unless iran complies with the requests put forward by the iaea for accessing information to write their report. the last thing i will say is we have put a time line on this. we set a deadline we have put a deadline for the iranians. they for years have fought, refused to provide we insisted they need to provide that information in 90 days. that's an indication of how serious the united states and our coalition partners are about iran giving, cooperating with iaea inspections. if they do that, and again, they're going to have to do that if they're going to get sanctions relief, but if they do that, that would bode well for the ability of iaea inspectors in the future to make sure to verify iran's compliance with the agreement moving forward.

reporter: does iran have the right to collect its own samples at the facility? mr. earnest: the good news is, somebody like me who has no expertise when it comes to nuclear science, is not responsible for negotiating the kind of access and information the iaea needs. instead we have international impartial nuclear experts at the iaea who have put forward to iran a list of the facts and access that they need to successfully complete their report. and that is what we have insisted that iran provide before they get any additional sanctions relief. reporter: i know you said these videos are selectively edited, the planned parenthood stuff, there are several more slated to come out i understand. as the white house had any communication with planned

parenthood about standardizing procedures for fetal tissue reserk? has the white house had -- research? has the white house had any concerns about illegalities in this rem? are there any investigations? mr. earnest: not that i'm apair of. planned parenthood has policies and procedures in place and they say those live up to the highest ethical standards. for what those standards are, i'd refer you to planned parenthood. as i mentioned, based on the essentially fraudulent way in which these videos have been released, there's not a lot of evidence right now that planned parenthood hasn't lived up to those standards. but again, i refer you to planned parenthood. >> last question, the o.p. -- reporter: o.p.m.'s data breach. they're reluctant to say the total number of people who may have been intruded upon here. i think the number stands at 22 million. do you have any evidence it

might be higher than that? and also d.n.i. clapper said failing to call out the guilty parties, ie china or some entity in china, may lead to more. why have you not called out china or some entity in china and why have you not pursued any criminal charges? mr. earnest: i haven't heard that there are more affected than we initially released, i think that was about 22 million. our national security inspectors will make the decision whether or not it's in the best interest of our national security to disclose who we believe is responsible for this matter. and so at this point, they have concluded it's not in our interest to do that. if that changes, we'll let you know. bill. reporter: back to the so-called site agreements in the iran deal. the objectives, among the

objections, is that they are private between the iaea and iran and that makes the iaea the judge of whether iran has complied and there are members of congress who believe that that should not be the case. they also maintain that those side letters or side agreements should be submitted under the terms of the iran review act. mr. earnest: i vigorously dispute the description of these as side agreements. i think it's fine for our critics to do that but i think even you have to acknowledge i have made a forceful case for why that's not the case. reporter: but it's an agreement between iaea and iran. mr. earnest: it is confidential but known to our negotiating

team, it's been briefed to members of the house who were interested in confidential setting. that briefing has been offered to members of the senate. the united states and our negotiating team is aware of what's included in that agreement and shared that information with members of the house in a classified session and is prepared to share that information with members of the senate in a classified setting. reporter: so you're saying that these member whors asking that these, whatever you want to call them, for review under the iran review act are in fact included because they've been briefed to members of congress in secret. mr. earnest: i don't know what the requirements are of the iran review act. i'm not sure what it means they're asking for. what the administration has committed to do and followed through on is to provide all the information is necessary for members of congress to fairly

evaluate the agrement that's been struck here. that's why we have gone to great lengths to make sure that the information that's included in that agreement between iran and the iaea has been shared with members of congress. there are some limitations about how we can do that. a lot of information is directly related to this proliferation of nuclear weapons. so there's a reason we want -- we wouldn't want it posted on a beb scythe to allow anyone in the world to take a look at it. but we have committed to making sure congress understands what's been reached between iran and the iaea. i want to repeat that we have made clear that iran living up to the terms of the adwreement they've reached with the iaea is necessary before they receive any sort of sanctions relief. that's why i would not se de-scribe it as a side agreement because no part of the agreement will move forward unless iran complies. reporter: but again who is the judge of whether they live up to the agreement? mr. earnest: the international

nuclear exports -- experts who are responsible for making sure that they and other countries live up to their agreements. reporter: that's a point of contention. mr. earnest: are a bunch of republicans who claim they are not climate scientists so they can't make tillingses on that, are now appointing themselves nuclear physicists and able to make these decisions? i wouldn't have a lot of confidence in that. i would put more confidence in the iaea, filled with scientists who recently won the nobel prize. i guess the last thing i would say about this is, and i'll be careful on this part but it's

