passengers or the aircraft. the group of pilots that use their own funds to travel to new mexico used once again, this is highly unlikely. but it's possible. armed pilots are not allowed to carry pistols on international flights due to restrictive handgun laws in foreign country, but a shotgun to stop one or two hijackers trying to break into the cockpit from one foot away it is an extreme hazard whenever a pilot opens the flight deck door to use the hraf tory or get food and drink. ot opens the door to get food or drink and an amped up could dive inside. secondary barriers ten horizontal cables attached to a pole that could be stretched across and locked in place. this barrier buys time to get

the pilot back in and lock the door. in order to control unruly passengers who could be suicide attackers setting up a ruse for the law enforcement officers on board, every cabin should is should have restraints on board. they need to legal authority to deputize vetted able body passengers to protect themselves and the jet from destruction. we could do this process during our pre-check. there is no reason why an athlete or military member can walk into the cabin to restrain. we can ask passengers to be the deputy air marshals during events. passengers may do nothing because of the potential civil liability and they are expecting

air marshals to respond. when they are taken away from the flight deck it indang pputs the plane in danger. in the case of chaos in the cabin, the pilots need the ability to disorient attackers by shutting off the lights or high pitched sound alarms. pilots can dawn the oxygen masks and depressurize the plane and knock out the attacker. doing this and giving the flight attendants and passengers the right to save their lives and the lives of those on the ground. you could assign air marshals to find bombs before they go up in the sky. hiring them afterward 9/11 was a

correct action but it should not be a career. when i was recruited the experienced air marshals said half is flying, the rest is time to recover, train and investigate. they stress no one can sustain fives years of flying five days a week. 14 years later they say there is still not ground opportunities. we should train federal and local law enforcement officers to deploy for threats. they don't want to gamble the board that is underfunded and rules on whistle blower claims. fa inspector blew the whistle on faa 12 years ago. she had a hearing 18 months ago

and still the judge hasn't made a decision. if i had a jury i would have won six years ago. federal employees are the only workers in the u.s. who don't have access to jury trials. a restaurant cook reporting spoiled food being served has more justice than an air marshal. the list goes on. what about air marshals ecos to me and i made myself available all week to members of congress and fellow tsa force. many think my preoposals are risky or crazy but i meant limited in the speaking about how we can outway the risk. i hope we don't need another 9/11 to prove why accurate. i am excited to serve with the

new admiral and i hope he is confirmed. i look forward to answering your questions. i appallologize to go over time. >> i appreciate your testimony and courage to blow the whistle. jennifer glover is our next wins she is the director of transportation for the government accountability office. her job is assessing the vulnerabilities throughout the tsa process. >> thank you. good morning, chairman johnson, ranking member carper, other members and staff, last week renewed concerns about tsa's screening systems rose and if they can identify specific items. tsa has a layered approach that is sound in principle and we support the risk base screening but to fully deliver the security protections under traditional and expedited

screening tsa must do two things. first take more rigorous steps to make sure each layer of security works as intended and second put things in place to monitor their effectiveness. weaknesses have been reported in the oversight of the screening system raising question about whether the tsa is falling short in the ability to insure affation security. tsa has take steps to improve the oversight but additional action are needed. we will focus on the security flight program that matches passenger information against federal government watch list to identify those who should not fly or receive enhanced screening. second the ait systems, the full body screeners used to screen passengers for prohibited items. then we the manage screening process that tsa uses to provide expedited screening for

passengers identified as low risk. and fourth criminal background checks on workers. we found in 2014 tsa didn't have timely or reliable information about the cause of system matching errors that occur when secure flight fails to identity matches of the watch list. in response to our recommendations, tsa has developed a mechanisms to keep track of known matching errors and is considering methods to evaluate the overall accuracy rates on an ongoing bases. second regarding the body scanners, we found in march 2014, that tsa did not include information about screener performance when they were evaluating the effectiveness. rather their assessment was limited to the accuracy of the systems in the laboratory. however, after an ait machine

identifies a potential threat a screening officer has to do a targeted pat down to resolve the alarm. thus the consistency with which the screening conducts the pat down is key to assuring the effectiveness in the department. we recommended that tsa assess ait effectiveness as a function of the machine and operators. they conquered with the recommendation and sent updated information about their efforts to address it when are under review. third, in december 2014 we found tsa had not tested the security effectiveness of the manage inclusion process as a whole. tsa uses multiple layers of security such as explosives detection devices and canines to eliminate the risk that is associated with screening

randomly passengers in a system that is designed for low risk passengers. however if the layers are not working as intended they may not be screening passengers effectively. they have reported them to be effective but gao reached concerns about some of the layers. tsa is planning to complete testing of the system by mid 2016. finally, regarding tsa's involvement in airport worker vetting, we found that tsa and airports were conducting background checks based on limited information specifically tsa's level of access to fbi criminal history records were excluding many state records. in response to the recommendation, tsa and fbi confirms there was a risk of incomplete information and the fbi has since reported expanding the criminal records they

provide for the security threat assessments. in conclusion tsa has made progress improving the screening oversight such as taking steps to address the vulnerabilities in the security flight program and by working with the fbi to obtain more access to criminal background information. more work remains to make sure security flight, ait and inclusion management is working as intended. this concludes my statement and i look forward to your questions. >> i want to start you have inspector right inspector roth you can you have can you -- can you speak to the level of sophistication of people on the red team in trying to assess the effectiveness of the system? >> that is going to be a difficult question to answer in this environment. i will say the testers we used a are auditors and members of the

oig workforce and don't have background or training of the work. to go into more detail that will be problematic. >> i am an accountant as well. >> no one spoke to accountants. >> can you speak to differences between airports? did we see, you know, some airports perform better than others and see what works and doesn't work? >> again, i can't get into the specifics of the actually results of the testing. you ask know we did field work in the area but no report yet. we do field work analyze the work and do the kinds of comparison you are talking about and report them out. i will say the results were consistent across airports. >> i will not go any further than that. i would like to talk about just the number of standard operating procedures and number of protocols. maybe ms. roaring or whoever else wants to speak to that --

how many are there? i have seen briefings and acronyms and i am trying to show how difficult they are for the standard tso's. >> there are a number of standard operating procedures. offhand i don't know the specific numbers but there is a checkpoint, a check baggage sop sop for the ticket documenter checker position known crew member, bda a passenger screening canine and those are the ones i can think of off the top of my head. >> how detailed are the sop's? >> very detailed. >> we are just humans. it is hard to have the training involved of someone following every one of the sop's with the volume, the throughput we are trying to achieve is a real

