>> "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that affect you. coming up on monday morning, the executive director for the national center for transgender equality on the reaction of the transgender community to the north carolina bathroom law. of tuesday'sne republican primary in indiana. watch washington journal beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion.

>> this month, we showcased our student cam winners. video camera documentary for middle and high school students. this year's theme was road to the white house. students asked what issues do you want presidential issues -- presidential candidates to discuss. our first prize winners and our fan favorite is from silver spring, maryland. charles gryder, wanted presidential scan -- presidential candidates to discuss infrastructure funding and their title was "driving americans love moving around. we love fast cars, big trucks and 70 mile-per-hour speed limits. we drive farther and have more cars than any other country in the world. but for all of our love of what wedrive, we cannot take what drive for granted.

america's 2 million miles of roads and six hundred thousand bridges are aging, congested, and often dangerous. it's time we did something to change that. >> highways and bridges are critical aspects of modern life. they enable us and the things we need to get where we are going. however, all across the u.s. comedies highways and bridges are increasingly important. >> this past year, the 2013 report card for america's infrastructure was released, giving our infrastructure a d+. >> as government agencies have noted, our agencies have a number of serious deficiencies. highways are congested and only 35% of american roads can be described as being in good conditions. as far as bridges, a quarter are structurally deficient or obsolete. >> obviously, all over the country, cities and states are

complaining about conditions of the infrastructure. there are major complaints. for highways and bridges poses real problems for all of us. where we need to go takes longer and cost more. because of failing infrastructure, american drivers spend 50 hours year stuck in traffic and have to pay more for consumer goods which cost more to move when roads are clogged. people cannot get around community -- around communities, a cost everyone in delays and it's important to our national economy that we have a strong infrastructure. >> deteriorating highway and bridges increase the number of car accidents, cause higher carbon emissions, and cost time we could use for bigger and better things. cost of congestion is estimated to be $27 billion a year.

bese are dollars that could spent and invested in much more productive purposes than sitting around in congestion. >> we see the consequences every day. we see more accidents, more deterioration, damage to the environment. government is not aware of these problem's. every year, national, and local governments spend around $100 billion on highways and bridges. $40 billion of that comes from the federal government. that only represents 1% of total spending and it's just not enough. >> there are a lot of estimates out there. federal, state and local, a little over 100 billion dollars year. >> the amount of money is in the only issue.

decade, of the last gridlock in congress has prevented the passage of a long-term transportation funding bill. instead, the federal government has used a series of short term bills to provide the money states and localities need to fund their roads. these short spurts of funding do not give enough time or certainty to begin work on major projects that require major federal contributions. >> a lot of projects require time. they take time to build and they take time to plan. sometimes six or seven years. if you don't have the certainty to know funding on the federal level is going to be there, then you are less likely to want to invest in megaprojects. big problem.really i got a call from my secretary of transportation who asked to eat me. this was in june of last year. she said i understand the

highway trust fund is going broke. then recent months, situation has improved. congress passed the first long-term highway bill in almost a decade. the law guarantees funding for the next five years and improves the process of getting federal money where it is needed. but it is not all great. it doesn't raise spending to anywhere near the levels highway administration and other expert groups say is needed and does not create a dedicated funding plan to pay for any of it. >> i'm concerned this particular legislation, that there's not going to be enough resources to do what needs to be done to modernize our infrastructure. >> i know members of congress worked hard to pass that bill that have said we need to begin finding solutions to long-term funding for liability. alreadyone concerned is

looking at the future and how we deal with raising the higher level of investment capital. maybe a finect first step but more is necessary to secure the health of our infrastructure. need to prioritize transportation and we need our politicians to do the same. in the current presidential race, only one candidate has made highway funding an aspect of his campaign -- vermont senator bernie sanders. but he did not even bother to vote when the fast act appeared before the senate. in fact, none of the sitting senators running for president voted for the bill. >> candidates should be discussing effective ways to repair our infrastructure and ensure its longevity. >> the status quo is unacceptable. dilapidated infrastructure is going to continue to dilapidated.

