tv Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen News Conference CSPAN September 17, 2015 2:30pm-6:01am EDT
metalled when the epa's drinking water or maximum con testimony nant levels are based on total, not dissolved concentrations. and the graph doesn't have thinking about arsenic which we knew was over 823 times the maximum contaminant limit at the time of the spill. so if you look at that graph, and i had a second graph that my staff developed, i don't know if they're available in the record, but -- this is what would be a logorhythmic graph. and this is how you would represent the concentrations of lead using the same exact information epa presented in that first graph where you saw lead just like it was right at the zero. this last graph shows you the actual concentrations of lead from their data. and that orange line shows you
you what the maximum con testimony contaminant levels are. that was not done by scientists, that was a pr stunt immediately after the plume had hit. i don't think any sign te scien had any hand in this because it was so insulting to my staff. and that was the first of a number of instances where i don't think epa was forthcoming with information. >> if those are not part of the record, we'll make them as part of the record. so there are times that they provide you data in a way that is not really helpful. i'm assuming there are also times that the epa would not the provide you data or exclude you from the response process? >> yes, chairman. on friday august 21, this this is now well over two week after the spill occurred, we had been fighting back and forth for a
copy of the settlement sampling line. because the plume hooves with the water column. the water quality will rebound. but really the settlement sample prink ing tells what you has been left over. so this is on a staff to staff level. we we had been asking for this plan for weeks. and on the 2 1s, they claimed they couldn't provide it because it had business confidential information. and i was incredulous at that response. they had also claimed they were concerned about new mexico's open records law. we have a very broad public records act that does not contain the same degree of exclusions that the freedom of information act allows. so they were concerned about the breadth of our public records
act and that we would be disclosing more information than would otherwise be required. and i'd be happy to supplement the records with documents. >> you guys are too transparent. >> yeah, that was essentially one of the concerns that was raised. >> let's me ask you about the department of interior, forest service, bia. what was their reaction? could they have been more helpful? >> on friday morning at about 5:00 a.m., i was in the area and i did speak to some kind of lower -- local staff, two people there. we had asked them to allow more water -- to release more water from the navajo lake in order to help preserve two of the endangered species in the area, colorado is pike minnow and racer back sucker. and they acted first without -- high sense is they just acted on
their own. other than that contact that we initiated right away,sense is t their own. other than that contact that we initiated right away, i'd say interior's involvement was nonexistent other than seeing the press release that they're now investigating and i don't reallyin investigating. >> that's one of the reasons why you were hoping they would be part of the panel today and they chose not to be to answer those questions like what are you planning on doing. has e chpa been any more straightforward in the issue of reimbursement in the costs to new mexico? >> no. and i think -- we were -- last week i was really taken aback when lower level staffers at epa reached out to lower level -- and lower level, obviously just referring to the organization chart. but these are nonmanagement employees. epa had made some contact to a couple of my staffers as well as
a couple of staffers from the homeland security trying to gather information about the total costs that were whiexpend abouted related to this. and the navajo nation as well as the state of new mexico, state of colorado, state of utah, others have -- are considering legal action. it really was as an attorney myself, it was very surprising to me that they would seek to try to gather this information in that manner. i would expect that it would be done at a high level. i instructed my staff and the governor instructed all other staff that communication needs to be flowing through leadership at a leadership level and that we weren't going to communicate in that way. it just seemed like kind of bad faith. i certainly wouldn't as a lawyer, that's not the tactics i would use in litigation to kind of secretly or quietly try to reach out for info without contacting a manage management
level employee p. >> dr. wolk, let's me ask you, as well, epa said as far as notification that they could have done a better job of tho notification. were you fortunate to have somebody that was in the right place at the right time that heard it? >> we were fortunate enough to have a member of our state department of natural resources there at the site who activated our notification system in-state through our spill line. and so we were able to follow our protocol with regard to in-state notifications for downstream users. >> so what you really did is you for the notification by sir ren dwipity. new mexico didn't know about it until southern ut evees recogni it. and navajo nation, who actually
notified you? >> we were notified by state of new mexico. >> and then you notified utah, as well is th? >> yes. >> so when epa talks about their notification process, it was basically nonexistent. s they didn't notify squat. we did hao have one other membe i'm stretching here it see if i can get one other person to ask some questions. there is also -- is she coming? all right. let me just kind of pontificate will this if i could. we have also had votes that are called, so we will end this very quickly. i appreciate the notification and i want to emphasize the fact that you have three districts of the epa involved and they also were very late in getting notified. the people on the ground doing that kind of work, they didn't
have a great notification process either. so i'll give her the last chance of asking some questions, but let me just say that i have tried to emphasize how frustrated that i am that the epa insisted to having their own panel that consumed three of the four and a half hours of which we have been here. i don't actually allow that in my committee because i think it's important that the administration or any administration actually sits at the same table with those people over whom they make decisions. and had your testimony which i think is riveting and far more informative than the last three hours, had your testimony been given at the same time, we could have had the chance of actually going back to administrator mccarthy and maybe try and get at some of the root issues that are here. i think sometimes we are saying the same words but wie're not
meaning the same words. and that's why i tried to emphasize that so significantly. to me -- and it's not just ms. mccarthy, it's the entire administration that believes they have to be separate and have to go first. i find that arrogant and disgusting. so i want to apologize for the fact that the four of you were cooling your heels so long because the testimony you've given and the questions that you have answered i think were fascinating and they would have been beneficial not only for all of the members would are here at the beginning to have heard, but it would be good for the entire epa entourage to actually hear the responses that you've given because in many cases they are at sharp contrast with what epa is telling us has or has not taken place. that's my last rant for the day. i'll recognize you for the last questions before we go vote. >> thank you very much to for your patience and providing me the last word, if you will.
which is lquite an honor.to for your patience and providing me the last word, if you will. which is quite an honor.o for yr patience and providing me the last word, if you will. which is quite an honor. for yo patience and providing me the last word, if you will. which is quite an honor. thank you for being aware and involved in doing everything we can to help clean up and look at how we hit gate these kinds of issues in the future and also address the long term impacts. i have a couple of questions and the first is to our own secretary flynn, i'm dwlited to have you here. you were very involved from the very beginning as soon as you received notice, your office has been instrumental in assisting the epa and also new next mexicans to address these issues. although the data shows that the surface water contamination is now back to pre-spill revlevelse know that the concentration of
arsenic, cadmium, and many levels settled at the bottom of river. while i would love to control the natural flow of rivers and sediment movement and weather conditions, i think it is critical that we prepare for the long term environmental consequences and impacts and that we need to continue to monitor and to collect data and to do the research so that we know that we are protecting the long term environmental and health impacts for new mexicans and surrounding states' populations. how, secretary flynn, i know that you're working with the coalition of stakeholders, i want you to tell us a little bit more about that and to tell me how i can help you make sure that you keep that coalition together and to continue their important work. >> congresswoman, first of all, thank you so much for your interest and all of your time. you've been extremely generous on every issue that we've ever
worked on together. so i really appreciate that. and i appreciate the question. i think we do it the same way that you and i have personally tackled some of these issues before such as the fuel spill covering albuquerque. the way that we've tackled that problem is by including local communities, including local expertise that we have available through our public institutions and our national laboratories, and by including local stakeholder groups. the state of new mexico has developed a long term monitoring plan with multiagencies and multi groups. we have a number of outstanding ngos in the area like the animas watershed group, new mexico state university, new mexico tech, university of new mexico. we have state resources. so we have the expertise in our state as you are fully aware of. it's how do we coordinate that effort and most importantly get
it funded. so i think those are -- we would like -- >> and your opinion, secretary flynn, is that if left to its own, and i understand that the financial implications for the federal government are significant. but it is their responsibility. that if we don't push for that issue, that there may not be those kinds of investments and representing as we both do a very poor state the notion that we can pick up a $200,000 or $300,000 annual effort, and i may not get that number right, so claire fee please, that needs to be in their plan back to us about how they propose to continue to monitor and assess the environmental and health impacts of this spill. >> congresswoman, i think that their plan should be to support our plan. so i really don't -- i'm not really -- i don't think the fox should be guarding the hen house here. they created the situation. we would never allow a private
entity that we're regulating to do its own investigation of itself and accept those results. in order to really build public confidence in the outcome of the long term monitoring plan, there needs to be an independent entity like multi -- >> right. and i'm running out of time and i totally agree. i just want to make sure that i thank again president begaye and your incredible work. i'm very upset that the epa took even longer to notify the navajo nation. i appreciate the work by our two senators to look at notification legislation. and because i'm running out of time, perhaps the best thing is -- i intend to support you and i think there will be many members of congress and i hope it's a bipartisan effort to require the epa to have much better relationships and a government to government recognizing the sovereignty of the navajo nation and that you should expect from your federal government and the state that level of one to one collaboration so that you have your plan, your efforts and your own independent process and that should be respected and
supported, sir. you're welcome. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'm sure private citizens hope that same thing would take place. let me thank the four witnesses for being here. i appreciate the long distance you've traveled, for how long you stayed here. your written testimony is part of the record. your oral testimony was excellent. there may be other questions that members may have of you. we will keep the record, official transcript -- what is it called in the record of the committee. record open for ten days. in which if there are questions, we may ask for your written responses within that time period. but again, we thank you for your testimony. i promise you both committees won't let this issue just be going through the cracks. we will maintain it until we get some definitive answers and some changes before we go forward. so with no other business, and without objection and since i'm
the only one here, no one will object to it, this committee stands adjourned. >> if you missed any of today's hearing, you can watch it again at cspan.org. the federal reserve decided today to keep interest rates unchanged. we take you live now to a news conference with fed chair janet yellen that began about 15 minutes ago. >> -- that have put downward pressure in the near term on inflation. we fully expect those further effects like the earlier moves in the dollar and in oil prices to be transitory, but there is a little bit of downward pressure on inflation and we would like to see some further developments and this importantly could include, is likely to include, further improvements in the labor market that would bolster our confidence that inflation will move back 2% over the
medium term. >> from the financial times. could i ask about the next meeting which is in october. do you view that as a live meeting even though there isn't going to be a scheduled press conference at that time, and what kind of developments would you need to see to be confident in moving in the near term? is it more important the financial markets or is it more to do with the upcoming data? >> so as i've said before, every meeting is a live meeting where the committee can make a decision to move to change our target for the federal funds rate. that certainly includes october. as you know and i've stressed previously, were we to decide to do that, we would call a recepr briefing and you've participated in an exercise to make sure that you would know how to
participate in that press briefing should it happen. so, yes, october remains a possibility. and we will be looking at incoming departments both financial and economic to try to make sure we feel really that the u.s. economy is doing well. i want to emphasize domestic developments have been strong. we see domestic demand growing at a solid pace. the labor market continuing to improve. of course we will watch incoming data to confirm our expectation that that will continue. and we of course will watch global financial and economic developments. i can't give you a recipe for exactly what we're looking to see, but as we say, we want to see continued improvement in the
labor market and we would like to bolster our confidence that inflation will move back to 2%. and of course further improvement in the labor market does serve that purpose. there could be other things we would see that could bolster that confidence. but further improvement in the labor market will serve to do that. >> from the "l.a. times." there were a group of protestors out here, a similar group at jackson hole. they and others have warned the fed not to raise the rate because out of concern that the labor market is not fully healed, wages haven't risen fast enough. what impact if any has that had on you and your colleagues and your decision today? >> so we have been receiving advice from a large number of economists and interested groups. and that is of course
appropriate and we value hearing the opinions of many different groups and individuals with different perspectives p but, look, at the end of the day, it's the end of the day it's the committee's job to come together to analyze the data we have on the economy, to decide how it affects the outlook and deliberate and arrive at a committee judgment about the appropriate path of policy. and that's what we did today.v0> as i said, i although we are close to many participants and the median estimate of the longer run normal rate of unemployment, at least my own judgment, and this has been true for a long, is that there are additional margins of slack, particularly relating to very high levels of part time,
involuntary employment and labor force participation that suggests that at least to some extent the standard unemployment rate understate the degree of slack in the labor market. but we are getting closer, the labor market has improved and, as i've said in the past, we don't want to wait until we're fully met both of our objectives to begin the process of tightening policy given the lags in the operation of monetary policy. >> thank you. kate davidson from the wall street journal. do you think over the past two months since your last meeting that you've gotten closer to or further away from the goals? and you received a subpoena in relation to september 12 policy
meeting. are you any closer to complying with that? have you turned over any information to congress? >> so your first question was have we come closer or moved further away from our inflation goal. so we've used the same language, which is that we expect to achieve or 2% goal over the medium term. and i would say although as we say in our statement, recent developments seem likely to put some downward pressure, we're after all way below our inflation target, but an important reason for that is that declines in import prices reflecting the preesh yas of the dollar and declines in energy prices are holding down inflation well below our target and well below core inflation. we expect those effects to be transitory and with will
anchored inflation expectations, we expect inflation to move back to 2%. now, in the intermeeting period, we have seen some further appreciation of the dollar and some further dunn ward pressure on energy prices and that creates a bit of further drag on inflation that i would view as transitory. it's very likely to be transitory. so i continue and the committee continues to expect that inflation will move back to 2%. so this should be a small thing. and in the meantime the labor market has continued to improve. so a tighter labor mark, a labor market moving toward full employment is one that historically has generated upward pressure on inflation.
so that on the other hand, we've had a long period in which inflation has been running below our objective. i consider it and the committee does, very important that we achieve our inflation objective and defend against inflation that is persistently above our inflation objective and also persistently below our inflation objective. and we want to have not only an expectation but a good degree of confidence that that will occur. we did take note in the statement of a decline in inflation compensation. and it's hard to get a direct read on inflation expectations out of these measures. they can be push and the treasury and the tips market and other issues pertaining to risk premia.
but we have taken note of that and i would say that's something that has caught our attention and is a factor that we're watching. so we'd like to have a little built more confidence but i would not interpret developments during the intermeeting period as significantly undermining confidence. and the labor market is really important, that as it continues o. >> oh, i'm sorry, you asked about the september 12 leak. we are working very closely with house financial services committee that's requested information to satisfy their request. we're working very closely with them. >> "new york times." the economic projections you all released today show committee
members expect roughly a three-year period in which the unemployment rate will be at its lowest sustainable level and yet inflation will not rise above 2%. that seems extraordinary. could you talk about why as a moment ago you said why is inflation going to be so weak for so long under those circumstances? and does it indicate that when you are projecting basically much of a decade has passed without eaching its target, does indicate you've failed to do enough it revive this economy in recent years. >> we have been very focused doing objective and after we took the funds rate down to zero, as you know, we put in place a number of other extraordinary measures, including forward guidance and
large scale asset purchases in order to speed the recovery and attain both our inflation objective and our maximum employment objective. and, i mean, when you look at the projection, you see, as you mentioned, that we see sufficient growth to push the unemployment rate. it's already very close to participants' estimates of its longer run normal level. we expect the unemployment rate to fall slightly or at least participants project that it will fall slightly below that level. as that occurs, we would expect ha haeb, to diminish over time. and we would hope to see some
decline in the portion of slack that's in part time, involuntary employment. now, inflation is going back in our projection to 2%. it takes 2018 to get there, it's awfully close in 2017 and it's not terribly far away even next year. we have very large drags from import prices and energy prices. and over the next year or so, those things should dissipate and the behavior of inflation should mainly, if our understanding of the inflationary process is correct, and if inflation expectations are well anchored to which i believe they are, as the labor market heals and as that healing progresses, we will see further upward pressure on inflation. that's what we expect.
now, it's a slow process, it's characterized by lags and that's why it takes a few years as the unemployment rate falls-- falls and overshoots the target levels. over the median term, we want to see inflation get back to 2%. we believe the policies we're following are designed to accomplish that and will do so.
>> hi. elan from "the washington post." i want to piggy back and bring up the old thresholds of 2.5 inflation as the period in which the fed promised to keep interest rates low. that has sort of assumed or suggested that the fed was comfortable with inflation rising above 2% but you just said moments ago you don't want to wait until inflation actually hits your target before you are ready to lift off. is there a shift in how much inflation the fed is willing to accept. >> 2% is our objective. 2% is not a ceiling on inflation. so we're not trying to push the inflation rate above 2. it's always our objective to get back to 2. but 2% is not a ceiling and if it were a ceiling, you would
have to be conducting a policy that on average would hold the inflation rate below 2%. that is not our policy. we want to see the inflation rate get back to 2% as rapidly as we can. but there are lags in on the impact of monetary policy on the economy and if we waited until inflation is back to two, that would probably mean that unemployment had declined well below our estimates of the natural rate and only then did we start to begin to -- and the word tighten monetary policy i don't think is really right because we have an immensely accommodative monetary policy in place. so let me say just to begin to diminish the extraordinary degree of accommodation for monetary policy, we would be
overshoot -- we would likely overshoot substantially our 2% objective and we might be faced with then having to tighten policy in a way that could be disruptive to the real economy. and i don't think that's a desirable way to conduct policy. >> gina from the "bloomberg news." you mentioned earlier there's always going to be uncertainty in the global economy yet it seems that unserbity has kept up from hiking rates this month. so that's a very hard question
at the end of the day what we're focused on are two things: the past for employment and whether or not we're feel confident that we're on a road that will take us to our maximum employment objective and whether or not we see the risks detainings that that -- it's really through that filter that we're trying to look at uncertainty. of course there are many uncertainties in the global economy, but we're asking ourselves how economic and financial developments in the global economy affect the risk to our outlook for our two goals and whether or not they create unbalanced risks that.
>> jerry barnes, fox news. could you talk a little more specifically about what foreign developments you discussed in the meeting today. what you're concerned about. we all assume it might be china. that was in the july minutes. are you concerned about the chinese economy throw sloeing, the markets there? do you have any concerns about the european economy and then related to stock markets, could i ask you how you feel about u.s. equity markets right now because you did talk about your concerns about them back in may. you saw they were generally quite high and you were worried about potential dangers in u.s. prices but now equity prices have pulled back. >> we reviewed developments in all important areas of the world
but we're focused particularly on china and emerging markets. now we've long expected, as most analysts have, to see some slowing in chinese growth over time as they rebalance their economy. and they've planned that and i there the question was whether or not there might be a risk of a more abrupt slow down than most analysts expect. and i think developments that we saw in financial markets in august in part reflected concerns that there was down side risk to chinese economic performance and perhaps concerns about the deftness to which
policy makers were addressing those concerns. in addition, we saw substance downward prices on oil prices and kmondity markets. those have had an impact on many emerging market economies, that are important producers of commodities, as well more and, declining commodity prices, declining poverty privacy. will being it's important to have markets that have been negatively affects by precious
on l, can and western did there but not just china, emerging markets more generally and how they may still over o the united states. in it -- so we don't want to respond to market turbulence. the fed should not be responding to the ups and downs of the markets and it is certainly not our policy to do so. but when there are significant financial developments, it's ibt on us to ask ourselves what is causing them. and of course while we can't know for sure, it seemed to us as though concerns about look.
so they have concerned us in part because they take us to the global outlook and how that will affect us. and to some extent, look, we have seen a tightening of financial conditions during, as i mentioned, during the intermeeting period this does represent some tightening financial conditions. now, in and of itself, it's not the end of story in terms of our policy because we have to put a little of different pieces together. we are looking at, as i emphasized, a u.s. economy that has been informing well and impressing us by the pace at which it's creating jobs and the strength of domestic demand. so we have that, we have some concerns about negative --
negative impacts from global veflts and some tightening of financial conditions, we're trying to put all of that together in a picture. i think importantly we say in our statement that in spite of all of this, we continue to view the risks to economic activity in labor markets as balanced. so it's a lot of different pieces, different cross currents, some strengthening the outlook, some creating concerns but overall no significant change in the economic outlook. >> just to piggy back on the global considerations, as you say, the u.s. economy has been growing. are you worried that given the global interconnectedness, the low inflation globally, all of the other concerns that you just
spoke about that you may never escape from this zero-bound situation? >> i would be very surprised if that's the case. that is not the way i see the outlook or the way the committee sees the outlook. can i completely rule it out? i can't completely rule it out but really that's an extreme down side risk that in no way near the center of my outlook. >> reporter: michael mckee from bloomberg radio. i'm wondering what the argument is for raising rates this year, as suggested by the dot plot because even allowing for long and variable lags, you're not forecasting an inflation problem
that would seem to suggest the need for a steeper and faster rate path for at least a couple of years. >> so if we maintain a highly accommodative monetary policy for a very long time from here and the economy performs as we expect, namely it's strong and the risks that are out there don't materialize, my concern will be that we will have much more tightening in labor markets than you see in these projections and the lags will be probably slow but eventually we will find ourselves with a substantial overshoot of our inflation objective and then we'll be forced into a kind of
stop-go policy. we will have pushed the economy so far, it will have become overheated and we will then have to tighten policy more abruptly than we like. and instead of having throw, steady growth, improvement in the maybe market and continued improvement and good performance in the labor market, i don't think it go's good policy to th have to slam on the brakes and risk a downturn in the economy. >> reporter: mike derby with news wires. one of your colleagues in the dot plots said they like to see negative interest rates. didn't expect to see that. what do you make of negative interest rates as a potential source of new stimulus in the
fed -- should it be part of the fed's tool kit? >> negative interest rates is not something we considered very seriously at all today, it was not one of our main policy options. but one participant in the committee would like to see additional accommodation to provide that and propose doing so by moving interest rates negative. that's something we've seen in several european countries. it's not something we talked about today. look, if -- i don't expect that we'veor but if the outlook were
to change in a way that most of my colleagues and i do not expect and we found and that would be something we would evaluate in that kind of context. >> mart ekruts inc. talking o her is that still your expectation? and also and what cassed the august tush u la, at any time. >> so you asked me about my own expectation. and i'd say i don't want to -- i speak on behalf of the committee and try to explain committee
decisions, and we don't identify who's who in terms of our projections of the funds rate and i don't want to change that and have the focus being on my personal views on the path i have put a and i think that's a fair summary of the committee's assessment of things. you asked me also about uncertainty about our own policies -- >> not uncertainty. just the fact of market turmoil, a lot of people were concerned about it. you didn't mens that. >> i think the main drivers of
the turbulence have been concerns about the global outlook. that's how i read it. but i note that of course there is uncertainty about fed policy. as i mentioned, we're well aware that there's been a huge focus on the decision today and, you know, i would ask you to appreciate that there are a lot of cross-currents in economic and financial developments that on deciding what the appropriate course of policy is and we don't make continuous decisions every single day about our policy. we meet periodically, we do our darnedest to pull and to exchange views and arrive -- i
think it's an unfortunate state of affairs but i understand, i think it's natural when you're at a point when the conditions may be falling in place for there to be a shift in policy. it's natural that that should happen. and it does to some extent contribute to uncertainty in financial markets. >> michelle ferry, bbc news. you talked a lot about the strong dollar. i wondered do you see your policy actions affecting affecti
affecting. >> so u.s. monetary policy is directed toward trying to achieve the goals that congress has laid out porous. when we -- when monetary policy tightens and interested oot or the expectation that that's coming, so monetary policy often has some effect on the exchange rate and it's not in, in my view, the main channel by which monetary policy works. it's one of several channels on which monetary policy works. do t does have some effect on
exchange rates and, yes, we need to take that into account. >> reporter: greg from market watch. i want to see if you would shift gears a little bit and talk about the housing market. you say in the statement the housing market has improved. how much are you counting on the housing market for growth goog forwa forward. >> we are envisioning further improvements in the housing market. it remains very depressed. housing seems consistent with underlying demographics, especially in an economy that's creating jobs and we have lots of people who are still doubled up and demand for housing should be there and should materialize as the job market improves and
income growth improves. so are we counting on it, housing is now a very small sector of the economy. it is not the driver of -- it is not the key driver in my own forecast of ongoing improvements in the u.s. economy. it plays supporting role but consumer spending is the main driver, bolstered by, you know, decent outlook for investment spending. but i would continue to expect housing to improve. remember, we're envisioning, if things go as we anticipate, a pretty gradual path of increases
in. on the other hand as time passes and we move beyond the window in which short rates are zero, it will be natural for long rates to rise some. and of course we recognize that the housing market is sensitive to market rates. it is an important factor. but that's something that of course we're taking into account in thinking about what's the appropriate path of policy. >> reporter: nancy marshall again with marketplace. you mentioned you've got a lot of unsolicited advice from folks outside but there's another side that says the feds should raise interest rates because keeping rates so low for so long has exacerbated the wealth gap. these people say low interest rates mainly benefit the
wealthy. >> well, i guess i really don't see it that way. it is true that interest rates affect asset prices, but they have complex effect through balance sheets, through liabilities and assets. to me the main thing that an accommodative monetary policy does is put people back to work. and since income inequality is surely exacerbated by a high -- having high unemployment and a weak job market that has the most profound negative effects on the most vulnerable individuals, to me putting people back to work and seeing a strengthening of the labor market that has a disproportionately favorable effect on portions of our population, that's not something that increases income
inequality. there have been a number of studies that have been done recently that have tried to take account of many different ways in which monetary policy acting through different parts of the transmission mechanism affect inequality. and there's a lot of guesswork involved in different analysis can come up with different things but a pretty recent paper that's quite comprehensive concludes that fed policy has not exacerbated income inequality. >> okay, john and then steve with the last question. >> reporter: what role did a possible government shutdown this year play in your decision today to delay the rate hike? and what would you say to lawmakers who are pursuing the
strategy yet again? >> well, it played absolutely no role in our decision. i believe it's the responsibility of congress to pass a budget, to fund the government, to deal with the debt ceiling so that america pays its bills. we have a good recovery in place that's really making progress and to seekonk take actions that would endanger that progress, i think that would be more than unfortunate. so to me that's congress's job. congress charged with us with forming an economic outlook that is focused on the medium term and taking appropriate policy actions based on that outlook and that's what we have done in the past and will continue to do going forward.