problem, isn't it? >> there are a number of very specific procedures in the sop. during the training process, the sop's are separated out so when you are being trained in that function, you would be referring to the sop that applies. some of them don't apply to all of the officers across the workforce. for example, the sop wouldn't need to be normal tso wouldn't need to know the normal sop and the inclusion and passenger screening screening. you don't have to be proficient in all of the sop's. >> i want to get into the pre-check program and my concern, and what i think is a really good idea and most agree, but only if followed and if we only do complete background checks, so whoever is best able to answer in terms of

how many people have been cleared for pre-check? i have information for about 100,000 but i am not sure it is accurate and how many went through a thorough vetting we would expect verses under pressure to again accomplish the throughput objective, how many have been approved in a very watered down process? ms. grover? >> i believe there are about a million people who have applied for pre-check now. but there are about 7.2 million people who have routinely get pre-check on their bording pass because of their affilation with concern groups. people in the trusted program or dod active military. and then of course in addition to that as was discussed earlier there is people who can get repre-check through the auto

mated risk assessments or at the airport through random selection from management inclusion. >> talk about automated risk assessment. >> automated risk assessment. so the first thing tsa does is check to see if a passenger is on one of the terrorist watch list. if they are not, then tsa checks to see if the person is already a known traveler. signed up with pre-check and have a known traveler number. if not, then all of the rest of the passengers are screened against a set of risk rules that tsa has designed based on intelligence and based on certain characteristics of the traveler including information about the specific flight they are looking at then the individual can receive pre-check

on their boarding pass on a one-time base. >> anybody else want to comment on the watering down of thet vetting process? >> tsa increased the use of pre-check over the last several years. it has gone from really a test case into a situation where between 40-50 percent of the traveling public gets an expedited screening whether it is inclusion, part of a trusted traveler program or ms. grover talked about the risk rules. >> as pre-check was conceived with a full vetting process, how many people received the full vetting process to 50-60 percent of the public qualifying for pre-check? >> the tsa celebrated a million people who have applied for pre-check through the vetting program as ms. grover said.

there are other trusted travelers programs that is very similar to pre-check, some more extensive and they get grandfathered in. members of congress and other trusted populations get grandfathered in. but you are talking about 1.8 million people per day traveling. so you are talking about a significant portion of the flying public that is unknown to tsa and goes to register. >> i am out of time. senator carper. >> thanks so much for joining us and for your testimony and your work. before we talk about the things tsa needs to do better. let's talk about this. give us one thing they are doing well. john lead us off. >> certainly. and that is the hazard that i have in this occupation i only focus on the negative instead of the positive. >> we never do that in our jobs.

>> certainly the two people sitting two my left with people are courage to see something gone wrong and try to fix it. and i suspect within the tsa population there are people every day, thousands of people, who get up and put on that uniform and go to work and try to do their best every single day. and again, when you only focus on the negatives, you forget about the majority of the population that really wants to do the right thing and cares about their job. >> i try to travel on planes but i have taken over the years when someone from tsa is doing a good job, polite courtesy and thankful i thank them. they have no idea who mean. they think i am ron johnson. day to day it is probably mixed.

we had a study about why people are leaving and one of the things is that as hard as they work they never get thanked. let me let the others pick up. >> i think risk based security is a good procedure. as long as there is no risk associated associated. 99.9 of the public want to get from point a to b safely and we need to focus on that and target

the tiny segment of the population. >> once again, i like the pre-check program. it blows hay from the hay stack to get down to that one needle. and the other program i love is the viper teams. the visibility intermodal prevention and response teams. >> i would like to say risk based security at tsa has the opportunity to offer tremendous

efficiency and i would encourage them to go ahead and work on that. >> most important element i have seen is leadership. if you have great leadership you have a chance to be successful. if not you are doomed. the president seemed to nominate and i think that is a great choice. if you had the opportunity to say this would be a top priority for you what would the top priority be? >> i would go back and echo the remarks chairman johnson made at the beginning pointing out tsa's primary mission to insure aviation security and another mission is to insure the free

flow of commerce and passengers. at this time when questions are raise about whether or not the fundamentals are working properly it is important to have a strong leader in place to guide the organization to figure out how to balance those two elements. >> thank you. >> one piece of advice if the admiral is concerned. >> more emphasis on protecting the cock deck or cockpit. >> i think the leadership of the agency is one that focus on wait times and we need to focus less on wait times and be more concerned about detection rates and giving our officers the time they need to process passengers and bags in a manner they feel is comfortable the bag doesn't contain a weapon or prohibited item. >> thank you. >> i had the good fortune of

meeting with the admiral prior to one of his hearings and i think the biggest thing he needs to understand and i think he does that this is a huge challenge. i think he is committed to understanding the problem and fixing it. >> my last question is give us good advice. come back and pick up one point you mentioned for us. give us one great to do-list. give us one really good one. >> understand the risk you are attempting to manage. understand the risk behind the technology behind your management processes and manage against those risks.

you have don't understand those risks, you will not be able to manage against it. >> thank you. >> i will take one out of my statement and that has to do with the fact we have no body in the field overseeing the numerous contracts tsa engaged in. no way of measuring if the performance is acceptable. having contracted the representatives in the field would let us manage the contracts better so we are not wasting taxpayer dollars. >> i would pass a law giving flight attendants more training and authorities to have passengers save their lives. >> all right. thank you. >> gao's a data driven organization so i would like to see the tsa's top leaders accountability by asking for data on the top measure. >> what you can't measure you

cannot manage. >> i have to give a shoutout to my tsas in my gate area c. i travel light but i attended a boy scout event and rushed to the airport and they put this package in my brief case and it was a boy scout knife and they caught it. again, there are, i think, the vast majority of tso and tsa employees that are trying to stay alert in a difficult task and check the public. that is my own experience. i got caught. senator ernst. >> thank you mr. chair and thank you ranking member carper for calling this very very timely hearing today. 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 really had. i do believe there has been an

issue with the lack of consistency and i think it is something that tsa has been suffering from across the various aspects of the organization and its mission for a while. referenced in all of your testimony, across the board, is varying degrees of certainty and consistency with people, processes and operations. and these problems whether it is the morale of the organization, the personal or the day to day operations, they are just so systemic. you mentioned ideas on where you would like to see leadership goes and a couple suggestions for congress. but bottom line, do you think it is really more of a management issue for the admiral? hopefully we will be confirmed or are these the issues that the

admiral can influence through management style? or is it something that needs to be addressed through legislation? i would like to hear the perspective that you have on that. one or the other or a combination of both. ms. grover if you would start. >> i think it is several issues. i 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. but there are weaknesses in the equipment tsa uses in terms of its effectiveness and challenges

of having 40,000 people doing their job right every day is difficult. it is morale, specifications of the equipment, and i would like to see tsa spending less time on standing up more programs and more time on making sure the programs they stood up are working properly. >> thank you. i appreciate that. >> a big problem with the air marshal mission is there is nothing going on. there is no arrest or case happening as you get in a border patrol station you have hundreds of thousands of arrest hundreds of drug cases happening, so they arebuse are busy. it causes a huge ripple in the water and managers don't want to make a decision on something.

i think a possible solution is to put the air marshal under the purview of a pure law enforcement agency. a lot of -- there is a huge amount of former border patrol agencies in the air marshal service and they feel like it was when they were under the ins. it was an agency that had conflicting missions. one was to naturalize people and then at the same time catch and deport them. they feel that is a problem. and no because there is so little case work and so little to do which is great because no body is dying but board managers are looking for something to do or afraid to take care of the situation until they get a phone call. >> you would say to separate the two programs and empower those officer to do more?

