i believe that the secretary does get copies, it gets copies at the point when we issue the draft report for review and to obtain those comments and then gets copies of the final reports, if that report is significant, we certainly brief, i think we follow traditional audit processes that has an exit briefing where we have a discussion with the vba officials that are charged with the governance of the specific program. i've had many briefings with that team and they feed up to their usb. >> this is an important point at least to me. in the military you used to have two things, one was you would have by direction authority, in other words, commanding officer but somebody in the command could sign their signature by direction. that means that, you know, by signing by direction that the commander approves this. the other was releasing

authority. releasing authority means you can go out with a message that you're the commanding general, second marine division. you don't give those, that authority away, and that's why i brought up that point that whoever signs that, basically the secretary, the way i understand it is concurring with all those decisions that are made. it's on his or her watch, correct me if i'm wrong. >> if it's signed for general hickey by one of the staff yes, this is the official comments. >> okay. all right. in terms of your role -- and i think it's very, very important to go back to how would you even be more pro active in light of some of these thing. do you have any recommendations

in regards to that? i'm not asking you to do more work -- yeah i am asking you to do more work. >> i think we plan the audits appropriate based on the risk. i think there needs more discussion at the senior levels as work is completed to really how are you going to fix the problem? and as i alluded to before, worrying about the little technical nuances and getting everything just letter perfect really doesn't get you there. you really have to address the overall problem and how veterans are affected with the processing and what's happening and whatever objective of the audits you're dealing with. >> thank you. i yield back. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. o'rourke. >> thank you, chairman. the benefits delivery discharge claims, the bdd and the quick

start claims i think year to date are under 20,000. so we're measuring those in the thousands or tens of thousand s all other claims moving through the vba is measured in the hundreds of thousands or millions. so when you were responding to the question earlier about robbing peter to pay paul, and you also mentioned that we need to make better decisions about how resources are allocated, do you have some recommendations for the vba or for the committees of oversight in terms of how we should be spending that money in a smarter fashion? >> i would like to see that you ask vba to do a good staffing analysis for its initiatives and for its current work inhouse. there are too many areas that are being underaddressed at this

point or what i would consider undermanaged. i think at some point if you put the right resources on some of these things, such as temporary 100% disability evaluations not being managed effectively and the associated financial impact that we report in our reports, that would start to reduce and you would have a better operation not only from the fact that veterans would be served quicker, with whatever decisions and reviews that were needed to make sure their claims were accurate, and then we would be saying that you have a stronger -- you're making a stronger position as far as the financial stewardship that you're charged with vba to ensure the entitlement decisions are accurate and timely. >> and thank you for that. the chairman brought up a good question about why the va's

score for accuracy is better than your score and you said one difference in the methodology you look at potential adverse impacts to benefits down the road and vba does not. is there any other difference how you assess and the vba assesses accuracy? >> yes, i believe there are. i would like to ask nora stokes to talk to the technical aspects of that. >> as you mentioned, there are some definite differences as far as the potential to affect benefits and we do call oftentimes errors that relate to that and that is particularly when things are missing from the file. and as mr. murphy had indicated in his response, i believe the specific question had to do with whether or not a va examination, if it were missing, would that constitute an error? what we find during our benefits inspections are the va examinations maybe not necessarily missing, some are

missing, some are inadequate but they are used to evaluate cases anyway. according to vba policies those examinations should be returned. if an examiner notes something during a physical examination, and another disability questionnaire is required and it's not completed then we consider that an error as well because you cannot come to the point where you can make a decision on a disability evaluation if you don't have medical evidence to go one way or the other. so there are some stark differences where we would determine an error. versus vba. >> miss halliday i hate to ask you speak for the vba and i want to follow up with miss rubbens and her team but what's the response to that distinction and the assertion that those exams should be returned or should be counted differently than they are right now?

>> we've agreed to disagree. >> got you. >> at that point. that's why it's documented in this audit. >> my last question, i don't know if you heard the exchange over ida's and where we are against backlog and goal for benefits and backlog in goal for rating. did you have any concerns or questions or do you agree with the assessment provided by vba where we're at and where we're likely to be by october? >> i can't comment to that, sir. i don't have any ongoing work addressing that. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you. i want to follow up on just a little bit of what we discussed and i understand that disagreement on timeliness issues seems sort he somewhat jurisdictional and a couple of other matters but on accuracy, your report that the accuracy rate is about 69%. and one of the areas of

nonconcurrence is something that seems pretty benign which was insufficient oversight and training. can you elaborate a little bit on that and i mean i'll put my cards on the table in many ways you are providing a little bit of oversight into reasons for the inaccuracy, it appears one of the reasons you identified was insufficient internal training and oversight. we're engaged in the same issue in the department obviously on health care delivery. can you elaborate to the extent you're permitted to on the disagreement on the interpretation about department's ability to provide the oversight and training in this specific area? >> ah-ha. i would like to ask kent rathal who led the audit but i do believe as you looked at the training issue it spoke specifically to how you identify a quick start claim. and i would like him to --

>> the department actually agreed with the training recommendation on the identification of the quick start claims. where they disagreed was on the clarification of policy concerning nexus between service members, the disability incurred during service and the claimed disability. actually our accuracy experts here are miss stokes and mr. figueroa. i'll turn it over to miss stokes. >> one of the areas that we agreed where the oversight of lacking had to do just with the local quality reviews. at the local level we did find that the accuracy reviews that most regional offices would conduct on a monthly basis for individual performance was lacking. while they did have some we did fine to it be inadequate. when we discussed this with the staff in the cps sites that process quick start claims they

told us that they were busy, they had other responsibilities and that they did not have the time to conduct the comprehensive review. at the national level we found there was a lack of oversight in that the method that star uses to select their samples was lacking and that it did not such enliu identify enough cases that you could actually get a feel for what the accuracy rate was for quick start claims, or they co-mingled the results of the quick start cases with the results of the regional office. as an example, the winston-salem office had 255 reviews for fy-'11 but only six of those 255 claims that were reviewed were related to quick start. we found the method they were using of not sufficient to observe any sort of training deficiencies. the other part of that is not only is that at the local and national level were they not

able to have a valid sample, that might point to some of these training deficiencies at the local level when they did conduct their quality reviews they also did not track and trend those type of errors so they could address those training deficiencies by directing training to those particular areas. >> i see. one of the reasons given busy. i guess the part that concerns me is specifically the use of the word "training," because of what that means for the ability of an employee to perform. oversight in one way is a little less concerning if that's where it's deficient but if training is where it's deficient, you know, that breeds a more systemic problem as case loads go up and the number of cases go up. failure in training just continues to build upon itself and create a larger problem. i appreciate your answer to the

question. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. any members have further questions? with that, thank you all again and you are now excused from the witness table and we'll ask the third panel to come forward.

good afternoon, everyone. as i noted in prior panels all of your complete and written statements will be entered in the hearing record. i know i did this earlier, but i want to recognize mr. o'rourke, if you would like to make this introduction again. >> thank you, mr. chair. the person i want to introduce deserves a second introduction, miss gibson is a retired captain from the u.s. army, was executive officer at the warrior transition unit in el paso at fort bliss, a former constituent of mine recently until march. she was instrumental in ensuring that i understood some of the issues at the wtu by arranging a

tour there and i think will speak very eloquently to some of her personal challenges that can be extrapolated against the challenges that many transitioning service members face so we're very glad and grateful for her presence here today. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank the gentleman. with that we're going to start with mr. jenkins. mr. jenkins you're now recognized for five minutes for your testimony. >> chairman, ranking member titus and members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee on the critical issue surrounding the bde, quick start and idez programs i appreciate the opportunity to share our views. i'm a 15 year combat vet in the united states marine corps who served both in operation enduring freedom and iraqi freedom. i am proud to serve veterans every day and i am also a disabled veteran.

