embraced tsa wide, so in order to fix a problem you have to fully understand it, and i think he is committed to doing that. >> all right. my last question is similar to my first two. give us some good advice. come back and pick up one point that you mentioned for us. tsa gives us this great list for us to use. give us just one great to-do for our list, aside from maybe confirmation good leader. give us one good one. >> understanding the risks you are attempting to manage, and understand the risk behind the technology and understand the risk behind the management processes and manage against the risks and if you don't understand the risks, you will not be able to manage against it. >> i will take one out of my statement and that has to do with the fact that we have nobody in the field overseeing the numerous contracts that tsa has engaged in and no way to

measure if the performance of the contracts is acceptable, and technical representatives in the field would let us manage the contracts better so we are not wasting taxpayer dollars. >> mr. maclean, one quick one. >> i would pass a law that gives flight attendants more training and authority to have passengers save their lives. >> thank you. ms. grover. >> gao is a date-driven organization, i would like you to see the top leaders accountable by asking for data on the effectiveness on their operations. >> thank you. >> what you can't measure, you can't manage. thank you. i have to give a shout-out to my tsa's in the milwaukee airport, and i travel light, but i did attend a boy scouting event and i was rushing to the

airport. and they gave me a package i put in the briefcase and it was a little boy scout knife and they caught it. again, the vast majority of tsa and tso employees that have a difficult task, they do stay alert and protect the public. so that was my own experience, i got caught. senator urnst. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you ranking member carper for calling this very timely hearing today. and i do want to thank all of our witnesses with us today. and we appreciate your testimony very very much. senator carper i think touched on a lot of the questions that i had. i do believe there has been an issue with the lack of consistency, and i think it's something that tsa has been suffering from, from across the various aspects of the organization, and its mission for a while now.

but referenced in all of your testimony, really much across the board, is varying degrees of lack of certainty and consistency with people, processes and operations, and these problems, whether it's the morale of the organization, the personnel or the day-to-day operations, they are just so systemic. so, you've mentioned some ideas on where you'd like to see leadership go, a couple of suggestions for congress. but bottom line do you think it's really more of a management issue for the admiral, hopefully, he'll be confirmed shortly. but are these the issues that the admiral can influence through his management style, or is it something that needs to be addressed through legislation? i'd like to hear the perspective that you have on that. one or the other or a

combination of both. miss grover, if you would start, please. >> i think it's really several issues. i do think there is a concern about morale at tsa, as was mentioned earlier, morale at dhs as a department is very low and morale at tsa is even lower. and that does affect people's engagement to their work. there are weaknesses in the equipment the tsa uses in terms of its effectiveness, and there are challenges in encouraging a workforce of 45,000 people to do the job properly every day. that's just a lot of people to manage. so, it's morale, it's management it's attention to the technical specifications of the equipment. and i would like to see tsa spending less time on standing up new programs and more time on making sure the programs that they have stood up are working properly.

>> that's good advice. thank you. appreciate that. mr. maclean? >> well a big problem with the air marshal mission is there's nothing going on, which is a good thing, there is no arrests happening and no casework happening, and as you would get in a cbp or border patrol station, you have hundreds of thousands of arrests, hundreds of drug cases happening, so the managers are busy and have things to do but when an air marshal commits an infraction it causes a huge ripple in the water and a lot of local managers don't want to make a decision on something so they wait on headquarters to make it for them. so, i think a possible solution is to put the air marshals underneath the purview of a pure law enforcement agency. there is a huge amount of former

border patrol agents and cbpo officers in the air marshal service, and they feel like it was when they were under the ins, an agency that had conflicting missions one was to naturalize people and then capture them at the border. so they feel that's a problem. there's so little case work so little to do that's great because there's nobody dying. but bored managers are looking for something to do. >> you would say to separate the two programs and empower -- really empower the officers to do more? >> well many air marshals say why don't we go under the purview of customs and border protection? the facilities are in the airports and the management is already there, and it could be a good transition. it happened once before, the original air marshal director

had put the air marshal service underneath immigration and customs enforcement and he did that because he saw the air marshals burning out, they were bored. you hire these high-speed eager beaver guys and gals and they get out there and they're strapped down so you have -- it's like pressure cookers. things happen. he saw it and he saw it was going to be a quick burnout and he put them in i.c.e. in order to have a better career path and start investigations and making arrests. >> very interesting. i appreciate that. i do want to address some of what senator johnson eluded to in his statements about the recent media reports that indicated the instructor general or by the inspector general that tsa failed to identify at least 73 people employed in the industry that were flagged under terrorism related activity

codes. and according to the tsa, part of the reason for this is that the agency is not authorized to receive all of the information under current interagency watch-listing policy. i have huge concerns with that, as well as i'm sure, most of our public does as well. employees are often granted special access without having gone through a thorough background check, and inspector general, if you could speak to that just very briefly. >> we share your concern and summary of what we found is accurate, and there's the large terrorists identity environment, and tsa by law did not have access to some of the codes. in 2014, the administrator asked for access but again, i's a process that apparently is taking some time, so it isn't quite there yet but i think they're moving quickly on it. >> i thank you all very much for your testimony today.

thank you, mr. chair. >> senator sass. thank you for your testimony, and general roth, thank you for the work you and your team do. i wonder if you could unpack the structure of your administration, you have the largest ig officer in the branch, right? >> no, i think we are number three. dod and social security administration, i think. >> how many employees do you have and can you talk about the structure? >> sure, we have approximately 700, about 670 employees altogether. and it's broken into a function audit, and we have 220 criminal investigators that do internal affairs work, and we are the internal affairs agency for customs and border protection, i.c.e., and really the largest standing law enforcement agency in the government. and then we have a separate section that does both inspections and audits so we do the traditional, sort of

financial audits but we do program audits we do information technology audits. we do sort of inspections of various things and write reports. >> and can you talk about the background of your investigators and auditors, how diverse their backgrounds are. >> quite diverse. criminal investigators are individuals that grew up that came from other law enforcement agency and they are armed and have arrest power like any other criminal investigator, federal criminal investigator would have. our auditors come from a variety of places some within the inspector general community some in agencies, some from private businesses and private enterprise all of whom are governed by the gao audit standards for auditing. the so-called yellow book. >> do you have a red team that reports to you? >> we do not.

the red team is a term of art the tsa uses to do internal investigations, but we don't refer to ourselves as red teams. >> there have been 70 attempts by your investigators to smuggle explosive devices or fake explosive devices on to planes. the failure rate was 67 out of 70 times, a 96% failure rate. the public is taking some comfort in the idea that this investigation was supposedly done by super terrorists is the term that's reported in theed my from the red teams. so the red teams is not yours, and this leaked report is yours? >> again i can't confirm or deny any of the specific results or specific methodology in which we did the resting, and as i said, we don't idea ourselves as red team and these are auditors we use members of the inspector general's office. >> i appreciate this, and appreciate the classified briefings you have given a number of us i think what we hear you doing is clarifying that in your employ, there are no red teams?

>> correct. >> do you understand how the stories are out there that says these were red team investigations? >> we don't. i was as disturbed as anybody by the fact that this information got into the media. we have done a number of classified penetration testings with absolutely no incident of leakage. we have started an investigation, a preliminary investigation of this to try to determine where the source of the leak was. >> do you have any discomfort with communication strategy of the department that appears to be echoing the media testimonies, and i will quote one from secretary johnson last week, quote, red team testing of the aviation security network has been part of the tsa mission for 13 years. there are, indeed, red teams at dhs, and you are not going to a non-classified setting clarify the nature of your investigation that was leaked.

but i think we've heard you clearly say your employees were mostly auditors? >> that's correct. >> thank you. last week's report was just one. can you tell us a little bit more about the number, both classified and unclassified of tsa, dhs, ig reports that you've issued since 2004? >> i can't give you an exact number. a dozen is my best estimate of what we have done since 2004. we did a series of penetration testing in 2011, both penetration testing to determine the security of the so-called sterile area being able to just move into the sterile area without any sort of examination. covert testing, for example, carry on luggage through the screening process. we had done penetration testing of the ait machine, sort of the first generation ait machine which is different than the ones we've done most recently.

