview. we have specific working teams that meet on a periodic basis as well, both around the c.i.o., around procurement, we set up that same kind of mechanism around the standup o they have mbib, wanting to make sure we get those right. enge we've made considerable progress in terms of the dialogue, the clarity of the
communications. we welcome their input on what we could be doing better as we welcome input from our colleagues here and elsewhere. >> so you would characterize it as much improved under your leadership. ms. cobert: i would characterize it as much improved. mr. meadows: the chair recognizes mr. lynch for a closing question or statement mr. lynch: thank you. i want to ask a question sort of off the grid here. i appreciate that you are making progress and that's a good thing. we're working together with d.o.d. to secure our systems. there's another issue, you know, these hackers have become so proficient, you know, this morning we got news that the swift commercial bank system, 11,000 banks and companies that handle international banking transactions, they were hacked, again. they were just hacked through
bangladesh and the new york, which is troubling. to the tune of about $81 million. now we find out there's another hack going on similar to that one. so they're being breached. the fdic, chinese hackers, news again this morning that the fdic has been hacked. and these are entities that have fairly robust, you know, protections. and we're about to enter into, we're about to debate the transpacific partnership. one of the provisions in that transpacific partnership requires u.s. companies to establish databases in foreign countries, about 12 countries. one is vietnam, a communist country. so we would have to, the u.s. companies would have to establish physically databases in those countries, ma lay shah, vietnam, and a lot of the banks and companies involved
ere are very concerned about the security aspect of this verseas. and i just wonder, especially mr. evanina, you know, i know you worry about this stuff all the time, as well, ms. cobert you are dealing wit, mr. scott, you as well. what about that dimension of this? i know you weren't prepared this morning to address this question and i appreciate it if you want to take a pass but i'm worried about that. it's tough enough protect the data when it's in the united states and now we're being asked to force our companies to deal in international trade to deposit their data in these foreign countries that don't have the security protections that even we have. mr. evanina. mr. evanina: i concur with your concern for cybersecurity and the need for us to be prepared
to, at least meet where we are in the global economy. i'm not particularly familiar with requirements to contain -- contained within this new policy, so i can't speak to that. but in the purview of national security, the cyberthreat is real. i think we have to take that into consideration for anything we do moving forward, whether here, domestically in the united states or any of our businesses and government operations overseas. mr. lynch: mr. scott, ms. cobert, do you want to take a bite at that? mr. scott: one thing is that cybersecurity knows no bounds. concerns about cybersecurity are, you know, global. physical location is one element but probably in the case of cybersecurity, not the most important in terms of concerns, it's more about the secure by design sort of notion, you know what have you put in place and how well is it implemented. so those would be more my
primary concerns, in some cases the physical location. mr. lynch: my concern is obviously the communist government of vietnam is going to require access. so that was my concern. you suffered enough. i want to yield back. thank you. mr. meadows: thank you. i want to thank all the bnses -- witnesses for being here today and if there is no other business, the subcommittee stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2016]
eyes of soldiers and their families and how important it was for them to keep in touch. >> so many women were writing to their men at the front saying i don't know what you're fighting for but you've need to come home because we've got about a fifth of the crop and i just buried our youngest in the back and we're not going to have anything left. you need to come home. >> we'll examine the vietnam war and the 1967 experiences of charlie company. discussing the battlefield of vietnam and what soldiers had to fight upon their return to the united states. >> vietnam veterans had been used as political footballs, as part of a morality play. but hardly anybody had gotten to tell their story who they were as young men before they went. the trauma that they went through both, great victories, funny times, horrible times, nd what's happened to them
since they've been home. >> then vernon dalmer at the hands of the ku klux klan. >> for what reason did anybody want to come and kill him? they came as a result of the orders from the head of the clan said go. and they came to kill the whole family. >> learn about the freedom summer school program during the summer of 1964 when volunteers from around the country taught african americans in mississippi methods of nonviolent resistance and encouraged voter registration. >> there were meetings held throughout the city preparing the residents and informing them of their political rights and getting ready to register to vote. watch city's
our. >> next, vice president joe biden talks about economic inequality, institutional racism, and his career in politics. mr. biden addressed the national urban league and is introduced by the group's president. >> give yourselves a warm round of applause. while there are many, many important people here in the audience i would be remiss if i did not acknowledge the congresswoman from the great state of ohio and the city of columbus. along with the former secretary of labor and now senior vice