i work quick start claims. these programs are critical for providing recently discharged veterans benefits as soon as possible and is essential these programs are functioning at the highest capacity. my regional office has a history of brokering claims to other regional offices in an effort to reduce the backlog. in doing so it has created a lack of sufficient cases that are ripe for decision. we have brokered out approximately 20,000 cases in the last three years and now claims processors are struggling to receive adequate amount of work to meet their standards. supervisors have been left scrambling to find work for quick start employees. due to brokering, they are relegated to completing tasks traditionally done by vsrs. due to lack of work, employees

were instructed to begin a practice called pre-rating. pre-rating consists of rating a case that's not, in fact, ready for designation because we're waiting for va exams or additional evidence. they are to rate these claims as if the medical evidence had been received, yet told employees to not finalize the rating. this raises serious questions for the veteran and the employee. employees could potentially receive quality errors if medical evidence arrives and doesn't coincide with the veterans rating. veterans should be concerned about this method used by the management and its effect on the decision we urge congress to hold vba senior management accountable for their brokering methods and potential effects it has on veterans and their dependents. as with bdd and quick start employees report the same

dedication to ides process however they did outline several issues that consistently appear. ida's claim processors complain their frustration with lack ever communication and training on military service coordinators as they are called. mscs are scattered at military bases all around the world and when the claims process is attempting to locate additional information it's often difficult to locate the original. when the claim is sent to the regional office it's supposed to be ready for decision. however our reports say oftentimes this is not the case. this slows down the process for the employee but most importantly increases wait times for the veteran. it's believed more detailed training will significantly reduce this issue. ides processes also expressed issued with the national guard and reserve claims. the issue being not having complete military records. and as they come to the regional

office not ready for decision as well. at times when attempting to receive medical records they cannot locate the records or unit the veteran is currently assigned to. all of these issues translate to major concerns with ides production levels. claims processors are told not defer cases even though a decision cannot be made due to lack of necessary evidence. there is constant pressure from the va's office of field operations and the production quotas established by ofo are arbitrary and unfair. claim levels have skyrocketed while regional offices have seen minimal growth in staffing. urges vba to hire more claims processes and training for employees. and to conduct a time study to determine how long each task

takes while working a claim to conduct a time motion study to determine how long each task takes to complete while working on a claim. with the recent transfer to vbs this time motion study is more applicable and necessary than ever. once again i would like to thank the committee for providing afg an opportunity to share our views. >> thank you, mr. jenkins. with that, miss gibson, you are now recognized for five minutes for your testimony. >> thank you, chairman. i would also like to thank congressman o'rourke for inviting me to speak today. in 2011, while training to deploy to afghanistan i received a severe back injury. by the time my reserve detachment reached the active duty site i was confined to a wheelchair earning me the nickname the wheelchair soldier. days later i was prescribed a cocktail of drugs which allowed me to walk but not without excruciating pain. placed in the warrior transition program efforts to rehabilitate my injury were unsuccessful, requiring surgical intervention.

before my back surgery could be performed i required a surgical procedure to treat uterine fibers, tumors on my uterus. i didn't receive a followup gynecological appointment. placed in ides, i was determined to be medically unfit to serve. received a 20% disability rating, medically separated and received separation pay. within days of signing paper work, agreeing to the rating it was determined that i urgently need hysterectomy. i want to be clear that, had i received a follow up to the original procedure my hysterectomy would have been performed a year earlier and my disability rating would have been 70% instead of medically retired i was medically separated from the united states army on january 11, 2014. in my opinion, a strong democracy requires two profession, the legislature and the service member.

each the weapon of the other. healthy service members are the weapons of the legislator while the legislator is the weapon of wounded, injured and ill service member. we've served as your weapon. on behalf of disabled and medically separated veterans we respectfully request that you harness your arsenal's full potential to fix ides system and maintain the strength of our democracy i would like to present to you both short and long term recommendations. please note that i participated in ides as an end user and please forgive me of any policy recommendations which overlap those of previous presenters. the first establish a consolidated disability evaluation system. the ides system is tiresome, timely, burdensome and inefficient. the va and dod must consolidate

the department's disability systems with the shared goal from mull investigate policy and prescribe uniform guidelines, procedures and standards to eliminate redundancy inherent in adjudicating claims. second create a sole source disability rating. the military rates only fitting conditions while the va ranks all service connected injuries resulting in two different rating system for service members. the dod and va will need to reach a consensus on the definition of qualifying conditions and the rate at which those conditions are to be compensated. understandably a bias in the favor of the more generous va system will result in a corresponding rise in both retirement and medical costs. information sharing. plans to roll out shared use technology will enhance and improve agency accessibility to healthcare records. the plan is necessary and ambitious. however the current lack of available technology, i believe, is only part of a much larger problem. government agencies among them dod and va must generate

memorandum of agreement allowing agencies to openly share information. this will likely create a change in agency cultures from one of independence to interdependence or sharing information and resources. my interim recommendations are as follows. first i recommend a fiscal set aside. veterans in the service member transition process frequently complain about the receipt of timely payments once his or her claim has been adjudicated. to date the receipt of benefit payments can take from 90 days to a year or more to process while uncertain of the legal or the tax implications. i recommend that once a service member enters federal service, active duty, guard or reserve, a percentage of the service member's salary be escrowed until the ides or retirement process is completed. the funds set aside could then be automatically reimbursed to the veteran as a lump sum payment used to bridge the gap

between the date of retirement or separation and receipt of any long or short term benefits. an emergency rating reconsideration. service members who require emergency surgeries within 60 to 90 days of being rated should receive an automatic disability rating reconsideration. thirdly, complete a comprehensive staffing needs assessment which i believe has been covered by other members of the panel. fourth, reduce waste, fraud and abuse. the system is replete with opportunities for fraud, waste and abuse. the underlying premise of the adjudication process is from provide compensation and benefits for long term injury and illnesses. any system which compensates service members for injuries and illnesses must also incentivize healing. and recovery. it isn't a political popular notion, however, if the looming costs are to be reduced and full recovery is to

be achieved this must also be a corresponding goal. a comprehensive assessment then must be performed about where opportunities exist to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse. and finally, organizational change. we got to change the organizational culture which punishes service members directly or indirectly for wounds, injuries or illnesses. in the current climate service members deemed unfit to fight or conduct acts of physical fitness are cast aside and labeled, often unfairly as lazy or cowardly. i do not advocate battlefield group hugs, however leadership training must encourage compassion, dignity and respect. likewise service providers whether military or civilian must receive similar training. toxic leaders both military and civilian must be either retrained or moved out of leadership positions or positions of authority to mitigate damage to wounded or recoverying service members.

in conclusion the recommended suggestions to improve ides will each require a cost benefit analysis to determine feasibility. such analysis is beyond the scope of this presenter. what is certain is that each cost and benefit must be assessed using both qualifyive and quantitative analysis. it is my belief that undertaking such however pain staking would improve ides to the benefit of service members. thank you. >> thank you. with that i recognize mr. avila for his testimony. >> good afternoon, chairman r runyan. members of the committee. on behalf of the national commander and the 2.4 members of the american legion i want to thank you for bringing attention to america's transition service members. i think it's especially important that you're paying close attention to the words of the veterans service organizations.

veterans service organizations such as the american legion bring experience to the claims process and are critical stakeholders who can help the government meet the obligation to the veteran. the va has recognized this on the civilian side of the dividing line of service and through the programs of fully developed claims initiative to capitalize on the partnership to improve the claims process and help veterans get the disability benefits they earned through their sacrifice in a more timely fashion. in my current position as medical board and fiscal board representative, i have the privilege of assisting service members who might not able to continue their military career due to a medical condition. these individuals represent some of the most at risk transitioning service members due to their currents medical needs. while the current individual disability evaluation system,

ides is an improvement over the previous system of doing medical evaluations we can always make it better. the american legion maintains a certain in winston-salem, north carolina and salt lake city, utah. sells as well as sites in washington state and the capitol region. what we found is that service members could benefit from better information. this is better illustrated by members of the reserve and national guard who might be going through the process by themselves back in their home state. they don't have access to same information and resources as their active duty counterparts. these veterans going to transition are making decisions that will impact their entire civilian lives and they are being asked to do so with little understanding of what that impact will be. as american legion service officers, we can bring insight to what benefits they are entitled or not entitled to. we can help them understand the importance of their medical exams. helping service members manage expectations and understanding the timeline is critical.