>> many air marshals say why don't we go under the purview of border patrol? the management is there. it could be a good transition. it happened once before. the original air marshal director put it under immigration and custom enforcement and did that because he saw the air marshals burning out. they were board. you hire these eager people and they goit there and are strapped down. it is like pressure cookers. things happen. >> very interesting. i appreciate that.

overlie i want to address the recent media reports that indicated by the inspector general that tsa failed to identify 73 people employed in the industry that were flagged under terrorist activity codes. according to the fast part of the reason is the agency is not authorized to receive all of the information under watch listing policy. i have huge concerns and most of the public as well. employees are granted special access without going through a thorough background check. if you could speak to that briefly. >> we share your concern and summary of what we found is accurate. there is the large terrorist identity environment. and tsa by law didn't have access to some of the codes. in 2014 the administrator asked

for access, but it a process that is taking some time apparently so it isn't quite there yet but i think they are moving quickly ton. >> thank you for your testimony. >> senator sasse. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for your testimony. and general, thank you for the work you and your team do. i wonder if you could unpack your work. i think you have the largest branch? >> i think we are number three. dod and social security i think. >> how many employees do you have and talk about the structure. >> 670 employees all together. it is broken into functional and audit function and investigative function. we have 220 criminal investigators doing internal affair work.

... our auditors come from a variety of places in the inspector general community, some from private businesses and private enterprise all of whom are

covered by standards. >> do you have 18 that reports to you? >> we do not. that is a term the tsa uses but we don't have one. >> the leaked report of last week that showed there have been 70 attempts by your investigators to smuggle weapons are explosive devices onto planes -- the failure rate was 97%. the public can take some comfort in the idea that it was supposedly done by super terrorists the red teams. they are not yours and this leaked report is yours. >> i can't confirm or deny any specific results or the specific methodology. we don't identify ourselves as red team.

these are auditors that we used of the inspector general's office. >> i appreciate this. i think what we hear you doing is clarifying that there are no red teams. >> correct. >> do you understand how the department's stories are out there? s for red team investigations? >> i was as disturbing as anyone by the fact that this information. we have absolutely no incident of leakage. we have started an investigation, pulmonary investigation to try to determine exactly where the source was. >> do you have any discomfort with communication strategies of the department that appears to be echoing these media testimonies and i will quote one from the secretary johnson. the red team testing at the aviation security network has

been a part of the mission for 13 years. there are red teams at the vhs you're not going to be an unclassified is a terrifying the nature of your investigation that was linked but i think that we have heard you clearly state your employees are mostly auditors. >> that's correct. can you tell us anything more about the classified and unclassified reports that you've issued since 2004 complex >> i can't give you an exact number. approximately a dozen is the best estimate of what we have done since 2004. we did a series of testing in 2011, with penetration testing to determine the security of the so-called sterile areas being able to just move into the area without any sort of examination covert testing for example

carry-on luggage through the screening process. we have done with penetration testing of the machine as a sort of first generation machine which is different than the ones we've done it most recently as well as testing of the checked baggage process and that report was earlier this year. >> and are all of your investigation ultimately brief to the leadership of the dhs? >> yes. >> you said they disagreed with most of the record additions to the classified report and you concluded, and i quote, we believe this represents the failure to understand the gravity of the situation. can you explain what that means? berger for and ways that you can can give screening without actually having an application and fee.

we investigated those and wrote reports and making regulations that would eliminate those older abilities. we are sort of sitting at the water heads as we speak. >> do you think that they could have understood how great the problem was before last week's length report? >> it is the risk that they face. candidly, i worry about that. do you think the regular passenger screeners have no matrix that have to do with their success or failure rate at interdicting the weapons? >> that is correct. >> thank you. >> thank you senator.

>> i want to thank the chairman and 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 getting the workers, the work force against the fbi database. then as i understood you saying that in fact we still are not able to fully do that because of actually an access code issue. they deal with the public in a variety of contexts and cannot in this context seems just mind boggling that it wouldn't have been in place already. >> to do this a little context on what we are talking about are

sort of the marginalist, the terrorist environment that has information of individuals in the verified and unverified. so it is a broad list for which it gets called through the so-called terrorist watch list. so they did not have access to a certain code within a larger environment. again, some of this information is not substantiated. once they realize i think around 2014 that they did not have this information the administrator pistol signed a letter asking for that and it's now sort of in that inner agency environment in order to do that. we were able to run 900,000 names against the tide database. for, as we said now, i think that we have a comfort and understanding what that environment looks like. in other words the 70 is eight as the sun entirety of what is

messed to read we gave those names to tsa as soon as we discovered them and i think that they are following up on each of them. so to the extent there was a vulnerability i think it has been closed but it certainly gives you calls of the situation that is allowed to continue. >> it does give you pause because it really only takes one versus 73 in this context and owsley said here even the fact that there is still a bureaucratic step that isn't being expedited with this request being made by the director already in 2014 i just can't imagine that they wouldn't have moved on this with the most haste they could move especially given the recent undercover findings. so, i think that is something that we should follow upon as a matter of bureaucracy can't hold this up when it comes to basic

bedding that needs to be done. also, want to follow up on the managed inclusion, is being done with that and i was interested also as to see the director is the check that is being given out by colleen candy candy in your tent testimony and i think all of us think that it is a very important program for the public and access. but to the extent we do have a category of individuals that is growing exponentially, that is being used that may not go through the entire bidding process if you can share with us what you're able to share here what would be better in terms of the reforms to focus the paycheck process properly so that we are allowing the members of the public to use it that showed and still maintain a thorough vetting of the individuals that we should.