>> madam chair, steve beckner. you said in your opening statement that helps add to your accommodative monetary stance on top of the near zero federal funds rate by delaying rate hikes logically are you not also delaying reducing the balance sheet? a year ago they said they would not start shrinking the balance sheet until they start raising the funds rate. is it a concern you started raising rates on the balance sheet? >> we have been discussing
reinvestment policy. our normalization principles indicated that we would not begin to either reduce or eliminate reinvestments until after we have begun to raise the federal funds rate. our principal said that the exact timing of that would depend on economic and financial conditions and our evaluation of them. and that guidance continues to be accurate. we don't have anything further on it. but it is certainly true that we have committed to wait to begin running down our balance sheet until after we've begun the process of normalization. so, yes, if we defer, this is not a very large matter that we're talking about from a
stimulus point of view but it is to some extent true that if we delay raising the rate, it probably maybe delays the timing at which that process will begin. we've not given some fixed amount of time at so many months after we start and we're continuing to discuss what the appropriate timing would be of that policy and haven't made any further decisions on that just yet. fed chair janet yellen's news conference can be seen again later on the c-span network. stocks moved higher after the federal reserve announced that it's keeping interest rates unchanged for the time being, as they ended a two-day meeting,
fed officials indicated they're carefully monitoring the aftershocks from a slowdown in china and other emerging markets, in addition to struggles by europe to -- the fed is keeping the rates at the current rate. while the u.s. market is solid, recent global developments may restrain economic activity and further drag down already low inflation. fed policy makers also slightly lowered their projections for growth and inflation for the next two years and reduced their estimate for long-run unemployment to 4.9% from 5%. >> fresh off last night's republican presidential debate, donald trump will hold a town hall meeting in rochester, new
hampshire. that will be on c-span2. >> saturday morning we're live from manchester, new hampshire, and will include hillary clinton, bernie sanders, lincoln chaffe, martin o'malley and robert lessic. >> on book tv sunday afternoon, supreme court justice steven breyer talks about his recent book and the challenges facing the judiciary. and saturday night at 11:00, former vice president dick cheney and his daughter, former deputy assistant secretary of state liz cheney on their book
capitol hill becoming the first pontiff to address both the house of representatives and the senate during a joint meeting. watch live on tv or online at c-span.org. >> next regulator and industry leaders testify about proposed federal rules for unmanned aerial vehicles known as drones. the federal aviation administration is allowing some of these aircraft to fly under a waiver while the rules are finalized but a number of rules over privacy and safety remain. amazon.com wants to deliver products via drones and within of their officials also testifies at this june hearing.
committee on oversight and government reform will come to order. the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. i'm excited about this hearing. i appreciate the panelists that are here today. this is the first in a series of hearings the oversight and government reform committee intends to have as we talk about emerging technologies. one of the great competitive advantages for the united states of america is our leadership in information technology, it's our leadingship in creativity, it is the entertainment industry. we lead in a lot of different areas. and one of the things that the united states has done has been a bastion, it's been a great place for entrepreneurs to come up with creativity and allow that -- those ideas to enter the marketplace and thrive.
they create whole new industries, they create literally millions of jobs and billions in revenue and income. and there are also some interesting public policy issues that we need to discuss. as you have new innovative companies and ideas and products and services that consumers are demanding and that the blackwants, then we have an opportunity i think to make sure that we're fostering that growth and creating an atmosphere where those businesses and entrepreneurs can thrive. so today we're going to start talking about drones and the next frontier for commerce is that because it does offer some, sighting possibilities but it also does create some challenges and some things that as a public and a society we need to talk through. right now drones are being wide live used. first responders are using them to deliver food and medical supplies in areas hit by disaster. law enforcement envisions using drones to locate missing
persons. i in the state of utah, we have a state of utah, for instance, that is a very big rural component where we have at times raging wildfires and massive public lands. we have people who travel from out of stayed and want to enjoy our national parks like arches and canyon lands, yet they get lost sometimes and it's terrain that's very difficult to traverse. maybe drones can do that. companies are using drones in innovate of ways to inspect infrastructure. i think of alaska and the pipeline. there are other places where drones can be of great help. these drones are being used to monitor oil and gas pipelines, using they at music festivals and giving the real estate
industry a whole new perspective on property. you have big innovative companies that just a decade or two weren't even in business, weren't even around, companies like amazon and google were researching and developing systems that would allow merchants and customers to deliver and retrieve packages via drones. this is a huge massive opportunity for the united states of america. on february 15 of this year, the f.a.a. released a proposed rule on the commercial use of drones. this came after years of delay on the heels of a june 2014 report by the department of transportation inspector general that criticized the department for being behind in its efforts
to develop drones. developers have been forced to either limit their testing to small confines of indoor spaces in the united states or to test overseas in a country where the rules are more flexibility. in march of 2014, google's so-called project wing starred testing deliveries of drones but did so in australia. a year later amazon began tresing drone deliveries in canada after months of waiting for approval here in the united states states of america so they could test real world environments in the united states. >> according to the u.a.v. trade association and there is a u.a.v. trade association, every year it is delayed, the united states loses more than $10 billion in economic impact. i recognize that privacy and safety concerns exist and i personally share many of those.
i don't want my neighbor flying a drone in my back yard peering in my window and i don't want law enforcement using drones for constant surveillance, particularly on private property. but are there appropriate using for drones in law enforcement, say the super bowl or major league baseball, whatever it might be? yes, there are appropriate uses. but can they be overused? yes. that's whyy need to talk candidly about the parameters of that. i also believe there are states rights. states have a say in this. at what point does the airspace start to become a federal issue? what is the federal nexus? at what point is it a state issue? maybe these drones are going to land. i think the state and municipalities probably want to have a stay tsai in that as well. we must get it right. the opportunities truly are limitless. this is why we're having the discussion today. we have a leader in the transportation industry, the
former chairman of the transpore trags infrastructure committee who is the chair of our subcommittee on transportation and physical as spents. i'd like to yield some time to mr. mica. >> thank you and i'll be brief. you've covered quite a bit. thank you for conducting this hearing, particularly at the full committee level. this does key manned not only the congress attention but the nation's attention. drones are here and u.a.v.s are here and that your here to stay. when we worked on f.a.a. reauthorization back in 2003, we -- which is not that long ago really, a dozen years ago, we never even talked about drones. and the last reauthorization about six, seven years ago we did direct f.a.a. to move forward with the rules.
and it's important. it's important first for safety. i think we've been very fortunate. we've had some near misses and we've had some hits but i think you can have the potential of having deadly and involving fatalities, incidents with so many. we now have so many of these u.a.v.s and drones in air, we now have thousands of them flying. the rules are sketchy. the rules are incomplete. looking over the progress that's been made and the rule has been semi finalized, it's not finalized. people have had a period to comment but it's still going to take, i'm told, at least another year to finalize that rule and get it in place.
in the meantime, again, we have the safety issue. today we're focusing on commercialization use of the drone. and i'm told that we lose as much as $10 billion a year in revenue for possible use of this technology with commercial applications. so we can't delay. i think this is good timing for the hearing. we'll find out where we are with the progress of the approval. and then some of the applications and then try to stay ahead of the game, which is our responsibility in congress, particularly on the commercialization side and the benefit of the american people. so with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. now recognize the distinguished ranking member, mr. cummings of maryland for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, for calling this hearing. this is a really interesting
hearing and one that i think is extremely important. drones are an exciting new technology with a lot of potential uses in the not-so-distant future. companies are developing new technologies to use drones to fight forest fires or even to deliver pizza however, mr. chairman, i share the same concerns as you and many other americans. i want the use of drones to be safe. and i want to make sure that the privacy interests of the american people are protected. as with any new ground breaking technology, our regulatory regime has not yet fully caught up with drones. and existing rules do not fully address concerns americans have. our goal must be to balance these concerns in a way that
allows for the robust development of these new technologies while ensuring that necessary safeguards are in place. in 2014 there were more than 9.5 million commercial airline flights carrying more than 850 million passengers in the united states, according to the bureau of transportation statistics. our aviation system is among the safest in the world. and obviously we must ensure that drones do not imperil the operation of our commercial airlines. allowing drones to fly in the airspace used by commercial jets is a long-term aspiration rather than an imminent possibility. however, although the f.a.a. has approved only a small number of drones to operate in the united
states airspace, the assistant inspector general of the department of transportation has testified to congress that airline crews have already reported seeing unmanned aircraft around airports. in some cases at altitudes above 2,000 feet. right now these do not appear to be a proven technology to ensure that an unmanned aircraft can act on its own to identify and avoid other aircraft. there also does not appear to be a proven technology to ensure that radio links between drones and their operators are maintained consistently. this could cause drones to crash or equal live dangerous, fly out of control. our aviation system does not allow a wide margin of error. a system to manage drone
traffic, even at low altitudes is still in the very early stages of development and is not ready for deployment. recognizing the limits of existing technology, the f.a.a. has proposed new legislation that would allow drones under 55 pounds to operate under 500 feet and less than 100 miles per hour. these rules would also require that drones fly within the line sight of their operators, would be allowed to operate only one drone at a time. the use of drones in the united states airspace also raises significant privacy concerns. drones have been used to gather wide variety of film footage of people and property. they have been used to gather realtime data on the movements of people without those people
even knowing that drones were present. this data can be stored indefinitely and it can be and lies ood -- a host of privacy concerns have not been fully addressedly currently or legal precedent. once it has been lost, privacy is not easily regained. successfully introducing drones into u.s. airspace would require all parties to strike a balance that threads numerous needle s carefully. i'm confident this can be achieved but it will take time and thought for analysis. i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. mr. chairman, you're absolutely right, we have to get this right
and we have to get it right in a bipartisan way and i look forward to doing that. with that i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. i'll hold the record open for five legislate of days for anybody who would like to make a statement. we'll recognize our panel of witnesses. we preesh all five of you today. we're policed to welcome michael whitaker, john cavolowsky, a phd and director of the aerospace programs off at the national aeronautics and space safety. michael wynn and mr. harley
geiger is the counsel at the center of technology. welcome all pursuant to committee rules. all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify. so if you please rise and raise your right hands? >> do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're go to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. we appreciate it if you would limit your verbal comments to five minutes. you'll see a light there that will give you an indication and then your full written statements will be entered into the record. we anticipate members after the hearing will have qfrs, we call them questions for the record,
and we hope you will respond to those as well. mr. whitaker, you are recognized for five minutes. >> i appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the safe integration of unmanned aircraft systems or u.a.f.s as we refer to them, in the national air space. aviation has always been an industry of innovation driven by new technology. unmanned aircraft are born from that same spirit of innovation. this technology has thousands of potential uses from agriculture to news gathering, firefighting and border patrol. it also introduces new risks into the air face. at the federal aviation administration, our challenge is to allow for this while maintaining the highest levels of safety. we've made great strides over the past year toward safely ind grating u.a.f.s into the largest
and complex aviation system in the world. f.a.a. has made significant progress in meeting milestones. perhaps most important among these accomplishments is the publication of the small u.a.f.s, notice of proposed rule making. this rule as proposed creates one of the most flexible regulatory frameworks in the world. we've received thousands of the comments and we're in the process of reviewing those now. issuing a final small u.a.f.s rule is one of our priorities. the f.a.a. continues to issue exemptions under section 333 of the 2012 act to allow for commercial activity in low-risk, controlled environments. currently the f.a.a. is on average issuing more than 50 section 333 exemptions each
week. we continue to work with our partners in g and industry to overcome the largest call call barriers to integration while ensuring the continued safety a about the capabilities and risks posed by uas. that is why leveraging research tools to provide faa additional data that could inform future standards. in december 2013 the faa selected six sites to test technology and operations. these test sites are providing valuable data to our tech center in new jersey. we recently announced the pathfinder program to study uas in circumstances beyond those currently being approved. for example, bnsf will use them for rail structure beyond visual lines sight.
they will tell us how we can expand beyond the parameters set forth in the proposed rule. beyond commercial applications, they have become increasingly available and affordable to the consumer, who are not trained a airports. the fa is taking a proactive research on the safe and responsible use of uas. we partnered with members of industry and the modeling community to issue the know before you fly campaign providing recreational operators with the information they need fly safely and responsibly. it has been responsible and several uas manufacturers include materials in their packaging. and a no drone campaign to raise awareness of the prohibition of flying unmanned aircraft near outside sporting events. in may, we built on that and
launched a public campaign to reinforce the message that the city itself and all communities constitute a no drone zone. while our preference is to educate operators about legal couple we will use enforcement action to gain compliance when appropriate. local law enforcement is in place to respond quickly. the united states has the safest aviation system in the world. and our goal is to integrate the new and important technology while maintaining that high level of safety. the faa has successfully integrated new technologies in our aviation system for more than 50 years. we will do the same with unmanned aircraft. we look forward continuing to work with congress and industry to achieve these common goals. thank you. >> thank you. we will hold questions until we have heard from all the
panelists. next we will hear from the director of airspace operations and safety programs at national aeronautics and space administration. welcome. and you're recognized, sir >> thank you. chairman, ranking member cummings and members of the committee, good morning and thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of nasa's aeronautic program and unmanned aircraft. nasa's strategic thrust defines our vision approach for supporting the integration of uas. the more extensive transform active changes that autonomous systems will bring over the near and far term. they owe great promise for the transformation of our system. we are witnessing the dawn of a new era, ushering in flight vehicles that are unimaginable today anding up entirely new commercial markets.
much the way jet engines did 60 years ago. nasa is performing research in concepts, technology and knowledge to the faa and other stakeholders to help them define the requirements, regulations and standards for safe, routine mass access. still, there are still significant barriers associated with autonomous systems. addressing these requires the complex systems to be comprehensively evaluated, to verify is and validate their operating as designed, allowing the faa to develop equipment standards. now, a significant part of the near term research work to safer integration is focused in three areas. void research is is helping to turn performance requirements for a certifiable system into a safe separation of uas with all vehicles operating the mass. second, developing secure,
robust reliable systems and protocols. third, addressing the design of ground control stations and displays for safety. to transfer our research findings, nasa has built effective partnerships with key stakeholders, certainly the f a. but the department of defense, department of homeland security, industry and academia as well. these partnerships, nasa is is supporting critical activities from the critical level to our subject experts. from midterm applications facilitating safe operations of the uas that are not actively controlled today, such as small uas. 55 pounds or lighter. operating at altitudes of 500 feet or below. in order to safely enable widespread civilian uas at lower altitudes, nasa's development in the system called uas traffic
management or utm. you can think of this much like today's surface management where vehicles operate within a rules based system, roads, lanes, signs, traffic lights. similarly, the uas system would provide airspace corridors, root planning and separation management. nasa will lead the research, development and testing. utilizing a series of prototypes or builds each increase anything ability. each will be evaluated in a demonstration in august of this year. also in late july, nasa is holding a utm convention to explore and define the needs of low altitude small uas operations. over 510 of these representing the stakeholder community, federal, state, local government and general public registered to attend. so through game changing
long-term research, nasa enables growing, stable, and transform active systems. partnerships built on clear roles and responsibilities, on long productive working relationships, and in close and continuous coordination for the specific needs of uas integration. as the challenges of uas evolve and emerge, nasa will continue to advance the research and develop the enabling technologies that will ensure the safe integration and increase the competitiveness of the u.s. civil aviation industry. so thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. i will be pleased to answer the community may have. >> we will withhold all questions until we hear all witnesses. paul meissner, vice president of global public policy with with amazon. welcome in. you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. president and mr. cummings for joining me.
policymakers should ex dishesly adopt rules of information. thank you for your attention to this important topic. amazon prime will deliver using small drones or uas. flying beyond line of sight under 500 feet and generally above 200 feet for takeoff and landing and weighing less than 55 pound total, small vehicles will take advantage of sophisticated sense and avoid technology, as well as a high degree of automation to safely operate at distances of 10 miles or more, well beyond visual line of sight. no country has yet adopted rules that would allow package deliveries. we are working with government agencies to develop appropriate rules. such rules must allow operations to take advantage of the core
capability of technology, which is to fly with minimal involvement beyond the line of sight of the human operator. it should set a level of safety but not mandating how that level must be met. safety is a top priority. a top priority we share with the faa and nasa. we are committed to mitigating safety risks. key organizations outside the outside, their risk is is performance based. tremendous opportunities for economic benefits that uas present. here in the united states, the fa also is is taking its uas responsibility seriously. they are grateful for what they are giving to this new technology. the fa a's small uas is a step forward as it goes forward to rule making. at the same time, the mprn has shortcomings because some of the
prohibitions maintained are not actual performance based. the rules would not establish a regulatory framework to permit operations in the united states. more specifically, respectfully disagree with the faa's current opinion to avoid principles and potential loss of present quote unique safety concerns. which thereby warrant delay consideration. although these safety concerns present particularly engineering challenges, they are not qualitatively different from other challenges facing small uas designers. so they should be assessed starting now resulting in performance based operating permissions. granted, regulators here and abroad cannot adopt rules beyond visual line of sight. that may take time. but american policymakers should have rules for future operations.
amazon believes that the faa should act expeditiously and ask that congress provide guidance to the agents and provide legal authority. first and foremost, they must be risk and performance based. suas rules should take in the risks of operation including, for example, the absence of passenger and crew, the lower kinetic energy of aircraft and very low operating and how they mitigates these risks. categorical prohibitions, for example, no nighttime operations or no operations beyond visual line of sight, make no sense and must be avoided. likewise, highly automated vehicles should be allowed to fly if they meet performance based safety requirements unless a single operator should be able to oversee operation of multiple small uas vehicles. given the interstate nature of operations, states and localities must not be allowed
to regulate suas that the faa has authorized, including with respect to airspace, purpose of operations, performance and operator qualifications. uniform federal rules must apply. in conclusion, i look forward to working with you and your committee and the faa to help adopt rules for operations that operate safety and system performance permitting drones to provide americans the next generation of commercial delivery service safely and is soon. thank you. i welcome your questions. >> thank you. and we will now hear from mr. brian wynn, unmanned systems vehicle injure. welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member cummings, members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to testify today. i represent the association for
unmanned vehicle systems international devoted significantly to advancing robotics committee. we have been a voice of unmanned systems more than 40 years. we have 7,500 members, including 600 corporate members. the unmanned aircraft industry is is poised to be one of the fastest growing in american history. our economic impact study found the first decade following u.s. integration will result in more than 82 billion in u.s. economic activity and create more than 100,000 new high-paying jobs. the faa modernization and reform act of 2012 established government and industry collaboration to advance system emerging sector. as part of this the faa is is working on finalizing rules for commercial and public use of this technology. the agency is also granting position for limited commercial use on a case case basis under 333 of the 2012 act.
but more can and should be done. despite these positive steps, we need to permit expanded uses of uas technology that pose no additional risk to the airspace system. for example, whether within the context of the rule through the reauthorization of by other means, we need to allow for beyond visual line of sight, nighttime operations, and operations over congested areas. otherwise, we risk stunting a still nascent industry. it is is advancing rapidly. in order to continue encouragingen know vacation and safety, we need to pass and sign into law a reauthorization measure before the current authorization expires in september. let me highlight a number of specific directions we would like to see going forward. a neutral framework.
regulations should be based on the risk profile of a particular uas operation rather than the platform being flown. for example, low-risk operations such as aerial surveys above rural farmland would be regarded as safe with minimal barriers regardless of specific technology or platform used. this flexible framework will accommodate rather than require new rules each time a new technology emerges. second, we support a comprehensive industry government research plan. there is a lot of good work already being done and better coordination will ensure we are maximizing the impact of these efforts. while the recently announced pathfinder program and center of excellence show great progress, we need better visibility on how they will fit into the larger integration picture. third, congress should consider making the faa uas test sites skwreubl for federal funding.
while these sites have been funding over a year, it will help give industry guidance and help incentive to better utilize the test sites. fourth, we support the development of a uas traffic management system. some commercial u a as operations will occur at low levels. this airspace may become complex. a traffic management system will integrate uas into the infrastructure and ensure the continued safety of the airspace for all users, manned and unmanned. finally, knowing that uas integration must be done in coordination with the next gen air transportation system, there is an opportunity to consider linking the two more effectively. we are pleased to see the need for more senior level with a new director and new senior adviser on u.s. integration and looking forward to working with those. u.s. technology is at an
exciting and pivotal stage with new applications being contemplated nearly every day. unmanned aircraft systems increase human potential, allowing us to execute dangerous or difficult tasks safely and efficiently. thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. >> thank you. and we'll get back to you for questions. mr. geiger, advocacy director and senior counsel for the center of democracy and technology. welcome in. you're recognized. >> chairman, ranking member cummings and members of the committee, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to testify today on the subject of unmanned aircraft systems, also known as drones. i am harley geiger, senior county for the cdd. nonpartisan, nonprofit dedicating to preserving civil liberties, privacy and free
speech. i have three overarching points i want to make with regard to drones. my testimony focusing on privacy. clearly, there are many other issues associated with unmanned aircraft. first, unmanned aircraft are a promising technology. but have potential to erode civil liberties. second, current law do's not provide strong privacy protection from government for private unmanned aircraft. and the lack of privacy protection undermines public trust which holds back the industry. third, to earn public is acceptance of uas, both government and the uas industry should fully address civil liberties issues through a combination of legislation and an industry code of conduct. my time remaining, i will expand on the points. we want to see it used for commerce, journalism, disaster relief, scientific research and more. however, neither the deposit nor
the industry should ignore pervasive that underlines civil liberties. law enforcement establishes a dragnet that tracks individuals chilling the public's right to free expression, free association and assembly. at the same time a network of commercial unmanned aircraft record footage of every american who steps out of her home, even if they remain on private party. this may seem like a far-fetched future to some. however, few existing laws would stand in the way. we believe that prolonged physical surveillance of individuals in public places violates fourth amendment prlgs. however, the supreme court has repeatedly held that americans have no expectation of privacy
from aerial surveillance. the supreme court held that the fourth amendment is not violated when a police helicopter looks into the interior of a private building through a hole in the ceiling without a warrant. there is very little protection from government use of uas outdoors. law enforcement use is the most acute concern that the public has with uas. and to address the public's concern, congress should pass legislation that, among other things, establishes due process standards for law enforcement use of uas. and congress should limit use to instances where the government has a warrant or other reasonable exceptions. cdt pwhreupbgs preserving the american privacy act would provide strong due process without reasonably burdening
scientific research. cdt supports the bills and urges congress to pass them swiftly. when it comes to private sector uas, common law privacy torts provide americans from some protection out of the home but only if it is highly offensive to a reasonable person. any government regulation of private uas must not violate our first amendment right to take photographs from public places. an industry code of conduct would help protections from private uas where direct regulation cannot. but it will be effective only if the industry agrees to adopt a strong code. it does not cut it. the code should establish reasonable limits on personally identifiable information. it should create a publicly accessible registry of data collection policies. though there should be reasonable for those policies
and prevent hijacking and unauthorized damage to uas systems. finally, cdt recommends that the spree explore technical measures to protect physical space and enhanced transparency for private systems. thank you very much for holding this hearing and i look forward to your questions >> we'll go right to questions. as i mentioned having been involved in this a little while, back in 2003 when we did one of the first faa reauthorizations there was nothing in the bill. it is amazing how technology does change our lives. it's amazing how government does fail to keep up with changes in technology and craft a law to match that. we fall further and further behind it seems. in 2012 had they did the last reauthorization, i tried to get specific and hold people's feet to the fire. we do that by putting milestones
and deadlines. in the law we said, for example, mr. whitaker, we said required planning for integration. this is the law that was passed. comprehensive plan not later than 270 days after the enactment of this act. the consultation represent the agency and agencies. basically would come up with a plan. was that deadline met? >> yes, sir. both a comprehensive plan and five-year road map were developed. they were both published in 2013. >> 2013, okay. further hold the feet to the fire and some things have been done, as we pointed out, as i mentioned earlier, we put a deadline under paragraph 1 shall provide safe integration, unmanned systems as soon as
practical but not later than september 30th, 2015. that's the deadline they put in there. is that deadline going to be made. >> you certainly won't have full integration. >> but the deadline is not going to be met? >> no. >> when do you predict the deadline will be met? >> we're taking the issue in manageable bites, if you will. >> you testified you're granting exemptions and waivers at a pretty rapid rate. what did you say, 50 a week? >> yes, sir. >> but that's not what we intended. we intended for basically to have the rule in place by september. it's not going to be met. now we are going to do an faa bill. we should hold our feet to the fire again. i don't know how you hold the feet to the fire. pause we missed the deadline that we set in here. but we're going to have to do something. is something we're missing that
we haven't done that could provide you with assets to move forward and make certain this happens as soon as possible? what's your deadline now? we have broken the task into pieces, if you will. >> when will it be done? what was directed by law? >> the rule was issued earlier this year in february. comments were closed. we have received 4,500 -- approximately 4,500 comments >> all of that is part of the record. when will we be done? >> we have to a adjudicate. we will clear the rule out by the end of the year. >> 16, 17. >> the rule will be in place within the year. >> within a year. okay on. mark that down, staff. we could do a hearing a year from now and see if they have completed the traffic. the problem we have in the meantime is, again, you're granting exceptions and waivers. it is sort of a spotty policy that's in place.
and some folks talked about addressing risk. that's the most important thing. we are falling further behind other countries. mr. meissner, what have you seen? this hearing is is is about commercialization and moving forward. are we -- is the u.s. following further behind? i cited $10 billion. a guess a billion dollars a year for the next 10 years we would lose by not having commercial rules in place for operation of drones. >> u.s. planning is not as aggressive as it is in other countries. >> there are some questions. we had this question, staff. who basically is in charge of setting the rules for privacy?
is it the individual states, law enforcement, the department of justice? is this an faa responsibility and the rules that you're crafting? mr. whitaker, maybe you could shed light on how we protect people's privacy. >> the president issued a memorandum in february designating the national telecommunication administration has the lead on this issue. they have opened for public comment. i think that has closed. we are certainly a stakeholder in this conversation. >> so we need to call and ask them for the rules protecting privacy. >> they have the lead. >> it is multijurisdictional. it is beyond just the federal level to protect privacy, isn't it? >> aviation has always been a federal initiative and up state authorities. >> a drone that's operating under 500 feet, whose responsibility would that be? also federal? or can you -- i mean, local law
enforcement is already using some devices and other folks are using it. that is probably the biggest concern of privacy. somebody within 500 feet over people's homes, property, surveillance, surveillance capability of the drones. >> by statute, even at those, it's federal airspace. >> still, we will wait to see the development of that and specifics on that rule. >> there will be a crash. there probably will be payments because you have so many of these things flying. i hope it doesn't take down a big commercial aircraft. i hope it doesn't have a lot of fatalities. i think it is inevitable. how many thousands are now
flying? i've heard different figures from several thousand to 20,000 flying. >> i don't know the exact figures. perhaps mr. williams does. i think it is important to distinguish the fast majority are amateur operations. they're not covered under the rule. we are prohibited from regulating that sector. >> so that still remains the primary risk. did you want to comment, mr. geiger? >> your question on who is in charge of privacy here, so the faa is regulating safety and safety is very limited mandate when it comes to also providing privacy regulations. i have some question as to whether or not the faa could put forth rules on privacy now. >> and this was interesting. when we were talk building this several years ago when we crafted this legislation, i was told it was the department of
justice or judicial matter, privacy, and that it was outside our realm to regulate. but maybe in this faa bill do you think we should have -- rather than the president, however he did it. it was an executive order. >> it was a memorandum. >> we have something in federal law? >> we do think there should be standards in federal law. privacy was mentioned zero times. it has absolutely plagued the decision. >> you said the 2012. >> the modernization. >> yeah. and i just explained to you when we started down that path, concerns were raised on both sides of the aisle about privacy. it's a big deal. we were told it was outside our realm. it was really a judicial matter and outside the purview of the transportation committee
was considering legislation at the time. so we are basically without anything except what the president has set forth. maybe some parts of that should be codified. that would be a summary of your position? >> parts of it. what the president set forth is quite limited. the department of justice essentially says -- there's good things in the policy from the department of justice. it says they will respect laws, use it for authorized use, fifth amendment. but it doesn't provide any additional protection beyond what is in current law. the process is focused just on commercial drones. so the process is not going to touch government use. >> okay. >> well, let's go to the ranking member. >> the expectation of privacy, we talked about that. we know that court cases the
question comes down to what is expected of the person. i guess we have drones it really broadens the expectation, is that right? it kind of throws them. it just opens the door to all kinds of surveillance and -- are you following me? >> i do. >> can you think of the latter? >> i do. i believe this is how courts will interpret that in the future. right now the supreme court has interpreted the reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine to not include aerial surveillance from the publicly navigable a airspace. i can only imagine that reasonable expectation of privacy standard or in common law torts what accounts as highly offense toeuf a reasonable person, i only imagine that will shrink as more and more uas takes to the skies. this is one reason we are arguing that current federal law does not provide adequate privacy protection. we should not just rely on
common law for the fourth amendment. but there ought to be something in federal law that provides a due process standard. >> and what would you, if you were trying to put that law together to try to balance allowing drones to operate while at the same time trying to maintain some reasonable semblance of privacy for citizens of our country, what would that look like? do you have something that you all put together that you -- what elements would you be looking at? >> there are a couple of bills right now which provide a good starting point. representative poe and preserving the american privacy act, and protecting individuals from mass aerial surveillance act provide good starting points. both are focused largely on law enforcement use.