helping them understand what training is available, what short discharge, what retirement options are bet suited to them, the kind of guidance is hit or miss without good counselling. the american legion helps over 500 service members a quarter with their bdd and quick start claims but thousands of veterans still go unrepresented. it's difficult for service organizations to communicate directly with service members on post. when you consider an issue on may 20th by ig, errors making claims of 69% accuracy rate. veterans need advocacy at every stage of the process. the american legion hopes to continue working with the department of defense and department of veterans affairs to ensure all veterans have advocacy throughout their transition process. the system exists to serve those who wear the uniform of the united states of america. the american legion exists to be

a veterans serving veterans organization. and we can best do that when we bridge the gap between our veterans and service members and the services provide by dod and the va. thank you for inclusion in the stakeholders. we're happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. and we recognize mr. vrn erelli. >> thank you. good afternoon. we appreciate the opportunity to testify today at this hearing to examine more closely the ida's program and other aspect affecting active duty service members. while my remarks will address three issues we find particularly important, first, time frames and benchmarks established within the ides program. the program was constructed with the expectation of service members reaching finality within 255 days and will highlight several critical points. prosed rating decisions by

locations are redwishd issued within 15 days of receiving notification that a service member has been deemed unfit for duty. officers in the field report delays and in some areas ranging anywhere from three to six months. once separated from service and now considered a veteran their disability compensation payments are expected to begin within 30 days of discharge. officers have reported delays in the processing of finalized claims in providence, rhode island and previous delays in seattle, washington. improvements have been noted within the past few months due mostly to consolidation. delays are reported out of rhode island, not only affecting rating board determinations but also the proposed rating board determination. most reports of delays are personnel related specifically a lack thereof. a situation would demand has outpaced resource. a thorough evaluation is needed

to determine requirements and whether a proper staff to case ratio exists. when an active duty service member causes the threshold and becomes a veteran a delay here can have serious consequences. as compensation benefits may in fact be the sole source of income. second, access and support. transition service officers have earned a renouned reputation for their active duty. despite representable attributes and proven track record, the launch of the new gps program whether deliberate or not has adversely affected the level of service they have been unable to provide. prior to tapping gps they were heavily engaged in the process. they provided briefings to class participants many times at the insistence of military installations. they screened to provide information and answer any questions posed by the

participants. unfortunately our role continues to diminish and is met with some resistance at some military installation. in some cases there's been attempts to remove the functions entirely. it seems counter intuitive. sometimes it's promoted whether through the process itself but most certainly while engaged with the va during the claim and appeal process. bso represent 60% of claimants and 70% of appealants before the va. collaborative efforts between vsos and program affiliate would be a benefit to members. third, vocational rehabilitation and employment services. service members proceeding with ratings of 20% or greater have direct access to rehabilitation. bear in mind this mission parameter is staffed with voc rehab officers. they testified on many occasions regarding the benefits of the program.

they can provide opportunities for immediate transition to employment upon separation, career counseling and supportive services and plans if employment is not aligned prior to separation. the benefits may not be realized by the benefits. however, dav and our independent budget partners recommend we that congress remove the 12 year -- regardless of when that need arises. with the wide ranging of benefits offered through the program it's imperative service members have complete understanding of this benefit as possible it could prove critical at some point in the future if circumstance in their lives change and in conclusion resource needs must be identified, procured and utilized. goals and parameters must be aligned to meet or exceed this mission. dso involvement during the process is vital and should receive greater support by all program partners.

eligible participants must continue to be identified. it shows program understand g it gives your wounded and ill service members the best advantage by leveraging all available tools and resources needed to successfully transition out of the military. again, we thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony today. >> thank you. with that i'll recognize mr. gurkey for the vfw testimony. >> mr. chairman, on behalf of the men and women of veterans of foreign affairs i want to thank you for the opportunity to testify. this past memorial day many americans displayed feelings of pride in veterans who fought in america's wars. survey shows 91% of americans say they are proud of military service members. unfortunately the pride america has for its service members still is not fully matched by the government agencies charged with supporting their transition back to civilian life.

the 2007 walter reed scandal was a wake up call to americans that the government was not properly caring for our wounded warriors. the public was outraged the veterans were forced to deal with inadequate health care delivery. veterans were being short changed on the disability and retirement benefits they have earned. as a result, congress and the president conducted first oversight over the military's and veterans health care and disability benefits system. congress concluded that the care coordination and reintegration services provided by the agencies were fragmented leaving the public, service members and their families to question the government's commitment to those who carry the burden in battle. in 2008 congress forced dod and va to create policies to ensure that the disability evaluation systems that determine their benefits were streamlined and fair. as a result, dod and va collaborated to create the

evaluation system which simplified the process by eliminating duplicative examinations and placing va counselors in transition facilities. the va responded by expanding the benefits deliver at discharge and quick start programs to let members submit claims before their discharge date. we believe this is a step in the right direction. we recognize these programs are far from perfect. service members suffer from the defense department's disjointed policies and leadership which govern wounded warrior care. inadequate va and dod staffing dedicated to the process, no integrated electronic health care system and poor communication. the result of dod's and va is that service members are waiting too long as va processes their disability claims. to reduce claims processing times we recommend dod collaborate with va to reduce

red tape and that va expedite the adjudication of bde and quick start claims. to ensure dod creates and enforces the policies and ensure service members are not short changed on benefits and all policies are equitable we recommend congress give the undersecretary of personnel and readiness the sole authority to develop policy to improve the care and services provided. to say that the transition process is seamless for service members or dod and va have an integrated evaluation process is inaccurate. it's impossible to have a process without an integrated electronic health care record system. it's imperative congress use their authority to assure dod collaborates with va to develop a health care system. communication between dod and va senior officials must increase and the departments must conduct better outreach to service members, family caregivers and vsos.

in conclusion we acknowledge both the departments of defense and veterans affairs is delivering quality care to service members and various when accessible. we give them credit for addressing the disability evaluation system. timeliness is drastically improved from the estimated 540 days it took to complete a claim with the legacy system and va and dod continue to shorten the amount of time it takes to process disability claims. however, va and dod do not have the policies, procedures and resources to address the influx of service members who will be transitioning to civilian life as forces draw down. it's imperative that congress not only boost its aggressive oversight over the agencies to ensure they properly plan for the future. they also must provide the fiscal resources to improve the

access to care and benefits that our service members have earned. mr. chairman, this concludes my testimony and i look forward to answering any of the questions that the committee may have. >> thank you. with that we'll begin a round of questioning and my first question is going to be for mr. avila. you note in your testimony that in recent audit, by the vaoig on the quick start program va responded lack of timeliness was due to an increase of agent orange claims. unfortunately, this seems to be a pattern from the va, in they they do not adequately project their future workload. can you please elaborate on this statement and how negatively impacts a substantive focus on improvement of pre-discharge claims? >> mr. chairman, i worked on on the issue in the ides.

i myself went through the predischarge claim. i retired two years ago. and i used the discharge claim. i used the bdd. because i filed when i -- i had over, i think i did 180 days. that was a program that was currently being pushed by the va. they said if you file this way your claim will be processed and you'll receive benefits as soon as you exit the military. maybe some of the issue is that these claims go to certain regional offices and a lot of members started filing the claims and either went to winston-salem or utah and what we started seeing is that the bde and quick start claims became a backlog because every service member transitioning was advised this is to most advantageous way and by everybody filing we created a backlog. i believe now that bde and the quick start claims have come down a bit. i mentioned the benefits of the discharge which is another initiative started.

you submit your claim along with your medical documentation and ask the va to adjudicate the claim because they have all the information available. right now these claims are being adjudicated -- depending on the regional office -- between 130 and 135 days. i deal with ides and maybe some the issue too is all army cases go to seattle regional office. all the other service go to prove derngs rhode island. right now tissue on that is the seattle regional office, the army if you look at the numbers they have the majority of ida cases so maybe this is -- i don't know. do they switch them off to another office. got to look at another system to get these members their rating as little bit quicker so we can definitely process them out. >> thank you. my next question is for mr. jenkins. you note in your written testimony pre-discharged employee experience difficulties

communicating with mscs. what suggestions do you have to improve communication and do you believe that greater involvement in pre-discharge claims would help alleviate some of the concerns? >> well, to answer your question, chairman, in town we can have a vso that will assist. they have direct contact with the veteran. they interact on a regular basis. sometimes they can even speak for the veteran when it comes to a claim, they can speed the process along. as far as communication between mses and vsrs, training has a lot to do it. some mscs have been hired who do not have previous development training. so they have a lack of understanding of the process. it all has to do with staffing. training. those are the bottom lines to it all. they have to be trained properly and they have to understand the process between how it works between regional office and the

ides locations as well. >> thank you. with that i yield to the ranking member, ms. titus. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would just say first, miss gibson, my colleague was right. yours is a powerful and eloquent voice for a change. i thank you very much for being here. i would just ask you if at any point during the process were you asked by anybody or did you take a survey about how it was working, what could have been done better if you were satisfied? did you feel like anybody was asking for your feedback? >> yes, ma'am, i do. the issue with the survey is i have some familiarity with surveys and when you survey

people makes a difference in what their response will be. so, for example, if you survey a service member who has recently entered the ides process and they are within that first 30-day window, their comment about the va or about the system is not going to be negative at all because thai only participated in the process for 30 days. if, however, you survey that same service member say, for example, within six months of them exiting the service when they had an opportunity to sort of reflect back upon when or what happened to them, i think that the numbers may look very different. so to answer your question more specifically yes we were surveyed but at the time, for example, that i took the survey, i was about six months into the process. and that didn't seem very daunting to me. had i been surveyed again at month 15, my answers very likely would have changed. >> so the results you think are skewed based on when people take the survey.