>> basic principle is great because it is sort of this idea that if you are a known traveler, we can spend less time on you and your unknown traveler. so bringing it back to its basic form, which is we know who you are. we wrote this report, brief members of congress there is proposed legislation in the house of representatives called a secure expedited screening act that direct them to bring it back to what it used to be which is somebody looks at you and know that you are a trusted traveler as opposed to some of the risks ruled that they now apply. >> i also wanted to follow up the heard a lot of discussion today about the vetting process but one thing but i also served as the chair of the aviation subcommittee that's been an issue is wanting to fully understand your perspective on

the role in issuing the badges. many of them are not being kept track of and that responsibility is left to the local airport. is this -- what would you assess in terms of this issue. what do you have in that front? >> to whomever would like to answer. >> sure. while, let me start by saying that it is the airport responsibility. and there are mechanisms that they have been placed at the airport level to do regular checks with each of their contractors to make sure that the badges can be accounted for. and ideally that there is a trigger with a certain number of the badges that have been lost and they should 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 sort of the news that has been so recently out there.

>> we've had other instances. >> exactly. we are doing field work right now with regards to that sort of being able to actually go to the sites and figure out whether or not they are appropriately and properly accounting for the badge and whether or not the tsa is doing their oversight in a prudent way to see if we can piggyback into the secure areas of those kind of things. >> we also conduct tests where we will call the airport and report and in 40 has been terminated to determine how quickly they turn off the access according to the badges. that was a special emphasis on the expection that we did recently. while we found a couple of challenges in most cases the badge was reported lost or missing the airport today to turn out the access associated with the badge. >> think all of you for being here this is an important topic and let me say to the chairman's point, you know i -- certainly

the agents that i've interacted with in manchester on a regular basis i think that they are very hard working and so, putting together the right process for the people who are trying to do this job effectively every day and making sure that they have our support i think is important and then also ensuring that those agents are doing well that are doing well are and how work to do their job that is part of our function here as well so thank you all. >> senator mccaskill. >> think you. there is no evidence right now that you have the shows that it's either cheaper or better, correct? >> i do not no. are and are you aware of any that exist? >> correct. >> the magnetometer versus ait. we have good numbers of costs to operate and the speed of use on those two different devices? >> we haven't done any work in

that area. i know that they have some tricks with regards to that but i don't have that available. >> i feel like i'm handcuffed kind of in the tsa. we need to get all of the questions if it is available. it is very obvious to me because i'm always looking for any it. i either get somebody to touch me a lot or unless you start asking i go through the tsa line and then i ask them to go over to the machine. now it is some airports immediately accommodate you. others say now you can do that. and when you get there every airport is different. some of them say that you can leave your shoes on and everything in when you go through the other line if you have your boarding pass. others are not. so it's kind of a mix that i

don't care as long as i get to go through this instead of this. so i -- in about 50% of the time they have been shut down and i have to ask for them to open it. so they may have one sitting there. some airports don't even have one sitting there doing it but it wasn't until very recently they even had one of the southwest terminal. so i am curious if your work has focused on this and maybe the marshall can speak to this too. why aren't we keeping those machines going all the time at every facility because we spent a lot of time on them and they know that this is the whole thing of time versus safety. how quickly can we move people through? cynic that is the essence of the problem. it is much faster to expedite

people through a metal detector, but this is better security than going through a metal detector. a metal detector while not detect which is one of the biggest threats to aviation security. >> think of all the first-time travelers that are going through a don't know, they don't know how much time they are going to save if they go through instead. >> if he were they were to ask like i asked. >> i'm worried they are letting me use it and that is really wrong. they ought to be told they should go through to save time and money, and of course to be more safe. so i want to keep falling on following on the magnetometer. why can't we have more ait machines? because we are cutting the budget. you've got to remember as we all said and count on the desk about

how bad the tsa is we keep cutting the amount of money that they have and we ask them to do more and better. one of the issues is in fact how many are working. the times i've gotten into difficult conversations with people about why they say they don't have the staff. it takes more to run it. and we don't have the staff to run it. are you saying now that they are preboarding? have they changed the? spigots hit or miss. it depends where they are flying for. one thing they tell me when they fly from international origins they are created by the agent. >> i still see them keyboarding.

it's pretty obvious who they are. >> the way that it should be done as they should be boarding with the passengers. >> isn't that better security because they are co- mingling with more opportunities with their eyes and ears to figure out who there might be on the plane that might be a problem? when they grow up at the beginning of the boarding and they go on clearly they are not physically impaired. clearly they are not traveling with small children. it's not like -- and then they are sitting in strategic places in the airport when you get on. so i don't understand why -- is this something anybody can speak to and did they think it was a good idea to put these people on ahead of time? >> we can't dictate what the foreign countries can do. >> but it's here in the united

states. >> i'm not aware of that and i think the problem -- the air marshals have the problem, 100% to board with the passengers. but most of the air marshals now are flying long routes to places where they are mandating the pre- boarding. so the janitors, the workers -- typically complains i'm going on are not longer than a two hour flight and they are getting on ahead of time. it's the corruption? >> yes it is. >> shouldn't they be required to stand in line with everybody else? >> i would like the absolutely. and at the same time they could be engaging in the activity. >> if you want them working around the airport waiting in line with all of the passengers. >> correct. >> is very reason they are being given the option, are you aware since they are not here?

>> i don't have answer to that what we could find out and get back to you. >> it's more convenient for them to get on first. it's nice to not have to wait especially if you are doing -- that i can only speculate but it's possible that the air marshals may not want to lose their overhead bin space. >> exactly. >> it's speculating. >> especially when you were traveling on an airline like southwest. being at the front of the line. >> southwest airlines is a free-for-all for the most part. >> about ideas that we could see they would make sure they don't have to see to the seats at the front. >> that all depends on how smart the flight attendants are going to run on the operation. >> okay. i want to stay on the contractor versus employee. what you will be willing to -- i want to talk about this but it seems to me that people ought to

start putting in the audit in the report from the gal. the budget for the year of which you are doing the work compared to the previous year 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 the national protection. it is a problem that we are seeing. this year again where we are going to create a $40 billion bush fund in the department of defense. but yet we are going to shortchange the airport security cybersecurity, the cia, fbi all in the name of holding onto a ill-conceived sequestration number. so, i think that you should think about doing that. thank you mr. chairman. >> when we are talking about resourcing idea to try out the word prayer position.

you can also rest assured that this was the first in a series of hearings to. we can talk about the boarding group and southwest airlines. senator bolton to a hispanic thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate you holding this very valuable hearing. i also want to thank the witnesses and especially the whistleblower witnesses for being here to share your stories and experience. and a special thanks you raised the alarm on the adequate background checks and as you are stationed at the minneapolis-st. paul international airport where as the chairman chairman and i know many of our constituents fly in and out of two other destinations we appreciate your leadership.