also true that there are a variety of ways that the united states has some insight and information into iran's nuclear program. it is, after all, that the united states working with our allies did disclose a previously covert iranian nuclear facility and so i think that should give people some confidence that it is not just the iaea who is quite interested in making sure that iran's living up to the promises they immediate in the context of this agreement. that's been true for some time and it certainly will be true as we move forward with implementing the agreement. reporter: i want to follow up on the iran agreement review act which says give congress access to an annexes appendices, and any related agreements. whatever you want to call it, i guess my question is i would interpret that i'm not a lawyer

or a member of congress but i would interpret that to say they can look at the wording system of when you talk about them being briefed or shared information, are they knowing exactly what that is, whatever you want to call it, said agreement or not? mr. earnest: they will not have access to the actual document bus they certainly will be briefed in detail about the content of those documents. and that is how members of congress can have clear understanding about what specific requests the iaea has made for access and information so that they can complete their report about the possible military dimensions of iran's nuclear program. that information and access must be provided by october 15. and then the iaea, this international body of nuclear experts, will review that information and will file a report before the end of the year. when that report is filed, it will be made public.

reporter: but they can't see the exacting to be yumets? mr. earnest: they can have detailed knowledge of what's in those documents. reporter: very different topic. less than 24 hours after a white house petition went online, there were 100,000 signatures calling for the american dentist who killed a lion in africa to be extradited. so what happens next? mr. earnest: this is our we the people campaign, members of the public can go on the website, draw up a petition and if they get 100,000 people to sign the petition in a set period of time, 30 days i believe, or 60 days they'll get a response from the administration. it sounds as though this particular petition has reached that threshold. there will be a forthcoming

white house response. the thing i will say is, as a general matter is decisions about prosecution and extradition are made over the department -- at the department of justice. reporter: that would be something they'd potentially look at? mr. earnest: i think you'd have to ask them. reporter: u.s. fish and wildlife said they're deeply concerned about the situation. do you know if the president is aware of this? mr. earnest: i haven't spoken to him about it but i know he's awear of it. you and i were in africa earlier this week. the discussion of trying to counter ill list -- illicit wildlife trafficing is something that came up on the president's treat. there was an advocate the president held with some sill society leaders in nairobi, there was an advocate for trying to protect wildlife in africa. thick woman's principal focus

was actually on trying to protect the elephant population in africa, ching is also under some threat. but this is an issue that is a particularly important policy issue in africa. so this is something that we're obviously aware of. reporter: is this potentially something again, maybe it's too early to know but since there's an american involved in this, that some other american agency like the wrussties department could get involved? mr. earnest: if there's any reason for the department of justice to get involved, it's something they'll announce. angela. reporter: a couple of other topics. you talked about the highway bill but on infrastructure, there's a lot of commuter problems in and out of new york the last couple of weeks. governor christie mentioned they might want a new tunnel there. is this something the administration previously supported in a different

iteration a few years back, is it something the president is engaged with now or not? mr. earnest: this is the project the administration previously approved and was something that ultimately governor christie indicated his opposition to and that these kinds of projects are dependent upon the effective coordination and copping between state and federal officials. when it became clear evident that that state level cooperation was not forthcoming we tushed our attention to other projects. i'm not in a position to talk about how likely it is for us to essentially reinvest in a project that governor christie had previously killed but you can certainly check with the department of transportation they may be able to update you on that status and whether additional application is required or something like that. >> and problems arn new york in general.

something the president is aware of and paying attention to? mr. earnest: one of the thicks we're advocating before congress is more significant investment in infrastructure. we know that investments in infrastructure are good for creating jobs in the short term but also good for the economy over the long term. and our ability through an updated, mod herbized, improved infrastructure does make our economy more efficient and it makes our workers more efficient. and to say nothing of the kind of quality of life benefits associated with more efficiently functioning transportation system, particularly in a place like new york. so there are a variety of reasons why it's in the best interest of the country and our economy for kuok to get serious about investing in a long-term infrastructure proposal. the president has put forward his own proposal for how to do this, but we need to see some congressional action. unfortunately, it's republicans

who have expressed some concern about the costs even though the president put forward a common sense way to pay for it. reporter: another topic, there was a hearing today or is a hearing today, being chaired by senator portman about rethens -- reasons behind inversions in banking, and one conclusion is one reason exones will re-- companies will relocate overseas is because of the u.s. tax burden. the president has made an effort to reduce inversions but does he believe this? mr. earnest: he president advocated closing the tax loopholes that aplow companies to pursue inversions to avoid paying their fair share of u.s. tax. the president doesn't think that's fair and that's why the president urged congress to close those loopholes. we didn't see the coined of congressional action on that matter we would have liked to