>> yes, ma'am. >> i suspect that is pretty true. it is pretty easy to manipulate numbers like that. i would also ask the vsos, starting with mr. avila if you have ever heard that term quick start, slow finish or quick start no finish. and have you ever discouraged any soldiers from going through any of these programs as we've heard kind of anecdotally? and then finally i think mr. fareli mentioned this, what specifically can we do to enhance your role to help soldiers before they are discharged like you help them after they've become veterans that might facilitate this process? >> i have heard of the term.

the fast start. what i currently do -- ideal mainly assist service members. i know the other vsos have representatives at installations. what i am currently advising somebody who is going out don't do bdd. i asked them to do fdc. that's what's getting their results quicker. they wait until they retire, go through the transition core and gather all the information and once you are retired or you can do it before, fill out your paper work and then on your first day of retirement submit it to the va. it depends on the regional office as well. what can we do? i think taps. there was a focus on taps several years ago to put different resources out there for veterans transitioning. so for my point on ides, i think we need to do the same part. these soldiers, they have legal rights. once they get the results they have so many day to get a lawyer.

the issue is not a lot of vsos are doing specific cases they are doing your transitional va claim. so i think maybe speaking with dod and i did have a meeting with dod, brett stevens who is a director of ides. and trying to see what the american legion can do. we have service enforces. can we assist? what can we do to get the word out to members as they make the best decision as they go through the process. >> thank you, congresswoman. >> yes, we have heard of that term before, quick start slow finish. we have discouraged some service members from going through bde or quick start depending on their individual circumstances. what can we do? vsos used to have broader access and then with the implementation of tap gps, it became more and more marginalize. it's a collaborative effort.

we're all in it together. we understand the active duty component and we understand the veteran component. we have transition service officers i like to call them translation service officers because we can translate of what's happening in terms that they can understand. >> thank you, ranking member for the question. i think the numbers on the quick start speak for itself. it's 249 days on average. members receive their benefits eight months after they are discharged. so that's definitely not delivery on discharge. we do in regards to quick start we'll recommend some service members veterans that they not submit a quick start claim. it depends on where they are going home to. so if they are going the home st. paul or columbia which regional office operates faster than the others then we'll say no wait until you get home and we'll send a fully developed claim in. they are going say waco or

houston, which is not well at all, we will say no let's do a quick start now and start the process because once you go home it will be horrendous. one thing that we recommended in the testimony is to treat quick start claims like you would a fully developed claim. the only thing different from a fully developed claim and a bde or quick start, i should say bde claim is a dd-214. theoretically they get to the rating officer fully developed and theoretically should be able to rate that day. however they are kind of pushed to the side and kind of waited on as they work their other cases. if you treated them as the same process you would an fdc claim you would see a fall in the processing times but also for recognize that if you shift the resources there you're essentially taking resources from elsewhere. but we believe these service members are in need of the benefits the most.

they are transitioning, they are wounded, there still may be looking for a job. so they are going through a lot of transition process and they really need that income to help them through that process so i think it's appropriate to prioritize those claims. >> thank you for that. thank you, mr. chairman for the time. >> i recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. o'rourke. >> i would like to begin by noting for the record that miss rubben from the vba is still here and here to listen to the iog and listen to the testimony of veterans and vsos and those working within the system to serve veterans and miss halliday and her team are here to listen. i appreciate their attention and respect to the members who are here giving their testimony. miss gibson, you came up with a number of really good recommendations for us, and vba

and dod to follow. one of them was to change a culture that can seem as though it is punishing service members and i've heard this directly from service members at the wtu at fort bliss in el paso. we've read of some egregious cases where it seems the punishment is punitive, overly punitive if not down right humiliating and i hope those are the exceptions and not the norm and part of the pressure i feel to get that wait time down which back in february was 185 additional days over the goal down to what miss ruben committed to the what the vba can control. can you talk from your own experiences what you have seen or witnessed within that culture and how we might go about changing it? i'll have one additional question. if you can answer that within a span of a minute or two that would being a great. >> yes, sir. it's been my experience that

soldiers are often treated with, if not open hostility, then at a minimum a sort of dismissive attitude. it's not -- i think that you have to start with the premise that soldiers deserve the wounded warrior programs and deserve to have their illnesses and injuries treated. i think if you start there then that's a great spring board to build around which policies and procedures that will advocate on behalf of the soldier. what happens is there's a consensus these programs are there simply for soldiers to take advantage of and to get as many benefits as they possibly can before they exit the system. and there's a resentment that builds up and i think if there can be policies that can abate that mentality i think you can go a long way in changing the culture. >> i should also say i had a chance to speak with some of the

commanders at the wtu, and from their perspective they have this obligation and responsibility to maintain discipline and readiness and there's this understandable tension between people who are on the verge ever transitioning out and their commanders who may have them for, you know, in the case of el paso a period approaching 200 days longer than they should have. so gives us added impetus to try to reform the system and as you say reform the culture within it. mr. gurky i want to follow up on some comments you made and ask you a question that i asked the iog about where we might better commit resources and staffing. we heard from mr. jenkins that one potential by product of brokering is that we have some regional offices looking for work or creating new or different kinds of work that may not be as effective or as efficient.

you heard my concerns about the wait times in the ida process. what are you views on how we can improve staffing levels, resourcing, what are we missing and where are we missing that? >> thank you for the question. i think miss gibson was right on in saying that there needs to be some sort of staffing reassessment. we hear in all of these va iog is reports or gao reports one there's mismanagement but two coupled with there's a lack of staff. and so i would like to personally know what the formula is for deciding staffing levels whether they have such a formula and what it consists of and then how often they do those staff assessments. not just for vba, vha and dod as well. because we always hear that they are missing physicians, they are missing rating officers, across

the board and so there is a lack of resources but it's hard to decide where to put the money and where to allocate those resources if there's not a proper formula for deciding what those staffing levels should be. and where it's missing and where it might be too much. >> from my perspective as long as vba is able to meet their stated goals for timeliness and accuracy, i'm very happy for them to decide where those resources are placed. when they are unable to it seems as though they may need some help from oversight bodies or vsos that work directly with them. i would just welcome you and the other vsos who are here to continue to stay in touch with us, where we're not meeting our goals when it comes to accuracy and timeliness and where we might recommend additional resources being placed. appreciate your perspective on this. it looks like i'm out of time. i would like to follow up with you if you have additional comments. with that, mr. chair, i yield back. >> want another minute or two?

>> mr. gurky it looked like you were about to say something else. with the chair's indulgence i would like to get your answer on that. we soo that quite often, they say we're going to use all these hundred people for quick start and they cut them in half and use them for nemer cases or some other cases. which shows me that i need more other staff than they are asking for and being allocated for them. >> i thank the gentleman and thank everyone for being with us today and the panel is excused. i appreciate the time and attention for -- you spent prepare your remarks. it is obvious there is still

much to be done and as well the transitioning disability benefits programs. i do not want anyone here to lose sight of these trans iging -- transitioning service members. v.a. has always had to maintain multiple priorities, and now through 2015 is no different. i ask nun rust consent that all members have five lthive -- legislative days to submit. the hearing is now adjourned.

>> up next on c span 3, a hearing on port security. after that, senator al franken introduces legislation that taelts to prevent companies and government organizations from tracking a person's location on their smart phones wow their consent. later, a forum on cyber security from bloomberg government. discusses syria civil war.

the look at the growing phenomenon of children illegally entering the u.s. without their parents. we'll talk to usa today reporter alan gomez. u.s. customs and transportation security administration officials testified about port security issues, including cargo screening. the senate homeland security committee is chaired by senator tom carper of delaware.

>> good morning, everyone. we're happy you to welcome you today and thank you for joining us. dr. coburn i've called this hearing, this is a hearing he has a whole lot of interest in, i have two, but it's a shared a shared interest. we want to take a look at the current state of port security, and these united states of america we want to find out if we are headed in the right direction. i hope we can also focus on the work that needs to be done over the next few years to try to ensure that our port security efforts maintain the proper balance between security, safety, and trade facilitation. it's important because our focus as congress cannot solely be on security. but also on maintaining and enhancing our economic competitiveness. as we all know port security is no easy job. it involves maritime security provided by the united states coast guard, men and women patrol our coasts and our waterways. involves the physical security

of port facilities like ferry terminal in lewis, delaware, or in energy refinery along the gulf of mexico, or delaware city, delaware, that is safeguarded by state and local authorities. it involves the causeway security provided by the u.s. customs and border protection which screens cargo to prevent dangerous goods from entering the united states while also facilitating the flow of trade and transportation. the last part is a particularly important piece. and even as we build and maintain strong layers of port security we need to take care not to impede transportation or commerce. our ports and waterways are the life blood of our economy. i'm told that more than 95% of all u.s. trade is handled via sea ports, 95%. and these ports account for over 30% of u.s. gross domestic product, that's more than $5 trillion in trade each and every year. as the former governor of delaware and someone who is ultimately responsible for

running a major port at the city of wilmington owned and ran that port for many years ran out of money and the state had some money and we took it over and when i was governor this is something i know a little bit about but care a whole lot about. the port of wilmington located along the delaware river in the northern part of my state is just south of philadelphia, number one sea port in north america for the importation of fresh fruit bananas, and juice, concentrate. if you had a banana this morning for breakfast it probably came through the port of wilmington. our nickname is top banana. the top banana port. port of wilmington isn't just important for the state of delaware, it serves as a key economic engine in new castle county, it's also a key port for the entire united states. so protecting our ports, safeguarding our economic opportunity is responsibility that we take very seriously. as the government accountability office and other experts have noted, u.s. port security has come a long way. shortly after 9/11, the maritime

transportation security act of 2002 became law and empowered the coast guard with new authorities to ensure commercial vessels and port facility meet minimum security standards. a few years later the safe port act of 2006 authorized key cargo and supply chains security programs enforced by u.s. customs and border protection. since that time cargo security programs have taken root. not only that many of our international trading partners and international trade and security organizations have created similar security programs and emulating the department of homeland security's good work. but we shouldn't and we can't stop here. i want to use this hearing we want to use this hearing as an opportunity to explore how the threat to ports has evolved, and what the next steps for dhs should be. i also don't want to imply that there's no room for improvement, as i frequently say.

