to hold off. >> exactly. we need a safe place for the committee. once we stop the barrel bombs and support the moderate opposition and get a good example. me as a witness, they knew i am christian and have been working to empower the locals. in syria what you see it is a reaction. ..

>> and inner city youth talking about preventing youth violence later on. >> next senate foreign relations committee chair, bob corker, discusses a change of foreign policy issues including the iran nuclear deal, the upcoming summit and relations with china. his remarks are part of the christian monitor series. this is an hour. >> i am dave cook for the christian science monitor. our guest today is bob corker chairman of the senate

committee, and a member of the budget committee. his last visit was facebook of last year. he is a south carolina native who graduated from the university of tennessee with a degree in you expect to get at the

meetings at camp david and how important is it golf gulf leaders are not showing up? >> behind the scenes many expressed great frustration. you know we bump into these people and there is a lot of concern about the realignment they see taking place and concerns about just the iran deal itself. there are some concerns about some of the positions that the united states has taken in yemen or the calls bogue made to callm down. some is real. some is convenience issues of leaders being here. but certainly, there was an arms producer in my office yesterday,

this is certainly an dotal. but i do think there is an effort in the region now to really dpin begin guilding up militarily and concerns about the united states commitments to the region and to varurous entities that have been our allies. i think it is real and some folks not being here is a matter of convenience. >> one last thing and we will move around the table to the panelist to start with. alan a colleague from fortune magazine wrote

growth. i think it is going to be dealt with. i was talking to staff coming over here and understand there is a new offer, if you will will relative to moving this package along. there are differing viewpoints as to what happened coming out of finance and what the commitments were relative to which packages would be made together at what times on the floor. but based on what i understand ten minutes ago coming into this meeting is maybe there is a path forward. it is important to our country, and incredibly important foothe region and this is something where we cannot fail. we have to reach an agreement

and move ahead with thrix -- tpa. we want a balanced and fair trade agreement and we don't want to like we have done on other things we need to continue to negotiate in a way that is in our national interest. but tpt done right is important for the country. >> john stan from buzz feed? >> the administration has been criticized for checking out on the negotiations. where does that stand? what could it do to pick up the ball? or is that sort of too late? >> i notice the media is not tuned out on that for some reason. so look.

i have spent a lifetime try to produce outcomes. do things that matter, produce results, and i think all of you recognize that at least the way the emf was set forth, the passage of it it is going to have zero affect on anything that is happening on the ground at the present time. every witness coming from the administration states they believe the administration was already on legal grounds in going after isis/isil whatever you want to call them. this isn't a prestate.

no democrats appreciates it as it was sent over. and no republican, or i don't know of any, but i don't think any republican nor democrat believes there is a strategy if you will in in syria well relative to the entire conflict. republicans are looking at what was eliminating amf. they are concerned about embracing that because then it would appear you are embracing a non-strategy in syria. there is a few complications here. and the whitehouse is going back to the end question and exhpert zero effort. there is going to be no effort whatsoever to pass it.

now, i agree with many people who inquired that it doesn't mean we should not deal with the issue. their staff my own staff, is divided. mostly believe they probably are at the fringes of what they are doing being legal. much of what the democratic push again this is not based on one party, most is limited on the next president. it isn't about authorizing what is being done it is about limiting the next president. if you look at those things it is a different type of authorization is it not? the activities have been

underway for some time. we are beginning to have discussions. what i don't want to do is go through a process that indicates for to rest of the world that somehow the united states is divided on the issue of dealing with dash. i don't want to do that. i don't think that is a good thing for our country. on the other hand, i understand that if there is a path forward, where you can complete the process successfully it is something worthy of pursuing. we are beginning to have those conversations to discuss how we rectiify the forces and have been a part of this from the beginning. if is path forward can be seen that can be solved none of this has one iota of affect relative

to what is happening on the ground. now i will stop there. there are things on the ground that need to be dealt with. it is pretty fascinating and one of the big problems with the administration's foreign policy is there continues to be divisions. it is amazing. if you are in the building and in the whitehouse your voice is obviously heard. if you are outside of the building then in essence it is very difficult to have any impact on the big decisions that need to be made. but think about it. we have a clean and equip program underway. you know it is a train and

equip program that is overt or other alleged programs that have been underway to go after a different enemy. but, you know in a public form the joint chief is saying that you know obviously it is a practiceical issue too a train and equip program and know you will introduce people trained in isis to go back to the arena but they not asked for an authorization authorization. they are debating this. they know as a practical matter it will absolutely fail because you will no longer be able to recruit people to the program that are going to be barreled bombed but they have not asked for that. it is an interesting -- in the very beginning, i have huge respect for our state department

envoy general he is a true patriot. i have spent a good deal of time on the phone with him and in person. but it is evident that again the administration has not been willing to make decisions that will cause things to maybe along. it has to be frustrating for all of those who occupy the space outside of the building i would say probably including the vice president. but you know these decisions are not being made. the humanitarian issues which i think one of the lowest moments of u.s. foreign policy the lowest moment of u.s. foreign policy since i have been in the sentate which is eight years four months was the august time frame in 2013 when we figurative

figurativety jumped into the russian's lap to avoid dealing with assad. and the affects around the world are real and deep. i think it is going to take a long time to overcome that. i think that is one of the reasons you asked me the earlier question about people in the region right now and in iran and this meeting taking place next week created huge distrust. i could give you, me travelling to saudi arabia immediately thereafter, and the kinds of things that have been said about our country and our willingness to actually follow through. again, let me come back to that. the minor decisions, well i don't want to say they are minor, but the decisions of getting turkey involved on the

ground, and the fact that you know the no-fly zone if you want to call it. we use air exclusion zones because we can do it in a different way than the norm in certain areas of syria, but not dealing with the humanitarian crisis that has come out of this is beyond belief. i have been to the refugee camps. i cannot go again. i cannot go again because i have been there and looked these people in the eyes whose sons and nephews and cousins and uncles and brothers have been part of the opposition. and we told them what we were going to do and we did not deliver. 220,000 people at least are dead.