see but we would welcome either reform to address that one specific --, but we also you know, put forward our own proposal for a broader set of reforms that would close loopholes that would benefit wealthy and well connected corporations that would make our tax code more fair and more efficient and would allow our businesses in this country to be more competitive when they're doing business in the united states and around the world. reporter: going back to yesterday's news about omar, he's been dead two two years. is there any problems with the intelligence on this mat her mr. earnest: i don't have anything to share with you on the intelligence. we believe those reports about his death were credible. but the circumstances and timing of his death is something that

is -- that continues to be under review by intelligence agencies and when we have an update about their assessment, we may be in a position to put it out, i don't think i can promise that, but i can say it's something actively being evaluated by our intelligence professionals. >> former secretary of state clinton told an online newsletter called "the skim" that she was listing president obama as a reference in her application for the white house. mr. earnest: are you a regular reader of the skim? reporter: no. but are you willing to provide that reference? mr. earnest: i don't think she listed me as a reference, she listed the president of the united states, and there's an important difference. you've heard the president say on many occasions how well she performed as secretary of state. that she was somebody who represented the interests --

interests of the united states geedingly well around the world and so -- i think in many ways, those who are interested in the president's recommendation, as i guess she described it, can look at the numerous positive things the president has had to say secretary clinton when it comes to her character and her service in her service as secretary of state. reporter: is the president disappointed in seeing previous information in lawsuits, we're seeing inspector general saying classified information has been leaked we're seing a report that secretary of state clinton's former staff haven't tushed over all their emails to the department. is the president disappointed and how does this comport with his pledges of transparency and open government? mr. earnest: enge the fact that we're talking about this is an indication that this

administration and officials at the state department take seriously the responsibility they have to review these emails and share them with members of the public who have requested information from the freedom of information act, to share it with members of congress who have legitimate requests for information. what the state department has also sought to do is comply with the extraordinary requests that secretary clinton herself has made to release all the information that was included in her emails and on the part of secretary clinton that shows a commitment to the priorities of the -- the priorities the president has placed on transparency. at the same time the administration and certainly officials at the state department take seriously the responsibility that they have to handle sensitive information appropriately and certainly when it comes to the email cord spondence of an individual who recently served as secretary of state that information is

sensitive. so they're going to great lengths to ensure that that information is being properly managed and they have received a lot of advice and information from more than one inspector general, i believe as well as some officials in the intelligence community about how to effect ily to that. they're doing all of that work under a pretty tough deadline. they're being pushed by a federal judge and by the public to produce this nchings as quickly as possible. and so this difficult work -- this is difficult work but enge it's an indication that the state department takes it very seriously and is working as hard as they can to try to balance all those equities with a bias toward the stress the president placed on transparency in government. reporter: has anyone watched the videos from planned parenthood

about planned parenthood? mr. earnest: i suspect somebody has. reporter: where are you getting the information about the fact that it's fraudulent or that they're edited unfairly? mr. earnest: based on the comments from planned parenthood who said the views in the video are inconsistent with that organization's policies. reporter: would it be unfair to say that you're simply taking your talking points from planned parenthood on these videos? mr. earnest: i guess i would suggest that you consult with planned parenthood for the details of their policies and i'm merely repeating what i've seen that they've said and has been reported publicly about what they've said. i'm certainly not the only person to argue this conclusion. there are a number of other who was looked at those videos and raised significant doubts about their authenticity about the -- base on the way they're edited and they are consistent with the frequently stated policy of

planned parenthood. i think that's why many, many people who have taken a look at this stitchuation arrived a at the -- at the same conclusion and described the videos the way i have. reporter: has any representative of planned parenthood contacted the white house about these videos? have they raised concern about these videos with the white house? mr. earnest: i wouldn't be surprised if that has taken place but i'm not aware of any specific conversation. all right. reporter. before the deal was struck the president and many of his advisors spoke about the iran deal potentially being a transformational thing in the middle east, empowering moderates in iran, helping sunni and shia. once the deem has been struck we have never heard about that transformational stuff. it's focused simply on not allowing iran to have a nuclear weapon. in fact in the press conference the president dismissed the