>> what are we waiting for? there's work to be done. there's workers ready to do it. let's prove there's no better way to do business than right here in the united states of america and let's get started rebuilding america. >> the state of our highway and bridges. possiblee problem is but we must act now. >> to watch all of the prize-winning documentary's in this year's student cam competition, visit student cam.org. >> during campaign 2016, c-span takes you on the road to the white house as we follow the candidates on c-span, c-span

radio, and c-span.org. >> we're waiting for democratic presidential candidate senator bernie sanders to talk to the media here in washington. the sanders campaign arranged this news conference late yesterday. it comes exactly one year after the vermont senator publicly announced his candidacy for presidency. we expect things to get underway shortly and we will have live coverage when they do, right here on c-span. our guess now is nick penniman, executive director of an organization known as issue one. what is issue one? guest: it is a new nonprofit focused on reducing the influence of money in politics. host: how are you funded? guest: foundations and individual donors. you have a book that says this nation is "on the take." what are you trying to say?

guest: we are trying to say the problem of money in politics has reached crisis proportions. stage four cancer at this point. the public has always been generally aware of the fact that money plays a role in politics, but we make the argument we have crossed a dangerous rush holt to the point that he has created such paralysis and our policymaking that we are losing our democracy. host: what are the examples of this paralysis? at almostyou look every number associated with money and politics, it has grown exponentially in the last 20 years. -- we have gone from 500 lobbyists 20 years ago to over 1200 registered lobbyists. we have dark money -- money not disclosed -- in the last decade. the 2000 election cycle was an advocate of a $3 billion

election cycle. this cycle is supposed to be $10 billion. the numbers go on and on. that is the math. what that ends up creating an washington is the inability to legislate on behalf of the common good. because special interest have such control over our politicians and our policymaking that it is hard to get a lot done. what is happening or not happening that proves the point you're making? you look at almost any big legislative moment, and there were such severe compromises made during those moments that one could argue that the p

sen. sanders: mike? ok, thanks very much for being here. on a beautiful sunday afternoon. announced the beginning of our campaign one year ago. before i talk about the delegate math and a path toward victory, i just want to say a few words about how far we have come in the last year. i just want to thank the millions and millions of people who have supported us in every way. when we started this campaign, as most of you know we were considered to be a fringe candidacy. we started with no campaign organization. we started with no money. we started with very little name

recognition outside of my own state. in national polls, we were trailing secretary clinton by at least 60 points. and in some cases a little bit more. in this campaign we have taken on the entire democratic it establishment in state after state. we have taken on the senators, the members of the congress, the governors, the mayors. we have taken them all on and in the clinton organization have obviously taken on the most powerful political organization this country. they ran a very strong campaign with every clinton in 2008. that is what we were up against. that was then. today is today. one --oday we have now won 17 primaries and caucuses

in every part of the country. by the way, we hope to make indiana our 18th victory on tuesday. and we have received some 9 million votes. areecent national polls, we not behind secretary clinton by 60 points anymore. in the last few weeks a couple of polls have had us in the lead . other polls have us single digits behind. , we haveof fundraising received more individual campaign contributions -- 7.4 million -- than any candidate in presidential history at this point in the campaign. we do not have a super pac. we do not get our money from wall street or the drug companies. or from powerful corporations. our money is coming from the middle class and working class $27his country, averaging per campaign contribution.

i am very proud of the fact that we have just raised in the last -- look, we had a phone on molly good luck desk of month. we raise $25 million, despite the fact that 85% of the primary and caucuses are behind us. what the political revolution run aown is that we can strong, winning campaign without beingr pac and without dependent on big-money interests. -- and i don't know if anyone else has done it. maybe they have, and they haven't. i don't know that. but we have rolled out over 1.1 million people to our rallies, from maine to california. that number will go up very significantly because we intend to have a number of major rallies in the state of california. have one inntly, we

state after state a strong majority of the votes of younger people. voters under 45 years of age. in other words, the ideas that we are fighting for our the future of the democratic already and, in fact, the future of this country. talking'm not just about people 23 years of age and younger. we are doing phenomenally well and very proud of that. we are talking about people who are 45 years of age and younger. the reason for that, i believe, is that the issues we are talking about are the issues that are on the minds of the american people. whether you are conservative or people know that a corrupt campaign finance system undermining american democracy, they understand there is something fundamentally wrong bout average americans working longer hours for lower wages.

they understand that we have a ,roken criminal justice system with more people in jail than any other country on earth. they understand that we have to deal with the planetary rises of climate change and, among other things, impose a tax on carbon. that in a time we have a major regard toisis with clean water. we need to end fracking. they understand that in a competitive global economy we need to make public colleges and universities tuition free. they understand that when you have the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality, yes, large profitable corporations are going to have to pay more in taxes. say a few words about delegate math and our pastor is victory. as all of you know, there are a 4766 democratic

delegates. 4047 of them are pledged. they come out as a result of the contest in the various states. 719 are superdelegates. superdelegates. a democratic candidate needs 2383 votes in order to win the democratic nomination. let me be very clear. it is bitter -- virtually impossible for secretary clinton to reach the majority of convention delegates by june 14. that is the last day that a primary will be held. with pledged delegates alone. in other words, once more, it is virtually impossible for to reach thenton majority of convention delegates by june 14 with pledged delegates alone.