we have not done the things we have we would deliver. the general cratered and may be making his way back in now. but there is a lot to this that makes the map more complicated than the norm. not the least of which is obviously a lack of commitment by the united states to actually deal with the issue. y i have wandered around on this area. i use to use the word containment to describe what we were doing in syria and it would upset officials when i used that word. now they use it. >> zach from politico. yes, sir? >> yesterday senator shelby unveiled his bill to help community and regional banks and the fed and mortgage finance. what do you think of the bill?

and we are already hearing senator brown and warner say it is overreach. do you think senator shelby will have to dial it back to win the democrats? >> i don't know. i think there are real concerns on the democratic side about the bill. as far as how it will be handled i am just getting to go through it. my staff went through it extensively title by title. i think there is huge issues around the community bank issues that need to be dealt with. some of the other areas are where the division began. i don't know enough yet to answer. it semmes -- seems like that with every question you ask me.

i have not had a conversation yet with shelby. i don't know what his plan is. obviously i don't want to participate in is a solely partisan effort that doesn't produce an outcome. back to my earlier comments, i think we understand a partisan effort on a banking bill is not going to produce an outcome. what i would like to see us do is figure out a way for an outcome. i hope that is where senator shelby is and wants to be. as to if this is the beginning document and he plans to move in var various directions i don't know. but hopefully i will in the next 24 hours. >> mary? >> you told me a couple months ago you would rather lay down in the railroad tracks than have another short term extension.

somes to be that is where we are headed. what did you think? >> look riding on the law i will be stunned if republicans deal with the highway trust fund responsiblely. it isn't going to happen. the republicans, my friends, us i am part of this although i disagree with this policy. we are becoming the party of conservative means almost spending the same amount sometimes more but not paying for it. and that is conservative behavior today. it isn't what i grew up or what

tennessee as you know embodies. we have zero road debt in tennessee because we pay for our roads and as we go. but the budget i think you know we had a little hit there and ready to make a point and made multiply conversations on both sides of the capital to talk about this next year's progress. the first step toward showing we can responsiblely deal with issues that matter is the highway bill. but it very much appears to me there wile be a kick the can down the road. we will engage at what we are good at doing and do something irresponsible. this is like the simplest math issue, right? people talk about social security being a simple math issue and medicare is more

difficult. it has been paid for by user fees. it is absolutely evident that republicans are not going to deal with user fees. you would think the next step would be to lower the amount of money going into the infrastructure. if you are not raising user fees you would think you would spend the amount of money coming in. that is not going to happen. we will spend the same amount. and we will kick the can down the road. irresponsible, total failure, and a definition of conservative is now becoming spending the same amount of money about not paying for it. >> chuck of the st. louis post-dispatch. >> the hundredth anniversary of what the pope and many other say

is armenian genocide passed last month. the president hasn't used that turnover in the last seven years and didn't this year even though there was anticipation he might. the coaptry of turkey hired the former leader of the whitehouse as their lobbyist. what do you think it says about the lobby of them in town and about the power of the revolving door. >> you are more attuned to the revolving door issue than i am. i am still attuned to inside the building. the turkish issue, and the genocide issue, and the call from armenians to declare it in a certain way -- there are significant, you know relationship issues that exist

with turkey. i don't really think the cause of things thought being publically discussed is the revolving door. i think it is the relationship we have with turkey and that is in accordance to many things happening in the region. >> francine from the monitor. >> i want to go back to that but tie it with iran. in both cases, congress wanted a say on amuf and on what to do about the iran deal. but it seems like once they get the opportunity to have their say they cannot figure out what they want to say on aumf. there is no agreement on what to do. is that what is coming once we get a final iran deal? it comes to congress? it can not figure out what to do? it can't agree on how to deal with the bill and how to act on

it? >> with all do respect, i think that is a very unfair assessment. the first step in the amf is to send that over. what congress has done and i hope the house and senate will do or hopefully watt the house will do this week is pass something. i hope they take back the power from the president. he has the national security power of the day and that has been taken back. it is interesting i read today

from the stories many of you write and the discussion about democrats, you know, trade and countering the president, on iran it was fascinateing as we continue to chip away there is an avalanche of democrats willing to take the power from the president on iran. it is pretty fascinating. it look a lot of work. we got menendez and cane who were close to the administration and they lobbied and lobbied and the president had him over multiply times. then we end up having an avalanche

avalanche. this is an intellectual oversight. we need to deal with it. but i do think they are on the fri frin fringe and operating in a legal fashion. i think that it is debatable. if i win the whitehouse they are close to the line. it will not change watt what they are doing. they cannot agree. they are having debates and been frozen for a long time.