this is -- as i said in my opening statements, in part because the public's concern with privacy and uas is most acutely felt with law enforcement use. i don't think people are quite as concerned as uses with research, disaster relief and so forth. and on the commercial side, any regulation would have to be aligned with the first amendment and would be limited. so i think a combination of a due process standard and code of conduct could provide meaningful privacy protection to individuals. on government use, there ought to generally be a warrant standard for law enforcement use as well as a registry of government uas applications that is publicly available much in the same way the faa currently has a registry for small aircraft. you know, with all the cameras everywhere, on light posts, on
buildings, and of course as you well know many crimes are solved -- people don't even know they are being observed. and it seems to me there would be -- there's an argument that with all of that technology out there, that why would one want to differ from -- straight away from the idea that a drone is going too far? and as i'm talking, i'm thinking of the argument the drone can follow you. as opposed to the light post. >> so, first of all, we do have civil liberties concerns with a ground-based large-scale surveillance system. our concern is largely tech neutral. but drones do have unique capabilities mostly because of their vantage point. if you talk about ground based
cctv, if you enter your yard, it can no longer see you. but it would be hard to escape the scope of observation of a sophisticated and high-flying uas. privacy intrusion is potentially greater. mr. misener, can you tell me about how amazon -- i mean, i just want to know the logistics how that works. what are you all trying to do? somebody has a package that they want in iowa tonight. so what happens? and the package is in washington. go. >> i have three seconds. >> i just want to picture how it works. >> it's a great, fast delivery system. we have distribution facilities throughout the country. what we would like to be able to do is enable that network of
facilities to deliver packages more quickly than is is possible using ground network. we looked how to get things to customers on a 30 membership or less basis. what really works are drones. our customer will be able to order something off our website and have it delivered in less than 30 minutes. she doesn't have to go to the store, try to get a delivery truck to bring it. it just gets delivered to the house. >> it pops up by drone right in front of your door. >> yes, sir. >> okay. >> we have a basket of fresh fruit headed your way right now. >> potential uses of drones such as crop monitoring, bridge inspections, aerial photography. can you give me other examples
of potential use of drones. >> there is all matter of infrastructure that needs to be inspected in the country. natural gas pipelines, high volt issage lines et cetera. that is large industries that are champing at the bit to embrace this technology. so there are small uses, large uses. there's visual line of sight when it comes to taking pictures of a house from a different angle for a real estate agent through to insurance companies inspecting after a sandy -- hurricane sandy event. what's going on in a particular area, areas that are inaccessible to agents, for example, and gaining information as quickly as possible. >> fa a's mission is is, and i quote, to provide the safest, most fishest aerospace system in the world. can you explain some of the challenges of integrating drones into our nation's airspace. >> one of the challenges we have a much more complex and diverse
airspace than any other country and busier airspace. in addition to four of the biggest airlines in the world and dozens of hubs, you have business aviation. you have nearly 200,000 general aviation operations, helicopters, rescue vehicles is that fly in all airspace. so integrating, instead of setting aside a space to operate, but integrating into the airspace requires that these new vehicles be able to stay clear of the existing vehicles. so detect and avoid or sense and avoid. that is a major technological challenge that has to be solved. you have to solve the communications challenge. how the operator communicates with the vehicle, what the spectrum is that is allocated for that. what happens if that link breaks. so these are some of the technology issues being researched in various venues that we need to fully understand and then build standards around so we can fully integrate this into the system. >> you know, not long ago the
fellow flew a drone at the white house. and all of us were very concerned about that. and i know that that is a significant concern of many. and i'm just trying to figure out. if you've got all of these objects flying around and then you've got a lot of people on the ground, and you've got to protect airspace, it just seems to me like we are headed towards disaster a at some point. >> we're going to try to make sure that doesn't happen. but there are actually very robust technologies that will allow this to happen and they are being tested -- >> they will allow that to happen? >> they will stay clear of
humans and other vehicles. we have to make sure the technology is is robust enough to in corporate into our air syst system. >> i see my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. mace. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. whitaker, i'm glad to see we have a proposed rule here. we have been waiting for it for a long time. we have been pushing for this. i'm excited to see this. i think it does allow a large class of operations that here to for have not been able to operate. but mr. wynn, can you talk about the types of commerce that won't be facilitated by this rule, particularly the requirement that at all times there has to be an operator that's got visual line of sight to the drone. can you talk about some of the applications that can't be
practiced because of that rule. >> the easy one is mr. misener's -- the application he was talk building earlier. that does require beyond visual line of sight. there is all manner of inspections that i was mentioning as well. bnsf was mentioned earlier. being ale to check for split rails in advance of trains, other infrastructure, et cetera. and if you imagine one of the early applications, early adopters of this technology will be agricultural interests, farmers, looking to do all manner of inspection of their property. some of these farms are large, of course. some could easily be flying over their property but have that well beyond line of sight. again, basically flying a pattern that a computer is control at very low altitude. these are the types of operations that we think -- some of them are more complex than others. we think there is a way to
advance the technology, to test the technology. the more we are flying, again, equivalent level of safety to the current airspace system we have today, the more data we can collect, the more we can detect sense and avoid, et cetera. >> so mr. whitaker, is there any chance before this rule comes out, to have have a categorize in low risk, such as agriculture, rail inspection. is there a chance to get something in the rule for that category? >> what we have done highly the rule is pending is we issue exemptions. we have done 600 for commercial operators. and we have done even more than that for public sector operations. for fire and rescue, that type of thing. the rule, as you mentioned, will take care of a very large subset
of operations and will allow a lot more commercial innovation without our involvement. we tried to include in the rule issues where we have a clear understanding of the safety risks. issues like beyond line of sight. we will try to get there as quickly as we can. there are standards that have to be developed. we will have to work diligently to keep that moving as the rule progresses. >> thank you. >> on to the privacy expect of this, it does present some new challenges. one question that i have is should there be a floor. we were talk building ceiling of 500 feet. so there be a floor for operation of drones. do you own the property an inch above your lawn is the question i have? if you have a locked gate on your property and somebody climbs over the gate, your expectation is they are violating your privacy. what if they fly over the gate?
what if they are hovering an inch above the ground? mr. geiger, could you talk about that. when are your property rights being violated? >> courts have said you own a reasonable amount of airspace above your property. 400 foot is arbitrary. an inch above, yeah, you probably own that. 30 feet above your property, not sure. and what counts as reasonable, again, as more and more uas fill the sky, tens, hundreds of things of what we predict in the coming decades. what counts as reasonable will probably shrink. it is not clear what the floor will be. but generally if you have an expectation of property ownership and as much airspace as you can use. so the drone would have to reduce substantial interests or use in your property in order to
be liable for a trespass claim. >> maybe the floor is the range for number 12 gauge with six shot in it. >> it is interesting you brought that up. the concept of shooting down drones i think demonstrates the depth of concern that people have. and this is a privacy-based concern with drones. now, this happens on a pretty regular basis, right? two weeks ago firefighters that were tend to go a house fire. in the aftermath of the house fire used their hose to spray a drone that was watching them. the drone was not directly over them. but it was watching them. i'm absolutely not condoning that type of activity. i think it is risky. but it demonstrates the need for depth of public concern regarding privacy and need for a baseline. >> maybe we need rules of engagement in addition to rules of privacy. i see my time is expired. i yield back. >> thank you.
ms. norton. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would say we are in the infancy of everything here, infancy of regulation, infancy of technology. we saw that when the drones landed, a drone landed in the white house and on these capitol grounds. mr. whitaker,ive appreciate that on may 13th there is a release that indicates that you're trying to make the public understand that there is a 15-mile radius around the nation's capital that you are not supposed to fly anything. so everybody is playing catch up here. now, in one of my other committees i must tell you where they are playing catchup is next gen. so when i look at your regulations and it says must yield away to other aircraft manned or unmanned. if we knew where even aircraft
were flying then of course you might expect drones to operate more safely. the assistant inspector general has testified about drones into commercial airspace. that's what interests approximate me. does the faa receive from commercial pilots any month on a regular basis whether they have seen unmanned aircraft of any kind. >> we do receive reports of sightings of unmanned aircraft. they typically will come in over the air traffic control communication network. and we do trap the -- >> are those required to be reported, mr. whitaker? >> they are required to be
reported, yes. >> have any close calls on drones on care craft, on commercial aircraft been reported? >> i don't have any recollection of any evasive maneuvers being taken. mostly what we receive is sightings of unmanned aircraft in controlled airspace near airports. >> is there any sense in licensing these unmanned aircraft? do we even know how many there are in our country? >> we believe these typically are involving the amateur operators of what we tend to call model aircraft. but the kind that you can buy and operate anywhere. they are unregulated. we're prohibited by statute from regulating that sector. >> should somebody be regulating that sector? >> they are wandering into to
prohibited airspace. so they are violating law. our focus, as you pointed out, has been to have an education campaign to let people know where they can fly, can't fly. we're work to go develop an app people can use to see whether they are in restricted airspace or their unmanned air system. we work with local law enforcement to give guidelines on how to interact with people who are operating in an inappropriate fashion. >> in light of these proposed rules, mr. misener and amazon's interests, it said an operator should be able to see the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses. in other words, i suppose you are supposed to be within some -- you're supposed to be able to see these drones that you have let loose upon the universe. how is that going to work commercially. >> thank you, ms. norton.
it won't. at least for package delivery services. we don't disagree that it is a more difficult use case to fly drones beyond visual line of sight. it is. it requires a higher degree of automation in vehicles. we're working on that. that kind of technology is being developed. our disagreement with the faa is we believe that kind of operation can be considered right now on the same risk base approach. >> you think the technology would allow that now? >> oh, it's in the works. i'm not saying the rules need to be adopted right now. the serious planning for the future rules need to be undertaken right now. they listed that as a prohibited kind of category of operation. what we are trying to say is that ought to be considered right now, just like other countries are operating right now.
>> this notion of loss link scenarios, what is the current state of technology on the links between the operator and the drone and the possibility of the drone getting beyond the vision or for that matter the control? i'm sure that the drone that went into the white house grounds was beyond his control, for example. >> so there's research that goes on. there is a lot of research that goes on at nasa, dod, various sectors on loss of control. we have a center of excellence now at mississippi state where there will be research along these lines. as i mentioned -- >> if you see a drone going too far, is there technology that can call it back. >> that is the technology that is being tested. as that technology is being tested, we have to develop standards for operation particularly in the radio
communication spectrum and now howe that gets defined. >> to make sure you didn't lose control of your own unmanned aircraft. >> right. procedures that could be followed when that happens. >> i thank the gentlelady. mr. meadows. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to you for your testimony. mr. misener, let me come to you. i think you were indicating that the united states is falling behind on this particular use of drone technology to some of competition that may be in europe and other places. is that correct? >> yes, meadows, it is. >> so if we are following behind, obviously mr. whitaker says we have a complex air system. i would agree with that. more complex. but from a regulatory standpoint, do you see we could perhaps have had in this rule making going a little bit
further to anticipate new technology to allow for greater innovation so we don't get beat out by our competition in other parts of the world. >> yes, mr. meadows. i firmly believe that. i acknowledge that the usair space is complicated. it is complicated in heathrow and other places around the world. other countries are taking a more forward looking planning approach. again, i don't blame the faa for not having rules in place. the industry is working together to address the technical challenges. the risk-based approach also could be applied to these beyond visual line of sight and highly automated operations we foresee. >> so, mr. whitaker, let me come back to you then. ism serve on the t&i committee. we have talked about the six
regional test areas across the united states. and what i have found interesting is as we have come out with this proposed rule is that most of this seems to be a rule that is looking backwards not forward. for example, looking at not being able to operate these other than line of sight or at night is it extremely short sighted in terms of a rule. sit almost like in order to meet some of the deadlines you put forth a rule that is very restrictive instead of really saying that if there's the technology, which we have the technology, to manage this other than line of sight, could we not do that in a safe manner? >> so we had a lot of debate around us as the rule was put together. and i think initially there was
a an attempt to boil it over and take on all issues of the rule. the decision was made to come up with a less onerous rule that we know people want to under take. the technology is is there. it is proven. it can happen. so we defined an envelope of operation if you will. and the things in that envelope, it will unleash a lot of the commercial need that's there. the issues that are still out there to be worked out and to have standards built around, we do super regulatory tools to allow those to go forward without waiting for rule making. >> mr. whitaker, if we are talking about -- you say it would provide for most of what we are talking about. i would disagree with that. if we are talk building line of sight. mr. misener and ms. wynn are not talking about not line of sight. doctor, you work for nasa. can you put something out in
space or on the moon without -- in a safe way and do it without line of sight? be careful how you answer. >> working in the aeronautic mission at nasa, i won't speak to the space application stpwhrs some of your colleagues do that, i guess. do they have to view that the whole way in order to it lands for it to be safe? >> that is certainly not the case. >> i guess, mr. whitaker, coming back to you, i'm going to encourage you as we are looking for an faa re-auth in less than 60 days, i am encouraging you to be a little bit more forward thinking in the line of is sight and technology that is available to us today. it's all over. because if not, your regulations
become the throttle or the choke that keeps innovation from moving us forward and ultimately we will lose out to competition. do i have your commitment that you will look at that aggressively? >> we will. and i think granting the bnsf railroad to operate beyond the line of sight is in an effort to lean forward. >> i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. lynch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the pam members for your help this morning. i think all of you have contributed well to the understanding that we are gaining regarding this technology. mr. geiger, i think some of the ramifications that you've brought to mind are very is, very helpful. mr. whitaker, the problem that i have, the greatest concern i have with the interface between the faa and technology which might be ubiquitous at some
point in the near future. you said that the system being developed will allow us to keep drones away from people and other sensitive areas. the problem i have is with what you're doing now with aircraft. i represent logan airport. that area. myself and mr. capuano in the 8th and 7th districts, we represent a semi circle around the airport. so we're airport communities. i hate to put this on you. but i would have to say that out of all the agencies that we deal with on this committee, and we deal with everybody, nsa, cia, dod, defense department and others, irs, faa is is probably the most unresponsive agency that we deal with in government. from this committee.
and that's just a fact. and i want to give you an example. the faa has were adopted a -- since 2013, has adopted a aroun nexgen-rnab they call it. i do know instead of flights being spread out over a number of communities and which i represent all of them and mike does, too, mike capuano, now we have a different system where we have a tractor beam system where all of the flights come over the same i swear square foot of land every day, every night. so the people that live underneath that tractor beam, i'm worried about their health, based on the volume and spirits of the calls that i get from those neighborhoods and those towns, this system is not working and it is detrimental to
their health. so as an elected representative, i tried to get a meeting with the faa in the town of milton, massachusetts, which is under that tractor beam, and i wrote a letter, to the regional administrator in my area, refused to come. first they agreed to come in the meeting that i had with them and then once they got out of the meeting they changed their mind and said they never agreed to that. so i'm trying to get faa -- look, i understand how difficult it is to operate the airport and do your job, but we have a basic responsibility to meet with the people that we work for and some of the folks at faa have said those folks have yelled at us. they have yelled at me, too. that's part of the job. sometimes they have a good reason to yell at me and you. and i think they have one now. but -- so i have been so frustrated with this process of just getting a meeting in the town of milton that i had to go
on the floor the other day and put an amendment on the floor to cut $25 million of faa's budget because we give you money to do outreach. outreach is not happening in the the 8th congressional district of massachusetts, and i figured since you're not doing that job, i'll take that money and put it somewhere elsewhere they'll use it. i don't mind being dissed myself. i can deal with that. look, congress's popularity is at 6%. i'm used to that. however, when you refuse to meet with the people that i represent, then i get mad. i can't have that. nobody here can have that. we all represent -- look, i represent 727,514 people, those are my bosses. i go to work for them every single day and i can't get a meeting with a group of them in
the faa. so we got a problem. and now here we are talking about, like i said, this new technology at some point could become ubiquitous so i'm nervous because when we have a problem with drones, i'm going to have to go to the faa for a meeting. they're probably going to tell me, sorry, pal, we're busy. we can't meet with you. i can't have that answer. so you got three seconds to answer me. >> first of all, i apologize if the faa has been unresponsive. >> apology accepted. >> i'm not familiar with the issue but i will vow to get back to you directly with a response to that. i think community engagement and outreach is one of the thanksgiving we do and if we don't do it, particularly with regard to airspace, it does lead to trouble. let me make sure i get back to you quickly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the indulgence. >> all politics is local.
>> wait a second. mr. walker was next. i apologize. you haven't been heard, mr. walker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'm sorry. you are recognized, mr. walker. we'll get to heiss next. >> thank you very much. as a member of the homeland security, we have had briefings and i know there's a lot of issues that have to be worked out, especially with the uavs and uass. i always if you look back historically in a town, there's something new that develops and always a little bit of a pushback. i can remember several different timelines. i want to talk about maybe start with mr. wynne.
according to your data in your department there, believes that the u.s. could be in line to lose more than $10 billion in potential economic impact every year that the u.s. integration is delayed. would you take just a minute to speak to that. is that accurate? >> yes, in the community that i represent, the commercial uas community, i think there's additional value that can be added to other industries that want to utilize the technology that go on top of that. >> mr. misener, according to amazon prime air, you have been doing more testing in other countries. do you have less restrictions? why do you seem to be doing more testing in the other countries as opposed to here? >> thank you, mr. walker? i think we have turned that corner with the faa. the faa has streamlined their
test approval process in a way that is beneficial to the industry, it will accelerate the amount of testing that can be done domestically. we had difficulty getting approval last year and early this year but i think we've turned that corner. the redirection that we take now has to do with the operational rules. on testing i think we're able to do it in multiple locations, including within the united states. >> what is the objective if you give me a time limit over the next year to 18 months, where are you wanting to see this go providing things are worked out with the faa? >> we'd like to start delivering to our customers as soon as it's approved regulartorily. i've got an 8,000 hour military and commercial pilots on my team where we're taking it very seriously, safety aspect is front and center. there are other things going on
here. it's not just the aviation aspect. we have to get our fulfillment centers and distribution center right. in order to get that 30-minute promise down, we have to get that product somewhere to get it to the drone. >> do you have the technology to move forward if you get the green light? >> no. but in a robotics mission like ours, we're confident we'll have it in place. this is why we look forward to working closely with the faa in preparing for those rules. >> mr. wynne, what rules can you act on that satisfy the faa's concern for safety? >> as i mentioned in my testimony, there's a lot of
research and development that's required to prove out equivalent level of safety for the more complex operations that we can envisage today but can't quite do yet. and nasa plays an important role in this, the faa plays an important role in this, the dod has successfully flown unmanned and unaired aircraft in the theater for many, many years and successfully and safely. they can learn from one another. industry brings a lot of resources to the table. one of the key things is to make sure all of that is well coordinated. i think outside pressure for the agency to work together, i think it's always important. that's beginning to happen now and we're very pleased with that. but i think there are resources ultimately that will be required. i know the fiscal restraints make it difficult for new resources to be brought to the table but we think with the
right coordination and right plan, we can do that. i think that's an appropriate role for congress and this committee. >> my time is almost expired. i yield back to the chairman. thank you so much. >> thank you, mr. walker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to follow up on the see-and-avoid rules. i think your comparison to the military use is a little bit off mark because i was actually in charge of the state of illinois national guard's attempt to establish the rule for flying shadow uavs stateside and we certainly had to comply with the keeping the aircraft in sight at all time rules under the faa flying over restricted airspace only as well. and so the military actually has to, if we're going to be flying those uavs, actually follow in the air with another aircraft and i don't think that is something that the commercial entities are willing to do at this point and i could be wrong. i do want to talk about the
safety issue and i think i'm going to direct most of my comments to mr. whitaker with the faa. i was flying my aircraft over the eastern shores the naval airspace area, in contact with air traffic control the entire time and i had an aircraft, a model aircraft bust through the airspace ten feet off the nose of my aircraft, about ten feet away in front and i was flying at 2,500 feet. if this can happen with recreational model aircraft usage, i have real concern about uavs out there flying around. i understand if you have commercial operations this is something where what you want to do is make it more regulated and i would expect commercial organizations would be much more responsible with how they fly the aircraft. are there any rules to require
for commercial use the use of tra tra transponders on uavs? >> you raise a lot of issues. on the small uas rule, there would be a nautical requirement so your operators would be more sophisticated. a lot of those on the amateur side don't even realize they've opened the airspace when they open the box. that's a real issue. and that's why we focus on public education. as far as the use of transponders, these devices come in all sizes. when you get to the small uas, we're not sure there will be technology that allows that. if you're flying in airspace, the uas would have to have a transponder. but i think when you get to the smaller vehicles, you're really looking to systems that talk to
each other and to those around them to achieve that sense. >> so if i'm out there in my single engine 195 9 camanche, im going to have the correct transponder on it but even a small uas hitting the propeller of my aircraft will take me out. even a small bird will take me out. are you saying, then, that we are not looking to require -- explain what you mean by -- is it a transponder? it's -- here's what i want. i as a pilot want to know if there's uas flying in my vicinity so it shows up and i know that they're there and, two, if i get hit, i want to be
able to know who it was, who was flying it and i want the faa to contact them and say you just flu in airspace. >> right now we're looking at rule separation and procedure separation. under the small uas rule, they would be under 500 feet, and you would be over 500 feet. and you have visual line of sight. that's all that the rule contemplates. the other issues that you're raising are some of the issues we're talking about that need additional research, need standardization and a separate set of rules around those standardizations. >> if we're going to talk about external load operations, i used to fly sling loads and helicopters. there's some significant
restrictions. i would want to know what amazon and mr. wynne also what your positions are on what are your jettisoning procedures. thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. heiss. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just kind of a point of clarification for me, i think the answer is yes but i just want to be sure. does the faa or the administration actually have a plan for directing the traffic concerns? or is this something that's being developed and still in process? is there an actual plan? >> there are two things you can put in that bucket. there's a comprehensive plan that was developed in 2013 and then there's a five-year road map that gets updated periodically that provides sort of a master planning document,
if you will. >> so there is a plan? >> yes. >> i thought that was going to be the answer but it was a little confusing. let me go, mr. covalowsky to you. we all know about the equipment that gyro copter that went down. would it have detected that gyrocopter? >> it's to enable the user of the system to be able to track and manage and plan flight routes within a very confined airspace. others that are working -- that are operating within that airspace with also be detected but if they choose not to follow a flight plan, they would not be managed by the utm. so the opportunity for that system to identify that there is an operator who is not filing
plans and not flying within the system can be alerted to the authorities or through the system such that actions could be taken in order to address that. >> that's no different than what we already have. it was detected with the technology we currently have. they thought it was an anomaly some such thing. you're saying it would be detected but nothing would have prevented it from happening. >> with our technology, correct. our technology allows for the safe use of aircraft that are participating in the system, to manage their trajectories, to be aware of aviation aircraft, traffic helicopters and the like that are flying there so they can be safely avoided and mission and business objectives can be met. >> does your technology
differentiate between drones and say the movement of birds or weather patterns or what have you? >> there are radar systems that are being developed as part of this that would be able to detect other flying things of particular size. at this point i'm not sure exactly how small that detection goes, but it would allow for identification certainly of small drones. >> all right. mr. whitaker, back to you again. just if i may ask different ones this question but end of the day who should control, own, manage the traffic management uas? does this come down to nasa? does it come down to government? does it come down to private enterprise or nonprofits? where does this belong? >> well, we would envision that as nasa develops this utm, we would go through a normal handover process and it it would
become part of our airspace that we would manage. >> so you say faa? >> yes. >> if i may, sir, that's exactly correct. we have a very formal process we have developed with the faa, refer to them as research transition teams. we work closely with nasa researchers and at the early stages of our development and technology to be able to hand to them at determined times that we work by plan for that technology, at technology readiness levels such that they have the opportunity to fit it into their overall planning and acquisition process. it's a very rigorous activity. we've had great success with that. >> so nasa is developing the the buck would stop there. >> that's correct. >> mr. geiger, let me go back to you real quickly because i think
the issues you've brought up are a grave concern constitutionally and to many others. and i've just got 20 seconds but preemptively, what actions do you believe congress needs to take in order to assure that both the first and the fourth amendment are not violated of u.s. citizens? >> for government uas we recommend legislation that has dual process use. we think that should be a warrant, if it is used to identify individuals or private report. when it comes to commercial uas, we think that the first amendment is going to constrain the scope of any sort of privacy regulation. can you start with common law privacy torts which have a highly offensive or reasonable expectation of privacy standard but beyond that it should be an industry code of conduct which
will, because it is voluntary, avoid the first amendment issues. and i think that the goal ought to be to provide a reasonable privacy assurance to the public so that applications that have a low impact on civil liberties such as a commerce or scientific research can grow. and the industry itself will take off so to speak. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> miss lawrence. >> thank you. do we have -- mr. whitaker, do we have a proposed timeline for the officially accepting these rules or the process to go through to modify and make any corrections? do we have a timeline? >> so there's a statuary 16-month time frame from the close of comments. it was in april. we planned to move more quickly than that. we've got 4,500 comments that we're adjudicating now and our
internal working target is to have the faa portion of this finished by the end of the year so it can go into coordination with the administration and be out early next year. >> so of you are aware that there is an app, i can call siri and i can say what's flying above me? and it will tell me what flights are above me in the sky and where they're going, what airline it is. do you anticipate any such app? because my concern right now is as a citizen and there's drones flying above me, how do i identify what they are and why they're there and who they belong to. and that piece, it was interesting to me when this application was introduced to me and i'm wondering if something similar to that will be required
of the -- this type of flying vehicle. >> well, in today's world if there's a drone flying above you, it's probably an amateur operator and there's no system to track who that is and where they're going. it's an unregulated -- by statute, an unregulated sector of the market. as you move forward with more fully integrated operations in the controlled airspace, you would expect to have some ability to know who's out there. >> well, you said you would expect. i want us to move toward the point of if there is a drone flying in my personal property space, that i as a citizen have the right to know who owns it, what's their purpose and there would be a way for me to, if i have any issues, to have a way as a citizen to process that concern. and that to me is a very high
concern of mine. and people that i talk to. so getting back to the public, what will be the process of educating the public and i would like to ask mr. grinner? >> geiger. >> geiger. what is the proposed process so that when we -- i anticipate an increase in the number of drones that we'll see, where is the education process when we adopt the rules and we get them accepted, where is the education of the public? >> i think that you'll see education of the public from both government and private entities. and certainly there's been a lot of media attention about it, to -- if the question is how will the public know when there's a drone in their -- >> or what are my rights? >> your rights are evolving and,
as i said in my testimony, i think that your rights ought to be strengthened by congress. when it comes to being able to tell whether or not -- identify a drone that is in your vicinity and where it's going and so forth, we think that the industry and government ought to work on technology that will enable that sort of transparency for citizens. their transponders would be one option but i understand there are limits depending on their weight. and we think there are other technical measures that individuals could use to signal their privacy preferences. one is geo fencing, so, for example, no fly zones.org is a nation effort in that regard where you can delineate property and say we would prefer you
don't fly here. i think there's a. >> the other question i have a few minutes to mr. whitaker. in the rules it talks about recording an accident or damage within a certain amount of time. will there be a requirement if you are licensed as a drone operator that you have insurance? because if your drone dabls and then crashes on my property or if there is a package being delivered and it destroys my prize rose garden or something, what will be the rur mement. >> typically we do not regulate aviation property and insurance
so we leave it up to individuals. >> i just want to say for the record if we are going to allow -- i find that interesting. you don't require airlines to have insurance? >> airlines have insurance for their own reasons and most general aviation pilots have insurance for their own reasons. we're prohibited from regulating model aircraft, amateur operations. so we would not be allowed by statute to have that provision -- >> so if there was an accident and it was reported in ten days, what happens? >> with respect to -- >> faa would just have a record of it? there would not be any requirement for drone operators to be insured? >> there typically will be a reporting requirement for accidents and we investigate the cause of accidents but don't get involved in adjudicating liability. >> my time is up but i just want to say for the record that that is a concern of mine.