chair of the national urban eague board of trustees. in 2009, when we met in chicago, and we asked the vice president to come the vice president came. in 2014 when we met in cincinnati and we asked the vice president to join us the vice president came and joined us. i am proud this morning once again to welcome to the national urban league the honorable joe biden. now, as i prepared the main street marshall plan i shared with you during the release of the 2016 state of black america promises to keep. in that memoir he wrote, in the
days to come we will be tested on whether we have the moral courage, the realism, the idea ism, the tenacity and ability to sacrifice some of the current comforts joe biden is a friend to the urban league movement through every step of his career. in helping us get the affiliate under way in wilmington, delaware, over a decade ago. he's exemplified moral courage, idealism, and tenacity as a champion for civil rights, workers' rights, and the rights of communities of color. with great gratitude for his unwavering dedication and the greatest respect, i am proud to present vice president biden with a 2016 lifetime achievement award for his leadership and service. ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the national urban league,
the urban league movement, the people we represent all across the nation, i am proud to present to you, the vice president of the united states, joe biden. [applause] vice president biden: hello, everybody. thank you all. lease, sit down. [applause] as they say in parts of my state, my city, my name is joe biden and y'all are the one that brung me to the dance. [laughter] you think i'm kidding, i'm not kidding. he is still a
mayor. that's how we got to know one another years ago. mr. mayor, i base the significance of the award i receive, the few that i do, on the consequence of the organization presenting the award. i mean it sincerely. and you do the same thing all of you. the consequence and people behind the award. and this means a lot to me. this means a lot to me. this, for me, is consequential. joyce, i was in your hometown yesterday, eating jenny's ice cream. and joyce, joyce represents a district which includes a town that most people realize is one of the biggest towns in the city, cities in the state, and we were doing something that joyce fought a long time for. i want folks to know. is that we are changing administratively the rule on what constitutes overtime.
it's going to give a pay raise to well over 4.5 million people who deserve it. people who are mislabeled management, who are working 70 hours a week and getting paid for 40. well, we changed that yesterday. and we did it in your hometown. [applause] i heard mark, when i was standing back stage, say, when you invited me i came. y'all can't get rid of me. [laughter] i've been chasing you my whole areer. and i meant what i said, although we did not have an urban league in wilmington for the longest time. i got my start with the naacp. and i literally mean got my start. when i was a kid, i was no great shakes but i was involved in the civil rights movement, sitting in black churches on sundays, getting ready to go out and march and it was interesting,
there was a guy named jim gillian, who was a great, great, great civil rights leader in my town he moved into delaware right around the time i was getting started as a young lawyer, i got out of law school and had a good job with what they call a white shoe law firm and one day after six months and a federal court case, they were honorable men and women, we won this court case, representing a corporation and i realized, this ain't for me. i walked catty-corner across what we call rodney square, to the basement of the building that housed the public defender's office and asked for a job as a public defender. y town had been in flames. i graduated in 1968, i came home, like all of you, my two heroes, i don't have a lot of heroes, there's a lot of people i admire but two heroes i had were dr. king and bobby kennedy.
dr. king got assassinated that spring and my town was one of the towns that literally went up in flames. we were the only town since reconstruction occupied by the national guard for nine months, drawn bayonets, people standing on the corners. i realized i was in the wrong line of work. i'm not suggesting the other line of work, that there was anything not honorable about it. but it didn't move me. and so along came this guy named jim gillian. he was an incredible, incredible guy. and i had a guy named tony allen working for me. tony worked for me, he said he wanted to get a ph.d. i said go ahead and get one, you're working for me. then the son of a gun left me. [laughter] he got a ph.d. and figured, i'm way ahead of biden.
i've got to move on. but all kidding aside, jim gillian tapped tony and he tarted the effort. and so, you have been -- you've been incredible. for the past 100 years, the urban league has led the fight for racial justice and with an emphasis all the time on economic opportunity. not just basic fairness but economic opportunity. i was saying to some of my younger staff members talking about as i prepared for this last night, flying back from your hometown, i said you know, naacp and many others and all of you, those of us who played little parts like me, you know, got rosa from the back of the bus to the front of the bus, but you guys have been working like the devil to make sure rosa's son and grandson can own the bus company. [applause] it matters.
and you all recognize that institutions, recognize the overwhelming accomplishments of the legacy of institutional racism which we still live ith. no one wants to say that. i know i speak out too loudly sometimes but i make no apologies for it. not a joke. i make no apologies for it. sometimes it's uncomfortable but these are uncomfortable times. you've got to shake the status quo a little bit. you know, we see this institutional racism exists today in voting. in voting. in children's education. in the very makeup of our neighborhoods. housing patterns. employment, transportation. access to transportation. you know, for more than 100 years, members of this storied organization have awakened t