they have a policy of containment and you are not seeing much in the way of results. >> paul from the washington examiner? >> you were named one of the "times" top 100, i think. and your colleague alexander said you should be secretary of state you are such a great guy. i thought that was a nice thing to say. i was wondering, and understand from tennessee, this relationship you have is beneficial and helpful to the state. i was wondering if you can talk about the secret to having both senators work so closely together and the benefit to the state like yours. >> i could not be more fortunate to work with someone like lamar vander who wakes up every day trying to bring out the best in those around him. lamar is someone who i first

thought about running for public office state wide, i sought out and spent a lot of time talking with. he and i both loved and cherished howard baker. lamar was his staffer back in the day when senators have one staffer. there is a long-term relationship there. as a matter of fact we are having dinner tonight. but i do think it is beneficial to have two people that don't compete in any way. two people that wish only the very best for the other. two people that celebrate the successes of the other. two people who are very different with different back backgrounds and focused on different sets of issues and follow each other's lead when we

know the other person has more expertise and knowledge in other areas. lamar's knowledge of universities and mine are very different. it is a great relationship. it is rare. you watch people in the senate and sometime people of the same party have more rivalries than you can imagine. >> andy glass from politico. >> thank you. a question for the chairman stip stipulating for the record a deal with iran from the administration can be made and if congress is unhappy with the results it is not eager or willing to lift the sanctions. my question is are you concerned

that rush aw china, and maybe france will say we are out of here and the united states will be isolated on this issue? >> yes if the p5 plus 1 come to an agreement and the united states leadership is a part of that and things come to congress and congress says no we are not satisfied with the deal. i understand the situation that puts the united states congress in and our country. i understand. what i hope is going to happen and we know for sure that in switzerland during the political agreement time that took place around the first part of april, i know for a fact that when the

negotiators thought that congress was going to play a role it looked like there was momentum and it had a positive affect. okay? what i hope is it will have a positive affect as we move ahead. the concerns they have been raising on the sunday morning program or whatever there is a call from john kerry immediately. i think the congressional involvement will hope fair out questions but also answers to those questions. i had breakfast a week ago with secretary kerry and expressed a lot of concerns. kerry comes across -- i am sorry.

there is a way to describe this and i will not use it in this setting. i used it with him. he appears to be a guy who wants a deal whatever it takes. it seems like the least little thing iran brings up he is ease to say not to be concerned. it feels rather preverse if you will. if you notice it is like he is giving away the negotiateing ability. he is trying to address and answer the questions publically. it isn't what you do when you are hoping to get a deal that will stand the test of time. i hope congressional involvement

stiffins the administration and cause many of the issues to be e eee resolved. one of the issues that i think is going to be the most difficult is the issue of prompt inspections. one thing we have to do to make this whole effort something that is worthy and worthy of what is happening and also worthy from the standpoint of us exacting responsiblely but one thing we need do is make sure senators understand fully coming up until the deal happens comes up and people under what is important in a deal like this. what are the things that matter and make sure we raised those issues with the administration as we move ahead. i do think there is a psychology

here that is concerning. >> the partial inspections were announced. >> i am telling you they cannot answer the question now. up until the day that you know the veto john kerry was lobby against the bill at 11:30 that day and i asked him a question in the classified setting relative to inspection and they cannot answer the question in an appropriate way. what is now talked about is something that is bureaucratic. remember when saddam hussein kept keeping inspectors out of iraq? he would move the ball. the ball kept being moved and months and months would go by and finally when the inspectors got in the site they went to was cleaned up. it feels very much like

something similar. algebra i don't know how we will get beyond that issue. i do hope that the p5-plus1 comes up with an agreement to withstand the test of time. i do. i think the questions that congress is raising now will be very beneficial to getting a deal that will stand the test of time. i do think that otherwise the administration has been trying to run over issues that are significant importance. >> we have about 21 minutes left and nine people on deck so we will not get to everybody. >> i want to bring something up if i could. >> sure. >> i just thought it. i think yesterday something happened that i think is a potential game changer relative to fisa.

will this change what we do on meta data? i think there was an ah-ha moment grerd people on both sides of the aisle. when we really have a little data that is being collected, how littleidate data is being collected, it is a shock. i think if americans knew how the program was being implement implemented today people would say oh, gosh they are listening to my phone calls, which isn't

happening on the meta data program, it is almost malpractice. i think it is shocking to know this. the program is actually not the program i thought it was. not even close. i think you may see multiply in inquiries. it was very unhealthy relative to the national security interest.

i think you will see people pushing and wondering why not more data is part of the database if you will will that is used to protect our citizens. the way it is being implemented today i don't know see how it is useful at all to the american people. and shocked by the small anoint of data used by the program. i think you will see potentially people on both sides of the aisle pushing for that which is a very different push than was occurring before a 4:00 briefing yesterday. >> is that a full senate briefing yesterday? >> yeah. i want to ask you a follow up on what you had. can you talk about the most important gaps that have to be filled? where should the government be

collecting more data? >> i cannot i don't know why not, but the officials giving the briefing didn't want that information laid out there. i would love to share it with you. it is beyond belief how little data part of the program. and the type of data especially if the goal is to deal with tristich or to uncover terrorist terrorist. they have caused that to be classified. you will write about it in 24 hours i am sure. that is how it works. >> do the american people have a need to know and a right to know how much and what kind of --

>> generally speaking americans that did have a return about privacy don't need to be worried about that. i think what has been additionally irresponsible is the lack of desire to explain what the program is. there are all of these myths about what the meta data program is. lots of myths. and they have created concerns among the american people. end i understand there would be concern and i can assure you and i am using this with a degree of rhetorical but people shouldn't be concerned about privacy. what they should be concerned about is the lack of focus on

the program. it is not prolific in any way. i am incredibly disappointed we alot a program that is so important to the national computer to be so ineptly carried out. the amount of data collected is so minimal you would almost think you would not have a program like this. but the characteristics of this you got to report on later as others talk with you i cannot do it. >> i have to go. because i have other people waiting. i apologize. craig gilbert. milwaukee. >> one of the items was the effort by senator isaac. do you support that as a separate matter or think the issue is relevant to our nu

negotiation negotiations with iran. >> yeah we will have a markup on the bill on the 13th or 14t. a week from tomorrow. i know the final text mentioned something to me in the last 48 hours. i made a commitment to have a markup during the process. we will honor that. he was telling me he had to pay for a good one. let me look at what he is going to do. i want to look at the text before deciding if i am for or against it. i think he is raising a legit issue of concern and glad he pursued this and appreciate he was a gentlemen and didn't attach it to other negotiations.