she will need superdelegates to take her over the top of the convention in philadelphia. in other words, the convention will be a content -- a contested contest. currently secretary clinton has 1645 pledged delegates. 55% of the total. have 1318 pledged delegates, 45% of the total. there are 10 states remaining, where we are going to be vigorously competing. plus the district of columbia, puerto rico, the virgin islands, and guam. we believe that we are in a very strong position to win many of these remaining contest and we have an excellent chance to win in california, the state with far and away the most delegates. for us to win, the majority of , we need togates

win 710 out of the remaining 1083. that is 65% of the remaining pledged delegates. that is, admittedly, and i do not deny it for a second, a tough road to climb. but it is not an impossible road to climb. and we intend to fight for every vote in front of us and for every delegate remaining. in terms of superdelegates, i would like to just say the following. obviously we are taking on virtually the entire democratic establishment. and it's amazing to me -- and i just have to thank our volunteers -- that we go into state after state. you've got the senators, governors, mayors. all of them know how to get out the vote. yet in 17 primaries and caucuses despite that political establishment support, we have one -- won.

of the 719 superdelegates, many of those delegates committed themselves to secretary clinton even before we got into this campaign. in other words, way back then she was the anointed candidate. they said -- we are with hillary clinton. while she has 520 superdelegates , we have all of 39 superdelegates. in other words, while we have delegates the pledged in real campaign, for the people only 7%ken, we have one of the superdelegates. two points regarding that. superdelegates, in states were either candidate, secretary clinton on myself, has thoselandslide victory,

superdelegates ought to seriously reflect on whether they should cast their superdelegate vote in line with the wishes of the people of their state. let me just give you an example of what i mean by that. washington, we won that caucus with almost 73% of the vote there. 73% of the vote there. in anybody's definition that is a massive landslide. at this point secretary clinton has 10 superdelegates from the state of washington. we have zero. i would ask the superdelegates from the state of washington to respect the wishes of the people in their state and the votes they have cast. in minnesota, we won the caucus there with 61% of the.

hillary clinton has 11 superdelegates. we have three. in colorado, we won that state with 59% of the vote. pretty strong margin. secretary clinton has 10 superdelegates. we have zero. new hampshire, we won that state 60% of the vote. secretary clinton has six superdelegates. we have zero. that pattern continues in other states where we have one landslide victories. i would hope very much that the superdelegates from those states , where they had -- or we have one with big margins or with secretary clinton having big margins, to respect to the wishes of the people of those states and vote in line with how the people of that state voted. secondly, and extremely

importantly, secretary clinton and i obviously have many differences of opinion on some of the most important issues facing our country. we disagree on trade policy. on breaking up wall street banks. wage.agree on the minimum i want to raise it to $15 per hour, she wants $12 per hour. she disagrees on whether we should impose a tax on carbon. we disagree about the extent to which the wealthy and a profitable multinational corporations should be asked to pay their fair share of taxes. we disagree on fracking. i believe we've got to end fracking in this country. we disagree in a number of other issues. but where secretary clinton and i strongly agree, and where every delegate to the democratic

convention strongly agrees, is that it would be a disaster for this country if donald trump or some other right wing republican were to become president of the united states. therefore in my view it is incumbent upon every superdelegate to take a hard and objective look at which candidate stands the better chance of defeating donald trump and other republican candidates. and in that regard, i think the evidence is extremely clear, that i would be the stronger candidate to defeat trump or any other republican. and this is not just on the opinion of bernie sanders. i'm not here just to tell you that this is what i think or believe, i think of this is what the objective evidence tells us. this is based on virtually every

national and state whole done in the last several months. i know that the polls go up and down, but when you have poll after poll nationally saying can defeat trump by in some cases a much greater margin than clinton, i think it is worth paying attention to that. in a morning consult survey, we beat trump by 16 points. she beats and by seven. these are reasonable polls. today, bv chunk by 15. she beaten by 11. george washington university, we beat i 10, she beats or three. fox news has us being trumped by 14. she beaten by seven. -- beating trump by 14. she is beaten by seven that she beats him by seven. everyone knows that you win the electoral vote, taking place in

50 states in this country. if you look at virtually every battleground state. in arizona, michigan, missouri, and many other states, which are up for grabs, maybe one by the republican or democratic candidate, in every one of those states we defeat trump by larger margins that she does. important, buty recent elections tell us is that when the voter turnout is high, when people come out in large numbers, democrats and progressives win. people are excited. young people come out. working-class people come out. democrats win. on the other hand, republicans win elections when the voter turnout is low.