nollings that this deal should do anything more than simply focus on the nuclear deal. can you tell me why the change? sit because of the politics? is it difficult to sort of talk about in a political environment, sort of transformation in a new direction in american policy? what's the reason for the change? mr. earnest: i think the reason is pretty direct. there would be widespread support even in a divided town like washington, d.c. for a change in tone emanating from iran. that's not really the subject of debate. and the point that the president has made and he made this in the news conference that this agreement is worth pursuing because it prevents iran from obtain agnew clear weapon, whether or not it results in a change in iran's tone. that the interests of the united states, the interests of our closest ally in the middle east, israel, the interests of our affected partners in the middle

east, and of the world are best fulfilled if this agreement goes forward and is successfully implemented. this is abagreement that's not rooted in trust. this is an agreement that is rooted, that is based squarely on the most intrusive set of inspections that have ever been imposed on a country's nuclear program. that there will be inspector these impartial, international nuclear experts, will have 24-7 access to iran's declared nuclear facility and will have access up and down iran's nuclear supply chain from iranian mines and mills to those manufacturing facilities responsible for manufacturing parts for the nuclear facilities. all of that will be subject to intense i have inspection and verification. that's why the president believe this is should move forward. we're hopeful it women result in change emanating from iran but we're not counting on it.

even if the change doesn't materialize there's no doubt that this agreement is the best way for us to serve the national security interests of the united states because it is the best way for us to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. reporter: on a completely different subject. for a long time you talked about the decline in the rapid growth of health care costs as potentially arising out of the a.c.a. now that health care costs seem to be going back on their rapid anti-a.c.a. incline is that because of the a.c.a.? you took credit when health care costs were not growing as rapidly, what is the reason for health care costs now going back to rapid growth? mr. earnest: i haven't seen data to indicate that we are seeing a return to the regular double digit increases that were common prior to the affordable care act going into effect.

the best -- the most recent information i've seen has been the state of california that their expectation is that next year, the rise in premiums will be around 4%. on average. and that's an indication that this kind of marketplaced strategy that was originally pioneered by the heritage foundation and included in this proposal is effective. and contributing to the slowest growth in health care costs in history. but if there's some additional data you've had access to that i haven't seen yet, let's see it. maybe i'll have more information for you. reporter: a week and a day ago you said the white house was in the final stables of drafting. is that still true? mr. earnest: yes. reporter: you said earlier it's

not really a plan. mr. earnest: if i was unclear about that, i apologize. i didn't mean to leave the impression that anything had changed since we talked about this last week. it has long been a priority of the administration to close the prison at guantanamo bay for a couple of reasons i crited earlier. we have seen renewed indication from some members of congress that they would be willing to work with us on this and what they asked for is a specific proposal for how exactly we would fulfill that presidential priority. so there have been some conversations between senior administration officials and members of the congress on this matter and the request that was made by some of these members of congress was, can you put forward a specific proposal on paper for you believe you should proceed. i don't have a specific timeline to share with you at this point about when that information, when that proposal would be completed and forwarded to capitol hill. but i can commit to you that

once that information has been conveyed to capitol hill it's something we'll make public or at least there may be some of that information that's classified and we have to hold back but certainly we can give you some insight into what that plan will include. they've been working on this for some time which is why i the scribe it being in the final stables but i don't know when that will be completed. reporter: you said earlier that a large number of countries support agnew clear deal with iran, i think you said 86. can you put together a list of that for all of us? mr. earnest: yes, we can track that down. the reason i drited -- cited that number and the significance of that number is that it includes these countries, these six countries that voluntarily placed restrictions on iranian oil they imported. it also includes the countries that previously imported iranian oil but stopped doing it so work effectively with the united states and the rest of the

international community to apply pressure to iran and it includes couldn't i ries that may in the future be interested in purchasing oil from iran. and so the number is significant because it serves to illustrate how difficult it would be, basically why it would be impossible for us to reimpose sanctions if iran were to kill this deal. reporter: this is a selling point that the president is making, other administration officials are making that all these other countries are supporting this deal. we should support the deal as well because 6 other couldn't res are supporting it, is that right? mr. earnest: enge the point we are making, i think this point is relevant in a way -- in a variety of way. the way i brought it up is to rebut the claim that if congress is to move forward with killing this deal, that there's some other option available other than a military option, and the