everything i do i know i can do better. i think that's true for all of us. and i think that's true for the way we handle port security. in a recent letter to the congress, new secretary jay johnson i indicated we believe the 100% scanning mandate for inbound cargo shipping containers was impractical. not the best use of taxpayer resources. if that's the case, we must look for a better way to address security risks while preserving the necessary speed of moving containers through our ports. so i welcome the secretary's pledge to make good faith effort to improve the department's capabilities. without getting in the way of legitimate flow of trade. i look forward to discussing this issue with some of our witnesses today. i also look forward to hearing how the department of homeland security plans to address emerging threats, how it can make programs more effective and efficient and how the agencies represented here today can work with international organizations and our foreign partners to raise the global standard for port security. as you can see from our lineup of witnesses, there's quite a lineup. port security is a key support. it's a perfect example of why

bringing all these agencies together into the department of homeland security was the right thing to do. components present here today work seamlessly with one another to develop and implement the department's layered risk based strategy for port security. from the coast guard to customs and border protection, transportation security administration, federal emergency management administration, and dhs's office of policy, each of you play a critical role and you've got to work to the. so do we. we're always happy to have you with us. you've done a whole lot of work in this area, we're grateful for that and be looking to you for further help. again thanks to everyone for coming. as dr. coburn knows we're going to start voting in a little bit. and we're going to do one of those deals that we perfected where voting starts, maybe he'll go vote the first time, and when he's voted he'll come back and i'll go vote and then we'll just swap back and forth. hopefully we'll be able to keep going and make it all work and

be done in a punctual way. but it's important, we're happy that you here. let me just now turn to dr. coburn just to thank him for insisting that we have this hearing and make this a priority. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, welcome to all of you. this is an interesting area for us to be talking about. sitting on the intelligence committee, our threats are greater, not less, in terms of risk. and getting it right is important. one of the commitments i made to congresswoman janice hahn from l.a., she has the l.a. port, which is our busiest and biggest and probably greatest vulnerability in terms of port that we would have this hearing and do the oversight that's necessary to try to improve what we're doing. so, mr. chairman, i'd like unanimous consent to put her testimony in the record she -- the house is out this week, and we wouldn't have scheduled that this hearing at this time had we known that.

but we did. and i'm happy that we're having the hearing so i'd ask unanimous consent to have her testimony included in the record. i'd also note that the house has passed the legislation that the senate hadn't even taken up or considered the gaps act, and what we need to do is address today to find out where our weaknesses are. what we need to improve and as senator carper mentioned the 100% scanning obviously isn't viable, or may not be viable, but we need to have a better approach than 2% to 4% scanning that we're seeing today. we know that a successful attack on one of our ports would be devastating. rand corporation gave an example it could have a trillion dollar effect on our economy. that is a high possibility. we cannot stop every attack that's going to come to this country. but we can certainly make it much more difficult, and markedly decrease the likelihood.

everybody knows the history. of how we came together after 9/11. we created port security grant program. we mandated 100% cargo screening. and 9/11 commission recommended that, as well. we also created the card which has had some significant difficulties, and is still not implemented. so my goal for this hearing is to review all the initiatives that were initially set out, assess how well they're working. and whether or not they're working. and determine if our ports are as secure from the potential terrorist attack as we can make them feesbly and economically. i would say we spent $4.9 million on the port security program with no measures whether or not we improved our security. there's no records so we don't know.

we've spent $2.1 billion on cpp cargo programs on a scanning mandate that we are told will never be met. there's $5 billion we spent we have no assessment of what we've gotten for that money. the program was intended to create an i.d. card for transportation workers to enter secure areas including ports we'll talk about and some of my questions will relate to some of the problems associated with that. in general i think it's unclear and hopefully this hearing will help us, to know how much improvement we've actually made in securing our ports. so i number one want to thank each of you for being here, preparing the testimony which i've read, and being available and i apologize that we're going to have votes but we will be -- we'll keep this moving as fast as we can. we have four votes starting at 11:00 and with that mr. chairman, thank you, as

well. mr. top banana. >> i've been called worse things. we'll make this work. we appreciate. let me briefly introduce our witnesses. colleen mclean deputy transportation secretary. also served as dhs assistant general council for enforcement she began here career with u.s. customs service where she served i believe as deputy associate chief council is that right? rear admiral paul thomas joins us from the coast guard where he's assistant commandant for prevent -- prevention, policies specialist in marine safety security and environmental protection. graduate of the coast guard academy, and of the massachusetts institute of technology. where i'm proud to say that one of our boys attended. when i went to ohio state i could barely spell m.i.t. the idea of ever having a kid

that goes there i could not imagine. congratulations on that. thanks for your service. i want to ask kevin to pronounce your last name for me, kevin. i just want to make sure sure i get it right. >> mcaleenan. >> with the emphasis on the leen? >> you put an "a" in front of the "c" it works better. >> there you go. and acting deputy commissioner at the u.s. customs and border protection. served as acting assistant commissioner of the cdp office of field operations leading the agency's port security and trade facilitation operations. brian kamoi appointed as the assistant administrator for grant programs at fema in april of 2013. before that he served as senior director for preparedness policy on the white house national security staff, from 2009 to 2013. stephen sadler has been the assistant administrator for intelligence and analysis at the transportation security

administration since october 2011. he's joined tsa in 2003 and held several leadership positions. prior to that he spent 25 years in the commercial maritime industry. and finally last but not least, steven caldwell, nice to see you. joins us from gao where he is the direct -- director of issues issues on the homeland and security justice team. mr. caldwell has over 30 years of experience at gao and has worked on numerous reports on security and supply chain security. thank you all your entire statements will be made a part of the record and feel free to summarize as you go. try to stay within about what did we say five minutes? five minutes if you could, go way over that we'll have to rein you in. thank you for joining us. ellen why don't you go ahead. >> good morning, chairman carper, ranking member coburn. i am a career civil servant and testifying before congress for

the first time. as this has long been on my career bucket list, i appreciate this opportunity along with my colleagues to testify on a matter of singular importance to the department. port security. since 2007 and the passage of the safe port act we now have several key strategic documents that shape and guide our efforts on port security. the national strategy on global supply chain security. the global nuclear detection architecture. and the soon to be released 2014 dhs quadrennial homeland security review. dhs is focused on enhancing port security through prevention, protection, and resilience. pursuant to a risk based approach. while strengthening the global supply chain system, including the maritime transportation network, we are ever mindful that it is critical to do so by promoting the efficient and secure movement of legitimate goods. guided by the principles in these overarching documents,

dhs's approach embraces five elements for a layered system of maritime port and cargo security. one, understanding the risk to better defend and protect against radiological and nuclear risks. two, obtaining advanced information and using advanced targeting techniques. three, increased collaboration with other federal agencies, foreign governments, and private stakeholders. four, implementing strong, domestic security regimes. and five, promoting preparedness by sustaining grant programs. within this strategic context, dhs can point to several key developments in the past seven years. risk assessments to aid us in understanding the threat environment and prioritization of resources. significant progress with international and private partners to incorporate risk management principles, and leverage trusted trader programs.

