to sensitive information of airports and perfect before the position of trust in the transportation system. however, as the report has also clearly, there are significant shortfalls in the policies for radiation workers. for example they found that they do not have access to all of the data that they may need to thoroughly check the workers potential ties to terrorism. ..

>> which i introduced last week along with the chairman and ranking member and congressman. the reality is the terrorist threat is appetizing and we must remain vigilant and ensure protocols keep pace with the ever evolving landscape. the workers who have access to the sensitive area can help close another backdoor vulnerability. we have representatives from the tsa. what tools are needed.

i like forward to hearing the testimony and having a meaningful dialogue and how we can better protect this vital transportation mode and keep aviation safe and secure. the chair recognizes the ranking minority member of the subcommittee for any statement you may have. >> thank you for convening this hearing. we have an important question to answer today how can we do a better job of ensuring criminals and terrorists can i get a job at one of our airports. clearly the results could be catastrophic. we must assume right now someone is trying to do just that assume that we can prevent it and keep working together aggressively and proactively to strengthen our security and stay one step ahead. tsa is responsible for vetting people.

aviation workers themselves are a diverse group of people who play different an important roles. from the person from the person who works at the newsstand to a mechanic who has to access the plane itself to perform his or her duties. but these two people have in common is they both go to work every day everyday be on the checkpoints in a secure area of the airport and we must do everything within our power to make sure people who work in these areas are exhaustively vetted before employment and on a recurring basis and prove themselves to be trustworthy. lastly, the department of homeland security office issued a report the details of 73 individuals with links to terrorism were able to get jobs and able to access secure areas. first, we should be grateful to the inspector general for

bringing this to our attention and to know that this thread was out there, think about what could have happened should be all the motivation you need to work together. that is why we're here today, not to create a spectacle r kass.to figure out how this happened, we need to learn from it is due to close the gap. i also want to.out that the inspector general noted the tsa vetting process was generally effective. as as far as i understand this seems to be two main factors. because of the current enter agency watch this policy tsa does not have access to databases. that is simply unacceptable and must change. the tsa should have an access to all information, should have access to any and all information that will make

the vetting process as exhausted as possible. the report made it clear that tsa databases are a mess. 87,000 employee filed about social security numbers, many would not -- passport number of proof of citizenship. there is no excuse. it strikes me as i'm sure everyone is sloppy and there is no place for sloppiness. we strive for a system that is airtight and precise and in order to achieve that are information must be airtight everything we do must be precise. he has backed a general's office is issued six recommendations all of which will help to address these issues issues, and i appreciate the fact that tsa has concurred with these recommendations. alex forward hearing more about these issues and corrective action. after this hearing a look forward to to taking of legislation authored by myself and the chairman that we will codify recommendations from this report in from another oig

report that details the need for tsa to properly manage its airport screening equipment maintenance program. i want to thank each of our witnesses for being here today and i am eager to hear your testimony and have a productive conversation about how we can do a better job vetting aviation workers, do a better job keeping airport secure and primarily keeping passengers safe. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, ms. miss rice. you, ms. rice. at least the chairman of the homeland security full community plans on coming here and making a statement. he is held up another hearing. hearing. i extend the same courtesy to mr. thompson if he shows up. i i must remind you that opening statements may be submitted for the record. we are pleased to have several distinguished witnesses before us today. the witnesses entire written statement will appear in the record. as someone who is well familiar with this committee welcome back and thank you for your continuing good work.

thank you for being here. i would like to hear from mr. roth. >> chairman, ranking member, members, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today. federal regulations federal regulations require individuals who work in secure areas undergo background checks. required to perform these checks before granting individuals bet is that allow them on escorted access to secure areas. each check includes a security threat assessment including a terrorist check fingerprint-based criminal hacker teefive, or history record check and evidence of the applicant's opposition to work in the us. the airports themselves collect this information's and submitted to tsa.

once tsa receives biographic data electronically match is it against an extract of the terrorist screening database to identify individuals with potential links to terrorism's. tsa that's airport workers every time it receives a watchlist update. based upon this review they may direct the airport grants' deny, or revoke credentials. we we found tsa was generally effective in identifying individuals with links to terrorism. however, did identify significant weakness. the national counterterrorism center perform the data match over 900,000 airport workers who have access to secure areas against the national counterterrorism database. as a result the identified 73 individuals.