as well as penetration testing of the checked baggage process. and that report was earlier this year. >> are all of your investigations ultimately briefed to the leadership of dhs? >> yes. >> you said in testimony last month that tsa days agreed with most of your recommendations to a classified report on precheck, and you concluded and i quote "we believe this represents tsa's failure to understand the gravity of the situation." can you explain what that means? >> it involves the pre-check program, there are a number of different ways you can get expedited screening without having an application and fee and biometrics taken and your background sort of investigated to become a known traveler. we found some security vulnerabilities, and we investigated those and wrote

reports making recommendations that would eliminate vulnerabilities. and tsa declined to take the recommendation, so we are signature at loggerheads as we speak. >> do you think it's conceivable tsa did not know how grave the situation was until last week's leaked report? >> well, candidly i worry about that. >> basically out of time but i'd like to ask director rohrer one question as well. are you saying regular passenger screeners have no matrix that have to do with their success or failure rate at getting weapons? >> that is correct. >> thank you. >> i want to thank the chairman and thank all of you for being here. i wanted to follow up on a couple of questions. first of all, to understand that we have not been vetting the workers, the workforce against

the fbi database, and then, as i understand you, mr. roth, saying that in fact, we still are not able to fully do that because of actually an access code issue. could you let us know about this? i have to say, i think all of us are quite shocked by this in terms of just basic common sense of we use that -- the fbi background checks on people who deal with the public in a variety of contexts, and to not in this context just seems kind of mind-boggling that would not have been in place already. >> to do this a little context in what lists we're talking about. there's sort of the large list, the terrorist identity environment which has a list of information of individuals that are sort of verified and unverified. it's the broader list from which it gets called the terrorists watch list. what tsa did not have access to are certain codes within the

larger environment. again, some of this information is nonsubstantiated. once tsa realized, i think, around 2014 they did not have this information, the director pistole or administrator piste signed a letter and it's in the environment to do it. we were able to in the course of our audit run 900,000 names against the database. as we sit now, i think we have some comfort in understanding what that environment looks like, in other words, the 73 individuals we believe is the sum entirety of what was missed. we gave those names to tsa as soon as we discovered them and i think they are following up on each of those. so, i mean to the extent that there was a vulnerability, i believe it's been closed but it certainly gives you pause that this situation was allowed to continue.

>> it does give you pause, because it really only takes one versus 73 in this context, and as we sit here even the fact that there are still a bureaucratic step that isn't being expedited, would this request being made by director pistole already in 2014, i just can't imagine that the fbi wouldn't have moved on this, with the most haste that they had could possibly move, given especially your recent undercover findings. >> so, i think that's something we should follow up on just as a matter of -- bureaucracy can't hold this up when it comes to basic vetting that needs to be done. i also wanted to follow up on the management inclusion in what is being done, i was interested

to see director rohrer refer to it as it's being given out like halloween candy and i think we all think it's an important program for public and to the extent we do have a category of individuals that has grown exponentially and is being used and may not go through the entire vetting process. if you could share with us what you're able to share here with what you think would be better in terms of reforms to focus on the precheck process properly so we're allowing the members of the public to use it that should and still maintaining a thorough vetting of the individuals that we should. >> the basic principle behind pre-check is great, because it's an idea if you are a known traveler, we have to spend less time on you than an unknown traveler and really bringing precheck back to its basic form which is we know who you are.

we wrote this report and briefed members of congress, and there is proposed legislation in the house of representatives, it's called the secure and expedited screening act, hr-2127. which basically directs tsa to bring it back to what it used to be, which is somebody looks at you and knows that you're a trusted traveler, as opposed to some of these risk rules that they now apply. >> i also wanted to follow up we heard a lot of discussion today about the vetting process, but one thing -- because i also serve as the chair of the aviation subcommittee that's been an issue. is the sita badges and want understand your perspective on tsa's rule issuing the badges, and many are not being kept track of and that responsibility is left to the local airports. what would you assess in terms of this issue? is that a potential vulnerability and what recommendations do you have in that front?

to whomever would like to answer that. >> sure, well so, let me just start by saying that it is the airport's respond and there are mechanisms that they have in place at the airport level to do regular checks with each of their contractors to make sure that the badges can be accounted for. i believe there is a trigger, like a 5% trigger if a certain number of badges have been lost they would all be reissued. so, there are some controls in place, but i think that it is an issue that warrants additional attention. >> we are doing some work on that, given the news that has been recently out there. >> we've had other incidents with the sitta damps that cause deep concern. >> exactly, we are doing work with regard to that, going to the sites and figuring out whether or not not the airport

authorities are appropriately and properly accounting for the citabadges. and frankly doing testing to see whether or not we could piggy back into a secured area and those types of things. >> we conduct tests where we will call the airport and report that a employee has been terminated to determine how quickly they turn off the access according to the badges. that was a special emphasis and inspection at committee that we did recently. while we found a couple of challenges in most cases when the badge was reported lost or missing, the airport did turn off the access associated with the badge. >> i thank you for being here. let me say to chairman johnson's point, you know, i certainly the tsa agents i interact with in manchester on a regular basis, i think they are very hard working, so putting together the right process for the people who are trying to do this job effectively every day and making sure they have our support i think is important, and then

also ensuring that those agents that are doing well are empowered to to do their job. i think that's part of our function here as well. thank you all. >> senator mccaskill. >> thank you. there is no evidence right now that you have that shows that contracted tsa is either cheaper or better correct? >> i do not no. >> and you're not aware of any that exists? >> correct. >> the magnetometer versus ati. do we have numbers, good numbers, on cost to operate and speed of use on those two different devices? >> we haven't done any work in that area. i note that tsa itself has some metrics with regard to do but i don't have that available. >> since -- i feel like i am handcuffed because we don't have tsa here. i will request it from tsa if it's available.

it is very obvious to me because i am always looking for ait because i have a knee. i get somebody to touch me a lot or i do ait. and so even though you don't know this unless you start asking. i go through the tsa preline and then i ask them to go over to the ait machine. now, some airports immediately accommodate you, and others know you can't do that, and every airport is different, like snowflakes, and some say you can lose your shoes on and everything in when you go through the other line if you have your tsa preboarding pass with you. others are not -- you know, they -- so, you know, it's kind of a mess. i don't really care as long as i get to go through this instead of this. so i -- in about 50% of the time, they have the ait shut down and i've got to ask for them to open it.

and, so, they may have one sitting there. some airports don't even have one sitting there, but it wasn't until very recently they even had one at the southwest terminal at reagan. >> so, i'm curious if your work has focused on this, and maybe the marshal can speak to this, too. but why aren't we keeping those ait machines going all the time at every facility because we spend a lot of money on them, and i know this is the whole thing of time versus safety. how quickly can we move people through, right? is that what it is? >> yes, that's the essence of the problem. it is much faster to expedite people through a metal detector than an ait, but this is better security than going through a metal detector. a metal detector will not detect a nonmetallic ied which is one of the biggest threats to aviation security.

>> think of all the first-time travelers that are going through that magnetometer that don't know that have knees and hips that don't know how much time they're going to save and how much time tsa is going to save if they go through the ait instead, if they were to ask like i ask. i am worried they are letting me use it, and especially at home, they know who i am, and you know, that's really wrong. anybody with a hip or knee ought to be told they should go through the ait to save time and money, and, of course, be more safe. so, i want to keep following up on this magnetometer. now, why can't we have more ait machines? well, because we're cutting the budget. so we've got to remember as we all sit and pound the desk about how bad tsa is we keep cutting the amount of money they have. we ask them to do more and do it better. clearly one of the issues is, in fact, resources and how many people are working. the times i have gotten into difficult conversations at the

airport about why it's not open is because we don't have the staff to. takes more staff to run it. we just don't have the staff to run it. so, i think that's also an issue. the marshals. are you saying now, mr. maclean that they are reboarderepreboarding, the marshals? have they changed that? >> it's hip or miss. it depends on where they're flying from. one thing they all tell me that when they fly from international, origins, they're paraded by the foreign agents. >> i still see them preboarding. i mean, it's pretty obvious who they are. >> well, the way it should be done they should be boarding with the passengers. >> by the way, isn't that better security, also? because aren't they comingling with passengers with more opportunities with eyes and ears and -- >> absolutely. >> to figure out who there might be on that plane that might be a

problem? >> correct. i mean -- >> when they roll up, you know, at the beginning of boarding and they go on, clearly they're not physically impaired. clearly, they're not traveling with small children. now, they're not in uniform but usually they're in jeans and -- i mean, you know, it's -- it's not like -- and then they're sitting in strategic places on the airplane when you get on. so i don't understand why -- is this something that anybody can speak to? why do they think it's a good idea to put these people on ahead of time? >> we can't dictate what the foreign countries can do. >> no. but that's just here in the united states. >> i'm not aware of that. i understand that that problem has been -- that the air marshals have the option 100% option to board with the passengers. but most of the air marshals now are flying long, long routes to places where they're not -- they're mandating preboarding so the janitors see them.

