tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN November 18, 2015 9:00am-7:01pm EST
i would hope that going forward you would take this hearing, as you said, as a moment of instruction to fix it. the men and women do a wonderful job and -- but it's about leadership. it's absolutely important. as you know, i've been talk iin to you since the summer. a little, small issue to some. it's relative to the fact that we found out there were 643 employees assigned to duty that required a security clearance, and they were working for the department without the
completion of the clearances. and i had asked you for the demographics of those individuals. and as of this date, i don't have the information. i know you've been busy, but can you give me some indication when i can expect to receive the demographics of those 643 employees? >> yes, sir. first of all, my apologies that you have not received that information. 640 individuals, i'm assuming, may be department wide. i think within the secret service. we did have people work that go did not have their security clearance. i think it was much less than that. we will get you an answer in the coming days on that condition. >> it was department wide over a five-year period, but my point is some of us run, men and women
around the country, who indicate i'm trying to get employed with the secret service, but they tell me i can't get considered for employment because i haven't been cleared. i can't go to training. i can't do a lot of things. but it troubles some of us when we're already employing people whose job requires clearance on the other hand. so i don't know if that's favoritism or what, but it's real concerning. >> i'll follow up on that, sir. i can tell you that we don't look at that diversity in terms of who gets security clearance and who does not. in this case, the one that you referenced, and i'll speak for the secret service, we weren't delinquent. we did not get people their security clearances in a timely manner. some, and they were assigned to positions outside of washington,
for the most part. but what we have done now is we've brought in some contractors, additional 14 contractors, to ensure this never happens again where someone goes through our training and when they get their graduation, when they graduate, they should have their clearance. so that has been resolved now within the secret service. >> so -- thank you. it's your testimony there's no one working for the secret service right now without a security clearance? >> that's correct, to the best of my knowledge, that is correct. >> can you verify that before the committee? >> yes. >> i yield back. >> thanks to the gentleman. the chairman recognizes mr. loudermilk. >> thank you all for being here. this is especially troubling for me as we look back over the history of this incredible
agency, the service. it's an icon of what i think is american exceptionalism, and the actions that we've seen take place, of course it tarnishes the reputation of the service, but more so i think it really tarnishes the image the american people have of what they have always elevated as the exceptional service not just in the nation but in the world, and i think it's imperfect ative th address these issues not just in hindsight but going forward to make sure that we restore the trust of the american people, the trust of congress, and the trust of the protectees. mr. roth, you said something in your written statement that really struck me. the secret service has taken steps to address these challenges but not always successfully. these persistent challenges may not be easy to resolve through
expedious actions. they may require more fundamental change that addresses the root of the misconduct. i think that's where we need to focus. what is the root, in your opinion? what's the root of the problem? >> when you look at guidance with regard to creating an ethical culture, they say it comes in threes, dimensions. tone at the top, which is not just at the very top but all through the leadership of an organization. the leaders have to set the exact right tone. the second is to have a code of done du conduct and the third is to enforce that code of conduct in a way that expresses to the rank and file that you mean what you say with regard to that tone at the top. so you have to look at all three of those things. as director clancy said, i think the middle part, the code of conduct, was not there and there have been steps them taken to
establish a more rigorous policy. so that's certainly an improvement we think is well deserved or a positive step in the right direction but, again, it has to be tone all the way through the organization as well as meaningful enforcement of the code of conduct. >> i have a time line of misconduct that went back just prior to. there was misconduct in any organization. is there any that you were aware of prior to the last four or five years? >> i'm not aware of it. i just don't have any insight into it. we're only as good as the investigations we do.
>> mr. clancy, i applaud your efforts. you have a difficult task. you've been in the agency for quite a while. do you recall that there was the level or the consistency of misconduct previously in the agency, or is this just something new? >> i think any agency has always had some misconduct and the secret service has had misconduct in the past. i think more attention has been brought to this misconduct in the last several years, and that's a good thing. i applaud the inspector general's office for that. this has to be brought out in the open, these misconduct episodes. otherwise we won't correct it. >> to make sure i understand it right. you said you're trying to benchmark your disciplinary actions of other agencies. >> our legal team worked with
other agencies to see what they were doing from a discipline standpoint, what their penalties were. we took their best practices and built ours. >> i would suggest you have to be a little stronger, a little better. the nature of the work you do is so important to this nation. one last thing. we've talked a lot about culture and that is true. i think you're getting to the culture of the agency. you're in the secret service. you have an obligation to the integrity to uphold this agency, and i think that may be what's missing somewhere. i was going over this time line and there seems to be a common element with a lot of these. i look at cartagena -- alcohol was involved. june 2013 alcohol, november
2013. abuse of alcohol. march, alcohol. june 2014, alcohol. there seems to be this continual cycle of alcohol abuse associated with this which from my experience in the military usually indicates that there's a morale issue. i'll let you comment and i'll yield back after that. >> yes, and you're correct. a lot is because of our staffing. we can get them a better quality of life to help their morale as well. to your point here today, the accountability and discipline matters also helps that morale. the episodes since i've been here, you mentioned the march 4
incompetence de incident where two individuals drove to the white house. people got that message. this -- what we're talking about today, people are getting this message. unfortunately, it takes these significant errors, misconduct, to resonate sometimes with our people. but i do want to say one thing. less than 1% of our people are involved in this misconduct. truly 99%, as some of you have mentioned today, are doing the right thing. and they're working very hard but we have to focus on that less than 1% because we are held at a very high and rightfully o so, high level. >> i hope you can get the service back to the point to where people aren't doing the right thing because they're afraid of discipline but because they're dedicate d to the job, o the service, to the spirit of the service.
and their oath to the constitution and thank you, sir. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentle lady from california, ms. torres. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director clancy, just to be -- to have some statistics here on the record, according to public service, the agency is 70% male, is that correct? >> 75%. let me check that real quick. that sound correct. >> 72% white. leaving it severely out of step with other agencies. women make up 25% of the agency's force but only about 11% of the agents in uniform are officers.
>> and you're correct, yes. >> you talked about universities and targeting certain areas of the nation. have you engaged an employment agency to help you or to advise you in finding a more diverse workforce? >> i'm not aware that we have taken that step yet. that's an excellent suggestion that we may look into. i will tell you when we go to these different areas of the country, we have a very diverse group recruiting group that goes out to try to encourage females to apply as well as across the board in diversity. >> are you targeting, also, the military or law enforcement agencies looking for -- there's great people working in law enforcement. >> we go to military bases and,
again, we run these entry level assessment centers, elacs. if you want to apply for a job with the secret service we can do testing initially. if you pass the test, that very day we can do a super interview of you. then we can move to you a polygraph all within a weekend to speed up the process. military bases and we found personally people who have a military background serve us very well. >> well, they have a high work ethic. >> they do. >> they understand the pecking order. they understand the need to serve. i am disturbed by the incidents. i'm happy to hear it's a reflection on less than 1% of the workforce, but by no means does it make me feel better or
safer. so would you say you have an agent problem or a management problem? >> it's a management problem and it starts with me. it's management problem, a leadership problem, that i have to find an answer to. >> have you taken steps to ensure that when we are clamping down on agents, that tougher disciplinary actions are taken upon the people who supervise them? >> supervisors are held accountable. again, we've put this out again trying to be transparent to show our workforce -- >> are there policies in place to ensure that whistleblowers are protected? >> yes. everyone in the service knows that whistleblowers perform a vital function and there's no retaliation, no -- you have to let them go.
>> so there are disciplinary steps that the agency takes when the department rules are violated? >> yes. >> and there are disciplinary steps that the department takes when our laws are broken? >> yes. >> the agents are read miranda rights. is that what you were referring to an earlier question? >> no, they're not read miranda rights. >> i come from the civilian part of law enforcement so pardon. so criminal charges are filed whether they're felony charges or misdemeanor charges. what are your steps? what steps do you take during that process?
>> well, if criminal charges are filed we typically immediately move to removing the security clearance so that this individual can no longer have access to any of the protected facilities, any access to any of our protectees, of course, or any -- >> so what happened to the rest of the department that are working with that employee now in the process of a criminal investigation and their supervisors? >> if it's -- at that point we don't have -- we remove all their badges. we remove their equipment, and then it goes through the normal course of the criminal justice system. >> my time is up, but what i'm trying to figure out is if you have a rotten apple, how do you ensure that the whole bowl isn't bad? >> we can remove them very quickly in that case when
there's criminal charges. and, mr. chairman, if i could correct the record for one item. ranking member thompson asked me about the security clearances. our agents and officers, some of them that are in training now, have not had their clearances settled. they will by graduation, so anyone who graduates from our academy will have security clearance, but while they're going through training, some of them may not have. >> but as of this summer when we talked, that was not the case? >> you're correct. that was not the case. >> the chair thanks the gentlelady. mr. clawson? >> sorry to hear about your dad. >> thank you, sir. >> greatest generation. >> it was. i know many here have lost their fathers from that generation, and i think we've all learned from them. >> was your dad a vet? >> he was, yes. >> i know all about this. just lost my mom and so, you
know, it's the generation that the glass is half full, put the team first, work hard and go to church on sunday and the rest answers itself, right? >> yes, sir, absolutely. >> but we were lucky to have those kind of folks. >> yes, sir. thank you. >> and although we do a little bit for our country now, they, without ever saying it, they remind us that compared to what they did, we don't do much. >> that's correct, yes, sir. >> full respect and admiration for you and your dad. i've always thought of organizational culture as being the combination of performance and behavior and, therefore, how your agents and your employees think of themselves as dependent on those two things because they all see it. when bad behavior is not dealt with quickly, it impacts that culture and how we view each other because it discourages good performers that, you know, that are doing their job every
day. everything tells me these incidents of bad behavior ought to be isolated, put up in lights for everyone to see, and action needs to be taken quickly. therefore, and that really is the responsibility of leadership. >> yes, sir. >> therefore, when it drags on and on, when it drags on and on, it really sends a bad message to this corporate culture that you referred to earlier. why so slow? i mean, you know, systemic is systemic. you're the chief and head of homeland security. let's go. let's take some action so you can do what's right and preserve the culture for all your great performers. am i missing something on that? why so slow? >> you're correct. certainly if there's any criminal activity, it's much quicker. we can remove their security clearance right away. with other types of misconduct, as we're talking about in this
case, it does take time for the full investigation and, again, in transparency, we had the oig handle this investigation to do a very thorough investigation and then once the investigation was completed, then we could move forward with that discipline, but under title v, the employees -- federal employees were given certain rights and we follow that process. eventually we get to where we need to be. eventually we do get to where we need to be. >> it's going pretty slow for my taste and i think for the sake of your organization i'd be pushing this as hard as i can because typical folks that have run large organizations don't understand this kind of length of time for -- it just festers because you don't put it behind you. >> yes, sir. >> and so, you know, my point on that is let's get going. i have found an organizational change that if you don't change a third of your people in positions of responsibility, you won't change the culture.
because they're going to outwait you. they always outwait you. >> yes, sir. >> and if you change more than 50%, then you may have a problem with the institutional memory that you discussed earlier. i'm really glad you brought diversity of thought and of experience into your direct reports, but they'll outwait you. so just, you know, no rule of thumb is 100% for sure. but if i'm sitting in your chair and not changing a third of my managers and you're thinking you're going to change your organization, good luck. don't believe it. so i don't know if you've thought of it in numeric terms, but let's get a performance culture going without washing away the memory of the successes of the past. i'm all for having both and i don't think if you implied this in your earlier comments i don't think it's one or the other. change your culture and preserve
the successes of the past. does that make sense? >> it does, yes, sir. >> okay. is there anything about what i said you would disagree with? >> no, i wouldn't, sir. >> okay. look, we want to you succeed. we can talk all day about whether you should be in the job or not, but you're in the job. and we need you to be successful. so anything i can do or our group, we want to you succeed and, look, i really like the tone at the top. so let's get them. >> yes, sir, thank you. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank all of you for being here. mr. clancy, how many times have -- when did you get into office? when did you become the acting director? >> the acting director october 6, i believe, of 2014. >> how many times have you appeared before congress since then? >> i believe this may be my sixth or seventh. >> i've been here since january 6 and i think this is the fourth time i've seen you.
i'm just -- i mean, obviously we've got concerns here and there seems to be an ongoing problem. >> yes, sir. >> as you might know, i'm very fortunate to have the federal law enforcement training center in glenncoe, georgia, in my district and i'm familiar with the training. i think they do an excellent job. i want it to remind you of the protective mission panel that came out and actually said that the amount of training the secret service agents were getting was far below what it should be. in fact, i think at one time they said it was equal to only 25 minutes for each 1,300 uniformed officers. >> yes. >> what are we doing to change that? >> i've been down to your training center and they do a great job down there and they help us as we try to build our staffing levels. in terms of what we've done, 99% have gone through a building
defense exercise training mission. it's a ten-hour block. additionally approximately 700 of our uniformed officers went through a training period where they do firearms, emergency medicine, control tactics, a number of things. the agents on the president's detail, we've decreased a number on the president's detail by the second quarter of early january we went out and had increased the numbers there by 85 which is what was recommended by the blue ribbon panel. we have increased training by 85% in the past year. >> okay, specifically let's get to what we're hear about today and that is about chairman chaffetz and that situation. inspector roth has stated that several of the agents that violated the secret service and homeland security policies when they accessed his records. this was a criminal offense,
don't you think? >> it is. it's on the books as a criminal offense, yes. >> tell me what you've done. have these people been fired? have they been disciplined at all? a criminal offense by an agency that we hold to the highest standard -- you know, earlier -- i'm a little bit frustrated by some of the things i've heard here. keep in mind we up here are experts at spin and pivoting. my campaign manager, that was his favorite word, pivot, pivot, pivot. i heard you talking about data, if the data had been better protected. give me a break f. they wanted to see this, they were going to see it. i don't care how the data was protected. how can you let this go on? why haven't you fired these people? they knew this was wrong. don't you agree? don't you agree they knew this was wrong? >> i do agree and certainly there's misconduct here. the discipline has been proposed for 15 and below. the data is important as a
sidestep. >> i understand that. i respect that and i acknowledge it is important and that it be protected but, still, the basic premise is they knew what they were doing was wrong. >> yes, sir. looking at the oig report, they should have known what they were doing was wrong. some of them will acknowledge -- >> should have known? to an agency that we consider to hold at the highest level? i just can't go along with that. you said it was inexcusable and unacceptable and it is and it deserves discipline. i'm a small businessman. i have employees as well and i can tell you when something like this happens, and i'm not trying to tell you how to run your business but you know as well as i do when you have a cancer, you have to get rid of it, otherwise it's going to destroy your whole business. and you've got to get rid of this cancer here and set an example and you have an opportunity to set an example
because what they did was wrong, they knew it was wrong and they deserve discipline and they deserve to be let go. >> they deserve discipline. we look at the whole picture, the whole person. some of these people have spent 28 years with no discipline in their history. some of them self-reported. some of them -- they're all very remorseful. was it wrong? yes. we do look at the whole picture and the whole person of their career. >> and i get there. i want to make sure the punishment befits the crime and i understand that and you should look at their whole career but at the same time, again, you've been here six times since you took office. >> yes. >> we want to see you succeed. we don't want to see you fail. we don't want to see you here is essentially it. we want to you do this, to do well. but we have to have your help. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair thanks the
gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma, senator lankford. >> i appreciate it very much. let me just state a couple things i picked up from a lot of the conversation here today. there are a lot of issues with secret service that's been well documented and i want to talk about that. i do think someone from the inside needs to be there to be able to fikts it. someone -- able to fix it. someone who doesn't have the same corporate capability walks in as an outsider and has a different opinion on it. someone can walk and say i'm one of us and part of us and can turn things around. i appreciate that there's work to be done. is it your sense that for these individuals that accessed this database it was the first time for them to access this database
like this or did anyone ever ask them, you know, gosh, did you just happen to think, gosh, maybe i should look at jason chaffetz records? and someone said, i think we could get access to that. or did this look like it was a pattern of behavior that if they were interested in someone, they could pull it? >> i think it ran the gamut. some didn't think it was wrong at all. they called it our database, the secret service base. this was run by the secret service and saw nothing wrong with it. others didn't understand it was wrong until after they did it and then realized, well, gee, i probably should not have done it. >> there's a training that happens multiple times a year both orally and electronically. your computer when you start it up says this is for official use only. it's your perception some ignored that and said it's our database and we can do with it what we want?
>> that's correct. >> the problem with that is if they can pull any member of congress, pull any individual there, that means the new neighbor down the street, i can see if there's something on the new neighbor down the street. they can pull his family and the records on it. if had is someone they don't like, they can pull the records. the va became a whistleblower and we found out employees that were pulling records that were medical records on someone they didn't like as a whistleblower in the process. the challenge is access to data that's official and nonofficial and how do we track this? base d on your perception with secret service, is it your perception this has been an ongoing issue for some employees just to be able to use the database i can look at it and they blur those lines? >> that's the sense we got from at least some of the agents we
interview. >> how do we deal with this? social security was identified 50 different individuals that were given merit bonuses at the end of the year but also during the year had access to information for unofficial purposes and looked people up. va has the issue at greater length with someone looking at it as a whistleblower. how many agencies have good systems in place to be able to audit how individuals access these sensitive databases? >> this particular access problem is probably the most common issue we see when we're doing detailed information security audits. too many people have access to things they don't need access to. it's not part of their job description. they don't have a need to know but yet they're given access, so access is a real issue, one that i would say is the most frequent one we come up with. another issue that's interesting in this case is when you're collecting pii, one of the
things you end up scheduling a records notice with national archives and record administration to tell them how long you're going to keep the files before you dispose of it. i was curious why an application from 2003 would be kept 12 years later. those kinds of things should be disposed of fairly quickly. hopefully that's part of what the service will be doing going forward. you're supposed to schedule those records out and dispose of them at a certain date. >> can you pause on that? has that been taken care of? the electronic records that are not applicable and paper records. it's my understanding there are still some offices, though the access point has been changed electronically you go into a file room those old application files may still be there in paper form as well. has that been dealt with as
well? >> yes. we are moving forward to, for example, applicants every two years those files will be purged. there's an investigation going on with the inspector general so some will be delayed slightly until they're through the investigation but that is the plan forward. also, with the applicants in mind, 95% of the people who had access before no longer will have access because of the new system. >> both paper and electronic for those offices and around the country? do they have access to paper records somewhere in a filing cabinet? >> i'll have to get back to you. i think we've moved away from a lot of the paper. let me give you a better answer. >> that would be wise, both the electronic and the paper version to make sure that's also purged. you may have access to those files and it's part of the challenge here. let me come back to mr. willemssen. which would you say is a good
model example of how to deal with, they're auditing well, tracking well, they're a model agency? >> don't have one. no model agency. >> that's somewhat depressing. >> yes, it is. since the opm cyber disaster, this has become a major priority. omb has charged -- definitely upped his priority. heads now recognize this is a critical issue that needs to be addressed. when we first announced the high risk, the first few years i was told, well, you're chicken little, the sky is falling. i don't hear that anymore. >> the sky fell. let me give you an example of va, something gao has for years and years identified. how does this get better? how do we prevent unauthorized access of medical information
and of private information for our veterans? >> veterans affairs has a significantly high percentage of systems that are considered high-impact systems. the disclosure of data or modification of the data because of the medical records is considered to be severe if it's lost, stolen or reviewed by others. given that you have to put stricter controls in place, monitoring users and what they're doing and if they have any atypical patterns in use -- >> is this just an audit or is this an algorithm that's created? >> this is an audit and algorithm. you can do it automatically. it's contained in the national institutes for guidance for high-impact systems. the va has a significant percentage of high impact systems where you have to put these controls in place to try
to prevent the situations you described. >> mr. chairman, i would like -- i don't know if we'll do a second round of questions. >> if you don't mind i'll suspend. >> thank you, sir. i will suspend your questions at the time and recognize mrs. watson coleman for a second round. >> mr. chairman, i know we were here -- i know that my colleagues wanted us to sort of focus on what happened to chairman chaffetz. i think if i were him, if i were he, i would want this to go away now, take care of the business that needs to be taken care of, discipline the people that need to be disciplined, and learn the lessons that you need to learn but, you know, i don't think he needs to have this or wants to have this as a continuing story. but it does speak to other
issues that were identified and it does speak to a culture or way of thinking or doing business or the way we perceive ourselves on the inside that needs to be addressed and i know you have expectations for that changing. i'd like to know any steps you're actually taking to change the culture in the form of action. what happens with your exec it tiff level? what happens with the level beneath that, the supervisory level, with the rank and file level? how are you addressing the need to get our agency to think more differently about how we come to work, what we do at work, we don't sleep at work. we don't sext text under any circumstances. we don't look into files that we don't have a responsibility, a need to look into.
is there going to be a fail safe mechanism that shows when the file is being accessed by someone who shouldn't be or has no reason to be? i would like to know some steps that you're taking. thank you. >> in terms of the overall culture here, we're trying to have our workforce take ownership of this agency. just three or four weeks ago we started a new program, a crowdsourcing type where our agents and our officers and employees, professional staff, can send in ideas, suggestions, what we should be doing better, what should we be looking at, and then they get other people from the workforce looking at that and they can like that for a better term and then it forces the executive staff to look at that. we've seen this as a very positive already. we've had close to 200 hits of
what we call spark where people have taken ownership of their agency. that's where we have to get to that point. it's management, my leadership but additionally it's the individuals who have to take ownership of the agency, and i will say, again, 99% of our people do have that ownership. >> so mr. clancy, i've been on the executive branch of government and i know it takes that kind of expectation but it takes a plan of action and it takes whether or not you're hiring people from the outside who look at these issues and work through groups and down through the organization. i would like to know if you're planning on those action steps. is there some sort of way to access information when you're not -- when it's out of order for what you're doing, it's not related to your case, your identification number to get
into it signals whether or not you are or are not the right person to be accessing this information. as a follow-up to senator lankford's concerns. >> my understanding is, and the other gentlemen may be able to answer this better, it requires constant monitoring and auditing. there's no automatic notice that someone has accessed someone's data inappropriately. it has to be constant monitoring. there's an administrator for each of these buckets of information and that administrator has to control who has access, the need to know that information so it's up to the administrator. that administrator would have to ensure that anyone else who enters has access they've approved.
>> if i may just as an example, the dhs text system is one director clancy had created a record there and then i accessed that record, dr. clancy would get an e-mail that i was the one who accessed the record. not only what director clancy was talking about, you can run reports but there are also sort of real-time controls on modern i.t. systems that weren't present in the mci system. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman, mr. lankford. >> thank you. and i think the audit system will be the key. whatever percentage that is to be able to have for this computer at this spot here is everything that you ran and that they know at some point someone will spot audit. just the simple accountability
that sits out there somewhere to know there's an algorithm that's running to say there's a search for files that don't seem to be consistent with official records. there's a spot audit occasionally, you pulled records from your neighbor down the street or from someone you don't like. all of those things become important. we have a tremendous number of people who work in the workforce who are great people that generally love the country and love to do what their job is. the problem is these small, as mr. clancy, as you mentioned, the 1%. i had to smile as we were walking through some of the conversation about secret service and picking on secret service today. i hope we're really not picking on you. this has become the latest example of multiple examples, va or social security or others, to give us a visual example. as i've listened to something of the conversation on the dias about challenges with public relation nightmares and employees not doing their job and alcohol abuse and everything else, we could, quite frankly,
flip the hearing on members of congress and have the same accusation and i will assure you it's more than 1% of the members of congress have some of these exact same issues. so this issue is a human behavior issue, but it's also a professionalism issue of taking the task seriously. mr. clancy, i'm going to give you an unfair list to walk through things and i will tell you this in advance. as i have tried to start walking through some of the issues with secret service, the oldest general law enforcement in our country. it's an incredibly valuable resource to our nation. but my fear is some changes that have been put in place, not on your watch, have brought about some morale shifts on it. what i'm trying to figure out is how to shift morale back and get on top of this, otherwise it's wac wacamole. overtime rules comes up over and over again as i talk to agents and different individuals, getting some sort of standard practice with their counterpart
agencies. accountability of leadership, there is a bad actor everyone knows that's not tolerable in our agency. when you actually confront issues, everyone knows that's the standard and we're going to live up to it. if there is a bad apple as has been stated or that's flippant about it, everyone works down to that level. priority of new equipment and technology, i find the secret service is not getting the top priority for the newest technology and equipment among our dhs law enforcement and i think that's demeaning. that sends a false message they're not as valuable as some of the other aspects of dhs. the responsibilities seem to be getting cluttered instead of a clarity which it has been historically for protection and for counterfeit duties. there seem to be other duties that are creeping into it that distract from the mission here. the consistent career track seems to be a consistent theme that i've heard over and over again, the career track changes
so no one really knows what path they're on here. am i off on any of these at this point? >> no, you're correct. i'll comment on your last career track. we did bring in a workforce of agents at different levels to try to look at the best career track moving forward and we have just announced a couple months ago new career track for our agents so that they can plan their future. that's been one of the problems. you don't know if you're going to come to washington or will you be able to go to texas. we're, again, listening to our workforce trying to find solutions. >> that's one of the things you can do if you're on the inside. i would encourage you -- and you've examined this and gone from there, the possibility that individuals that are on the previous career track still could finish that out. they could be grand fathered into that or if they choose to shift to the other one they could choose that as well. that gives them the option. i feel like the new guy has the new stuff or whatever it may be. also to have something to say i started on this. i can't actually complete this and not feel like the rules are changing on me again. this corporate identity is
extremely important and is extremely valuable and what i fear is that there's a growing sense of lack of importance of people that are incredibly important to our nation. i never want secret service folks to feel they just guard doors for a living. they have an incredibly valuable role in the morale and what you set and the role and the standard that you set will be incredibly important for years to come. if there is a silver lining in this, historically secret certificaservice have had a rea time when a president was shot. no one's been shot. there are just some things that were messed up, and this is a unique moment for the secret service to re-evaluate, who are we, where are we going, what's our clear task? and i would encourage you if there are issues in working with dhs and in the scheme of things these committees need to know it. all of the dhs families feel equal levels of importance. your secret service transition
pretty quickly, i guess, from working in the treasury to dhs and all the restructuring and you're now one of many rather than the big dog at treasury, and that has both benefits and challenges. and we need to know and have some way to be able to help communicate in that so that we can help actually engage because we're not only advocates. today probably feels more like accountability but we have the desire to be advocates. so we'll need to know that. is that fair? >> that's fair, mr. chairman. if i could comment on one thing there, sir? >> yes, sir. >> to give you comfort, i know it's given me comfort, i went through this papal visit. i traveled with the pope. as i talked to our staff, this was a defining moment for our agency. as i talked to these people and i looked in their eyes, they wanted to be successful. they know the issues that have been highlighted and rightfully so over the past several years. this was an unprecedented time in our history and our people
were determined to make this successful, and we did this without incident. and our people felt very proud about that, and i'm very proud of our workforce. now having said that, we have to correct these other things, too, and we will. we have people working very hard for the american people. >> you do and we acknowledge that and understand that. we also don't want anything to distract it. mr. willemssen, talking databases and access points, is there any independent agency or significa exec utive agency that has no system of tracking this old or new that of the high risk these are the highest risks and the independent agencies, do we know for certain that they have au auditing process because they have sensitive data on americans? >> i would point to those agencies who have the most pii,
personal identity information, they protect that. you start with the social security administration who has pii on almost every citizen. the va definitely an issue. department of education probably overlooked because they have a tremendous amount of pii because of student loans not only on the student but sometimes on the parents. i would be most concerned about where the pii is most significant. >> let me ask you about things like s.e.c., they have a tremendous amount of data. >> yes. >> do we know on their employees how they have access and the limitations that they have? >> we know they have three sets of data collection that includes pii, maybe more. arbitration case records, bank deposit account and transaction level data, and storefront payday loans.