>> we'll now recognize long suffering, waiting, senior member and form are chairman of the aviation subcommittee, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan. >> well, thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. and i don't have any questions but i do want to express some concerns. and to do that, i want to read from a couple of articles that have come out just in the last few days. i've read several articles about drones over the last year, year and a half barry weinberger who is a lawyer who speg icializes wrote "for example, will a drone used to deliver your package be allowed to collect information about you and if so, what kind of information? there are now uavs with the ability to record video, audio,
use facial recognition data, rfid data used in consumer credit cards. he mentions a case and some cases in which they're now using drones in divorce cases. then jeremy scott, who is the head of the an organization called the electronic privacy information center wrote a few days ago the faa has also failed to consider the data collection implications of commercial drones in an age of big data companies flowing drones will likely look to surreptitiously collect data. we saw. >> one company has already tested using drones to pinpoint cell phone and wifi signals in
order to identify customers for location-based advertising. he goes on and says there exists a lot of potential for the use of drones but there need to be rules in place currently voluntary best practices are being developed, but best practices will not establish meaningful privacy safeguards. there's a lot of concern out there, most people feel that we really doesn't have but o show you how much concern there, is i understand now that ten states
have now passed laws and my own home state of tennessee, which is a very pro law enforcement state, very pro law enforcement, the legislature passed a law banning law enforcement agency from using drones to collect evidence to do surl except in extremely limited circumstance what i'm hopeful is maybe the faa and these organizations will take a look at the state laws because the state seems to be taking the lead so far and see if you can't take out some good things out of those state laws. and i think that pl misener said they want to use that technology extensively but because there is so much concern about privacy, your company would be well advised to try to come up with every possible way that you can to protect what limited -- what little privacy or what very
limited privacy people still have. we have none. that's all i've got to say, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you for making those points. did you want to respond to any of that. >> mr. duncan, i agree that a company like hours has to take. >> if people don't think they don't have privacy now, they should just wait for very intrusive technology that's just coming. the examples that you read, i'm glad you mentioned there's other types of technology. they include cell phone tower
eme emula emulateors. we saw the federal government use these on tens of thousands of people in the past year. privacy torts get you some, but again, it's limited because it's limited to a reasonable and it's unclear to the degree to which congress can however, we think that the industry should take the lead on a strong and enforceable code of conduct. unfortunately the existing codes of conduct are not sufficient for that purpose. you mentioned your state law. states are indeed taking the lead on privacy laws and part of that is because of federal inertia in response to the concerns of their citizens but the patchwork of state so i
think that providing some sort of regulatory certainty with regard to privacy will again pit both individuals as well commerce. >> thank you. mr. connolly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thing you for holding this he here. and i think you're quite right to raise the flag. what does privacy mean as we move forward in the future. i mean, even a commercial drone whose purpose is clearly delivery of goods could be equipped with surveillance equipment and actually penetrate the wall in it's going to make
it very difficult to enforce even those regulations we even adopt. it's a fascinating frontier kind of issue for us. mr. whet of -- what is -- if i'm a homeowner, how high up do i go in my property control? someone fly 500 feet from my roof? >> i think mr. geiger has -- >> i'm going to ask all of you please to speak into the mic and move it clo it's your house.
it's federally regulated air spares. when federally egg lated airspace was deend. >> greg: so if a commercial drone is flying within three feet of my roof, is that federally regulated? >> i think you're pushing at thos agree area my neighbor that i mentioned fine chocolates and french -- they may need to get clothes to land if that's what they're doing. and they may be violating, from my point of view, my -- they're trespassing. they're trespassing on my property, including above my roof. >> i think these are real issues and the legal structure hasn't
had to address them. >> okay. so we got legal esh use and we got privacy issues and constitutional issues and we got commerce. and am gone -- how do you believe the proposed rules mr. connolly, i will speak directly and thank you. we believe it's overprescriptive because it draws distinctions withinish you'll line of sight and beyond visual sign of light.
both should be subbed to a risk and base highly automated operations require higher performance than less automated operations. those are very, very clear. but the method of an lies the different kinds of operation should be identical. so we're concerned that they just cut those ones off and said we're not going to deal with them. mr. whitaker says the faa is going to get to them. we're just suggesting they get to them now and consider all these types of operations simultaneously, acknowledging that there are different risks involved and different performance requirements necessary to mitigate those risks. >> i understand that amazon is offering to actually show on a pilot basis that some of the concerns being discussed in the rule making can be managed
without overly prescriptive regulation, including line of sight, including multi- drone operation and other such issues. is that the case that you've opted to do that kind of -- >> yes, sir. if a variety of ways. we're working close with nasa. we'll be a key note presenter at your conference at the end of july. the path finder undertaken by bnsf is something that looks those are parallel pass, just to show the technology. the other is to work on the rules. >> mr. whitaker, are you and your agency open to that kind of demonstration to at least evaluate the present spcht and
if the chair will allow one final question, another provision you've expressed concern about, amazon, that is to say, is a requirement that one drone control no more than one crone at a time. why do you believe that's too restrictive? >> bass the and just to restrict one drone to one operator is just overly restrictive and it's certainly unnecessary for a technological -- >> that sounds reasonable on part of it. i look at at faa controller controllers otherwise it get back to control and attacks the system. maybe that the not a what's
wrong with amazon's point of view on that? >> i think that we will get there in certain circumstances. right now you have two pilots in each air plain and in a cole are but if it quite small, there could be scenarios where it's multiple units. the technology has to be proven, standards have to be developed. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for having this hearing. i hope we have more of them because i've just begun to look at new territory. >> thank you, mr. chairman. 2001 when i was under the tutelage of an ambassador and we were fighting the war, he was the innovator and use of drones in operations.
we had an air force bird, army ordinates under the operational control of the cia, something like that had never happened. and almost 15 years ago when we were doing that, i never would have thought i'd be sitting so this is an exciting time but one of my concerns is one of the things that's made this country great is we're always on the edge of innovation. we have the greatest entrepreneurs in the world. and my question is to mr. wynne. in the. >> well, it's a great question, sir. thank you for your service. i would say simply this is a global phenomenon.
uass are really being taken up in a very rapid price from around the world. >> i would in aviation innovation in this country. i think we're on the right track to getting back to that. i think there has been a little bit of a culture clash from the technology world into the aviation world. i'm an. >> scott: we appreciate that this is a different approach of approach for aviation. there's a lot of sky up there that can be used for an awful lot of things that don't need to be done by human.
we call that enhancing human potential. >> so my next question is to mr. misener. the possibility -- when i came up to d.c. from texas this week, i forgot my running shoes. you know, the idea of possibly having those delivered by an amazon uav within a couple of hours is pretty interesting. you've heard a lot of these privacy concerns we've talked about here. they're valid. and this is going to continue to be an issue. how are y'all -- i think one of the things y'all leading in this area of commercial development, how are you planning to gain the trust of the american people? >> thank you, mr. hurd. it's a core question about this service for anyone who is responsibly pursuing a commercial activity here. we have to enjugender trust. and the trust we've garnered in
privacy matters has been a result of our focus. and hopefully a developing, solid, serious best practices for an entire industry. >> i appreciate that and, mr. o co -- cavolowsky, what are the main concerns you have left on the system? >> some of the same concerns that have been brought up by the panel that we need to address. these are very complex software system where coordinated interaction among the aircraft, being able to verify and
validate that they are safely providing that safe situation is a critical challenge. and also a technical challenge. >> here's the channel of the first and last 50 feet of flight, in particular the last 50 feet if you will with the interaction or potential interaction with property and people. the elements of the control, of the management of that safely in an environment that can be unpredictable is a major environment we're trying to develop technology solutions around and procedural solutions around. >> thank you. >> thank you. and i want to recognize the lady
from new mexico, thank you for your patience. you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i, too, want to thank you for the hearing. and i agree that we ought to have potentially more of the hearings because there's a base set of issues that need to be addressed and there needs to be a regulatory environment to do that. we want to deal with the public safety issues and deal with privacy issues but there's a real community to make sure the economic development is addressed in a meaningful way. i represent a state that's been slow to recovered from the 2008 recession. we have a company, polo that's just gotten faa approval, our office worked with you all to do that, to do the kind of mapping
and the kind of work that we're hearing a lot about in today's hearing. and not on are they talking about the vast economic opportunity in our state, and whenever i have an opportunity to talk about jobs, that's the number one priority, but they talk about nationally that the billions of dollars that could be generated so i appreciate having google here at the table by these investments. there's also a public safety factor that i don't want to ignore, not just in the regulatory environment that we need to proceed with for unmanned air crafts, but if we're using them to assess problems on the golden gate bridge or we're using them to inspect power lines, we're creating a public safety benefit by not having to use workers to do that work directly and physically, which is high --
it's significant. i'm saying great opportunity and with that there is risk. i have really two questions. you've been working to address that you recognize that there's got to be a thoughtful but balanced approach. and as a former long-time and i would like to think effective bureaucrat for 17 years, bureaucracies don't always find themselves in the most flexible environment. and the problem here is that this technology is changing every minute, probably every second, as all technology does and in the thoughtful process that you will have to address privacy and public safety and managing that airspace productively and encouraging companies -- what is your
process or thinking about making sure that this is a fluid, ongoing environment, so that we avail ourselves of every opportunity without mitigating our responsibility to manage productively for my constituents and for the country real risks associated with any aircraft. mr. whitaker, maybe that's something for you. >> i think several times this morning it's been mentioned that we need a risk-based and performance-based regulatory system. we're all very much aligned on that point. we don't want to necessarily tell you how you're going to achieve certain levels of safety but we want to define what those are and what the necessary standards are to get there. so when we, for example, get to a final rule it, will provide parameters and the prags within those parameters. we don't have to get what they might be.
they'll be allowed as long as they're safe. as we continue to expand the operations, that same standard will apply. >> what can congress do that's more productive in this environment that provides -- what is congress's role here and what can we do to enhance these efforts? >> i appreciate the question. i think the point that i've been laboring to articulate here is that the economic opportunity is not just immediate, it needs to be sustainable. and so all of. questions that we're discussing, in technology, we call it a binary conversation. really cool technology can do good stuff but we have safety, we have privacy questions, we go through this with every technology pretty much. and the same kinds of questions mr. geiger is bringing up can also be applied to a technology
basis to license readers, to a whole bunch of different technology contexts. the industry needs to do this in a way that's sustainable, otherwise it won't work. i agree with mr. misener to make certain that our customers' privacy is protected and it's in our interest also as an industry that we can do this and we're doing our best to make certain we maintain the extremely high level of certainty. we have submitted for the record of the transportation committee what we think is important in that regard so i won't enumerate that here but i think it's also
really important for the safety of the entire system that we do that on time. >> fair enough. thank you very much. and, mr. chairman, i yield back. thank you to the panel. >> thank you for your patience. i want to thank our panel, too. i've got a couple of quick points. one -- okay, mr. whitaker, you testified today that it would -- in one year you would have the rule out. is that going to be september 30th of 2016 or is that going to be june 17th of 2016? >> hopefully before june 17th of 2016. >> okay, that's one year from today. we'll note that in the record. i'll ask the staff to schedule a hearing in june of next year and we'll see how we're going there. i think you got to have milestones to get things done. i put a milestone in the bill, which was september of this year. it's not going to be met.
and we're operating on sort of a helter skelter basis with these waivers and exemptions. you told me you've been doing about 50 a week, is it? >> that's correct. >> so 50 a week, you got ten weeks is 500, by the time of next year we should be doing how many? several thousand at that rate. so we'll have a patchwork of exemptions and waivers until w e get to the final rule if you keep it up at that rate. that's not totally acceptable. i know you have to have something in the interim. the other thing, too, is the office of inspector general published this report june 26, 2014 with a list of recommendations. i've got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine,
ten, 11 major recommendations by oig. now, i have a report as of june, that's this month of 2015. all of these are unmet. all of these are unmet. some were supposed to be achieved and accomplished by october 30th, 2014. i'm going to submit to you and faa this list and within the time we're keeping the record open for ten days, i want a response that will be in the record of make certain that this is your response to oig, but i want to make certain that that is in the record and confirm when you will achieve the recommendations that oig put in their audit from 2014 that they're giving me this report on this month's 2015. do you see what i want? any questions?
again, we're going to do another hearing a year out. you've said you're going to do that. these are important milestones that oig identified a year ago to be completed. i want that report in the record so that we have these milestones met. all right. so then final thing, you talked about, mr. misener, that sensor and avoidance technologies. you have technology that are either being developed or on the shelf that can avoid collisions or incidents. ; is that correct? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> okay. but those systems have to be approved by faa for use, wouldn't they, mr. whitaker? >> yes. we'll have to verify the technical. >> see, this goes back to my
point at the beginning. i think the last member to raise this technology is changing dramatically, but we have a failure of the law to keep up with rules and regulation to keep up. so we're going to have to have some mechanism to make certain that in fact the equipment that can avoid risk, avoid disaster, avoid collision is certified in a manner. do you have a separate officer to buy this type of equipment? >> we certify aircraft on a number of front but -- >> i know, but that is also -- i hear lots of complaints how long it takes for certification, how further behind we're doing. we're doing an faa bill, faa appropriations, we have to make sure you have the resources that you set in place a mechanism to quickly certify the technologies
or do it in some reasonable fashion. the problem you've got now is by the time they get the damn technology done and you get it approved, there will be another technology right behind it that is fan faster. so we're falling further behind in our certification of equipment that will avoid disaster. do you have see wh do you see what i'm saying? faa doesn't often look p prospectively at how they're going to going to handle these things. if you have a recommendation that you need to beef up, separate out, if we need someone in faa focused on this for the f future. at stake is, one, safety and, two, our entering the commercial age which this is all about.
but you can't do that unless you got the rules, the certification and keeping up with the technology. they'll find a way to get that -- i thought he said chopped liver but it was fine chocolates to mr. -- had a little fun with that. whatever we're delivering, it's a commercial opportunity and a great economic boost. okay, so those are my quick questions. and it's amazing what we've done. they've already flown unmanned vehicle -- or an aerial vehicle from australia to los angeles, a cargo plane without a pilot. and then another thing, too, is certifying the pilots because there are different categories of what's going up there but
different categories of who should be qualified, if they're not in the drone but they're piloting the drone, we've got to make certain we've got the rules in place so those people also have the qualifications. i'm afraid we're not keeping up with it and we've got to be able to set a law and faa reauthorization or wherever and we haven't even talked about the privacy issue here. again, i go back to the problem we had when we developed this, we were told no to privacy, it was a different domain and jurisdiction. but that is very important. and i'll look at the proposed legislation and the other things you mentioned. but, again, for the transportation committee was not allowed to go down that path. but it's a serious one we need to address. i think that those are some of the major issues and we'll look forward to your response. we'll make certain the staff gives you a copy of this list
and we'll want that in the record. again, i thank each of you for participating, our members for their patience, productive hearing and hopefully we'll move this all forward together. there this all forward together. there being no further business before the full committee of government reform and oversight, this hearing is adjourned. the c-span networks feature weekends full of politics, books, and american history. saturday morning, beginning at 9:30 on c-span, we're live from manchester for the new hampshire democratic party convention. the speakers include hillary clinton, bernie sanders, lincoln chafee, martin o'malley, and lawrence lessig. on sunday, a conversation with jimmy and rosalind carter on current events. on book tv, stephen breyer talks
about his recent book and the challenges facing the american judiciary, including the application of american law in international contexts. saturday night at 11:00, dig and liz cheney on their book, "exceptional." saturday, starting on noon eastern, we're live from georgia for a commemoration for the 13,000 union soldiers who died in the civil war in andersonville. speakers include sergeant major of the army daniel dailey and historian leslie gordon. we'll take your questions before and after the ceremony. sunday afternoon at 4:00, on "real america," archival video as popes address the united nations. get our complete schedule at c-span.org.
now our interview with congresswoman marcy kaptur of ohio. from today's "washington journal," this is 45 minutes. >> we want to welcome back to our table congresswoman mar marcy kaptur. you serve on energy and water, ranking member on that, and defense and homeland security. i want to begin with homeland security, national security issues, and what's happening in syria, because here is the front page of the "new york times" morning. putin sees path to diplomacy through syria, pushing to meet with president obama, offering to hold military to military talks on syria and planning a
big rollout for a syrian peace plan when he speaks at the united nations earlier this month. should this administration hold military to military talks with vladimir putin? >> i hope that those are already going on behind the scenes, perhaps in ways we don't know. executive branches have a tendency to do that. i'm actually one of the few members of congress to travel to syria, i did it in the late '90s, with lebanese and syrians in my district. i find them some of my best advisors. and the entire syrian situation is such a deep tragedy. the west in many ways has gotten it wrong about syria for a hundred years. and as i walk through that country and went through
different marketplaces and saw how entrepreneurial they were, beautiful artistry, very unlike president putin's country, i thought, how did the west ever let this go? if you look at the religious history of the region, you can see the pull toward orthodoxy in some ways on the christian side. but syria has a giant muslim population. it has various religious sects. and it's too bad that over 300,000 people have been killed there at this point. it's just a bloodbath. we see refugees streaming across
europe. what a deep, deep mistake the world has made. >> would you include president obama on that list of leaders that have made mistakes? did his strategy on syria backfire? did it look? >> i like to go back to president bush, because the united states should never have invaded iraq. i voted no when that came before congress. we were told there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq. there were not. that was a complete lie. our intelligence services knew that. yet we went into iraq but were unable, with all the people that were picked at the beginning to try to put a government and a country back together again, it leaned heavily toward one tribal sixth, the shia. it included the sunnis. they became radicalized. and that forms the bases of isis which has now expanded into the western part of iraq and bled over into the nation of syria. so we see the results of a failed policy that extends over
quite a long period of time, almost a decade and a half now. it's really -- it was the biggest blunder i think in american history, in terms of foreign policy. and it has created havoc throughout that entire region. and it's not over. >> president obama, though, is in charge now, the pentagon told the armed services committee yesterday only four or five u.s.-trained rebels are fighting in syria, after $500 million was allocated to train syrian fighters by the united states, there are four or five fighting. >> yes. and you know, when you pay people to fight, it isn't the same as those who fight with an ideological perspective. and that is true throughout that region. i think that if you look at iraq, same problem. we might hold baghdad, but iran
has effective control of almost two-thirds of iraq now. culturally, economical, affinity-wise, through faith expressions, tribal affiliations. so it was a much more complex situation. i think many people underestimated the tribal affection of sects in that region. so we end up with this array now. i won't speak for president obama. i think he and his administration try to do the best they could with a very broken country. you can't go into iraq or syria and never you're going to run it. remember, colin powell, general powell said, you break it, you own it. >> the president had envisioned 5400 fighters. now from the washington post this morning, the administration is preparing a major strategy shift in syria. they report, while the administration has said asad has stepped down, it has declined to throw its military waiting
behind forces seeking to oust him. instead u.s. air strikes been directed to the separate but overlapping fight against isis. should the administration overthrow asad? >> i have never agreed with overthrowing asad. his father was the only leader in the middle of east that actually eliminated over 20,000 members of al qaeda and terrorist organizations. and it was a multi-face society that functioned at some level. i feel our policies toward syria have been very ineif he cffectu.
now it's broken. at the highest diplomatic levels, our country, hopefully with russia and adjoining nations have to figure out a way to stop the bleeding, because next door is lebanon. and that is so fragile at this point. and as for the effective control, the strongest institution there is the lebanese army, but hezbollah has effective control over large regions of the country, and they are associated with iran. so it looks to me like iran's expansionary dreams in that region are being met, even though they may not have effective control of the formal governments that are set in place in those countries. but i think in terms of syria, lebanon, we do need to recalibrate. >> and what's the solution? >> the solution is not just for the united states to go in and dictate. i think that we have to have
alliances in the region to first of all deal with the refugee crisis and to work with jordan, to work with some of our allies, egypt, to try to put together an arab-led coalition, if possible, if possible, in order to help temporarily house those who are fleeing and to try working with the u.n., and i hope that president obama uses every opportunity for that, i hope that he will, to put together the kind of coalition in the region to try to calm the situation there, because it is at a tipping point. >> this is one of the images from the papers this morning. this one from the "new york times." asylum seekers at the border crossing in serbia, clashing yesterday with hungarian riot officers who responded to rock-throwing and taunt with tear gas and pepper spray. jim, you're on the air with
congresswoman marcy kaptur. >> good morning, ladies. first of all, marcy, i understand there's a movement afoot in congress to cut social security benefits by 20% for social security disability. first of all, is that true? >> since i began in the congress, there have always been threats to social security. i do not support any proposals such as you describe. social security is a program that represents earned benefits. large numbers of seniors in this country survive only because of social security. and those on disability are in the special social security disability program. there are those who keep looking at that fund and saying that well, we have to cut there because we need money in one of the other funds in social security. but i don't believe that we
should take it out of those in our country who have worked hard, who have disabilities, and who don't need to worry about anything else. they have plenty to worry about. we are a very rich country. we can find ways to meet the needs of those who have physical challenges and mental challenges and not make their life any more difficult. but there are always those looking at the trust fund and trying to invade it. >> thank you. quickly, this drives me nuts, because i watch you guys every morning, is there a lip around the stage so the guests don't roll off the stage? >> yes, there is. that's one of the strangest questions i've gotten. >> don't worry, you're safe. >> caller: the first thing i want to say is, they're talking about people coming to the
united states. [ in discediscernible ] >> caller: i'm not talking about what they're going to do when they got to be -- they don't want to do anything. >> okay. marcy kaptur, do you want to weigh in on the debate last night? >> there was a lot of personality that came through last night. it was short on substance. let me just say, i don't think debates are the best way to actually listen to someone and
their reflective proposals for the future of the country. sometimes it rewards those who have the quickest answer but maybe not the best answer. i hope there's other formats. i've seen this in my own campaigns, sometimes a more relaxed framework like this one with several candidates is better than an actual debate. but in terms of the -- i wanted to say a word about the refugees from syria. >> sure. >> and adjoining countries. i'm a co-founder of the hundred garr y -- the hungarian caucus also. i hope general breedlove who heads or operations in europe will look at our for amerimer bn germany that are available. i met with members of the
bundistag, and we talked about the germans have no more tents, their railway stations are pull of people, many of their school auditoriums are full of people. i said, what about our former military bases, could we talk to general breedlove, at least temporarily, after world war ii we had displaced persons camps in germany, we worked as a world to try to vet people. many of these people want to return to the middle east. they don't all want to come to the west. and to work with our allies in jordan, egypt, the gulf states, and even russia, to see if resettlement could occur in other places in the world if they can't go back immediately, but within germany itself, to use some of our u.s.-owned
property that is currently vacant to give these people shelter. we all know if we have a family heritage where people fled from tyranny and war, this is a time to be caring, it's a time to help, and it's time to vet people if in fact in those ranks are terrorists, we have to be very careful working with the u.n. and refugee services to figure out who they are. >> is the u.s. doing enough to bring these refugees who want to get out to the united states, the obama administration saying they'll lift the cap but only by about 5,000, and that's worldwide. >> i think resettlement is at the level of about 70,000 people a year. here we're talking about many more than that. and frankly, a lot of those people don't want to come here. they want to go where where they're more familiar. i heard that some of the gulf states, saudi arabia, was looking to purchase property in some cases, to make land
available. this will take us a little bit of time to work through. and this is where our state department, where our representative at the united nations, our national security council, are very important. we have to look at at a temporary place to hold people to make sure that life and limb are cared for. many of those children need medical care. my heavineens, everybody can ta their fair share. a lot of those folks want to return to the region from which they came. >> greg from illinois, an independent. hi, greg. >> caller: how are you doing this morning? representative, i've got to take you to task a little bit on your first statement. i agree with you that bush really screwed up in going into iraq. however, since then, with libya, bush had nothing to do with that, the decision to bomb libya and fragment that country.