the workers on the flight line. >> i see them on my plane and typically the planes i'm going on are not longer then a two-hour flight and they're getting on ahead of time. >> that's a problem. >> is that their option? >> yes, it is. >> why? shouldn't they be required to stand in line with everybody else and commingle? >> i would like that. absolutely. at the same time they could be gauging suspicious activity. >> right. you'd want them walking around the airport a perfect place and being among the airport is waiting in line with all the passengers. >> correct. >> is there a reason that they're being given the option? do you know, ms. roering, since tsa is not here or ms. grover or mr. roth? >> i don't have an answer to that but we could ask to find out and getting back to you. >> i mean, it's more convenient for them to get on first. it's nice not to have to wait. you don't have to get -- especially doing -- >> i can only speculate but it's possible that the air marshals may not want to lose their

overhead bin space. >> exactly. just like all of us. >> i don't know. just speculating. >> especially when you're traveling of an airline like southwest which i fly frequently. you know? being at the front of the line -- >> well, southwest airlines, it's a free for all for the most part. >> correct. >> i bet we could figure out with southwest they could make sure that they don't have some seats at the front. >> and that all depends on how -- how smart the flight attendants are going to run that operation. >> okay. well, i'm -- i want to stay on the contractor versus employee i want to continue. would you all be willing to -- i need to talk about this but it seems to me that you all ought to start putting in the audit in the report from gao, the budget for the year of which you are doing the work compared to the previous years. i think everyone needs to understand that there is a price to be paid for us continuing to

cut and cut and cut the domestic side of homeland security, the domestic side of our national protection. it is a problem that we're seeing this year again where we're going to create a $40 billion slush fund in the department of defense but yet we're going to shortchange port security, airport security, cyber security, cia, fbi. all in the name of holding on to an ill-conceived sequestration number so i think you guys should think about doing that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator mccaskill. when we're talking about resourcing, i do have to throw out the word "prioritization." priority spending. rest assured. this is first in a series of

hearings on tsa. >> i'll get a chance at tsa? >> yeah. and we can talk about boarding group "b" on southwest airlines for folks. senator bouldin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you holding this very valuable hearing. also want to thank the witnesses and especially our whistle-blower witnesses for being here to share your stories and your experience. and a special thanks to ms. roering. you raised the alarm on inadequate precheck background checks, and as you are stationed at the minneapolis/st. paul international airport where as the chairman and i know many of our constituents fly in and out of on their ways to other destinations, we appreciate your leadership. i wanted to follow up online of questioning of a couple of the previous questioning that some of the previous senators have went down. with mr. roth, just so i understand it very specifically,

with regard to tsa access to the terrorism-related information in these databases and in particular the lack of access to certain codes, i thought i heard you say earlier that there was a statutory impediment and then you indicated that it is in the process of being worked out bureaucratically between agencies and i want some clarity for our committee as to whether we need to see legislation on this pushed through in an expedited fashion or whether this is on the verge of being resolved between agencies. >> thank you for that question. and my apologies for the confusion. as i understand the process it is sort of an administrative process that is done from within the government itself.

there is a need for legislation. i think the access to that information is generally governed by statute and doesn't require a statutory fix for tsa to apply to have access to those codes. only, for example, if the committee that decides whether or not tsa has access to the codes for some reason refuses that access, there may be a statutory fix that would be needed, but until that process goes all the way through, i think that's what needs to occur. >> while i'm on the topic of legislative or policy changes that we should be aware of, i think most of the testimony that i've heard points to leadership, points to management points to following the rules that are already in place, or examining that all of which the agency would have the authority to do as it currently stands.

please highlight for me each of you if there's anything in your testimony that we should pay attention to that requires statutory change. anybody? okay. thank you. i wanted to have you, ms. roering, speak a little bit further about this issue of performance metrics that are skewed towards timeliness rather than accuracy. i know you touched on this briefly in response to senator carper. but can you elaborate more on performance measures that track wait times and those that track the ability to detect weapons or explosives? and how that reflects or how that affects both safety and tso

performance? >> thank you for the question, senator baldwin. when there's a excessive wait time, which by definition for tsa is currently over 20 minutes in a regular lane and 5 minutes in a precheck lane, there's immediate reporting required through our coordination centers to the regional offices and ultimately to headquarters. that report requires a authorize thorough analysis of individual number of tsos out for training or called off sick and scheduled absences. there's just a lot of focus and a lot of information that is needed to be gathered when we have an excessive wait times. in terms of our monthly testing which is conducted by my inspectors, we brief the fsd basically once a month on the results of the tests. there is no metric associated with it. the test results are shared amongst screening management. but quite honestly, there is just no metric to focus on the detection rates and whether or not that would reflect badly on the fsd scorecard.

>> mr. maclean, you have brought to our attention a lot of information about the threat of ieds. and certainly, given the failed bombing attack of the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber and these sort of things, the evolving ability of terrorists to assemble miniature ieds and remotely detonate them or as you described the increased threat of larger ieds in the airport perimeter are huge concerns. you've already commented a little bit further in the questioning but how do you believe resources should be reprioritized to better protect against these threats? and, if you could elaborate a

little bit more about the viper teams that you were talking about earlier and that capacity to help address this threat. >> i'm glad you asked that because i really want to talk about it. once again, if the precheck is done well, it reduces the time that the screeners need to focus on nonthreatening passengers. so i'd like to see those tsos participate more on viper teams. and then the four points that i mentioned on the physical security implementation on the aircraft so that you can get more air marshals on the ground into those viper teams. i love that thought of -- and these are not teams that i want down there ripping and arresting anybody that they see. this is purely trying to build rapport from the local authorities all the way down to janitors and cooks. for instance, you might have a

cook that sees something every day, the same thing, but one time he reported it to his boss it might be some knucklehead who just says i don't have time for this. you're not a cop. quit playing cop. i have better things to do. so he's frustrated so, you know, he doesn't barely speaks english. he doesn't want to go forward with it. but if there's that uniform viper guy who has built a rapport with him, asked him about his family, is very interested in what he sees every day, he might come to him for something that's out of that ordinary. that little thing just may be that ied that air marshals are scared to death to be stuck flying with. >> thank you. >> thanks, senator baldwin. senator langford. >> i thank all of you for your work on this. millions of americans fly every day and they're very dependent on what's happening with tsa and the security and you all bring

to the table from whistle-blowing and basic inspections so appreciate what you're doing to help out the american people on this. it's extremely important. let me run through a couple different questions here. mr. roth, you had in your testimony that you repeatedly found that human error often a simple failure to follow protocol possesses significant vaul vulnerabilities. what do you attribute that so? systemic? training? management, is that morale? where is that coming from? >> i would say it's all of the above, senator. i mean, i think it does involve training. it does involve morale. it does involve management. you have a large workforce and you're right. it is one of these things that you have to follow the sop every time. if you don't, that is where you find the vulnerabilities. >> there's all kinds of accountability built into the system for time and efficiency you were talking about before. if you go past 20 minutes, there's accountability, is there

structure built in for someone that's not following protocol? >> i'm not aware of that. i'll leave it to the other witnesses. >> other folks seen that? is the standard really become a time-based standard at this point? >> it is a time-based standard but if our tsos don't follow sop the agency treats that as a conduct issue versus performance issue which again, impacts the morale. >> sure. tsa agents and what's happening at department of homeland security on the whole is terrible morale on the whole. these are great folks and the people i travel back and forth with oklahoma city where i catch a flight every single week are terrific folks. and extremely friendly. very engaged. they understand the value of what's going on. great folks but the morale seems to continue to come in time and time and time again bad. that doesn't help us as the traveling public. let me go through a couple things here, as well. mr. roth, also there have been ongoing issues with procurement. with tsa. both getting equipment that's

outdated, getting the wrong equipment, getting too much equipment that's stored in the warehouse and it's been an ongoing problem. is it getting better? >> it's hard to determine that at this point. certainly, the kinds of work that we've been doing shows that this is a continual problem. we just did a report, for example, with regard to tsa maintenance contracts where it's about a $1.2 billion set of contracts over a course of 4 years in which tsa doesn't have the ability to understand whether or not routine maintenance is in fact being performed, or whether they're being billed for things that actually occurred. >> so basic sustainment? >> correct. >> okay. what's happening on the procurement side? because there are lots of folks that are vendors that are rushing into space now because they know there's a large market. is there a good standard of improvement there to say this piece of equipment is 2% better? is that enough to be a multi-million, multi-billion dollar contract? how are the standards for

procurement coming out to try to increase the effectiveness? >> this is an emphasis area of the secretary trying to professionalize the procurement process in dhs. tsa is part of that. i can't speak to current acquisition projects but it is something that, you know, frankly, remains a challenge. i will say, for example, the ait machines, that's a single vendor so there is no real competition within the market for what is a very significant capital purchase. >> okay. we've had a lot of conversation this morning about precheck. and about how precheck you have a million people that have gone through that process of precheck. but we have what was the number? 7 million people that are now basically authorized to go through it through other variations. do we need to change the name from precheck to something else, box we have a large number of people that are really not being

prechecked. they're just being expedited through this process. am i getting that correct? >> that -- go ahead. >> yes, sir. that's correct. particularly for people who are selected at the airport, these are not individuals who were -- you can watch the rest this hearing from tuesday at c-span.org. we leave you now to take you to the white house for the president's briefing on iraq. >> we had presumably the ability to dial into the call for the state department and department of defense, discussing the announcement that president and his team made today. to ramp up our training, advise and assist efforts in anbar province and iraq. i'm happy to take your questions on that and any other topics. diane, do you want to get started? >> do you have any information