i can understand his concern and why the administration wouldn't want that to be part of the nuclear discussion. >> i will go slightly out of order -- go -- and give each organization an question. rachel from cq. >> you mentioned the place is full at the moment. the whitehouse sent over the protcall for the treaty two have central asia being referenced in the bill. there are two different treaties related to nuclear terrorism, improving nuclear security making it more difficult to extremist to fire that are always awaiting radificationtification. do you thing those issues were given consideration with everything else going on? >> i think you asked me this in

the last 48 hours. i will get bag to you. i have not looked at them yet but i promise you i will get back to you. >> can you talk about the provisions about guantanamo bay and the efforts to limit the president's ability to transfer detainees. >> i have not seen the ndaa i know they have been working on language relative to gitmo but i have not seen it. >> christina patterson from "the wall street journal." >> you passed a bill that was ring in the nsa to come extent. how do you see this being resolved if there is a large bipartisan vote on the house side with what you and majority leader mcconnelly want to do on the other side.

>> well i think i had to leave the briefing yesterday to go to another meeting at five and understand it went on for a while. i think what happened yesterday very much changed the equation. very much. i don't think anyone in the room had any idea how miniature non-incompassing and the lack of commitment in the first place. i don't know. i am going to say today i know there are going to be a number of conversations taking place because it was such a game changer to people thinking about the entire issue.

if you ask in the hallway today, i think you will see a lot of puzzlement by people on both sides of the aisle. i don't know if i have a good sense as to whether -- i am just talking. but the way the bill -- it i don't know. it is possible. maybe this libertarian bill if you will maybe it causes the program to be more encompassing than today. >> why do you think republican leaders alloweded the house and senate to go in such different directions? >> i don't know that i can speak to leadership issues. one of the things that i am

shocked at the administration and program. this has been going on -- and i am shocked. but i think the administration at the same time is very committed and we have to have an ex ex extension. it is possible christina, with the puzzlement everyone left with yesterday it might be slightly more likely to me talking and this isn't my issue. this is taking place through intelligence and other places but it may lead to a more short term extension. >> liberty knox from yahoo. >> good morning, sir. how are you? >> good >> part of the discussion on the internal division on syria

policy you suggested the vice president is frustrated with the policy. how do you know he is frustrated and what would he like to see happen? >> i just think -- i don't every wish to get into private conversations because then they end but i think that generally speaking you have all written about this. anybody who is outside of the internal offices of the whitehouse has very little impact on the big decisions relative to foreign policy. it is just a fact. i think you know that. if you are the chief of staff, you are in the building you have a lot of impact but it is

evident decisions are not being made. the way we have impact is by pressing issues publically. i think the administration is obviously like most attuned to public opinion. and i think we shake things that way. but you are right. to think the whitehouse would call up the former chairman relation committee and ask for help would be far-fetched. >> senator, back to iran if i could. now the dust has dropped from the bipartisan view you and senator curt got on the bill end. do you have a few of the process you will get if the administration gets the deal at

the end of june? when will they bring it to you? you have been courageous in pre predicting outcomes. if they come to you with an agreement that confirms to the fact sheet where do you think the votes are now? >> i don't want to say grace over the fact issue because so many facts are missing in the fact sheet. but i will generally talk about the fact sheet and say that look, many quote, and i don't want to overuse red lies but many things that were not going to happen are going to happen. fordo will exist and they will describe it like a museum entity and they will have more centrifuge centrifuges and iraq is going to produce platonium.

it is possible there is still a way to deal with those issues in an appropriate manner because we know of those issues. i think there will be concerns because of the underground location. about how we deal with that affectively. one of the most shocking things to me was the reef could pass a lie detector test on if there were previous military detentions. we know that is not true. we know we know they were involved in military things.

our negotiators act like isn't it great dealing with a guy who is honest and i said i don't think it is great we have negotiators who don't even know the extent of this. i think the issues of what we don't know. the activities that can be happening to us. i still think they are going to be the most difficult to resolve. as far as the process, we spend a lot of time because of the 52 day time period, in the house parliamentary and a lot of to me talking to cardinal and others about the kind of things that will have to happen. the 30 days doesn't start until everything is delivered. all of the materials, the annex, and you remember last time it took months to have a written document. it is going to be interesting. can you reach an agreement on june 30th and deliver all of these materials in five days? i don't think so. i think that you know and so

we spent a good deal of time trying to understand with each other and what does it mean to get all of the materials? so, yes we talked about it. it is going to have to happen quickly. that is why i say -- but it is going to have to be force full when it comes. we will have to work to make sure people under the details of what a bad and good deal looks like. >> could that be in september? >> it is possible they may not reach the deal by june 30th. we obviously -- if we get delivered after there is extended time to deal with. i want to can you about the

renewal of the cooperation agreement with china. it is clear that was violated in the transfer of civilian technology. i am wondering if the extent of the violations risus to opposing renewal and more broadly how this whole issue of this fits into confronting the aggressively china? >> that increasingly aggressive china issue we will deal with at 2:00 during a hearing. it is a coincidence there are discussions about coming within the 12 nautical mile area of some of these created hondaland

masses if you will in the south china sea. let's face it. westing house is the entity that is most involved and china is going to be the biggest user of new nuclear facilities over the next period of time of any country in the world by far. from that stand point if is important. westing house is owned by perceive and you know there is a push by the nuclear community to make sure we can sell the goods and services. so there is that push. at the same time you know look china does use a technology that we transfer to

them. and will use it. we know this. while i think it is article eight, section eight, of the agreement states you cannot transfer civil material into military operation. we know they will do that. their witnesses yesterday said that. they are in violation of the nuclear supplier. we have two places in pakistan. we know they are not in compliance. they are saying they will not be in the future. ...