the assessment of more than 1500 foreign ports, 200 alone in 2013, under the international port security program. establishment of 360 comprehensive port security plans by port operators. and grant awards to achieve interoperable communications, installation of surveillance cameras, at port facilities, and funding for other similar fiscal security equipment and projects. looking forward we face challenges of increased trade from the expansion of the panama canal, and increased activity in the arctic. with increasing trade, and shifting trade patterns, we must also confront aging infrastructure for a broad range of dhs assets. from coast guard cutters to x-ray and radiation and nuclear detection inspection systems. in forging the path for progress, dhs will concentrate on improving information collection targeting and des

semination, expanding global capacity to secure the supply chain, and addressing risk across all modes of transportation. with a continued focus on enhancing the capabilities of our components, and our partners to address current and future challenges to securing our ports, dhs will continue to dedicate substantial attention and resources to implementing a layered risk management approach to security across all transportation pathways in an efficient and cost effective way. and building essential partnerships at home and abroad. thank you again for the opportunity to testify about dhs's progress on enhancements to port security. i will be happy to entertain any questions. >> good. thanks and we're going to have some. so thank you. thanks for your testimony. admiral thomas, please proceed. >> thank you, chairman carper, dr. coburn, and thank you both

for your continued support of our coast guard and the opportunity to discuss this really important topic with you this morning. the coast guard in coordination with the other department of homeland security components, interagency and the industry implements a layered maritime security system. our goal is simple, we want to detect, interdict and mitigate threats as far from our shores as possible. we accomplish this through the layered system that's depicted on the slide before you and displayed to the left -- to my left. as you can see on the slide, maritime security of u.s. ports does not start and finish in the u.s. rather, the opposite is true. the security of our ports begins in foreign ports at foreign facilities and terminals. this is the first layer of our integrated system. the coast guard's international port security program conducts assessments of foreign ports, to ensure they meet international security standards, and to build the capacity of our trading partners.

other dhs components help ensure the safety of cargo and people before they depart foreign ports. this notice includes information about the vessel, the cargo, the crew and passengers, customs and border protection also requires advanced notice with information about the cargo, the shipper,

the consolidator, the receiving information among other information. other federal agencies like the center for disease control may also require advanced notice under certain circumstances. all of this information is collected and shared at both the national and port level. it's screened and assessed so prior to arrival of any vessel, the coast guard report has a consolidated of all risk associated with that ship. ferg related to safety, security, and the environment. crew members on a watch list, passengers exhibiting signs of illness, or damage to the ship that might compromise safety or the environment. the report is then able to coordinate a single interagency local, state, and federal risk mitigation plan for each ship that arrives. for the vast majority of these ships, local coordination is

required. in some cases, the threat rises to the level that interagency coordination at the national level is required. and we activate the maritime operational threat response protocols. protocols. in some cases the risk will be mitigated by interdicting the ship in the offshore zone n other cases the ship enters the port but is subjected to oversight prior to passenger operations. these boardings are most often led by the coast guard but may include personnel from other homeland security components or the agency who can bring special capabilities to bear on a given threat. in all cases, the vessel arrives at a port facility that complies with the requirements of maritime transportation safety act and the safe port act. these facilities by law have security staff trained to specific standards. they have an access control system that includes credentials for each employee. they have approved plans in place to prevent and respond to security incidents and they execute a declaration of security with the foreign ships when appropriate to ensure the

security and communications protocol at that ship port interface are clear. beyond the individual port facilities, the port community as a whole is prepared and resilient. capable of port wide prevention, preparedness, response and recovery activities. due in large part to the combined impact through investment in our grant program, establishment of the area maritime security plans. in summary, mr. chairman, we have used the authorities in the maritime transportation security act and the safe port act to implement a security system that begins in foreign ports, continues in the offshore area as a vessel transits to our waters and remains ever vigilant in our ports that have robust, interagency, local, state and federal coordination to mitigate threats, facilitate commerce and respond to all incidents. thank you. i look forward to your questions. >> you took one second too long. you're off your game today, huh?

>> yes, sir. >> actually that's pretty good. that's very good. thanks for that testimony. kevin, you're up. please proceed. >> good morning, chairman carper, ranking member coburn. it's a privilege to appear before you again today. thanks to your continued support along with effective collaboration with federal, international and private sector partners, dhs and u.s. customs and border protection have made significant advancements in maritime cargo security. cbp has secured security partnerships, enhanced targeting and risk assessment programs and invested in advance technology, all essential elements of the multi-laird approach to protecting the nation from the entry of dangerous or violative shipments while expediting legitimate and economically viable commerce. i'd like to highlight the progress of a few of these efforts for you today. in the first few years after 9/11, cbp created several key programs to enhance our ability to assess maritime cargo for risk, examine shipments at the earliest possible point and increase the security of the supply chain.

the customs trade partnership against terrorism or ct-pat was established in 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. it provides facilitation benefits to members who adopt tighter security measures throughout their entire supply chain. it has grown from seven initial members to over 10,000 members today. the national targeting center also started in 2001 has developed world-leading capabilities to assess cargo shipments, crew and travelers for risk before they are laden or board vessels destined for the united states. at the ntc, they utilize the automated targeting system, intelligence, commercial information and traveler data to identify and mitigate potential threats. dhs and cbp have strengthened detection capabilities at domestic sea ports. since 2001, cbp has acquired 1387 radiation portal monitors and increased its inspection systems from 64 to 314. these valuable systems help officers detect radiological materials, weapons and a list of

substances. the support of congress, specifically through the safe port act, has been a key catalyst in advancing trade security and facilitation capabilities beyond these signature efforts. the act codified and made filings mandatory, building on the 24-hour rule. this program provides additional advanced insight into the supply chain allowing us to identify potential risks earlier and more accurately. the act also codified the security initiative. cbp works with foreign authorities to identify and examine high-risk u.s.-bound maritime containers before they are laden on vessels. they prescreen 80% of all cargo imported into the united states. cbp will continue to build on our progress by exploring and expanding new rules, such as trusted trade or mutual agreements.

we will confine our targeting to better identify high-risk cargo and work to increase the percentage of containers scanned abroad. we'll continue to help lead the effort in developing increasingly effective and sophisticated global standards for cargo security. by utilizing risk-based strategies and applying a multi-layered approach, we can focus our resources on the very small percentage of goods or services that are high risk. our use of advance information, technology and partnerships improves goal supply chain integrity and reduces transaction costs for u.s. businesses. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i'm happy to answer your questions. >> thank you for that testimony. brian. welcome. >> thank you, chairman carper, ranking member coburn. i appreciate the opportunity to be with you and to join my colleagues from the department to talk about the port security grant program which we believe is a critical part of the department's efforts to enhance the security and resilience of our nation's ports.

senator coburn, as you mentioned, we invested $2.9 billion since 2002. while i agree with you that we certainly can continue to improve our measurement of both the effectiveness of those investments and our administrative management of the programs, we have clear evidence of the value of these investments across the program's priorities, which include maritime domain awareness. we've invested in over 600 portwide projects that include portwide coordination and collaboration, interoperable communications, surveillance systems that assist in domain awareness. we've invested $161 million just in interoperable communications. we've also invested in improvised explosive device capabilities and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear capabilities. cyber security capabilities, as that threat continues to evolve.

planning at the port level, training and exercises and of course the implementation of the transportation worker identification card program. and so in addition to these programatic achievements and, for example, just in vessels that patrol our waterways, we've invested in over 500 vessels. in new york city, for example, the port of new york used over 30 vessels the day hurricane sandy made landfall and rescued over 1,000 people. so we know these dollars are making a difference. and these investments also facilitate increased partnerships, not just at the federal level with my colleagues here, but at the state and local level and with port owners and operators. we've seen in a variety of

instances, you can assure congresswoman hahn that we continue to make investments in the port of los angeles for information sharing and collaboration and, chairman carper, in the port of wilmington, the investments there not just in interoperable communications but in information sharing between the port and the fusion center in delaware that has allowed the building of relationships with state and local law enforcement and the port. i thought i'd also tell you where we are in the fiscal year '14 grant cycle. $100 million was appropriated for the program this year. applications came in on may 23rd. the field reviews, as the admiral mentioned, we work very closely with the coast guard. we have a two-tiered review process. captains of the port work with the port area and the local and state government through area maritime security committees to prioritize projects.

those applications are under that field review right now and will be referred for a national panel review here at the headquarters level later this month and then we expect to announce awards by the end of july. and so i'll close by saying that we look forward to the continuing dialogue about how we can continue to make these investments in the most effective and efficient way possible. we think they have made a real difference and i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> good, thanks. nice job. steve, please proceed. thank you, welcome. >> good morning, chairman carper, ranking member coburn, distinguished members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify about the twic program. it provides a industry wide biometric credential to eligible workers requiring unescorted access to port facilities and vessels under the maritime security act of 2002. tsa administers the program

jointly with the united states coast guard, tsa is responsible for enrollment, security threat assessments and technical systems. the coast guard is responsible for enforcement of card use. since the program was launched in 2007 in wilmington, delaware, we've conducted security threat assessments and issued cards to 2.9 million workers, including longshoremen, truckers and rail and vessel crews. and merchant mariners. the twic program is the first and largest federal program to issue a biometric credential. working closely with industry and our dhs partners, the program has evolved over the years to address concerns over the applicability of federal smart card best practices to a working maritime environment, such as the requirement for two trips to an enrollment center for card enrollment and activation. tsa reformed the program by launching one visit in june of 2003 in alaska and michigan.