that is exactly what we saw in the last national election of 2014, when 53% of the american people didn't vote. there is little doubt in my mind that the energy and excitement in this campaign is with the work we have done. and i believe that energy and excitement among working-class people, middle-class people, young people, will translate to a very large voter turnout in november that will not only mean three for the white house, it will mean victory for senate races, u.s. house races, and governors races throughout this country. hope then issue that i superdelegates will pay keen attention to. i understand that some of them prefer secretary clinton, fair enough. some of them prefer me, fair enough. but at the end of the day when every person in the philadelphia

convention understands, we must have the strongest candidate to beat trump or another republican . i think that the objective evidence is that i am that candidate. we will take a few questions. we are off to indiana in a few minutes, but let me start with lisa. you hear? >> [inaudible] superdelegates. in 2008 president obama convinced several dozen to switch their position. goingbefore had a flipped against the person who lead in pledged delegates. how realistic is this? sen. sanders: let me say it again. we have an uphill climb. no question about it. it is not coined to be easy. nothing i am saying today suggests that it will be easy. again, we don't know what is

going to happen on indiana -- in indiana on tuesday. mind. put this into your what happens if we do really, really well in the remaining 10 state? what happens of the polls continue to show that bernie sanders is the strongest candidate against donald trump? do i believe that there will be some superdelegates -- how many? even before sanders got in. but i want to rethink this. because what is most important is beating donald trump. if -- that's an if, i admit, but if it plays out here i think you will have a lot of superdelegate saying -- you know what's most of what and? it is most important that we defeat donald trump in november. john, did you have a question?

>> [inaudible] than hillaryegates clinton has claimed, another 23 are uncommitted. others kinds of numbers enough? sen. sanders: no, they are not, john, but it's just part of the process. those areords, delegates -- when you are dealing with two superdelegates -- u.s. one question, you are asking the other. -- lisa asked one question, you are asking the other. i think that the superdelegates should reflect what the people in the state want. that's true for hillary clinton as well. , byhe wins mississippi whatever, huge numbers -- superdelegates there should vote for her. that's one issue. but the issue i just spoke to lisa about is a different issue. entitled tok we are pick up many dozens of

superdelegates, the real struggle will be in the hearts and minds of superdelegates who came on board the clinton campaign a long time ago. they will have to go into their -- answer for themselves -- do they want the second strongest candidate running against trump or the strongest candidate? i'm not making any productions, nothing guaranteed, but i think that some of the superdelegates that announced for clinton before i even got into the race will say that she no what? bernie has a better chance of beating trump. jeff, did you have a question? >> [inaudible] fox news sunday that he is intrigued by some of your message that you have used to take on secretary clinton. and to youo use that believe he will change to your

?one sen. sanders: i want to congratulate donald trump, who his -- has managed to manipulate the media in an unprecedented way. the republican party and trump have the resources to do all the opposition research that they want on secretary clinton. they don't need bernie sanders's critiques of the secretary. and you want to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to donald trump. this man, despite all the scientific evidence, thinks that climate change is a hoax. he is a man that thinks we should not raise the starvation minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. i think no matter who runs

against him in the general election, he will be the strong candidate. i know in you should know what trump is trying to do. >> [inaudible] sen. sanders: no, i think that's nonsense. i'm glad he can get through it. what is a campaign about? it's not supposed to just be about political gossip. it's supposed to be about differentiating the points of view the candidates have. secretary clinton and i have different points of view on a number of issues. i will try my hardest not to run an issue oriented campaign, explaining the differences to the american people. i may have -- i may be old-fashioned, but i kind of think that that is what democracy is about. as you heard me say a million times, i wish media paid more

attention to the wide middle class in this country. the grotesque level of and that's between my support, if i lose the nomination he will not get that support. we will do everything we can to win it, but if i lose i will fight as hard as i can to make sure the donald trump does not become president. is nicole here? "usa today"? john nolan, cbs? did you have a question? john: what have you heard back in reaching out to superdelegates and asking them to look at your wins and the ones you may win over? again, i think there are two separate issues.

it's not just me. where we are, i think the superdelegates are hearing from the people in their own state, saying -- you know what? how about representing the people of our state, colorado, minnesota, or whatever state it might be. and we have got to begin the conversation with many of the superdelegates who signed on with secretary clinton very early on. if i think of the objective .vidence -- and we will see we have still got to go to june 14. but i think that if the evidence is needed for them, we are by far the stronger candidate. dan, hey dan. >> [inaudible]

sen. sanders: not into legacy, dam. right now we are fighting to win every delegate the weekend. i have my legacy will be that i was a very good president of the united states. [laughter] [applause] -- [laughter] mary alice here? there you are. if you do not secure the majority of pledged delegates, do you still believe that andrdelegates should switch back you as you are projecting the opinion of the voters? it's a funny thing. right now we have state after state were i have one landslide victories and superdelegates of said -- we don't have to listen .o the people

by the way, i hope you will win the pledged delegates, but at the end of the day the responsibility of those delegates is to decide what is the best for this country and what is best for the democratic party. if those superdelegates conclude that bernie sanders is the best candidate, the strongest candidate to beat trump and anyone else, i would welcome their support. danny freeman, nbc. >> [inaudible] these big rallies. in california you said you're going to hold a lot of big rallies. have you learned any lessons from states like new york for you projected you would do better? here's thes: difficulty. good question. thanks for giving me the opportunity to answer that.