>> what's their auditing process for employees inappropriately accessing that? >> that's something we can follow up on. we did make a recommendation in terms of the -- we previously had done and we made a recommendation related to their privacy impact assessment. whenever you collect pii, you've got do a privacy impact assessment that lets everyone know, what are we collecting, why are we collecting it, how are we going to use it, how are we not going to use it and when are we going to dispose of it. they had not fully done those when we did our work. so we made a recommendation on that. that's something i can follow up on and see where they are at. >> cfpb has requested another incredibly large numberjump in amount of information they're gathering. that seems to exceed what was originally designed. >> it may be more than what we had mentioned in our report then. they may have further expanded
it. >> it's a fairly recent request for additional information. we are trying to figure out who has access and how often they have ak sglccess. >> we can follow up on that. th . >> that would be helpful. >> before i close out, i have a couple questions. you are from the government accountability office. i read through your information. i'm just wondering if you can provide any clarity on other agencies regarding penalties, regarding accountability for actions that have been -- that they have engaged in regarding security clearances. i that might be out of your wheelhouse, and if it is -- >> i can talk about some of the major incidents over time. probably the first major incident we had with inappropriate browsing was at the irs in the mid '90s.
several threes decided to start browsing celebrities' tax returns. as a result of that, there was an act passed, the taxpayer browsing protection action, 1997. that, among other things, has a penalty of up to $1,000 fine and imprisonment of not more than one year. >> do you know if anybody was ever prosecuted under that and was subjected to those penalties at all? >> do not know that, sir. but i can -- we can follow up on that with irs. >> actually, i wish you would just so we know. and director, you also mentioned that i think there are some limitations, right, to what you can do regarding accountability, regarding punishment for actions that are beneath the standard, is that correct? >> yes. we're not able to fire at will. >> okay. so we need to know, the members of this board and congress in general needs to know what you
need us to do for you to be successful to manage your force. we need your direct recommendations. that as is said so many times in the room, we want to you be successful. if we're standing in the way, let us know what we can do, what we should do so you can be successful. i have served for over 30 years in the united states military. if you are familiar with the army. if there's a question of your security clearance and your activities regarding that, that's suspended pending an investigation. if you are found to have been at fault and have -- that is very serious. that's incredibly serious for the most minor infractions. it's not meant to be a culture of punishment and fear. but it's meant to keep honest people honest and to raise to the level of importance those things that should be important. i would just suggest that maybe that would be something that you might want to look at for suspension of security clearances, which i would imagine in your business a suspension of a security clearance certainly on an
interim basis or maybe on an interim basis but absolutely on a permanent basis means loss of employment because you can't be employed without it. right? >> that's correct. >> so that gets to where we want to be. the i would also say this. in looking at some of the testimony, we're concerned about how fast you are getting the information. you are the top dog. you are in charge. i get it. but i will tell you this, too. whether it's in my family or whether it's in the military or whether i was running my business, bad information, bad news does not get better with time. there must be a culture of something happened and who needs to know and we get the information up to the top of the chain as quickly as possible, because you've got to be able to do your job. you can't do it without the information. if your subordinates don't know that is your expectation, then we are going to have this continuation of this, which none of us want. you are sitting here in front of us. you are defend ing and your agents, as you should. you probably know that 95% of your time will be spent on 5% of
your people. director, i have been out to your operation. i have been well impressed. all of us really want to hold up the secret service as the standard. we want that. americans really desperately want that. so these things are incredibly hurtful when we hear them in the news. they are hurtful. there's a bigger picture here. i think your agents, employees need to understand it's not their system. it's the taxpayer's database. it is not their information. it is those individuals' information. you don't own it. those individuals own if. to use it is reprehensible in an age when as the senator talked about, all these -- the information that the government is gathered, the information that the private sector is gathering and what happens to it and who owns it, the force of law under the aca which says you must submit your information to think and to wonder that somebody might be using that for their personal whatever, that's
a problem. that's a problem for the american citizen trusting their government. your employees have a drebl s h connection to that. they must understand that. you've been questioned a couple times on diversity and filling your ranks and keeping your people employed and keeping them incentivized. we understand that you have challenges, just like everybody does complying with the law and filling your ranks with the people that you want to have there. we understand that. i would say from this person's perspective, we want you -- i want you to get the best. you get the best. you get the best to do the job. finally, i noticed a couple times you said you were trying to be consistent with other agencies. i will tell you this, sir. i understand where you want to be. this is the secret service. the premiere organization of your type in the united states government, in the world. how about if you lead? if you can't find somebody that meets the standards you want to set in your agency around the
government agencies, go outside or make your own standard. if you need help from us, you need to ask for it. thank you very much for your time here. gentlemen, again, i thank you. the witnesses all for your valuable testimony and the members and their questions. members may have additional questions for the witnesses. we will ask that you respond to those inwriting. without objection, this subcommittee stands adjourned.
had access to the information. those folks are going to -- the idea that we're having a secret service agent there would somehow -- these weren't whistleblowers. that was the lodge gic. we had 45 interviews. trying to leverage personnel. i understand. i think what we're doing now is restructuring the process. we take you live now to capitol hill. in particular, the rayburn house office building where members of the house and senate transportation committees will be meeting to discuss highway and mass transit funding after both the house and senate passing separate long-term highway and mass transit bills. pennsylvania congressman bill shuster will serve as chair. oklahoma senator james inhoff will be the chief.
>> congressman bill shuster on your screen. he will chair the conference committee, first time in a decade, lawmakers hoping to have agreement on a transportation bill. they hoped to pass it in time to prevent an interruption. but they have lined up a two-week extension to give them time to get over the finish line. there is jim inhoff, the vice chair of the conference committee, about to get under way here live on c-span3.
>> the conference committee for transportation will come to order. i see that we're joined by mr. defazio electronically. how are you doing? >> doing well. thank you. appreciate it. >> peter had surgery. unable to be here. unable to fly. we made sure that he's here. first i would like to welcome the members of the conference committee from the house and
senate. everyone else that's here today at the meeting. according to a long-standing agreement, the house and senate i' alternate this. >> thank you. i nominate congressman shuster as the chairman of the conference. without objection, that will be the order. >> i second the nomination. >> you are too late. that's all right. >> thank you. i would like to also like to no, ma'am name senator inhoff as vice chair. senator inhoff is the vice chair. i would like to take care of some procedural matters. i ask consent that peter defazio be allowed to participate in the
conference by electronic means. next i want to give you all a sense of the conference schedule going forward. as we all know, we are operating under an extension of the highway trust fund that goes through december 4th. this is the last extension. let me put an exclamation point on that. getting everything done by december 4th is goi ining to be challenge. following this meeting, we need to negotiate all areas the difference between the house and senate bills this week. staff will be busy putting together the report next week. staff, both sides of the aisle, happy thanksgiving. we plan to file the conference report on november 30th. that's the first day back from thanksgiving. procedurally this barely gives the house enough time to pass the conference report and get it to the president by december 4th. obviously, it's going to be a challenge. we need to buckle down and get to work. this is a very ambitious
schedule ahead of us. i feel confident we can get it done. we have a large conference committee. i know everyone wants to have an opportunity to speak. let me explain the order for recognition today. with agreement with senator inhoff, we hope he can enforce this on his side, we recognize members for two minutes alternating between the house and senate in the order we are seated. if a member is not here when their name is called, they will be recognized when they come in. i know that the senate -- you folks are due for a vote this morning shortly. we will be going back and forth. let me start by saying when i became chairman of the transportation infrastructure committee, we wanted to pass a bill to improve our transit system. i'm happy we're getting closer to the goal. everyone understands how critical our transportation system is to the economy and our
constituent's quality of life. our surface transportation system has direct impact on everybody's lives every single day. it affects how we get to work, how materials get to factories, how products find their way to shelves. a safe system means we spend less time stuck in traffic, it means our country and the american businesses are more competitive and it means job. on november 5, more than 360 members of the house passed a multi-year transportation bill that includes a number of good policies and reforms. the house bill refocuses our transportation programs on national priorities, provides flexibility for states and local governments, streamlines the federal bureaucracy, accelerates the project approval process, facilitates freight and commerce and promotes innovation. we developed aid strong bipartisan bill thanks to the hard work of ranking member defazio, sam grays and many
others who all contributes to the work. fortunately, there's plenty of common ground between the two proposals that allow us to reach an agreement with both houses we can willingly support. we made very good progress in working through some of the differents. i look forward to finishing our work on a final mesh that helps improve america's infrastruct e infrastructure. i would yield now to senator inhoff for his statement. >> thank you. it's an enjoyable emotional experience to come back here. many of the same people were here when i spent eight years on this committee are here now. i look over at your daddy's picture over here and remember the times that we faced these things. one of the nice things it i remember about the eight years i spent on this committee as a very active member was i don't
recall one time that we had any partisan squabbles here. we got along. we made an agreement. i think you realize and read the old document that says, we're supposed to be doing two things up here. we're supposed to be defending america and roads and bridges. that's what we're here for. have i no doubt that what we're going to be able to get it through with this. senator boxer, she and i disagree about a lolt t of stuf but not about infrastructure. we're able to get things through. people are in shock. i think that on june 24th, our committee unanimously voted to advance the drive act in our committee. that's very unusual in the committee that we chair, that she has chaired when the democrats were majority and i chaired twice when republicans were that we're unanimous on anything. we were on this. we went on with the drive act
and passed it through the senate, 56-35. about the same as the majority that you had chairman shuster. i think that when we look at the things we want to do, and we're going to accomplish with this, it's going to be the need for a national freight program, further environmental streamlining, placing new focus on innovation, provide states with flexibility and both bills provide necessary long-term certainty. i think we all know why that's important. you can not do short-term extensions. some of us have been in the private sector. we know we can't do it that way. let's get something important done. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thaufrng. recognize congressman defazio. electronically. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> that's not a portrait, is it?
>> all right. it's working. thanks for your partnership as we move through this process. the committee passed a bill unanimously. ours did also. we had a phenomenal vote on the house vote. it has been ten years since we did a long-term bill. this will provide much more authority to the states to better plan more efficiently plan longer term projects, begin to deal with our deteriorating infrastructu infrastructure. i am concerned and continue to be concerned over the funding levels. i have expressed this throughout the process. the house at 325, senate at 342. the no worsening scenario, that is if we want to be -- our system on to the next generation and no worse condition than it is today, we need 400 billion a year. there's one way we could get there. that is take the existing funds
and reduce the terms of the bill to five or four years, get more robust enforcement, put people to work and move some of these good policies forward. i hope the conference committee will consider that. i would also hope that the committee will include the language in the house bill which allows for any future revenues dedicated to transportation to flow through the policies of this bill with no further action required by congress so that should a future congress find in some way additional revenues, that those revenues can be put to work nearly immediately. there are many policy issues that are still outstanding. the staff is doing a tremendous job in narrowing differences between the house bill. and i expect that we can meet the rather ambitious schedule you put forward. i intend to be back there when we move forward with the bill after thanksgiving. thanks, mr. chairman. appreciate the opportunity to participate.
>> thank you. with that i now recognize a person i have collaborated with before. i think this is a holy alliance. we did a bill together. you are doing your second transportation bill. you decided not to return to this. this is important we get this done on your watch and also hopefully we will do another between the two committees next year. i yield to senator boxer. >> mr. chairman, i was going to say exactly what you said, that we have a great record of working together across party aisles, you and i. senator inhofe and congressman defazio and i worked with congressman micca on the last highway bill with senator inhofe. this is a moment we cannot let go. peter, i'm glad to see you. you look good. we look forward to getting you back here where you belong. we are making great progress. people keep stopping me in the halls and saying, another
extension. does this mean it's over? no. we are working toward a bill. we are making great progress. my friend senator inhofe and i are joined at the hip in this effort, which is important, because as you know, we're not on another issues. but we are on this issue. and i want to say to every member of this conference committee, we're so fortunate to be here right now this minute, regardless of party, because this is an amazing opportunity to help our country. this is not an ideological issue. when you can't move on our highways, when you can't take transit to work, it hurts our economy, it hurts our families. we are poised to do something great. something that hasn't been done in a long time. a multi-year robustly funded bill. i think we can get there. we have to get there. and i will give you three
reasons why i think we can't fail. 61,000 of our bridges are structurally deficient. i saw one go down in california between the california and arizona border. it completely -- completely wrecked the economy there. luckily, we lost no lives. we have got to pass this and fix those bridges. 50% of our roads are not in good condition. these stats are coming from the people who follow the condition of our roads. these are not put out by a government entity. 1.3 million unemployed construction workers compared to '06. that's a lot of families that are counting on us not to mention the thousands of businesses that are counting on us. our staffs have been working night and day. usually, we wait until it's all over to thank them. i gotta say, just from our side, my staff and senator inhofe's
staff have become almost relatives through this. they have worked together night and day. we have our problems. i worry about the safety title. i think we need to really work together to make sure when we do this bill not only do we set out something terrific for the economy and for jobs but also make sure that our highways are safer, our automobiles are safer, our buses, rails are safer. i'm excited at this. i put the rest of my statement in the record. but i stand ready to work night and day because this is a moment in history, folks. it doesn't come along very often. we can actually work together now on this. and it makes me so happy to say that, because you know, we're kind of in hand to hand combat so much of the time. we don't have to be on this bill. i hope that the four of us can set the example and the other chairman and ranking members on our side -- believe me, on our
side we've got senators hatch and senator brown and shelby all involved in crafting this bill. this isn't a one person show 234 any sense of the word. i love working with my friends. we're going to get this done, mr. chairman, with your leadership. thank you. >> thank you. i now recognize mr. graves, s s subcommittee chairman. >> all of us in this room, we know the importance of a multi-year bill, a modern efficient well designed transportation system is critical to everything we do in the country. i get a little specific here. in my home state of missouri, we have 35,000 miles of roads and 10,000 bridges. most of those roads are in need of repair and many of the bridges are going ing ting to rebuilt or replaced. in washington, we have seen states and local governments forced to operate off one
short-term extension after another. the reality is that states cannot make proper invests in infrastructure without a transportation bill. the service transportation reauthorization reform act, it's a bipartisan piece of legislation. it focuses on those investments in infrastructure and makes common sense policy reforms. the house bill reauthorizes federal programs for six years, specifically it targets regulations and expedites environmental reviews for projects and certifies 15% of the federal highway funding is used to restore rural brifrdges. looking forward, this bill will put our country on the path towards rethinking and reshaping our national transportation infrastructure. the house bill helps us modernize roads and transit systems applying innovation from the private sector. it allows us to build upon those improvements during future reauthorization bills. both the house and the senate bills ensure that states have the certainty at the need to plan for long-term
transportation projects. our society and our economy desperately needs. maintaining the infrastructure is one of the things that the federal government should do and should do well. we have to ensure that the final agreement is going to make that possible. i have been very proud to have been a part of the development. this bill. i look forward to wrapping up the final stages of this process. we look forward to a multi-year reauthorization bill and signed into law. thank you. i appreciate it. >> thank you. now i recognize another member of the house and a former member of of this committee, senator thuman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate all the great work that you and your staff and members of this committee have done in working with our senate counterparts to get to where we are today. this is an important point in the process we're going to get a multi-year highway bill, something that many of us have desired for a long time and something that our states and
country needs for the benefits it provides to our economy. i appreciate all the good work and the staffs have worked so hard. if senator boxer and senator inhofe's staff have been like relatives, i suppose ours would be the crazy in-laws. we have had a lot of good work put into this already. i think with regard to the area that senator nelson and i have jurisdiction over on the commerce committee, a lot of the safety provisions, there are a number of things that we're proud that are included as part of this bill. i just want to mention very briefly a few of those. there's very important passenger rail reforms and safety improvements that were passed separately by the house of representatives as part of their passenger rail reform and investment act. those were many of those provisions were included in the senate past drive act. following the record automobile safety recalls last year, we have had a real opportunity to
spur adoption of advanced safety technologies with this bill such as blind spot detection, active braking, lane departure warning to reduce automobiles and injuries. i'm pleased with where we are. i know we have work ahead of us yet to complete. action on this. great credit, mr. chairman, to you and your staff and the staffs of the various committees of jurisdiction on both the house and senate to get where we are today. i look forward to completing the process and in a way that will provide certainty that we need for these critical transportation improvements and for all the benefits to our economy that come with that. thank you. >> thank you. now recognize ms. norton for her statement. >> it's been a pleasure to work with you and ranking member defazio and chairman graves on what has truly been a bipartisan effort where we have stuck together, each taking things we
would prefer not to have and moving forward in a bipartisan bill that may be a model, i hope, for the entire house and senate. i certainly would like to thank my senate colleagues for moving so quickly in july with a long-term authorization bill. this is the first long-term authorization bill in ten years. despite its level funding, i think we will find that every state and local government, every commuter stuck in traffic and every business that has to use these roads and bridges to get its goods and services through our country will be grateful that there is a bill. i'm sure we are determined this time to make sure that there will be a bill.
mr. chairman, this is a six-year bill without six-year funding. it would take $400 billion over six years just to maintain the status quo if we were doing nothing new. one thing we ought to consider is making this a five-year bill with the funding then truly able to maintain at least the status quo. there's so many good things in this bill that i don't want to detail the ones from my own district or the country except for two. one is the $20 million for experimentation in the states to do what we have not done in the federal government, to find a substitute for the defunct, the obsolete highway trust fund. we did nothing in map 21.
we have at least allowed the states to show us the way. finally, mr. chairman, i would like to say that i think this ought to be the last time, particularly if we perhaps can have a joint hearing of the house and senate, having the private sector come with new ideas about a highway trust fund, it may well be the last time that we do what we have done today. it's the first time that we have ever funded a highway trust bill using such gimmicks as filing due dates, change in the filing due dates of certain tax and information returns or extending the expiration date for enterprise guarantee fees. we can do better than that. i hope the house and senate will meet together so that we can develop a new fund for our highways, transportation,
freight and, in fact, ensuring on every six years that we are rebuilding our infrastructure. >> thank you. i now recognize senator nelson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. other than the funding differences, some of the more significant differences between the house and the senate position is some of the safety concerns. and we have had some hard won compromises brought together on safety that's in the senate bill. for example, different with the numerous exemptions from truck safety laws and from liability protections as well as the speed of safety rule makings. that's a difference. another difference in our two
bill bills is the liability cap in the senate is increased from the current $200 million per incident up to $295 million. now, you would think of the amtrak incident a few months ago. the amount of damage that has been caused is going to far exceed $200 million. well, we started out trying to get that at $500 compromised do million. we need strong safety vehicle measures. here is one that defies understanding that you would want to allow a recalled vehicle -- remember how many raumed vehicles that we now
have. millions just on the takata airbags. it's over 20 million. that you would allow a rental car to be able to rent a recalled vehicle. and in the house bill, that is applied to dealers, that you could rent a recalled vehicle. well, we don't believe that in the senate bill. and then on any of the defects, for example, that nitsa would have a civil penalty, presently it's 35 million. we wanted to take that up significantly. we compromised at doing it at three times instead of going to 500. so it's compromised in our bill at $105 million. and then penalties for these
safety defects. and an example is the general motors ignition lock system. that company, $35 million, that doesn't seem to be reasonable. there's one other provision that provides in the house bill sweeping liability protections for auto manufacturers and suppliers with regard to nitsa guidelines. we think this ought to be determined in courts of law, not by congress. so those are some of the differences. i'm sure we can get them ironed out. and i certainly support the efforts of the top four of you as you've tried to bring us together on the highway bill. >> thank you, senator nelson. with that, mr. denim is recognized for an opening statement. >> thank you.
making this an open, bipartisan process in the house. i look forward to working with my fellow people in making sure some of the things that we think are important stay in the bill. the house bill as far as safety for the rail and crude by rail, we go above and beyond dot's final rule. we make the new tank cars carrying flammable liquids to have a thermal blanket. second, we require all new legacy do t111 be phased out and replaced or retrofitted with the new standard. without this provision, over 30,000 dot 111s would remain on rails. we require dodot 117 have top fittings. we require railroads to create an oil spill response plan. finally, we also ensure railroads provide state and local emergency responders with information on crude by rail
shipments within their state. this sean important issue for our local community. i want to also commend the senate for including reforms to the passenger rail. specifically, reforms to amtrak which will help it to run more like a business and strengthen investment on the northeast corridor as well as improving the loan process. also, separately this bill includes reforms that i have long championed, the nepa reciprocity act, which eliminates duplicative environmental reviews which will save not only years of project planning and delivery but millions of dollars which in our area will help to improve many of our bridges that are in bad need of repair. a bridge like the modesto 7th street which is rated two out of 100. when we build bridges that a few years later don't allow school buss to drive on because they're so in bad of repair, those are the things that we need to focus money on as well as making sure project delivery happens quickly. finally, a bipartisan amendment
that i offered on the floor to create certainty in the marketplace for federal motor carriers must be included. it's impaerative congress ensur motor carriers have the certainty of one federal standard in order to operate effectively and efficiently. lastly, many of you have met our french bulldog lily. she's around the capitol frequently. i have never received so many letters from not only constituents but republicans, democrats, family members from around the country that would just like the simple ability to bring their pet on a train. it seemed ridiculous that i can have my small dog on an airplane but yet when we travel by train, she is forbidden from coming with us. i know pet owners around the country are looking forward to having pets on trains. i yield back. >> pets on trains. is that a movie?
with that, senator hatch is not here. i will go to senator widen. >> thank you very much. i think we all want to say hello to my friend and colleague congressman defazio who has been doing good work on these issues for years and years. colleagues, my bottom line is you cannot have big league economic growth with little legal infrastructure. nearly three dozen short-term funding extensions have created a years long cloud of uncertainty and confusion. it has been needlessly traumatic for our states and communities who want to plan ahead in ways that will spark economic growth. this bill at least stops the roller coaster of short-term extensions. i'm just going to tick through a few important points. first, i want to all -- i want my state to understand how much we appreciate congressman
defazio's good work. he's got a provision that's going to bring new projects within national scenic areas into the mix for transportation funding, including one in hood river. another provision, upgrades i 205 and portland and the bypass to high priority status. these are two well traveled routes. because of the good work of congressman defazio, they will be important investments for the future. let me just tick off what i think ought to be the priorities for all of us. first, our number one priority has got to be robust funding for as many years as possible. my preference is for five years of robust funding so as to give governors and community leaders some certainty and predictability around when which they can plan. i hope this committee will strike the provision on using
private debt collectors. it's a flawed proposal with a proven track record of failure. reports have indicated that when the irs tried using private debt collectors in the past, the program wound up losing more money than it brought in. what we saw was a huge increase in the number of consumer complaints to the federal trade commission. i want to wrap up with one last point. i think it would be a serious mistake for this conference to not make a strong effort to get some of the billions of private sector dollars off the sidelines and into a game of infrastructure. there's a bipartisan proposal that represents a huge opportunity to spur hundreds of billions of dollars of ininvestment in roads, highways, bridges and ports. according to the joint committee
on taxation, an $8 billion taxpayer investment generates $226 billion worth of transportation investment. colleagues, here is where we are. the cost of money is very modest. the cost of materials is lower than we have seen in some time. we've got so many middle class workers, men and women, out of work. this is an opportunity to get the best return on investment out there. there is no other proposal. with that kind of rate of return. i look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move that legislation forward. mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you. with that, recognize mr. capalano. >> thank you. i want to thank my colleagues. this has been a great process so far. i'm happy to be on the verge of having a long-term bill like so many others. i want to echo the comments of my chairman relative to the rail
issues that are in here. i think we have done a good job. i want to draw big bold line under pushing the -- it's not in this bill, the positive train control issue to ensure the safety of americans across this country. we will make progress on that. at the same time, there is issues relative to commuter rails on positive train control. we have them. we know they don't have the money do this. part of this bill should include money to help them move forward on that. we do have some environmental issues here that are relatively small in my opinion. i think they can be worked out and will be. they're still on the table. i also need to take a minute to talk about formula changes. you do not change formulas that move hundreds of millions of dollars around on the basis of a ten-minute floor debate. that's not the way you do things. because if do you that, what do you is you simply begin a feeding frenzy. everyone -- we're all doing the same thing. we're trying to find more money for our communities. i get that. but we're not doing it because we're doing that because we're
not funding this bill properly. we turn on each other. that's well and good until you get turned on. we f we take one formula and deal with that, that may sound good until you realize in the fta alone there are 12 different formulas. that doesn't include the fhwa, that doesn't include the fra. all of whom have dozens of formulas. the way to change formulas is to have a discussion about it before we get to the floor, run numbers, see how it works, combine them, get rid of some, whatever we want to do. it's not to do a ten-minute floor amendment on the floor. otherwise, i guarantee you there will come another day when the people try to attack different formulas that they benefit by. i just don't think that's the way to do business. i don't think that we will end up doing that. nonetheless, it needed to be said. with that, i thank you for the time. i yield back. >> thank you. senator cornen is not here.
i recognize senator brown. >> thank you, mr. chairman. transportation bills have pretty much forever been bipartisan affairs. i'm sure this conference led by senator inhofe and senator boxer and shuster and defazio will continue that. it costs states time and money and energy. from the 1940s into the 1980s, we led the world in infrastructure, building things the world had never seen before. as we all know, the quality of u.s. infrastructure ranks 16th in the world. it is critical this conference committee focuses on producing a bill that increases funding above current levels and helps states and cities invest in their infrastructure in a meaningful way. the banking committee develops a public transportation portion of this bill in the senate. through negotiations, we have worked to improve the transit title. since a mass transit account was
created in 1983 under president reagan, public transportation has always received at least 20% of any new revenues provided. the senate bill continues this tradition. it ensures the mass transit account receives a fair share of new revenues. the senate and house bill increased the amount of american made steel and other components that will go into buses and subway cars. taxpayer dollars clearly we all know should be spent supporting american workers in american businesses. i'm pleased that both houses included identical language reauthorizing the export import bank. the bank is a job creator, unquestionably. it supported 350 businesses. about two-thirds of which are small businesses. it's five months overdue. it will help ensure that ohio's exports, manufacturers and workers are not facing a playing field tilted in favor of foreign competitors. i offer support for the creation of a competitive grant program
for regional and nationally significant projects. as my friend the senior senator from oklahoma pointed out several times on the senate debate, projects like the bridge connecting cincinnati and northern kentucky carry 4% of our gdp across that bridge every day, every week, every year. the federal government must play a role in improvement and so much more. thank you. >> thank you, senator brown. with that, i recognize mr. thompson for an opening statement. >> thank you so much. appreciate your leadership. i want to thank all the members and the staff that have moved this critical bill to this point. i look forward to working with you as we complete this process in a timely manner. having spent decades as a state certified firefighter and
emergency medical technician, i've witnessed firsthand how lives are either at risk or protected by the conditions of highways. our highway investments asure not only the safe and efficient transportation of america's families but also america's economy. and so that why i'm honored to be a part of this process. i also certainly appreciate the inclusion of the reauthorization of the export import bank within this. this is an important tool in terms of making manufacturing here and selling to other countries our products, the fruits of the labor of american workers. so with that, i just want to say thank you again. it's honor to be on this conference committee. i yield back. >> thank you. with that, recognize senator
makowski. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank both of you. i thank those that have been working so long and hard to get where we are today. which is consideration of a long-term transportation bill. i think something that many of us have been looking for for a long time. i would like to highlight very quickly a couple of the programs that are significant to my state of alaska. very remote. very rural. chairman inhofe mentioned that our obligation here is to focus on roads and bridges. i certainly don't dispute that. but i also remind colleagues that in certain parts of the country our roads are on the water. a marine highway system through ferries that is a priority. we ought not forget them as well. making sure that we have a program for construction of ferries and terminal facilities i think must adequately account for states like alaska, our
coastal states that do rely on ferries as our marine highways. they carry people and necessities from one location to another. they are life lines to communities that have no roads or airports. when you come from a state where 80% of your communities are not attached by a road, we've got to figure out how our transportation corridors work for us. so know that that is a priority. second, the tribal transportation program must provide base funding to our tribes, particularly our smaller more rural tribes. without a steady funding stream, tribes can't provide access to services that it intends. i want to acknowledge my colleague here in the house, congressman young, who secured a formula change for railroads to correct a mistake that we saw in map 21 that disproportionally and negatively impacted the alaska railroad. i'm looking to see that fix in the conference report. i have expressed my concerns
about some of the pay fors, most specifically, out of the have a teethic petroleum reserve where we would propose to sell $11 10 million barrels. this would be a large drawdown. at a time of turmoil, we have to preserve in my view as many of those barrels as possible. even minor changes in the market can have tremendous impact on our need for the reserve. because of the upton amendment, there's an energy component to the highway bill. the good news for us on this is that the energy committee and the senate voted 18-4 to report out bipartisan bill with several core intonding provisions. we look to work together on that. appreciate again the opportunity to be working together with those who have led on this very important initiative. i thank the members. >> thank you. with that, mr. levin is
recognized for an opening statement. >> thank you very much. if i might say a special hello to pete defazio and to senator boxer. you have worked so hard. we came to this institution together. you have been unrelenting. moving forward on a multi-year highway bill is long overdue. short-term patches have caused uncertainty in long-term transportation projects and have hindered projects that create jobs and help move our economy. in order to really make the needed upgrades to our roads and bridges, the level of funding in this bill falls short. in addition, several of the offsets offered are problematic. they illustrate an effort to avoid the tough work of agreeing to financing mechanisms within the transportation system and searching for unrelated and unwise revenue. for example, the legislation
includes $2.4 billion in revenue from private debt collection which subjects tax payers to harassment and other inappropriate debt collection techniques. when the irs most recently used private debt collection in 2006, the program actually lost money. i urge this provision be removed. additional, the funds generated are desperately needed to ensure that our nation's borders are secure, mitigate long times at our border for trade and travel and ensure that the u.s. is in compliance with its international obligations. funds generated by the payment of custom user fees have been long used to pay for custom-related expenses. that's where they should remain. if i might add a somewhat personal note unrelated to our jurisdiction, i would also like to take this opportunity to
associate myself with the senate provision that would raise the cap on passenger liability claims in railroad accidents to $295 million. i look forward to helping resolve these issues and others with my colleagues over the duration of this conference. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. with that, without objection, we will go to senator schumer and fisher, because the senate has a vote. i know in our side of the aisle, who is here at the gavel goes down goes first, but because this is a conference, we try to deal with seniority. i recognize the gentleman from new york, senator schumer. >> your father is smiling with that statement. it's great to be back here in the house. i was never on this committee, but i poked my head in the banking committee where i spent 18 happy years. it's the same room. i want to thank first senators boxer and inhofe for all the hard work they have done.