on the apparently exposed by isis? >> i don't have any information on that. but we can check on that for you. >> a couple more questions. even with the house vote coming up on friday can you give us a sense what the president is doing last minute to try to get to vote for that legislation? >> the president continues to be engaged with members of both parties about why he believes the house should pass legislation that's passed the senate. it will give him the opportunity to negotiate the most progressive trade bill that's ever passed. this is an agreement that the president believes is clearly in the best interest of middle class families in the united states. the agreement would include enforceable provisions related to higher labor standards, hire environmental standards. and specific language about the need to respect basic human

rights. so, the president -- you know, as you know has been actively engaged in making this case both publicly and privately, to democrats and republicans. he spent most of his time talking to democrats on this matter. and the president and his team will continue to be engaged in the days leading up. in convincing democrats and republicans to build the kind of bipartisan majority that we saw in the senate. >> is there a belief with the 18 democrats who currently -- >> i don't have the count to update you with. but i can tell you that the president and his team are engaged in building a bipartisan majority to support this legislation. >> there was medicare paid for that was removed from the trade assistance package. what does the president think about that? and do you think having done that that will encourage more democrats to vote in the middle? >> darlene, as it relates to the

specific pay force included in this legislation, we have acknowledged that this is something that democrats and republicans in congress will have to work out and we are supportive of bipartisan efforts to resolve some of these differences. but we haven't weighed in on any specific proposals that have been floated back and forth. this is consistent with the kind of legislative process that we've seen on a range of issues. it's not surprising that it's merged in the discussion of this issue as well. what we are ultimately seeking is the kind of bipartisan support for this bill that would allow it to pass the house of representatives so the president could sign it into law. and we could get about the work of completing the tpp negotiations with the other countries in the asia-pacific. >> finally the vice president has returned to the white house to have lunch with the president and meet with members. have you seen him? is there anything that you can tell us about how he's holding

up? >> i've not seen the vice president today. i was aware of his schedule and that he was to return. but from what i know from talking to those who have talked to him is that he has -- i think i mentioned this last week, the vice president and his family continue to be moved by the incredible outpouring of support that his family has received in this very difficult time. and i think that was on full display for those of you that had the opportunity to either attend or watch the funeral over the weekend. and this will continue to be a difficult time for the biden family. and for all of those of us who cared deeply for the vice president and his family. but i think what is not surprising to anybody in this room is that the vice president is very dedicated to his job. and we obviously are pleased that he'll be able to -- that

he's able to return today and to be focused again on the many difficult policy challenges that he has assumed in role of vice president. >> thank you. >> thank you, josh. going back -- >> sure. >> -- did the president consider sending more than 450 troops that he ended up deciding on? >> yeah i think the department of defense official that he spoke to on the call i think explained the decision making behind the decision to pursue this specific policy. and that is, starting from the question related to what is needed to improve our efforts in iraq, what can we do to better support the strategy that has been laid out by prime minister abadi, and what can we

do to capitalize on those elements of our strategy that have proved effective in iraq? and the best way for us to do both of those things is to of those things is to essentially expand the capacity of our train, advise and assist mission in anbar province. that is to build up the capacity of iraqi security forces give them the benefit of training by u.s. and our coalition partners. we also are seeking to more efficiently provide equipment and material to iraqi security forces and those fighters that are working in concert with iraqi security forces. this will also allow the body government to more effectively pursue their strategy to recruit sunni tribal fighters into this effort. those tribal fighters will also benefit from some of the advice and assist efforts that are

military personnel are engaged in. they will benefit from the expedited transfer of weapons and equipment. and bringing them into this fight under the command and control of the iraqi central government will be an important part of ensuring that we have iraqi fighters on the ground who are fighting isil in their own country and even in their own communities. so in pursuit of that specific effort, the president and his team decided that expanding our training and advise and assist missions at takatum air base was the right approach then there was the consideration of how many -- how large of an additional contingent of u.s. forces be required to undertake that mission at the new location.

the team recognizes that force protection in iraq is critically important. obviously it continues to be a dangerous country. that is based on the elements of the president's national security team they arrived at this number at about 400 or 450 u.s. military personnel would be required to carry out this mission at taqaddum. >> given the pressures that u.s. troops are under given the political pressures that this white house and the president are do more are you confident, a, that that number is enough, and b, that these initiatives are right now to halt the process the islamic state has had? >> jeff, the president and his

team are confident that for now 450 troops additional military personnel, are what is necessary to fulfill this expanded advise and assist and training mission to taqaddum air base. but what is also true is the president's going to continue to push his national security team to continually evaluate the strategy. to take a close look at the tactics that are being employed in iraq and determine which ones have proven to be effective and ensure they are being applied not just in those areas where they're making progress but also in those areas we're making or sustaining some setbacks. and that's been true in many locations in anbar. as was referred to on the call there actually are some locations in anbar near the other training base in anbar at al assad air base where we have seen iraqi security forces that

have been trained by coalition forces that have received the benefit of advice and assistance of u.s. military personnel where we have seen the iraqi u.s. military forces being effective in driving out isil. that's the reference to this town in baghdadi, which is in anbar province which is a town taken over by isil but essentially was retaken by american and coalition-trained iraqi security forces. they did that not just using the trabing that they'd received from our coalition. they did that with the advice of our coalition and with the backing of coalition military air strikes. that's an indication of an area where the strategy that the president has laid out has yielded important progress. and that's the kind of progress that we'd like to see in other places in anbar but also in other places across the country in iraq. >> can you give us a sense of

what consider terms of future action? what you talk about and said on the call, not ruling out additional steps? >> well, it's hard to give you a real clear sense of exactly what other things are on the table. the president's been clear about what's not on the table, and that is a large-scale ground combat operation inside of iraq. the reason the president has ruled out that option is the president does not believe it is in the national security interest of the united states for us to do for the iraqis what they must do for themselves. and that is to provide for the security situation in their country. the united states is prepared to stand with the iraqi people and the iraqi government and the iraqi security forces as they take the fight to isil on the ground. we're prepared to back their efforts with military air power. but the president does not believe that sending in a large contingent of u.s. ground combat troops is in our best interests. it's also relevant that the

iraqi central government does not believe that that would be a good move. so we are working closely to coordinate our efforts with the iraqi central government under the leadership of prime minister abadi to pursue this effort. and so it's difficult to foreshadow what other things may be considered, but there's at least one prominent option the president won't consider. okay. julie. >> thanks. something mentioned on the call that this option has been under consideration for quite a few months and that it only sort of resurfaced after the fall of ramadi. what took so long if the prime minister was telling the president and the administration months and months ago that they needed more training acceleration of equipment and weapons and even more intelligence sharing what took the administration so long to decide that this is a step you needed to take? and secondly what is the timetable for retaking ramadi now? is it going to be this summer the end of the year? and what about mosul?

this seems like a shift away from emphasis there. i wonder if you could just say what the white house or the president would consider to be success in terms of timetable for retaking those cities? >> julie let me clarify the first part of the question that you asked. the president and his team had been discussing the possibility of expanding the advise and assist mission into taqaddum air base prior to isil taking ramadi. but the specific received from prime minister abadi did not come until after the fall of ramadi. and that was at the same time that we were considering a wide range of other things that could be done to support the iraqis.

and it's not as if there was a situation where there are a large number of iraqi requests that have been made by prime minister abadi that were not considered until after the fall of ramadi. the fact is the president and his national security team even before the fall of ramadi were considering a range of options including this expansion of training and advising and assist mission to taqaddum air base. as it relates to the timeline for retaking ramadi, those kinds of operational decisions will be the decisions made by prime minister abadi and the iraqi security forces. they'll make that decision in consultation with the united states and our coalition partners. they're certainly interested in the advice u.s. military officials have to offer in that regard, but ultimately it will be a decision they'll make. if there's any sort of announcement about timing it will come from prime minister

abadi's office. as it relates to the need to drive isil out of mosul, i'll say a couple things about that. the first is that our strategy and when i say our strategy i mean both the strategy of the iraqis and our coalition will be based on our knowledge of what's happening on the ground. and what's happening on the ground in anbar is a source of concern. the strategy we've discussed today in terms of ramping up our training and advising and assisting mission reflects the concern about the situation in anbar province. and we're confident that these efforts will enhance the capacity of iraqi security forces and those forces that are operating under the command and control of the iraqi central