42%york state, what are we, , 43% of the vote? 3 million independent voters in new york state disenfranchised. they could not vote because of the crime of writing down the they were independent voters. i think that's absurd. polls, in, in most most contests, we do far, far better than clinton in the independent vote. cannot tell you that we would have won. i don't know. no question, though, that we would have done much, much better. we walk into -- not only are we taking on -- i don't mean to cry here, but we know we are getting into. we accept them. we are doing the best of the cap area please appreciate that in state after state, where cannot vote, we are

at a real disadvantage. it's a little bit absurd because independents vote in a general election. if democrats want the strongest candidate out there to take on a republican, i think it's pretty dumb to be excluding independents. and we will find, whether i win -- and we will fight, whether i win or not, to change those rules. frankly, in hindsight it is always -- you could always think about things that you could have done better. -- that's true for any campaign. talk to the clinton campaign. they will tell you the things they could have done better. but i am enormously proud of the campaign that we have run to this point and i hope it gets better. any of you here who would bet that on may 1, bernie sanders would have one 17 primaries and caucuses? i think you wouldn't be sitting

here. if you have guessed that is odds, you would be very wealthy individuals. we are very proud of the campaign he ran. is really here? millie? ok, yes. the lastmay be question. >> can you talk a little bit more about what clinton said about reaching out to sanders supporters? sen. sanders: pardon me? ok, ok. thank you very much. getot to catch a plane to to south bend. see you. bye-bye. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2016] so, bernie sanders, democratic presidential candidate, leaving the public -- leaving the phone you. here's a look at whether current pledged and superdelegate count stands. 2783 yard necessary to secure the democratic nomination. thisext primary contest tuesday, in indiana, where they could gain as many as 83 delegates. we will see how things turn out tuesday night. watch it live right here. 57 delegates at stake for the republicans in the primary. donald trump is in the state tomorrow with a rally at south bend. here on c-span, ted cruz talk to inporters at an event indianapolis. that's life tomorrow at 7:30 p.m. eastern. havedam secretary, we

revealed 72 of our delegate votes going to the next president of the united states. ♪ >> and inspector general report concluded that the transportation security administration is losing more every00 airport screeners week. employees spoke of being mistreated by senior-level officials as a retaliation for reporting problems. this oversight hearing is two and a half hours.

>> the committee will come to order. an important hearing today examining their management practices and misconduct at the tsa. enter the summer of travel, many americans are headed to the airport. a lot of americans come from overseas, wanting to travel domestically. many are going on business. it's a whole array of things you can think about. the numbers are amazing, how many people travel on a daily basis. when they get there they find long lines. we need airplanes and airports to be as secure as possible. but the practices of securing airports continues to be an ongoing question. because some of the times the

lines become so difficult and long. during one week mid-march, 6800 tosengers missed flights due long waits. at the charlotte airport press waited -- passengers three hours to get through security. yet there has been a rise in the sheer number of people working at the tsa. also find that the attrition rate is pretty stunning and there is a reason why. it's a key indicator as to how -- isganization is being being rewarded and how people generally fill -- feel. shefarmed covert testing,

found "failures and technology, failures and procedure, and human error." testifying before this committee that "layers of security were simply missing." i understand that some recommendations are still outstanding, though i recommend -- i understand they have taken steps to address many of the findings. problemcies staffing threatens to undermine its progress. currently the agency is losing -- the about this -- the numbers are stunning. losing about 103 screeners each week through attrition. that is a bit of a scary number because it is telling us that they really don't like there. -- working there.

joined, but 4000 people departed last year. a lot of people are looking for good jobs in good opportunity. when you have 4600 people leave what does that tell you? if there is probably a management problem there. that there are probably some challenges and underlying things , causes that ought to be examined. i think the government actually that itood job in surveys federal employees across the government. 2member, there are more than million federal employees out there. of the agencies that are ranked gotscored, the tsc -- tsa 113 out of 120, making it one of the worst places to work.