fact is, killing the deal only makes the need to use military option more likely because it's going to be impossible for us to reassemble an international coalition to reach a diplomatic agreement if the united states stands alone in killing a diplomatic agreement that's supported by the rest of the world. or at least 86 other countries around the world. including countries like china, india, japan south korea and taiwan. reporter: this separate deal the government of iran has with iaea, if i'm a wavering member of congress if i'm on the fence as a democrat, and i want to see more than just, you know, the assurances that you're giving me about what's in this particular deal, is it a nonstarter? can i as a congress whan who is wavering say i'm not going to support this deal unless i see what's in the iaea deal with the

iranian government, is that a nonstart her mr. earnest: my response to that wavering member of congress is, in a classified setting we're map by to tell you exactly what's included in that deal. it's an agreement between the iran and iaea. we know exactly what's in it and we'll tell you in a classified setting so you can determine whether or not it's consistent with the deal we described. reporter -- reporter: so yes or no. if they say i want to see the deal, the answer is no? mr. earnest: our response is we're happy to tell you exactly what's in it. report every: the question on the support from other countries on the iran deal given that there's so much support and the u.s. is not the only party to it by any means, why would the whole deal fall apart, wouldn't it go forward without the united states with these other countries?

mr. earnest: that's a good question. the reason i described it this way is that essentially iran is going to get sanctions relief. this is a concern raised by all members of congress that iran is going to get extensive financial benefits associated with this agroment moving forward. for a variety of reasons that's not entirely true. there's significant areas where that money has been committed. so it's not exactly a financial wind fall for iran. but what's true is that iran will get sanctions relief. whether iran -- whether congress kills the deal or not. the question is it requires international pressure. unanimity of opinions across the globe to convince iran to reduce their uranium stockpile by 98%.

to essentially unplug 13,000 centre fuges. to overhaul their heavy water plutonium reactor. to agree to a set of inspection and verification measures that are stronger than any others imposed on a country's nuclear program. the only reason we're able to reach that agreement and apply that much pressure on iran is that the international community was united. if the united states steps away from the agreement, it certainly is fair for iran to start calling everybody's bluff. you can imagine iran then say, well, you know what, we're not going to comply with the agreement. the united states isn't going to, we're not going to either. what are you going to do about it? one thing we won't be able to do about it, we won't be able to apply a comprehensive international set of sanctions against iran. the reason we were able to do that last time is because the president of the united states work the active engagement of his secretary of state, hillarycrineton, went around the

world and -- hillary clinton, went around the world and said, i know it's going to be a sacrifice but we need you to stop buying oil from iran or significantly reduce the amount of oil you purchase from iran. if you do, we'll apply intense pressure on iran to make them voluntarily commit to rolling back their nuclear program and to come clean about how -- about their nuclear program. so what that ultimately means is it means that the international community would be fractured. and that's how iran would be able to go back to doing what they were doing before. which is actively pursuing nuclear weapons. reporter: they wouldn't be capable of enforcing the deal without the united states? mr. earnest: the point i'm making is why would they? reporter: don't they care about iran having nuclear weapons?

mr. earnest: the best way to prevent iran's nuclear weapons is this deal this that the united states congress then killed. i think if we said these other countries should enforce it, they should say why? you're not serious about this, we're not going to enter into an agreement. reporter: they care more about their economies more than keeping iran from get agnew clear weapon. mr. earnest: they care about their economies but they'll recognize the united states kuok has squandered the best opportunity to come about to prevent that happening. that's why many people logically conclude including me, that it makes the use of the military option much more likely. reporter: fwiven the eagerness you cited for many countries to review trade or start trade with iran, how does that make you confident that a snapback would

be possible if iran does break the agreement? mr. earn spest -- mr. earnest: the principle has always been, to apply pressure on iran to get them to abandon their pursuit of the nuclear weapon. because of the way the agreement has been reached, that principle is still alive. that principle has been protected. iran, under enormous economic duress, has taken steps to reduce their nuclear stockpile disconnect centrifuges, overhaul their heavy water reactor and agree to an intrusive set of inspections to verify compliance with the agreement. if tai break the agreement, the international community will still be unified and can still snap saxes back into place. but if the united states congress takes steps to undermine an agreement that is the best way for us to prevent iran from obtain agnew clear weapon, that principle has been shattered an the international community will be in disarray in

trying to confront iran's -- confront iran and their nuclear weapons program. this is, the reason this is relevant is that this is actually the situation the president encountered when he took office in 2009. you'll recall that the nation of iran was united in pursuit of a nuclear weapon and the international community was divided in that -- and at a loss for how to confront them. because they were able to unite the international community we presented a united front, applied significant pressure to iran and now there's disagreement inside iran about the wisdom of pursue agnew clear weapon. in fact, we've changed the equation in iran and iran has now agreed to this, to a whole set of limitations on the nuclear program in an effort to obtain some sanctions relief. this is a strategy that we know has worked. s that strategy that the rest of the international community has bought into it. and the way the strategy gets undermined is if congress takes an agreement that we can verify would keep iran from obtaining