government to addressing the situation in anbar province and driving isil out of the province and ultimately out of ramadi as well. we're also confident that that will eventually benefit the the effort to drive isil out of mosul too. the point is we continue to be concerned about the situation in anbar province. it's not unrelated to the concern that we have -- or about the priority we've placed on ultimately driving isil out of mosul as well. >> so you can't say what the president would consider success in terms of timeframe for retaking ramadi or mosul? it's up to the prime minister to decide what the plan will be for doing so but what would the white house consider to be in line with what you're shooting for here? >> well, i wouldn't put any sort of timeline on it from here. but we have heard the -- shortly after the fall of ramadi the

abadi government announced a specific plan back on may 19th for what they believed was necessary to retake ramadi and to drive isil out of anbar province. and the expansion of our training advising and assist mission that was announced today is an effort to reinforce that previously announced strategy. and the way that it will reinforce that strategy is both by bolstering the capacity of iraqi security forces who will benefit from this training. it also will make it easier for the abadi government to fulfill the ultimate of their strategy that's depending on recruiting local sunni tribal fighters. and ensuring their efforts are coordinated with the iraqi security forces as they take the fight to isil in anbar. and we can assist those efforts by offering advice and assistance to those sunni tribal

fighters. and we can supplement those efforts by ensuring we are efficiently delivering equipment and materiel to those fighters as they prepare to retake ramadi and ultimately anbar. michelle. >> you mentioned the additional trainers and other things were being considered well before the fall of ramadi. consideration is one thing. why weren't these acted upon? you said that abadi didn't ask for them until after the fall of ramadi, but surely our advisers are the ones making the decisions when iraq hasn't been able to handle this isis problem from the beginning. so why wasn't the pressure put on or the decision made or the advice given to do some of this before the fall of ramadi? because apparently the problems were identified. >> michelle, i'll say a couple things. that these kinds of decisions are closely coordinated with the abadi government. in this case the decision to expand the mission to taqaddum

air base was at the specific request of the abadi government. but also reflected the unanimous recommendation the president received from his national security team. and these are the kinds of things the president's national security team has been considering for some time and reflects the need for the united states, our coalition partners and for the iraqi government to be nimble as we respond to an adversary and opponent on the ground in iraq. there's also demonstrated a capacity to adapt their tactics and capitalize on their perception of weaknesses. so that's what we're trying to do. but ultimately we continue to have confidence that the effort to build up the capacity of iraqi security forces, to enlist sunni tribal fighters in the effort, by bringing them into the mobilization forces and putting them under the command and control of the iraqi central government, that this will be an effective tactic against isil in

anbar. primarily because when you're bringing in sunni fighters from anbar into this fight you've got local iraqi security forces that are fighting against isil in their own province and in some cases even in their own communities. and we believe that will be effective because these are fighters fighting for their own towns. and that's a good thing. both in the short-term in terms of trying to drive isil out of the town, it also is -- represents a path toward a sustainable solution. that ultimately over the long term what we need to do is build up the capacity of local security forces and local governing structures to govern these territories. and we've seen that this is something that the american people and the american military can't do for the iraqis. this is something the iraqis must do for themselves and we want to help them build the capacity to do exactly that. >> okay.

and the 450 additional trainers that's a doubling of the number there now. that's obviously a significant increase. but doesn't that also point to -- >> let me say when you say doubling, right now there aren't any u.s. military at taqaddum air base. >> not in taqaddum, but in iraq. it was a breakdown of the 3,000 or so that are there now. >> okay. well i don't want to leave you with the impression that all 450 are all dedicated to training. some are dedicated to force protection, but okay. we're on the same page then. >> when you look at the number there now, this is a significant increase. so just thinking doesn't that also point to a significant underestimation in what was needed initially? >> i think what it represents is a conclusion by the president and his national security team that the situation on the ground in iraq would benefit from more

trained iraqi security forces and more sunni tribal fighters that are operating under the command and control of the iraqi central government who are -- who have received advice and assistance and equipment from the u.s. military. and our strategy is predicated onramping up the capacity of the iraqi security forces and enlisting sunni tribal fighters in the fight and setting up this training and advising mission at taqaddum air base will facilitate that effort. >> but isn't just the fall of ramadi alone, doesn't that indicate a lot of underestimations there on the part of the iraqis as well as the u.s. who is adviseing them? >> michelle i think what we have said about ramadi is that it was a setback. there are however other places where the iraqi security forces with the support of the united states and coalition partners have made important progress. and this is consistent with what

we've seen in military conflicts that there will be areas of progress and periods of setback. what we want to do is we want to apply the lessons learned in those areas where we've made progress and apply them in areas where we've experienced some setback. and expanding our capacity to offer advice and assistance and increase training not just to iraqi security forces but also to sunni tribal fighters in anbar reflects the successful implementation of the strategy. we know that in other places that has been successful in improving the performance of the iraqis on the battlefield as they take the fight to isil in their own country. so that's why we're applying it in anbar province. >> the iraqis are also asking for all kinds of additional equipment. why isn't it time for that right now? >> well, that is part of this announcement as well is to ensure that we can more quickly and more efficiently provide that equipment to -- forces

commanding the lieiraqi central government. carry out a training, advising and assisting mission at taqaddum air base, but what also is included is a process for more efficiently delivering equipment and materiel to either iraqi security forces or tribal forces who are operating under the command and control of the iraqi central government. okay? justin. >> i want to move onto trade really quickly. first i want to ask about the letter letter -- i'm not sure if you've seen it. >> i haven't seen it. >> okay. well he accused the president of mischaracterizing the stance on trade and said -- the president a few weeks ago said on principle regardless of what the provisions are the unions were opposed to trade, but he noted that back in 2000 the trade pack

was supported and said this kind of mischaracterization was essentially marginalizing important democratic ally. i'm wondering what your response to that is. >> well, let me say as a general manager, justin i think it is true that the president and many of the leaders of organized labor in this country have values that we share about the need to expand opportunities for middle class families all across the country. that's the focal point. i'm confident that these leaders in the labor movement would say that that is their priority. it also is the priority of president obama. and that is why when we confront the vast majority of economic issues that are moving through the congress that there's broad agreement between the president and these labor leaders.

but we have encountered a scenario here where there's a difference of opinion. and it is a difference of pretty strongly held opinion i think on both parts. and the president believes he's made a powerful and persuasive case about why progressive democrats should be supportive of this specific trade promotion authority legislation. it is legislation that writes in enforceable labor and environmental standards. it includes specific language related to human rights, the first time those kinds of provisions have been included in trade promotion legislation. and that's why we feel good about winning the support of about a third of the democratic caucus in the senate for this legislation. i don't know that we're going to get a similar percentage in the house, but it is a clear illustration that the president's not the only progressive democrat who believes that this legislation is clearly in the best interest

of middle class families. the president is going to continue to make this case to the democrats in the house and democrats across the country. he does not expect he'll be able to persuade them all, but this reflects a difference of opinion. it does not however reflect a difference when it comes to the priority we all place on looking out for the best interest of america's middle class families. >> well, i think the argument they're making is that it's harder to make the case to progressives if you are mischaracterizing their position. from alcfio from e lizwet warren is there any concern from the white house especially on something that, you know, was rhetorical and off the cuff but also demonstratively untrue that the president's mischaracterized his opponent's position? >> no. i'm not sure there's anything demonstratively untrue about what the president said either. again, what is true that generally speaking on the vast majority of economic matters

that come before the united states congress, the president and leaders of the labor movement are in strong agreement about what's necessary to advance the interest of middle class families. in this case there is a disagreement. and i would acknowledge it is a sharp disagreement. but the president's had success in making his case to democrats in the united states senate. i'm confident we'll have some success in making our case to democrats in the house. and, you know, frankly if you look at some of the polling data, which i know that you guys are often eager to do, there's some evidence to indicate the majority of democrats across the country agree with the president about this. but differences of opinion are not unusual. what's important is that we continue to have a set of shared values that relate to the importance of providing for the best interests of middle class

families. >> and to the question about medicare. i know you said you haven't weighed in but i'm kind of hoping that you will weigh-in on this because it's i think kind of a last, i don't know, stumbling block here. house democrats are upset because they say that this fix which would have cut medicare pay for -- trade assistance for people who are hurt by the trade deal won't be attached to legislation that must pass as part of the deal. republicans are saying, well now you're trying to move the goal post possibly killing the entire package. so i guess to return to one of our favorite rhetorical tools. if representative josh earnest of missouri was voting both about this trade deal but also about this medicare cut, is medicare issue not important

enough for him to want to attach to legislation? >> justin, that was a good try. what i will say is that these kinds of decisions about legislative procedure and payfors are part and parcel of the legislative process. and this is all -- there's a reason they call it sausage making. it's not particularly appetizing to watch, but it often yields a useful result. and so as the congress goes through this process we're hopeful democrats and republicans will be able to work out an agreement that yields a bipartisan support for this package of legislation that the president believes is critically important to our economy and to the interests of middle class families. >> i guess put it very bluntly, having the medicare fix attached to must-pass legislation is not