the asad family for over 45 years has had control of syria. >> yes. >> caller: it wasn't until 2011 that it went through ngos and our nefarious cia dealings in syria to have this civil war. we instigated it. and tens of millions of people have been displaced from their homeland. >> yes. >> caller: and it wasn't bush doing it. it was this administration. >> sir, you've raised a very good point, both on libya and on syria. and the removal of secular leaders in that part of the world without replacement, without a government that could sit in place and could actually govern. and i simply don't understand what the strategy is. there wasn't a free country in-region, nor a democratic country. they're all theocracies or
repressive states. so i don't see where it's any better than it was before. we don't like dictatorships. i wouldn't want to live under a dictatorship. but you are correct that it's sometimes easy to remove a leader but what replaces that individual? chaos. and i don't see where that benefits anyone. maybe there's a long term strategy that you and i don't see that someone else who perhaps has more power than we do is about implementing. but it just seems to me the human carnage has been far too great. we have to account for as a country. >> a couple of tweets from our viewers. who are we to decide who the leader of syria should be? and this, every place we destabilize devolves into chaos. is this successful policy. i also want to ask you about
issues on the domestic front. a big debate happening on capitol hill this week, what to do about planned parenthood and the funding for it. how would you subscribe your stance on the issue of abortion? >> all right. i would say that i am someone that supports the law of our land, that every family, every woman has a right to make their own decision. if they choose to have a child, and that's a decision within their own family, it's not a decision that the government should make. if they choose abortion, i do not -- and for whatever reason, and we don't know what every family faces, the government shouldn't pay for it unless the life of the mother is at stake. and we lose in our country, almost 700 woman die in childbirth every year.
about 23,000 fetal deaths occur every year. and -- 23,000, that's gone down, you know, over the last century because of our neo-natal units and so forth, and advanced medicine. but because it's a moral decision for many individuals, i don't think that the government should make that choice for them. so i support the law of the land. obviously that includes the rowe versus wade decision by the supreme court to let families make that decision. it just seems to me that politics -- these life choices are so difficult for many families, the last thing they need in the delivery room is the government of the united states or some set of organized interest groups on either side of the issue. >> i want to get your reaction to what carly fiorina had to say at last night's debate about
this issue of funding planned parenthood. take a listen. >> i like to link these two issues, both of which are incredibly important, iran and planned parenthood. one has something to do with the defense of the security of this nation. the other has something to do with the defense of the character of this nation. you have not heard a plan about iran from any politician up here. here's my plan. on day one in the oval office, i will make two phone calls, the first to my good friend bebe netanyahu to make sure we stand with the state of israel, the second to the supreme leader of iran, that unless he opens up his facilities to inspections by our people, not his, we, the united states of america, will make it as difficult as possible and move money around the global financial system. we can do that. we don't need anyone's cooperation to do it. and every ally and adversary will know that the united states is back in the leadership business. as regards planned parenthood,
anyone who has watched this videotape, i dare hillary clinton, barack obama, to watch these tapes, watch a fully-formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain. if we cannot stand up to force president obama to veto this bill, shame on us. >> congresswoman? >> i don't think that we should put the country in the position of shutting down the entire nation's governing structures because of one program that does help to fund planned parenthood across the country, which provides family planning services to the majority, vast majority of women who use those services, and actually helps to prevent abortion by careful family planning. in my region of the country, our
family planning clinics don't perform abortions. and i heard ms. fiorina talk about that child that was on the -- i don't know, operating table or whatever. and i didn't see the film that she was referencing. but, you know, we have a number of deformed fetuses that cannot survive, that are born, that their legs kick, and they have a beating heart, but they have no brain. and that child eventually dices. and the family deals with the grief of that loss. i don't think any political figure should be interfering in decisions that individual families have to make and endure the grief that goes with those decisions. so perhaps the child she's talking about could have survived. i don't know. but i would want to know more
about that particular situation. >> republicans are talking about trying to defund planned parenthood, either through continuing resolution to keep the government running, because appropriations bills have not all been passed in conference and sent to the president, or budget reconciliation. does it matter either way? >> again, to shut the government down or to hold up the whole country over one program i think is so misguided and so disruptive and chaotic, really, for the nation. if i could just say as an appropriator, i spent my life trying to serve our country on a committee that i love, and it gets no publicity. i want people to know, the appropriations committee, our people work very hard. our chairman is a republican, mr. rogers of kentucky. he has brought in 12 appropriation bills that should have been voted on on the floor of congress. our 51 members worked very hard on our 12 subcommittees. we're not presidents of the united states, we're not
speakers of the house, we aren't majority leaders of the senate, but we have done our job for the country. we are architects of everything from the defense budget of the nation to the energy and water policies for our country, to education. each of those 12 subcommittees function as specialists in their area. we feel we've reached compromises. we never get to bring our bills to the floor because our power has been subsumed by a few people, the leaders in both chambers, who refuse to bring our bills to the floor and make political hay, for whatever reason, out of the hard work that we've done. we believe we are in the engine room of the ship of state. and i am very frustrated as a member, because we worked -- i don't believe any committee in the house works as hard as we do, with 12 subcommittees, with our full committee markups, with our subcommittee markups, all the work that our ranking members and our chairmen do, and we have a right to have our bills brought to the floor in regular order. we have not had regular order in
almost 15 years. it is really so damaging to the country. now some set of members cares about one issue, and they want to derail everything. it is so disruptive to this country and to good governance of the nation. remember back to high school, you learned that the real work of congress is in the committees? yes, it is. and we want to do our work, and we've done our work. we've got bags under our eyes, and you get gray early, because you're doing your work. and you get no respect in the chamber by the leaders. and then the outside people, the public, is confused because we're not operating under regular order. and the constitution demands that our committee complete its work every year. no funds shall be withdrawn from the treasury. you can go right to the constitution and look. we have to do our job and we are being handcuffed, and it is not pleasant. and i want the public to know that. because there are many good members, republicans and democrats, who are trying to do their job. just like a few companies control the banks and control
the beef supply in this country and the airlines, the same thing has happened in the congress. a few people are trying to control what used to be a more open committee process. it's not helpful for the country. thank you for letting me say my piece. >> we'll go to derwood, maryland. thomas, a democrat. >> caller: good morning, ladies. i have a question for the commentator and a question for the representative. for the commentator, are there any black editors that are ever allowed on your show? i don't see a lot of black faces sitting across from you. i know that c-span takes money from black cable subscribes. my question for the congresswoman -- >> can i answer that real quick? go back and look at our website, cspan.org, look at the washington journal. look at all the difference faces and genders and everything that we've had on the though. go to our website. you can go to the "series"
button on top. take a look at network as a whole as well. we're covering many different events, many different people, trying to get in as many different voices and perspectives as possible. thomas, your question to the congresswoman. go ahead. >> just a quick followup on what you enlightened me to. i would say if you go back and look at c-span on a monthly bases, i don't see that diverse black face anywhere, especially when it comes to something intellectual. make on black lives matter or something like that. i'll leave it at that. go back and look at the videos. >> we appreciate the feedback, thomas, absolutely, thank you for calling in and talking about it. >> my question for the representative. >> yes, sir. >> caller: you say that you worked very hard, yet you want to take on this refugee issue.
my tax dollars pay for you to take on united states, ohio, people's issues. and you can't divert, when there are so many problems in this country, how can you be diverting being on this coalition or that coalition? your focus should be on the ohioan, the problems in ohio, the problems with the united states. forget about the serbian issue for a moment. we have too many problems here right now for us to even have our congress people focusing on european matters. our tax dollars pay your salary. >> all right. let's have the congresswoman respond. thank you very much, sir. >> our responsibility, when we take our oath of office, is to protect and defend the constitution of our country. and the american people from all enemies. foreign and domestic. and we take a very serious oath. our country has enemies. and part of our job is to make sure, and i'm a member of the
defense committee, i'm a member of the homeland security committee, i'm a member of the energy and water committee which has jurisdiction over all of our nuclear weapons complex. we are a global nation, and there are, as you well know, threats to our country. and we have a responsibility, i have a responsibility to serve the people of my region. i believe i work as hard as any member ever has on doing that. you can go back to my constituency and ask. but i also have a global responsibility because of the position of this country and what has come before us. the alliances that have come before us, what is asked of us do domestically and internationally. i did vote that we should go
after osama bin laden. we are embroiled in the world because we are not energy independent. i am trying to move this country towards energy independence so we can have back our security. we are not energy independent yet. we are moving in that direction, but not fast enough. i would agree with you, we have to serve the people who elect us, but we also have to meet the needs of the entire country and our role in the world. >> peggy is next, colonial heights, virginia, republican. >> caller: good morning. thank you. marcy, i was listening to your comments on planned parent hood. i completely support your stand on that. i understand you're on all these other committees as far as here at home as well as foreign. but my thing is, our priority first is at home. if we can't take care of our own people, how can we go out and
take care of other countries? i understand the refugee crisis in syria is awful. but it's awful here too. and, you know, jobs are being taken away from this country, and exported out into other countries. they're making money off of our backs. and, you know, these things, you know, you made a good point, congress hasn't been working together for many, many years. and it goes back even further than, you know, the papa bush administration. it's been -- if we do our history, this country hasn't worked together well for a long time. and maybe perhaps at because government is just too big. you know, there's too many hands in the pot. you yourself said that, you know, when you go in to work, and you're working with all these senators that nobody wants to agree, there's just a few that want to sign these situations, that wants to just keep things in an abeyance,
nothing's getting done. and they want to put all the blame on just a couple of people. i heard last night it was with obama got a lot of blame, then bush jr. got the blame. the truth of the matter is, is that this congress and this government has not worked together for many years. so i mean, what do you suggest to be done? how can we as a people get back control of this country and take control of the awful situations in this country? >> okay, peggy. congresswoman? >> that's a big question. first of all, i think you have to play by the rules. that in the congress means you should not subvert the committee process, the regular order by which congress functioned very well up until world war ii, up until the mid-1990s. that's when things fell off the rail a little bit. i've asked myself is this a
generational problem, with too many "me too" thinkers rather than "us" thinkers, we have to do this together. i can guarantee you, both on the democratic and republican sides of the aisle, we have many people who want to work together. but i think the influence of big money and the dollar requirements of running for office today have created -- have polluted the environment inside the congress. and that certain people have gained more power because they can raise more money. and that has really changed the dynamic inside the institution. in terms of fixing the problems of the economy, and we haven't talked about a lot about that,ivethat, ii have a chart that i brought that shows how heavily our country has gone into trade deficit since the 1980s, deeper and deeper each year. the red represents more i mport coming into our country, rather than exports going out, markets
that we have not been able to open up, including japan's and china's, and our countries outsource elsewhere rather than producing here. we have a real problem of a slow growth rate, thank god it's growing. we've had several years now of job increases rather than job losses, which was the case prior to president obama's taking/!vñ office. but we have these wars that are taking -- sucking so much out of our very vitals, and we have not been able to reduce our expenditures on those. and that is seeping a lot of the lifeblood of this economy. and i might say that in terms -- it's really a miracle and a credit to the american people, we've been able to grow the economy as much as we have over the last decade or so, coming out of that horrendous 2008 recession. but some of the fundamentals we
have not been able to get at yet, for example passing the transportation bill, the congress is tied up in knots over that because they can't agree on a funding stream to fix our streets and our bridges and our railiesmen easements and so. years ago we could pass a rail bill with no problem. now we have constraints, the committees are trying to get an income stream to fix the infrastructure of our country. that particular bill should be an absolute must-pass, because it's a jobs bill, and it's investing in this country. my heavens, we've invested so much money in afghanistan, in iraq, and what do we have to show for that, actually? we've been able to secure our borders and trying to protect the american people if those who would do us harm, but we really haven't made america energy independent yet. until we unlock ourselves from
those spigots in other parts of the world, we'll continue to m hemorrhage. our top hemorrhages are in auto imports. >> will you vote to lift the 40-year ban on exporting oil? >> i am very reluctant to do that. first of all, oil is a diminishing reserve, and the united states is importing oil. why should we be exporting oil? we should be protecting our strategic petroleum reserve and moving this country toward energy independence hypere at home. if i believed we would not pay a price in our own energy security, i would support it. and perhaps others could convince me my position is incorrect. i represent many refineries back
at home. it's great to live in ohio and pay a low price for gas. i'm told if we export too much, prices will go up. i don't want to do that. >> godfrey in new york, a democrat. you're next. >> caller: how do you do, representative? >> hi, good morning. >> caller: very eloquent, i've learned a lot from listening to you. you made a commentary about the difficulty that the appropriations committee has had in your bills to congress in a reasonable fashion for the past 15 years. >> yes. >> caller: the opposition party is always talking about, you know, run government like a business, and they're so concerned with the cost of government. how much are they costing our government, and me as a taxpayer, and this is just a generalization, by this kind of political nonsense and getting in the way of you and your
colleagues doing your job, your constitutionally-mandated job? >> you have a really good question that you've asked. and if you look at the government contracting, let's say you work for a company that billion veterans' clinics, and you don't know what your bottom line is going to be because your government hasn't paid you for building that clinic, and you have to delay construction, the costs go up over time and you don't have certainty. the other thing that happens is the payments don't go out to you on time. there's a lot of deferrals, it throws the accounting systems into chaos. and all the contractors that work with the government can't hire. it's very difficult to do business with the government because of that. and i have never seen a gao study that estimates the cost of
all these delays. but i might ask for one. that's a really good question. and we know this is true, whether it's the department of defense, whether it is department of education, when you have all these -- and the other thing that happens is the demoralzation of the people who work in the different departments, they've been furloughed at different times. right now they're getting ready to be furloughed because we don't know if we'll have money to operate beyond september 30th. that's when the fiscal year ends for the federal government. so it throws everything into this limbo of uncertainty. and it rolls back progress. that's the net result of being -- of not having regular order. so i'm a fighter for regular order. i'm an old-fashioned appropriator. i want to move bills and serve this country. that's what i was elected to do. don't stop me, let me do my job. i'm a democrat. let me work with the republicans. we've got a lot of good republicans. let me tell you, our kind of
people, we never get publicity. i'm glad i'm on this show, because nobody pays attention to us. you know what, a lot of the work is really hard and boring. for most people it would be very boring. all the books we have to read, all the ledgers we have to take a look. there's never been a camera in the room, they never come, because it takes work, it takes give and take. imagine handling a $31 billion budget for the department of energy. just think about that. think about $14 billion for all of our research labs, 17 of them around the country, that are inventing the future for america. who even knows about it? we're into the weeds. we're into the specifics. and i'm proud of our country. we have a great country. it's the greatest country in the world. and it's the bastion of liberty for the world. and we shouldn't belittle the
government that made this possible. we shouldn't take it for granted. we should respect it. we could elect the finest people, the most honest, the most intelligent people we can find, because nothing is a given. every generation has to save freedom on its own. it isn't bequeathed. we have to work at it. and we can't hurt the institutions that have allowed us to reach this point in history. that's what's happening, there's a lot of kicking, kicking, kicking. our institutions are strong but not un as a result invulnerable. >> let's go to calvin, an independent from winston-salem. >> caller: kudos to c-span, thank you for taking my call. in 1948, when the state of israel was formed, its leader,
david ben gurion made the acquisition of nuclear weapons a priority. in 1979, u.s. nuclear experts believe israel tested a nuclear weapon with south africa. why does israel never consent to any inspections or admitted or denied ongoing nuclear weapons but they have them, and they've certainly never agreed to be a member of the iaea. why does the u.s. government not question israel, one of our partners in the middle east, more about their nuclear program? thank you. >> i think that israel is a very, very close ally of the united states in that part of the world. she has a very capable military and security structure. the recent agreement with iran i
think is going to cause several countries including israel to seek even additional weaponry for their own defense. i think some of the gulf countries feel the same way. and we're going to have to work very hard as a world not to build up more forces in that part of the world and make it more dangerous. i think that's easy to say but very hard to do. i think iran is partly responding to a fear of israel. and though no one from iran has ever said that to me, i hope that the arms talks on nonproliferation will continue, and that we will be able to de-nuke and continue to bring down the nuclear weapons that many nations have, including our own, the two primary nations
that hold nuclear weapons are the united states and russia. we have been reducing our inventories. and our relations with russia now are rather tense. but i hope that these continue, and i hope that someday, wouldn't it be great to have a middle east that doesn't have nuclear weapons. but i don't think it will happen unilaterally. i think it will be part of nonproliferation talks. >> we have to leave it there, our time is done, thank you very much as always for talking with our viewers. >> thank you, greta. >> after meeting this week, the federal reserve decided to leave interest rates unchanged on the next washington journal. we'll talk about that and a possible timeline for a rate hike with congress jim himes of connecticut. then budget committee member dave brat on the house conservatives' agenda, including
funding planned parenthood. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. we welcome your comments on facebook and twitter. our road to the white house coverage of the presidential candidates continuing saturday morning with a new hampshire party democratic convention live from manchester. speakers include hillary clinton, bernie sanders, lincoln chafee, martin o'malley, and harvard professor lawrence lessig, on c-span, c-span radio, and cspan.org, taking you on the road to the white house. the pope's upcoming visit to the u.s. c-span has live coverage from washington, the first stop on the pope's tour. on wednesday, september 23rd, pope francis will visit the white house, starting with the
welcoming ceremony on the south lawn, followed by a meeting with president obama. then on thursday, september 24th, the pope makes history on capitol hill, becoming the first pontiff to address both the house of representatives and the senate during a joint meeting. follow all of c-span's live coverage of the pope's historic visit to washington. watch like on tv or online at cspan.org. yesterday, the acting commissioner of the food and drug administration was on capitol hill to discuss food safety regulations. he also talks about the fda budget at this 1 hour and 20 minute hearing in this subcommittee hearing on the fda. >> good afternoon.
i that i think the witnesses ass those in the audience. this hearing will focus on the fda's efforts to improve and maintain the safety of our food supply. i thank you, commissioner, for your participation today. dr. ostroff, i appreciate the warm working relationship we are developing. and i appreciate the conversations and dialogue we've had on a number of fda issues over the last several months. thank you personally and professionally for the way you are treating me and this subcommittee. one in six americans falls victim to food-borne illness each year. americans expect that food will be safe and the fda is largely tasked with maintaining that confidence. passage of the food safety modernization act in 2010 gave your agency significant new
responsibilities in implementing a very sweeping set of changes to the food safety laws, probably, certainly the largest change in the last 70 years. our hearing today is timely, as it follows last week's publishing of the first two final rules for preventive controls on human and animal foods. in delivering these new regulatory responses, your private sector partners expect transparency and certainty from the fda. when i speak to small businesses and agriculture producers in my home state, their major concern is a government that limits job creation and stifles innovation through burdensome regulations. i'm pleased that the agency took many of the suggestions and comments from the agriculture community into account by reproposing portions of the fsma rules because they were unworkable for farmers, and i thank you for that.
disposal, and has done so since fsma's enactment in 2011. i think spending in the last five years has increased 8%, something that can't be said for many other federal agencies. but we know that you face additional challenges and additional tasks. we're interested in exploring how we can be more helpful. and as the continuing process, as the process continues for appropriations this year, fsma funding will undoubtedly play a
significant role in our deliberations and establishing priorities. i look forward to discussing these and other topics with our witnesses today. i turn now to my colleague for any remarks he may wish to give. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. thank you, dr. ostroff for attending. the safety of our food supply is something our people take for granted. people don't give a second thought whether or not the food they pick up for their family will make them sick. america has and continues to have the safest food supply in the world. that of course doesn't mean that it's perfect. as anyone who has ever had a food-borne illness will testify to. we need to continually work to make sure we stay ahead of a changing marketplace. we have access to food from all over the globe. to stay ahead of this is a
monumental task and there are multiple federal agencies involved, including usda, which regulates 20% of our food supply, and fda, which regulates 80%. we're working continually to make sure a domestic onion is always safe to eat, as well as an imported straw betterrry. the law changed the way we look at the issue of food safety. prior to fsma, an outbreak would take place and we would spend our time and resources tracking it down. now we are working to make sure that we prevent that outbreak from occurring in the first place and giving fda the tools and the teeth it needs to do just that. it's a better way to do business. the law had about 50 specific deliverables, no small task for any agency. and although it took longer than many would like, fda published two of the seven major final
rules next week and the rest will be out, as i understand, by next spring. we're at the point where the rubber meets the road and it will require a new way of thinking for food inspectors who have been trained to look for a specific problem rather than making sure those problems never materialize in the if i werfirs. i think most people would agree that you have done a good job working with industry to make sure that these new rules are effective while minimizing the disruption. so again, thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. it's timely, and i'm very interested to hear from our witnesses. >> dr. ostroff, again, welcome. you may commence your testimony. it is a significant number of pages. and i've extended the deadline from the normal five minutes to ten. >> well, thank you. >> so please proceed. >> thank you, senator moran and other members of the committee. i share your enthusiasm for the
warm working relationship we've been able to develop in the last several months. we look forward to continuing to work with you, not only on food safety issues but all the other issues that fda deals with. so i'm steve ostroff, acting commissioner of food and drugs. i appreciate the opportunity to be here and talk about the food safety act, also known as fsma. i would like to thank you and the committee members for their ongoing interest in this particular topic and for the strong and growing working relationship that has developed between the committee and fda to achieve our mutual goals of assuring the safest food supply in the world for american consumers. i hope that everybody in this room knows that this is food safety month. and i can't think of a better way to celebrate than by starting the process of bringing fsma's important new rules online, as we did last week, and
by discussing with you today the critical next steps that must be taken to realize the goals of fsma. so although i've only been working at fda for two years, actually began my public health career considerably before that, 30 years ago when i was working at the cdc on food safety and food-borne diseases. particularly at that time the newly recognized and deadly pathogen e. coli 157. while working in washington state, close to oregon, over a two-year period, i personally interviewed every person or a member their family in the state diagnosed with that particular infection and visited a number of them in their homes. i subsequent did the same with people with other food-borne pathogens. i can say without question thattive a very deep appreciation for the suffering and consequences of food-borne illness and have carried that perspective throughout my career
as a public health practitioner and as a physician. fast food safety was the reason that i joined the fda in 2013 at the urging of the person sitting to my left. despite today having much-improved technical methods to detect and investigate food-borne illness from when i started my career 30 years ago, along with some notable successes in reducing the incidence of certain pathogens, there certainly remains too much food-borne illness. as you mentioned, nearly one in six americans fall victim to food-borne illness each year. that's 48 million people. of these, 128 are hospitalized and 3,000 die. this burden is shared by each and every one of us, consumers and food producers alike. the economic costs are also quite sizable. since we know that the
illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths can be prevented, we must also quite frankly acknowledge that it is simply time to start preventing them. so over here on this side, cdc's food net data has shown that for many, many years now, the burden of illness due to the major food-borne pathogens remains essentially unchanged. as you can see, the illness burden from some pathogens goes up while for others it goes down. looking at the poster over here on the other side of the room, in total the line remains distressingly flat. so i say to you that it's time to make that line start bending in the right direction. we believe that we now have the tool to be able to do that. and that tool is called the food safety modernization act. during my time at fdai iv have
been thrilled to be able to participate in the process of modernizing our food safety system. this agency has stepped up to solve problems by identifying the best science and risk-based solutions that can benefit both consumers and industry. that is what we do at fda when we're confronted by such problems. i know that mike and his team have embedded this concept in their work to modernize the nation's food safety system through fsma so it can meet the challenges of a new global era. the enactment of fsma was inquestionably the product of foresight and the recognition of common interests. members of congress on both sides of the aisle came together with consumers and food industry leaders to enhance fsma's ability to protect the food supply in a modern diverse world of free flowing commerce. fsma stands for the proposition that the standard across the
food system should be to have processes in place that we have learned work to prevent food safety problems, problems that many -- practices that many food safety producers are already this means having prevention oriented standards in place that are equally applied to domestic and foreign producers, reasonable verification of compliance with those standards, and accountability for those who are unable or unwilling to comply. fsma directs fda to build a mod de ern food safety system based on these ideas. fist fsma is working very hard to build partnerships and strengthen existing ones. this effort includes the food industry from farmers and manufacturers to transporters and importers whose capacity and responsibility under fsma for producing safe food is the absolute foundation of the new
system. it also includes fda's food safety partners and other government agencies at the federal, state, tribal and local levels, and it also includes foreign governments which can play an important role to help assure that the foreign supplies to the u.s. market are being produced in safe fashion. and it includes consumers and patient advocates who have been victims of foodborne illness. because after all, they are ultimately the ones we are doing this for. two final preventive control rules we issued last week are critical linchpins for building our new food safety system. they focus on implementing modern food manufacturing processing for both human and animal foods, thus ensuring food companies are taking a 24/7, 365 day a year approach and working with the fda to pro vent problems on the front end rather than waiting until a problem is
recognized through identifying people with food born illness as you know happened in your state of kansas earlier this year. these rules are important in their own right but they are only the first in a number of steps towards building a comprehensive food safety system. three more rules will be finalized by the end of this year, those being the produce rule, foreign supplier verification process, and accredited third party certification. then the final two rules will be issued this spring -- sanitary transport and intentional adultererati adultereratiadul aration. these are all based on the principle of prevention. writing the rules is clearly ooh big step but it's only the first step. right now they exist on paper. the bigger challenge ahead is implementing those rules and making them exist on the ground. we strongly believe that if we do not implement the new fsma
mandated food safety system in the comprehensive way that congress envisioned right from the start that we will fail to achieve the fsma goals of food safety, strengthen consumer confidence and a level playing field for u.s. producers. the line mentioned earlier will not bend as it should and it must go. so i'm very proud of this work and i am proud of our team. mike taylor alone has been a force of nature when it comes to fsma. so please continue to work with us to achieve the level of funding that we need to accomplish on ground what is set in statute and in rule. american consumers are depending on us and they expect this of us. i will just end by thanking you again for your support of fda and for the opportunity to be here to discuss fsma with you. >> commissioner, thank you very much. let me begin just by asking, you outlined the scenario by which these rules will be announced.