this provides workers the option to receive their twic through the mail rather than requiring in-person pickup and activation. last month tsa moved from the pilot phase of the program to a phased implementation for all applicants. we have added call center capacity for applicants checking on their enrollment status. we've enabled web-based ordering for replacement cards. we've increased quality assurance at our enrollment centers. we've opened multi-program enrollment centers across the country to allow individuals to apply for the twic, that has the hazardous material endorsement and tsa precheck. we will expand a number of enrollment centers to over 300 this year, adding to the convenience of workers. tsa continues to evolve and modernize their credentialing programs through these initiatives, strong collaboration at the department, partnership with industry and the support of this committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify today and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, mr. sadler.

and now stephen caldwell, please proceed. >> thank you for asking us to testify on port security. we've issued almost 100 reports on port security since 9/11. our most recent comprehensive report on port security was issued in the fall of 2012 to note the ten-year anniversary of the maritime transportation security act. let's start with planning. there is a national strategy for maritime security issued in 2005. we reviewed that strategy and its eight supporting plans and found much of the criteria that gao has laid out for a good national strategy. we also looked at some of the more detailed functional strategies and in some cases we have found those to be wanting, but at the port level we found that some of the plans specific to the ports have included the safe port act's requirement that they also cover recovery issues. again, going back to some of the functional plans, we found some deficiencies in those. for example, dhs after putting

out the small vessel security strategy and laying out an implementation plan for that has not been tracking the progress of the components and actually meeting that, which leaves some opportunities, lack of disseminating any potential lessons learned or even being able to track their overall progress on that strategy. in terms of maritime domain awareness, there have been a number of improvements. the coast guard through its common operating picture program has allowed additional data sources into the use of the users, allowed blue force tracking, which is the ability to track our own vessels, and also increased access across the coast guard to other users. however, many of the original systems used to increase maritime domain awareness have fallen short of the capabilities that were originally planned for those and mainly these are due to some of the acquisition problems that our reports have noted, such as not developing complete requirements at the beginning, not updating costs or

schedule base lines and not monitoring their initial performance. regarding the security of our domestic ports, dhs components, especially the coast guard, have gone quite a ways in terms of implementing the maritime transportation security act. key provisions of that act call for security planning at the port facility and vessel level and it also calls for the coast guard to then inspect those facilities to make sure that those security activities are indeed in place. gao has audited those programs. we found progress and most of our recommendations in those areas have been implemented, but some areas remain problematic. as noted, we have concerns about the port security grant program and the extent that they are monitoring the effectiveness of the actual projects. going back to 2005, gao found that the program lacked an adequate risk assessment process and lacked a mean to measure the effectiveness of the projects in

the grants. more recent work did find that the grants are based on risk and it goes back to the process that was started to be described at both the port and national level. after more than a decade after the program's start there's really no performance measures in place to determine whether the program at the port or facility level has improved port security. and it even lacks project level visibility to know whether the projects were indeed implemented as described. regarding the global supply chain security, there's also been a lot of progress, especially by cbp. we've reviewed these programs and noted their management and operations have matured over time. we concur with cbp that implementing 100% scanning as defined in the safe port act and 9/11 act is extremely challenging. however, we are less convinced that existing risk-based program does not have room for improvement.

a recent report has found cbp has not been timely in terms of measuring the effectiveness of its targeting system or evaluating supply chain risks in foreign ports. including csi ports. we did see the may 5th letter from the secretary to you, mr. chairman, and note that both of those issues are discussed as potential improvements. in closing, gao will continue to review port security programs for congress, this committee and others. for example, we have ongoing work on port cyber security as well as the disposition of high-risk containers. that concludes my remarks and i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thanks so much for that testimony. senator ayotte, nice to see you. why don't you lead us off. >> thank you, mr. chairman, appreciate it. i just wanted to get a follow-up, administrator sadler and certainly mr. caldwell about the twic program. so you testified about the one

visit pilot and now it's going to a nationwide mailing system. so how do you assess it's going and are you able to do this without concerns about fraud? so just can you give us a quick update. you know, obviously i appreciate the steps you've taken on this but just in terms of substance. then i would like to hear from mr. caldwell about how effective you think overall the twic program is in helping protect port security and what other -- gao has been quite critical in past reports about what we need to do to improve this program and its effectiveness. so that's really the issue i was hoping to get a little more insight on. >> we started the pilot for twic 1 visit last year in 2012-2013 in alaska and michigan. as we transitioned to our new technical system, we started the implementation nationwide, so we started implementing the one visit in may of this year, may 12th.

so we planned to have a phased schedule to implement it across the nation and we should have it done by this summer. so we think it's going fairly well. we do mail the cards out. i believe we've got about 3,000 cards for twic 1 visit that have been mailed out of about 5,000 enrollments. what we do is send the card out separately and then we send the pin in a different letter. so we try to send them out in two different letters. >> so you haven't seen fraud yet on that program? >> on the mailing itself? >> yeah. >> not yet, senator, but we're still in the early stages. of the implementation. >> thank you. and mr. caldwell, i know we're sort of in the middle of a vote so i just wanted to get a quick thought on one of the things i think we've worried on overall about the twic program, is it making us more secure.

are we improving this system so that we can have some reliability with it? >> well, two things. i'll talk about twic 1 and that's trade opportunity, security and convenience. definitely it's more convenient but you're losing one of your steps of internal controls of identifying the person's identity by having them come in. i think congress pretty much directed and took to going that direction. >> they did. >> so it is what it is. >> but it's also good to follow up and make sure that we didn't -- that the choice we made there, that i was obviously a supporter of, that we made sure we're following up on it as well. >> yes. i do think it's a good idea to follow up on that to see if there is fraud and whether that happens. >> what i'm worried about overall is are we really doing anything with twic? i'm not trying to be funny about this. i get the goal of it, it makes sense, but we obviously -- the concern has been how are we enhancing port security overall?

>> we have those concerns as well. we've had concerns with the program pretty much from day one in a lot of ways it was implemented. for example, the reader pilot that was done recently, we thought the valuation of that was done quite poorly and left out a lot of things that would be able to evaluate really what were the problems coming up. was it the card itself, was it the reader, was it the person that was manning the security gate when they did their test at the reader pilot. they did not include the kind of detailed data you'd need to know to get that. obviously you know there's some concerns in terms of the shooting down in norfolk. >> yes, that was raised in the commerce committee. >> and the navy now is not accepting twic, at least by itself, as a card accepting to get on that base so obviously they have some concerns with it. there's been an assertion that twic has improved security and we've seen that in the latest report to congress but we haven't seen strong evidence supporting it.

>> so you want better metrics. and you want -- >> gao always wants better metrics, but yes. i suspect we'll be asked to look at it again. >> are we doing better? that's a good question, are we doing better? >> well, compared to nothing, having a pass that is used in multiple places with the background check is useful. you can have felons and things have things waived so they still have those cards, but you don't have people getting the cards that have either espionage against the u.s. or terrorism crimes. those kinds of things. that's a pretty high bar, but in one other way to look at it -- >> yes, that would be important. >> twic was put in as part of mtsa, which really the bar for mtsa is will they prevent a major transportation security incident and that's where this kind of a judgment call about whether someone getting and committing a crime, committing

murder, would that rise to the level of a transportation security incident. not likely. >> if there's anything else you want to add, i know we've got to run to vote. >> just quickly. the first thing i want to say for twic 1 visit you have to go in and confirm your identity -- >> the first time, absolutely. >> you've got to do that. the other thing i'd say is that this is the first time that the maritime population has been defined. prior to twic, there was no definition as far as i know and i spent 20 years going in and out of ports, so i'm not sure who knew nationally -- >> who was going in and out of the ports. >> we now know that example. >> we now have a population of 3 million people. i vetted people before twic with information that was submitted by ports. we vetted 900,000 people. we did that prior to the implementation of twic as a mitigation strategy. now we're up to 3 million people. the first thing is define the population, we recurrently vet them every single day. we have one common standard, put

the biometric aside, one common standard, one common credential, one common background check n some places you had to buy a multiple credential within the same state so if you went to one port, you had to buy a credential and you went to another port, you had to buy another credential. and i can't tell you what the background check was. so we think there is improvement in security just by virtue of the fact of those things that i just mentioned. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'm going to slip out, run and vote and then come back and so dr. coburn can go back and forth. i want to telegraph my pitch, when i come back, i'll be interested in asking so you can be thinking about them are how do we measure success. i want to see if there's consensus on how we measure success. and if there's some consensus around common metrics, then how are we doing. what are we doing especially well, what are we not doing so well. and finally i always like to ask what can we do to help, all right? dr. coburn, thank you, all.