into this bill so far and for their continued efforts to improve our aging infrastructure. i want to thank chairman rankin shuster and difazzio. and speaker ryan has been very positive about moving the bill forward and not being stuck in any way to do it, which we very much appreciate as well. the fact that we can do this in a by parten san way is what people want us to do. we all know we are facing a huge crisis in america. roads and bridges are crumbling. transit systems falling into disrepair. lack of continued long-term investments is start to have an impact on our economy. 63,500 bridges are structurally deficient. thousands in my state in new york. our nation's roads are in less
than good condition. the fta estimated that deferred maintenance have created a backlog of $90 billion of transit projects. with all these significant needs in mind, i welcome the fans to be part of this conference committee, on both sides of the aisle towards a long-term solution to our nation's infrastructure challenges. the discussions have been productive. sometimes these things work backward. but they are moving forward on the house and senate side, which gives me optimism we will get this done before the disease 11th deadline. it's my hope we not only have is a bill that makes adequate investments in our infrastructure, but one that clears out the growing backlog of projects across the country. doing that will not only improve our infrastructure, but the
thousands, improve our competitiveness and the safety for the traveling public. i appreciate my colleague from nebraska waiting to go. so i'll ask unanimous consent. the rest of my statement be read into the record. no objection. with that, ms. fisher for opening statements. >> thank you, chairman shuster. it is an honor to be here and to participate in the spy camera conference committee to negotiate a multiyear highway bill. since my time at the nebraska unicameral has been deeply important to my work in public office. two of my signature accomplishments in the unicameral helped local communities move forward with completing those vital
transportation projects. passing a long-term transportation bill has been one of my goals as a member of the united states senate. as chairman of the commerce surface subcommittee and acting meeting on the environment and public works committee, i worked closely with chairman thune and inhofe for a reform oriented highway bill known as the drive act. the senate passed this bill in july. we did so without raising taxes on our hard-working american families. this august i welcomed u.s. transportation secretary anthony fox to lincoln, nebraska where we convened a roundtable at the university of nebraska lincoln's research center. we were joined by local stakeholders, representing the railroad, highway construction, trucking, passenger, obviously and the aviation industries. a at this important meeting and
my listening sessions throughout the state, the message from nebraskans was loud and clear. our businesses, consumers, workers and families want a multiyear highway bill. local communities and states need certainty to ensure critical and crucial infrastructure projects can get up and running. so i look forward to working in collaboration with members of our conference committee to give nebraskans and all americans a multiyear highway bill that strengthens safety, provides certainty, and increases the united states global competitiveness. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator fisher. and with that, ms. sanchez is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that, and senators on both sides of the aisle for me to speak against section 111
in hr 22. the surface transportation reoften reform act of 2015. mr. chairman, the house armed services committee has serious concerns with section 1111. it is aimed at doing a restrictive easement that the navy entered into in the waters around bangor submarine base so that a gravel company can build a i pier for off-loading gravel near the base. there was an effort to including this in the fiscal year 16 ndaa. but congressman thornberry and smith objected to it. the department of navy has clearly indicated they do not support this provision. according to the navy, and i quote, the provision will harm current readiness at the navy base and other installations that are similarly situated near domestic aggregate reserves.
the mission that navy base requires a acoustic and security characteristics that aren't consistent nor compatible with certain types of land or maritime development. the navy's concern with encroachment on the base and the easement the navy entered into is still actually in litigation, which is being pursued by the gravel company that wants this easement. i don't believe that congress should be ledge slating on this issue when this is in the court system and undergoing legal proceedings. for these reasons, the task opposed this provision. and i believe that the house committee on transportation and infrastructure and the subcommittee on public and environment works should also do the same, mr. chairman. and i yield back. >> thank you, ms. sanchez. we recognize mr. conley for an opening statement. >> thank you and mr. difazzio and senator boxer and inhofe for
your leadership and for producing a bipartisan funding plan. i was in local government for 14 years. i did interchanges. i did sidewalks. i did transit systems. i did airports. and all of those things have one thing in common. they are long-term planning projects. you cannot do infrastructure on six-month increments. that's why this bill is so important. i have a longer statement i would like to add in the record. i want my contribution to get this done and get it done now by yielding back the balance of my time. >> mr. connolly gets a gold star. if we still had earmarks we would probably be considering that too. with that, i recognize mr. duncan. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. at the time of the last highway
bill i had the privilege of chairing the highway subcommittee. i want to first of all, commend you because i don't know -- i don't believe anybody could have done a better job in handling this bill than you have done in working with my friend peter di fazio. i had the privilege of sitting with senator inhofe on this committee and i always admired him and have great respect for the way he and senator boxer have worked together on the senate side on these matters. let me say that i am really pleased that after spending hundreds of billions of dollars in a futile effort to attempt to rebuild the middle east the last 15 years we are finally passing a major bill to rebuild this country and create hundreds of thousands of jobs that can't be sent to other countries.
i want to thank you, mr. chairman, for placing just about all of the requests that i made into this legislation, especially prohibition on using federal funds for red light cameras which are merely not really safety related. also, i appreciate you putting in many of the provisions from the special panels you asked me to chair on in public and private partnerships. and with a that, mr. chairman, i will just simply ask that my longer statement be placed in the record. and thank you very much for giving me this time. >> without objection, so ordered. thank you for all that hard work on that. next we go to the former chairman of the committee and last author of the last map 21 mr. mica is recognized.
>> thank you for both sides of the leadership for getting this done. it is a tough job, but it is in good hands. two things i want to mention. i brought up in the house side this is our last chance in six years to bring some reforms to amtrak. i consider myself one of the strongest advocates of moving people by passenger rail. i strongly believe that amtrak is the last vesvesidge. congress will never give $150 billion in their quarter. private sector can help. they have the expertise and knowledge to move forward. a you just need to open the door
and allow them to continue, the rest of the western world and european union is requiring state-supported rail service. the train runs from new york to boston at 68 miles per hour. that's a joke. it is pitiful from washington to new york it's 83 miles an hour. the second item is, and i have requested this. having seen that there is never enough money and we always need to expand our roads and it is so expensive. one of the alternatives is using intelligent transportation. the latest systems of deploying technology. we can deploy that technology in the 137 for research, which is nice. most of it goes to universities. it is academic pork. i have to be frank. but you have $67 million a year for actual deployment of
technology that will move traffic in our communities faster and smarter and cost-effectively. so if we can even that out or reverse it, you all can be the beneficiaries by getting that technology in your communities now that i'll show you stacks of those studies from university that are great. they are collecting dust on lots of shelves. so if you want to continue that, we can do it. if you want to move forward, we can move forward. i think that's -- those are the priorities. we can add some to the record. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you, chairman mica. ms. brown is recognized for an opening statement. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i yearn for the day that we had
one of the most bipartisan committees in congress. we had a six-year bill. and my only discussion of thoughts during this time was members's priorities. however, things have changed. and i need to discuss what i support and what i do not support. first of all, i oppose the inclusion of the port metric mandate that was included in the senate drive act that create additional burdens on american ports. this information mandate in the senate bill is already available and could encourage dangerous okay working conditions. moreover, the department of transportation bureau of statistics doesn't have the funding more the manpower to collect these metrics. my home state of florida have 14 water ports all of whom oppose this new reporting requirements. our reports should be focused on preparing their facilities for large ships and increased cargo and shouldn't be used as a wedge
between port workers and the businesses they serve. i ask unanimous consent to include a letter from the florida port council concerning this issue. >> without objection, ordered. >> two bipartisan amendment should be included in the final conference. language addressing federal preemption was included in the house bill through the passing of a bipartisan amendment that should be included without changing the final conference report. trucking companies are a critical link in our nation supply chain and should not face difficult rules and regulation in each state they operate in. this does not alter or roll back any hours of service that currently govern drivers and doesn't prevent drivers from taking meals or rest breaks. it allows professional truck drivers to determine the safest and best time to take a break without worrying about breaking
federal laws. and the last one, the national advisory committee on travel and tourism infrastructure will seek to strengthen the economy, contribution of travel and tourism in the united states, reduce conjecture, improve travel safety and security and develop and maintain a transportation network that keep america connected. and lastly, florida ranks the top with pedestrian driver index. jackson isville and tampa is closely connected. i encourage the safety street provision of the drivers act in the final bill. and with that, mr. chairman, i want to thank you for your leadership and the ranking member in promoting a comprehensive transportation bill so that local communities can plan. and with that i yield back the balance of my time.
>> thank you, ms. brown. it is now my pleasure to recognize the new ways and means committee chairman mr. brady for a statement. >> good morning, everyone. i want to thank chairman shuster for hosting today. i'm glad to be joined by my fellow committee members who will be bringing their expertise to the coming discussions. we must provide funding for critical infrastructure principals. we have to make sure our nation's roads, skies, imports keep america competitive by keeping our goods safely moving across the country and around the world. funding laid out before us is no one's first choice. we want to see a permanent solution to the shortfall so we can stop down the road on an issue that impacts so many people across the country. and i'm concerned about the revenue provisions including customs users fees. however, it is important to work together, to find a way to
address the highway trust fund shortfall for years, not just months. this positive steps gives jurisdiction some time to work on the more permanent solutions our constituents, businesses and global allies are looking for. it is encouraging to see the house is and senate committees already have a genuine debate about transportation policy and work out the differences through regular order so we can all come together to help advance speaker ryan's pro growth. thank you for your leadership and i look forward to getting down to work. >> thank you, chairman brady. i look forward to working with you. i recognize senator cornin for a statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm glad to be able to serve on this conference committee focusing on a matter of critical importance to our country and certainly my state as well. this also represents a milestone as members of this committee work to complete a multiyear highway bill the first time in a decade.
and long overdue. with service transportation programs set to expire on friday, it is imperative we work quickly to reach a bipartisan and by cam ral agreement. a number of issues happened to be particularly important to my state. for example, upgrading the freight corridors and interstate system that moved goods through my state to global markets every day and providing additional resources for public/private partnerships and border infrastructure. delivering investment certainty so we can plan for and deliver the high quality inn tpra structure. this bill is important. but i'm proud to say the leadership in texas haven't waited on the federal deposit. in november 2014, 80% of texans approved a ballot initiative that provides $1.7 billion to upgrade and maintain the
transportation network. under the leadership of governor abbott and the state legislature, our state passed an even greater eupbl increase in resources with 83% of texans agreeing to increase funds for our roads and bridges by as much as $2.5 billion to $3 billion annually without imposing fees on hard-working families. have we chose tone make transportation a priority? well, we're growing. some estimates showing our state population doubling by the year 2050. on average, more than 600 people move to texas every day. a testament to the opportunities that exist in our thriving committee and improving roadway maintenance and capacity to meet the rising demand. doing nothing is an unacceptable outcome. so i look forward to working with everyone on the conference to produce a multiyear highway bill for the first time in a
decade. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. i know texas has great needs down there. they are moving and growing. with that, i recognize mr. crawford for a statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. understanding everybody has been talking about working quickly. this expires december 4th. i will submit my comments for the record and yield back. >> did i miss that? yield back. with that, senator brass? >> thank you for holding this important meeting for all conferrees. thank you to congressman inhofe and di fazio were. it will be critical moving across state lines efficiently and safely.
if we allow bureaucrats we will inevitably create a patchwork interstate system. i believe the senate position will help every state by distributing freight funding through the formula. if we want to maintain a national highway system, we must include rural states. we have a short construction season in wyoming. it starts in may and ends in october or earlier depending on the weather. so we need to give our highway contractors the certainty they need to plan. i look forward to working with everyone to get this done. >> thank you, senator. recognize the chairman of the senate financials committee senator hatch from utah. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and chairman inhofe as well and thank you -- give thanks to the
rest of my colleagues -- >> senator, could you speak in the mike a little bit more. >> i'll get that. i will get a little closer. i want to thank all the rest of my colleagues on both sides of the hill, all of whom deserve credit for their hard work in getting us this far. ever since the safety bill was enacted more than 10 years ago, most considered the prospect of a long-term infrastructure bill to be dim at best. yet here we are on the cusp oven acting the longest highway bill since 2005. in many respects, we still have quite a way to go. while both the house and senate past good bills worthy of all the praise they received, most of us would like to see us establish a dedicated fee so we are not trying to cobble offsets to pay for roads and bridges. my hope is that we will still keep this long-term goal in mind. however, if this conference is
successful, this legislation will be a tremendous accomplishment. i think for everybody. and it will give each of our states a degree of stability that they have not had for many years. it will be a significant win for good government. while there might be some who have issues with some of the individual offsets or the differences in funding levels between the senate and house bills i think it is really important to work together to accomplish what we are able to do right now, which is to pass a multiyear bill established by each of the senate and house passed bills. with that stable foundation in place, there will be ample time to continue to work on infrastructure financing and funneleding issues. only now we won't have to do that staring into the abyss of insolvency. we must not take what we accomplished so far for granted. both champ pwers achambers are
in. while we can pass this legislation before the current short-term extension expires, it will take some effort. but it is a very achievable follow, one all of us should have in mind as we proceed. let's thanks my colleagues for all their hard work. it has been a privilege to work with everybody so far. thanks for listening. >> thank you, senator hatch. appreciate it. appreciate your remarks on finding a long-term sustainable solution to the highway trust fund. that is critical. as soon as it gets off the president's signature, we have to work in ernest to figure out the stakeholders, all of us how we get to a funding source that we don't have to go through these every five-six-year finding money behind the couch and the cushions. thank you very much for those words. with that, i recognize ms.
johnson for an opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me thank all the leadership that have gotten us to this point. to address our critical infrastructure needs, i look forward to working with you on this conference community complete work on a long-term deal that will provide certainty for states, local governments and transit agencies. since 2009, congress has passed 35 short-term extensions reauthorizing surface transportation programs. this has not only undermined our ability to make long-term decisions but has driven up the cost of projects while delaying and halting our construction entirely. in a time when the transportation system is challenged by aging infrastructure, declining revenues and increased usage,
making long-term investments our transportation infrastructure is absolutely vital. one way we can achieve this is by providing access to reliable and robust financing tools in recognition of this fact one of my key priorities is to ensure that the tivia program has fund to go finance products of regional and national significance. it significant lly raoutsz the program and i urge my colleague for the highest possible funding so we can make sure financing is readily available for applicants. in the science and technology committee in the house, i recognize that long-term viability of our transportation system also largely rests on quality research. any legislation agreed to today
should be absent of any provisions that inhibit the flow of funding toward new search or obstruct the department of transportation's ability to promote new innovations. and finally, safety along our highways and freight corridors should be of the utmost important as we move forward. comprehensive transportation must include safety of the traveling public and ensure that federal and state authorities remain intact to make important safety considerations. it is my hope we can continue to work in a bipartisan, bicameral matter, with local governments and transit agencies with the certainty they need to plan long-term projects. this bill is far too important to the american people and to our economy for us not to come together and enact a long-term bill that adequately invests in
our transportation in tp infrastructure and in turn our future. thank you. and i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. members of the house and the senate offered long continue term solutions. it is irresponsible that neither the house nor the senate has worked on serious reforms. we have not adjusted the user fee for our infrastructure in 20 years. instead, we have spent valuable time searching for short-term gimmicks. we should not be robbing the banks, homeowners or customs to pay for bridges and roads. this is fiscally irresponsible. at some point we have to say enough is enough. that time has come. we need a long-term robustly funded bill. i'm hopeful this bill will provide communities the tools they need to invest in america's infrastructure.
i was happy to work with chairman shuster and ranking member di fazio on preventing heavier trucks from driving on our local roads and ensuring that we fully fund the highway safety improvement program. this program invests in infrastructures like guard rails, rumble victims and retro reflective signs. while you'll never read rum pell strips saves family of four, it saves lives every day. for that reason alone should not face the cuts in the senate bill. additionally, the house bill includes common sense provisions i champ whereon to make sure farm vehicles are not regulated like long haul trucks. it makes crude oil by freight rail safer and gives first responders more time to react in the likely event of a derailment. finally, many of the policy ideas that i introduced were incorporated.
it is critical that flawed safety scores are not publicly displayed for buses and trucks. investing in infrastructure is good for the local economy and did for america and i commend the committee. >> thank you. sit my pleasure to recognize for opening statement senator durbin. >> thank you, chairman shuster, chairman inhofe, ranking members boxer and di fazio and other members of the conference committee who worked hard to bring us to this day. i want to apologize for my speaking this morning. if i sound like i had a beer for breakfast it's because i just came from the dentist's office. in the past week we have seen a lot of progress toward passing a long-term surface transportation bill. ive look forward to working with my republican and democratic colleagues to keep the momentum moving. this conference will be able to finish the bill and help rebuild our in tpfrastructure and econo.
i will ask that my statement be included as part of the record. so i won't read it entirely. i want to say this was truly a bipartisan effort in the senate. initially. there were perhaps six or seven senators supporting senator boxer in this effort. but as we work through it on a bipartisan basis at the end 27 democratic senators supported this effort. more than a majority. and of course a substantial majority on the republican side. what we bring to this conference is truly a bipartisan effort. i won't go into detail on it. it is critical to not only have highway money, transit money, and money for bus services around the chicago metropolitan area and armed the state. finally, as i look at the wall and see the paintings of some of the portraits of former chairs i
realize that i knew most of them and served with many of them. and i can recall when this highway bill was one of the easiest bills to pass on capitol hill. this committee, the public works committee, was one of the largest in the house if not the largest. members couldn't wait to get on the committee. then we eliminated earmarks and things changed overnight. this became a debating topic. i happen to be one on the record who believes congressional input in terms on of congress in your strict and your state is valuable. i think i know about illinois for the illinois department of transportation. but i will save that debate for another day. let me just say this. i believe that we have a critical role to play. i think the federal government's leadership in this area is essential. in our state, i think about 80% of highway construction is paid for with federal funds. for those who believe this should be strictly state and
local responsibility, i have three words. dwight david eisenhower, who decided an interstate highway system was critical, for the growth of the national economy, and history has proven him right. i hope we can reaffirm our commitment. ive thank the chairman for his kindness in applying a few words. >> i certainly agree with you on president eisenhower and going back to lincoln and beyond. sit a federal responsibility to be part of that team. so thank you for being here today. and i would like to mention too you being here means the senate participated 100%. that's less than i can say for my house colleagues. we need to get through this. thank you, senator durbin. with that, miss edwards is recognized for an opening statement. >> thank you, very much mr. shuster and also to senator
inhofe for today and for your commitment, obvious commitment to a long-term surface transportation reauthorize. as a member of the committee and science committee i look forward to working with you and the other members here to send a good bill to the president. for decades, our transportation network with robust investments and research and development at its core supported a strong american committee. innovations stretch from advances to highway pavement materials to mass transit technologies to innovative railroad track and pipeline inspection. likewise, intelligent transportation systems research connected vehicle research and autonomous vehicle research will make transportation safer, faster and more environmentally friendly. it is critical. as a representative of the fourth district which borders the nation's capital, i'm personally invested in our federal efforts to mitigate
congestion in this fast growing region as well as across the nation, especially couraging innovative technologies and processes start with sustainable funding for basic and applied research and development at the department of transportation. and its research partners suches at university of maryland. i'm concerned that both the house and senate bills contain provisions that tax existing r&d programs or otherwise put research funding at risk by moving it out of the highway trust fund. i may agree that the additional deployment activities are a worthy investment. but research and the research funding in this bill is already far below needed levels. if we don't protect research investment today we will not have the deployment ready technologies that we will need 10 years from now. the bills before us do include several important provisions i support. transfer metro board appointments to the u.s.
department of transportation, enabling planning agencies to mitigate storm water impacts, increasing funding for distributed to local governments and continued funding for small business contract opportunities for minorities and women through the disadvantaged business program. and i do look forward to continuing our work on these efforts. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, ms. edwards. and to mr. farenthold. >> thank you for investing and modernizing in this country's infrastructure should be a top priority for congress. i was delighted to work on and support the passage of a multiyear transportation bill, which is critical to all those responsible for maintaining and using america's roads and bridges. this bill provides more flex blts and certainty for states and local deposits, promotes innovation to make our transportation programs more effective. in my home state of texas, we
have seen massive growth both in population and in our economy which presents a major and unique challenge for our state to build and maintain our current and future infrastructure. with major projects in texas under way, such as completing interstate 69, rebuilding the bridge in my hometown of corpus christi, texas. it is critical we get to work on completing this conference report. we must also continue to support in know vacation in our transportation system. the 21st century is going to be very different. we will see alternative fuel vehicles, like ones using patry power, natural gas and other fuels. autonomous vehicles in the shared economy will be part of our 21st cent relative transportation. we need to pave the way for these innovations. i'm honored and look forward to working with my colleague to find a great way to meet our 21st century transportation needs for texas and our nation. i yield back. >> thank you. i recognize mr. larson for an
opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in washington state, transportation means jobs. investing in roads, pwreuplgs, highways and transit systems puts people to work and keep the economy moving. one of the issues is adequate funding for ferry boats. ferries are a life line in our state and not a luxury. thousands of people in my district and throughout the state and the country use ferry boats every day to get to and from work. and i hope we can agree additional funding is a key part of a final agreement, particularly because it moves the chains of the funding formulas within the ferryboat program. another major issue i hear about is the trouble competing with bigger cities for resources. it creates an expedited process for smaller projects that want to use tithia financing.
these reforms will help bike and pedestrian products. sidewalks, bike lines are critical. less than 2% of federal transportation funding goes to the transportation alternatives program. but communities that leverage the small funds to get big results. transits are another part of the product and people depend on buss and bus infrastructure to get to work and school each day. i support the changes made in the house ball to require competition nationally for funding. and both bills require crude oil, traveling by rail and bridge infrastructure. it is hugely important to my district. i want to echo ms. brown's comments. thank you for your leadership, mr. chairman. and i look for the opportunity to weigh in on all these issues. i yield back.
>> thank you, mr. larsen. >> thank you, chairman shuster and the rest of my colleagues for successfully getting this transportation bill to conference. first and foremost, we must determine the overall funding levels. highways, bridges, transit and rail keeps growing. neither bill does much to address it. it provides flat funding of $325 billion over six years. the and the senate bill is not much better. everyone wants long-term for liability and planning. is that still the preferable option if we lock in six years of flat funding. higher funding levels would be the better course of action. policy provisions i am proud of the freight program created in the house bill which would provide guaranteed funding for intermode al. a number of transit issues will support the final package.
in order to provide even more funding for the program. i would like to note that although the amendment passed by voice vote it is not to put it mildly without controversy. it provides critical funding for states cutting section 53 would devastate service in new york, syracuse and aberdeen, maryland, new hampshire and allentown, pennsylvania. in almost the entire bipartisan new jersey, connecticut, delaware, rhode island, new york, and maryland urge to concede to the senate and reject these cuts to 5340. it should go without saying that in an environment where funding is limited you simply cannot make drastic changes and cut funding so deeply in communities around the country. it is not fair. it is not sound economic policy.
it would jeopardize the deal's passage. we must carefully manage provisions relating to motor carrier safety. finally, there is a bipartisan effort under way which i very much support to include the 9/11 health and compensation program in the final conference report. congress must act to reauthorize the programs before the end of the year. legislation to permanently reauthorize them already has 248 co-sponsors in the house. and 65 co-sponsors in the senate. attaching this reauthorization now will ensure the programs do not close their doors on on responders and survivors. so i urge their inclusion and the recession of 5340 to the senate version of the bill. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank chairman shuster and senators inhofe and
boxer. i'm proud to support this legislation because it reduces the red tape and regulatory burdens and streamlining components in map 21. it includes necessary forums to accountability csa program. we have heard from lots of constituents that this has flawed methodology. perform and revamping the methodology behind the scores that would step forward to make the system work and be a fair judgment to our motor can carrier operators. as chairman of the water subcommittee and environment and t&i, we include an important change on the innovation act known as wifia.
it is a loan and loan guarantee pilot program authorized in 2014 to provide additional funding source for drinking water, wastewater and water infrastructure projects. each wifia dollar loan leverages at least $10, making the loans extremely beneficial to communities that have major challenges with their water infrastructure projects. it allows communities to use the wifia loans in accommodation with tax exempt bonds enabling more opportunities forren tpra structure. i hope that is included in the final bill. finally, i am pleased by a simple amendment i offered on the floor. it's directing the department of transportation, a study to the process of state procurement for storm sewer and materials included in the star act. culverts have been made in the process in recent years with changes in map 21. in light of the changes it is
beneficial that a study that determines the how, the cost, environmental and engineering principles affect the state's procurement process. so i look forward in working with my colleagues to reach a final agreement to pass a first long-term highway bill in a decade. i yield back. >> thank you. ms. napolitano is recognized for a statement. >> thank you, chairman shuster. i'm sorry we long congressman di fazio. i wish him safe return. >> i'm not sure if we have lost him. whether he went by his own accord or whether we cut him off. >> we look forward to seeing him after thanksgiving anyway. also to chairman inhofe and senator boxer. the work you have done collectively. and i associate myself with regard to the six-year bill and how committed you have been, sir, to getting this work done.
and how open you have been to us as members. i am honored to be on the committee. and i have had input from stakeholders. the alameda east construction authority, port hill transit, gateway, services of l.a., l.a. metro, and caltrans. in requested the final issues, i ask unanimous consent that a list of these be placed on the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i refer to section 1419 included in the house and senate provisions for relinquishment. we look at 1401 b on degradation. we also look at allowing coordinated structure of 44 transit agencies to continue working under two tier fare structures. we look at by patterson support
and mitigation and air quality. section 7011 is planned consulting the states. congressman give bipartisan support. storm and sewer materials. section 1503, proposed to fix wifia. 1105 i, support local bridge funding. transit safety measures. 44 -- 1446 preemption of state and truck drivers. section 1435, private engineering. and then oppose the senate title 16 subtitle c performance port measures. and let's not forget the territories of native americans. mr. chairman, a thank you and my fellow coverees and the staff specifically for their great
work. i yield back. >> thank you, ms. napolitano. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i've heard a lot of back slapping and congratulating ourselves on this bill. and i think the transportation did it happens in 2025 and 2026 to pay for roads and bridges built in 2016, 2017, and 2018. this is nothing more than a tax increase on tomorrow. our fathers and our grand fathers paid for the roads and bridges with when they built them. now this generation of members of congress are asking children to pay for our roads and bridges. maybe we should pay for our own. it is time for this congress and most importantly this committee,
this committee. we didn't have jurisdiction on that. we have jurisdiction here. time for this committee to stand up and pay the bill. it ought to be important enough to pay for. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. agree with much of what the gentleman said. as soon as we get done with this, we need to get the stakeholders and work on what we can pass and the tax reform bill in the future. cobbling these things together is not the best way to do it, obviously. so i thank the gentleman from wisconsin for keeping -- continuing talking about it. with that, i recognize mr. lipinski. >> i want to echo what mr. ribble had said. we need to do that for our country to do this the right way. as he said, the authorization bill i think we're doing a good job on. i think the chairs and ranking member for their work.