what was the basis for their prioritizatio prioritization? is there something about these rules that make them more difficult, easier, significant to pursue in what do we expect in the future? >> well, i will just say that they're all important. the preventive control rules are probably amongst the most important of all of these rules and they are the ones that are expected to be implemented first, and so these are the priority to be issued. and the other ones will come shortly after that. >> the process you've been through, it will be the same process for the next promulgation. >> the essential answer is yes, we will issue these. deadlines for these are set by the court. we are obligated to be able to meet all of them and we will meet all of them, i can assure of you that. >> just add that as the
commissioner indicated, these rules fromistic package of standards. so we've been through a die long with our stakeholders that's addressed all of these rules because they have to fit together. we have to have a coherent package of regulations. we are at the end of the process for all seven rules having gone through the notice, comment, public meetings, dialogues. so now we are able to actually issue the rules in final. sequencing has something to do as well with just the capacity to get rules out the door and give a little breathing room between rules so that we are on track to get these rules out on that timeline and just as the commissioner indicated. >> mr. chairman, if i might, mike can just make a couple of comments about the implementation plan and that may help to put some of this in context. >> well again, this is a large topic. i'm sure your questions will
draw it out in detail but we are embarking on implementation and are deeply cognizant of the challenges. hundreds of thousands of facilities, the complexity of supply clanhains. but we know we can meet this challenge because we have the dialogue and support of shake holders. some of the themes that we are pursuing undergirding the implementation that we think are crucial to success, first this implement to provide clarity throughout reach and guidance about the new rules. what they require and to be supporting the industry in achieving what's expected through education, through technical assistance. we've said on any number of occasions that we will educate before and while we regulate and we absolutely need that. that's the first theme -- clarity and support for
compliance. the second thing we need to do thematically is fundamentally revamp how we conduct our inspections, how we conduct our oversight and compliance activities so that we are targeting our efforts based on risk and actively foster aing a support spg voluntary compliance through front line oversight that's historically been enforcement and reaction oriented. now it needs to be prevention oriented. fsma has given us rules to take swift action to protect consu consumers but the goal has to be complies and food safety and not enforcement. the third theme is strengthening and expanding our partnerships with state, agricultural and health departments. we have a mandate from congress to establish a national
integrated food safety system and we fundamentally understand that fda cannot possibly implement this law successful by itself. it has to work with our state and local partners. finally i just -- we emphasize and i think this is crucial, the commitment that i think we all need to have to this integrated comprehensive implementation of fsma. this system is a system that doesn't work if we tease out parts or delay parts or don't integrate this in a holistic way. i think the import safety provisions are particularly a crucial part of this overall system of prevention. this is how we will get a level playing field for u.s. producers. we'll meet the expectation of consumers that the food that is imported into this country is as safe as food that is produced here. these are themes that we hope to come back to and we want our feet held to the fire with respect to pursuing this. in this way i think if we do this we can, as daunting as it may seem, with the hundreds of thousands of folks who are seeking to bring into a new
system, we think we can do it sticking with these themes. >> mr. taylor, thank you. commissioner, your charts particularly this one, what's the explanation -- what's the cycle that occurs here? you said there are ups and downs. we've had reductions and increases, both. is there a cause and effect that you could describe to me? why that is with one particular pathogen? >> yeah. that's a good question. i think if you look over here, one of the other things that i think is quite notable from this particular graph is that for many of these pathogens that many of the reductions -- the reductions being the ones that you see that are lower than 1 -- occurred during the very early years of implementation of some new food safety activities in the late 1990s. and that really, if you follow that along into the 2000s, for
many of these it's been incredibly flat. now i think it is important to recognize that food safety and foodborne illness is an incredibly dynamic area. we have new challenges. we have an incredibly diverse food supply. i would venture to say it's much, much more diverse than what we had back in the 1990s when we started keeping some of these statistics. increasingly the proportion that comes from overseas has grown. sort of the locally grown phenomenon has increased over that time period. so there are a lot of things that are challenge iing the foo safety system and influencing the occurrence of foodborne disease. but i think the bottom line is that as these trends have changed over time, we've basically been treading water. and it's time that we no longer tread water, that we actually do things that we know will work to
make these numbers look different as we go forward. >> and you believe this will bend that curve? >>py believe fsma will bend that curve. if you take a look at several of the major food safety problems that we've experienced this year, including the most recent one that we have seen with the cucumbers that were imported from mexico, the various provisions that are in fsma are specifically designed to address the challenges that we've seen in all of those outbreaks. and so we should be able to influence not only the outbreaks that are occurring, but more importantly i think the day in and day out sporadic foodborne illness which forms the pluck f -- bulk of this particular data. i think it's important to say that while we believe all of the activities encompassed under
fsma will work to drive these numbers down, it doesn't absolve consumers of doing the right thing once this food gets into their kitchens, because a lot can happen even if the food as it comes into the kitchens is safe. so it is a comprehensive approach that must be taken to assure that foodborne illness doesn't occur. >> let me turn to senator merkley. >> in your testimony you note fda strategy is taking "an educate before and while you regulate" approach and note that you are currently working on guidance documents. this is very important considering the first two final rules are about 1,500 pages. substantial amount. these guidance documents will be critical for businesses to understand and comply with the new law and they need to be timely. so folks in oregon are asking when these documents will become available and i'll just give you a chance to answer their question. >> to best answer that question, i'm going to turn to the person who's actually writing them.
>> i'm writing them as we speak. guidance is absolutely essential to the success of these rules. we are investing a lot of resources in that now, even as we've been preparing the rules themselves. one thing i would note, in the 1,500 or so pages, this is 8 1/2 x 11 double space but those pages are themselves guidance, an explanation of what the rules actually mean and how we expect them to be applied. that's the first place folks should go to really get an understanding of what the codified rule language itself actually is intendeded to mean in practice. but that is just the first step in guidance. as you know we are developing several -- number of guidance documents, some of which are the key foundational ones so there will be a comprehensive guidance on the animal -- the human preventative controls rule that will be almost kind of an operator's manual for those who
are not yet implementing modern preventive controls like many in the industry already are. for those who aren't there yet, this is going to be a very helpful operating guide essentially for implementing the rules. they will be doing similar guidance for animal food and similar guidance for both animal food preventative controls and -- >> let me just cut to the chase and say, great, i'm glad it's going to have this guidance. when will folks -- >> these major guidances will be coming out early to mid next year, well ahead of folks' obligation to comply. and they will be open for comment. it will be an ongoing process of dialogue but our best thinking will be out there in a timely way for implementation. >> okay. i've heard from constituents and that there are concerns foreign businesses may not be as closely monitored as u.s. businesses and consequently there might be greater risks from foreign products than from u.s. products. additionally, it could put u.s. businesses at an economic advantage of the compliance costs for fsma.
in your testimony you state that fda can't cred pli hold domestic producers to the new standards if we are not doing the same for importers and their foreign suppliers and visa versa. so i know you are aware of these concerns. this may all further when the verification program will be finalized next month. to the degree you can tell us now, how will the fda adequately ensure the safety of foreign food products and will that oversight be as rigorous as oversight for u.s. businesses? >> i'm going to allow mike to give you some of the details. all i can say is one of the fundamental tenets of fsma is that we assure that the safety of foreign sourced food is equivalent to domestically produced food. i think that we have that obligation to create that equity. we know to certain degrees the tools available to us to be able to deal with impored food have
been limited. but this rule -- this law will not successful work unless we can assure total equity between food that is produced overseas with food that is produced domestically. and one of the critical elements of that is that the importers that are bringing this food into the united states assure that the procedures that were in place to produce that food are equivalent to the procedures that are in place for food that is produced domestically. let me let mike give you more detail. >> so congress did provide a mult multi-faceted toolkit. the commissioners referred to the foundational part of that which is this foreign supplier verification requirement so that importers will now for the very first time have a food safety responsibility to be accountable to us for knowing their sources of supply and verifying that those foreign suppliers are producing under our standards.
that's a paradigm shift if we can implement it well. it's combined though in the design of congress with much more overseas presence by fda. so more foreign inspections, more partnership with foreign governments, more investment in foreign food safety capacity where that will contribute to food safety here. we think this toolkit if implemented properly will work to provide that equal rigor. the question is implementation, can we make the investments needed to carry this out as intended. >> mr. taylor, you mentioned the foreign inspections. fsma mandated 600 inspections in 2011 with a doubling of the previous year's inspection level for the subsequent five years, which would mean that in fy 2015 we'd have about 19,000 foreign inspections, and i believe in fact the department plans to only conduct 1,200. so 19,000 versus 1,200.
this lack of foreign inspections is adding to the concern that really different standards are going to be, if you will, practiced in foreign countries because there's not enough inspections to hold them accountable. your thoughts on that? >> you put your finger on a huge challenge. and that is how do we target our resources with resources we get to do this -- implement this law effectively for food safety. we have increased our foreign inspects from at least 300 before enactment in the 1,200 to 1,400 range currently, and those have been very important, but they are parch of a larger system. so the inspections are not inherently preventative in terms of the foreign supply verification programs is required. as far as suppliers for -- we have to get them up to speed.
that's a priority for funding. we'd like to do more for rib ei inspections but we also think about systems like a systems recognition tool we've developed where for countries that have advanced food safety systems we want to recognize that and be able to rely, a mutual reliance sort of relationship where we can rely on their inspections and not duplicate their efforts. so there are multiple elements of this. one of the major investments we've made over the last few years with increased funding from congress is to strengthen our foreign offices overseas which again are going to play a vital role in us building relationships with foreign governments, outreach to foreign industry, all those things where we can leverage our limited resources to maximize prevention activity overseas. we'd love to continue to be in dialogue about how we increase the inspection numbers along with these other activities. >> you mentioned the one thing that i do have to emphasize though is that part of the
request that we made in fy 16 for the full amount of funding which was 109 million was to be able to assure that we could carry out the requirements especially for foreign produced food. and with a number that is significantly lower than that, we will be challenged. i think that there is little question of being able to implement the various rules that will be coming out over the coming months in the way that we envision that they need to be rolled out. >> i think one of those areas that the funding is impacting is in philly mills foreign office. the vacancy rate i believe is 40% of foreign offerses are vacant. is that primarily a funding issues or prioritization issue? zb >>cy will say that it is expensive for us to be able to place people overseas.
however, actually placing people full-time in these offices is only one of the strategies that we've been using to carry out those responsibilities. so we do cycle in people for short-term assignments to be able to assure that we can carry out the things that we need to do in those locations. >> thank you. >> senator from california, senator feinstein. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i really appreciate the opportunity to talk with you, commissioner, for a few moments. i've long been interested in this, actually before my colleagues came on and had tried to be helpful in getting more ag inspectors at our border. but that's a long time ago. california, as you know, is a huge -- it's the number one agricultural production state. can you give me any percent or any measurement of salmonella in
california-produced produce? >> that probably is not a number that i would have off the top of my head. you know, given my extensive time at the cdc, i'm pretty familiar with the systems that they use to collect the data, including the data that went into the food net report in which california is one of the participants in that system. and so there are data that are broken out by state for the various food net sites in terms of the incidence of some of the pathogens that you see on these lists. i cannot tell you whether or not it is done on a commodity-specific basis. >> okay. now the latest salmonella for us is the cucumbers imported from mexico and i gather that's 418 illnesses across 30 states.
we have seen the most illnesses of any state. 89 illnesses, 17 hospitalations, and one death. i'm concerned that year after year the centers for disease control reports that the united states has not made progress in reducing the number of foodborne salmonella infections that occur. i was listening, and also readinread ing your comments, how that's these now food safety recommendations you are finalizing will prevent outbreaks like this from mapping with specifics. take the cucumber as an example. how will you work it? both at the border, in a foreign country, with the business -- or the farm operation in mexico that's producing these crops. >> well, i'll preface my statement by saying that that particular outbreak is still
under investigation. and so we don't know all of the specific details that may have led to it happening. but having said that, i think that if you think of two of the major outbreaks that we've experienced this year, one of them being the salmonella associated with the cucumbers, and a few months earlier a parasitic pathogen cyclospora associated with cilantro that was also imported from mexico. you know, there are some themes about the quality and implementation of measures prevent problems from occurring in the first place. and that is at the heart of what we are trying to accomplish with the produce rule. so that produce rule establishes a numb berp of standards that producers overseas and producers
domestically could adhere to. >> could you give us an example of the standards? >> you know, some of them are the water that's being used to irrigate the crops. one of them has to do with the access of animals to various locations. there's another aspect that deals with the hygiene of the workers that are working on these particular farms. and so it's a whole variety of requirements that will be in place under the produce rule that any producer who is importing food into the united states will be expected to meet. >> if i just may add, the difference fsma will make is we've known for years what these practices are and fda has provided voluntary guidance but there have been no enforceable standards, whether for domestic or foreign producers, and thus no accountability for doing the right thing. what fsma does is create enforceable standards, then also verification that those
standards are being met. it is that simple but it is a profound difference from where we've been before where it was incumbent upon fda to find and react to the problem in the absence of clear standards for prevention. it is a real game change. i think for cucumbers, that kind of example will make a huge practical difference. >> right. no, i gather produce is about 48% of salmonella, and that's under your jurisdiction. and the rest of it -- meat, chicken, pork -- is under usda, if i understand that correctly? do you coordinate in standards between the two of you or are are the standards different? >> one of the critical requirements of being successful with fsma is to be able to work closely with a whole variety of partners. and it is not only partners that are at the federal level but it is also down at the state and local level where a lot of the day in and day out work with farmers occur.
so, yes, it is very important that we work quite closically with usda to ensure the success of what we do. >> with produce -- for example, i've had camplovacter and it was from eating not thoroughly cooked chicken, so i asked my staff to look into it. it is not your jurisdiction, but it is interesting to me that 40% of the ground chicken in markets have salmonella. i talked to a large chicken grower in my state, and i said what about this? and he said, well, everybody knows you have to cook chicken to 165 degreesl 5 degrees until. i said, well, i didn't know. and i don't think everybody knows. so it raises the question of how these two agencies interact. i really think you have a good
thing going in what i've read on fsma and i like very much how you're going about it. i worry very much about particularly chicken because chicken has become such a high item for people in terms of e eating. it doesn't seem to me that we make much progress year after year. but with respect to this, you mentioned cilantro, cucumbers, ice cream, tuna, caramel apples, and these five outbreaks alone are almost 1,000 cases of illness and 12 deaths. do you think there's anything that usda can begin to learn from fsma? do you think it's relevant? >> again, we work very closely with usda.
without question, far be it from me to provide advice to them related to things that we ourselves don't regulate. all i can say is that, you know, they, too, are work, quite arduously in putting in place additional strategies to be able to address those products that are under their jurisdiction. and there are a lot of similarities to things that we are doing in fsma to things that usda is doing. because, again, from the consumer's perspective, if they end up with salmonella, they end up with salmonella and they're not so much interested in what the source is as to what we do to keep it from happening. >> right. right. and we have two big agencies that -- one handles the meat products and one handles the fresh produce products. and i've often wondered is that the best way to do it. i think you're taking wkz aacti
and i'm very pleased to see that. i'm also concerned about antibiotics in products and what's been happening in that human stream of consuming products that have antibiotics. could you talk a little bit about that and what your agency is doing? >> sure. as you know, this is also a very important aspect of food safety. you know, we have had a multi-agency activity in place called narms that monitors not only the occurs of various pathogens in a variety of food products, particularly meat that's sold at the retail level, but also monitors the patterns of antimicrobial resistance. we look at isolates that come
from products that we regulate, usda looks at products that they regulate, and cdc also incorporates information from human isolates of those same pathogens so that we can compare those patterns and look at those patterns over time. as you know, we also have been working quite hard to be able to address the issue of antimicrobial resistance from foodborne pathogens. that is a whole other large component of our activities, especially by reducing the use of medically important antibiotics used in food producing animals, particularly when used for growth promotion purposes. and so we have put out a number of guidances and rules specifically designed to address
reductions in the use of antibiotics for those purposes. this has been a multi-year process to put those rules in place. we have done this on a voluntary basis to have all of the marketers of these antibiotics for use in food animals make labeling changes to remove growth promotion as an indication for the use of these antibiotics, and they have all voluntarily complied. the phase-in period to make those changes in the labels is to start at the end of this year. and so we would look to see changes start to occur as a result of those practices. and the other very important point of those requirements is to make sure use of those antibiotics for other purposes under the direction of a veterinarian. so both of them i think will be very helpful in terms of addressing the problem.
>> thank you very much, commissioner. thank you, mr. chairman. >> you're welcome, senator feinstein. thank you very much. just to educate myself in a more general way, let me raise a couple of topics that are a result of the questions and the testimony. one of the things i wanted to ask about is the cause of death. you cite the cdc's statistics, the 128,000 hospitalized, 3,000 die related to foodborne illness. is there a breakdown of those deaths or hospitalizations related to consumer preparation versus the food was tainted prior to preparation? do we know where the cause lies with the consumer versus the provider? >> it's not a very easy question to answer especially when you're sometimes talking about a relatively long period between the time that the exposure may
have occurred and the death occurs. having said that, we deal with a whole variety of different pathogens, some of which have -- some of which deal with items that are supposed to be cooked. sometimes you're dealing with raw commodities like in the produce space. and so ultimately, in most instances, what you want to try to do, and i think what fsma is designed to do, is to try to keep it from being there in the first place. and i think if you can successful do that in many of these commodity areas, then you will successfully be able to have an impact in reducing these problems from occurring. >> so there is reduction that can occur in the likelihood of the problem that reduces the importance of consumer preparation of the food item. >> let me just say without question that you never want to send any suggestion that
consumers can become lax in the way that they handle their food because i don't think that we would want to ever send such a message. i think that we do want to do is to be able to enhance consumer confidence that the food that comes into their kitchens does not contain pathogens -- >> that was very artful. i'll re-ask my question which would be, there is no way, is there, doctor ostroff, that consumer preparation is not important regardless of what arrives in the consumer's home. >> you said it perfectly. >> thank you. firms of all, i want to follow up on the senator's point about imported food versus domestic food. he was asking for equity, an indication that you had indicated in your testimony that there is an importance to making sure that there's not an economic disadvantage to domestic producers, there's not a double standard is the thiway
think we'd say it in kansas. does that double standard exist today? is there a difference in the nature and likelihood of foodborne illness to imported food verses are domestic food? >> i'll turn that one over to my colleague. >> i think the answer is that under current fsma, the standards are the same. congress has made it very clear in fsma that the same standards are to be applied, same safety is to be achieved weather foreign or domestic. where there is a different challenge is in the ability to verify that those standards are being met and we have very different challenges with imports than we do with domestic because have an inspection force here. we can directly hold girms legally accountable, go into a facility. we can really cover that. there's no amount of foreign enspecs that congress will ever pay for us to do that would provide a comparable level of oversight through inspection overseas. so that's why we've got this multi-faceted toolkit of foreign
splar v supplier verification and more collaboration with the foreign governments. the difference is not the same standards, the question is how do you verify. >> under fsma, the ability to enforce those standards is going to in large part rely on the certification of those who are importing food that their providers -- their foreign suppliers are in compliance. >> that's the foundation for the new system because the u.s.-based importer is legally directly accountable to us. we can hold them legally accountable for doing that job properly. that's where we have the direct legal handle. but then we can go over and again inspect foreign facilities. if we see a problem we can keep that food from coming in. we can work with foreign governments to foster good practices and rely on their inspection activity. but yes, direct legal
accountability for imports in terms of private sector responsibility is on that u.s.-based importer. that's why that rule and its proper implementation is so foundational. >> what does that mean the importer was most likely to do to sign that certification? what is that company going to do in a foreign country to make certain that when they attest that standards are being met that they're actually being met? >> some under the regulation that we've proposed, you'll see it coming forward -- i'm not here announcing the final content of the regulation but i think the elements of it are evident from the proposals that we've put out and a supplemental proposal we put out last year. but the whole idea is that -- again this is just following the congressional mandate. the importer must have a program, a documented program, where they have identified their suppliers, they've come to understand their suppliers pe' s practices for food safety, they
know the practices the supplier is undertaking. they look at records and under some circumstances, when justified by risk, because it is intended to be a risk-based foreign supply verification program, we would envision the u.s.-base importer doing an audit. actually having an audit conducted -- on-site audit of that foreign producer. so it is having a real program that we can then audit and then obviously go behind that and sample product when it's coming in, go behind that and actually inspect the farm facility if we choose to. it is that accountability for the importer thaels tt's so cru. >> the word audit has a different impact than inspection. an auditor would not be doing the same thing that a fda inspector would be doing in a foreign country? >> it's different. when you talk about inspection, we're used to going in and looking at facilities and conducting a physical example of a physical place. the audit term that we're using applies to looking at -- auditing the program, checking
the records, being able to get confidence from examining the records and talking to the importer that they are in fact -- they know what they're doing and they're doing the right thing. so in that sense it is a very records-intensive audit activity that will be a major component of ensuring this is being done properly. >> thank you. i have more questions, but maybe a way to accommodate your schedule is to turn now to you and if you're unable to stay for my final round, i wouldn't be offended. >> thank you very much, chairman. i want to draw attention to the report that you've all displayed, the 2014 food safety progress report for folks who numerically are challenged, you've boiled it down to happy faces, grim faces, and very unhappy faces. the unhappiest of all is is the face representing vibrio. over on the other chart that
you've provided you show that while every other disease that is decreased since the 1998 until now time period, there's one disease that has increased in incidence and that's vibrio. what is the story? what particulars should we know about the challenge this disease represents? >> well, vibrio can also be a significant disease. it comes in a couple of different forms. there are several different pathogens that are encompassed under the label of vibrio and they are, in general, associated with seafood products. we have seen -- now i think it is important to put in context that in terms of the overall numbers, the number of illnesses associated with vibrio was actually quite small, and certainly a very small fraction of what we see in the united states from either salmonella or
camplovactor. some of this is associated with the actual spread of vibrio. in some instances it was largely confined to certain areas of the country, and because of movements that occur with emerging diseases, it spread to other areas where it traditionally hasn't been. but it is a trend that we've been seeing particularly along the east coast. >> i was reading an article recently about ponds where shrimp are farmed on land in asia and where massive amounts of antibiotics are used to control the various diseases that are rampant in those ponds. is -- is that import of shrimp from these farms one of the factors contributing to the vibrio expansion? >> i would have to get you specific information about whether or not that's contributing. but, by and large, to my
knowledge, most of the v siteib related illnesses are not associated specifically to shrimp. >> thank you. back whether we were working on this bill, a youngen ma and his father came out from oregon to testify. the father was a police officer, the son when he was 3 -- his name is jacob hurley -- he had experienced a life threatening case of salmonella from the c contaminated peanut butter. he was one of among more than 700 who were sickened by contaminated peanut products in 2009. i believe that the company involved in that was the peanut corporation of america. if we look back on that particular well publicized incident, how would the preventative controls rules that we have just passed have made a potential significant difference
in the risk of that disease? >> so that's an unusual case in many respects. in part, because of the vast scale of the damage that it did and the thousands of products that had to be recalled because this firm was selling not only peanut butter in bulk but peanut ingredients that went out into thousands of processed foods. it was a catastrophic event for the food system. it also involved intentional conduct by the owner and operator of that facility. and the well publicized subsequent criminal prosecution and conviction. what fsma will do, even in that situation, is provide a much stronger basis for inspectors when they go in to facility to not be reliant just on looking around at the facility conditions and pre-fsma with no access to the records of the facility, under fsma we'll have a much stronger ability as
investigators to go into facilities and make assessments of the system and be able to detect and find records that might actually document positive analytical results such as in this particular case that would reveal a problem that needs to be addressed. there will always be that rare instance where perpetual criminal behavior happens and there needs to be swift remedies for that. but i think even in these cases, we will be able to be more effective in our investigatory role in assessing systems and whether this sort of practice is going on in facility that needs to be addressed very forcefully and fsma gives us new rules for addressing that sort of situation forcefully. if we identify this sort of problem through inspection under fsma we can actually suspend the registration of that facility and shut the facility down administratively and that's an important tool in these sorts of extreme cases. >> as you note, there were exceptional circumstances like mold, animal contamination, roof, so on, so forth, kind of egregious behavior of some
known -- regarding some known problems. but in terms of the inspections you mentioned and the ability to kind of have teeth, that matters. but there is another element of the preventative controls rule. i think it is in preventive control rules that involves developing a tracking system for ingredients that go into processed foods. can you just comment on whether you believe that is going to make a difference? >> so fda has historically since the bioterrorism act in 2001 was enacted has had authority to require firms to keep records of where their incoming materials came from and where their finished products have gone. one up, one down record keeping. fsma adds somewhat to our authority in that area by giving us the authority to set standards for how that firm connects the dots between the incoming and the outgoing. so that will be a step, and that's a rule making that's
under way to put that in place. fsma, frankly, puts some constraints on fda in terms of it traceability because it precludes us from requiring essentially a farm-to-table pedigree or the kind of tracing that is done by u.p.s. and fedex. we're precluded from using that sort of technology for traceability. from our standpoint, traceability is how we can investigate outbreaks much more expeditiously, get to the cause of problems and solve them. but traceability is going to have to come into the modern era fully through public/private collaboration, finding ways to harness industry, innovation with the support of us and dialogue so we can be sure whatever they do helps our investigators as well as the firms themselves. but the work to be done yet in that area. >> thank you very much, mr. taylor. appreciate it. thank you.