i wanted to follow-up on the questioning of the previous questions the senators have run down. just so that i understand very specific with regards to the access to the attackers servers and related information in 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 thank you indicated that it was in the process of being worked out bureaucratically between the agencies and i want some rarity for our committee as to whether you need to see legislation on this pushed through in an expedited fashion and whether this is on the verge of being

resolved between the agencies. >> my apologies as i understand the process it is an administrative process that is done within the government itself. there isn't a need for legislation. i think the access to that information is generally governed by statute but it doesn't require the statutory fix to apply to have access to those codes. only for example if the committee that decides whether or not they have the access codes for some reason if they refused that access access then there may be a statutory fix that can be needed but until that process goes all the way through i think that is what needs to occur. >> y. l. i m. on the 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 are following the rules that are already in place were examining that all of which the agency would have the authority to do as it currently stands. please, highlight for me each of your -- if there's anything in the testimony that we should pay attention to that requires statutory change. >> anybody clicks okay thank you. >> i wanted to have you speak of a further about this issue of performance metrics. can you elaborate on the performance measures that track the wait times and those that

track the ability to detect and how that reflects the safety performance. when there is an excessive time which by definition is currently over 20 minutes in a regular lane and -- it's in the preacher claimed there is immediate reporting required to the coordination centers. for the training or called off sick and scheduled absences. there's just a lot of focus and information that is needed to be gathered when we have an excessive speed time. in terms of the monthly testing that is connected by my inspector, is basically once a month the results of the test.

there is no match rick associated with it. the test results are shared but quite honestly there is no match rick to focus whether or not i would reflect on the scorecard. >> you have brought to our attention a lot of information about the threat of ied, and certainly given the attack of the shoe bomber into the underwear bomber and fees sort of things, the evolving ability to assemble the miniature and remotely detonated them or as you described, the increased threat of larger in the airport

perimeter are huge concerns. you already commented a little bit further in the questioning. but how do you you belief that these forces should be read s-sierra ties briefly organized to better protect against these threats and if you could elaborate a little bit more about the teams that you were talking about earlier in that capacity to help address this threat. >> once again if the pre- check is done while it reduces the time that the screeners needed to focus on the nonthreatening passengers. so i would like to see those to participate more on the teams and then on the physical security on the aircraft so that you can get some air marshals on the ground.

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 the one time you report it to your boss it might be some knucklehead 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 and he doesn't -- he barely speaks english, he doesn't want to go forward with it. but if there is that uniform biker guy who has built a reporter with him and asked about his family and is very interested in what he sees every day, you might come to him for something that's out of the ordinary and that little thing just may be the ied that air marshals are scared to death to

be flying with. >> millions of americans fly every day and they are very dependent on what is happening in the security and whistleblowing from doing basic inspections i appreciate what you're doing to help the american people on this. it's extremely important. going to run through a couple different questions. you had in her testimony that you had repeated often to follow protocol that posed a significant vulnerability. what do you attribute that to? is it management, where is that coming from? >> i would say that it's all of the above senator. it does involve training and it does involve morale and management. you have an enormously large distributed workforce. but you're right it is one of these things that.

>> there's all kind of accountability built in for tim and efficiency you were talking about that before so there's all kinds. isn't there the same that the same kind of accountability structure put in for someone that's not following protocol? >> has it a become a time-based standard at this point? >> the agency treats that is a conduct issue versus a performance issue that impacts the morale. >> these are great folks and the people i traveled back and forth with wearing check his life every if light every single week are terrific folks. and extremely friendly very engaged and they understand the

value of what's going on. but it seems to continue to come in time and time again. that doesn't help us in the traveling public. but we go through a couple things here as well. there've been ongoing issues with procurement both getting a government that's outdated, getting the wrong equipment and this has been an ongoing problem. is it getting better? >> it's hard to determine at this point. certainly the kind of work shows that it's a continual problem if we just did the report for example with regards to the maintenance contracts where it's about a $1.2 billion set of contracts over the course of four years in which tsa doesn't have the ability to understand whether or not routine maintenance is being performed or whether they are being billed for things that occurred. >> the basic sustainment? what's happening on the procurement site because there

are lots of folks vendors that are rushing into this space now because there's a large market. >> certainly the dhs this is one of the areas the secretary is trying to professionalize the acquisition process within. tsa is obviously part of that. i can't speak to sort of how it's working on the current acquisition process but it is something that frankly remains a challenge. i will say for example that is a single vendor so there is no competition in the market for the significant capital purchase.

>> there are seven of the people that are now basically authorized to go through at some point point there are different variations. we need to change the name to something else because we have a large number of people that are really not being pre- checked. >> that is correct for people that are selected at the airport these are not individuals that were previously identified as low risk and so tsa's premise is that they are providing the real-time threat assessment through the use of the explosive detection but we have raised concerns about the lack of effectiveness of data and during that time we found that they were not consistently using the explosive trace direction as the protocol called for. so there is the need for more attention to that.

when there is no check portion of it, part of it has gone through the process in a part and part of it is random chance going through it. so my understanding is that this is a faster process because they have been more thorough background than this one. and so that it's easier to find the needle like it that completely. if it is no check combined. >> you are familiar with century. i know a border patrol agent applied for century and he got denied because when he was a juvenile.

they are regular flyers and want to go through that. i have no problem with that because there is high standards for that. i have no problem. that isn't a check at that point we had another line for that. we need to be able to evaluate that as well. the iag reported.

it goes behind the perimeter. >> the list is a very sort of broad list of entities, some of which is verified into some of which is not verified. the no-fly list no fly list of the subsection of that list the six >> of the larger list. >> that is going to be correct where there is accessed access and how quickly can not be corrected or that record can be tied. just to be altered as a follow-up? >> i'm sorry i don't. >> we will follow up and find out the speed on that.

what we are basically trying to detect the two things neither explosive or revenues. we do those in place to detect the explosives because the metal detectors don't. now the weapons are getting through. he went -- within the simple solution be either the views -- the frontal and side view as well as putting metal detector on the other side. that would be a relatively simple solution that would increase the rate of of protection is that not true quick >> i would assume it would be for the weapons. >> okay. then with explosives of work has been done in terms of the dog's? i read some things the bomb sniffing dogs were extremely

effective. can anybody speak to that? you were shaking your head. >> i was blown away with what the dog could send. i've seen heroin wrapped in coffee, duct tape, saran wrap medically sealed and then dumped into a tank of gasoline into the tank sealed and secured and the dock still hits on it. so if they can do that with drugs and if they can do that with bombs they are amazing creatures. >> and later guidry program has oversight for the canine program and i've witnessed various locations a deploy where in every case they were able to detect the explosive and also very favorable results with the program.