i am honored to be a conferree since 2005. i look forward to working to finalize the report. i want to thank the chairman to restore new starts, small starts and programs. the changes that have delayed many transit projects. instead, we have a deal that will help build up their capacity and serve as well. i'm pleased that it includes priorities i worked on. strengthening tank car safety rule and increased funding for state of good repair. by merkin creases, technical assistance eligibility, language helping to deploy zero emission buses. i'm also a member of the science base and technology committee and the house bill contains language on high research bill, the future trip act. first, it creates a regional
transportation center on connected infrastructure. they are a big part of the solution to alleviating congestion and improving safety. this technology will be more prevalent. we should be doing more and opportunities stemming from connected and automated vehicle systems. in addition, the house pill has language for a study on connected vehicles, inter agency working group and transportation research, improvements in utc proposal regulations and pavement technology program. of course the bill is not perfect. starting with the need for higher authorization levels. as a member of the freight panel led by vice chair jimmy duncan, i am pleased to see freight programs in both bills at a time. in the conference report, we need to allow for a series to account at as one freight
project. and the freight program must be truly multimodal. as we all know freight movement is. after all, we will be funding with a substantial percentage of general revenues, not just the highway trust fund. we certainly have our work cut out for us. i look forward to rolling up my sleeves and getting this critical bill done. finally, before i yield back, yes, my tie i am wearing is a statement. i'm happy that tap has been included in this bill. >> without objection, so ordered. next we two to mr. perry for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. through the leadership of chairman shuster and ranking member di fazio. however, in my opinion, we still have work to do. my hope with this conference is that is not an exercise in few talt. i hope all conferrees to have a say to our individual states and
district. because many issues have yet to be resolved. i hop this is an open process and that legislation is not concocted by a few -- select few individuals with bathroom deals and handshakes. simply put, members want to participate. one thing this legislation does n not. to address this law since 1931. crippling regulations is also something this congress must address. motor coach school bus, trucking companies are continually threatening with an arbitrary increase by the federal government that have no jurisdiction whatsoever in this process. the house bill addressed this issue and we must ensure the final product upholds our
efforts and complies as well. we must ensure that we encourage private companies to compete for public transportation so we can start to shift away from a federal monopoly in the public transportation sector. again, i thank everyone for their leadership and hope we do the right thing by the american people and have an open and transparent conference committee where members participate. and i yield. >> thank the gentleman. mr. cohen is recognized. >> it was a picture of the leader that was always there. never present but always there on the wall. the few and the proud that are left here.
remembering the oil that makes the engine work. which is earmarks. as we cobble together a program. but it is not easy to cobble. and he is a good cobble. and he has done well. i would like to encourage the passage of this bill is important to my district and for america. i would like to ask and emphasize that i would like the amendment that i got through the committee and into the bill to be maintained. that will provide local transit systems flexibility to improve transit services the next five years. it is estimated that 1 million troops will turn to civilian life. we have an aging population that will be dependent on transit. easter seals and the paralyzed veterans of america and the transit union of that amendment in the bill on the house side. we have a responsibility to these folks. and i hope the conference
committee will accept senate provisions that make transit oriented programs for tifia. it is important for transportation lanes, important for the people and good planning. people are more likely to use the programs near transportation features. i look forward to working with the committee. i'm proud to be a member of the committee. i yield back the three seconds that i have left. >> i thank the gentleman. with that, mr. series. >> thank you, mr. chairman and vice chairman for organizing this. i am pleased that the house and senate are coming together to deliver a long-term transportation bill to the american public and i thank them for their hard work. as we all know, aging infrastructure is in dire need of help. this approach of funding
infrastructure is uncertain where they will get reimbursed for projects. while i am encouraged by the length of both bills in the light of bills i am extremely concerned by the funding levels of each. we need to win out funding levels that meet the need of the highway and transit system. i am kerpld by a provision in the house bill to rid the most densely populated states over a significant amount of their transit funding. new jersey is the most densely populated state in the cup. just to give you an idea, the community that i live is in one square mile. hoboken, is another swear mile has 51,000 people. new jersey city is the largest most populated city in the state. so as residents rely heavily on
transit for everyday transportation, the provision to eliminate funding for the states that make up 50% of all ridership is reckless. it is an attempt to push transit funds out of where it is most needed. it will significantly impair the ability of many transit agencies to advance under capital program needs. in the state and -- and maintain a state of repair and good maintenance. the final conference report should not approve who cuts funding to these agencies. and i thank the chair and the vice chair for their hard work. >> i thank the gentleman. with that, i recognize mr. for his statement. >> thank you for your crafting this bill. it is exciting to have my first year in congress capped off by what i consider to be landmark legislation suffering from almost a decade of short-term
extensions instead of long-term fix we desperately need. i have to echo the sentiments of my colleague to my left, mr. sire. the portion of the bill changed my amendment on the floor eliminated funding for the 5340 high density states plus program. the seven states provide half of all the public transit use in this country. half. an important program ensures states with the most need receive the funding they need to maintain robust systems. this misguided amendment redirects to a discretionary program controlled by the department of transportation is and in doing so would wreak havoc on the most heavily used transit agencies in the country without providing any increased funding whatsoever for the uncertainty whatsoever to agencies and other states. the transit agency that serves my district would see a cut of more than 20% and it already face dire financial
difficulties. the same would be inflict odd agencies throughout the northeast, including those in mr. sire's district where this funding is needed most and we should act. this is because this is how the federal system is supposed to work. states with more transit needs should get more transit funding just as states with more farming should get more assistance from the farm bill. half the nation's transit users will instantly be worse off. we should act because if we don't, the economies of these states, some of the most foremost drivers of the nation's economy, will suffer as a result. it's a prudent thing to do and the right thing to do. i urge the committee to accept the senate's position on this issue and get us back to the spirit of cooperation and compromise that ensure that the committee-passed bill receive unanimous support. i'm eager to serve on this committee with you, mr. chairman. mr. syers can travel his
district probably by foot but i will be traveling by car because mine is an upstate new york district. >> i thank the gentleman. i recognize mr. woodall for his statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your leadership in doing something that neither republicans nor democrats have been able to do for more than a decade. this is really a foundational bill. what you did to word it, to help get the rust out of the gears, you're now doing with transportation. my encouragement is to make that absolutely as long and certain possible and make those funding streams as long and serious as possible. in my district, folks have skin in the game. ups headquartered there, home depot headquartered there, not to mention 800,000 constituents headquartered there. you can't put a price tag on
missing your son or daughter's first pitch at the baseball or softball game. you can't put a price tag on the family time lost, the dinners missed while sitting in atlanta traffic, or creating a walkable environment for a senior who thought their days of mobility were behind them. you're trying to do with this committee what others have not been able to do in years or even decades. it's a tremendous source of encan you do e encouragement for me, mr. chairman, as those from both sides of the aisle and sides of the capitol has continued. i'm grateful to be a partner with you in this. i know the folks in metro atlanta, they want to pay their fair share but they want to get their dollar's worth of value
out of their dollar's worth of federal taxes. >> thank you, i appreciate that. mr. babbitt. >> thank you, mr. chairman. texas is a growing state, which i represent the 36th district of. texas is projected to double in population over the next four to five decades. in my district and the state of texas we have the potential for unlimited growth and expansion. i say potential because the biggest thing holding us back is our capacity for transportation. my constituents aren't interested in having congress pick winners and losers. we need it all. we need more bussing, shipping, out of our ports. in my district alone we have more petrochemical manufacturing facilities than any other district in the nation. they manufacture products and equipment that are sold all over the world. it's a big reason why texas has
created over half of the new jobs in america over the last decade. but reliable roads are not just for big businesses. hardworking families need them to get to school, to work, and not to just sit in traffic. i want to thank the committee for incorporating a number of requests that i've put forward that make this bill better for america and for texas. this process has not always been easy, as we found out, nor should it be. i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the ey the aisle and both sides of the capitol. >> i recognize mr. hardy for a statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first i would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their good bipartisan work on this bill. being new here, it's a privilege to be involved in moving this bill forward. i was a general contractor for 20 years.
i built numerous bridges, roads, and dams. i know the impact uncertainty can cause in this sector of the economy. construction plans are not built around short term interim patches. that's why i stand with my colleagues today to offer my support for this multi-year funding bill. from the day i was assigned to the transportation infrastructure committee, this was my primary goal. after months of hearings, conversations, and negotiations, the day has come to put the bill on the president's desk. this is truly a forward-looking piece of legislation. it contains key provisions like the i-11 corridor north of las vegas to the northern portion of my state. this designation is part of a larger intermountain west corridor that will not only be important for my state of nevada but also the west and the country. however, we need to keep focused on the funding mechanisms moving forward. dipping into unrelated coffers
and unconnected resources is not sustainable, not to an industry that relies so heavily on long term planning. i have worked with the committee on specific provisions i support including the lake tahoe language in the senate act, bus and transit language, meal and rest break periods, along with those i oppose which include using custom fees as a pay-for and use of credits that have not gone through regular order. if the process thus far is any indication, i know the bill we will send to the president will have all members' input. and i urge swift movement on this long term funding bill. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. hardy. with that i recognize mr. graves for a statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to be here and certainly appreciate the opportunity to be named a conferee. i want to thank you and mr. de fazio for your leadership on
this bill, particularly efforts to make this a six-year bill. i want to re-urge some of the things you've said in regard to moving quickly. having run a large infrastructure program in the past, the importance of having funding stability and certainty is absolutely critical. continuing to have volatility and funding levels, continuing to have volatility in the length of funding, makes projects more expensive. continuing to compartmentalize projects cost taxpayers money and delays the ultimate outcome of this important infrastructure investments. mr. chairman, i want to thank you again and congressman de fazio for including a number of provisions we have requested, including efforts to ensure that there are grant programs available for some of these large scale nationally significant projects that are important from a freight perspective. in south louisiana where i'm from, we have one of the only places in the nation where the interstate drops down to one lane. i-10 from california to florida
drops to one lane in baton rouge. you can pull up your google maps and you'll see red right now. it's ridiculous what's happening. i certainly want to be clear that the fact that we're in that jam is a result of both a lack of state priorities and principled investments as well as insufficient investments in infrastructure. we've seen in the past where the insufficient funding has had profound -- and infrastructure has had profound impacts on our national economy such as after hurricanes and gasoline prices after katrina and rita spiked 70 cents a gallon nationwide. we need to make sure investments on roadways are resilient and have the proper capacity. mr. chairman, we need pavement. we need additional lanes and additional funding. i want to emphasize the importance of the role technology can play in improving the efficiency of our existing utilization of roadways. things like google maps and waze and others can play an important role in integrating with
intelligent transportation systems to improve the utilization of existing roadways. i think it's important that we proceed using appropriate innovation and technology neutral solutions to properly utilize that excess capacity that exists today. lastly, and as congressman de fazio mentioned, i want to note that i think we need -- hey, how are you doing? we need additional funds for the highway bill. we can't continue to underinvest. but this effort to do this hodgepodge of funding streams continues to disconnect from a user fee model, is i think the wrong directions and going to cause much greater problems in the future. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. with that i'll go to mr. riker, because i know he has an appointment, then go to mr. smith. mr. riker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations to you and ranking member de fazio for your hard work and the entire committee's hard work on this bill. and i'm honored today to represent the ways and means
committee as the current chair of the tax policy subcommittee along with chairman brady of the ways and means committee at today's conference. member of the both parties agree that our nation needs a long term highway bill that improves our roads and bridges, movement of goods, economic competitiveness, and public safety. but for too long now, we have not met this need. failing to pass a long term solution not only limits our potential as a nation but presents very real consequences for our state and local economies. my home state of washington, which is one of the nation's leading exporters, producers, and growers depend on a strong, efficient freight and transportation system to move their goods. if such a system is not in place, we risk losing out to our foreign competitors. and as the nation experienced this past year during the west coast ports dispute, in a global economy, getting goods to market
doesn't end at the last train stop. the port slowdown resulted in lost sales, damaged customer relationships, and in my area, millions of dollars of high quality produce going to waste. washington apple growers alone lost an estimated $100 million in apples that were no longer sellable. congress must not only work to ensure that our surface transportation is strong but that our business can rely on a system to move their goods all the way from the farm to the ships and planes that transport them overseas. with a comprehensive highway bill states can focus on responsible road safety laws including those related to the safe transportation of crude oil through our communities and working with states to address unsecured loads. although there might be disagreements about the means we should use to reach these goals,
i am hopeful that our common objectives will help us move pa past these differences and put something the american people can be proud of on the president's desk. thank you, mr. chairman, for taking me out of order, and i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from the science and technology committee, mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, let me thank you and ranking member de fazio for your leadership in drafting a long term surface transportation bill. i also that i think the other members and senators for their work on the two highway bills that are the subject of this conference. as chairman of the house science committee, i believe it is essential that we found a way to maintain a healthy, substantive research base for america's transportation system. advances in highway r&d ensure that national surface transportation initiatives will continue to boost mobility and productivity and improve safety and quality of life for our citizens. i appreciate the time and effort that is already gone into
finalizing a long term surface transportation bill. however i rain concerned about provisions in both the house and senate bills that divert research dollars away from research programs in order to fund deployment and demonstration initiatives. these provisions reduce the already scarce research and development dollars available for real innovation. a provision of the science committee highway bill sponsored by representative barbara comstock, the chair of our research and technology subcommittee, that requires alan detailed robust research plans at the department of transportation was not included in the house-passed bill. the provision modifies similar language in the senate bill and is a priority of the science committee. i co-sponsored chairwoman comstock's bill, which was favorably reported out of the research and technology subcommittee by a voice vote. innovations that result from federal r&d efforts in conjunction with state and local efforts ultimately benefit the constituents we represent in congress. i expect there to be further
discussions by our respective staffs as we continue to work cooperatively on innovation titled durations, especially those under the jurisdiction of the 69 committee. again, i thank chairman shuster and ranking member de fazio in the house and look forward to working with the senate. i want to express my appreciation in advance for the time and effort by all involved in working through chairwoman comstock's and my priorities and concerns in this surface transportation conference. again, mr. chairman, i appreciate the time and yield back. >> thank you, mr. smith. and with that, i recognize mr. mullen. >> as a former member of the transportation infrastructure committee, it's a great honor to be back in this room again with my fellow conferees. i would like to thank speaker ryan for naming me as a conferee for this important legislation. i would also like to that i think chairman shuster, senator inhofe recall flanking member
did he as de fazio, and others for getting us to this point. obviously there's more work to be done. i look forward to representing the energy and customers committee on oklahoma priorities in this agreement. vehicle and road safety is vital to the stability of the future of the nation's transportation system. with approximately 253 million cars and trucks on the road in the united states, millions of american families rely on their cars each day to safely transport themselves and their families. that's why i believe that cars are safer today than ever before and the automobile industry is working hard to develop next generation safety technology that saves more lives. more can be done by the national highway traffic safety administration and the auto manufacturers to protect the driving public and make our roads safer. the national highway traffic safety administration's core mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce road traffic crashes. congress and the auto industry
share in that responsibility. as the quality of cars increases, americans are holding on to their cars for longer periods of time. the average age of cars on the roads today is about 11 and a half years and is expected to grow to 12 years by 2019. it's important for the law to keep up with the greater longevity of cars on the road. and i believe that if we can resolve our differences, we can take a step forward and better protect the lives of the driving public. i look forward to working with my colleagues to reach an agreement and i yield back. >> did the gentleman yield back? >> yes, that was in the bottom line. >> sorry, mr. mullen. i thank the gentleman and appreciate having him on the conference committee. with that i recognize ms. comstock. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank all of my colleagues in both the house and the senate for the opportunity to produce a
multi-year transportation bill. my district in northern virginia is particularly challenged by the need to reduce traffic congestion in and around the metropolitan washington area that we all obviously deal with every day. given that i serve on both the transportation and the science and technology committees, i appreciate being on this conference committee to be able to address the research and development portion of this bill. and i would like to associate myself with the comments made from the chairman of the science and technology committee regarding the surface transportation research and development act, the bill we were able to pass out of the science committee. and i would like to thank the chairman for including portions of this bill in the transportation bill, particularly one of these provisions is aimed at mitigating the traffic congestion. like chairman smith, and i know like chairman shuster, my goal is to ensure that all the different research and development portions of this
bill will produce real results that yield real improvements in traffic challenges that we all face throughout the country. and so with that, i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, ms. come stack, for that. and last, but certainly not least, the gentleman from illinois, who i know has a desire to serve on this committee. i can only give you one piece of advice. the first time i sat on this committee 14 years ago, i was about where that camera was. someone said i was almost out the door. 14 years later, you too might be able to be up here with the gavel. with that i recognize mr. lahood for a statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much and also to ranking member de fazio. as a new member of congress i'm humble and grateful for the opportunity to be here today, and would especially like to thank rob bishop and speaker paul ryan.
i would like to commend my colleagues on the house and senate committees of jurisdiction for their hard work in getting this multi-year transportation bill through each chamber. my constituents in the 18th district of illinois understand how important a long term transportation bill is for economic growth. the opportunity to improve and reform our highway and transit programs while investing in our nation's infrastructure is a tremendous step in the right direction for the safety and productivity of our country. our vast transportation network is the backbone of our economy. making it critical that we provide long term certainty for states, localities, and businesses as repairs and upgrades to our transportation network are planned and executed. 42% of illinois's major roads are in poor or mediocre conditions, costing motorists $3.7 million a year in operational costs. as we work together to reconcile differences between our two
bills, it is important that we prioritize measures to streamline prices that impact our nation's precious resources as well as updates to infrastructure on both federal and tribal lands. particularly the environmental review process. i look forward to working together to produce a final agreement that will benefit all americans. again, mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be parts of the conference. >> thank you, very much, mr. lahood for that. i wanted to say to peter, it's not the same without you sitting next to me adding commentary on this. sometimes it's so colorful, we can't turn his mike on. i'm glad to see you look like you're doing well and look forward to seeing you back here after the thanksgiving recess. thanks for joining us here today for this important meeting. as i said, the goal from the beginning, we want to get it to the president of the united states by december 4th. i see a number of stakeholders
out there. i've been talking how when this is done we have to sit down and talk about what's the long term solution that everybody can agree to. as always, we're not going to get everything we want but we've got to have something we can live with to sustain the highway system and make sure members of the legislative bodies, the house and senate, are on board to move something forward. it may not be next year but the year after, some sort of tax reform bill, this is where this is going to have to be. so again, after december the 4th, i'll be calling on you to make sure we all come together and figure out how to move forward on this. again, thanks to everybody for being here. we've got a lot of work to do. staff, again -- oh, ms. waters just walked in. ms. waters, do you wish to make a statement? you beat the gavel.
sit anywhere you want. yes, ma'am. miswate ms. waters is recognized for a statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. first, i commend both democrats and republicans for coming together to reauthorize the export-import bank and urge the committee to leave those provisions as is. this bill also includes a package of 17 bills that have previously passed the house under suspension of the rules. while i continue to be supportive of the policy behind these measures, i welcome proposals from my senate colleagues on improving these provisions so that consumer or
investor protection are strengthened. lastly, regarding how we are paying for this bill, i find it difficult to understand that this bill threatens the credibility of our central bank and our economy because there are those who are unwilling to recognize the gasoline tax or are unable to reduce a guaranteed dividend payment to our largest banks. raiding the rainy day fund to pay for fiscal spending threatens the ability of our central bank to respond to unforeseen events. and it undermines the bank's independence. i believe it is equally problematic that we would put the cost of building bridges and roads on the backs of those looking to buy homes by levying a fee on fannie mae and freddie mac. i look forward to working with this committee to find an
alternative pay-for. >> thank you very much, ms. waters. seeing as how there's no more business, i wish everybody a happy thanksgiving, especially staff. as i said, i'll be happy to come down here and serve you turkey to make sure this gets done. with no other business at hand, the conference committee stands adjourned. we will take you live now and bring you more road to the white house coverage. we'll take you to the citadel in south carolina, charleston, south carolina. former florida governor jeb bush talking about how he would fight isis. live coverage here on c-span 3. >> i went on the run with the guards. the next time a presidential candidate comes by here, tell him that jeb has set a new precedent. from now on, you can't give a speech to cadets without first
doing some pt. all of us -- and for all of us, what a privilege it is to be here this morning in the presence of war heroes throughout this room, and for me to be here in the presence of major general james livingston is an incredible honor. in the presence of general livingston, you don't need any reminders from me about military virtues. his character and the character of our military is summed up in that one word on the medal he earned: valor. this marine did more than could ever be asked, gave more than could ever be repaid. and i am incredibly honored to have his support. general livingston, it's always a blessing to be with you. [ applause ] >> i love you.
as we gather today, we do so with memories fresh from the atrocities in paris. the indiscriminate murder of people sitting outside a cafe. the slaughter of innocents outside the national soccer stadium or at a concert hall. the merciless killing of women, children, and unarmed citizens who only had the crime of living in freedom. our hearts are broken for the people of france. they are our oldest and first ally, and we're joined together by shared values. like france, we know the deep sorrow of innocent lives lost due to terrorist brutality. what happened on the streets of paris on friday should not have some as a surprise. after all, i've seen isis demand its reach in recent weeks to lebanon, egypt, and turkey, to
say nothing of the daily more rows faced by those who live under their control in syria, iraq, libya, and afghanistan. this brutal savagery is a reminder of what's at stake in this election. we are choosing the leader of the free world. and if these attacks remind us of anything, it is that we're living in serious times that require serious leadership. and that the free world needs to act. the last seven years under president obama have taught us that problems do not take care of themselves in the absence of american leadership. during the state of the union address, he declared we were stopping the convinadvance of i. and soon they took ramadi. last friday, he repeated the delusion that isis is contained just hours before they murdered 129 innocent people in paris, and hours after they killed
dozens in beirut. america has had enough of empty words, of declarations detached from reality, of an administration with no strategy or no intention to win. here's the truth you will not hear from our president. we are at war with radical islamic terrorism. [ applause ] >> it is the war of our time. and a struggle that will determine the fate of the free world. three months ago at the reagan library, i warned that we need to defeat isis. and i outlined a clear and serious strategy to eradicate it. the actions i called for then remain critical. we must unleash the power of our air force by removing self-imposed restraints, enforce a no-fly zone, create safe zones in syria, allow our special
operation forces to target terrorist networks, and arm the kurdish forces. since the attacks in paris, the demand for action to stamp out isis has rightly grown. the united states should not delay in leading a global coalition to take out isis with overwhelming force. as the words of french president hollande have made clear, the united states will not be alone in galvanizing this global effort. militari militarily, we need to intensify our efforts in the air and on the ground. while air power is essential, it cannot bring the results we seek. the united states in conjunction with our nato allies and more arab partners will need to increase our presence on the ground, the scope of which should be in line with what the military generals recommend, not politicians, to be necessary to achieve our objective. [ applause ]
>> the bulk of these ground troops will come from local forces that we have built workable relationships with. finally, to take out isis, we must end assad's brutal war against his own people and create a political solution that allows for a stable syria. if you want to deal with the refugee problem properly, then we need to create a safe and secure syria. let there be no doubt. this isn't going to be easy. some of you in this room will serve on the front lines of that fight against isis and against radical islamic terrorism. you will sign up for an uncertain fate on foreign fields of battle because your country in the cause of freedom are calling you. for generations, american-led alliances, american diplomacy,
american military power, and american credibility, defended the peace and deterred the violent. this is the way forward in our time as well. but for the united states, who is going to help our friends and allies in the middle east gain the upper hand against radical islamic terrorists like isis, educated, hamas and hezbollah? but for the united states, who will lead the effort to once and for all stop iran's bid for nuclear weapons capability, its support for terrorism, and its ballistic missile proliferation? but for the united states, who will defend christians, iranian dissidents, religious minorities and other persecuted peoples in the middle east and across the world? who will be the dependable friend of israel, standing with them against the worst, if not the united states of america? the fate of millions, the security of our own people, and
the cause of freedom itself, all depend on the decisions we make in these coming years. bad things and sometimes really very bad things happen when america steps away from hard challenges. it is time for american leadership again. and that leadership requires a change in course. defending our national interests always involves risk. but the greatest risk of all is the risk of military inferior at this -- inferiority. the next president will take office after careless chronic neglect by the president and congress. you would be hard-pressed to find any soldier, sailor, airman or marine who feels that washington is doing right by the military. and i agree. in the span of a decade, our government will have withheld a
trillion dollars from our national defense. there is no security rationale for these cuts or any kind of strategic vision. they are completely arbitrary, imposed by a process that everyone in washington claims to dislike but no one in washington has the courage to stop. in these years, we have seen cuts in defense that not only are automatic but also systematic. not only relentless but irrational. we're going from the cutting edge of military power to what the army secretary calls the ragged edge of readiness. the active army has 80,000 fewer soldiers. half of our stateside marine units are not ready to fight. 12 fleets of air force planes qualify for antique license plates in virginia. the b have been 52, the backbone of our bomber fleet, took its first flight and harry truman
was president of the united states. as for the entire naval fleet, it has shrunk to around half the size it was at the end of the cold war. sometimes big problems are summed up in one anecdote. here's a story that caught my attention. to conduct training exercises under our nato obligations in europe, american forces have been borrowing helicopters and other vehicles from our allies. really? we don't have enough of our own hardware and equipment even for training purposes. so the brits are spotting us choppers. that is just not unsafe. that's embarrassing for the greatest country on the face of the earth. whatever challenges we face in europe and elsewhere, we're not going to be able to meet them with borrowed equipment. china, to take the most obvious example, has for years been spending heavily on warships, submarines, long range attack aircraft, missile systems, and
other capabilities that threaten america's strategic position in the pacific. and whatever china's designs are in all of this, we can safely assume it's not in our interest to draw down as they build up. president obama doesn't see a reason to change course. and here in south carolina, a couple of weeks ago, hillary clinton said that her foreign policy would be no more aggressive or forward leaning than his. let me tell you something. i reject that diminished view of america's role in the world. in my administration, security for the united states will mean gaining and keeping the edge in every category, old and new. [ applause ] >> whether it's our command of the seas, the land, or the air, of space or cyberspace, america's goal should be
technological superiority beyond question. my plan puts the war fighters first to maintain a force without equal. such a force is essential for deterrence. but we must understand that sometimes deterrence fails. in such circumstances, ideally, after other elements of american influence and power have been utilized, when the threat we face is an urgent one and defeating it is in our national interest, we must be prepared to use force. when we do use force, it must be effective and our objectives must be well-defined so one deployment doesn't leave the job undone. any use of force will be purposeful, aimed only towards victory, and always with the heavy thumb of american power, resources, and resolves on the scales of war. [ applause ]
>> i have a plan for a 21st century military, to prevail in conflicts, or better still, to deter enemies and avoid conflict, we must have the readiness and equipment to meet any challenge from any adversary. we don't need to be the world's policemen. but we must restore our place as the leader and indispensable power of the free world. [ applause ] this is how we get there. no service branch has taken deeper personnel cuts if recent years than the army, which will soon have an active duty force of just 450,000 soldiers.