a definite priority of the white house? >> again these are differences in legislative mechanics that have to be worked out by democrats and republicans in congress. look, here's the thing that we often do weigh-in on, which is the need for democrats and republicans to try to work together to resolve these differences. and so often we find that those differences don't get resolved when we see republicans are unwilling to talk to democrats about it. that's not what we're seeing in this case. what we're seeing in this case is a good faith effort on the part of republicans to work with democrats of good faith to try to resolve this particular issue. and again, it may not be particularly appetizing to watch, but if democrats and republicans continue to work together in good faith i continue to be confident that they'll be able to resolve their differences. okay. april. >> josh, two different subjects. >> okay. >> for one reason or the other u.s. troops remain in iraq. now forces being bolstered to help the iraqi soldiers stand

up. can you -- how long u.s. troops will be in iraq? even beyond this. because it looks like there's a need for u.s. troops in iraq to help them in one way or another. >> i would put a timeline on it april other than to say the president has acknowledged since last year that this will not be a short-term proposition. and that the efforts to support the iraqi people as they -- and the iraqi military as they take the fight to isil on the ground in their own country will require a serious commitment. not just from the united states but the other 62 members of our international coalition. the president built that coalition so the u.s. wouldn't be in the position of carrying this weight on its own. and the president has been very clear that the efforts of the united states and our coalition partners will be to support the iraqi people. we will not do for them what they must do for themselves. and that will be a central tenant of this policymaking

process. >> i want to ask you to quantify or at least try to quantify when you're talking this won't be a short-term proposition, well beyond the next 18 months maybe into the next eight years or maybe even after the next eight years, or the next four years? can you help quantify this issue that's not going to be a short-term proposition? >> not beyond what i've already said. >> so when you're saying short-term proposition am i right to go down that track beyond this administration? >> i think it is fair for you to say that the president does -- and we've said this before that we do not expect the situation with isil will be resolved by the president's last day in officer and the threat to u.s. interest around the globe is something the next president will have to deal with. >> i was trying to say u.s. troop involvement, not

necessarily isil u.s. troop involvement in iraq. >> i think that would apply too. i would expect at least some of the u.s. military personnel currently in iraq will still be there when the president leaves office. >> now the next subject. there seems to be a picture going around making the news of president obama meeting with the italian prime minister. and he has something in his hand. and there's a lot of question about what this white thing is in his hand. can you tell us is the president -- does he have a pack of cigarettes in his hand? >> he does not. >> what was it? >> i don't know, april. i wasn't there. >> i understand. but did he tell you what it was? >> you may not be surprised to hear that i have not raised this issue with the president today. >> okay. well, the president as you've acknowledged he reads media reports and it's everywhere this picture of him -- >> i'm not sure that's the way i'd describe it.

>> it's on the web. check it out. >> i have. >> well, i mean, the size -- i'm not a smoker but the sizing looks like -- and so i mean -- >> i told you it's not -- they aren't cigarettes. let's move on. >>. [ inaudible question ] said i think it's a step in the right direction, but as the president admitted the other day he doesn't have a strategy," those are his words. >> that's an intentional distortion of the president's comments. >> is the president confident though that this is a winning strategy and a complete strategy to use the term he used the other day? >> the president is confident that the announcement that he made today to establish essentially a fifth base in iraq where u.s. military personnel and some coalition military personnel will conduct training, advising and assist operations

will bolster the capacity of both the iraqi security forces as well as the sunni tribal fighters in anbar that are operating under the command and control of the iraqi central government. and that will further our strategy to assist the iraqis as they take the fight to isil on the ground in their own country. and we can support them by -- through these missions that the president has authorized. we can also support them with military air power. but ultimately it will not be the responsibility of the u.s. military to go in and do for the iraqis what they must do for themselves. >> and to that point you said earlier that this is the number this 450 figure is the number for now. is there a point at which the president will rethink this number? is there a benchmark? has he said in six weeks we're going to sit down and look at this and determine if we need to add more troops? >> the reason i said for now is because 450 is the number that's required to carry out the

mission that's been expanded to taqaddum air base. it's the number of personnel specifically required to do what the president announced today. what is also true is the president has directed his national security team to regularly be in the process of evaluating the strategy and looking for refinements and ways to optimize that strategy. this is one example of that. what we have seen in other parts of iraq is that iraqi security forces that receive training advising and assisting from u.s. military personnel when backed by coalition military air power performed well on the battlefield. and we want to expand the capacity of our operation there to train even more iraqi security forces and to be prepared to train additional sunni tribal fighters that are recruited by the abadi government to fight under the command and control of the iraqi central government. many will be fighting as part of these mobilization forces.

and we want to make sure that our efforts to support the iraqis in this particular element of our strategy is one that we have the capacity to -- that we have the capacity to do. and that's what's driving the decision that was announced today. that's also what's driving the decision to streamline the provision of equipment and materiel to iraqi security forces and sunni tribal fighters in that region of the country as well. >> and you've stressed these 450 forces are not going to be in a combat role, but what would you say to those who are concerned that this is mission creep? >> well, the president i think as i've tried to convey to you is very specific about what he expects about what their mission is. we're also very clear about what their mission is not. these troops are not being deployed to iraq to engage in ground combat operations. >> if they're going to be in danger -- >> there is absolutely -- and i would not -- there's no environment in which i would downplay the risk that these

military service members will face in iraq. we've been direct about the fact that the security situation in iraq is tenuous. you know particularly in anbar province. that's why, as i mentioned to michelle that a number of the troops that will be a part of this mission will actually be at taqaddum air base to provide security for the military officials that are directly responsible for providing advice assistance and training to iraqi fighters. >> and just one other topic quickly, josh. is the president aware that as of last week four to five dozen secret service officials didn't have their security clearances? and this is something director clancy has expressed is a problem and has ordered to be fixed by the end of this week? >> well, kristen i think what the secret service will tell you

is that all of the officers prior to stepping into their roles and assuming the significant responsibilities that they have undergo as you would expect significant background checks extensive training and other measures to ensure that they can assume the significant responsibilities that they are given. and what i think the secret service will also tell you is that this backlog that has materialized has already been significantly reduced. the backlog now is less than a dozen. and i think this reflects two things. one is it reflects the effort that the secret service has undertaken to hire more police officers and agents to implement the reforms that director clancy has so doggedly pursued. and also reflects what he has acknowledged as making sure that these individuals have all the

training and all -- and they've received all of the background checks to perform the duties that they are expected to perform. >> and yet this is a problem by director clancy's own admission. is the president confident that the secret service is getting better under director clancy? >> again kristen as i think the secret service can tell you that this backlog has been reduced to less than a dozen. and that reflects the priority that they have placed on not just hiring more personnel, but making sure that those personnel have undergone the background checks and other measures that are necessary to fulfill their responsibilities. okay. kevin. >> josh, thanks. affordable care act earlier today we heard congressman ryan sort of grill, if you will, secretary burwell. he essentially said something about a one-sentence fix. is the president simply going to shout out this one-sentence fix?

or is he going to work with congress and broaden his approach if the court rules against burwell? your reaction. >> well, kevin, to be clear the only issue that's before the supreme court right now is whether americans in every state are eligible for tax credits. the president believes that they are. the republican staffers who worked on this legislation believes every american should be eligible for those tax credits. and that frankly is a problem that can be fixed directly by congress in a one-sentence bill. and republicans who are resisting that solution if it's needed are republicans who have already voted 50 times to try to dismantle the law. so their opposition to an easy fix for the affordable care act is not at all a surprise. >> how concerned are you about rising costs? we read reports about double-digit premium proposed hikes coming up and how that might impact the american people? >> kevin thanks to the

affordable care act those insurance companys that are considering a double-digit increase in premiums are forced to disclose those plans in advance. they're subjected to intense scrutiny by legislators. that's why we've seen insurance companies regularly reduce those increases. in fact, the overall numbers bear this out. since the affordable care act went into effect, we have actually seen the slowest growth in health care costs in recorded history. it's our view that that's not a coincidence coincidence. >> i would like to ask you about something you said earlier about iraq before i ask you one question about iran. you said in ramadi, and i've heard you say this previously, that it was a setback. given what's happened in mosul given what's happened in ramadi were the same fate to come to baghdad, would you describe that as a setback? >> well, kevin it's our view that it's necessary for the iraqi government and the iraqi

security forces to take the fight on the ground to isil. and there have been areas where they made important progress. i mentioned bagdadi, a town in anbar. there have been other places like tikrit where we've seen iraqi security forces drive isil out of those towns. and that represents important progress. what we've also seen is those forces that were -- that did have to retreat from ramadi were able to essentially to reorganize themselves outside of ramadi. and they've been subjected to some isil attacks, but they have so far been able to generally speaking withstand many of those attacks. and what they're trying to do is to reorganize, reconstitute themselves and prepare to retake ramadi and ultimately drive isil out of anbar province. and there's no doubt that the iraqi security forces and those