the thinking at present is that we're going to do this. let's take let's take advantage of it today. they are not acting in good faith. i do not know. there is a lot of concern. i say this euphemistically, if you will. there have been some discussion. so it is an interesting

issue and one that i know has caused a lot of consternation. >> we are out of time. i want to thank you for coming. appreciated very much. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> on the next washington journal congressional black caucus vice chair on his efforts on police reform. ♪ ♪ ♪

>> sunday night on c-span q&a many videos on his activities on the international space station and share scientific and personal aspects of life in space. >> the only time i felt a shiver of fear go up my back was on the dark side of the earth looking back on eastern australia and watching a shooting star come in between me and the earth. at 1st i had the standard reaction but then i had the sobering realization that that was a huge rock from the universe going 20 miles per 2nd that missed us and made it to the atmosphere. if it had hit us it was a big enough one that you could see it and we would have been dead in an instant >> sunday night on c-span

q&a. ♪ >> the senate today reached a deal to move ahead on a a trade bill giving the president broad authority when negotiating trade agreement. it would it would require congress to vote on treaties without amendments filibusters. here is senator mcconnell announcing that deal. this is 35 minutes. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president this morning i restated my commitment to working with senators in a serious way to move our country ahead on trade and the economy of the 21st century. sdhat weeed >> moving our country ahead on trade and economy in the 21st century. we need to allow debate to begin and our colleagues across the aisle need to stop blocking us from doing so. that is the view from our

side the view from the white house and the view of serious people across the political spectrum. ever. the stated my commitment. serious and bipartisan does not mean agreeing to impossible guarantees or swallowing poison pills but it means pursuing reasonable options designed to get a good policy result in the end. that is why i have agreed to keep my parties significant concession that t pa mta on the table and are considering other policies and why have underlined my commitment to an open amendment process once we get on the bill. of course, our friends

across the aisle now also want a path forward on all four of the trade bills and this is not just an issue for our friends on the other side. many of the things contained in these other bills. as the senior senator in the democratic leadership reminded us yesterday we have to take some both separately or else we kill the underlying legislation. so i will provide a plan with a sensible way forward. regular order on trade bill. allowing senators the opportunity to take votes on the customs and preference bills in a way that will not imperil the increased american exports in american trade jobs that we need.

we would then turn to the trade bill with tpa and taa as the base bill and open the floor to amendments as i have suggested all week. it is reasonable so i look forward to our friends across the aisle joining with us to move forward in a serious way. mr. president i ask unanimous consent at 10:30 am 10:30 a.m. tomorrow may the 4th the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of 57 hr 1295 and hr 644 the hatch amendments at the desk be considered a degree to no further amendments be in order and that at noon the bills as amended be read a 3rd time and the senate

proceed to passage followed by a a vote on the passage of hr 644 as amended and that there be a 60 affirmative vote threshold and that it pass the motion. i further asked the following disposition of hr 644 to reconsider the federal cloture vote. the motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote on the motion to proceed be agreed to and the senate proceed to vote on the notion that motion to invoke cloture. further, if cloture is invoked it be deemed expired at 10:00 p.m. thursday night

>> first of all, i want to take a brief minute and express my appreciation to my democratic colleagues have been understanding and vocal in their opinions as to what we should do to move forward. i extend my appreciation to the republican leadership are having a suggestion. they worked together and i i think we have come up with something is fair. the bipartisan majority of fast-track, assistance trade enforcement and the bill expanding trade for africa. all parts of the legislation yesterday we made it clear. we also must enforce the

trade agreements we make. today and tomorrow. the majority leader offered an amendment process robust unfair. democrats voted on a number of amendments. so the understanding we have on both sides i do not object. >> the intention of objecting. >> the african bill and trade enforcement bill will

be handed together and not subject to amendment. >> that we be able to make a one minute statement. >> objection? >> without objection. >> we put in an amendment to ensure in and out cycle review. we would have we would have offered an amendment on the floor had it been possible. we have permission to talk to the ambassador who has assured us he is willing to instigate a review of the practices of south africa, and i commend him on doing that and yield to senator

kunz. >> i thank my colleagues. i want to express my shared concern that if we're going to proceed, which i support but we also ensure there is effective trade enforcement. this is a basic principle. those of us who support -- support free trade also support fair trade and effective enforcement. there will be enforcement action taken if necessary. >> the majority leader. without objection so ordered. >> i want to thank the

senate majority leader for working with us in a constructive fashion to make it possible for all of the vital parts of the trade package to be considered and look forward to working closely with them. colleagues, i will say what has been done through the cooperation of the majority leader and the minority leader is in effect to say that trade enforcement will be the 1st bill to be debated and in doing so it drives home yesterday's message of 13 pro trade democrats who together said that robust enforcement of our trade law is a prerequisite to a modern trade policy. making this the 1st topic for debate it is a long

overdue recognition that vigorous trade enforcement has to be in the forefront. the 1990 have to trade playbook is being set aside. i we will be brief at this point. i would. i would like to give a little bit of history as to how we got to this. >> will the senator yield for a moment? >> i would be happy. >> i would like to thank senator wyden. especially his amendment on prohibition of child labor closing and 85 year loophole allowing child labor in far too many cases. i appreciate his support and

the senator support early in the process before the market began on our level the playing field language which is particularly important to a number of industries in this country. and the importance of currency. we know how many jobs we have lost in my state and all over the country because of what has happened. so i just wanted to express my thanks. >> before i leave the floor i want to thank senator brown for again and again putting in front of the committee and all senators the importance of this issue, and i want to read a sentence from the paper yesterday that puts a human face on this enforcement issue that senator brown has so often come back to.