that's not nearly enough. as president i would ask the congress for an increase of 40,000 active duty soldiers. [ applause ] >> under my plan, the marines will be restored to an end strength of 186,000 fighters. [ applause ] >> because in a crisis, everything can turn on the speed and skill of the corps, we will act to ensure dominance in our and naval forces. we will not allow pilots to fly 20th century aircraft into the face of 21st century defenses. we must continue to invest in america's special operations command. in this complex fight against radical islamic terrorism, they have demonstrated time and time again their ability to capture and kill senior terrorists and to embed with, train, and enable
local forces so that a larger commitment of american forces is not required. like our military, america's intelligence agencies are overstretched and struggling to respond to technological advances by adversaries and harmful leaks of sensitive information. i will give our talented corps of intelligence professions, who too often go unrecognized, everything they need to support the war fighter and to get the job done. i believe in the principle that the greater our superiority in military power, the less likely it is that we will have to assert that power or be provoked into using it. our best presidents call that peace through strength. and this principle applies to capabilities of every kind which all require foresight and sustained commitment. beginning immediately as president, i would work with congress to rebuild our military
forces, starting with our most urgent needs. a new generation of aircraft so that our planes aren't older than our pilots. a naval fleet, a larger one, so that our sailors patrol in the safest ships on the seas. an acceleration of our assault and battery marine program so that america will always be a quiet whisper in our adverses' ear. improved missile defenses to probate against the growing threats posed by iranian missiles. cybersecurity capabilities superior than any field agained against them, so we find the threats before the threats find us. i will fight to ensure we have the ability to connect the dots between known foreign terrorists and the potential operatives here in the united states of america. [ applause ]
>> look, if there was ever a time for such a program, it's now. and yet too few in congress were courageous enough to defend this program when it mattered most. i also laid out a plan here in south carolina a few months ago to address the va scandal, and it is a scandal. we need to modernize the department and empower vets to ensure that those who serve our country are treated with the dignity they deserve when they return home. [ applause ] >> these are among the goals of the 21st century military plan that i will put before the next congress. not because i seek war, but because we all seek peace. and i believe the best policy for creating the conditions for peace is to develop the capability to wage war with
crushing force. however, we cannot and will not simply throw money at the problem. we need to reform the pentagon, shedding overhead passed down from a different generation and adapt it to our 21st century challenges. that means procurement reform. so we buy the right tools at the right price and get them to the war fighter at the right time. we need to reduce the size of the civilian department of defense workforce so that our war fighters and their families aren't forced to make sacrifices to protect public sector union interests. no interests, and certainly not a special interest, should ever come before the needs of the men and women who wear our country's uniform. [ applause ] >> nor can any serious modernization plan overlook our
vulnerabilities in cyberaware fare. it is frankly appalling that we are not superior to rivals who seek to underminus in cyberspace. our american companies are under cyberattack every day. to protect ourselves it's not enough to keep making fixes after every breach. as president i would work hard to see that the united states is at the forefront of developing a much-needed doctrine on cyberwarfare. potential hackers and cyberthieves, government or non-state players, need to understand what sort of response they will face should they attack us. making good on this new doctrine will also require that we develop our own capabilities to the point that america's retaliation to a cyberattack would be certain and devastating.
america, has john f. kennedy said, requires only one kind of defense policy, a policy summed up in a single word: first. president kennedy explained, i don't mean first if, i do not mean first but, i do not mean first when. i mean first, period. [ applause ] >> if we're to take command of our future, we must ensure our military is first, period, once again. our armed forces need to know that support for the military is not just another partisan issue, and that their commander in chief is not just another politician. in every circumstance, against every attempt to shortchange our military, our troops need to be certain that the commander in
chief has their back. and i will. [ applause ] >> i am mindful that citadel has great traditions and charleston has a great history. this is a city where the civil war's first shots were fired. and the president who led the union to war, abraham lincoln, did so with humility. knowing the cost of conflict, but also knowing the even greater price of surrender. as we gather today in the aftermath of the bloodshed in paris, let it be said that this generation knew the cost of war. but also knew the even greater cost of acquiescence to an enemy with which there is no coexistence. radical islamic terrorists have declared war on the western world. their aim is our total
destruction. we can't withdraw from this threat or negotiate with it. we have but one choice, to defeat it. [ applause ] >> today we can take inspiration from the courage of the people of france and from the heroes who liberated it more than 70 years ago. on the norman coast, on the bluffs above the beach, thousands of americans rest. each one died to stop the evil of their time. they traded their future for ours. and their grave markers faced west, towards the america they would never return to. as an ever-present reminder, not only of the price of freedom, but the valor of those who protect it. during our time, some of you
will be called upon to undertake dangerous missions to protect that freedom and defeat the evil we face today. and it would be my mission that should you be sent into harm's way, that you would be given every tool to wage war with lethal force and efficiency. you would have the support from washington that you have from the american people. led by a president who is resolute, as i will be, in defeat of radical islamic terrorism wherever it appears. [ applause ] >> together, we can deter aggression, protect our vital interests, overcome the violent, and again the innocent who are helpless but for us. so let us accept the task and see it through, to move this world again in the direction of
appearance. again, coming up in about an hour and 20 minutes here on c-span 3, we'll take you live to a hearing on how the automotive industry is dealing with important issues surrounding cybersecurity and privacy relating to connected vehicle technology. vehicle to vehicle communications has the potential to reduce traffic accidents and lower fuel costs but currently faces a number of challenges. that hearing hosted by two house subcommittees. live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. all persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states are admonished to draw near and give their attention. >> coming up on c-span's
"landmark cases," we'll discuss brown versus the board of education. for third grader linda brown, separate but equal meant a six-block walk to the bus, even though the all-white school was only a few blocks away. her father sued the school board and their case, along with four other similar cases, made it all the way to the supreme court. we'll examine this case and explore racial tensions of the times, the personal stories of the individuals involved, and the immediate and long term impact of the decision. that's coming up on the next "landmark cases," live monday night at 9 eastern on c-span, c-span 3, and c-span radio. and for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the "landmark cases" companion book, available for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmarkcases. both the senate and house are in session this afternoon. the senate earlier today voted
to go to conference with the house on the no child left behind law rewrite. the house appointed its conferees yesterday. we understand that conference will meet this afternoon. meanwhile, debate continues in the senate on the 2016 transportation and housing bill. the house will take up a bill that would rescind the consumer financial protection bureau's 2013 guidance on auto lending. follow the house on c-span and the senate on c-span 2. on the house side, a bill will come up thursday and the rules committee will meet this afternoon at 4 on a measure that would require refugees from syria and iraq to go through fbi background checks for the homeland security department to guarantee they are not security threats. our capitol hill producer craig caplan tweeted out this photo a short while ago of congressman rich hudson and michael mccall meeting with reporters briefing
them on the bill. representative hudson and ryan zinke spoke about it yesterday after a house republican meeting. >> is my tie straight? >> on you, never. [ inaudible question ] >> well, because the fbi director said at a hearing recently, as well as jeh johnson and others, that you can't do a full vetting of the syrians because there's no third party to contact in syria where you can get information on them. and so when the folks in the administration are saying we can't get this proper vetting, yet the president says we'll bring them all in anyway, we need to say, wait a minute, let's look at this process. and, you know, what i've trying to come up with is a thoughtful
approach that doesn't say we're not going to allow refugees, because we obviously -- this country is a very generous country, we have a heart for refugees, we work very hard to bring folks in who are vulnerable folks that are seeking shelter from violence and other things. but we need to ensure that we're properly vetting those refugees. and so what my approach is, is let's ask the fbi director to put a process in place so we have background checks and certify that each of these refugees has an a background check. if that can't be done, then we can't allow them in. >> reporter: would this put out concerns about trying to defund on the omnibus bill and creating a problem of keeping the government open in december? >> my hope is for a bipartisan vote, we're working closely with democratic members and leadership offices. we hope by laying out a process where we can move forward one day once something is in place,
that we can get democrats to come on board with us. >> reporter: do you have democrats signed on to your bill? >> i have one. we've been talking for two days now with the leaders that i mentioned. and i haven't been to my office, i've been in a briefing without my phone, so i don't know where we are with that process. >> reporter: how long will that process take? it's already taken months for refugees to get into the country. >> the key piece is we have to p put infrastructure in place to conduct background checks. i don't think congress ought to tell the fbi how to do it. let's let the fbi come up with the process. but there has to be a process in place because today there isn't, we're just the bringing 10,000 in without vetting them properly. we're saying let the fbi certify they have it in place before we allow them in, then let dhs in consultation with others certify that each is not a risk or a
terrorist threat. >> reporter: how do you and others avoid appearing callous? you said there has to be an infrastructure, people will say, oh, there goes republicans trying to close the borders, good luck in syria. >> when i'm back in north carolina, it's not just republicans who tell me they're worried about a lot of people coming in here who are not vetted. it's republicans and democrats. that's why i'm hopeful we can have a bipartisan vote on thursday where democrats and republicans can come together and say, we're a country that allows refugees in but they have to be properly vetted. so we're going to stop this process unless and until there's process in place where the american people feel confident that we're being protected. >> reporter: did this issue come up in a briefly? were administrative officials defending the policy? >> it was a classified briefing. it's probably hard for me to answer that question.
>> reporter: did you hear reiterating of their position? >> what i heard was that the vetting process was not complete and that bringing these 10,000 in now does pose a grave risk that terrorists could exploit. and so i certainly continue to believe that we need legislation. >> reporter: the current process does vet the 1800 that's come in. it sounds like your proposal would just require a certification from the fbi and dhs that they are not a threat. >> it depends on what you call "vet." do we have a background check, do we actually have background information on them? no, we don't. what we do now to vet them, my understanding is, we look at the federal databases in our country, and if they have no information that they're a threat, we let them in. that's not good enough.
as the fbi director described when he testified about the homeland security committee, we need to contact third parties, look in other databases, we need to do a full background check on these folks before we even go through the vetting. if we don't have that information, we have to stop the process until we can find a way to produce it. that's what this legislation would do. >> reporter: have you had any conversation with the administration that this is a bill they could sign? >> i haven't had any communications. my focus has been trying to get democrats on board. a lot of republicans jumped on very quickly. i've been trying to reach out to the democrats and work with them so they understand what this legislation does. so again, my hope is it can be bipartisan. >> reporter: congressman, have you had any conversations with your colleagues in the senate side for this would be something -- >> i haven't yet. but i know their leadership is talking to their leadership. i know my legislation is similar to what they're doing. my hope is if we can put up a
good bi partispartisan number, senate can take it up and we can send it to the president. >> reporter: what kind of response are you getting from democrats? >> positive. the democrats that i've talked to are are very cautious. there's a lot of fiery rhetoric going around of don't let my syrians in, don't let my muslims in, that's not my approach and that's been welcomed and so it's cautious but they've been open to talking about it. >> sounds like you disagree with some of the rhetoric from the republicans running for president about this issue? >> i haven't seen a whole lot of what they're saying. but to say we'll stop the refugee flow or to say we'll only allow one religion or another is not the proper way to do it. there are a lot of christians being persecuted. that troubles me personally but there's a lot of sunni muslims being persecuted as well so rather than trying to pick one
religi religion over another, let's have a process in place so we can stop people who are a threat from coming in. >> thank you very much. >> the issue is the database and the vetting process. i think everyone in the room agreed that there's a threat everyone agree that refugee is a crisis that the united states should and can help. the problem is that when there's no database and no information then how do you vet? when you go to different services, different organizations running on the same data then there's holes and gaps and our challenge as congress is to fill those gaps and make sure the vetting process, we slow it down and
make sure we close the holes and the gaps. >> reporter: do you think the issue has become too politicized between democrats and republicans and was there any type of division. >> my first remarks, this is not a republican or democrat issue. this is an american issue because if isis strikes it will kill americans so we have to prize above the politics. as a former military officer and deputy of special operations in iraq and an individual that's spent a lot of time looking for individuals and trying to sort through who's a terrorist, who's not, who's sympathetic, who's not, it's a laborious -- laborious process but certainly the vetting process now needs more oversight and in my judgment we need to slow it down to make sure we identify the holes and stop the threat or at least mitigate it to a point where it's acceptable.
right now i don't think the threat response is acceptable given what we've had in paris and 9/11 was not that long ago. and we've improved since 9/11 our intelligence gathering but, again, when there's no database we need to put the brakes on and make sure people come in. >> reporter: was there any pushback from administration officials in the briefing to your effort to strengthen and revisit the certification process? >> i don't think there was a great deal of pushback. i think some in the administration are satisfied with the vetting process as it is. i think most of congress is not. but they said they'd provide more oversight which i think is positive and i think again three things, we have to rise above
politics and make sure we have the right vetting process in place and identify if there are holes we need to fill the holes. we want the refugees to be women and children. many of our troops that died in iraq were the result of women and children, too. and we have to recognize that. that just because you're a woman doesn't mean you're not capable of conducting operations or being sympathetic towards operations. so, again, the challenge in syria but also in the middle east is the lack of databases and when there is a database is that database credible? >> reporter: one of the people on the senate intelligence
committee went on cnn and said there were four individuals involved in the sheriff's plot that were known to u.s. intelligence. is that something you heard about today? is that something you can -- >> on that i'm going to have to defer to whether it's open source or not. it was discussed and that's as far as i can give details on it. >> the brief -- you can just say it's an issue of how much the u.s. intelligence knew about these in part of the briefing today? >> yes. >> reporter: was the report of the intelligence passed on by the iraqi government? was that also brought up? >> i'm not at liberty to -- as a former seal i can tell you it was discussed, a broad overview. i think the majority of the discussion had to do with vetting of the refugees. but it was also brought up of -- i, of course, am worried about our southern border. it was brought up that every refugee is vetted but every individual that's come across with a passport from the
european union is not vetted the same and the reports are about 5,000 or so passport e.u. citizens have gone back and forth into syria. that's a staggering number, a couple hundred from the united states back and forth. we need to do better at identifying that and making sure their next stop after syria is not europe and landing somewhere in new york and creating the same cells. overall i think it was a positive briefing. >> reporter: did you learn much new from the administration about what happened in paris? >> the question is did i learn anything new. i think it confirmed a lot of the reports that are open source. i think most of the media is not
far off. they're on the target and probably in the bull's-eye but maybe not exactly in the middle but they're reasonable in their conclusions. >> reporter: in regards to what, exactly? >> well, overall what we saw, the buildup, did we know the information, how fast did we respond, what are we doing as far as our intelligence pushing forward. i think most of it is media. but, again, the discussion in the room was more or less about vetting and there was a consensus that as a country we have to do our part but, two, the overwhelming majority, especially from the republican side is that we're not convinced the vetting process doesn't have holes and we'll work with the administration to fill those holes. and if we have to slow down the process, i think that's prudent. >> reporter: were the germans brought up at all? >> no. >> reporter: when you say "slow
down," do you mean halt or reduce the number of or what do you mean? >> i think the vetting process needs to be reviewed and the vetting process needs oversight or one agency can't operate unilaterally. >> reporter: is that the case now? >> well, i i think the consensus is we need more oversight about -- and this is the part of our government we have three branches and each branch should have oversight to make sure we have a balance but when one agency executes something without oversight there's always suspicion. there's doubt and i think we need to make the transparency more open on how we vet and have the discussion about the process on vetting to ensure the american people we're doing it the right way. i think it's reasonable and prudent. >> thank you. >> you're welcome.
>> again, that bill would require refugees from syria and iraq to go through fbi background checks with the homeland security department to guarantee they're not security threats first test of that bill this afternoon in the rules committee. they meet at 4:00 p.m. eastern and likely debate tomorrow on the house floor. politico, meanwhile, though reports democrats will oppose that republican bill. lauren french writing that members of democratic leadership met this morning to discuss the strategy. sources said the opposition is unlikely to be unanimous but the majority of house democrats will likely oppose the legislation ov over concerns it would damage the refugee program in the long run. and we heard more about the democrats' position on that measure and other legislation from this morning's "washington journal." >> oregon democrat earl blumen hour. sir, you spoke yesterday about the refugee program. tell us why. >> well, i fear that congress is
reacting in ways that are really troubling. when we have a major presidential candidate of the republicans who's leading in the polls saying outrageous things. when governor christie says he wouldn't accept orphans under five we need to get a trip. these syrian refugees are fleeing precisely the horrific conditions that we saw displayed in paris. we have not by any stretch of the imagination extended ourself too far. less than 2,000. we have an extensive vetting process and to be able to think we can avoid our responses having this sea of humanity trying to flee this disaster when we should be focusing on what we can, in fact, do to have a more robust response rather than just talking about it,
making syrian refugees the scapegoats i think is sad. >> explain why you believe it's our responsibility. >> well, it's everyone's responsibility. it's not unique to me but a number of people have recalled the horrific situation when america turned its back on jewish refugees trying to flee hitler. well, the atrocities we are seeing from these monsters of isis are, i think, by any reasonable analysis on a par and for us to think that by just bottling it up, by thinking that they will contain them at the borders is foolish. you cannot. the sea of humanity is moving forward. there's also a very real problem with artificially containing people in camps in inhumane -- this is a recruiting ground for
terrorists and the simple fact is that there's -- that the people who perpetrated the madness in paris were not refugees, they were able to travel in the european union, most of them were actually citizens of france or belgium and just the same way that what happened with 9/11 where people who exploded our current visa system, they didn't sneak across the border. we need to get a grip. >> the "new york times" notes this morning that the assad government has done more atrocities against the syrian people than isis has done. going forward with this strategy, france wants russia and the united states to join a coalition to fight against isil in syria. but can there be a compromise on bashar al assad? >> well, you're identifying one
of the fundamental problems with all the people who are suggesting that we just go in and bomb more or that we up our rhetoric, if we yell louder and point our finger. unless people are willing to raise taxes, implement a universal service and even then we can't do it alone. the keys in the middle east, first of all, this is a fundamental conflict between shi'a and sunni that has gone on for centuries. that's the objective, for example, of iran and iraq. turkey is deeply concerned about the kurdish problem. we're not going to be able to make progress unless we're able to get more of the participants in the middle east, including turkey, iran, russia is now more
engaged, working with us people in those countries are going to have to be motivated and equipped to try and retain some semblance of normality but the notion that we are going to have huff and puff, isolate the refugees, leave them the tender mercies of isis and think that somebody else is going to solve this problem i think is foolish. >> how does the united states or the other count these are fighting this deal with the ideology, the radical ideology that's coming out of some countries like saudi arabia. how do you convince those countries and those muslim leaders to try to combat this? >> and this is like wise a problem. the saudis have been playing both sides on this. they want to protect
co-religionists but they have been fostering radical islamic activities throughout the middle east. and it's often noted that the people who attacked us on 9/11 were people who were involved with saudi arabia. we can't allow them to play both sides against the middle so the notion that we're going to have an isolated everyday or the united states is simply going to bomb these folks or we're going to outsource it doesn't work. part of it is diplomacy. is part of it is our being able to maybe step up a bit of what the president is doing but bear in mind that congress has been unwilling to work with the administration to define how we authorize military force going forward. is he offered something up in february and this congress has until recently -- nobody's moving forward. i think it would be a good thing for congress to actually have
that debate and get in the game. >> speaker ryan passed the national defense authorization bill yesterday. in that the specific language says the president needs to come up with a strategy to fight isis. >> [ laughter ] that's fine. we can all say it's the saudis or it's the russians or it's -- you know, i think congress needs to be a part of this. congress needs to be clear about where it's going to go when the president wanted to have a more robust action against syria congress had a meltdown and i was one of those people that was reluctant to see us rush in at that point but by all means let congress have the debate. let congress be a partner with the administration, not trying to undercut them at every point. and certainly i don't think we should take a few syrian hostages that are fleeing atrocities and turn them into captives. >> by the way, the "new york times" reports this morning,
quoting one expert about the problem in countries like saudi arabia saying that they have supported jihadists as a proxy force fighting iranian influence. here's a quote "the problem is far more serious, all the world leaders should think of this. a significant part of the islamic religion is infected with a tumor that is metastasizing." so with all that on the table, let's turn to calls. washington, d.c., independent, you're on the air. >> caller: good morning. i just wanted to ask your opinion on a certain group of people. i find it ironic to hear the very people who stood up against the nsa surveillance program quoting benjamin franklin saying they would not give up their freedom for the sake of security but it's unfortunate that those very similar people are giving up whatever compassion they have for the same of security. they've quoted the bible and god
but in some type of way aren't they turning their back on god's teaching by refusing these refugees? i just wanted to get your opinion on that. >> i don't think we have to give up our freedom or our humanity. i think there are reasonable steps going forward. what we saw after 9/11 is that we overreacted and we did some clumsy things. we rushed in with the patriot act rather than the bipartisan carefully crafted legislation that has haunted us since. we created the behemoth that was the department of homeland security which has been characterized by ineptitude, bureaucracy, huge sums of money. we have this vast surveillance system that was exposed by edward snowden, a college dropout who was a private contractor, had only worked for a couple months. we -- it wasn't a lack of information that characterized 9/11, we had the information.
the same way there was some information that there was an attack brewing in paris, we need to be able to use the information. we need to be able to do in the a thoughtful fashion, not overreact and to be able to rather than divide ourselves or point fingers try and work cooperatively on a program going forward. this is a long-term problem and what you quoted from that article i think is accurate. i think the saudis see they've lead the genie out of the bottle. the russians understand with the explosion of that airliner. >> which they now say was a bomb. >> they now admit. >> by isis. >> they here in a little deeper. the french. we've gotten a opportunity, i think, for people to realize that we've all got a stake in a resolution and being able to calm the sectarian violence and
get powerful forces in the middle east to stop their narrow special interests and work for a broader strategy that i think is possible. >> in the near term, though, how do you control or fight against isis, defeat them, without ground troops. stories in the papers today talking about these air strikes that russia and france have been doing, they're hitting empty buildings to avoid civilian deaths. how do you do it without ground troops? >> ultimately you're not going to do it without ground troops. the question is whose ground troops and under what terms? being able to have a real coalition of the willing makes -- is very important. >> so you would support that. >> being able to work to try and get people moving forward. we're going to ultimately have to be able to maintain order on the ground. you have to have functioning states where you no longer have them. maybe we can work with russia to get rid of assad when they
understand this is potentially spiraling out of control. he is -- they are his patron. being able to deescalate that as you referenced earlier they have visited horrific violence on the syrian people and in effect empowered isis. but these are the elements that are going to be necessary for ultimate solutions. >> just to be clear, though, you would support possibly u.s. troops on the ground along with other countries if they have troops on the ground. >> bear in mind we have troops on the ground. we have special forces ops. we have troops embedded. i think being able to work with what we are doing to empower the folks whose country it is to be able to sustain ground action, to unwind the syrian situation and that's where a potential agreement with iraq -- excuse
me, with iran and russia loom large they have the potential of helping us unwind that. turkey getting serious about the northern border. the elements are there but the booths on the ground are going to have to be the people in the region in syria, in iraq that have to take control and stop this suicidal sectarian battling which just continues to spiral out of control. >> we're talking with representative earl blumme blum. on twitter dave is saying "a temporary halt midgght be neede to look at screening but if it's not the will of the people, we should not do it." then monica says "let the refugees come. where is this fear and anger coming from?" and paul says "i don't even see a gray area.
how can we check the background?" you were at a members only briefing. what did you learn? >> nothing new. we have an extentative vetting policy. i've been working in this area for years. one of the things that deeply troubled me is that the united states turned its back on the iraqis and the afghans who were our partners. now i opposed the iraq war from the beginning but i thought it was immoral to turn our back on the men and women who helped us as drivers, as guides, as interpreters. so we've worked to be able to help them escape the tender mercies of al qaeda and the taliban and we've done a pretty good job. there's a very extensive -- in fact, it's too slow, it takes a long, long, long time, these people from syria who are coming as refugees, it takes them the
better part of two years. so the notion that it's just somehow opening the floodgates, that we don't have any information, only maybe 2% of the ones who have come in are men of fighting age. most are women, children, people who've been tortured and we have an obligation along with all our european allies to be able to deal with this humanitarian catastrophe. >> let's go to sumpter, south carolina, don, a democrat, you're next. >> caller: good morning, c-span. i just wanted to mention sometimes the american people don't listen very well. like president obama was talking about answering the same question three times what we're missing here is al qaeda is and isil and all of them, they're waging an individual war against
the west and what i mean by that is that like eight or ten guys took the whole city of paris and they would them hostage and the way the west answers is to fight back individually and to do that the refugee crisis is part of that. americans need to show that individually they're willing to accept the refugees to help them out. it's kind of fighting back on the individual level, that is where isil is so effective against us. >> and you wrote something very similar congressman, posing that very theory. >> i agree with your caller. this is a multifaceted horrifically complex problem. but turning our backs on the refugees does not help. in fact it potentially creates greater problems. being able to work with the people who have the greatest stake in this, the people in the
middle east themselves, being able to work with the other major powers who are playing a key role here like the french. being able to try and build on what we've done diplomatically with iran's nuclear weapons to try and unwind the syrian situation and being patient and congress stepping up and defining the limits of force that they're willing to allow the president to employ would be very helpful. >> we'll go to theresa, tennessee, a republican. hi there, tree, is a good morning. >> caller: governor romneod mor. you're not sending the muslim refugees to washington, d.c., they're not going to oregon. they're going to southern states. the first batch of refugees was sent to poor louisiana. >> okay, theresa? >> and also how quickly he forgets that tennessee's
military recruiting center was attacked by somali muslim refugees. you know, it's not his family that's being attacked. it's not washington, d.c., it's our family. >> well, first of all, i'm not sending them anywhere. there isn't a resettlement effort that takes place across the country where they -- and many, many cities to their credit have stepped up and volunteered to resettle refugees. >> and part of the criteria is sending them places where there's a low cost of living and that there are jobs. >> there is an effort to try and make sure that the refugees become self-supporting as soon as possible. >> in one year they have. >> and the clock is ticking, the clock is sticking and the areas where they have been concentrated are areas where it looks like there is the greatest
likelihood of success. it should be pointed out that all these syrian refugees are not muslims. there are many christians have who have been persecuted by isil. it's not just somebody on the wrong side of the shi'a/sunni divide. and it just pains me to have people gloss over the magnitude of this humanitarian crisis and the reality of what we're attempting to do. my community accepted thousands and thousands and thousands of vietnamese refugees after the collapse of that government, the takeover by the north vietnamese. it took readjustment over time but people stepped up and it's made a big difference in our community and here we're talking about a tiny fraction.