>> thank you. have fun voting. let's keep talking about twic for a minute. we hit -- i'd just like your assessment on somebody with a twic card that gets into a port and shoots people. how's that happen? no system is perfect and i'm not laying blame. i'm just saying how did we miss that? >> at the time that individual was vetted, senator, the standard for manslaughter included all manslaughter, voluntary and involuntary. so when the individual came through, the crime had been committed in 2005. the conviction occurred in 2008. i believe he served about 800 days on his conviction. so he served about two and a half years. he was released from incarceration in 2011.

we encountered him in december of 2013. and based on the standards that we were using at the time, that voluntary manslaughter charge was not a disqualifier. so he got his card in january of 2014. as far as him using the card at the base, i would defer to d.o.d., but one point i have to make is the twic in and of itself does not give you access to a port. you have to have the twic and you have to have a business need. so we've gone back, we're scrubbing all the cases we had for disqualifications that involve involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter and we've changed our policy now that if you come in with a voluntary manslaughter charge, that's an interim disqualifier. interim meaning that you are still eligible to appeal, you're still eligible to request a waiver, you're still eligible to request an administrative law judge review and you're eligible to go to court if you don't agree with the finding that we make.

>> right. that's the kind of answer i was wanting. talk to me about twic readers. >> i'll defer to my colleague in the coast guard, but to senator carper's point about what we can do to increase security and how we can be more successful, that's one way to be more successful is by implementing the twic readers because we have a biometric credential. we believe that it works. right now it's being used as a visual identification card. but it needs to be used as a biometric credential and on a risk-based basis as well. so we believe that it's critically important to install readers in ports. >> admiral? >> thank you, doctor. i really appreciate the opportunity to answer that question because as the agency responsible for implementing security at our port facilities and as a previous captain at port myself, i think it's important to recognize that twic and the twic reader are part of a greater access control system

for a facility which has its own security system, which is in itself part of a greater system to secure our ports than the entire chain that i discussed. so when you're going to put an access control system in a facility, you're going to include fences, gates, guards, lights, cameras, a credential of some sort and in some cases a biometric reader for that credential so it's just a matter of layering the security. as the chairman noted in his opening comments, if this was security at all costs, we'd have readers everywhere. because we are trying to balance, as we should, the risk with the benefit and facilitate commerce, we've done an exhaustive analysis, which i'm happy to explain to you, that has ensured that the readers go at the highest-risk facilities. and i think that the coast guard's proposed rule puts those readers where the cost benefit is currently the best. i think as we expand the use of twic and twic-like credentials

beyond the maritime domain, because that's the only place we have transportation credentials, reader costs will come down, card costs will come down and the cost benefit will change in a way that it just makes sense to put readers at more facilities. will come don and the cost benefit may change in a way it makes sense to put readers at more facilities. >> do you have a proposed first round will be completed date and an assessment made? zsh of twic readers? we are currently working on the rule we put out a notice proposed rule making. we received about 2600 comment. we are working through the comments. we are going to make some adjustments to the rules and go through the process and hopefully sometime next year. there is a two-year implementation date. >> we're 2 1/2 years from the present plan of the coast guard? >> two and a half years where

readers will be required at certain port facilities. >> thank you. let me go back for a minute. miss mclean, one of your statements in your opening statement was spending money in a co effecti a cost effective way. if you have metrics on the effectiveness of grant money spent, how do you know it's effective? >> senator, i think that the -- i appreciate the question. i think it's a little outside my lane. i would prefer to take the question back and get you an answer working with my colleague from fema on where we are in developing met tricks -- metrics or answering that particular question.

i'm not saying that. i'm just saying. anybody can answer this. we have a port system where we tier risks, and the vast majority of money have gone tier one ports. and under the system you're utilizing today without any recognition of the money that is already spent, we continue to spend the same money on the same risk. there's no risk reduction recognized in your tiering. if you don't have metrics, associated with the money being spent, the port security program, grant program when do we stop spending money at tier one ports. in other words, how much is enough? and how do we know when we've got the best cost-benefit analysis. the most cost effective program in based on the risk and mitigation and the other goal that we have. how do we know that? if we don't have a metric-based

system? in other words, here is why we're spending the $2.9 million. here is what we're hoping to get. here is how we're going to measure if we've got it. there's all sorts of -- i won't in the hearing, i will privately, give you the list of money that you spent on stuff that a common-sense person would say it doesn't have anything to do with port security. we have two ports in oklahoma, and we have two 27-foot boats on the river, and in terms of the risk associated with those ports, those are low priority compared to what the higher priority things are on the port. those two ports. so my question is, if we don't have metrics to measure. when we look at this in total. i think we have done a wonderful job in laying it out. how do we know? how do we know when to quit

spending money that gives us a diminishing return on the port security grant program? >> senator, i'm happy to field that question. improved measurement is absolutely an area where we see a lot of opportunity. >> let me interrupt you. what is your measurement now? >> in fy 13, we -- for the first time, instituted measures related to sustainment of existing capabilities versus building new ones. we took the gao and mr. caldwell's reports and recommendations quite seriously and are looking closely at what ports are doing with the funding. we -- for the first time in the fy 14 application cycle are requesting project level data going in. you are probably aware of the history of the program, and the flexibility that had been given at the local level against area

of maritime security plans. there remains a lot of flexibility, but we are increasing the oversight to request project level data upfront so we can start to get that information to form even more effective measures of outcomes. on the grants management side, senator, we certainly have measures now, and even over fy 12 measures of our monitoring. mr. caldwell mentioned the level of monitoring. 100% the port security grants undergo some level of monitoring. we have a tiered monitoring system where our program staff on our routine basis look at every award, look at the history of the grantee, the history of the outcomes achieved, their financial measures from draw down, rate of expenditure, rate of obligation. that, then, is reviewed.

we do prioritize based on the risk we see in their management of the grants all the way up to desk reviews where we request a lot of information from grantees and site visits. what i would tell you, senator, i look forward to continue working with you and continue to get the data we need to form more effective measures. i agree with you that everybody can point to the examples, and they really are some stunning camp -- camexamples of how usef and effective it is. we will continue to refine our measures to get that data. >> yeah. as i noted, i think it's improved. i think we still, you know, my underlying concern somebody is going to be sitting up here ten years from now and the amount of money spent on the type of program isn't going to be there.

so how we spend the money today is really important. because there's going to come a time, i mean, you know, i'll repeat for you. social security, disability runs out of money at the end of next year. medicare runs out of money in '26. social security runs out of money in '32. by 2030, the entire budget will be consumed to medicare, medicaid, social security, and the interest on the federal debt. my question, based on the future, and if we spend money really well now, we won't spend -- we won't need to be spending money in the future. that's the basis of the question. it's not a criticism. it's just that we need the best cost-benefit value for every dollar you send out in a port security grant. >> we agree with you, and we are working with our partners on the vulnerable index, which is one of the things you mentioned. how do we understand what risk we have bought down, and we'll

continue to look at that to make sure we're spending the money as effectively as possible. >> thank you. admiral, one of my concerns, and i can't go into detail, but let me give you a hypothetical. you give me the answer. let say somebody leaves one of our certified ports overseas, and arrives here. in between there and now, something was added to that cargo. do we have the capability to know that? >> well, doctor, i'm not exactly sure. it if they leave a foreign port. >> one of our certified ports. meeting all the requirements that you all have. and someplace between when they left and when they arrive at the port of los angeles somebody has added a package. if that occurred -- >> so -- >> not in the port.

just in transit. >> in transit. the only way -- a couple of things would need happen. probably the entire crew would have to be complacent with the individual securing it. it's difficult to access particularly a container in transit without a significant amount of effort, and that would require probably more than one person. >> let's don't worry about the details of that. let's say it happens. >> if it happens the only way we would know, really, it's a better question for my colleague from customs and border protection would be because the container has been opened and we would be able to determine that. maybe you can -- >> sure. senator, we have two elements i think would be germane here. one the import security filing giving us the stow plan for the vessel. we know where each container is on the vessel.

whether it's assessable during a voyage or not. we see drug smauggler attempt t break the custom seal, put a load inside the door of the container and lock it up. it's only doable around the deck area. we know which containers could be accessed and we do routine seal checks s upon arrival. there are different steps in our -- >> somebody counterfeit your seal? can somebody counterfeit your seal? >> they can try to, yes. we have detected dozens of attempts to do that pretty effectively. >> so they not have been able to do that as of yet? >> i won't say, senator -- >> that you're aware of. >> successful counterfeit attempts. we train our personnel to detect what our seals are supposed to look like. whether they've been tampered with. there's a number of sequees