candy makers wants to preserve a loophole. this is the loophole that would close in the customs bill. candy candy makers want to preserve this loophole that allows them to import african cocoa harvested by child labor. now, what senator brown has said is without in effect, this vigorous enforcement language in the customs bill we would basically be back in yesteryear policy. back in what we had for decades and decades where youngsters would be exploited in this way. we will talk for a few days. certainly my colleagues on the finance committee no that i strongly support expanded trade.

i look at the globe. there will be a billion middle-class people in the developing world. they will have a fair amount of money to spend, and we want them to spend on the goods and services produced in the united states. we support expanding opportunities, increasing exports. expanding trade and enforcing trade law are two sides of the same coin. what happens at home i have community meetings several in the last couple of weeks. the 1st question that often comes up a citizen we will say i here there is talk about a deal. how about 1st enforcing laws on the books?

that is why the group of 13 pro trade senators yesterday wanted to away and right at the outset of this debate talking about how important trade enforcement was to a policy i call trade done right trade done right a modern trade policy command i will be brief in the opening this discussion but i wanted to spend a few minutes describing how we got to this place. a few weeks ago the finance committee met and passed a bipartisan package more than a year in the making and the message with the outset was one that would respond all the people in this country who want to know if you are doing more than just

going back. those bills suggest that this will be very different. the 1st the trade promotion bill the tpa, as it is called helps rid our trade policy of excessive secrecy. the reason this is so important is the 1st thing people say whether south carolina oregon or anywhere else is what is all this excessive secrecy? if you believe strongly in trade and want more of it why do you want this needless secrecy that makes people so convinced that you are kind of sort of hiding things. we have made dramatic changes in that area. a 2nd strengthens and expands the support system for our workers known as

trade adjustment assistance to make sure that when they're are changes in the private economy changes that so often take place and cause workers to seek positions that they have had be affected, this is a section of trade policy that gives them a a chance almost to springboard into another set of job opportunities. the 3rd would finally put, as i have said trade enforcement into high gear so that we can crack down on trade cheating and protect american workers and exports trade enforcement is a jobs bill protecting jobs and is another reason why it is so important. the 4th which has been touched upon by our distinguished colleague, the

senator from georgia the senator from delaware involves the trade preference programs that is crucial to our employers in developing countries. taken together the bill from a package of trade policy that will help our country create more high skill high wage jobs in my state and across the land. as i have said so often come if you want to explain what a modern trade policy is in one sentence, what you say is, this is the kind of approach that helps us grow things in america, make things in america add value and then ship them somewhere. particularly if you were to the developing world where they will be in just a few

years a billion middle-class consumers that strikes me as an economic shot in the arm that will be of long-term benefit to our people. with respect to enforcement i want to take just a few minutes to talk about why i think this is an appropriate opening step in the legislative process. i already talked about the pro trade democrats who got together yesterday and weighed in as a group. why we did it is that trade enforcement in that particular bill part of the initial debate is a jobs bill a cornerstone of a knew trade approach that will reject the status quo.

as as the president said, to his credit during the state of the union address past trade deals have not always lived up to the hype. my own view is a lot of that can be attributed to subpar trade enforcement. that is because so many of the same old enforcement tools from the nafta era and decades prior just are not the right kind of tool to get the job done in 2015. our competitors overseas use shell companies fraudulent records, and sophisticated seeking to play cat and mouse with us customs authorities. competitors overseas intimidate american firms

into relocating factories were surrendering intellectual property. competitors spy on companies to steal secrets and block efforts. to mask the activity they hide paper trails and engage in outright fraud. for a number of years i chaired the trade subcommittee of the finance committee and can tell you the examples i have given of modern challenges is just touching the surface of what we found in our investigation. at one time we set up a sting operation. not only not only does our trade enforcement need to catch up to the schemes we have to have a trade enforcement policy that stays ahead of the game. that is why the bipartisan

enforcement package will take enforcement up to a higher level. this bill raises the bar for alterative forces whether customs agent, the border checking inbound shipments from the commerce department investigator looking into an unfair trade petition cannot was a lawyer from the office of trade representative following up on possible violations of trade agreement. i want to quickly kick through a few of the major parts of this trade enforcement package. a proposal i pushed for a number of years to include help customs crackdown on foreign companies that try to get around rules by hiding identities and sending products on hard to

trace shipping routes. another we will close a shameful loophole that senator brown and i just talked about which allows products made with child labor to be sold at our country. a 3rd we will build what i call an unfair trade alert to help identify when american jobs and exports are under threat before damage is done. with this early warning system in effect, you will have warning bells ringing earlier and more loudly than ever before when a country attempts to undercut an american industry like china recently tried with solar panel. especially important because we're home and listening to companies talk about trade

enforcement they say it just gets to us too late. the lights have gone out at the plan, the workers have had their lives shattered and the community is feeling pain from one end to another the.of the early warning system is we now have the kind of technology and access to information that can set off early warnings. that is what the unfair trade alert provision is all about. for the 1st time in decades clear enforcement priorities and finally it

includes a proposal from senator brown that goes a long way to ensuring our trade enforcers use the full strength of our anti- dumping and countervailing laws to fight unfair tactics mr. president i said months ago repeatedly making it very clear when the chairman and i began working on this package strengthening trade law enforcement was at the very top of the list of priority and i did in starting those discussions in the debate repeatedly come back to the fact that those of us who are pro- trade think that it is absolutely key for the kind of export related jobs

growth we need in this country, we have to shore up trade enforcement because it is not credible to say you are working for a knew trade agreement have people do not find credible you will enforce laws already exist on the books. so strengthening trade enforcement has been at the top of my list of priorities for many, many years. the finance committee passed this enforcement measure with a blank vote. that ought to indicate alone that this was not some topic of enormous controversy. we had votes on the trade promotion act votes on the trade adjustment act. pretty vigorous debate. voice vote on the