10,000 people is the aspiration and i'm not certain we'll be able to go through the vetting process for 10,000 out of a country of 330 million people. >> missouri next, larry an independent, you're on the air. >> >> caller: yes, good morning earl and good morning, ma'am. i was going to take a pause but i agree in letting the refugees in. we have to trust somebody and the refugees they need our help. there's so many dangerous things going on in the eastern countries right now but we have to come together as people and do what's right. the united states we are the superpower right now and we try to do the best we can and we have to do all that we can while we can but we have to move swiftly in syria. there are some things going on with isis and isis trying to build their armies is. we need ground troops and air attack, too. >> okay. that was larry in missouri.
congressman, can i ask you about the legislation you'll be voting on to halt this syrian refugee program that will happen on thursday. according to the summary put out by the rules committee, no refugee from iraq or syria will be admitted into the u.s. unless the fbi director certifys the background investigation of each refugee. homeland security secretary, fbi director and the national intelligence director certifies each refugee is not a security threat and no syrian and iraqi refugee can enter the u.s. until the american people's representatives in congress receive these certifications. >> it's just sad. we already have far more vetting than people who come into this country everyday. again, 9/11 terrorists, there may be people out there right now and the wrong headedness here of taking a program that is already more extensive than we
have for people coming and going on an ongoing basis, what we just saw in france, those people could have come here investing yet two or three other layers of bureaucratic activity when we have real security threats to us i think is a massive diversion of attention. it's not only unnecessary. i personally think this sort of thing puts us more at risk as it distracts us from what there are real potential threats going on and it makes the refugees a scapegoat. those who come, it continues the demonization of syrian refugees who can be muslim or christians, making them a target. we've seen things like that happen before. i think it's misguided. i think the time would be better
spend by having republicans in congress define what military force they're willing to give the president, not point fingers and say -- let's get us involved because only we can authorize that. let's do something like that that might help us move forward is. >> networks reporting there was a raid in paris last night, there was fear of a second group of attackers that were about -- they were planning a second attack. what did you learn last night in your members-only briefing about $ñ and about these first wave second wave attack. >> if there were greater detail that were revealed i couldn't say it because it was a classified briefing. let me just say, you only have to read the morning papers to understand that there are serious things afoot and all of us are deeply concerned that we are doing all we can to keep
america safe and then move to settle this festering calderon in the middle east. not scapegoating but figuring out if we're going to authorize force. if so, what? get serious. if people think we're going to be doing more militarily after we've worn out morn forces maybe it's time to talk about universal service, not just a military draft. for even's sakes pay for it which we didn't do with the war in iraq and it's led to massive budget problems and start scaling up. we never scaled up the v.a. to deal with two million young americans who were serving in iraq and afghanistan and they're paying the price. i think people ought to get serious about making sure that we deal with the responses we have and look and going forward not scapegoats and dealing with
stuff around the edges. >> we'll go to charles next, a republican in charlotte, north carolina. charles, good morning: >> caller: congressman, greta, good morning. we are the most compassionate country in the world. we do more, we have upwardsover 20 million people from illegal immigrants, we don't know their names or anything about them that we've allowed to live here and not force them to go go back. they asked the president at the g-20 summit do you have any inkling there was going to be an attack on paris in any way and he said no and they said what confidence does that give you that you know about any attack in america that's being planned if you didn't know about that? we're talking about bringing 10,000 people who have an ideology so different than america. we have to care for these people. we have to have interpreters, health care, we're broek as a country and you said turn our back on syrians, we can't afford
it. if we make one mistake with these people it doesn't take much when the soldiers went over to the middle east they said there were children coming up with bombs. we can not guarantee and you can't guarantee every single one of these people coming in our country is going to do the right thing, i simulate, become great americans, you cannot guarantee that. you're saying we hope, we hope that we can. so therein lies the problem. we're generous, compassion and in and we do more than anything else but i think we have been worn out as a country. >> so many things from your caller. there are other countries around the world that are accepting more refugees in this horrific situation coming out of syria, it's not just germany. other countries are stepping up and helping bear this burden. it seems to me we ought to show
our compassion by dealing with, as i mentioned, the syrian refugees, many of them who have been brutalized by the same thug, people who have been tortured and lost members of their family, widows and orphans many of whom are not muslims but christians. i think people need to get a grip. look at the big picture. look at what we as a great nation ought to be able to do and focus our attention and our interest on things that will help us defeat isil by dealing with the conditions there there that help them thrive in the first place. >> according to pew, more than half of the world's refugees are from syria, afghanistan and somalia. syria making up 3.88 million of the world's refugees followed by afghanistan with almost three million and somalia at one.
we'll gol to sean in battleground, washington, independent. hi, sean. >> caller: congressman blumenhaur, i represent the implication that i'm a xenophobic nativist if i oppose this and you are somehow a sophisticated internationalist. the simple fact is we should avoid foreign entanglements. if we haven't participated in desert storm there never would have been a 9/11. we should not be the world's policemen and the middle-class in this country has completely disappeared and as i understand it you're a supporter of the transa pacific partnership. so the optics on this are just horrible. i understand you consider yourself a liberal democrat. well you're advocating a porn policy that's totally interventionist and your economic agenda is undermining the middle-class so please don't refer to me as a xenophobic nationalist for disagreeing with you. thank you. >> i'll go back and check the
tape of this show. i don't think those words ever passed my lips. i happen t-mobile that we can strengthen relationships by promoting trade and interchange. i was opposed to the war in iraq. is i thought it was a horrific mistake but we are dealing with facts now. and now i think if we had not made some of those past mistakes we'd be better off. i think we could have responded more thoughtfully after 9/11 but now we have a failed syrian state, we have iraq in shambles, we have isis, we still have cold and the taliban and we are going to have to figure out how we contend with it. there are challenges that are not going to go away for my generation, my children, my
grandchildren i think, however, by somehow having the united states withdraw from commerce, from diplomacy and where necessary military partnerships is not a prescription to make things better. >> cheryl's ford, north carolina. line or democrat, you're on the air. >> caller: thank you so much. i'm not totally against it, i'm not totally for it and i'll tell you why. i look at what happened with paris when the refugees come in. the first thing is who did it? they were terrorists. i want some guarantee it won't happen here. the second thing is how much is it going to cost us to let these people in there. it probably shouldn't be the main issue but our country is not in financial condition to handle 10,000. the other thing is i find when we have people in this country and not being prejudice but they don't like our traditions. like we can't say god bless america because it offends somebody. some people don't want to decorate because they're afraid to offend.
they want to be americans, i say welcome, let everybody come in but act like an american, respect our traditions, and this is what america is about and i feel a lot of these people coming here they want to change everything. you can't say god bless america because they don't like our god. they don't like -- and you can't say the pledge of allegiance. even the schools -- look what happened to a football player on the field because they scored a touchdown and made the sign of the cross they wanted to throw them off the team. these are things me and other americans are concerned with. we don't mind people coming here but don't turn around and say everything we do offends you. >> well, that's not my experience with refugees and i have -- in my community we have a number of refugees from around the world. i find that they are glad to be here, many of them risked their lives to be here and they are some of the most -- if you go to the ceremonies where they are
sworn in as citizens, it's really touching watching what's happened with them and their families. we are a country of many traditions. we have six million -- over six million muslims, we have a similar number of jews. we have people who are a variety of religious faiths. that's part of the american tradition dating back to our founding fathers. i think that that adds to the strength of this country and i'm not about to start rooting out one tradition or another and tell them they're not american because they are part of america today. as for the cost of 10,000 refugees, we are spending billions of dollars now trying to help the refugee crisis from exploding and being worse, from having a break down in central europe or spilling over into jordan, into turkey, creating more problems in syria and iraq
is so the minuscule costs of 10,000 refugees compared to the billions that we are spending now is pales by comparison. but if we don't figure out a way for us to figure out a strategy where congress and the president can speak with almost one voice about protecting americans and projecting our power overseas with other partners who are going to be necessary to wind this down, the costs will swell and we won't be safer here, the world will be a more dangerous place. >> since last friday, the paris attacks what have you heard from your constituency and what's been the volume like compared to previous debates whatever to do? >> part of it is this has not
yet ripened. but the interaction i had at home was deep concern, some people were outraged, some were afraid. i think the people in my community are like those around the country. they fear for their families. they wonder how these monsters get to this state. they want to make sure that we are doing all we can and i will tell you in my community people are not of one mind. there are debates back and forth. some people want more boots on the ground and ready to go, some people just want to donald trump bomb them from the air and don't worry about civilian casualties. people are genuinely conflicted and they should be because, frankly, we've not had a rational debate in congress. where a lot of the debate as exemplified by the discussion this morning is bred by fear and lack of information.
you know, the notion that all of these refugees are awesome muslim which is they are not. misapprehension about who the people were who were part of what happened in paris. these weren't refugees, these were people with who were indigenous french who were traveling around legally within the european union. but we will is i think be able to work it out if we in congress can act like grown-ups, have reasonable discussion and do things that move us forward rather than simply cosmetic more to the case of the proposal we're looking at, something that doesn't accomplish anything. >> mississippi next. gina is there, a republican. good morning. >> caller: >> hi, sir. i would like to say that you're being continue sending to 31
states in this union. over half of the united states has said no that we don't want the refugees. and also what i'd like to know is if only one jihadist murdering killer comes in with a group of 10,000 what are you going to say to the families of the hundreds of people of americans that they kill? what are you going to stay? >> well, first of all, the states have not all -- some governors posturing politically is not the same as speaking for all the people in the states. and the number of those very states there are communities that think it's their christian duty or whatever their faith to
be able to help people who are fleei fleeing the horrors of isis. so to confuse what some governor have done in the heat of the moment who don't fully understand what the vetting process is and aren't looking at the alternatives, i don't think it's condescending. there's just a lot of evidence that where there many places where people understand this is important and they want to be a part of it. in my community, we just had slaughter on a community college campus. a domestic terrorist. is we have problems in an ongoing bases any this country, violence, e violence,ens. most of our problems have not been from terrorists, they've been people here some of whom
who have been inspired by what they've seen overseas. some who have been radicalized but the type of conversation we're having now and trying to scapegoat syrian refugees fleeing terrorists i think feeds into a perceptions but that is not healthy. >> i'm going try to get in troy in bedford, massachusetts, our last. a democrat. >> caller: good morning. >> go ahead, troy, you're on the air. >> caller: yes, i just wanted to so that there was a lady who called up and wanted to know where isis was getting their weapons and i just want people to know that obama was running guns through benghazi that was going to isis. so part of those weapons were sent by the obama administration and i'm sure your guest supported that. >> and, troy, where did you get
that information? >> actually, i don't remember exactly the person but it's been admitted that that's true. i believe that it came up in the hillary -- discussions with congress. they were sending weapons to benghazi, to syria and isis was the one that was getting them. but i just wanted to point out that before when -- assad was in control of syria, there were no refugees. it's isis that called this. and isis has not been severely gone after by the obama administration but in practice supported by your guests that's on there and it's the ogs and the politics supported by your
guests that have gotten us into the mess we're in now. >> our time is short, we'll have the congressman respond. >> your caller some of that i don't follow but it's a real problem and one of the hesitancies that this administration has had in terms of arming some of the forces fighting isis, we didn't know who we would be arming. they didn't agree amongst themselves and it's a very fluid situation it's what happened in afghanistan back in the day when we were arming insurgents. they end up going to the taliban, this is one of the reasons why we need to be careful and thoughtful and do it in concert with other partners. >> congressman earl blumenhaur, thank you for the conversation as always. appreciate it. >> appreciate it, greta, it was fun. the refugee legislation proposed by richard hudson of north carolina would require refugees from syria and iraq to
go through fbi background checks for the homeland security department to guarantee they are not security threats. it will get a hearing this afternoon in the rules committee. if it makes it through rules it will be on the house floor tomorrow. live coverage of the house, of course, is on our companion network c-span. the issue of the syrian refugees came before congress today in a number of speeches including paul ryan, the speaker, spoke about it today pushing back against arguments that a house bill hitting the floor to enhance security screenings will filter people based on religion. "the hill" reporting "people understand the plight of those fleeing the middle east but if they want basic assurances for the safety of this country" he said on the house floor "we can be compassionate but we can also be safe." speaker ryan speaking as the house gavelled in this afternoon. we heard a number of speech this is morning from the u.s. house. here's a look. >> the world stands with the people of france this week.
the events in paris were horrifying. all of us were shaken by them. yet we know that wherever terror like this strikes, the world community will rally together, terror will not prevail. but these events should serve as a reminder there is still evil out there. we can not ignore it. we can not contain it. we must defeat it and we must protect our people. the country is uneasy and unsettled and they have every right to be. not because of what they're hearing from politicians but what they've seen with their own eyes. all of us here -- republicans and democrats -- are hearing these concerns in our offices. people understand the plight of those fleeing the middle east. but they also want basic assurances for the safety of this country. we are a compassionate nation.
we always have been and we always will be. but we also must remember that our first priority is to protect the american people. we can be compassionate and we can also be safe. that's what the bill that we're bringing up tomorrow is also about. it call farce new standard of verification for refugees from syria and iraq. it would mean a pause in the program until we can be certain beyond any doubt that those coming here are not a threat. it's that simple. and i don't think it's asking too much. i also want to point out that we will not have a religious test, only a security test. if the intelligence and law enforcement community cannot certify that a person presents no threat then they should not be allowed in. this is common sense and it's our obligation. let me also say to members and
to the country that we can not lose sight of the bigger threat in syria. the refugee crisis is the consequence of a failed policy in that region. the ultimate solution is a plan to defeat isis. that's why we are sending to the president a bill this week that requires him to finally propose an overarching strategy to deal with syria and the terrorist threat in that region. this threat is not going away until we acknowledge and confront the real danger that exists. there is a long road ahead but today for this moment i urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation tomorrow and to help keep america safe. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to rise today and discuss the issue of the syrian refugees in the islamic state terrorists
who are coming across our southern border and in relation to this the office of refugee resettlement loophole that exist there is and also mr. speaker as i begin my remarks i commend the house and our speaker for speaking out and taking an action to condemn the paris attacks. this administration has announced its intention to resettle 10,000 syrian refugees within the united states in fiscal year 2016. now i want you to think about that number. is 10,000 in the year 2016. they will go to resettlement communities all across the country if the administration has its way. it is important to note that the office of refugee resettlement
or the orr as it is called does not simply resettle refugees from overseas. in fact the orr has been resettli resettling. they have been resettling, thousands of illegal aliens that are coming across our southern border. i want to read to you from their 2014 report to congress and i'm quoting from the report. "other categories eligible for assistance and services, certain other persons admitted to the u.s. are granted status under other immigration categories also are eligible for refugee benefits. in addition, certain persons deemed to be victims of a severe form of trafficking, though not legally admitted as refugees, are eligible for orr benefits to the same extent as refugees." the orr resettle ts illegal
aliens not classified as refugees providing another potential gateway for the islamic state terrorists. frankly, we would know more about the orr activities if they filed their annual reports as required in section 413-a of the immigration and nationality act and did in the a timely fashion. but the last report we have from them is from 2013, it's not transparent, it's not accountable and it can not be trusted. and i know this firsthand, mr. speaker. i wrote secretary burwell twice last year about resettlement activities at the orr and have been investigating them since july of 2014 when congressman bridenstein and i traveled to a uac facility at fort sill, oklahoma and mr. chairman i would like to submit those letters for the record. >> without objection. >> we know that there are more than mexicans and central americans coming across that
southern border and we know that once they are here the orr has no way of tracking them and keeping up with them. in april a judicial watch report cited a mexican army and police inspector who advised that isis was operating training basis in close proximity to the u.s. southern border. another report from august, 2014, advised that social media traffic indicate d isis was planning to infiltrate the southern border in order to carry out a terrorist attack. due to these findings, all -- all -- of our resettlement services must be temporarily suspended. i am currently working on a solution with several of my colleagues to address the loophole that allows non-refugees to be resettled. in the past three weeks, the islamic state has bomb add russian jetliner, committed
suicide bombings in beirut and massacred -- massacred -- french citizens in paris. they are now exporting their terror. there is simply no method that will allow us to determine with 100% accuracy whether syrians or illegal aliens that we resettle into the u.s. are really isis jihadists. mr. speaker, is the isis threat contained? no. can we guarantee that syrian refugees who are resettled into the u.s. will not commit acts of terror against americans? no. do we know who these people are? no. are they properly vetted? no. would it be responsible to bring syrian refugees into this country after the attacks in paris? the answer is no. do americans across this country want the administration the
resettle syrian refugees into the u.s.? no. is the administration dangerously naive on this policy? absolutely. i encourage my colleagues to look closely at the issue. i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york mr. rangel for five minutes. >> thank you for this opportunity, mr. speaker. i would just like to join with the millions of americans that feel heart-based sympathy for the losses of our friends in europe and france and paris and, of course, to give sympathy to those people that are absolutely hysterical on this issue as relates to refugees even though there's no evidence at all that it was refugees that were
responsible for it but this type of unprovoked attack does cause fear and many times irresponsible irresponsible behavior on behalf of people as they attempt to instill fear in all people to such an extent that it shatters the principles of what this country was built on. nevertheless, it is enough for us to be concerned about. enough for us to be fearful about. and there has to be consideration to what are we going to do about it. those that read in the media and list listen, even members of congress, we have people now saying we can't win this war against isis unless we have are more of our military underground
fighting against the assad government. we talk about sending troops overseas to put their lives in harm's way as though it's just another foreign policy decision that members of congress can make without any regard at all to the constitution al responsibility we have to ours and to be apexample for the world. whenever this great nation is threatened, whenever our national security is threatened, the president should be coming to this house of representatives and the senate and share with us what are the threats to our national security. and when it becomes abundantly clear that we have to call upon
our military in any way, we should have a declaration of war for the reasons that the president has given to us. and our responsibility to our constituents is to share as much information as we can to tell them that are war means sacrifice, loss of life. and yet today we haven't had a declaration of war since franklin roosevelt. tens of thousands of americans have died. in this recent crisis, less than 1% of eligible americans have actually put themselves in harm's way because of executive mandate and the allowance of the congress to allow this to happen. and we've lost just in afghanistan and iraq 7,000
american some of us have to go to the funerals and explain the best that we can that even though we're not at war, that there will be american lives lost in foreign countries. i submit to you that if we believe that our national security is threatened, we should have a declaration of war, we should have a draft, and we should have a way it to pay for these wars so that we would know that it's not easy sending your loved ones abroad and not even know the reasons that they are there. it would seem to me that as everyone heard the president of france says they're at war against isis, that if we're at war against isis, whatever country they are representing, it should be brought to the american people, to the congress, and the president should ask us to declare are war. but it's just totally not fair
for people in the house of representatives to come here and to say that americans should be sent overseas to fight an unknown enemy to put their lives in jeopardy and perhaps their families in jeopardy without being able to say that they're fighting a war to preserve democracy in this country. it just seems to me that whether you call them no feet on the ground but boots on the ground, that if someone is coming back here with a flag-draped coffin, that we should be able to say they fought to america, they died for america and that we're fighting for peace and to end the war that has yet to be declared. i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman from new york yields back. the chair recognizes mr. barr
for five minutes. >> i rise today in strong support of our allies, the people of france and in strong condemnation of the terrorist attacks in paris, france carried out by the islamic state this past friday. the people of france have been our allies since the american revolution. and having traveled to normandy and seeing the american flag over omaha beach, it underscores the important alliance that we have had with the people of france throughout our history. and ever since, the founding of our country, we have been united with the people of france by our shared values of freedom and civil society and democracy. the attack on friday was an attack on these values by terrorists who want to impose their twisted version of islam across the world. we grieve for the massive loss of life, not just for the french people, but also for the victims and their families around the
globe including nohemi gonzalez. we join the voices there around the world to condemn these attacks, but condemnation is not enough. as i saw firsthand while visiting iraq and afghanistan last month, the president's strategy of withdrawal and containment is clearly not working. by underestimating the threat, referring to isil as the jv team, declaring that isil has been contained just hours before the brutal attacks in paris, president obama has allowed this radical islamic cancer on humanity to fester and grow. indeed the key lesson from my trip to the middle east is that american retreat has made the world a much less stable and much more dangerous place. the weakness of the president's foreign policy and u.s. withdrawal from the middle east has allowed our adversaries, isil, russia, iran, the taliban, al qaeda, al nusra, to fill the vacuum, to grow stronger and
become a much greater threat to our homeland and our interests. in contrast, our allies, israel, jordanians, government of iraq, kurdish regional government, they have all become more threatened and more vulnerable. there is not a single place in the world which is safer or more stable today or where our adversaries are weaker or where our allies are stronger than on the day president obama took office. the president has in recent days lectured his critics to come up with their own plan and regurgitated his tired old attacks on his predecessor's successful national security policy. but if there is any lesson to be learned from the obama policy in iraq, as contrasted with u.s. policy after world war ii in japan and germany, it is that once you win a war, do not leave. a residual security force and a continued diplomatic engagement
to prevent sectarian revisions would have reed a sures sunnis and prevented the rise of isil. the president implies that his critics would lead fuss to another unpopular ground war in the middle east, but we don't need to fight the iraq war again. we've already won that war. but we do need to do more to combat isil. what about authorizing is use of military force that doesn't constrain the commander in chief which is what the president sent us? why don't we to what our ally in baghdad wants and has asked us for which is more u.s. air power, more u.s. special operators on the ground for better coordination of the air campaign? more funding for the iraqi train and equip fund. we must do more to help the moderate forces suches the peshmerga. and we must address the surge of refugees pouring out of syria and other war-torn countries. these people are in desperate
needs of help, but the answer is not to resettle them halfway around the world here in the united states. open ended resettlement program is in fact an admission of defeat that their homes will never be safe for them to return to, so that we better assimilate them to new lands with new languages and new cultures. that is not the best solution for these refugees. and because we know that at least one of these terrorists involved this the paris attacks entered europe by blending in with with those tries to flee isil, it can possess a security risk to the united states. let's actively protect them in their home run by helping them defeat isil and win the war. the best thing we can can do is defeat the enemy. we need a new strategy not to contain isil, but to eliminate them. the refugee issue is a simple matter of common sense, but the
problem is larger than the refugees. as we were reminded so tragically on friday in paris, failure to confront terrorists and radical ideologies abroad gives them an opportunity to grow and spread and attack us here at home. so let's grieve and pray for the people of france, but let's do more. let's rise up with them with new resolve to defend our shared commitment to liberty, security and freedom. thank you, i yield back. and a couple of politico tweets from just a short whiling a go. saying speaker ryan just answered mans city pelosi's capitol office to discuss syria, and this is their first one-on-one meeting. ryan asked to hold it. we spect debate tomorrow on that syrian refugee bill. rules committee meets this afternoon. here on c-span3, we'll take you live to another committee meeting actually two, two sub commit tees on how the automotie industry is dealing with important issues surrounding cyber security and privacy
related to connected vehicle technology, vehicle to vehicle communications technology, as the potential to reduce traffic accidents and lower fuel costs, but currently faces a number of challenges. the two subcommittees will be meeting this afternoon hearing from a number of officials including officials with toyota, tesla and general motors. and from the transportation department. should get under way shortly here here on c-span3.
we're waiting for the start of the hearing about connected vehicle technology, two house oversight sub committees are holding the hearing. should get under way shortly. also this afternoon, house rules committee will work on the debate rules for that legislation dealing with syrian refugees. john mica just checking in, should get under way shortly here live on c-span3.
good afternoon. i'd like to welcome everyone to the sub committee on transportation and public assets and also the subcommittee on information technology hearing today. this meeting will come to order. without objection the chair is authorized to declare at any time a recess. the order of business will be as follows. since we have a joint subcommittee hearing today, we'll have opening statements
from myself, mr. hurd, miss duckworth, miss kelly. and after that, we will hear from our witnesses. and then after we've heard from all the witnesses, we'll go into questions. so with that, i'll give the first opening statement and again, welcome everyone. it's interesting the age that we live in of new technology and communications. with all of the incredible technology that we see and take for granted every day, we're entering a new era in transportation technology. and there is some of the older panelists are members and audience will remember when you used to open the hood of a car
and you could it take out the various parts, identify everything. now you need almost a ph.d. degree to figure out what is in there and its capabilities are just astounding. a lot of safety features in cars we didn't have before. but we today will address the issues relating to again what we call the internet of cars. and look at some of the implications of that technology. and i think some of this was highlighted just some time ago when i guess it was a jeep vehicle was hacked. fortunately it wasn't folks who chose to do harm, but it did demonstrate that vehicles with with certain types of electronic capability can in fact be
hacked. and it does pose some questions. we've called together today leaders of industry and some others, we have nhtsa. but i in particular want to hang the private sector partners. several weeks ago, we had a round table and open and frank discussion of kind of where we are and where we're going and what the industry is doing to deal with some of these issues. and i think they have been most cooperative and i appreciate that and we learned a lot from that particular informal meeting. today is a little bit more formal. and we do have a lot that we can -- a lot of benefits. in 2010, 1.2 billion deaths on the world's highways. the united states, some ten years ago, we had 43,000 deaths. we've taken that down to 33,000
and there are a lot of positive things that is been done again through safety, technology, warning systems, a whole host of electronic devices thousand in our vehicles that make us safer. the positive economic benefit from connected vehicles is estimated to be $500 billion. and we want to ensure that the electronic systems we have in these vehicles can't be hacked, that in fact that we have safety provisions put in and protections for the consumer and for the public. in 2012, when i helped author the map 21 bill, we directed national highway safety -- traffic safety administration to
complete a review and ultimately determine the needs for safety in vehicles and an electronic system. we'll hear from some folks today where they are in the requirement that we crafted and put in that bill. we're now a year and a half past the deadline we set in law. automatic though makautomakers setting their own cyber standards which is the good news. the bad news is that we have a lot of variety and people going in different directions. while the national highway safety -- traffic safety administration continues to move forward mandating dictated short range communication devices in cars, we must make certain that this technology hasn't been surpassed by the next best thing that is coming up.
and advances this technology are rapid. we've spent over $500 million in testing just this technology that was discovered in 1999. and in 1999, the state-of-the-art for some of our communications was the flip phones and we've come a little bit further from that. so while i fully support connected vehicle technology and help with its advancement, in the future we'll see vehicles that can talk to each other. we'll see safety provisions in vehicles that will make cars safer and more reliable. and have a whole host of features that will benefit the consumer and the traveling public. but we must be able to allow a bridge to get to that environment as the new technologies come to light while remaining cognizant of the need for consumer privacy.
so this afternoon i look forward to hearing testimony from our potential witnesses and i pledge to work collaboratively. we're entering a new exciting era, but we want to be ready for it. let me now recognize his duckworth ranking member of the sub committee for her opening statement. >> thank you and welcome both to chairman hurd and ranking member kelly. welcome also to our witnesses. today there are an estimated 5 billion devices that make up the ecosystem that we call the internet of things. it's not just fit bits, smartphones and baby monitors. our motor vehicles rely on the same methods of communication. and as we've seen too many times, computers and computer networks are regularly the victims of hackers. we've already mentioned the july
incident this rear when a vehicle was hacked. less than a month later, from that instance, a resensearcher demonstrated how hackers could learn a home address, steal credit card information and much more. so far are there have been no known incidents of malicious attempts, but i have to ask the witnesses here today is that because the overall security of the vehicle computers is that good or have we simply been that lucky? congress gave the national highway transportation safety administration the responsibility to regulate cyber security in vehicles. but manufacturers and 134r50irs in the best position to identify weaknesses in their own products. ensuring the cyber safety of cars, van, trucks and motorcycles on the nearly 4 million miles of roads that crisscross the united states require partnership of government, industry and researchers. each has an important role to play. so that is why i find it especially troubling that
according to bloomberg one of the automobile manufacturers involved in the july hack waited 18 months, 18 months, to tell federal safety regulators about the security flaw qulil the other manufacturer reportedly knew about the vulnerability for five years. those failures by manufacturers to report cyber security vulnerabilities to the federal government undermine the partnership that is necessary to protect the public safety from cyber security threats. that is simply unacceptable. as transportation secretary fox said in may, connected automated vehicles that communicate with other vehicles have the potential to revolutionize road safety and save thousands of lives. i look forward to examining these issues in more detail and thank the chairman for bringing this hearing. >> i'd now like to recognize mr. hurd who chairs the subcommittee on information technology for his opening statement.