forces that are operating under the command and control of the iraqi central government have their work cut out for them as they pursue this important task. >> lastly, i'd like to ask you about comments made by general flynn in his testimony that the administration of the iran strategy is wishful thinking. he said, i'm quoting now, once these sanctions are lifted we've seen since 2013 the genie is out of the bottle. and you know the phrase snapback sanctions? well that's wishful thinking. your reaction to the general's comments. >> well, we've been very clear about exactly what we envision. that is diplomatic negotiations that are carried out to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. and in exchange for iran taking very specific steps, steps that can be verified to shut down every pathway they have to a nuclear weapon, the united states and the international community would begin to offer sanctions relief on sanctions that have been specifically imposed on iran because of their

nuclear program. and that is after all why the sanctions were put in place in the first place which is to compel iran to come to the negotiating table and cease their pursuit of a nuclear weapon. and that's exactly the way this was designed to work. it certainly will not resolve all of the concerns that we have with iran's behavior. we're going to continue to have concerns with the way that iran has engaged in destabilizing region activities throughout the region. we're going continue to have concerns with iran's support for terrorism. we're going to continue to have concerns with the way iran menacing the closest ally of the united states in the middle east. but it is a priority for us to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. the sanctions we have put in place has worked in terms of compelling iran to come to the negotiating table. and hopefully we'll find out some time around the end of june whether or not iran is going to be serious about committing to shutting down every pathway they

have to a nuclear weapon and cooperating with the most intrusive set of inspections that have ever been imposed on a country's nuclear program to verify compliance with the agreement. >> so the general got it wrong? >> i didn't see the general's comments. nadia. >> i just interviewed -- he said that any arms you've given to the central government you have to make sure it will reach the sunni tribes in anbar. what do you have to make sure they have received these arms? because they are fighting isis in anbar. and been working for a while by themselves. >> nadia what we have indicated is that when it comes to providing equipment and materiel to fighters that are operating under the command and control of the iraqi central government, that those are weapons provided in coordination and supervision of the iraqi central government.

now, that is one of the things we actually believe we'll be able to do at taqaddum air base, which is to be able to work closely with the iraqi central government and with u.s. military and coalition military officials to make more efficient the delivery of equipment and materiel to sunni tribal fighters included into the fight. these are sunni fighters recruited by the abadi government. they will benefit from some of the advice and assistance of u.s. military personnel. and these are sunni tribal fighters that will be fighting under the command and control of the iraqi central government. and that is how those individuals will be able to get access to weapons equipment and materiel -- >> you can continue watching today's white house briefing online at cspan.org. and it will re-air in its entirety later in our program schedule. we take you live now to capitol hill for a hearing by the senate aging committee looking at the effectiveness of the do not call

list. live coverage. >> -- interrupting americans morning, noon and night. but now nearly 12 years later phones are once again ringing off the hook. in this hearing we will look at why americans who have signed up for the do not call registry are still getting unwanted phone calls and what can be done to stop it. we will see a large part traces back to the regulatory framework behind the do not call list has been rendered ineffective by advances in technology. it used to be that phone calls were routed through equipment that was costly and complicated to operate. high volume calling was difficult and expensive

especially for international calls. that old equipment could not be used to easily to disguise or spoof a caller id. but now phone calls wbcan be routed from anywhere in the world at practically no cost. this can be done by using so-called voice over internet protocol technology, or voip. and the computer programs needed to generate these calls are remarkably inexpensive and easy to use. now, reputable telemarketers scrub their calling lists against a database to make sure they don't dial numbers belonging to consumers who have signed up for the do not call list. if you are on that list, there

is a good chance that the tell marketer who's calling you is not legitimate. instead, it could well be a scam artist using a computer programmed to generate robo calls. these robo calls typically originate offshore often from call centers in india. but you would not know that fact from looking at your caller id because the scammers spoof their caller id to add credibility and hide their true location. as we learned in a recent hearing on the irs scam fraudsters can even spoof their numbers to make victims believe that they are calling from the irs or local law enforcement. when these unsuspecting victims

see the internal revenue service or their local police department pop up on their caller id screen, they are worried, scared and often easily hustled into doing whatever the scammers demand. simply put spoofing is very easy -- as i will now demonstrate. my screen is reading internal revenue service. well, let's see. hello. this is susan collins. may i ask who is calling? >> hello, chairman collins. this is sam dewy from your staff. >> sam, my phone says you are calling from the irs headquarters number which is 202-622-5000.

are you calling from the irs? >> no, senator i'm actually over here. >> there you have it. thank you, sam. and here is what the number would look like on a standard land line phone where you have the screen where your caller id shows up. now, the irs of course is part of the department of treasury. my staff was able to spoof that number using a free iphone app right here in this hearing room. and looking at my phone i would have no way of knowing that it was not really the irs or the department of treasury calling me. obviously these fraudsters have no intention of following u.s. law. in fact, they may use the do not

call list as a source of working numbers in their hunt for new victims. if we are going to win the fight against scammers targeting our seniors, we need to get ahead of the technology that they use to generate robo calls and to spoof caller ids. let's see who this one is. hello. this is susan collins. >> hello, senator collins, it's sam dewy from your staff again. >> sam this is getting old. this time sam is pretending to be from the department of justice. and he's just demonstrated how easy it is to spoof multiple phone numbers, not just the irs the department of justice and

virtually any other official sounding number. and he's also demonstrated just how annoying these repeated calls can be to the consumer. so, sam, i'm turning off my ringer now. this is a serious problem. it would be one thing if the real number were showing up on the hard line id screen. then callers might have some chance of protecting themselves by simply not answering the phone as we've advised in many of our hearings. but when you see the irs or your local police department's number or the fbi's number showing up on your screen, you're going to answer that

call. i wish senator mccaskill were here right now. she will be coming. >> i'm here. >> so you managed to miss my very exciting opening statement which had two spoofed calls during it. >> oh, darn. >> but you're here for the praise part of the hearing. and i do want to salute you for the work that you've done on the commerce committee on this issue and for the legislation that you've drafted which i'm very pleased to join you in co-sponsoring. so before we turn to our witnesses whose testimony i'm very much looking forward to i now would like to call on our ranking member to deliver her statement. >> first, my most sincere apologies. you know this place is -- all

my colleagues will attest to the fact all best plans get blown up by crises of schedules. so i apologize for being a few minutes late. and i apologize for missing your opening statement. thank you so much, chairman collins, for holding this hearing. this is a topic i am very concerned about. and frankly i think anybody who -- and i know the witness that's here from the missouri attorney general's office can speak to this. if there's one topic that comes up frequently with missourians when i'm talking to them it really is can't you do anything about the robo calls. i'm on the do not call list, why can't you get them to stop? i watched my mother get victimized when she thought she was being called by medicare and it was really a company called med care that was robo calling her and lying to her about whether or not they'd talked to

her doctor. in our 2013 subcommittee hearing in the commerce committee, we heard about the inability of enforcement agencies to keep up with this game of whack-a-mole that phone scams have become and pleas for help from consumers that their providers please help them by offering technologies that will block unwanted and fraudulent calls. i've been tough on the phone companies not because they're causing the problem but rather because they are in the best position to do something about it. somine inin -- continue to insist the law does not allow them to do this. that doesn't work. i wasn't the only one seeking clarity here. missouri's attorney general chris costar a democrat, along with indiana's republican attorney general spearheaded a letter to the fcc and 37 other

attorney generals -- attorneys general signed on. they wanted a formal opinion that clarified whether what we were hearing from industry was true, that their hands were tied about their ability to provide call-blocking technology based on consumer choice. i'm pleased today that we are joined by missouri's deputy attorney general, former judge joe danderant to explain why giving consumers more power and choice in which calls they receive is such an important concern for law enforcement nationwide. i'm also pleased that the fcc commissioner wheeler has heard concerns coming from capitol hill and across the country and rekrengtly announced a proposal to be considered at the commission later this month that would allow telecommunications providers to offer consumers technology tools to combat unwanted calls. this proposal will be voted on next week at the fcc. and i'm strongly encouraging the fcc to adopt chairman wheeler's proposal. i'm grateful that the fcc has

used its existing authority to modernize its rules. however, i also recognize that in some cases statutory changes must be made to keep up with rapidly evolving technology. to that end, this week i've introduced and am very pleased to have co-sponsorship with the chairman of this committee, chairman collins. we introduced together the robo call and call spoofing enforcement act. this bill would give the fcc more authority to go after non-licensed robo call violators and increasing penalties on them. one other concerns we've heard from our law enforcement agencies is their inability to get at spammers who spoof calls from overseas. this be would allow for the fcc to enforce spoofing laws against overseas callers who direct their activities to those living in the united states. additionally the bill would grant the fcc explicit authority to regulate third party spoofing services. we have to stay on top of this issue because spammers, spoofers