the committee has been contacted by a large number of whistleblowers. we have also reached out to certain individuals. i don't want you to assume that this panel is simply whistleblowers. that's not the case. one of the biggest problems challenge is the the agency fraught with problems. as we chatted with people and whistleblowers came forward we found that the tsa had developed a highly retaliatory culture that discouraged speaking up about problems. they have also raised concerns about leadership failing to punish high-level managers who commit misconduct. when hard-working rank and file men and women are severely punished but managers get off easy, it creates a morale problem. allowing that culture to fester has a highly detrimental effect on the agency. i don't care where you are in life or what you are doing, if something is being done that's

bad and it's not fixed, it's demoralizing. when you are leaving a group of people on the line doing one thing and something happens and they get treated different from the management, it's demoralizing. that's clearly what we're seeing now. there are those tasked with protecting our transportation infrastructure. bringing us to our witnesses today, here to discuss their own experiences with leadership challenges at the tsa. the testimony before the committee, like all of it, is rejected. they are protected from retaliation.

this is often an effective way to bring waste, fraud, and abuse to the attention of those in a position to remedy it. sometimes it doesn't matter how have intections you place. they do find subtle ways to those whoe or demean do nothing but steve the uncomfortable truth. i want to be clear that this committee will not stand for reprisal against individuals cooperating with the investigation. especially true for today's witnesses. we appreciate the brave stature of coming forward at some risk, coming to chat with us before congress. it is the way that we will get to the truth and protect the greater whole. i think the gentleman here today will provide valuable insight and will hopefully make the whole of government, the whole of the tsa and its vital mission a better place to do it. we think these gentlemen for stepping forward and

participating with us today. with that i will now recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings. representative cummings: today of threehe testimony employees from the transportation security administration who allege a series of abuses and improper practices within that agency. whistleblowers are essential to identifying ways based on the work conducted by this committee today protect employees who bring wrongdoing to light. i know chairman and i share a strong commitment to ensuring that federal employees who come before us are protected from retaliation and reprisal. equally important, we as members of the committee also have an obligation to run these

allegations to the ground and determine if we can substantiate them. of course just as we want to protect whistle blowers from retaliation, i'm sure we all agree that we also want to protect federal employees from claim s that are not substantiated. all three of these men who have stepped forward today for their willingness to testify and for the information that they provided in the transcribed interviews with the committee staff. these individuals have raised troubling allegations of improper personnel practices within t.s.a. all three have filed complaints with the office of special council through the equal employment opportunity process or in federal court. each allegation we have heard deserves a thorough and fair investigation. i think these three individuals deserve that too.

unfortunately, as we hold this hearing today, the committee has not yet had an opportunity to complete such an investigation. in some cases, we have not spoken with those who have first hand knowledge of the allegations we have heard. we have also yet not heard from the t.s.a. regarding most of the allegations raised by these employees. i hope the committee will talk with all of the individuals involved and review all of the documents relevant to the issues we will discuss today. that is fairness and thoroughness. many of the allegations our witnesses today have raised were initiated under previous agency administrators. in some cases the allegations were even resolved under previous administrators. it also appears that the current t.s.a. administrator, vice admiral peter neffenger has moved to address many of the practices that have been cited by the whistle blowers. one of today's witnesses

described this progress in his interview with the committee by saying and i quote, i think we have made tremendous progress with mr. neffenger. he added, and i quote, since mr. neffenger has come in, i've heard nothing in terms of misconduct. end of quote. under administrator neffenger, t.s.a. has issued new policies and clarified the membership and role of the executive resources council to curtail the abuse of multiple achievement bonuses for the same activities and ensure directed reassignments are made only to support agency goals. administrator neffenger has also

moved to address the airport security lapses identified by the inspector general and by the agency's own testing teams that we examine in this committee's hearing last fall. he has ended the managed inclusion program that committed individuals who had not received background risk assessment to receive expedited screening and he has placed agency focus squarely on resolving all alarms at screening checkpoints. as neffenger testified before this committee last fall, he is and i quote readjusting the measurements of success and focusing on security rather than speed. end of quote.

so i am pleased to see that his actions are beginning to show real progress. however, people may not want to hear this, but these actions are likely to slow lines at airports even further. things may get even worse if t.s.a.'s workforce continues to be reduced. administrator neffenger recently testified that the t.s.a. has nearly 6,000 fewer transportation security officers in its workforce than it had four years ago. it is being asked to do more with less and that is indeed a problem. so i hope that our committee will continue to focus on holding t.s.a. accountable for completing essential reforms that we will provide him with the resources he needs to do his job. i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today. i want to thank you all for being with us. mr. chairman, i will yield back.

rep. chaffetz: we'll now recognize our witnesses. please welcome mr. jay brainard. federal security director for the state of kansas in the office of security operations at the transportation security administration. mr. mark livingston is the program manager in the office of the chief risk officer at the transportation security administration and mr. andrew rhoades, assistant federal security director for mission support at the minneapolis-st. paul international airport in the office of security operations at the t.s.a.. we welcome you and thank you for being here. if you will please rise and raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. thank you. you may be seated. let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. in order to allow time for discussion, we would appreciate if you would limit your verbal comment to five minutes. your entire written statement will be entered into the record.