>> thank you, chairman mica. today's hering is one of a series of hearings and we're proud to join with you andcommie today. my first car was a toyota 4 runner and i liked to call her shirley marie. i got the her in the summer of 2000 and had it up until the summer of 2013. one thing that she couldn't do was connect to the internet. frash forward to 2020. one in five vehicles on the road worldwide will have some form of wireless network connection. amounting to more than 250 billion connected vehicles. a recent study predicts that the internet of things which includes the internet of cars could have a total potential economic impact of between $4 trillion and $11 trillion by 2025. the report further states that the hype afternoon the internet of things may actually
understate the full potential. i agree. the hype likely does understate the pull foe foe, but only if policymakers, consumers and other stakeholders understand where real value can be created and focus on supporting innovation. i worry that overeager regulators will overact to a stunt hack with restrictive regulations and heavy handed legislation. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on what steps they're taking proactively to secure their connected vehicles and protect people's safety as well as their privacy. i look forward to hearing from mr. garfield so what the many companies he represents are doing so that they can be confident and embrace the benefits offered by connected vehicles. and i look forward to hearing from mr. bus on what nhtsa is
doing while staying strictly within the statutory authority and taking care not to hamper innovation. i yield back. >> thank you. i'm pleased now recognize miss kelly who is the rappinginking of the subcommittee on information technology. welcome again. >> i thank chairman hurd and chairman mica as well as ranking member duckworth and our witnesses. today's cars have been dubbed computers on four wheels. they gather and store vast array of personal information about their drivers affording greater convenience and safety. but also greater erosion of pry vast ey and security. our automakers are inventing new technologies that have made the driver's experience more enjoyable and efficient. over the air and vehicle to vehicle technologies, things that were once only science fiction, can save lives and help prevent accidents. but with great innovation comes new questions over security challenges and how data is
stored and used. as the number of internet connected cars grows, so, too, does the threat of vehicle hacking. if cars are going to store personal sensitive information about where the driver lives, the route the driver takes to get there and where the driver stops along the way, there should be assurances that the information is stored securely and protects the identity of the driver. our subcommittee's review of previous cyber attacks on government and corporate computer networks reveals that the same vulnerabilities show up time and time again. the enter connectivity of seemingly unrelated parts of the net works makes it substantially easier for a hacker to move through a networkconnectivity o seemingly unrelated parts of the net works makes it substantially easier for a hacker to move through a network and locate sensitive personal information. but it's not just computer systems that lack segmentation. seemingly unrelated components of internet connect the cars do as well. a modern car's brakes can talk to its radio. the radio can tell whether the doors are locked and the doors know whether the windshield
wipers are on. one of the key topics for me is whether the auto industry is designing cars with operating systems that securely store personal information. as we enter this great age of tremendous technological innovation, i'll be focused on how automakers, congress and regulators can work together to secure our vehicles from made learn issues attacks and protect americans and their data. i thank our witnesses for their participation today and look forward to hearing your thoughts on how we can achieve this goal. chairman hurd, chairman mica, i'd like to yield my team to the representative from california. >> thank you for yielding the time and thank you chairman mica, chairman hurd and ranking member duckworth for calling this important hearing. with the pervasiveness of
technology, cyber security becomes more important than ever. unlike other sector, security and privacy by design are not yet fully engrained in automotive manufacturing culture as evidenced by the news regarding cars cyber security issues with wireless entry keys and hacks of cars. however regulation can be slow, rigid and discourage innovation if done wrong. rushing regulation is not in my opinion the answer, but neither is a lack of accountability or standards. the advances that the industry has made in the past year such as setting up information sharing and analysis center and set of enforceable price svacy principles have been done in part because of pressure. the spy car study act, a bipartisan bill, is a step in bringing industry advocates and government together to strike a balance between innovation and consumer protection. i serve on active duty in the military, i'm in the reserves. and i'm trying to think about
worst case scenarios. so there are three overarching scenarios and questions i'd like to pose to the panel and hopefully during the time today you might be able to answer it. the first is, is it possible now or in the future for a hacker to remotely take control of a car and use it either as a weapon or cause an accident. second, is it possible now or in the future for a hacker to take control of a fleet of cars and use them as weapons or cause accidents. and then third, is it possible for a hacker now or in the future to take partial control of a car so let's say you're going down the highway 60 miles per hour and suddenly the brakes go on without your knowledge thereby causing an accident. i'd be curious if those are theoretical possibilities and second, if so, what can be done to mitigate that. i look forward to hearing the testimony from today's panel of witnesses and look forward to
asking additional questions on this issue of public importance. thank you. and i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. since there are no other statements, any other members have any other quick statement sths chen the chair will hold the record open for five legislative days for any member who would like to submit a written statement. let's turn now to recognizing our panel of witnesses. i'm pleased to welcome first the associate administrator of vehicle safety research at the national highway traffic safety administration, united states department of transportation. mr. harry lightsy, global public policy at general motors company, mr. sandy lowensteen,
vice president of connected services and product planning at toyota motor north america. and mr. darmid o'connell, he is vice president of corporate and business development at tesla motors incorporated. mr. dean garfield is the president and ceo of the information technology industry council. and finally miss barnes, the associate director and administrative law counsel at the electronic privacy information center. quell come welcome to all. i'll swear you in in just a second and we also try to get to you limit your statement, your verbal statement before the committee to five minutes.
you can ask through the chair to have additional information or data put in to the record. so with that, we are in investigative and oversight committee and subcommittees of congress. if you'd please stand and i'll swear you in. raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give before this joint subcommittee meeting of congress is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? let the record reflect that all of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. thank you. be seated. okay. we'll foe riggo right to our wi. let me start by welcome you back and thank you for your cooperation. administrator of the vehicle safety research at national
highway traffic safety administration, welcome and you're recognized, sir. and bring the mikes up as close as you can so we can hear you. >> good afternoon, chairman mica, hurd, ranking members duckworth and kelly. and members of the subcommittees. i appreciate this opportunity to testify about how the national highway traffic safety administration or nhtsa is addressing emerging challenges associated with new connected vehicle technologies. in 2013, there were over 5.7 million vehicle crashes in the united states that resulted in 32,719 deaths. the consequences of these crashes range from personal tragedies that will impact individual families forever to the billions in economic dollars that we can actually measure. nhtsa's mission is to address these crashes and the increasing use of connected and automated vehicle technologies we believe can help us do that. when combined together, new technologies such as vehicle to
vehicle communications or v to v and automated technologies have the potential to dramatically change the safety picture in the united states p however, as the chairman pointed out, these new technologies also bring new and different challenges. for example, consumers hear a lot about cyber security as is related to banks and person at information. indeed it on which seems like every other day there is a breach reported in the media. now in the auto space cyber security is taking on new visibility. even showing you in it tv show as recently as this past weekend. ni nhtsa believes the challenges associated with connected vehicles are addressable and should not keep us there pursuing innovation that can save lives. testing and analysis indicates that v to v can address up to approximately 80% of crashes involving two or more motor vehicles. this technology promises to be transformative and can even enable a new era of safety that not only saves live, but brings other benefits, as well.
when fully realized, this communication technology is even beyond vehicles in the infrastructure. it can be deployed to other devices that would be carried by ped pest and cyclists there by addressing those types of crashes, as well. however for v to v to be effective, it relies on a robust security system and for the vehicles themselves to be secure. in exploring the potential of connected vehicles and other advanced technologies, nhtsa understood that cyber security would be essential to the public acceptance of new vehicle systems and to fulfill the safety promise they hold. to develop a robust cyber security environment, nhtsa modified its organizational structure, developed vital partnerships, adopted a layered approach, considered legislative actions, and encouraged be members of the industry to take independent steps to help improve the cyber security posture of vehicles. nhtsa's goal is to be ahead of potential cyber security challenges and seek ways to address them. nhtsa consulted other government
agencies, vehicle manufacturers, suppliers and the public to develop its cyber program. the approach covers various safety critical applications deployed on current vehicles as well as those envisioned for future vehicles that may feature more advanced forms of communications and automation. however, we also believe there are tremendous opportunities in this realm for proactive steps. in fact such steps are essential. regulation and enforcement alone will not sb sufficient to address these risks. cyber security threats simply move too fast and are too varied for regulation to be the only answer. the auto industry can play an essential role by establishing rigorous best practices that address the broad range of cyber threats, by reacting quickly and appropriately when such threats emerge and pby working closely with the government and analysts to identified and defeat attacks. usdot and many, many partners
have spent some time developing the network and trusted architect dhure that goes along with this system. while we've made significant process, we believe more testing is necessary and we plan to undertake that work. the rust aspect trust aspect is situationed on pki. nhtsa tweaked the design to balance security and privacy. we take consumers' privacy very seriously and in the context of our notice of proposed rule making on vehicle to vehicle communications, we will address privacy as it relates to that system. the effectiveness of v to v technology in, light of growing demand for spectrum, spectrum sharing has been a topic of much discussion. d.o.t. is working closely with fcc and tia members of the industry, and other stakeholders on an expedited basis to test and evaluate potential sharing solutions for the 5.9 gigahertz
spectrum. we are waiting for devices. under the leadership of secretary fox, the department has taken several steps to support the deployment of v to v and v to i technology. in august 2014, nhtsa issued an advanced notice of proposed rule making. in 2016, we plan to follow that up with a proposal. and just recently the secretary announced some pilot programs all aimed to further deploy this technology. connected and automated vehicles that can sense the environment around them and communicate with with these other vehicles and with the infrastructure have the potential to revolutionize road safety and save thousands of lives. nhtsa is already laying the ground work needed for the road ahead and looks forward to working with congress, manufacturers, suppliers, and others in the administration and the american public in this exciting transportation future. i look forward to addressing your questions. >> thank you. and we'll with withhold questions until we've heard from everyone. let me introduce and welcome again harry lightsy, executive
director of global connected customer experience at general motors. >> thank you very much, chir man mica, chir man hurd, ranking member duckworth and ranking member kelly. and thank you for the opportunity to testify before your subcommittees. in the roughly 100 years of its existence, the automobile has impacted american life in ways unique to any other machine. it has impacted how we live and work, where we live and work, how our cities have grown and how our country has grown. yet the machine itself remains basically what it was at the time of its inception. a gasoline combustion engine connected by a drive train to wheels on the road driven by a human a being. but we are now entering an era where all those basic tenets
will change dramatically. they will be connected to each other in ways that will make the driving experience safer and more enjoyable. and they will more and more relieve the human being of the driving task. because we know that humans are fallible and will have crashes in cars, the automobile industry and the national highway transportation safety administration or nhtsa has spent the last half century designing and building automobiles to be safer when they crash with innovations line seatbelts, air bags and crumple zones. today we are designing and building automobiles to avoid collisions entirely with technologies like forward and rear collision warning, backup cameras, lane keeping, and blind spot warnings. increasingly these technologies allow the machine to assist in the driving task itself when the human driver does not react
appropriately or quickly enough to prevent a crash. soon technologies like vehicle to vehicle communications will be deployed with the promise to impact over 80% of the crashes on today's roads. the savings in terms of lives saved, property damage prevented, medical costs, and congestion will be enormous. at general motors, we're moving quickly to take advantage of these innovations. we are the first automobile manufacturer to build connectivity into our vehicles. and gm enstar has over 6 million customers in the united states and over 1 million connected on our 4 g lte broadband platform. we have deployed many advanced safety technologies into our vehicles. including announcing the deployment of vehicles with advanced rearview mirrors, and we are the only automaker that has announced a commitment to deploy vehicles with v to v
technology with our cadillac cts model next year. however, we must acknowledge that with change comes challenge. we must deploy these innovations in the safest manner possible. we must commit to our customers that we respect their privacy and will protect their information. our automobiles contain software that may have vulnerabilities that bad actors could exploit to threaten our customers' safety and privacy and we must do all we can to prevent automobile hacking. we must realize that we are competing with other technologies for the use of scarce resources. we must be able to use these resources in an efficient manner so long as that use does not interfere with the safety critical mission of our systems. if we have the freedom to innovate within these parameters, the promise of the future cannot be imagined today. thank you and i look forward to
your questions. >> thank you. and we'll now hear from mr. sandy lowensteen, vice president of connected services and product planning at toyota. welcome and you're recognized. >> thank you. good afternoon. it's an exciting time for the auto industry. more vehicles are being connected and outfitted with advanced safety features and onboard connected safety services as well as infotainment systems and we have the ability to interact with these from a smartphone. the truth is, though, that we are only at the beginning of the beginning. the connected car of the future will far surpass the connected carve today with its features and capabilities. to address questions about the use of vehicle data, the auto industry came together and developed privacy principles for vehicle technologies and services. these privacy principles include meaningful protections including heightened protections on the use of certain vehicle data like the vehicle's location or how someone drives. for example automakers agreed not to share data with third parties for their own use or to use this type of data for
marketing purposes without the affirmative consent of the vehicle owner. with the privacy principles, the auto industry is at the forefront of protecting consumer day take in the emerging internet of things. this code of conduct is precisely the type of effort that the government has encouraged from the private sector and it should serve as a model for other internet of things sectors. cyber security is also a key foe tuesday and although no criminal cyber attack on a vehicle has occurred, the auto industry is well aware that the cyber security risks that exist for other connected devices also exist for connected cars. we fully grasp the potential consequences of a successful real world attack. in that light, the auto industry is forming an isack. toyota is the first board chair and we're fully committed to the isack success. we expect information sharing beginning by the end of this
year. some are making the case that automotive specifics cyber security best practices and standards are needed. the question is whether automotive best practices will look any different than existing best practices that guide cyber security in other contexts. that being said, the auto industry recognizes that an effort to adapt existing best practices to the vehicle may be appropriate. that is why the industry has recently embarked on an effort to identify existing best practices that are being and can be applied to vehicles and to address any potential gaps. for the very same reasons that the government has refrained from mandating cyber security standards in other sectors, there is a significant risk with the government mandating cyber security standards for vehicles. industry can move quicker than government to update out of date practices or to adjust to new threats. in addition, setting specific government standards may encourage some companies to simply comply, not do more to protect consumers.
finally, a sector specific approach will almost certainly have significant implications for the harmonious development of the internet of things at large. as the internet of cars evolves, we are also on the cusp of a radical transformation in vehicle safety that will be made possible by vehicle to vehicle communications. dedicated short range communication or dsrc is a technology take will allow us to overcome the range, field of view and line of sight challenges posed by sensor technology. enabling vehicles to identify clis threats at a greater distance or around a corner. when the fc krcht allocated spectrum in the 5.9 gigahertz band, it spurred collaboration on drc development. the fcc is also currently exploring opening up the ban to unlicensed devices. we support the ross spect of sharing spectrum if it can be approach that no harmfuldevelop
proceeded to validation testing. in closing, i'd like to provide two final observations. first, the internet of cars ecosystem is evolving. technology companies, telecommunications providers, insurance companies and others have introduced and will continue to introduce products and technologies designed to directly communicate with vehicles. as the ecosystem continues to evolve, responsibility for protecting vehicles from potential cyber attacks and for preserving consumer privacy should also evolve to include all relevant players in this space. second, there is a number of federal agencies that are seeking to oversee, regulate or influence cyber security and privacy related to the internet of things either broadly or
within narrow subsets. the resulting efforts and initiatives is exceedingly difficult to manage and prioritize. without consolidation of these efforts, clarify kafgs tication roles and better coordination, the opportunity provided will almost certainly suffer. thank you for the opportunity to testify before you. >> thank you. and we'll recognize mr. darmid o'connell, vice president of business development for tesla. welcome, sir. you're recognized. >> good afternoon. thank you, mr. chairman, members of the committee. we appreciate the opportunity to come here today and for the opportunity to speak. tesla cars are known for being exceptionally safe, independent testing by nhtsa has awarded tesla five stars p not just overall, but in every sub kit category without exception. approximately 1% of all cars tested by the federal government
achieve five stars across the board. automotive injury and fatality rates have fallen significantly over the last several decades as a result of crash safety improvements such as air bags, energy absorbing vehicle structures and tesla believes in order to maintain the pace of e reducing injuries and fatality rates, vehicles need to increasingly use systems to avoid crashes. two examples leading to significant safety benefits are the following. the first would be automatic emergency braking. a vehicle feature will attempts to avoid accidents by applying brakes when a collision is believed imminent. tesla is one of ten vehicle manufacturers who have committed to making this a standard feature in all vehicles and already delivered on this promise. the same connected vehicle technology is applied to tesla's autopilot functionality where improvements are constant as vehicles effectively learn from
varying road conditions and share those learning with the entire fleet through connectivity. several studies demonstrate uptick rates of recalls in general are about 70%. that is to say that for a given vehicle fault that warrants a recall, about 70% of the vehicles affected will get repaired. put another way, 30% of vehicles will be left driving around in contra of safety standards. connected vehicle technology offer as significant opportunity for to us do better. modern vehicles are heavily software controlled and therefore software changes alone can often resolve a safety issue. in late 2013, tesla became aware of a potential hazard believed to be related to incorrect third party rezem september cal installation and wiring. after rapid investigation, a software change was identified, capable of detecting and solving the third party fault. because of tesla's leading connected vehicle capabilities, the software solution was automatically delivered to the entire fleet. in contrast to industry average,
recall updates of 70%, tesla's automatic software update can achieve update rates of nearly 100% within a short amount of time measured in days. so precautions and concerns as we go forward. the first precaution is to ensure that any software updates to a vehicle are authorized by the manufacturer. this can be achieved by using industry standard crypt to go graph if i, a tick knowledge severed to as signing. the second precaution is to stroonkly isolate networks from the mechanical systems of a vehicle. if a processor has network connectivity, the processor should not also have direct kicks to the vehicle's mechanical systems, ie steering being acceleration, prbrakes an dweer selection. we don't have gear selection, but that's a separate matter. this technology is referred to as gateway. the third precaution is to use encrypted communication protocols. this ensures privacy and integrity of data.
with respect to regulation, we're in a period of rapid innovation for automotive safety. tesla safety already significantly benefits. we expect innovation and success in delivering enhanced safety to only continue as the full potential of connected vehicles is realized. overzealous or premature regulation that does not allow for innovation can actually deter or block safety innovations. and as a result, any move in this direction must be considered carefully and only to the extent absolutely necessary in our view. thank you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony and we'll welcome any questions. >> i'd like to recognize mr. garfield. he's with iti. welcome. >> thank you chairman mike came, chairman hurd, ranking member duckworth, ranking member kelly, members of the committee. on behalf of 65 of the most dynamic companies in world, we thank you for hosting this hearing. it is perfectly timed before 42
million americans get on the road to engage in their thanksgiving commute and i would suspect that five and ten years from now, the cars in that commute will look quite different. and so i'll focus my testimony so that issue, which is the transformation that is occurring, the in-though vags that is taking place in that space first, and then second what we're doing to ensure that we accelerate deployment but in a secure and safe way. it's often said that it's difficult to appreciate history when you're experiencing it and living in the middle of it. but from my conversation with our companies, we're living in an innovation renaissance. the convergence of almost ubiquitous broad band with good exponential improvement and as well as low cost and unlimited storage, it's transforming mobile computing. that includes the car. we see that manifested today in
advanced driver assistance systems, whether that is the adaptive cruise control or automatic braking which i have in high car which has prevented accidents on multiple occasion, we'll see that in the future in what the other panelists have mentioned, whether it's vehicle to vehicle or vehicle to infrastructure communication or in autonomous vehicles. our companies are working hard at deploying technologies to make those types of vehicles available sooner rather than later. whether that is dedicated short range communications, advanced lte, or 5g wireless. as a number of the panelists has noted, it is early days yet so it's impossible to tell which technology will work most effectively. what we do know is that there will be radical transformative improvement in safety access as well as how we view our cities. the other panelists have spoken about some of the safety issues, so i won't repeat that. but think about all of the people today who aren't able to
drive because of a disability or because they're too old are or because they're too young. through connected vehicles or autonomous vehicles, those people will have access to transportation in a way that they don't today. similarly when we don't have to think about cars being parked all the time, the way we think about our cities will change dramatically. our companies are investing billions of dollars to bring that to the market sooner rather than later. and are partnering with men man the companies on this panel in order to make that possible and as well working with with the public sector to enable that. a big part of our work is ensuring that consumers have confidence in the safety and security of those vehicles. and security will become even more prominent in the future. for us, we have long experience working on security issues particularly cyber security.
whether it's protecting networks from a network edge to the cloud and everything in between. and increasingly the norm is security pby design, which is building in resiliency and redundancy at the the software and hardware level. what that means is you can actually build into a clip set the encryption protocols to protect on intended encroachment as well as the ability to adapt if that encryption is circumvented. we have found it quite productive to work in advancing that work. nis has taken a collaborative approach in working with the public and private sector working together in coming up with a framework of standards achb and best practices while allowing sufficient flexibilities for innovation. there is still work left to be done and that speaks to the role that congress can play. a number of the members of the panel have pointed to the number
of efforts and initiatives that are being undertaken in this space. congress can play an important role in bringing order to that cacophony. second, there is really a need and ranking member duckworth made this point for a national information strategy. there is so much work taking place, but not much of it is well coordinated into a national strategy that serves our economic, security and safety interests. finally, once we look at what is being done and develop a strategy, there is an appropriate place for regulation to deal with with market gaps. and we would advocate the approach that has been taken by nis in developing a regulatory framework that is based on best practices that ultimate allows for flexibility is the appropriate approach. thank you.
>> thank you. and we'll recognize waiting patiently miss barnes, associate collector and administrative law counsel at the electronic privacy information center. welcome and you're recognized. >> thank you chairman mica, chair made hurd, ranking member kelly and ranking member duckworth.made hurd, ranking me kelly and ranking member duckworth. epic is an independent nonprofit research organization focused on emerging privacy and related human rights issues. we thank you for holding the hearing today and for taking time to consider the important privacy implications of the enter neither of cars. new vehicle technologies offer a variety of new services to american drivers and are quickly being implemented by car companies. but these new technologies typically based on internet connectivity also raise substantial privacy and security concerns that congress needs to address. as cars become more
technologically sophisticated, they collect a lot of personal data. including physical location, destinations, text messages and phone records. records. most car companies and other companies, including google, fail to inform consumers of their data collection practices and few give consumers true control over their data. auto companies also use personal driving information for various but vague purposes which leaves consumers in the dark about who has access to their information and why. this information is often retain for years, if not indefinitely. the very real possibility of remote car hacking pose a substantial risk to driver safety and security. connected cars can be remotely hacked and controlled from anywhere in the world via the internet where hackers can take control of various features including brakes, steering and car locks. wireless hacking can also provide access to the car's
physical location using built-in gps navigation systems which can facilitate crimes such as stalking harassment and car theft. congress must enact meaningful safeguards to protect privacy and security in the internet of cars. last year a group of 12 automakers including general motors signed a voluntary pledge for privacy and security, and while it's a first line step it's no baseline for data regulations. the pledge fails to provide central privacy protections, lacks any meaningful enforcement and supports the status quo of the wholesale collection of sensitive driver data. to protect the privacy and security of american drivers, congress will need to do more. first, congress should act on pending legislation. the spy car act of 2015 would establish federal standards for connected cars. the act empowers nesita in
in fact, we would impose -- oppose enactment of the house draft which would be a step backwards for americans who are concerned about privacy and security. second, congress should establish fines for hacking connected cars but only where there's malicious intent. this will permit research to uncover security vulnerabilities, many of which we've discussed today while punishing hacking that is intended to cause harp. third, congress should grant nhtsa authority to issue privacy rules. the spy car act of 2015 with its emphasis on enforcement -- on enforcible nhtsa rules and civil fines for offenders provides the type of privacy and security safeguards drivers need. as congress moves forward, it is critical that nhtsa has rule-making authority over the emerging industry. nhtsa's rules should incorporate practices detailed in the consumer privacy bill of rights which is a sensible
comprehensive framework for privacy protections that provides substantive privacy protections and would help establish fairness and accountability for the collection and use of driver information. every day without car privacy and safety protections places countless drivers at risk of having their personal information or worse their physical safety compromised. it's time to put consumers back in the drivers seat when it comes to privacy. congress must act swiftly to compart the current and future privacy threats posed by the internet of cars. thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon, and i'll be pleased to answer your questions. >> well, thank you, and i thank all of our witnesses, and we'll if right into questions. first, let me get to the national highway traffic safety administration. in 2012 when i helped craft the map 21 legislation, put a
section 31492, electronic systems, performance, it said specifically not later than two years after the date of enactment. that the was july. i'd give you august of 2012 that the secretary shall complete an examination of the immediate for safety standards with regard to electronic systems and passenger motor vehicles and it has a couple of citias. it says responsible completion of the examination, the secretary shall submit a report to committees, and i see i screwed up. i should have put the department of transportation in here, too, because they don't have one, but we have commerce, science and transportation. senate and energy and commerce in the house. have you completed that report? >> no, mr. chairman. that report is still under review. what we have done is
unprecedented, put entire research program that we veltd in consultation with other government agencies, private agencies, et cetera out out -- >> i guess i just put these things in law and then we just forget them. it should have been july, we give you august of 2014. miss duckworth, sthnt '15 in november, okay. so we're a little bit behind? >> agreed it's taken way too long. >> is there a draft? >> there is a draft that's -- >> because i tried to get a draft from the committee, and they said they did not have one. this is from the -- from either of the committees. can you submit to the joint subcommittees here a draft? >> i'm not sure if i can, but we will take that back. >> you're not sure if you can. >> the work that has been done, that my office was responsible for, the four engineers that worked on if. >> okay. we want to see it.
you can and you will, and you'll have it here within ten days, okay. that's the way we operate here. so you didn't comply. we don't have any penalties now, do we, if someone hacks a vehicle, miss barnes? >> that is correct. >> so the law is still pending. you favor the senate side as far as privacy your testimony, but we've seen that they can be enacted. >> that's also correct. >> and so far no one with mal intent has tacked, but you could probably stop an engine, you could disable brakes or steering because all of those have electronic components. would that be a good assumption? i'm not technologically competent. >> that is correct, chairman. you would be able to disable those features. >> so they haven't acted in
congress hasn't acted, i have to put blame also on us. then we gave a lot of money, maybe -- >> if i may. >> yes, go right ahead. >> to suggest the implication of that chill can i suggests nothing is being done when in fact much is being done. >> it's not that nothing is being done. >> particularly on cyber security. >> we give certain directives. i was going to get to the question of them working with you all, both, and you did talk nhtsa and the standards had a pretty good report back and nhtsa, both everybody has participated. have you participated, mr. lightsey with them? >> yes, mr. chairman, we embraced the nhtsa framework. we've adopt that had into our -- >> with both of those federal agencies or with the private sector group?
>> we've had discussions with nist and with mr. nhtsa. >> and you, mr. lowenstein? >> yes. >> we've also had discussion. >> the mr. o'connell? >> to be factually perfectly accurate i'm certainly -- we're absolutely involved with nitta on an ongoing basis. can't test to the involvement with nist. >> again, i commend you to come together and working and don't want to imply knock is done but my job is to give certain directives to agency. i'm not here just to look good. i know i do, but -- >> yes, you do, mr. chairman. >> but my job is to hold their feet to the fire, and when you put something in law, the newer members will find around the here. i put things in law, three, four times and they still don't comply but we won't if there today. we gave you a lot of money.
we spent $500 million in taxpayer funds testing the dedicated short range radio communications devices. what's nhtsa currently doing to address the potential issues with security pre-dengs management system? where are we on that? >> those funds are not nitta funds. those are the jpo funds, joint program office funds. >> is that under you? >> that is not under me. >>i who is it under? >> under the joint program office which is now part of the office of the. >> but it's under d.o.t. >> it is under d.o. >> under you, okay. >> under d.o.t., but very had had half a million. what's the result there? >> sure. what we're doing, what the department is doing is putting sort of hardware behind that syst system. i alluded what has been done is a lot of smart people coming up with a design and now we feel we need to actual hi build this and
operate it and see what are the vulnerabilities it and do some large-scale testing. >> do you have any idea exactly where? i'm told some of what you've done we've really actually slid behind the advances in technology and how much more money, how much more time will it take, do you know? >> i think that's exactly why we've committed to putting this technology out for public comment as part of a nhtsa proposal in 2016. >> so that's not until next year? >> in two months or so we'll start 2016. he asked us to accelerate that rule-make which we have. >> we've spent a lot of money and we don't see a lot of progress, and when would you have your final report, the report that i requested here, it's in draft. you're going to give us the draft. what will you have that finalized? >> i can get back to you on the record on that, sir.