nuclear weapons and flushes it down the toyota toilet. report: i want to follow up on i-- reporter: i want to follow up on iran. the administration's priority, we know about the disparity in ad spending. this morning she said she wishes the vote could be now rather than six to eight months. is this grass roots campaign enough or is there anything more you can say the president can do to make his case beforehand? mr. earnest: the -- you called it the august work period. i'd say the august work period is probably the best of the world. it extends beyond august and they're not actually working.

but i digress. slightly. i think you have seen over the last couple of weeks the president demonstrate not just a willingness but a decyberto spend a lot of time in public talking a bt this, making his case. the president has demonstrated a similar desire when, in making the case in private conversations with members of congress. and so i would anticipate that in the week that remains before the august work period. that the president will be making the case both in public and in private for the congressional -- for congress not to kill this agreement with iran to prevent them obtain agnew clear weapon. reporter: the house said they

were sending or have sent a letter asking the president not to appeal a ruling on women and children in detention facilities. can you update on anything about the appeal or response on the part after the -- part of the administration? mr. earnest: our legal strategy is one that's being driven by the department of justice. i'd refer you to them for the latest on that reporter: when it comes to the confidential agreements with the iaea in the 48th year of the iaea, isn't it standard operating procedure for the framework with the companies they're -- countries they're inspecting to remain confidential? mr. earnest: i don't know. what i can tell you is that this is the road map for the clarification of past and present outstanding issues

regarding iran, a document that appeared on the iaea website a couple of weeks ago. this is a document that tom cotton, the republican international man of mystery discovered when the traveled to vienna. this information has been put out. the second thing is that the information is included in the agreement between the iran and the iaea, is information the administration is aware of and willing to share with individual congress members in a classified setting. it's happened in the house and will happen in the senate. the iaea will write a report about the past military dimensions of iran's nuclear program. this is a report they said they're prepared to make public before the end of the year, assuming iran complies with the request that they have made for information by october 15. and this is the key part of this whole thing. if iran doesn't comply with those requests for information and access by october 15, then

they're not going to get any sanctions relief and it will set back the implementation of the agreement in the first place which is why i have pushed back i guess that undermines the claims by our critics that somehow this agreement is either a side agrome or secret agreement. the fact is, it's neither. reporter: what do you make of people say it's a side or secret agreement given -- mr. earnest: i ex-plabed why neither of those descriptions is true. we're happy to tell members of congress about exactly what's included in the agreemented on no element of the agreement will move forward unless iran complies with the requests the iaea made with requests for information and access. this isn't off to the side it's essential to the completion of the agroment's implementation. ok, thanks everybody, see you tomorrow.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> the republican presidential candidates are in manchester new hampshire, for the voters first presidential forum on monday at 7:00 eastern. and c-span's "road to the white house" is providing coverage of the forum on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. following the live forum you can provide your input by joining our call in program or adding your comments on facebook and twitter. "rode to the white house 2016" on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. yesterday, the house homeland

security committee heard from new transportation security head peter neffenger, who joins the society just weeks after reports reveal t.s.a. failed to catch bombs and weapons in 67 of 70 tests. >> the me on homeland security will come to ord. mr. mccaul: we are here to hear from peter neffenger on his plans for leading the t.s.a. we expect to explore a range of issues related to operations with the t.s.a. i recognize myself for an opening statement. two weeks ago a terrorist attack in america's heartland inspired

by hateful idea -- ideology, killed five soldiers on american soil just days after we released our report from this committee. not only are we still under threat from islamic terrorists but they have expanded their footprint. the war is being brought to our doorstep at a terrifying speed. we have long known that our aviation sector is the crown jewel of terrorist targets so as we stare down these real and growing threats, congress and the american people need confidence in our defenses. in the past few months, t.s.a. has given us concern rather than confidence. terrorists have had -- terrorists have to be right only once, we have to be right 100% of the time. millions of travelers from all over the world pass through our nation's airport, the american people must know and trust that the procedures and policies put in place to make us -- will make us safer.