we will start with mr. brainard. you are now recognized for five minutes. make sure you bring that microphone up nice and close. you can straighten it out but we want to make sure we get you clearly on audio. thank you, mr. brainard, you're now recognized. mr. brainard: chairman chaffetz ranking member cummings and members of the committee, i'm pleased to appear at the request of this committee today to discuss issues surrounding the transportation security administration. our business is a serious business. the national strategy of the united states of america is clear. defending our nation against all enemies both foreign and domestic is the first fundamental commitment of the federal government. when that commitment is in danger of being fulfilled it is incumbent upon those of us entrusted to ensure our national security to come forward and if necessary to report to you and

to do so at whatever the cost may be. we are all here today for that purpose. while the new administrator of t.s.a. has made security a much-needed priority once again make no mistake about it, we remain an agency in crisis. t.s.a. remains in crisis as a result of poor leadership and oversight of many of our senior leadership appointments which have taken place over the past several years. some of which still serve in key positions within our agency today. our culture went into rapid decline after having gone unchecked by its leader and various agencies and committees responsible for that oversight and for that reason we continue to have a crisis in leadership and culture. from 2011-2012, t.s.a. chose in abundance unprepared employees to fill key leadership vacancies. these were people who were chosen not because they were time-tested leaders or mature or experienced in actually leading people in large complex organizations but because they were liked or good at managing programs or projects. in fact, many of these lacked any security experience and had never worked in the field of operation their entire veer. each federal agency's workforce response to is graded by its own people has declared repeatedly

our agency has failed its employees year after year. we continue to have a culture problem in t.s.a. by an unwillingness to address misconduct of senior executives combined with poor leadership and decision making, all of which have been the number one contributing factor of our security risks and have led to our poor performance. we have low morale and lack of trust and field leaders who are fearful to speak out, and for good reason. people at all levels of the agency in the field and at headquarters have spent their time constantly looking over their shoulder when doing right thing. let me make one thing abundantly clear. this is not a t.s.a. headquarters issue. there are legions of decent people at our headquarters who are just as disgusted and concerned as i am sitting here today. this is and has always been a senior executive issue. a senior executive problem. i refer to those at the very top of the food chain. for years, we had many senior executives, most of which who

completely lacked the experience for their position run amok and make decisions and conduct themselves in an unethical manner which eroded our abilities to complete the mission. until substantive change occurs, it will remain a position of cultural leadership. despite the results of our testing being made public, we still have some of those very same leaders in critical positions whose focus on attention and numbers first and leaves security and people last. in fact, many of the same people who broke our agency remain in key positions of influence even today. because of this, we continue to empower positional leaders who obtain compliance because they filled a certain leadership vacancy and to be clear, they are not followed because they are leaders. subordinates follow these leaders out of fear whose only objectives are limited to bean counting and instill fear into anyone who opposes them. these leaders are some of the biggest bullies in government. as a result many people feel battered, abused and overworked. these positional leaders convince themselves they are

liked by everyone and their decisions are accepted because there is almost no one left to question them. they regularly make decisions regardless of the people affected by them. i know several people in key leadership positions who went along to get along, who regret having supported the agenda of those positional leaders. in an effort to clean up our agency, they instituted an agency-wide ethics training complete with a t.s.a. wall of shame. for the purpose of exposing a few bad apples in our agency and shaming them. to quote the message to our people, one of the videos that everybody is required to see, people, we're better than this. that wall of shame has names of senior executives in t.s.a. who have been held to a completely different standard than the rest of the agency. not one person from our agency is glad to see any of us here today. those who have spoken up have been and continue to be targeted and victimized with the goal of running them out of federal service. under the previous administration, complaints were buried and in many cases so were the complainers.

no significant consistent action has been taken to remove or even hold leaders in the t.s.a. executive service accountable for misconduct and poor performance. while the results of our covert testing were made public last may, it was embarrassing and when it came time to address this problem, the people who were really to blame never stepped forward to accept or acknowledge any responsibility. >> instead they watched officers on the frontline getting publicly shamed. the truth is, our officers did not fail. they did exactly what that tsa senior executive leadership team demanded of them. for years, executive leadership's priority shifted their way from security and became focused only on reducing wait times and increasing checkpoint frequency. those federal security directors who raised concerns or voice