stack they had about eight total and they've been found to be defective and they are expensive. >> so is the $7.2 billion that we are expending. spec that solution is pretty good. >> if we find out what exactly is going to work and try different things, this reliance on the cutting edge technology clearly has its challenges to

it. so i would agree they need to start to look at other things as well. >> isn't a part of that process -- we watch movies and we just always have a silver bullet solution and we are finding out these technological solutions are failing in a very high rate so maybe we need to step back a little bit and see what works. and i would argue a bomb sniffing dog, they may be expensive. spec and how expensive that would be. >> how expensive are they, or you done studying that can you illuminate the committee on that? >> the startup costs are about $100,000 for the conventional canines and in the neighborhood of $220,000 for the passenger screening, then an annual cost thereafter of about $60,000 a

year for the conventional and about $160,000 a year. >> i would love to have them provide us a report that applies those times the number of teams that we would actually have to have the coverage in the airport. you look like you are chomping at the the big. >> bit. >> remember every canine comes with an officer who has a keen sense of feeling people out and reading phases and building a rapport. >> i do want to give you an opportunity because you told your story of whistleblowing and i do want to see how you are tallied against because that has been a problem that i see repeatedly now in my four years of people that have the courage and the federal government

coming forward in a story that has to be told and then the retaliation against a very chilling effect of those individuals that we do need to come forward so please if you would take this opportunity to show your story. stack in july of 2003 it accidentally fell on my lap. we were after in the problems porting between the passengers wearing -- having to wear somewhat of a uniform to get on every flight. we were brought in for an unprecedented emergency suicidal al qaeda hijack emergency briefing. and we were all told that at any moment, we were going to be under attack and the flight deck was going to be breached, and those aircraft were going to be flowing into the east coast target and european capitals. just two days afterwards all

air marshals got an unsecured text message sent to their unsecured phone instead of their integrated smart phones and message that we want everyone to avoid the cancellation fees. later on. i was going to be the plan until the next fiscal year. so for 60 days or longer any aircraft that was going to fly for four hours or longer was not going to have an air marshal team on them. we get this text message that makes no sense to us.

we've run out of money and we are going to have to fly until something happens. this was in late july, 2008. so afterwards, i called the inspector general hotline and i got routed to two other officers. >> doing it to stand in recess in this committee hearing. we are clearing the floor. so in the orderly fashion if you could please exit as quickly as possible. thank you.

[no audio] >> i would like to gamble this hearing back in -- gavel this hearing back in. a threat was called in. in today's world we want to take those threats seriously. we cleared the floor.

fortunately the threat was false. that is the world we live in today. it is very unfortunate, suffice it to say, this will be the first in a series of hearings in terms of the challenge that the tsa has in trying to really succeed and its dual mission of keeping things safe. at the same time, allowing efficient throughput so americans do not miss flights. we will continue to explore this. i will continue to work with secretary jeh johnson. i will continue to work with the new tsa administrator. we need to look at priorities

and decide what is most effective at providing the most security. with that, the hearing record will remain open until june 24 at 5:00 p.m.. this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: on our next washington journal we will talk to cory gardner about the defense program bill the senate is working on this week. then john garamendi on president obama's strategy to fight isis.

later as part of our spotlight on magazine series, philip norton talks about his recent piece for politico. how the middle east is falling apart. washington journal live each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. you can join the conversation by phone, or face book and twitter. announcer: director of clinical cardiology, dr. patrick o'gara on the advances in heart surgery and the progress being made in the understanding of heart health. dr.: this is a valve that has been crimped onto this catheter that is being positioned into the diseased valve. he will be deployed here in just a second. the balloon will inflate and a new valve will be inserted inside the old calcified stenotic valve.

as you can see the delivery system is being withdrawn, the wire will be withdrawn. what we have seen is replacement of a diseased aortic valve in a manner that does not require open-heart surgery. we are trying to become smarter about predicting who will get disease. we are trying to become smarter as to identifying the most effective means to prevent or attenuate the disease and smarter about following up over a longer. of time. we are currently in a era where we are trying to harness the promise of the human genome research project that has been in existence for more than a decade with all of the information that can be driven by the giants of the industry. there is information about

sociology, geography demographics, where the railroad tracks are in your city, what is your likelihood of diabetes on the basis of your education, and what is your likelihood of developing something like diabetes or hypertension if you live in a certain part of the city where you have less access to the right kind of food or instructions about sodium consumption, little things like that that could have enormous impacts. announcer: dr. patrick o'gara sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q and a. announcer: former u.s. house of representatives speaker dennis hastert appeared in a chicago courtroom and pled not guilty to charges of trying to hide large cash transactions. the indictment says he agreed to pay money to keep someone from revealing a secret about past misconduct. he has been ordered by the court

to remain in the united states. we spoke to a reporter about the case. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] announcer: mike dibona's of the washington post is covering the story about house speaker dennis hastert. he is joining us from chicago, thank you for being with us. mike: thank you. >> give us a sense of what happened outside and inside. mike: outside it was madness. there were dozens of cameras waiting for the former speaker to arrive. he was swarmed as he got out of

his chauffeured suv. once he got into the courtroom it was obviously very quiet and subdued. it was a very short meeting before the judge came. >> what was the demeanor of speaker hastert? mike: subdued. he did not look cap to be there -- look happy to be there. he was asked yes or no questions by the judge and answer them quietly. the whole thing was over in 20 minutes. he left the building without making comment, neither did his lawyers. >> a lot of question is whether or not this judge is biased in favor to dennis hastert, can you tell us about that? mike: yes. we knew going into this hearing that a judge had given a couple

of relatively small donations to the former speaker about a decade ago in 2002 and 2004. he addressed the matter at the hearing today, the judge did without profiting from either party. he basically lifted up to the parties and he does -- parties in the case to decide if you would be disqualified. he said to the court, i don't believe that i am conflicted. i believe i can rule impartially. i understand there is a possible appearance of conflict. if either party believes that i should step aside, i am happy to do so. i will not hold against anyone if you make that request. he did not want the parties to make decisions on that today.