>> i ask unanimous consent as soon as he leaves to -- no. one of the things i read in your testimony that i wanted to highlight and ask you to confirm to me how serious you are about this and how confident i can be that it will remain the policy. and that is you indicate the approach to inspection is aimed first at fostering and facilitating compliance rather than finding and penalizing regulatory violations. that is a policy, in my view, that every regulatory federal agency should adopt. the goal is to make improvements in cooperation with the regulated. and it seems to me -- and we've had this in other agencies previously in which it seemed to be that was the direction they
were going, but over time, the joy of penalizing became too great and the attitude of cooperation disappeared. is there some assurance that you mean what you say in your testimony and that it will last as part of the nature of the food and drug administration as it implements and enforces fsma? >> well, all i can say is that we do believe that the approach that is expressed in fsma, which is to work clollaboratively wit regulated industry -- regulated industrying meaning from the fa reca farm into the transport of people's homes, that we work collaboratively to work with them and work to do it right. we know that doing it right has
tremendous impact. that is not to say -- because you always have to, i'm sure you are quite aware -- there is the carrot and the stick. and we know that the carrot is quite an effective way to promote improvements in food safety. but that does not mean that we are not going to use the stick when we need to use the stick. >> if i could just add why i believe this will remain the policy over time regardless of who happens to be sitting in these chairs. partly we've put it in writing. we've made this commitment to the industry and to the public and people support this. externally. but equally important for your purpose, the people at fda embrace this wholeheartedly. the people who are at the front line in our agency are public health people. enforcement is a tool and that's been the culture the agency given the statute we've had and framework for food safety which has basically been an enforcement oriented statute and program. but with fsma we're now public health at the front line and our
front line people love that. they would much rather be getting good food safety outcomes and doing public health than trying to rack up enforcement numbers. that's just not the fundamental mentality of that cadre of people, including the young people coming in to the agency. it is an extraordinarily exciting time for them and the whole agency. i think the future is here in terms of the culture change that's going on and we're working in many ways to institutionalize that and embed that in the practices of the agency. >> wouldn't it be fair -- i recognize when i asked that question, it may sound as if you're trying to take care of business or farmers. but isn't the reality that we end up with a safer food supply system when this is the attitude? >> we know -- you know. and if you talk to people in the food business, it is just obvious. vast majority want to produce safe food. on a personal level and it is in their intense business interest to do that. our whole strategy is based upon that assumption. we need to work with that vast majority who want to comply,
support that compliance, verify that it is happening. for those that aren't complying, we will act swiftly and take whatever actions are needed to protect consumers. in these extreme cases like peanut corporation of america, invoke strict remedies as a deterrent. our reliance on food safety is how we'll get the best public health outcome. >> in the world i come from in kansas, the rumor of food disease or animal borne diseases causes dramatic consequences to farmers, to ranchers. it doesn't take an actual case, just the thought that something may be wrong. and so i'm certainly not opposed to strictly, strongly enforcing penalties and putting bad actors out of business, because they have a huge consequence certainly to the consumer and the safety of our food supply, but for those same businessmen and women, those same farmers an ranchers, they can't afford
financially to have the rumor, the reality that there's something wrong with what they produce. >> our strategic interests are fully aligned on that. >> i think you are absolutely right. we know that the ramifications from foodborne outbreaks that occurred years ago still ripple through certain commodities. the other thing that i will say is that the approach that we will be taking under fsma is really a fundamentally significant change to the way that we approach food safety, and it is really critical -- because a number of things that are encompassed in the funding request that we have made to congress is designed to ensure that up and down the system we can re-orient the workforce to be able to implement the things that you were saying in terms of being able to work claim raollae
with industry, and being able to oversea and make sure what any are doing is up to standards takes resources. i don't know any other way to say it. we do know without question that unless we receive the total amount of the request, that something is going to have to give and some aspect of what we're doing. >> you couldn't help yourself. >> sill's be happy to visit that topic. let me finish up a couple other items. when it comes to the state of kansas, the state of oregon, the state of california, what will the role be for those states as a result of fsma and its implementation? what happens different at the kansas department of health and environment? >> well, you know, the approaches that are being taken at the federal level, those same types of changes will also occur at the state level.
the states and localities are really very critical partners in implementing fsma as it is designed to be implemented. they are our front line eyes and ears. they carry a lot of the workload in not only working with their regulated industry at the state and local level, but tis particularly in certain areas, one coming to mind is the produce rule. we will look very much towards working with the states to be able to provide the type of frontline support to all of the farmers within their states to be able to appropriately implement the new requirements for fsma. and so they are really critical to the success of this endeavor. >> let me ask one question related to the animal feed rule and contract farmers. doctor, you indicated, commissioner, you indicated to
me that in advance of this hearing that what i was going to hear from the folks out there in that world would be all requests to make sure that congress appropriated sufficient funds to implement fsma. and that you had worked your way through many of the challenges that had a lot of input from stakeholders, as you described. and i appreciate that and seems to me that that is, in large part, the reality. one area that i've heard concern about is the definition of what a farm or farmer is. you're shaking your head, so maybe i don't need to describe the issue. is there something afoot that i ought to know about the direction that you're going? what i have heard, that there is concern from farmers who have no involvement in anything other than raising the livestock, the animal, that this will come -- that fsma will affect their operations as well when all the processing and everything occurs
downstream. and in fact the feed, most importantly, is not grown or provided by them, it is provided by upstream buyers of contract -- those they have contracted with. this is an issue -- have i described it adequately. you're frowning. >> well, no, because the specific way that a farm is defined is really critical to certain parts of these rules, not only the preventative controls but also to the produce rule. and so we have worked quite closely with those that will be impacted by this rule to make sure we can get it about as right as we possibly can. i will ask mike, because i know he has been immersed in this particular issue for the last several years. >> so, i do know the issue very well. and the fact that there's presumably still some folks who have some concerns just shows
that there is an exception to every rule, stakeholder support for the rules. i think what you are talking about is a situation in which there are vertically integrated poultry operations where a perdue or tyson will own the chickens. they will manufacture and own the feed. they will provide the contract growers who own -- the growers only grow. the growers, if they have a concern that they're affected by this, i haven't heard that. and i do need to hear that. the affected party is the operator of that feed mill that is not being managed on or by a farm operation. but rather by this big vertically integrated poultry enterprise. that feed mill is subject to the animal feed preventative controls rule. requirement is very practical and are risk-bhased. so don't address issues that don't need to be addressed in
terms of ensuring safety of animal feed. but those feed mills are subject to preventative controls. if the poultry operator -- or any farmer -- is growing or processing their own feed on their farm in their feed mill for their animals, that's part of the farm operation and would not be subject to the preventative controls rule. i'd be happy to engage whoever has the concern and connect them with with us. >> you answered the question better than i asked it. i think that's the assurance that they were hoping to hear. >> okay. well, good. happy to talk to them if that would help. >> let me talk just a moment about the appropriations process. i indicated in my opening statement, this will continue to be a priority, certainly of mine and i think of this subcommittee. and you mentioned specifically the amount of money that the president's budget requests and our ability to meet that at this
point hasn't occurred. and if those dollar amounts change, we're interested in reviewing and reprioritizing based upon what the needs are of fda and others to try to make certain we make the right priority decisions. but let me ask a couple of things about how the money has been spent in the past. as i indicated in my opening statement the number i believe is an 8% increase over the last 5 years for implementation at fda. am i saying that correctly? >> of course you do. [ laughter ] >> well, let me ask how that money has been spent in implementation. and how has the -- how's it been allocated?
is it across food safety, foodborne illness detection, how have you decided to spend the money over the past five years? >> i'll consult with my expert. >> yeah. so, the total amount that -- since 2010 that's been implemented -- that's been allocated specifically i believe the number is approximately $162 million over that time period. it has been used in a whole variety of ways. but as you probably recognize, there has been a tremendous effort on our part to be able to appropriately lay the groundwork to get these rules to a place where those rules are both implementable and will work. and that's no mean task. as you know we have had a tremendous numbers of outreach
activities to the various stakeholder groups. there have been somewhere in the range of 600 or so meetings that have occurred. either public meetings, interactions with regulated industries. various trade associations. as you know, we've walked facilities and farms from one coast to the other. there has been a significant effort to actually do all the writing that it takes to get these rules to the place where they were. as you know, we issued a number of supplemental rules, so that has heavily contributed to a lot of the resources that we have used to get to the point where we can actually get to where we are now, which is to start implementing. >> in addition there are a number of programmatic things that we've made in is
significant as well. some of it includes technical staffing so we can support the industry and our state partners and our own inspectors as they implement this. we've doubled the investment in the states to close to $50 million over the last few years. we've been able with the resources we've got including these increases to meet the mandate for high-risk inspections, the frequency mandate, and exceed that and do that earlier than expected. we think that's been an important part of getting ourselves in a position to succeed. and then the import area has been an area of investment. we've significantly increased the number of inspections as i mentioned. we've expanded the foreign offices, things we've talked about. so, there have been significant programmatic investments in capacity for ourselves and the states in order to implement. it's part of an ongoing buildup so we can succeed going forward. >> thank you, mr. taylor.
it's apparently one of those circumstances in which both are right. the desired outcome has been achieved, food has increased by 8%. i think this is my final question. is there any opportunities -- let me ask that differently because there has to be. as you implement this, are there opportunities for reprioritizing existing spending that are -- that spending is no longer necessary because you're headed down a different path than the nature of the way fda operated in the past? so, where do the -- are there any savings to occur as a result of the implementation? >> i think -- my commissioner is looking at me, so i will say something. yeah -- yes, that's a -- no.
i want to try to explain. if you look at the overall funding of the foods program about three-quarters of it, you know, goes into the field-based activities that relate to food safety but doing it old way. what we are talking about is adding to the base resource so we can reorient, redeploy all of that resource to doing food safety in the way envisioned here. >> when you say -- >> i wanted to get credit for the fact that we're not just continuing to do all the old stuff and add on the new thing. >> that's the nature of my question. >> yes, sir. and the answer is we're redeploying but it doesn't mean we can, you know, stop spending the money needed to support that workforce. we have to, in fact, invest it in so it work in the modern prevention oriented way in a much more sophisticated regulatory framework. yes, it's redeployment as opposed to adding resources on top of resources still deployed doing the old thing.
>> that's what i want to hear, since you, dr. ostroff, wanted to answer no, i want to give you the opportunity to say yes. isn't the reality, isn't the truth, that we can now as we do things differently, you redeploy assets, resources that were directed in the old way of doing business to the new way of doing business? >> yeah. >> so, you know, this is -- this is not going to require fewer people to be successful. it's just going to require that those people do things differently than they've been doing them. but the people that we need to be successful will not -- you know, we're not going to have people go away. and in point of fact that given the various responsibilities that we have under these rules, that we need every single one of those people to be successful in implementing this.
so, from the standpoint of what we've been doing with our field force and what we have been doing with our laboratories, those responsibilities don't disappear. >> dr. ostroff, thank you for your testimony. talk for being here. mr. tootel anything you'd like to make certain is included in the record before we close this hearing? >> i will close by saying i'm the eternal optimist and, you know, we -- the request that we made for this fiscal year for implementation from my perspective is absolutely critical to its success. and, you know, to make this have its maximal impact, which we hope that it will have to change some of these graphs that you see here on the right and the left, every component of that request is vitally important to
the success of this endeavor. and so we will have some incredibly difficult choices to make if we cannot get that particular request. and so i recognize that you have been an ardent supporter and we certainly are totally appreciative of the efforts that you've made to this point. and we're very, very appreciative of the resources that did show up in the subcommittees and the full appropriation for implementation. all i can say is that there will be some significant shortfalls that will result with that particular number which will make it very challenging for us to be able to put in place right from the get-go what we need to do to be successful in this endeavor. >> doctor, thank you very much. appreciate your testimony. thank you for being here. i appreciate the presence of my
colleagues and for members of the subcommittee either those who were here or were not, any questions they'd like to submit for the record should be turned into the subcommittee staff within one week, which is wednesday september the 23rd and we'd appreciate having a response back from fda within four weeks subsequent to that point in time. and, again, thank you for your testimony. thank you for the way that you have answered questions today and presented testimony. and please express my gratitude to the folks at fda for the outreach that has occurred in the development of these orders of control. with that, the committee stands adjourned. >> thank you, senator.
this sunday night on q & a, robert costa on the 2016 presidential campaign and ross perot. >> the themes are really overlapping. i think perot has a distinct personality, dimpt from trump. the celebrity factor was not there in the way that drives and attracts people to trump. they throw themselves at trump for an autograph or picture. to be outside the republican party, the republican party's relationship with trump has been rocky this year.
i broke the story a couple months ago. trump said we'll see. he did not tone it down. now he's signed the pledge. who knows what it is worth. it's a political document. we could see this year what happened with perot happen with trump. he talks about wanting to be treated fairly. he is unpredictable. he could easily run as an independent. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. pacific on c-span's q & a. >> adam has been nominated for the next. he discussed how to cut off funds to terrorist groups and the iran nuclear agreement. senator richard shelby chairs the urban affairs committee. this is just over an hour.
the hearing will come to order. this morning, we will hear testimony from mr. adam zubin of washington, d.c. to be the undersecretary of the treasury by terrorism and financial crimes. mr. confirmed, he will be third under the secretary of treasury with the responsibility for the office of terrorism and financial intelligence. the undersecretary reports directly to the secretary. this position, most of us realize, is responsible for executing the dual mission of combatting terrorists and money laundering while overseeing the nations sanctions program. the under secretary oversees policy, regulatory and
enforcement such as terrorism and financial crimes. the office of analysis. the treasury executive office for asset forfeitture and crimes enforcement network. he comes to the under secretary's office with 14 years of government experience. he has participated in several international negotiations including the iran deal being considered in the senate. ironically, the nominee that helped enforce the most comprehensive sanctions, architecture against the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism may be tasked with dismantling a lot of it. given this context, today's hearing is important and timely. the committee looks forward to mr. sdubin's testimony.
>> thank you. i appreciate your willingness to allow a hearing on this nomination. it is observed in republican and democratic administrations and senior positions relating to economic sanctions. he is eminently qualified for the position. i welcome his children, his wife, his parents and inlaw, i believe. he will introduce them, i'm sure. before i talk about his superb credentials and experience, i want to talk about a point we have been making to the chairman for months about pending bank committee nom nag natiinationno. before today, in this calendar year, we have not held a single nomination hearing. i'm grateful for today. we have been unhappy for eight plus months about this.
by contrast, in 2007, the seventh year of the bush administration, when senate and white house control were divided, the banking committee held three nomination hearings before the august recess. the senate confirmed more than a dozen nominees coming out of this committee. given all the concerns surrounding terrorist financing, you would think this nomination would be a priority. in the past it has been. mr. szubin mentored under president bush. his immediate predecessor took consider. some of the pending nominees have been waiting since january just for a hearing. they deserve hearings and votes. i hope the chairman will promptly move them through the process and on to the senate floor for consideration. that said, i'm delighted under secretary szubin before us to
discuss the critical role of the u.s. government's broader control. that officeú:hv marshalls the department intelligence enforcement with the dual aim of safeguarding the financial system against illness and use and terrorist mass destruction, prolif ray tors, drug king pens and other national security threats. over the last 15 years, he distinguished himself as a tough, aggressive enforcer against countries like russia, iran and north korea and against money launderers, terrorists and traffickers. after earning undergraduate in law degree, he was a full scholar in israel before joining the department of justice. he served as deputy attorney general, he was on the task force receiving the justice department's special accommodation award for his
work. from 2006 to 2015, he directed treasury office or foreign assets control. many of us came to know him as a thoughtful policy paik maker and superb lawyer. a recent letter endorsing him described him as a heavyweight who worked effectively with global partners. i couldn't agree with that assessment more. i welcome him back to the committee. i look forward to your testimony today. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> will you stand? do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give is the troous, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> testify before any duly constituted committee in the futu future? >> yes. >> you may sit down.
your written testimony, will be made part of this record in its entirety. before you begin your oral remarks, i invite you to introduce your family members in attendance today. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and ranking member brown. i was like to introduce my wife, my sons, my mother laurie and my father-in-law. i want to thank, in particular my wife for her unwaivering support over the past years. this job can be a difficult one and i could not have done any part of it without her. >> proceed as you wish. >> chairman shelby, ranking member brown, members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before the committee today. i'm honored to have been nominated to serve under the treasure secretary for terrorism and crimes. i want to thank president obama for the confidence he has in me
and secretary liu for his support. i do not take this opportunity for granted. indeed, i don't cake for granted the fact i have been allowed to serve my government at all for the last 16 years. my father was not born here, he was born in poland in 1933. his parents fled the nazis at the outbreak of world war ii and captured where they lived out the war years. siberia was a place of hardship, but their capture and exile saved their lives. all my fathers aunts, uncles and cousins were wiped out by the nazis. there are a few remnants of the family that should have numbered in the thousands. my parents raise zed us to be individual lent against evil in the world, not an abstract conce concept, but a threat they had seen in their lifetimes. we were not raised in an environment of fear or sadness. to the contrary, saver life,
seek out joy and be aware of and grateful for the many gifts we enjoyed. high among the gifts was the ability to grow up in america. the golden land, to which my father had come. he has never stopped marveling at this country, openness to new immigrants, work ethic and enduring hopefulness that we improve the world and leave it better for your children. for all of these, i was taught to be grateful. it is not a surprise i sought out a career in government service, i have been amazed the country allowed the child of an immigrant to shape our national security policies. this truly is a country like no other. i appreciate how significant the responsibilities of this office are. 11 years ago, i followed stewart levy, my mentor from the justice department when he was named the first under secretary for tfi.
i have served in tfi ever since. most recently as the acting undersecretary for the last six months overseeing the 700 exceptional individuals who make our organization what it is. congress created tfi to bring together, under one roof, an array of capabilities, regulation and policy, to confront and challenge adversaries on the battlefield. it is an easy mission to describe, but challenging to execute. nonetheless i think they have accomplished things in their short history. the conventional wisdom in schools and affairs was that sanctions did not, could not work. the target of sanctions would find ways to circumvent them. money like water, that would find its way downhill. thanks to the men and women of tfi, i don't hear that wisdom anymore. people have seen that smart,
persistent and creative efforts when the intelligence community shakes regimes and change behavior. our efforts have been a key plank in the efforts against terrorist groups, murderous groups like al qaeda, hezbollah and hamas. we continue to have so much critical work ahead of us. every bank account frozen, every charitable front froze and every fund-raiser designated or deterred strikes a blow against these groups. tfi worked with governments around the world for laws and procedures to empower them to stop and track elicit money flows. it is in every arena and every continent, more transparent than ten years ago. in the field of human rights, we use sanctions to combat oppression and abuse. of course there's much to be
done. in the arenas of narcotics trafficking and money laundering we dealt powerful cartels major setbacks by exposing and bankrupting their holding companies and money launderers, hitting them where it hurts most, in their wallets. we use sanctions to combat north korea, closing out front companies and banks that were willing to launder their money for a cut. when we saw russia violate ukraine's territorial sovereignty, we worked with allies in europe to get a set of sanctions that not only went after the key businessmen surrounding president putin, but also cut off russia's largest banks and energy companies from the things they depend on, western technology and financing. our goals have not yet been reached. tfi is making a difference and
advancing our foreign policy. finally, under david cohen's leadership, we executed a strategy to intensify the pressure against the government of iran. due to a range of concerns, the program is among them. over a steady campaign, we were able to cut iran's banks off from the financial center, badly wounding the capabilities. in 2010, congress, with this committee at its center, then dramatically advanced the;s6÷ et passing bipartisan measures bringing crude oil down by 60%. escrowed four reserves and made sure they knew they would not recover until they closed off all pathways to a nuclear weapon. these efforts led to the election of president rouhani and a process that has the comprehensive plan of action. the women and men of my office worked incredibly hard over the past decade to build and enforce
these measures and to combat every effort to circumvent them. now, as we suspend the nuclear sanctions, should iran fulfill the commitments, we are rend rendering a battery of sanctions outside the nuclear file. the human rights abuses inside iran and destabilizing activities in the region per sued through the force, hezbollah and other iranian partners in syria, iraq, yemen and beyond. we will be building this pressure in close cooperation with partners in europe, israel and the gulf. none of tfis successes would have been possible without strong bipartisan support from the house and senate and members and staff of this committee in particular. if confirmed, i intend to build upon the close relationship we enjoyed and take on the pressing challenges ahead. i can commit, if confirmed, i
will not rest. i sit every morning to read the latest intelligence and the threats we face are, indeed, serious. we need to be individual lent, smart and aggressive. as the international landscape evolves, i am confident tfi will remain at the forefront to protect our national security. thank you for your time and consideration, i would be glad to answer any questions you have. >> mr. sdubin, you have been acting as undersecretary since february of this year. in your august 5th testimony before the committee, you agreed with former national security adviser, susan rice, we can expect iran's frozen assets to fund more terror and other elicit activities. you concluded treasury office in terrorism and financial intelligence needs to ramp up the efforts to go after iran's elicit funding.
how would you lead now the ramping up of such efforts. >> thank you senator. thank you mr. chairman. it's obviously a key campaign as we move forward and one i will spend a lot of my personal time on. there are a lot of aspects to this. the most visible is deploying new sanctions. we have done quite a lot against hezbollah, over recent years. i had analysts in my office set out a link charge. it's over 200 companies and officers that are sanctioned. they are all under sanctions not with standing the deal. the sanctions, thanks to congress have an effect. i mean foreign banks that do business with anyone on that list do so at their own peril and risk being cut off from the u.s. financial system. in addition to targeting to go after the nodes, the networks and officers of the terrorist groups and proxieproxies, we ha
lot to do. i think we have a lot of willing counter parts. when i talk to officials in the gulf and saudi arabia and the eua, i expect my next trips will be there. there's a real opportunity to harness that and disrupt money foes which have been going through places like dubai and banks in the region. we continue to work with counter parts in israel and we need to do more. >> since november, 2011, the entire iranian financial system has been designated as a primary laundering concern under section 311 of the patriot act for reasons other than nuclear proliferation. the financial action task force also issued numerous global
warnings on terrorist financing risks. it's my understanding most iranian banks receive sanctions relief under the iran deal. do you expect, sir, that their deceptive financial practices will continue and if so, what are your greatest concerns here? >> well, first, mr. chairman, i want to note the finding with the sector remains in place. it is not affected by the jcpoa and u.s. sanctions, with respect to the banking sector remain untouched by the jcpoa. that means they cannot use the u.s. banking system not to open and account or to execute a dollar transaction. that, too, remains off limits to all iranian banks whether on the list or off the list. with respect to how i expect to see iran's banks perform or
behave in the coming months, i think it remains to be seen. we have made clear to iran's leaders, if we see banks removeed from the list, engaging in support to hezbollah, the iranian ballistic missile activity, they will be back on the list. the iranians, i believe, understand that. we'll have to see how they behave. the choice will be theirs. >> sanctions are crucial to the u.s. policy. i worry that the u.s. government is not taking advantage of these tools. when thinking about maximizing sanctions affecting us in the future, i believe we need to approach sanctions from a tactical and strategic basis for long term planning and contingency scenarios. in your opinion, how can be government organize itself better and approach planning for sanctions more effectively?
how can we do a better job? >> it's a question we have to ask ourselves continuously. i can say, having been a part of tfi, almost from day one, i have seen the office and seen us evolve. i think our greatest strides have been in our intelligence office. it is unique. i don't know any other finance ministry with an intelligence office focused on using financial expertise and financial shl information to track elicit things. it's an area where our analysis got so much more sophisticated. it's drawn upon by policymakers. in terms of what we can do to improve, i think you are right. the longer term think sg critical. the world has taken notice of how powerful the tools are. with that, we see new and adaptive techniques and we see efforts to try to turn the tools against us. we have to be very careful with
how we use them and judicious. we have to be prepared to combat them should we see others trying to draw the same tools to weaken our national security. >> senator brown. >> thank you, again, for joining us. you have one of the most difficult jobs in this city, serving taxpayers. when i think about the unending number of hours, seems to be unending hours, time away from your family, special thanks to your wife and children, who i know you miss and as you travel the world, especially during the iran negotiations and put so much effort into this. thank you for that. thank you, also, in meetings i have had with you and secretary liu and secretary kerry, thank you for your response in putting in proactive efforts to deal with them to enhance and expand
the efforts prescriptively, proactively to address the issues of terrorism. i know that you will be expecting to do and will do. thank you for that. a couple questions. i know tfi is a lot of national responsibilities within the portfolio. i would like to get a sense of your priorities, sanctions enforcing, terrorism and other issues. describe to the committee your priorities and how treasury will fit into the broader efforts. >> in terms of my priorities for the office going forward, i put iran at the forefront. sanctions really are the or else, that serves as a deterr t deterrent. all the stuff in my opening statement. our counterterrorism effort is
in our name. it has to be right at the forefront as well. particularly, of course, our efforts against isil, which posed a serious challenge in terms of cutting off its financing. i can say that when you look at a group like isil and compare it with al qaeda, the financing challenges are night and day given the territory that isil controls and the ability to extort funds from people and the territory and draw on the natural resources, oil and otherwise. it is a massive challenge. it's one that we are focused on not just with the other members of the u.s. government, d.o.d., but also a huge coalition, internationally. it's one of our strengths here, how unanimous the international community is. alongside those two, i mention cyber, a threat that over my time at tfi has grown more and more prominent and worrisome.
here, too, sanctions are one part of a strategy. law enforcement, intelligence, a whole array of tools. thanks to a new executive order, we have the sanctions tool as well. where we see seema lishs things we have the capability to prevent and deter bad activity. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i want to ask a question, perhaps more parochial, if you will. we met several times to discuss the situation with respect to remittances to somalia and the united states, the second largest xhucommunity. a few months ago, we met with the president of somalia. i know you have been working to mitigate the banks, ensuring terrorist findings are upheld and the treasury and world bank
are providing assistance to the somali government but i remain concerned about this issue. can you give the committee an update on treasury efforts in this area and progress toward restoring free flow of remittance from somalia to columbus? >> i was just in minneapolis last month to meet with the somalia committee, to meet with their banks, to meet with mgos and other state and local officials. obviously, minneapolis, too, has a huge concentration of somalian americans. they are very worried. the funds woes have not stopped. they are worried because they see a pattern. they see that bank accounts have been closed. but, at this point, i have been told that the funds continue to go and that remittances are arriving in somalia. the situation is far from ideal.
the worries, actually, aren't about the remitters in the united states. the concerns, with respect to money laundering goes to what's happening to the money once it gets to somalia. that is an intensely challenging issue. there is almost no central bank or regulatory system when it comes to oversight of remitters and banks in somalia. the ability to restore confidence, that will allow them to flow more easily. it is going to depend on the prime minister. i had the opportunity to speak with him, too, when he visited. he's undertaking a lot of serious steps t. world bank, stat dept are going to do what we can to inspire confidence that funds flow are safe when they go to somalia.