and robo callers will continue to use whatever tools are available to them to defraud american consumers and america's seniors. we must give them the flexibility to fight these fraudsters. the complaints are only increasing. in the last five years alone the ftc reports monthly complaints about illegal robo calls have doubled. and in missouri as we will hear from attorney general danderant, the top complaint of residents is unwanted and illegal tell marketing calls. it's not even close. his office gets 50 times the number of complaints for those calls than it did for the next highest category of complaint. we can do this. together we can do this. i look forward to hearing the testimony from this panel and exploring more ways to help consumers fight these unwanted calls. thank you and i look forward to all of your testimony. >> thank you very much for your statement. i would note that we've been joined by senator heller,

senator casey and senator kane. we now turn to our panel of witnesses. first we will hear from linda blaze, a lighting designer and photographer from dallas, texas. she will tell us about the constant barrage of unwanted tell marketing calls she has received despite registering with the do not call list. second we will hear from professor henning from columbia university in new york. the professor will explain the technology and describe the work that he is doing with the industry standard setting groups. third, we will hear from miss lois graceman who is the associate director of the division of marketing practices in the bureal>y of consumer

protection at the federal trade commission. finally, we will hear from joe danderand who is the deputy attorney general in missouri. and i want to thank all of you for joining us. and we will start with you, miss blase. >> chairman collins ranking member mccaskill and members of the committee thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak for thousands of american citizens who constantly receive unwanted telephone solicitations. as a small business owner working out of my home, my phone number has also found its way to telemarketers who target business. i know there are more critical issues to address in today's world, but there are few that effect as many of us on a daily basis as the barrage of robo calls that constantly interrupt our lives. in addition to scammers posing as the irs and the fbi trying to steal my savings, i've been bombarded by unwanted and irrelevant sales calls.

i've had telemarketers tell me that my credit card processor is not in compliance with government regulations. and their company needs to come upgrade it immediately as if i ever had a credit card processor. one tried to sell me an atm. maybe i could put it in my living room. several had important information about my credit card account adding that there's no problem right now, but this is my last chance for them to lower my interest rate. if only that were true. i've been getting these calls for years. and then there's the man who starts out with hello seniors, and then tries to sell me a device that calls for help if i fall. oh and by the way, someone has already paid to set it up for me. about a dozen times. these are just a few examples of the calls we're all getting every day. when the do not call list was established, i immediately registered my phone number.

but it soon became clear that it made difference to these people. all they had to do was change a number or spoof one to hide their identities and evade prosecution. and that's assuming anyone was even willing to invest the time and energy required to do so. and with the proliferation of robo calls, it got even worse. if you actually speak to a human being and ask where the company got your phone number if they don't hang up immediately, they'll tell you they have no idea. they just get on the line after the computer has dialed your number and you answered the phone. and since toll free numbers apparently aren't public record, telemarketers can hide their identities that way. i'm reminded of the board montra on "star trek," resistance is futile. there's too many ways these people can invade our homes

incessant incessantly. if you answer these calls or press one to speak to a sales rep or press two to be taken off the list you're just making matters worse. you've effectively told a computer that it has reached a working number. it also knows that you will answer calls from from numbers you don't recognize. so not only will it continue to call you, your number may go on a list of targeted numbers which can be sold and resole many times to a multitude of telemarketers, robo callers and scammers. so you have very few options. you can pick up and hang up without saying a word and not answer and giving a chance for it to go to voice mail where you can delete the number and report it to fcc and izing a detailed online form which i have done self times or go to a consumer driven website that collects complaints from others who are also tearing their hair out over these calls.

it is all an exercise in futility. so in search forever a solution to the problem i agreed to a campaign against robo-calls. i found that while call blockers can be useful straight owl of the box, the effectiveness is limited and to be fully functional may require additional and sometimes complicated programming and my ageing brain is looking for simplicity, not more complication. it would be so much simpler if the phone companies could just block calls from telemarketing clients to all numbers on the do-not-call list or to provide free robo call blocking tools to residential and business customers or both. as far as i'm concerned, these calls are unwanted intrusions into hi moment and scammers prey on the elderly citizens. why should telemarketers be

similar to those door-to-door scammers for those do not want signs. the robo callers has made enforcement nearly impossible. i believe the telephone companies have the ability to do more in this area and they should do so. we're certainly paying enough for their services. it is final for us all to take a good look at this issue and work together and -- stop or sharply decrease the number of unwanted and fraudulent calls. thank you for your time. >> thank you very much for your testimony. when we goat to questions, i'm going to ask you about the robo call log that you kept for a month. i think it is -- it is very illuminating, the dozens of calls that you received an the

variety of them. professor, we look forward to hearing from you next. >> thank you. chairman collins ranking member mccaskell and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. my fame is henning schulz rinny and i'm from column but university, new york. i was the chief teelg for the fcc and currently serve as a technology adviser to the fcc. i am discussing technology issue and solutions surrounding robo-calls and number spoofing. the views i express today are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the fcc. illegal and more general unwanted robo-calls come in many flavors. we heard of those described in greet detail already. all are annoying some are harassing, and threatening, or deceptive. beyond the well-known irs and

tech support scams similar technology also facilitates swatting, false 911 calls claiming a crime in progress and attacks that interfere with the operation of nursing homes, hospitals and other institutions. all of these, as distinct as they may seem, level the same enablers and chief and anonymous international phone calls and easy spoofing of a telephone number whether it looks like a real number like the irs or a law enforcement agency or even completely nonexisting numbers are used simply to escape the origin and make or misleading caller name information. fortunately, while new technologies have enabled the scourge of unwanted calls emerging technology can help reduce and i hope eventually

eliminate these calls. in my written testimony i described eight tools that are being developed. they are however, reliant on three key concepts that are outlined now. first, we need to make caller i.d. information trustworthy again. secondly we need to provide traceable and reliable caller information and thirdly we need to let consumers and businesses decide which calls they want to receive and which ones they do not. these techniques as different as they seem, attack unwanted calls for making it harder and more expensive for fraudulent callers to reach their marks and make it easier for the fcc and scc and staet attorney general to locate and shut down these operations. let me start with the first

topic. first for authorized telephone numbers to place calls using that number to stir the international engineering task force known as itf is finishing up a set of specifications to allow a set of calls to capto graphically set up call messages. i'm helping with that group as well. the technology is similar to what is currently used to sign websites for example banks and other financial institutions. these techniques can be reached through networks and protect legacy networks even though we may not be able to upgrade the technologies themselves and thus they are able to protect land line and mobile subscribers from fake caller i.d. information. however, i believe before we can implement the krapto graph

on a large scale the numbers used by the banks the government offices such as the irs and social service agencies, i call this approach the do not originate list, a rough equivalent to the do-not-call list, the organizations like the fraudsters would provide their numbers letting them no that no legitimate call would use those numbers. gateway operators can either remove or translate the bogus caller i.d. information. for example all such calls with fake caller i.d. may appear as area code 666. secondly voice over ip technology avoided caller i.d. information more reliable as we no longer have to rely on a very short string derived from a third party data base which can indeed be substituted with a

similar looking name. a new working group within the same organization has been proposed to modernize delivery of caller name information. thirdly, and importantly, consumers and businesses need the technical ability to decide which calls to receive. they may even want a blacklist or a white list. a blacklist designates numbers to be blocked, redirected tor voice mail or a subject to are you hume ab test. these would be derived through card sourcing. a white list allows only certain numbers reach say vulnerable individuals and other calls are blocked or forwarded to a family member or other trusted third parties. importantly, such blacklist and white lists can be implemented by telephone providers themselves or if those providers cooperate, by making it possible by consumers chosen third

parties to vet phone calls and these third parties can compete on who does the best job of filtering out unwanted calls. this does, however require that phone companies provide suitable interfaces to do that. i appreciate your interest in this topic and i look forward to your questions on the technology. thank you. >> thank you very much, professor. i very much appreciate your testimony. miss graceman. >> thank you very much. good afternoon chairman collins and ranking member mccaskell and ranking members. i'm working to fight the robo-calls and very pleased to be sitting next to the professor who is a vital partner at the fcc with us. tackling robo-calls and curbing unwanted telemarketing and tarkting seniors is a priority

for the ftc. 11 years ago we created the do not call registry to protect consumers privaciy against unwanted calls. i do believe that program has been highly effective from reducing calls from legitimate telemarkets but several years ago the landscape started to shift in a very troubling way. robo-calls were on the rise. in 2009 the ftc regained 60,000 complaints about robo-calls each month. currently we get approximately 150,000 complaints each month. a dramatic increase. so what happened? major technology changes in telecommunications services have led to lower costs and improved services for consumers, that is good news. but unfortunate fraudsters have taken advantage of the lower costs which brought faster and cheaper automatic