opions to leardership were targeted and one way was through the use of directed reassignments. one of my counterparts had a conversation with one of the very senior executive leaders who is responsible for our problems, who indicated to him that they had developed a loyalty list and were systematically removing the federal security directors who were on the list. for those who are not familiar, directed reassignmnet is a tool used by the airline industry to force people into retirement becuase it is technically permisable to do in civilian service, even without an ability agreement, they targeted specific deputies. the only thing wrong with this is that they were absent of any reason. vacancy occurred and many of them are filled with under qualified personnel whose only qualities were loyalty to the leaders who put them there. tsa executive leadership waged an all out campaign against the federal security directors and of the 157 original federal security directors hired after the 9/11 attacks, there are only five of us left today. when it became public knowledge that the veterans administration spent a few hundred dollars on the reassignment of a few people, the public was outraged. the tsa spent millions. in looking at the agenda posted on the committee's website, it mentions what i believe to be the most important part of why we are here, which was the toll that management challenges when

taking on the workforce. my opening statement only scratches the surface as the saying goes, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. while the idea of forgetting mistakes of the past and looking forward to a brighter future sounds good, the reality is that our leadership usually changes when there is a change of administration. if that happens and if these issues continue to go unaddressed, the people who damage this industry will once again be off the leash. and what progress we have made under administrator neffenger will have been in vain. we need the committee to take a serious look at the road ahead and make sure this never happens again. i will answer questions and provide insight based opon my experiences. thank you for having me. that concludes my opening statement. mr. chairman: thank you. mr. cummings: thank you. i am very pleased that mr. livingston is a resident of columbia, maryland. this is an area that is shared between my district and the district represented by my distinguished colleague, mr. sarbanes. mr. sarbanes has written a letter to the committee, to express support for mr. livingston and to urge, quote,

that the committee full investigate mr. livingston's claims, end quote. i would like to ask for consent that the letter be included in the record. mr. chairman: no objection. so ordered. mr. livingston, you are now recognized for five minutes. mr. livingston: members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you regarding the transportation security administration and the reported issues of misconduct. whistleblower retaliations, violations and the lack of security as it pertains to senior executives and their impact on the mission. i am here today to share with you what i have seen firsthand and as a member of the tsa

senior leadership team and as a victim of these practices, after confronting and reporting misconduct by top leaders. i am here because i believe that tsa has major management challenges, which are imposing great risk of failure to performing its mission effectively and could have serious consequences for the u.s. national and economic security. it matters what leaders do and what they do not do. noted education scholars have stated that the culture of any organization is shaped by the worst behavior the leader is willing to tolerate. in the tsa, that is yet to be identified, because the men and women of the agency keep seeing examples of the worst behavior behavior being confronted by the media, not the transportation security administration leadership. and there seems to be no bottom for this failed leadership abyss. i would like to first state that the vast majority of the frontline employees at tsa are professional and truly care about the mission of the agency. most come in everyday and do a great job. but what you hear about is the 1% of failed leadership and that

is why i am here. for the record, i am a career senior management executive and for the past 36 years i have served successfully in my prior roles. i am a disabled veteran and the one basic principle that has followed me through my adult life, is that we do not lie, cheat, or steal and we do not tolerate those that do. it is that simple. i am not a novice when it comes to the important matters we will discuss. beyond four decades of leadership experience, i bring a special viewpoint. my doctor of management focuses on applied research and expanded leadership within the field of executive organizational management. my field of study has been on crisis leadership and organizational crises. the integration of orginizational management issues with technological considerations in the global environment, while considering the critical role of information technologies in all aspects of management practice has been a direct correlation to my executive leadership role at tsa. i am an expert in organizational integration.

the allocation of critical thinking skills and how to develop management high-performance teams and how to evaluate organizations, i have held top secret clearance for the entire 36 years of my service. as an intelligence professional, as an intelligence professional, this is an important note, as i will be identifying security incidences and violations that have occurred at tsa and explain where they have failed to act properly. my career professional status is good, i am in good standing with my agency and i am not pending an investigation. i am here by my own choice to inform you of those challenges. i am relaying this information so that the committee may better understand that the issues i raise apply to tsa misconduct. this is about the inability of tsa to focus on the mission due to the overwhelming complaints and personnel issues brought on by failed leadership. the refusal to address or hold senior leaders accountable is simply paralyzing the agency. the leadership imperative is missing at tsa. your role as an oversight committee, you should be greatly alarmed and concerned, because tsa employees are less likely to report operational security

issues out of fear of retaliation. no one who reports issues at tsa are safe. this prevents the necessary orginizational agility to respond to evolving threats and are likely to exploit opportunities to strike. this negates any operational improvement or process that prevents the agent from fulfilling the mission to protect the united states transportation system. and protecting the economic well-being from threats. retaliation from tsa senior leadership will move as systematically as reported by the media and historically acknowledged by the report 10-139, that was provided to you in october of 2009. the exact same thing happened to me then and it has happened to other leaders. senior organization leaders use retaliation as a means to silence those who report violations, security concerns or operational issues, by forcing