in june, we learn through the leaked reports from the department of homeland security's office of inspector general that t.s.a.'s passenger screening was wrong 96% of the time. and that 73 aviation workers have potential ties to terrorism. these findings shatter peculiar confidence. a reported 96% failure rate to detect explosives is completely unacceptable. administrator neffenger has an opportunity, i believe, to turn this ship around. and as an ad mirl i think he has that capability as well. in order to -- in our discussions that we've had other the past few days, he's displayed candor and an open mind in his approach to this position. in my opinion t.s.a. needs to do three things to move forward a new capt chapter. one, restore public confidence. two, enhance risk-based security. and three, better leverage the

private sector. we have seen a large expansion of risk-based security initiatives since 2011. however, we still need to do more. t.s.a.'s precheck program has been in place for four years. however, currently only 4% of travelers are members of this program. t.s.a. needs to increase its population so that it can focus its efforts on more thoroughly screening those passengers who are unknown and pose a higher risk. i'd like to explore how t.s.a. can better leverage the private sector. the private sector plays a critical role in securing our nation's aviation system. t.s.a. does not and cannot fulfill its mission alone. the private sector is necessary -- is a necessary partner that t.s.a. needs to continue to rely on in order to successfully fulfill its mission. t.s.a. and the department needs to look to the future about give the private sector a road map and a vision of what screening will look like five, 10 and 15

years from now and the admiral and i had some very good discussions on that point. this can help companies developing technologies to meet these needs. we cannot expect private companies to invest tens of millions of dollars if we cannot provide them with any certainty of a return on their investment. t.s.a. needs to make necessary reforms in order to enhance the screening partnership program. these partnerships allow airports to hire private screeners instead of government employees. this program has been in place since 2004 and yet t.s.a. is still unable to do an accurate cost comparison that takes into account the full cost of a federal employee compared to a private sector employee doing the same job. this cap allows t.s.a. to argue that private screeners do not save the taxpayer money. although this is not a fair and accurate accounting assessment. this committee is dedicating to

-- dedicated to reforming t.s.a. we proved our commitment to this effort by passing four important pieces of legislation on the house floor just this monday that will keep americans safe. this legislation came out of this committee as a result of the recent t.s.a. failures. specifically these bills will help strengthen and secure the precheck program and improve the vetting process for aviation employees, help keep our airport screening equipment better maintained, and implement bletter policies at local airports for contractors. the threat is evolving but americans are concerned that t.s.a. is not keeping up with that threat. administrator neffenger, you have a tough job ahead of you to lead this agency. but we have confidence in you and we look forward to working with you in these joint efforts to reform t.s.a. and together today we are eager to hear from you about your plans for the future and your vision.

with that, the chair recognizes the ranking member. mr. thompson: thank you for holding this hearing, i would like to congratulate mr. neffenger on his moiment and look forward to working with him to advance the mission of t.s.a. another thing is to say welcome to the fish bowl. t.s.a. was established by congress in the wake of this -- in the wake of the september 11 attacks. it has a responsibility for protecting the nation's aviation and transportation systems and ensuring the free movement of people and goods. over the years, in protecting aviation systems, t.s.a. has used a number of methods to screen passengers. some of the technology -- technological changes t.s.a. has made, however, have cost taxpayers millions of dollars while failing to adequately address the threat to aviation

security. unfortunately, t.s.a. is still having problems with its technology today. for example, last month it was reported that auditors posing as passengers were able to smuggle mock explosives and banned weapons through a check point at various airports across the country. earlier this spring, the inspector genre leased a report claiming that t.s.a. does not properly manage the maintenance of its airport screening equipment. according to the i.g., t.s.a. has not issued adequate policies to airports for carrying out maintenance responsibilities. administrator neffenger, i want to challenge you to address these issues with the technologies used in the airport environment. as you approach this issue, consider both the current threat picture and the eamericaing threats. keep in mind that there are

small and minority businesses in this country with exceptional technologies that could be beneficial to t.s.a. and improve efficiencies at the airport. and i highlight that because we've gotten accustomed to using three or four vendors and every time we've come before this committee, somebody would say, well they're the only someone with capacity to do what we need. my question is how far have we looked and how cooperative have we been with other people in this arena? i look forward to working with you on that. the former administrator implemented a risk based approach to screenings. however both the government accountability office and the office of the inspector general identified shortcomings with this support especially when it comes to granting passengers

expedited screenings through managed inclusion. significant shortcomings that i've observed with managed exclusion -- inclusion -- exclusion include problems with the model used to identify passengers for this managed inclusion program and the usefulness of having behavior detection officers implement the managed encollusion program. the reason i say that too mr. director, we have been asking for whatever science that's available relative to behavior detection officers and how that fall into this latest system of protection and unfortunately we've yet to get that report back from a scientific standpoint this past monday legislation introduced by subcommittee chairman katko