he said don't speak on this, just let me know thursday how you feel. >> former speaker hastert did plead not guilty to those counts of fraud, he was released on $4500 bond. what specifically are the charges? mike: one rather arcane financial charge. one straight forward charge. the financial charge has to do with so-called structuring of cash withdrawals to avoid bank reporting laws that were put in place some years ago to prevent drug trafficking mainly. when he was confronted by the federal agents in december according to the indictment, he lied and said he made a comment

suggesting he was withdrawing his money for his own use because he no longer had faith in the banking system. the prosecutors alleged that in fact he was engaged in paying hush money to an unknown person for unknown uses. >> what was it like to cover the story today? what other reactions to people have? mike: from the beginning, the reactions were bewilderment that someone like this, someone with this political career without much of a with -- whiff of personal peccadilloes would be involved in something so sorted and steamy -- see me --. there is a queasiness factor

that has not gone away. seeing him in person and not getting an explanation to the facts in the indictment is leaving the queasiness in tact. >> what you expect to happen? mike: depending on how the party holds -- handles this issue of whether the judge gets to excuse himself or not either they decide that there needs to be a news judge -- new judge, in which case a new judge will be appointed. if the judge cezanne, they will have a status hearing -- if the judge decides to stay on, they will have a status hearing. there is still the possibility

that negotiations will continue to occur. there could be a plea deal. >> mike tobias was inside the courtroom in chicago. his report is available online at washington post.com. announcer: up next a house rules committee debate on the 2016 spending bill. then president obama talks about the health care law that could remove parts of the legislation. later, republican senator cassidy on an alternative gop health care proposal to replace the portal health care act. health and human services secretary, silvio burwell will testify tomorrow about the supreme court case with governor -- government health care law. later in the day, also on c-span3, a senate panel holds a

hearing on automatic robo calls targeted at senior citizens. >> of the summer book tv will cover book festivals around the country. you're the end of june, watch for the annual roosevelt reading festival from the franklin d. roosevelt library. in the middle of july, and the nations flagship african-american literary event. at the beginning of september, live from the nation's capital for the national book festivals celebrate in its 15th year. those are some of the events this summer on book tv. announcer: the house rules committee met an approved the rules for two pieces of legislation being can better. the defense spending bill will be on the house floor wednesday. a second bill is on labeling of

meat that originates abroad. >> committee comes to order thank you very much. the rules committee will consider hr 265 the department of defense appropriations act and hr 2393. the country of origin labeling amendments act of 2015. hr 2685 includes vital funding at a time which the nine states military and intelligence committees remain engaged.

hr 2393 deals with labeling beef, pork, and chicken. if we do not repair these feelings, this could hurt small businesses, consumers, and families. i want to thank everyone for being here. they have given me the confidence that not only will they be prepared this week, but they have worked well together to make sure that members of the

military and their families will be a well taken care of this bill. i look forward to coming back to see both of you this week. we are delighted that you are here. our military is on of the most important issues that we face right now. i would like to recognize the gentlewoman, the ranking member of the committee. >> thank you. >> here we go. >> all right. >> both of you understand what we are trying to hear -- do here. it is important, and why we are here specifically to take care of this. anything you have in writing will be in the record. the gentleman from new jersey as

well -- recognize. >> thank you. this is the product of a bipartisan cooperative effort. i think my ranking member for his full cooperation. this is a nonpartisan committee that works on behalf of freedom for all of america. the stills of an increase. this topline contains -- the house-senate budget conference agreement. the total is very close to the number president obama submitted in his request for a the base funding recommendations of 190

million reflect the budget cap on 2011 as part of the budget control act. i think all of this would agree that the world is much more dangerous than it was in 2011 when the budget control act was enacted. budget caps could never have envisioned the evolving threats we see around the world from all corners. they respond to current and future threats and meet our constitutional obligations. we have developed a bill that adheres to current law. those additional resources are

included in title ix, the global war on terrorism. how do we determine what went into that account? we looked at the base budget scrubbed it, identify the systems that are enacting a threat. we also protects resources on the intelligence committee. within that account, i want to highlight two areas of critical importance isr, we badly need more of. that account contains an additional 500 million above the presidents 2016 requests to improve those capabilities. in addition, we share the

concern of the army, navy, air force and marines about erosion and readiness of the force. we begin to invest in more readiness in title ix which includes 2.5 billion above the president's request be distributed to our guards and reserve components. in a recent statement on administration policy, the white house asserted she want funding -- jean-claude funding is a funded mechanism intended for wars for it. i reinforce that funding to revive the president with tools he needs. let me see -- let me say mr. chairman, this bill has been worked out in our committee. i believe it deserves support.

i think you and your members for their time and consideration. >> mr. chairman, thank you ray much. i appreciate that. i'm delighted that you are here. the committee looks forward to you being in front of us. i wanted to say, thank you for your attention to detail, duty, and american men and women who serve and their families. your steadfast love of country and of our men and women is appreciated. >> thank you very much. i do believe that the chairman has adequately addressed the position we find ourselves in. i can second his comments that

this is important for funding to the defense apparatus. we have added particular emphasis on the issue of readiness, preparation. the chairman has been coherent and he has been very meticulous and careful what this bill. he would be delighted to answer any questions. >> thank you very much. i would asked either of you, you know that each year i became -- i become engaged in entanglement of each of you and other members of your awesome appropriations committee, including those in the veterans funding area about what the current status and process as of making sure that our men and women who leave the united states military, in regard to their medical records

the accuracy, the movement, the change the things i am well aware of that we have spent over $1 billion to assess -- assist not the united states congress, but related people it was intended to help. could you give me a status update on that. >> the department of defense has got its act together. the investments we have made their have paid off. the weak link continues to be the veterans administrations stepping up to the plate to provide their degree of interoperability. we been talking about this issue, the fact that both ranking member leslie and mr. rogers threw down a gauntlet to secretary eric he was heading up in the a -- the eighth -- va.

we cannot have a electronic system for our military that is not see what i am pleased the department of defense has made progress. it needs to be matched by the same sort of resources include into the veterans administration . i think we have made some progress, the money has been well spent, i think it is all accountable. >> i would like to add that this should be done by now. >> viewer going to where i want to go. -- you are going where i want to. >> we believe a sense of urgency has taken a hold. we should be done with this. i think there is a sense of urgency that has overtaken them. >> think you very much. -- thank you very much. it is my belief that they has

stayed after this issue in the highest level discussions with the department. i think in the midst of all that the department has, it became less than an important issue. al rodgers and i have spoken a number of times about this. he told me, it is not just me, it is several members that are serious about this. you are saying you're serious you believe it is getting done. when do you think we will be able to hear it is now done. is there a goal, have they gotten back to you? are they still trying to measure three times? what are they doing, and windy believe we will get that answer so that we can look forward to it? >> i would like to tell you next year. i would like to tell you 2017. i think the department of defense has its act together. you are dealing with a total different system in the veterans

administration. you literally have veterans hospitals all around the country, each with a different i.t. system. i am told that when those who are discharged from the military today, who are currently in the military, garden reserve, and regular their records are all electronically connected to the veterans administration. it is the older veterans that are using aba -- the va. the soldiers are connected through the department of defense to the veterans administration. there is a huge backlog, each with evidently a different i.t. system. >> i don't want to take you guys on. i don't know how old is old.