>> within the next ten days? >> okay. >> absolutely. >> absolutely. >> i want a firm date and the i want it made part of the record, okay. >> absolutely. >> don't mean to be, you know, demanding, but i -- >> sir, i understand your frustration. >> okay. again, we try to act responsibly and we expect the agencies to do the same thing. so right now just my final question, cars can be hacked with electronics systems. we don't have in place either a standard or ability to stop that. i guess that's a simply way to put it. is that correct, mr. lightsey? >> mr. chairman, thank you. gm has invested a lot of time and effort into making it as difficult as possible to hack into cars. as i indicated, we've
embraced -- >> that's an individual effort. we applaud you for that, but my question is the we really don't have a standard. we don't have the ability to prevent that develop, do we? >> we have the ability to implement things as a business which is what we are doing. >> so your cars can't -- general motors cars can't be snakd. >> i can't say whether they'd be hacked or not. i'm saying we are making them as difficult as we possibly can. >> but that's your individual, and i'm asking about do we have a standard. we don't that i know. >> mr. lobensteen. >> yes, mr. chairman. i think we are trying to be proactive. >> but, again -- >> the question -- and i applaud each of you and tesla -- tesla will tell us they are five star and all of that, but my question is was there a standard developed, and is there a
protect in place in the answer is for you? >> we have actually begun working as an industry. >> okay. >> to establish cyber security best practices. >> but you don't have that in place. mr. o'connell? >> i'm unaware of an industry standard. one thing i would add, sir, there is a difference between sort of hard access hacking and wireless hacking, and that's something we need reform on. hard access hacking has happened in isolated cases. wireless hacking -- >> there are no protections or standards? >> no standards that i'm aware. >> so it can be done. again, part of the responsibility is congress has set no penalties. we haven't held the agency's feet to the fire. i'll give you the last word, miss barnes. anything you want to comment on. >> sure. i will point out in our written
testimony key examples of other researchers finding ways to wirelessly hack into vehicles. >> okay. >> there's a difference between there being standards and there being laws. there are certainly standards being developed around cyber security, and there are certainly laws in place that would punish someone, whether it's the computer fraud and abuse act or the digital millennium computer fact folks hacking into cars or anything else. the question is are there laws mandating particular standards and i would argue that mandating a particular standard would be the absolute wrong approach. >> well, we don't have that, but we still don't have industrywide standards or protections. >> on hacking, on privacy, a whole host of things we've heard today -- >> just on that last question. the industry group, we last
developed a set of voluntary industry practices and we're just looking at it. >> usually things happen just before the hearings. let's go on. >> can you talk about what sort of mechanisms or organizations and also by the industry to work towards secure internet connected vehicles. >> sure. there's actually been quite a bit of work done. nitta was really at the
forefront in trying to encourage the development. we're very pleased that it's actually up and running right now. we think there's additional steps that are necessary. one is clarifying what the role that it will have in its interacts with the agency and also how that group will be expanded to other sectors, including suppliers. >> i would hike to speak to the suppliers portion of it. this is something that has come up on my work on the armed services committee on military equipment, cyber security is certainly something of great, great potential harm to our military, and one of the things that i found out that for military weapons platforms, something as critical as to new f-35 fighter jet, there's not complete security of the supplier network. can any of the gentlemen from the three automobile manufacturers here talk a little bit about what you've done to secure or safeguard or ensure that you're supply network is
one that you can trust. i have in my congressional district a chip manufacturer which has been identified by the u.s. folks as a problematic issue of espionage, both in corporate espionage as well as in governmental intelligent espionage as well. what are you doing to make sure that the chips -- i'm assuming you don't make your own chips, but what are you doing to make sure that your supply network is also secure? >> thank you, ranking member. so gm, as i was indicating to the chairman, we've been undertaken a substantial amount of resources and time into the whole cyber security issue. in fact, we created an organization whose sole mission is end iing -- and that -- that
includes our supply chain, and we have requirements that our suppliers must meet. we audit them on those requirements and we test their products. security by design so from the very beginning of the design of those products all the way through to production. those -- those products are tested and external experts. >> for cyber vulnerabilities, are you talk being about -- >> yes. >> for cyber vulnerabilities. >> mr. o'connell? >> yes, for toyota. cyber security and safety is of paramount interest to us, and we
also use industry and best security practices including security by design, risk asse assessments and multi-layer defense and we have our cyber security team embedded in our activities from the day that we put pen to paper on a strategy four years before our product is launched, through development and through engineering and one thing i also wanted to mention is that we've also invited our suppliers to participate in that so we're springing them into isac so we can share information with them as well. >> mr. o'connell? >> a couple of thoughts. maybe are consistent with what my colleagues have mentioned with regard to looking at scener security and the general robustness of the system. a couple of things to differentiate tes larks one is our concern based on being an industry leader in the electric vehicle space. we have a unique concern about the integrity of our operations because as a new industry
entrant we're uniquely subject to these risks. that said, we take a systems level approach, especially on software development but also on our vehicle said so we have a much higher degree of vertical integration. many of our software systems are design from the ground up and it adds a whole system rather than relying on outside providers of software. with respect to our chip technologies we are largely, to my knowledge, sourcing from domestic sources, but we are wholly, you know, focused on the vulnerabilities as any silicon valley company would be. >> i'm out of time. mr. chairman. >> thank you. always appreciate your insightfulness and questioning. now it's an honor to recognize my colleague from the great state of texas for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and appreciate the opportunity to be here. you pronounce your name mr
mr. beuse? >> buce. >> there's companies like google, uber, intel are making in autonomous vehicles overall and you a son mouse vehicle crash vehicle technologies that don't rely on dsrc at all. what, if any, steps is nhtsa taking to support this time of innovation which, you know, one of the reasons the u.s. leads globally in intelligent transportation systems. >> so with respect to the automated vehicle technologies we couldn't agree more. there's a future for both, connected and automate and we're pushing hard on both. if you see recent examples by the secretary on the automatic breaking we integrate that had new technology into our automated programs. the other thing we've done is
we've encouraged industry to slowly make that technology standard. slowly by meaning to get to a place where they can offer that as a standard feature on all models without a regular and that was a place where that could happen. pushing on the automated technologies and likewise on connected vehicle technology we believe it's a mandate that's necessary to get that market to go. >> so how are we going to tie this in with the proposal to mandate it for vehicles? requiring these companies to put dsrc on top of their own technologies, and are we forcing a standard on folks that we may not be ready for? >> i think that's exactly what the proposal is meant to find out, sir. i think if you look at the approach of the department, it is to try to get this technology out of research phase and ready to deploy and ask some of these
very difficult questions of the technology about if it's fit to deploy. we certainly believe it's ready to deploy. we believe the two technologies are complementary and not in competition with each other and that there's a role for both. >> all right. thank you very much. mr. o'connell, i want to visit a little bit about what you guys are doing at tesla. y'all take a different approach to determining security issues and other concerns where you basically have a bug bounty on there and employ white hat hackers. can you talk a little bit about what you do and why that's a good thing and how it's working. >> sure. our approach is really consistent with software development, if you will, silicon valley approach to hardening software over the course of time and it relies on a system of incentives whereby we encourage folks to test our system, both in professional and formal environments, and we
reward them when they identify vulnerabilities. this is consistent with the sort of incentives and disincentive systems that i think generally works in the human environment, but we find it works -- it's worked very well in most software environments, and it's working very well for us as well. it allows us to rapidly identify problems and rectify them and then through connectivity as i mentioned before implement the solutions. >> all right. mr. beuse, recently the u.s. on an international basis supported a global standard for dsrc in the w band at 77 gigahertz. while we're looking locally at a whole different frequency range, you know, and 50 gigahertz. is this an example of one hand not talking to the other. wouldn't we be better off with one international global standard? >> i'm not exactly familiar with that particular issue. i do know that on the technology
radio side of things we have worked very hard to make sure that we have staple standards on both sides of the atlantic, so to speak so that we can have one common set of hardware. >> mr. lobensteen, would you like to address that. >> we fully support the idea of spectrum sharing. there's been some deployment actually in the japanese market near the 5.8 gigahertz band. we also think it's important to protect this bandwidth within the united states because dsrc provides life services, and we need to make sure that -- >> is there a technical reasons it's not going to work at 77 gigahertz like the rest of the world is talking about? >> i'm sorry, but i'm not a technologist so i'll have to pass on this. >> if i might. >> sure. >> it speaks to the point we were making earlier about all of the different -- the disparate efforts in this area and why an agency that's focused on standards and standards development global like nist has to be a part of this
conversation. >> i see i'm out of time. i look forward to a second round of questions. >> thank, congressman. now i'd like to recognize the ranking member of the i.t. subcommittee and my friend from the great state of illinois, robin kelly for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> the promise of internet-connected vehicles is that they bring greater levels of comfort, convenience and safety, but that same internet connectivity means that these computers on wheels face the same cyber threats and vulnerabilities as other computers. mr. garfield, given the volume of successful compromises of corporate and government networks in your estimation how likely is it that we'll see hackers instead of just researchers succeed in hacking into cars and especially in light of police barnes' testimony? >> it's hard to predict the future, but i think the likelihood is real and that it is likely. i think the -- the information
that mr. o'connell shared about the approach in the software industry on taking an agile approach where we just tinnially were testing continually and integrating security and privacy by design with redundancy, resiliency and robustness so we're not compromised completely is the proper approach. >> is there anything that keeps you up at night, any scenario that concerns you the most? >> generally i sleep quite well, but actually i think part of my worry is that all of the great things that we've been talking about will be a dream deferred because our policy apparatus won't be as agile as our software development to keep up with these shifts, and so i get the instinct to act, and we should act. what we're suggesting is that we act in a strategy coordinated fashion that ensures our shared
interests are achieved. >> and when you think of new features that you're adding to your cars, is there anything not that you would do it on purpose but that you're add being that you think could be negatively compromised as you're getting more connected i guess? >> yeah. so as we've said, we certainly embrace all tenets that mr. garfield has spoken about, and we incorporate security by design, defense and depth tragedies throughout our review, and so from the very beginning that any service or hardware begins to be -- to go through the design cycle for our automobiles that cyber security posture of that particular element is being evaluated, is the risk of being assisted and appropriate measures are being
taken to mitigate that risk and that goes all the way through production and into the life cycle of the vehicle itself. >> thank you. >> for toyota the safety and trust of our customers is paramount, and as i mentioned before on the telematic side we implore the same best practices mentioned here today. we include our cyber security experts from the very beginning and they provide feedback to us that we implement, and i think as we go forward we'll continue to expand on that and we also look forward to working on an industry to develop cyber security best practices that we can all employ. >> you didn't ask me, but i sleep well at night, too, and for two reasons. one, i know that we are employing within tesla some of the industry's best as far as developing new applications and considering issue, important issues such as privacy issues
and cyber security. the other piece that gives me peace at night that we are working with a context as the representative referred to as open innovation whereby it's not wholly -- the integrity of our systems is not wholly reliant on the capabilities of tesla but rather -- >> thank you. lastly, at the beginning of your testimony, mr. beuse, you talked about some of the statistics of people dying on the highway. mr. garfield, your testimony references a tremendous economy and societal benefits that can be derived from autonomous and connected vehicles. in your opinion what should congress be doing and the federal government more broadly to ensure the potential of this technology is realized? what more can we do? >> thanks for asking.
there is certainly work for congress. there are so many different agencies that are working on the internet of things and connected cars are a part of that. congress can play a great role in bringing clarity on a path forward and filling gaps whery in exist so, for example, representative lou spoke the spy act that's going through the house and trying to bring order to all the twhoork is going on. we think that that would be quite helpful. thank you and i yield back. >> now i would like to recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. about five or six years in the early '90s i worked in the automobile industry on the retail side, and i can look back over those 20 years and see how much paperwork on the dealer side was required then to how much is required now. so the last thing that we want
is more federal regulations on these men and women who are working hard to provide jobs out in the industry. so i do have a couple of questions though to make sure that we're headed the right direction for mr. beuse. what role, if any, in the internet of cars can only be fueled by the federal government? i would like to hear your thoughts on that. >> one of the things we're doing is really trying to ensure proactive steps from the get-go. it's been mentioned a couple times about security by design. one of the things that we've been doing al along is we saw this coming from very far away that in order to see the vision of the future with automated and connected vehicles. we really had to start focusing on that and so we've been push pentagon and prodding as best as we can to get that happening. >> sure. in your opinion do we really need an auto industry specific regulator and auto specific best practices and standards here, or
is the national institute of standards and technology voluntary set the security frameworks sufficient enough or the right approach? can you address that? >> it might be all of that, sir. righty mooeld might be all of that. right now we've had a two-pronged approach, first, working directly with nist to work with the auto industry on best practices but as a regularity agency we have to keep in mind that it is our job and if there is a need to set a floor we will do so. >> let me say but, mr. beuse, for a couple minutes or so. does the federal trade commission generally have jurisdiction under section five to police the privacy policies of automakers to the extent they collect customer personal information from these connected devices? >> that's a question probably more directed to the itc and what i can tell you is we have been working with the ftc on privacy issues. >> okay. >> does the department of transportation or the nhtsa have
any particular expertise that would warrant having them rather than the ftc to answer your response over the privacy policies related to the connected car devices? >> we do have privacy experts. that is one of the things that we'll be addressing in our rule making and so we have expertise at the agency and at the department. >> is there a certain time frame? is this a date or conference or meeting that you will be addressing this? is there a specific meeting for that? >> sure, sure. what we'll be doing is in the context of our proposed rule making we'll have much discussion on the privacy access. >> most of the technologies that are development are indpelt of the dsrc and do not rely on the dsrc. what nhtsa doing to further develop adoption and not hamper the innovation we're seeing is. >> we're using all the tools at our disposal, regulations where appropriate and consumer tools
and it's an era when we key life-saving technology we want to deploy it as soon as possible. >> miss barnes, in your testimony you noticed the sensitivity of the. can you describe what kind of personal identification might be collected and what entities would collecting it other than the vehicle manufacturers. >> thank you for your question. some examples of personal and identifiable information that can be collected is location information which can reveal an individual's pattern or habits. there's also the collection of biometric information, also the collection of credit card information, what certain telematics placed inside of the car, individuals can within their car speak into their system for a text message so that's audio and that's also text messages and looking at the privacy policies of certain auto manufacturers it's almost an endless amount of outside
entities. oftentimes car manufacturers do not specify the various third-party entities to which they give information to and we know in certain contexts it's marketers. we know that there is an increased market for insurance companies to gain additional access and without sufficient legal requirements law enforcement could also gain access to this sensitive information. >> all right. thank you. very well articulated. a few seconds left and maybe get a quick answer from our manufacture guys. regarding connected vehicles, in what countries are we seeing the most innovation on this right now? are you able to address that and maybe go down the line and with eight or nine seconds i'll yield back. >> i think it's certainly a very globally competitive part of the industry. i think right now the united states needs in terms of the deployment of advanced technologies and i think this is rapidly changing, and i think the proper policies need to be in place to assure that this innovation continues in the
united states. >> thank you. i agree. we're moving very quickly in the united states to adopt these types of technologies though in countries like japan, technologies like fence dsrc and v2 v and vfi have already been put in place. >> i won't refer to our unique regional hubris but the most advanced efforts are taking place in the u.s. right now and i would like to see us continue to be on the leading edge of that. >> thank you. yield back. >> you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to their the chairmen and the ranking members for this hearing. mr. o'connell, you can go on and talk about the hubris of the bay area as long as you want to, representing that area of the country. first of all, mr. chairman, i requested a state for the center democracy and technology be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> and then maybe to toyota and general motors, the whole issue
of independent researchers, mr. o'connell has talked to tesla's advocacy for -- for such comments. colleague talked about other technology companies doing that. could you tell me if toyota and general motors has the same feeling that they will allow for independent researchers to help them to make sure that their software is working properly, and i say this somewhat in the context that's happening in the industry vis-a-vis volkswagen. >> group security researchers and academics, as i said, they perform valuable services for us in terms of testing the vehicles software and the systems on the vehicle to help us design and make them better in design so that hacking them is more difficult. we are also and i'll publicly
disclose that we're looking very hard at a security vulnerability. whether or not it's exactly like the one that tesla described will be determined, but we should be ruling that out very quickly, and we want to know if our software has a vublt, we want to know that both from folks within the company and outside the company. >> mr. lobensteen. >> we at toyota also welcome information from the so-called white hat hackers. we have regular communications with them and have relationships with them and also attend some of the same conferences that they do, and we also do employ third-party systems to ensure that we have the most updated information and we're patching any vulnerabilities we might find. >> switching subjects to privacy. so the privacy principles are exciting to look at, but given miss barnes' concerns and i'll say my concerns in the
california legislature we had very spirited debates about providing for an opt out for any third-party data and the industry lobbied heavily for it and it didn't get out of first policy committee. so in that context i think with the language that you have in the privacy agreements that you've come up with and the value you place on consumer confidence and what you're using and the concerns that have been expressed here today as well, can you provide a comprehensive list of all the data currently tracked and stored in your vehicles, mr. lightsey? can you provide that information and can you provide it to the committee borrowing on the chairman's early comments of within a couple of weeks? >> sure, definitely. you know, our customer relationship is certainly the most valuable thing that we have in our company, and we respect the privacy of our customers, and we want to protect their information. i will say that before we
disclose any information to any third party we get the specific affirmative consent from our customer to do so. >> mr. lobenstein. >> we also follow a similar process. we want to be transparent with our consumers on the data we're collecting and how we're using it and for instances where location-based services are used we ask for the affirmative consent of those services because those sometimes provide hif-saving services including crash notification. >> mr. observing knoll? >> so several levels of protection involved at tesla first of all is the opt out. people have the option to not share any of their data with us. when we do share, when there is bidirectional flow of data we none mize it and we aggregate it such that not only can you not identify the user but you can't even identify the vehicle, so that -- that's our philosophy.
but the intent -- i'll remind the intent of all of this is to increase principally the safety of our vehicles and secondly of grave concern the utility of our vehicles and customers and drivers. >> i appreciate. hopefully we'll hit all of that. mr. xwarfield, hopefully you can comment on the industry's privacy standards in your view and how that related to other tech privacy protections. >> in general the -- the privacy norms in the united states and actually globally are driven by the fipp standards which are also at the heart regulation which over time has become more expansiv expansive. expectations that rex police italy articulated but those that are -- that are enormative. >> thank you, mr. garfield. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, sir. would i like to recognize myself for five minutes. mr. beuse, can you take 30
second and tell me, just to make sure i'm clear, what dsrc is. >> dedicated short range radio communications. >> and how is it going to be used? >> to send basic safety messages between devices. >> and this is being developed by the department of sglpgs in conjunction with a whole host of awful if a bet soup. >> federal agents sis? >> federal agencies, supplies, manufacturers, tech companies. >> here's my concern about that. dod and v.a. spent over half a billion dollars trying to get two electronic health records to work together, and after four years they said this is really hard. we're going to have to go separate areas, right, and now we're talking about being in an industry where you have so much private sector investment that are figuring this out. why are we even thinking about the federal government getting involved in doing this when we -- when a standard hasn't been developed in the private sector and the private sector
will be better equipped to develop this type of technology and the thing is probably going to work a little bit better. i don't know, mr. garfield, do you have some opinions on this? >> we do. >> i would like to hear them. >> the our view, and i shared it implicitly in may testimony, is that there are complementary technologies that are being developed including 5g that we can't tell which will prove most effective and so we think investigate ability for all of those, including dsrc to advance but without a thumb on the scale, including the thumb of the scale of the department of transportation. >> yeah. >> mr. beuse, why do we think that the department of transportation should be doing this and why this will be helpful in the concept of interconnected cars and i also appreciate you talking about the safety concerns related with interconnected cars. >> so maybe just to clarify. i think there's a misconception about what we're doing at proposal level, right. so we're writing a proposal to
ensure interoperability and security and everything else needed to support communications between vehicles f.at some point in the future or even in response to the proposal data comes in that shows there's an alternative technology that can meet safety potential -- >> do we not think that that's already there? i think tesla is doing it it. i think gm is even tinkered with this. i think -- the cat's out of the bag. >> in response to the arpm none of those comments came in. not one person said that this technology shouldn't be mandate. it's not the right technology but i think we're writing that rule-making with an open mind and it's just a proposal so the idea is we'll get comment and we'll evaluate where we are. the whole notion of going this step is really to take it out of the research where it's been for so long and really shine a light on it. >> absolutely because i had dear friends in a recent car accident and there was a fatality and the car that came and hit them,
first eyewitness said that the car -- that there was no braking involved, and the technology, advanced emergency braking that tesla is developing and other manufacturers are, i want to see this as quickly as possible and mr. o'connell, my question to you is, you know, is there any barriers that are preventing y'all from moving even faster on deploying this technology? >> no. it's human will and open communications, both, you know, between the parties here at table and with government -- government bodies so, that you know, confidence is obtained all around. use the convenient power of -- of our separate -- of our separate agencies and share information. that's what's going to solve this problem. >> because if we can protect more citizens from crashes, you know, this is going to be a great thing for all of us. mr. lobenstein, my question to
you and this is from you having your hats as the new chair of the auto isac. have you been given any information, any intelligence, been briefed on anything of known attackers targeting specifically vehicles, types of vehicles or is russian organized crime creating, you know, focused on getting access to vehicles? have you seen that kind of information? >> i apologize, mr. chairman. i'm not actively involved in the auto isac myself. i don't have that information. can i get it for you. >> miss barnes, are you familiar of anything like that where there's briefing on known attackers, russian organized crime, chinese state sponsors that are looking at getting access to vehicle information? >> at this moment, no. >> again, one of my concerns is that, you know, i did this for a living. we did this on trains.
we did this on subways, and, you know, looking at how we can take advantage of it. we've got to know what the threat is and that's why i think the creation. auto isac is important, and if you're not getting the kind of information dark sharing -- because the federal government should be sharing as much information as it can for the private sector for the private sector to protect themselves and to protect the consumers and if you're not getting, that let me know, and my last -- my last point is the office of personnel management had difficulty protecting the records of 23 million people, and they didn't -- they had the audacity to not even say my bad when they sent out the letters to the people that did receive the letter that they were compromised. by the way, i was one of them, and at least when some of these issues have -- have arised within the auto industry that i got a letter pretty quickly talking about how you fix it, how you do it, and it was a
responsiveness that i wish the federal government had, and so i think it's -- i'm always concerned when we put too much faith in federal agencies to protect our information and it's the cooperation, it seems that it is, mr. beuse i appreciate, that and this is where we need to work together and need to make sure that innovation and entrepreneurship is allowed to grow. with that i would like to -- >> if i can make a quit plug. >> a couple seconds. >> data breech legislation which has been pending for quite some time, almost a decade, it's long overdue and could be helpful here as well. >> i would like to recognize my colleague from virginia, mr. conley, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and welcome to the panel. maybe mr. garfield i'll start with you. can you tell me between autonomous and assisted
vehicles. >> in common noam clach you're the idea is that an autonomous vehicle doesn't necessarily rely on vehicle-to-vehicle or vehicle to infrastructure communications, so it is truly not connected to another car or other communication. >> or to a driver? >> or to a driver, correct. >> and assisted would be? >> it's assisted by some network communication, either with the infrastructure or with mother vehicle. >> but also might be driverless? >> yes, correct. >> okay. maybe we can start with you, mr. lightsey. you know, i represent northern virginia here in the nation's capital. the national capital region as measured by a&m's maneuverability scorecard now has the nation's worst congestion as measured by these metrics, 82 hours stuck in traffic every year on average. 35 gallons of gas wasted idling every year and at least $100 in
lost time every year. how could these technologies assist a region like this with arguably the worst congestion as measured by those metrix. >> yes, thank you. so, first of all, let me backtrack a little bit to the chairman -- chairman hurd's questions about dsrc and just let me say on behalf of the industry and on behalf of gm private industry has also invested a substantial amount of money equal to or greater than the amount of money that -- that the government has invested in the this technology. and we very much view this as complementary to the on board sensor technologies that are also being used with many of these safety systems, so dsrc has the advantages, as mr. beuse reverended in his introduction. it has the advantage today of being the only technology that we know of that meets all of the
latency requirements to actively be able to have these vehicles talk to each other in time to prevent a collision or crash from happening and it works in bad weather, with obstructed vision, without obstructed vision, and those are the advantages that we see to dsrc, but i think if you take together all of these collisions, all of these technologies, any time that we can prevent the attendant benefits of all the congestion that happens when you have a crash -- >> i can see that, but that's not really my question. i think we've covered safety. i'm not in control on what if something happens, what if it goes wrong. 90% of current fay silts are due to human error. surely we can do better than that. >> right. >> and we can reduce -- >> and you're seeing better already with advanced drivers
systems. >> yeah. >> so it will only get better and better. >> but how can it work in helping to alleviate and better manage congestion in areas like ours. that's kind of what i was getting at. >> the so if you take the whole system, certainly as with bring the infrastructure into play and traffic signals become more aware of what cars are flowing and what direction, you know, they can time themselves to optimize the traffic clowe. autonomous vehicles as being best controlled by a human operator will be able to follow each other a little bit more closely, in a safe manner, and, therefore, make more efficient use of the roadways that we already have instead of us having to continually add new lanes to our highway system. those are the kinds of things that we're talking about. >> well, i want to give mr mr. lobenstein and mr. o'connell from the manufacturing point of view an opportunity to comment
as well, but i've got to observe, this is the nation's capital, we're not very good at deploying car lanes, terms of traffic management, not much. we tried to get it deployed. mr. lobenstein, japan is light years ahead of us in the deployment of technology four, know, managing traffic control, but why don't you two comment. >> they do have v2v and v2i and if we look at technology, traffic technology was provided one way to vehicles years ago and now vehicles understand and communicate back their flow and we know realtime when and where there's traffic and i think expanding communication where it's have2v or v2i, it has improvements in safety and for productist as well as in businesses for delivering gdansk and services and has the capability to improve emissions as well.
>> mr. o'connell? >> on topic but slightly tang jenningsly there's a great youtube video showing 20 cars put on a racetrack with individual drivers to give a cue to start moving at a certain speed and within two or three laps they are all congested. infrastructure is also hard. my comments are mostly within the context of tes [ laughter ] we're already fielding driver assistance technology, what we refer to as autopilot which relieves the driver of certain control responsibilities at certain times and within a responsible context so presume that the drivers are there and presumes that the hands are on the wheel but in certain low-speed environments such as congestion, a vehicle can modulate its own position within traffic and keep traffic flowing. so i think -- it's tempting to think that this sort of technology could be implemented rapidly across a fleet. it's too bad the connectivity doesn't exist across the fleet so we can't rapidly update systems but i think you'll seetismented more and more
quickly over time. >> and if i could just observe at end here, mr. chairman, i think what's hopeful is how rapidly we already are adjusting to technologies that assist us in this effort, so, you know, on our own we're getting on this and finding out what's a better route wows of congestion. i can even look at reports coming in what's caughting the congestion and then i can make a judgment as to whether i want to go or not. gps has revolutionized -- i have to explain to my young staff what a map was. you know, we've become hooked on this already, and it -- it is an efficiency so i'm confident that actually as we really advance technology, i think we're going to adjust. thank you so much for being here, and thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank had you, mr. conley. i recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz. >> thank you, and thank you all for being here. this is one of the most exciting parts of our economy. this is somewhere where we can
lead the word the it's something that's going to create real jobs and have a real impact i think on people's lives as long as the federal government doesn't come in and screw it up which we've been prone to do in the federal government. one of the raging discussions and topics that we're going to have in nation, particularly in light of the horrific terrorist acts in europe and what we've experienced here in our own homeland is a further discussion about encryption because i think one of the big questions before our nation is how much privacy, how much security are we going to give -- how much -- how much privacy are we going to give up in the name of security, and it's a difficult question. when you see friends and loved ones and people on television being killed, it's a very difficult thing, but, on the other hand, i also want my wife, my kids, myself, my friends, my neighbors to be as safe and protected from would-be people who want to cause them harm and
tap into information, so maybe if i could start with mr. garfield here. if you could address the whole encryption issue, how does it really work because you really can't create a key just for the good guys, just for law enforcement, right, and it's either encrypted and secure or it's not. give me your perspective on that particularly in light of what the country is dealing with right now. >> thanks for the question, mr. chairman. would i start by saying that people that i work with are patriots and so were sickened by what they saw in paris as everyone else in this room. the context in which we're having this conversation actually speaks to the issue because when we're talking about security and safety encryption is on important tool for enabling that, and so the conversation is not either/or. it's how do we advance security with encryption as a tool while also making sure that national security is protected?
and i think there are ways to do that. i think to think that creating back doors or making keys available to just some people is that solution, becausesolution. ultimately, if you create vulnerabilities, they'll be widely exploited. >> can't you just give it to, you know, the guy at the genius bar and your wife and just be -- call it a day? or is that -- explain to the person who's not as familiar with this how this works and doesn't work. >> the challenge with just giving it to the person at the genius bar is the same challenge that we're talking about with 90% of traffic accidents are caused by human error. so you're entrusting one person who may be vulnerable to being compromised with the security for everyone. so that is the problem with empowering the gal or guy at genius bar. you're creating a vulnerability that could then be widely exploited. >> anybody else want to address
this? anyone else on the panel here? >> probably not. >> do you want to have it be encrypted? >> at some risk to myself, maybe i'll do that. you know, i think it's an issue of philosophy, right. as mr. garfield said, none of us implied, none of us has a unique repository of knowledge or capability. i think open systems are ultimately the best systems to innovate and to protect. it's a dynamic process, but it's one where, i guess, you vest hope either in the inherent goodness of man or the inherent badness of man. i prefer to vote for the former. i think that it's the minority that are malignant in a truly open system where innovation is encouraged and rewarded, where there's sufficient penalties for malignant behavior. you're going to see a net positive benefit over the course
of time. >> well, thank you. i think as members on this panel and in the nation grapple with this, i think the 99% of our population that does deal with things in a safe and secure way, they're good, honest, decent people. i think the bigger obligation is to protect them as best we can. certainly there can be carve-outs for law enforcement needs. if you have a probable cause, arct arct arcticulabe suspicion. there are other things they should be able to tap into. if you're a suspicionless american, somebody who's leading a good, decent, honest life, i think you have an expectation of privacy in this nation. that will certainly come into play not only with cars but the internet of things and everything that's going to be connected.
i think this is going to be one of our big questions we're all going to have to grapple with. >> if i can add one more thing. >> sure. >> i think how we approach these issues have to be grounded in something. and i think that they need to be grounded in is our values. part of our values here in the united states is that we act consistent with laws. we will work with law enforcement to ensure our national security is protected while at the same time there's a fundamental belief that people's rights will be protected as well. we figured out how to strike that balance and will continue to do so, and that's partly why we're viewed in the way that we are around the world. >> and if i may briefly add on to that f i cou, if i could hav moment. another way to ensure both privacy and security, we're