ranking member rice and me directs t.s.a. to limit expedited airport screening to members of the precheck program and other known low-risk passengers. our bill passed the house. last week three new measure were approved by the transportation security subcommittee as we consider the three bills we know that there are some issues that remain for the full committee's consideration. for instance, significant concerns have been raised by a group of labor stake holders for a measure aimed to address the alarming reports of multiple security breaches caused by employees exploiting security gaps and abusing the credentialing privileges. as we close these gap, we must ensure that the men and women whose job is to protect the flying public are not unduly impacted. as t.s.a. legislation works its way through the legislative

process, we would welcome constructive engagement from t.s.a. administrator neffenger, not only do i look forward to hearing from you on how you plan to address these issues but also i want to hear from you on how you plan to address the most valuable asset within t.s.a. which is its work force. t.s.a. is plagued with very low morale and an extremely high turnover rate. employees cite low pay and barriers to advancement as some of their main issues. additionally, the federal air marshal service has not had a class in nearly four years. again, i want to know your perspective on this and what steps you plan to take to improve employee morale and if you plan on employing more federal air marshals. t.s.a. plays a vital part in protecting americans. we can work together to help solve these problems. i look forward to this committee

working with you as the new administrator in a bipartisan fashion to help solve t.s.a.'s problems and to improve. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. mccaul: i thank the ranking member. other members are reminded that statements may be submitted for the record. mr. peter neffenger served as -- serves as sixth administrator of t.s.a. with a work force of almost 60,000 employees. prior to joining t.s.a. he served as the 29th vice deman daunt -- commandant of the coast guard and the coast guard's deputy commandant for operations. we want to thank you for being here today in your debut performance before this committee. the chair now recognizing admiral neffenger. mr. neffenger: thank you.

i have written comments for the record and a brief opening record. good morning chairman mccaul, ranking member thompson and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify in my new role as administrator of the t.s.a. i'm pleased to appear before you to share my vision and thoughts about the future of t.s.a. let me begin by saying that t.s.a. is fundamentally counterterrorism organization. our job is to deter, detect and disrupt those who would harm our system of transportation across the country, especially the aviation sector. we protect legitimate trade and travel. we have a no fail mission one for which the consequences of a successful attack overwhelm the risk equation and for which we must ensure we deliver mission success. this critically important core mission is my highest priority. as i appear before this committee this morning i'm in the middle of my now fourth week on the job. although brief, i've been thoroughly impressed with the professionals who occupy our ranks. i want to thank mr. thompson for noting those. officers and employees who have sworn an oath to serve their nation in a critically important

mission that encounters more than two million travelers a day in the aviation sector alone. i've also had time to become more familiar with the challenges facing the agency and develop a set of priorities. my highest priority is to ensure solutions to the covert testing failures. there are several elements critical to improving screening operations. we must ensure the appropriate measures of effectiveness are in place to focus on our primary mission. what we measure is what our employees pay attention to. it's imperative we get that right. we must employ continue tant constant evolution. finally, delivering an evketive system and earning the confidence of the traveling public will only come through confidence disciplined performance and professionalism. i have conveyed these standards to our work force and i commit to you that i will relentlessly pursue these objectives a well

defined and clear statement of mission, clear and unequivocal standards of performance, training and resources that aenable a work force to achieve skessdz in an unwavering pursuit of accountability. i will set expecting as of strong values for the work force and lead with t.s.a.'s core values of innovation and team spirit at my core. since its creation after the attacks of september 11, 2001, t.s.a. has played an invaluable role in proecting to the traveling public. however, nearly 14 years later we continue to face a range of threats from terrorists inspired by messages of hate and violence. a number of terrorist groups remain focused on attacking the united states and the west. today's threat is more decentralized, diffuse and harder to fight than ever before. these are our most pressing challenge.

our enemies will continually adapt and so must we. we must leverage technology, experience and our partners in federal, state and local government and the private sector to employ effective measures. we must pay particular attention to the insider threat. our second challenge is retention, training and accountability. frontline managers and screeners are critical to our success agency culture, morale and effectiveness are a direct result of career long development recognition and accountability. i will pay close attention to training and work force development to include how to leverage and expand the t.s.a. academy to develop leaders and improve individual performance and instill a greater sense of pride in our agency, its mission, and its values. a third organizational challenge for t.s.a. is to ensure it is