i know a few years ago, it was not working. it is my understanding that today when a person leaves the military there are also given an option to get their own records in their hands which is an advantage. thank you very much. please tell chairman rogers and lowy that you showed up and that guy asked the question again. i don't think this issue should go away until it is solved. i know that both of you feel that same way. i noticed when tom cole walked in, there was a sense of relief across your faces to think you had some help on the side, in fact you do. tom cole does an awesome job on behalf of the rules committee when he is with you. when he is appear, it is all about you guys. >> thank you very much. these gentlemen don't need any help for me.

tom: frankly i had the opportunity this that with them as they put together the hearings that led us to this point. i want to complement both of the chairman, i couldn't be prouder. obviously we have some differences of opinion about the global war on terror. we are pretty close, about where the president is number wise for it we are about where the senate appears. there is a great deal of bipartisan consensus that has gone into this. both of you have been consummate professionals. on that committee, because of the example of both of these gentlemen, on both sides of the aisle, they put first things first. the men and women that put on

the uniform for the united states, the difficult things we asked them to do, we try and make sure they have everything they need to be successful and safe. couldn't be prouder of the committee these two gentlemen lead. it is the gold standard in congress. i want to commend my friend mr. bush koski on his statement. and the problems we have in front of ours -- us and we will achieve. i don't have any questions because i got to be there the creation. this has been a very inclusive process. we have had some awful distinguished members of both sides occupied a seat he currently occupies.

mr. bill young from florida would be an example of the modern era. mr. chairman, your every bit as capable as either of those guys. you run a first-class inclusive committee. i guess chairman to every member on the committee. thank you for the professional job. i'm proud that our committee will take our work product to the floor, and basically put it out there. any member with a serious concern or question can raise it. we can offer amendments and have a good debate. that is something we take great pride in. it is something the current committee takes ride in. we have in fact now, i hope whoever stewards this committee

in the future will keep it this way. this is the work of every member of congress. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> thank you very much. there has been a great wringing of hands over the oak of account . that sleight-of-hand maneuver a lot of people believe it to be. i would like to point out some information i got from mrs. lloyd committee ranking member. she says and testimonies to congress and the secretary of defense made clear the risk of relying on oprah -- oca to fund defense costs.

it would create a hole in the series budget. additionally it would have a negative impact on domestic priorities critical to military families. they have quotes from secretary carter dempsey. what comment do you have to say about putting that in this year's which would make a $38 billion hole in the deficit for next year. >> if i could take your question, i would be delighted. i have said in committee subcommittee, and elsewhere, i don't believe oca should exist at all.

i believe circumstances we face today are the new normal. the administration ought to anticipate that. having said that, oca has gone through a number of iterations the last 15 years. we used to call them supple middle appropriations. the president asked for money's in excess of the tab to get the budget ball rolling. the house of representatives passed a budget resolution that essentially has -- as he pointed out, achieves the same number as the oca account. for consideration of the bill on the floor, regardless of how members vote, i would point out that the chairman has been meticulous in looking at which

items to include in that account, looking at it in a historical perspective, not only in terms of what the president asked for, but what has it included. i don't think either of us would argue that if we continue down this road, it makes planning for the department and possible. >> it does. >> at this point we are struck with an administration that has asked for oca and a budget resolution that has provided for it. we cannot legislate in the abstract, we have to legislate with what has been given to us. >> so that account is under sequestration, to cut out the domestic part so there would not be any increase in domestic spending, was that the purpose? >> i could not indicate what the purpose -- resolution as.

>> it was put in oca. >> the amount of money be present is seeking for defense is the same. we are. >> i understand that. by putting that in that oca you are not going to be raising money on the domestic side. correct? >> i don't we can add to that. there is some resistance reflected in the budget act to do that. both of us accept the responsibility of providing this president the resources he may very well need to address some of the crisis in the world. >> he is not all that happy about it. >> if i could. i would agree with the assertion you have made, that defense because of the oca account has

if you would come a more room to maneuver that has not been given to the domestic account. mr. cole mentioned my remarks in another committee, and i addressed that by indicating we need a strong nation and defense, when we have interstate highways that collapse and kill citizens that is when we under invest in scientific research. that is a larger picture that i also suggested in committee last week needs to be addressed no lot -- no later than september 30 because that is -- >> in terms of the budget control act. >> we need to address the situation we find.

we have been given this portion of that. >> let me asked unanimous consent to put this statement and the record. also the statement of administrative policy which has been strongly opposed. they mentioned the oca how the bill drastically underfunded critical investments. using the overseas funding. based budget sequestration levels will damage our ability to restore readiness advanced ad lee needed technological modernization, keep up our troops and families, and shifting budget resources into oca risks undermining incremental -- implement all costs and fails to provide a

stable multiyear budget. it is not just this bill. we end up talking about hamstrung. we ought to be grown up enough to deal with that. i strongly recommend it. >> thank you very much. gentleman from texas. >> thank you. you have identified what has been go -- an ongoing problem with the lack of operability between the department of defense and the v.a. system. i am not an expert, i do spend a lot of time studying in

operability with the stimulus bill pushing $20 billion into the ether with no reasonable return on investment. there seems to be no reasonable expectation. here you have a system where the v.a. is using an open source software if you believe the news reports committee to department of defense is on a precipice of spending $10 billion on a proprietary system. i presume it you have done significant hearings in your some -- subcommittee as to why the proprietary software is the >> we've examined the -- we're impressed by what the d.o.d. has put forward. the real question is if it is driven by the chairman and your interests, how long will it take to have indeed operability. and i say this respectfully, the

v.a. is dealing with an antiquated system. it may be open source, but it is hindered by operations in a variety of different hospital settings where the i.t. is no match for whatever -- whatever they are promising. i feel pretty good about where the department of defense is but we have been insistent they accelerate what they are doing and have an earlier connection to whatever v.a. comes -- their legacy system. we have been insistent. we have had a committee focused on this issue, not only driven by the chairman of this committee and the ranking member lowy and chairman rogers. it has taken far too long and we're going to continue to work on it. >> and i do think you see areas in the civilian sector around

in the country where venerable institutions are abandoning legacy systems that they developed in the ground up prior to having a proprietary system but just like the chairman i'm worry the that the end of this we will have invested $11 billion, mabin appropriately in the department of defense system but still stuck with the mismatch at the other end. i don't know what the answer to that is. i am mystified as to why this has gone on since 2007 and a lot of people have been hurt in the process and i regret that. i hope that you are right in going forward, we will get this right because it is critically important. thank you, mr. chairman. i'll yield back. >> i would suspect that the time that the gentleman from louisville, texas, has invested in this, has also, i might add be a catalyst to mr. rogers and miss lowy and others as we