enforcement provision, customs package because it includes so much of what i think members on both sides of the trade debate feel strongly about. i talked about why i feel so strongly about enforcement. my colleague speaks eloquently about another.of view. he feels strongly. i am pleased that the senate is on this bill, beginning debate on this legislation thoroughly committed to getting this legislation passed before we leave for recess. no one can ever make guarantees, but i will pull out all of the stops to do it and i want as we close the opening of this debate

to thank both the majority and minority leader for working with myself and chairman hatch and others to get to this. we had a bipartisan effort and the finance committee and are pleased to see the distinguished president of the senate join us on the finance committee. we had a bipartisan package in the finance committee which passed nearly overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. now with what is ahead of us we have a chance to build on the bipartisan work that took place in the finance committee. it is appropriate we begin this discussion focusing on trade enforcement the pro- trade democrats did yesterday in making an

announcement with respect to the importance of this topic it will be a good debate. the stakes are enormously high command i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get this legislation passed to get a bill that the president of the united states will think with that i yield the floor. >> the senator from oklahoma >> i am concerned. it is not about trade. trade trade is one of the things we have done as a nation all on. one of the grievances we had the declaration of independence was the fact that king george restricted trade.

my issue is particularly with this customs bill and it is not about protections that the way that we pay for it. while we are trying to engage in things we cannot lose track of the simple thing called the deficit. we have basic rules on how we handle budget issues. anything we set out. deficit neutral in your six and 11. you cannot gain the system that way. deficit neutral in the last year. here is what the customs bill does.

there's the corporate payment shift. six years from now every corporation that has a billion dollars or more in assets as of five and a quarter percent tax increase in your six. in your seven every one of those companies that has $1 a billion dollars or more in assets gets a five and a quarter percent tax refund. this is set up. the way the bill is written six years from now taxes go up on every company 2000 companies that have a billion or more in assets. the next year they get a refund in that same amount. someone help me understand why they have to gear change the way they do tax policy pay an paying extra

tax and the next year they can get a refund. that's additional cost only to help this body circumvent the basic rules we said we would abide by. in all likelihood in all likelihood they won't do that six and seven years from now. will it's now not your six and seven at 78. ridiculous. this is a problem. this body is playing a game and how we are trying to accomplish a basic rule. not anyone to stand up six years from now and refund the same amount. all that is set up to do is

help us in our cbo scoring. here is what i think we should do. not some pretend and say this is a deficit neutral bill. a $3.7 trillion budget. my office can give you many options that are real rather than something fake. option number two, at least admit that this is not a deficit neutral bill and that these are fake. something this body college budget.of order. this is not a real pay for. i've had these conversations

i have a new guy here. i have heard this is an old practice and needs to go way because no one can defend it how about this next week i i tried to go get a car loan and negotiate with a car dealer a five-year loan and tell him i will pay my loan off your for. do you think i will get the loan? no. he's going to say that is fake. i paid it off completely your five probably paid it all back next year. we have to be able to have real accounting.

this is not invisible money. with a $3.7 trillion budget we can find real pay for us. this is a this is a practice that has happened in this congress and previous congresses that must off. we have the ability to do it. i have to oppose this bill because it is not genuine. saying that we pay for it in your six and refunding in your seven is not real and we know it. i hope we can address this practice and eliminated from ever being used again in any bill as a gimmick. with that i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. >> several senators offered their condolences for the victims of the amtrak derailment in philadelphia.

>> we are pleased that you got off in time. if you would if you would like to say a few words and give us your opening statement. >> thank you command i want to thank the folks on the community and all of my colleagues and people around the country that expressed personal feelings. those of us writing that train last night from washington to new york. i write that train a lot and get to know the people. never imagined that six people would be dead. pray for all of them and particularly for the 1st responders who turned out

late at night and the difficult circumstances. not just the 1st responders but a lot of passengers. so let's keep them in our thoughts and prayers. i have been involved in train accidents as a board member. this is never easy. especially hard. >> the senate returns tomorrow for work on to trade measures. a bill giving the president broad authority.

and so when they came they were getting food a weekly allotment of food and sometimes the rental of sewing machines. and they also sometimes got fabric because it be who the tourist attraction people to supply them with fabric. this is a little boys shirt from the 1920s.

this was an experimental time for patchwork. on the bottom this is not a design. this is experimental. they were bigger and sometimes were not used any longer than a particular decade. >> there are all kinds of things that happen. a regular navigation mission they would take off. flight 19, they would go east toward the bahamas. they would drop bombs and then continue on another 70 miles or so. go 100 something miles and make a turn west. they never came back. late at night they sent out

rescue planes working for them. the next day they started a search with hundreds and hundreds of planes and ships and never found anything. >> watch all of our events saturday at 5:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2 book tv. >> coming up on c-span2 homeland security inspector general testifies on problems with airport security nationwide.

[inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time we have an important meeting today. we appreciate the thousands of men and women who serve at the tsa. they work hard our dedicated, committed. it is a difficult situation with literally tens of tens

of thousands of security that is out there. we need to continue to have a vibrant discussion about the safety and security of our airports. they are different in that we are self-critical and take a hard look at security parameters and challenge the notion that the status quo is acceptable. the commission that came together often government lacks imagination where terrorists are would be nefarious characters will often be more creative than our security personnel. to have this type of discussion it is good to hear a variety of perspectives. we have had good work from those who have had to deal with highly targeted areas

such as israel. but it requires we have a very good communication between the congress and homeland security, specifically the tsa. we have had an exceptionally difficult time getting information from the tsa on basic matters. this is a blank form a blank form that people are to use as they assess security. we asked to see a copy. members were not allowed to see it. we asked for a copy of it. now, if that is the type of cooperation we will get we will have difficult times.

we have not invited the acting administrator to come before the community. at 1st we heard a variety of excuses. then we had a big dustup because for weeks we had planned to do this. more than a month we had. pivotal to the discussion. homeland security objected to his presence. they felt it was demeaning to have the acting administrator sit on the same panel as a nongovernment witness. that is absurd always to the committees time, congresses time. we we do not need to panels for this discussion.

they will be the sole person to testify. if you are below a a cabinet level secretary you will not be separated into your own panel. the tsa different than others they sit side-by-side with regular people from the outside and so unfortunately the tsa has refused the invitation to appear before congress that have plenty of notice. up until late yesterday he would be here if it was a separate panel. now because we will not waste this committees time, members time they are not sitting here today and we

will have less of the hearing because of it. it is an embarrassment that they would do that. that is not the way it will work around here. tsa said, maybe will give you someone else. it is not there decision as to who congress calls to testify. that is not there decision but the decision of congress to understand and be informed others they invite. that is where we find ourselves today. with that -- i took a little extra time but would now like to recognize the chairman of the subcommittee on transportation. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman ranking member. i think it is an insult to the community that tsa would not send the acting administrator to this panel with do notice.

this is an important oversight hearing. we spend about $7 billion per year on tsa activities and if anyone takes time to read this report we will hear from john roth in a few minutes the inspector general who produced this report, but every report, but every member of congress and people throughout the country should read this report. this is an indictment of the failure of the tsa not just in one area but almost every one of their functions. it is supposed to be a multi tiered transportation security system and in every aspect -- just glance through the report. everything from passenger baggage screening and passenger screening one indictment after another on

systems to provide access for people who do not pose a risk and we all support tsa pre- check. and it is designed to expedite passengers who do not pose a risk. in fact we find instances in which they fail to connect the dots a passenger who was a convicted terrorist who went through tsa. their system failed to find these people. the most important thing we're trying to do is find people who pose a risk. the tsa agent identified her because she was such a well-known terrorist. even more astounding he

went to a superior and actually authorized the expediting of a terrorist through the system. this is an outrageous history. and i have to say the chairman is not jason come lately. if you read further they talk about equipment purchases. you have to have the best technology when someone comes through not just an expedited system but to see what they have that poses a risk whether it is arms or not explosives or other devices. back in 2009 legislation was introduced to restrict the purchase of equipment that did not do the job. this is a press account, and he he was thwarted and ended

up buying equipment. read the report, and indictment of billions of dollars worth of equipment that failed. they bought rapid scan equipment. interesting that linda daschle represented one company people might be familiar with that name. rapid scan which the chairman raised questions about privacy issues. they went ahead and split the contract, i contract, i have a billion-dollar contract between the two competing lobbyists. a half a billion for equipment is one thing. another quarter billion per set of equipment to install the stuff. this is an indictment of the remaining equipment. had to be taken out it had to be taken out. on top of that the report says the equipment they have they cannot maintain do not

no whether it works or not and do not have people properly trained to run the equipment. this is a sad day and i can see why the tsa did not want to show up. 61,000 employees 15000 administrators. 46,000 screeners and this whole report outlines in each area training recruitment, acquisition of equipment how they failed. i see why that seat is empty and tsa would not show their face to this committee. >> i recognize the ranking member. >> thank you very much. i thank you for calling this very important hearing. the transportation security administration has an incredibly challenging mission.

it has to strike the right balance between passenger safety and passenger convenience. everyone who has been to an airport in the past 15 years can relate to the frustration of waiting in long lines at security checkpoints. but after september 11, 2,001 we are painfully aware of the dangers we face the challenge for the challenge for tsa is to develop programs that maximize safety and convenience. last year congress directed tsa to increase the number of passengers enrolled in the pre- check program. the program travelers submit background information criminal history, and fingerprints which is run against terrorist watch lists and criminal databases if no problems turn out

there given known traveler numbers which allow them to pass through expedited security lines with fewer restrictions. when congress passed the law it gave tsa specific targets direct them to certify 25 percent of all passengers eligible for expedited screening without lowering security standards and that the agency has been working toward that goal. however, the inspector general and government accountability office have raised concerns about this process. for example,. for example, the current program relies on passengers to provide information about any new criminal convictions or similar information after the golden the program. in other words the system relies on passengers to self update. they should develop a system

to conduct 24 hour recurrent vetting of pre- check members against law enforcement and intelligence databases. many people and agencies have been working for years to do just that. i understand how difficult it is to link local state, and federal data systems. however, this may be one area where we can offer unique assistance especially with wide jurisdiction across all levels of government. gal in the inspector general have raised concerns with the managed inclusion. identify passengers that are enrolled in the pre- check program they use behavioral

detection officers to identify passengers with low risk indicators such as children, the elderly and employee explosive trace detection. although tsa has tested the individual pieces it has not tested them as a whole system. they recommended they hold the program until technology can be developed. another concern is perimeter security. one of our witnesses has flagged this as an issue that needs much more attention, particularly given the entities that play a role in this process including local airport police, operators, and tsa.

.. i want to thank senator chaffetz for calling this hearing and i believe mr. caraway before the

hearing began -- ought to be here and as i said before the hearing began we need to fix a date for him to come in so we can hear from him. i know the chairman has focused on these issues extensively and i want to thank him for all his hard work in this area and i also look forward to the testimony today and with that i yield back i yield back. tonight i thank the gentleman. i will hold the record open for five legislative days for new members who would like to submit a written statement and now we will recognize a panel of witnesses. mr. melvin carraway active administrator for the department of transportation security at the department of homeland security was scheduled to testify but has not arrived, not shown up and has elected to not testify today which was not an optional activity.