>> senator corker? >> thank you, mr. chairman and adam, thank you for your service to our country. i very much appreciate you telling us a little about your family history and your family support and i think you know i have had tremendous respect for what tfi does and the 700 people you work with there. by the great work you have done and others, david cohen before you, i think you understand there's a bipartisan majority here that feels that not you, but the administration squandered those efforts. instead of ending iran's nuclear program, we basically are allowing the industrialization. i know that was not your negotiation to lead, but obviously, many of us, most of us here, in a bipartisan way, very, very disappointed at that
squandered opportunity. had the president achieved what he said he wanted to do, which was to end the program, we would have 100 people here in the senate cheering and supporting that. but that's not what's occurred. so, again, that's no reflection on you. there are some sanctions that we put in place. the isa act. it expires at the end of 2015. i assume, since the snap back provisions that were negotiated as part of the deal rely on the fact there have to be sanctions to snap back, too, that you would be supportive of us extending it to snap back to. >> thank you very much, senator corker for your kind words of tfi. i couldn't agree with you more about the talent and dedication of the men and women of the office.
with respect to the iran deal, you are right, i'm not a diplomat and did not lead the talks. i did have the opportunity to participate in a number of rounds. i believe the deal to be a strong one and to achieve the president's objectives in closing off the pathways for iran to achieve a nuclear weapon 15 years. it's a point i won't convince you. >> it would be good if you didn't talk about that. the fact is, the president said he was going to end their nuclear program. we did not do that, we are industrializing or agreeing to the industrialization. it's unfortunate. i don't want to focus with you on that because i respect your service and hope you respect my position in disagreement. i would like to hear that we can reauthorize, with your support, the sanction that is were in place and do so immediately. >> the administration, with respect to preserving the
leverage of snap back, it has been clear and is entirely aligned with your own, senator. we need to have that leverage to deter breaches and punish breaches that occur. my understanding is it doesn't expire until the close of next year, 2016 and the administration's position is it's to bring up the sunset, the renewal until we get to that period. >> why would that be the case? it's in advance all the time. it leads us to believe that there are concerns that maybe y'all have made commitments to iran that that's not going to be the case. i think it's always good to have certainty. one of the reasons people rush to pass by was to create certainty. obviously, that's not been the case. again, back to this, i think it would be very good for the world to know that those sanctions are going to exist and provide
certainty and i would hope you would support if we pass those over the next 60 days, those extensions taking place. >> senator, from a sanctions perspective, the certainty is there. iran is in effect. every aspect is in effect and people know we will implement it. there are no uncertainty until it is due to expire. at that time, the administration said they are ready to have the conversation about renewal. i want to clarify, from a sanctions perspective, it remains in full effect, not with standing attempts to renew it early. >> i know you are reciting a company line. i'm not going to hold that personally against you. i wish you would quit reciting the company line. i am made to believe that really, should we n a bipartisan way, i think we can pass it strongly. should we attempt to do that
over the next 60 days leads me to believe the administration would oppose that. that's disappointing. i think we are going to have the opportunity to see whether that's the case. on the new sanctions you are talking about preparing, i assume you have no objection whatsoever to us preparing sanctions ourselves, since you are doing the same, relative to terrorist acts, humanitarian human rights issues. if we were to, again, imposing those on iran, you would have no objection if we felt their terrorism and acts inside syria and things they are doing, you have no issue with them doing that. >> senator, as you would expect, all depends on the content of the sanctions. to the extend congress is adding to the proxies and adding to our tools to combat them, i think it's something the administration would seriously want to look at.
if the intent, though, of a sanctions effort is to try to, through a back door, take away the deal, in other words, withdrawal under the nuclear deal, that's a different story. >> understand. just quickly, i know i'm out of town. obviously involved in terrorism, you would agree with that. and this is something that is, again, just being looked at at present. how do you feel about designating the foreign terrorist organization and how would it impact the deal if congress decided to do so? >> it is a parent organization, has a number of subsidiaries and is involved almost in every bad aspect of what iran is engaged in, whether it's the ballistic missile, terrorism, regional
destabilization. we have the arm they use to support military activity under the terrorism program because it was the most apt element to label with the terrorist brush. the parent, though, remains designated for human rights abuses. that label is not coming off and those sanctions are not coming off. >> if we were to take it further, because i think you understand, the huge gaping hole that exists. that is that yes, they are a holding company, but all of their subsidiaries are going to benefit hugely, hugely from what is getting ready to happen. so, those subsidiaries will cash up to the holding company. so, again, if we were to designate it as a foreign terrorist organization, if we did that, it would be crippling to their terrorist activity. my question to you is, if we were to do so, it certainly
would cripple them far more than what's getting ready to happen. it would benefit hugely. if we were to counter their terrorist activity by sanctions them, would you oppose that? >> perhaps i can actually offer reassurance. the sanctions on the parent organization, which apply to all their subsidiaries, are just as sweeping under our human rights designation as they would be under a terrorism designation. all of those concerns about the subsidiaries coming into revenue, they are currently prohibited and any foreign company that does business with one, i'll be very specific, an oil and gas sector. they are subs. they remain on our list and are not coming off. >> on our list? >> on our list. because of congress, they are extraterritorial consequences. itis the same with a terrorist
one. >> you would not object? >> i don't -- i can't comment on congress doing a designation, in my experience, it's the state department that lists it. certainly, we have seen the activity that easily qualifies for terrorist support. i'm commenting from a legal perspective, i don't think it would affect the outcome either way. >> i look forward to meeting with you. thank you for the extra time. despite we disagree on the negotiations, i appreciate your public service. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman for number one, holding the hearing and moving forward on the nomination of mr. szubin. he's appeared one time before and i have been enormously impressed and grateful you have decided to use your obvious
talents and service of this country and security of this country. i think there's a little boy in the bathroom. i don't know if that's your third son. he's quite adorable. he's already reading, is he one or two already reading? takes after his dad. i want to address an issue that i don't think has been talked about. i share senator corkers concern about making sure that this country is sure and certain about terrorism sanctions, you and i have talked about this when we met and certainly talking about human rights sanctions and making sure the american public knows we will continue to sanction those entity that is engage in terrorist activities, human rights violations and that we have not given up on our commitment to use sanctions in that way. i think the continuing dialogue with this committee, the dialogue with congress from your office and the state department will be critical moving forward
giving those assurances. i want to address an issue that hasn't been addressed, crude oil exports. we talked about this. i'm concerned about this country that restricts american exports of crude oil, the oil we produce here for a number of reasons. one, i think it threatens our energy security. it's not good for our consumer that is we are restricting exports. in this context, it certainly gives us a wonderful opportunity to be competitive with iranian oil that will find its way, eventually into the marketplace when this agreement, if and when the agreement is implemented. so, we are curious about how you see this from the standpoint of sanctions, how you would view the lifting of the oil export band in the frame of continuing to curtail, continuing to put
economic pressure on not only iran but russia and other bad actors in the world who are funding their bad actions with oil revenue from their own domestic production. >> thank you very much, senator. unfortunately, the question does go beyond my area of expertise in terms of what the potential impacts would be of relaxing those restrictions and how it would play out. >> you are a really smart guy, so you could -- >> i'm going to disappoint you severely on that front. there are others in the administration. i think you have been in conversation with them already in my agency and elsewhere who are much more conversing with this and would be happy to continue the discussion. >> for me, this is a critical issue. it has to be viewed in the frame of what we are doing right now with overall sanctions.
it has to be addressed in this context because i think it's a wonderful opportunity for our country to use this new growth in our energy resources for smart and better diplomacy, better power and provide european energy security. i think the lack of energy security among allies created a lot of economic disruption. we will continue to push for this and continue to push for increased and maintaining sanctions on anyone who engages in terrorism and human rights violations. i look forward to continuing our discussion with you and, again, to your family, who are very proud behind you, you can't see them. i want to thank you for raising a very amazing young man who is using his talents for public service. thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> senator?
>> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for taking the time to visit. congratulations on your nomination and your family as well. i want to talk about snap back sanctions and their effectiveness. the president said sanctions were not stopping iran from advancing their nuclear program. he said the only alternative to the deal is war because sanctions would not stop iran from advancing their nuclear program. they said snap back sanctions will be the punishment if they violate the deal and that punishment will be effective. seems to me contradictory to say iran's economy, which is currently struggling, is not going to be deterred by sanctions from advancing their nuclear program, but should they violate the deal when their economy is healthier and stronger and their conventional military is stronger that snapback sanctions would be effective. can you help me explain that
inconsistency? >> i would be happy to try. i would not presume to speak for the president or what he was intended with his remarks. i think the point he and many others have made is throughout the period, say from 2005 to 2010-'11, while we were racketing up the sanctions, they continued to add to the stockpile and centrifuges. the sanctions were placing a very heavy thumb on the scale. ultimately, had a determinetive impact on how they behaved and their approach at the negotiating table. the sanctions alone, didn't stop the enrichment. it was the concessions they made to allow inspectors to export their stockpile by 98% to bring down the centrifuges and instra structure. all the changes are what are going to move us from the current two to three month
breakout time to more than 12-month breakout time. it's those changes we desperately needed. for all of us that have been worried about the program. in terms of snapback, i think it's a very potent force, for all the reasons you have spoken about. iran has seen firsthand that dispdi despite the bluster, self-sufficient. the iranian people are not looking for an economy of resistance. they are not looking at being dependent on iranian self-made goods. they are looking for technology from the west and the rest of the world. the threat that they could come out from under the sanctions, but fall back under them if they didn't abide by the deal is, i think, a very real one. and that's a political one for iran's leadership. >> but, if the supreme leader and president rouhani started the negotiations in part of the of the economic pain the
sanctions brought, maybe six months or six years from now, they are caught cheating. their economy will be stronger. they will have demonstrated the desire to cheat and we are going to reimpose the sanctions that were not enough to stop them. do you thi do you understand what i'm saying here? s everyone acknowledges the sanctions were a key, if not the key to bring them to the table. >> not to stop their nuclear program. >> i hesitate here because there's a law professor in attendance, but i think we all agree -- >> she was my professor. she was a better professor than i was a student. my time is moving down here. i want to move on to another topic. the one you and senator corker were discussing. he was talking about advancing promptly.
that's mostly a political or policy question. since in congress, as oftentimes in life, things fall against their deadlines, from your office standpoint, if that act is not reauthorized until the last two months of 2016, would that create a break in the way you administer provisions? >> no. >> okay. thank you for that. finally, i want to discuss what appears to be a tension in the nuclear deal in the iran reduction act. on one hand, the act says that u.s. owned foreign subsidiaries cannot do business with iran. on the other hand, the jcpoa suggests the president will, in fact, license subsidiaries. can you explain the legal underpinnings of the jcpoa appears to have made to iran or foreign u.s. controlled subsidiaries. >> yes, excuse me for the
interruption. should iran complete the steps, we are talking something that is probably still six months away. part of the relief they will earn is that foreign subsidiaries, foreign incorporated subsidiaries will once again be allowed to do business with iran so long as they meet difficult conditions. they can't be exports products from the u.s. they can't export u.s. controlled goods. it truly has to be a stand alone operation. in terms of the iran threat reduction act, that provision contains the licensing authority that treasury anticipates using to allow for certain categories of activity for the foreign subsidiaries. >> thank you, my time has expired. >> thank you, senator. >> senator menendez. >> congratulations on your nomination. let me ask you, would it be fair to say the iran sanctions act
was a significant tool in getting iran to the negotiating table? >> i would say it was probably not one of the primary pressure points. i think congress and the ndaa provisions you were so pivotal in drafting were far more impactful. it's part of the constellation that brought them to the table and gave us leverage. >> when you refer to the 2010 in your speech or statement before the committee, dramatically advancing the efforts on crude oil sales and whatnot, you are referring to -- >> the ndaa provision. >> and the ndaa provisions, which included the iran sanctions. >> they references the penalty. i was talking the measures you know so well.
burning down significantly every six months purchases from iran. that led iran's exports to fall to 1.1 million barrels a day and had a dramatic impact. >> there's no question the secondary nature of the sanctions under the iran sanctions act was a significant hammer at the end of the day, would that be a fair statement? >> the penalties in the act are referenced in the other statutes. that is a meaningful one. >> so, is it -- what view do you have as it relates to renewing the sanctions act up for reauthorization at the end of the year. >> there's no need for early renewal. isa remains in full effect until the close of next year. >> when it lapses and collapses,
then what? >> that's an eventuality we are not close to. >> it's an eventuality that is a certainty, theeventuality because the law makes it very clear it will expire on that day. and if we are to talk about significant snapback as a deterrent towards violation, then it seems to me that without the law, iran knows that the administration doesn't seem to be disposed to support of reauthorization of the law even as it is with all of the waiver authority the president has. so if i know i can wait a year and i'm not going face that universe of sanctions it will be meaningful to me that my further deterrent concerns will be significantly reduced. >> so hopefully i can provide some reassurance on this front. i'm not aware of any discussions within the administration that would lead to our snapback leverage being dissipated.
in a year, in two years, at any point. the whole structure of the deal is to keep that leverage in place intact to ensure that iran adheres to its commitments. we've been very clear with iran on that front as well. >> it just seems to me that the jcpoa has language in it under the sanctions section which suggests that somehow the administration is tied towards not supporting reauthorization. and that is not something that can tie the hands of the united states congress. and i am convinced that if there was a reauthorization put on the floor, it would have a robust support because it passed 99-0 when it was offered. if you want deterrence, it still needs to be in existence to be a deterrent to. i don't get where the administration is at on this. let me ask a few questions. i get a sense if iran violates particularly in small or intermediate ways, not in a big
way, that we're going to largely be on our own in enforcing to send a clear message that, in fact, violations aren't acceptable. is that a fair statement? >> we would certainly reach out to our foreign partners. and i think in particular the europeans who are part of the p5 plus 1, germany, uk, france, as well as russia have a lot invested in this deal. before this deal, a lot of the commitments that iran would be breaking are commitments they have made not just to the united states, but to this entire sanction. >> i know. but the big difference is u.s. companies cannot invest because of other nonrelated nuclear sanction. so the only companies in the world that are going to get into the iranian market are european and other companies. therefore, they are going to have both investments of major national companies like siemans, airbus and others. the countries themselves may use
their sovereign well funds to invest in iran. it's going to be a lot harder to get them to come along with us in any sanctionable item after all of that takes place. and is to be somewhat unreal about the consequences we're going to face moving forward. if i may, mr. chairman, one last question. you know, as part of your overall portfolio and what you have been -- is the question of enforcement of the law, libertad act. which is on the castro regime. now i have serious concern as to how ofac and the administration have interpreted general license. and i want you to succinctly give me what is your interpretation of a general license.
>> a general license is a standing authorization that's issued by ofac that allows for a set of activity that would otherwise be prohibited to go on so long as it meets all of the specified conditions. it doesn't do anything that a specific license do other than that. it's an efficiency. so rather than meet each company's application one by one, if the government's policy is to allow humanitarian transactions, the export of smart phones to iran and sudan. but the foreign policy was supportive of every company. >> but basically, a general license is when you got the same request and you ended up with the same result, you gave a general license for the purposes of expediency. >> that's right. >> and efficiency. >> that's right. >> however, when a general license subverts the law, when a general license ultimately
swallows up the congressional intent as in the case of cuba, where you are giving a general license for the purposes of travel and where travel even under the administration's proposals are supposed to have purposeful elements and a general license is basically a good honor system where you don't actually go ahead and enforce whether or not the person is following the criteria under the purported purposes of that license, then there is no way to know. you have created a huge truck for unlimited travel, not purposeful travel, because you're not enforcing purposeful travel because you're depending on the good will of the person to say they're going to obey. this beyond cuba creates a real concern for me. and i would suggest, mr. chairman, for the committee, because if a general license in this case can be interpreted this way, that basically
subverts the congressional intent and the law. then what is to say that we're not going to see general licenses as it relates to iran or any other place in which an administration this or any other one is going to interpret a general license in such a way that allows them to, you know, run a mack truck right through it and undermine the very purposes of the legislative intent and the law itself. and i commend to the chair and ranking member's attention. i certainly based upon the experience i've seen here will not be supporting any legislation that creates general licenses for this or any other administration because it basically ---y tell you as the author of that law, it totally undermines what was the congressional intent. >> would it be permissible just to respond briefly? and i know that the -- >> permit this. >> so there is no ability to do with a general license what we
couldn't do with a specific license. and in each of the instances of travel that you're referencing, have to hue hew to the 12 categories and they set out conditions to restrict travel. you go, you come back. >> i regret to say that as an office with about 700 people, our ability to check in on specific licenses is also somewhat limited. in other words, when we issue a specific license to a company, we're not able to do end use check, in the case of travel to cuba to go down and ensure that they're doing what they were authorized to do. >> but you would be able to get up front an intinerary to determine in fact that that itinerary was purposeful travel as delineated. that's not something you're doing now. and it's fundamentally different. and to suggest as you suggested earlier that a general license
is for efficiency purposes is fine. that's if, you know, x is the only requirement and you meet x and therefore you should get a general license. when you have 12 different criteria of what is purposeful travel and don't know what the person is doing to achieve purposeful travel, which you were doing before, travel was limited, had specific limitations to it, ofac enforced those, and very often found individuals who were outside of that field and would therefore have a enforceable action against them. that sends a message that you have to honestly pursue the law, not just generally use a general license as an open-ended process. and if it can happen here, i'm concerned about where else will happen in other sanctionable entities and places in the world because that basically is a green light to do what you want to do and circumvent the will of the congress. >> and i think, senator, a lot of you question goes to
enforcement and making sure that u.s. persons know that we're going to take this sanction seriously. and if they violate them, whether it's the terms of a general license, specific license or otherwise, that they're going to face real consequences. that's been, frankly, a big focus of mine during my nine years at ofac and enforcement of sanctions has never been as tough in terms of the size and volume of penalties. but i also agree with you that going forward, it's going to be critically important in the cuba program, it is in all of our sanction programs to ensure that people understand what is prohibited is truly prohibited, and we're not going to be taking violations lightly. >> senator warren? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. szubin, for your important work. now you've been nominated to be in charge of sanctions enforcement. and you've been serving in that role as acting undersecretary for terrorism and financial crimes at treasury since last february. you recently travelled to israel to discuss implementing the deal to prevent iran from developing
nuclear weapons. given the critical importance of implementing the iran nuclear deal countering iran's terrorist financing and performing all the other key functions of your office, i think the senate should confirm you to this job as soon as possible. in recent testimony before this committee, you made clear that if we back out of this deal, the international coalition that has made sanctions so effective would fracture. and while the u.s. could go it alone with its own sanctions, we tried that before and we know that they're just not nearly as effective. you also stated that most of billions of dollars that could be released, if iran complies with those nuclear deal are held in the eu, in china, in japan, in india, in south korea and other foreign countries. so the u.s. alone can't prevent iran from getting access to that money. so i just have one question here. i want to highlight this again.
if we walk away from this deal, is it more likely or is it less likely that our international partners will continue tough sanctions, refuse to trade with iran, or block iran's access to frozen assets? >> i believe it is significantly less likely that we'll see aggressive policing of sanctions if we walk away from the deal that we spent two years along with our partners negotiating. >> well, it just seems clear to me that a better path forward is to accept this agreement and maintain unity with our international partners. that way if iran cheats, we can respond with the strength and the support of the world behind us, which is critical for effective sanctions. so i appreciate your work on this. >> thank you, senator. >> there is one other topic i'd like to address, and that is human traffickers use of the international banking system.
human trafficking is modern day slavery, and it is a global business. with profits estimated to be as high as $150 billion a year. to keep those profits coming in, the human traffickers have to use banks and credit cards and money transfer companies every single day. now, money transmitted through the financial system for trafficking operation falls under existing anti-moneylaundering laws. and these rules require financial institutions to deter moneylaundering and to report suspected illegal activities to law enforcement. i know we are taking steps in this area a, but i am concerned that moneylaundering related to human trafficking has not received as much attention by financial institutions or their regulators as, for example, drug
trafficking money or terrorist financing. so i have legislation to ensure that the treasury department and other financial regulators work more closely with financial institutions to stop human traffickers' use of the banking system. i also want to add the anti-moneylaundering expertise that a you have at treasury to the president's inner agency task force to monitor and combat human trafficking in persons. the treasury department is a key agency responsible for overseeing any moneylaundering programs. so i want to know if you will commit to working with me to make sure that both the regulators and the financial industry are doing everything possible to shut down financing for human trafficking. >> senator, i am pleased to make that commitment. i couldn't agree more about the severity and i think the
escalateling severity of the threat. i think you'll be pleased to hear that i was being briefed earlier this week by the director about their efforts. and they've seen a tremendous jump in reporting from financial institutions after fin sin put out an advisory alerting financial institutions to the red flags or hallmarks of human trafficking typology in terms of the financial transactions. they've gotten thousands of suspicious activity reports that are then accessible to and harnessed by law enforcement. state, local, around the country. so i think there is a lot there. but there is so much more to do. and it all starts with intelligence or law enforcement work to be able to lead us to the bad actors. and we have a lot still ahead of us. >> well, i appreciate that very much. human traffickers need the banking system. and stronger financial regulations give us the tools to shut them down.
so this is something that i want to make sure that we make a priority. it matters to people all around the world. so thank you very much, mr. szubin. >> thank you. >> senator donnelly? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and mr. szubin, thank you and your whole family. i was going to take your boys out afterwards and turn them into notre dame football fans before the day is over. >> well-behaved notre dame football fans. i'd be proud to see you do it. >> i know how much you've traveled over the years and all the places you have gone to. so to your family, thanks. it's really, really important, and it's helped make our country a stronger place and helped to save lives. mr. szubin, the agreement that was just voted on, a big portion of this is not just a nuclear piece, as you know, but it's what is going on in the ground in the middle east every single day. and much of that success we will
have is going to rest on what you and your colleagues do. and so i just want to make sure what creates confidence for israel, for saudi arabia, for jordan, for the gulf states is when they look and they see that iran has not moved one more inch on the ground. when they see that missile shipments are being interdicted. and so i'd like to know, for instance, with hezbollah, what are the plans to interdict missile shipments, to interdict weapons to make sure that their inventory goes down, and we hope to zero. >> so i have been personally in my office very focused on the threats that you're referencing. sadly, i don't think we're going to bring their inventory down to zero. but we still need to do everything we can to interdict any shipments that we see or that we learn about. and to be able to curb not just the volume of shipments they get but the sophistication.
when i was in israel recently, i was hearing about some very troubling advances in terms of hezbollah's missile capabilities or rocket capabilities. and we have to keep them from making those advance because it means death. the more precise their rockets are, the more people will die. and we know that for certainty. we have to be very focused on this. obviously the bulk of the intelligence and interdiction effort is going to be outside of my lane, outside of the sanctions lane. but we can be help informal this effort in a secondary capacity. and that's exposing the procurement companies, because they don't get these parts indigenously. they need to order technology and some of the sophisticated equipment from abroad, sometimes from places like china, southeast asia. well, that means they're doing financial transactions. that means they're engaging in ship organize airplane cargo shipments. all of those are vulnerabilities that we can target. and you've seen my office in the past year go after procurement
fronts for hezbollah, including for their unmanned aerial vehicle program. and it's an area that we're going to continue to be very focused on in the months ahead. >> we cannot leave, as i know you agree, we cannot leave any stone unturned. >> yes. if we find a procurement company that is providing equipment, we need to let everybody know who they are. we need to go after them. we need to create more and more additional confidence with our allies. we need to make sure that the actual instruments of death and danger are cut off. and you have a full mission from all of us that you need to be one of the point people on this effort. additionally, president rouhani was talking about iran's intentions in regard to certain weapons. in that they would not ask for permission or abide by resolutions. how you going to enforce the arms export and ballistic missile restrictions outlined
under u.n. security council resolution 2221? >> those provisions remain in place. and notwithstanding president rouhani's word, we're going to hold iran to the commitment in the sense we're going to do everything we can to try to cut off any intended shipments and try to prevent that technology from coming into iran's possession. >> some general questions i want to make sure you have answered, if you have already answered them, i apologize. under the deal, will general suleimani and the irgc still be subject to the u.s. counterterrorism sanctions and human rights? >> yes. >> confirmed, will you fully enforce sanctions on the irgc? >> yes. >> will you commit to this committee that you will not hesitate to impose counterterrorism sanction on any iranian entity that engages in sanctionable activity, including entities that are receiving relief from nuclear-related sanctions? >> yes. >> i can't stress enough to you, and i know how much time, effort, and heart you have put into this.
but the additional component in this whole agreement is how we do on the ground. the confidence of our friends and our allies is going to be directly related to how successful we are in pushing back and in giving them space to have success, our friends. and so your nonstop efforts in that are crucial as we look forward to and are something that we absolutely have to have. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. szubin, we appreciate your appearance today. you and your family. and i believe you're eminently qualified for the job. we'll go from here. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> so which one of you is a running back?
after meeting this week, the federal reserve decided to leave interest rates unchanged. on the next washington journal, we'll talk about that and a possible timeline for rate hike with congress jim himes of connecticut, a member of the financial services committee.+xs then budget committee member dave brat on the house conservatives' legislative agenda, including the september 30th budget deadline and funding planned parenthood. washington journal is live ever morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span, and we welcome your comments on facebook and twitter.
all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states would manage to draw near and give their attention. >> number 759, ernest, petitioner versus arizona. >> hear argues number 18, roe against wade. >> madison is probably the most face case this court ever decided. >> dredd and harriot existed as people here on land where slavery wasn't legally recognized. >> putting the brown decision into effect would take presidential orders, and the presence of federal troops and marshals, and the courage of children. >> we wanted to pick cases that changed the direction and import of the court in society, and that also changed society.
>> so she told them that they would have to have a search warrant. and mrs. mapp demanded to see the paper and to read it, see what it was, which they refused to do. so she grabbed it out of his hand to look at it, and thereafter the police officer handcuffed her. >> i can't imagine a better way to bring the constitution to life than by telling the human stories behind great supreme court cases. >> boldly opposed the forced internment of japanese americans during world war ii. after being convicted for failing to report for relocation, mr. korematsu took his petition all the way to the supreme court. >> quite often many of our most famous decisions are positions the court took that were quite unpopular. >> if you had to pick one freedom that was the most
essential to the functioning of a democracy, it has to be freedom of speech. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who help stick together because they believe in a rule of law. >> landmark cases, an exploration of 12 historic supreme court decisions and the human stories behind them. a new series on c-span, produced in cooperation with the national coordination center, debuting monday, october 5th at 9:00 p.m. and as a companion to our new series, landmark cases the book. it features the 12 cases we have selected for the series with a brief introduction into the background, highlights, and impact of each case. written by veteran supreme court journalist tony morrow,
published by c-span in cooperation with quarterly press. "landmark cases" is available for $8.95 plus shipping and handle, get your copy at c-span.org/landmarkcases. now the confirmation hearing for the acting head of the federal railroad administration, sarah feinberg. much of the questioning focused on the implementation of positive train control, a safety technology designed to prevent derailments like the one that resulted in the one in philadelphia last may. this hearing of the science and commerce transportation committee is an hour and a half. >> i want to welcome our nominee here this morning and get this confirmation under the way. today we're going to consider the nomination of sarah feinberg as the next administrator of the federal railroad administration. to see the oversee safe movement
of people. the rail work is absolutely vital to the nation's economy. so it's important that those who directly oversee the safety and efficiency of the network have the requisite skills and experience. ms. feinberg has been serving as the acting administrator since january prior to her current assignment, she everybody served as chief of staff to transportation secretary anthony fox from 2013 to 2014. ms. feinberg was the policy and communications director facebook. and 2009-2010 she served as special stoont the president and adviser rahm emanuel. before that she served as mr. emanuel's communications director for the house caucus. ms. feinberg clearly has commitment and admiral commitment to public service, some are concerned her background does not include deep expertise or experience regarding railroads or railroad safety. as noted in an article in politico, at this crucial moment this is the nation's top safety regulator is a former facebook
executive and white house adviser whose resume is long on communications and policy posts and noticeably short on railroad experience, end quote. so in addition to asking ms. feinberg to respond to those concerns, i'll be also asking her about the looming deadline for railroads to implement positive train control. those in the rail industry are well aware, it is a rail system designed to prevent collision, overspeed derailments and other accidents by automatically slowing or stopping a train that is not being operated safetily by locomotive engineers. the improvement act mandated the implementation of systems by december 21st of 2015. complex challenges have prevented most railroads from meeting this deadline which is rapidly approaching. yesterday the independent government accountability office issued an updated report that found that freight and passenger railroads continue to face significant challenges in implementing ptc around the vast majority of railroads would need one to five years to complete implementation.
even the small fraction of railroads it will be able to install pct on their own tracks by december 31st of 2015 will face testing, certification. as profiled by many here, pct is not an off the shelf technology. the gao attributed implementation difficulties to the development of first generation components, the limited number of manufacturers of those components and complex integration testing among other challenges. some of the implementation issues have also been government created. the gao pointed out that as a result of permitting review issues, the federal communications delayed for a year. the gao also pointed out that the review of safety plans has been slow and the oversight efforts have been insufficient. gao ultimately found that railroads pushing to meet the current unrealistic deadline installing components before