current enter agency policy prevents tsa from resuming all terrorism related codes and this lack of access resulted in on discovery's. officials recognize that not receiving these codes represent the represents a weakness in the program and informed us that tsa cannot guarantee that a consistently identify all questionable individuals. in 2014 the tsa administrator authorized after request missing category codes. however according to an official they have yet to formalize the request in order to receive additional categories. the airport from detains the

ultimate authority. however, tsa did not have adequate monitoring processes in place to ensure airport operators properly adjudicated criminal history tsa officials informed us airport officials rarely or almost never documented the results of the personal, or history reviews. individuals with access to secure areas are free of disqualifying criminal conviction. moreover tsa is not legally authorized to conduct vetting of criminal history. we found a weakness in the verification process. as with criminal history the airport operators were

required to ensure aviation workers are authorized to work before sending the information to tsa for review. tsa verifies the deviation workers have lawful status. however, our review showed that tsa has had to deny credentials for over 4800 applicants because tsa determined that they did not prove their lawful status despite the fact these individuals have previously been through the work. tsa relied to submit complete and accurate aviation worker data. we identified thousands of aviation worker records that appeared to have incomplete or inaccurate biographic information. he made six recommendations in the report.

we will follow up on the implementation. thank you for inviting me to testify today. i look forward to any questions you are other members may have. >> thank you for your continuing professionalism. we appreciate you being here. our 2nd witness deputy assistant administrator for the tsa office of intelligence analysis. division director for checkpoint solution and integrity division within the tsa office of security capability. tsa efforts to identify, acquire, and identify acquire, and manage state-of-the-art technologies and capabilities that screen passengers at us airports. prior to beginning of federal career she held management positions at airlines reporting corporation, us airways and trance state airlines.

>> good morning. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to testify about tsa aviation worker vetting program. conducts conducts security threat assessments for more than 2 million workers requiring badge access to airport. these individuals undergo terrorist watch list checks as well as immigration status and criminal history records check. check against the terrorist screening databases are constant and give us near real-time notification of any changes to the list of known or suspected terrorists so that we can take appropriate action. tsa has made key enhancements to aviation worker vetting through projects that began in 2012 including 2012 including the ability for airports to

upload immigration and identity documents to conduct robust identity verification and immigration checks and implementing system logic to reject inaccurate information. airport operators are responsible and making a determination about granting badges to workers that provide secure access to our nation's airport. airport operator may not issue a badge. airports represent a critical layer of security by making risk-based decisions using tsa provided information and locally driven information for the final badge and decision. recognizing the value of conducting more frequent and recurrent criminal checks to identify cases where they have been subsequent criminal activity. the use

of criminal history record checks is considered by the fbi to be for noncriminal justice purposes according to pre- 911 law and regulation. as such tsa has not had access to criminal checks that are available to law enforcement agencies. the fbi implemented a new automated capability to provide the service to other agencies. tsa of the fbi have been working together planning for an initial pilot in the aviation sector to begin later this calendar year. the ig recently made several key recommendations on worker vetting including one that tsa has also identified as an area for enhancement. additional intelligence related additional intelligence related data that may provide value and informed tsa's wedding decision. the ig identified 73 cases for additional attention. to be clear these individuals are not considered to be known or suspected terrorists.

tsa has we reviewed all 73 cases and from the individuals do not pose a threat. these additional intelligence records do not meet the reasonable suspicion standard of being considered a known or suspected terrorist. that being said tsa recognizes the value of having as much relevant data as possible to make informed decisions and as such former tsa administrator signed a memo a memo in 2014 supporting the tsa request and receive for the additional data. may allow tsa to assist the intelligence and law enforcement community identifying previously unknown associations. aggressively pursuing automated access to the data and working to expedite the process to complete the

request. tsa concurs with all recommendations and are taking steps to address them we will be including a requirement for investors to include verifying an airport betting offices review records and legal status publishing guidance kemal regulated airports to ensure the airport betting offices deactivate the badges probably when an individual's temporary authorization to work in the us ends and working with airports to analyze the miles based upon legal status, validate the reason and issue guidance to airports to address any weaknesses complement the steps. we we recognize the value of complete and accurate information and will continue to identify areas for improvement.

i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you for your testimony. our 3rd witnesses miss jimmy grover and justice at the accountability office including gal reviews of tsa and coast guard programs. she joined the gal in 1991. the chair recognizes her to testify. >> good morning. i am pleased to be here today to discuss tsa implementation oversight of the aviation worker program which tsa and airports used to determine whether airport workers per security threats tsa in collaboration with airport operators and the fbi complete applicant

background checks known as security threat assessments for airport facility workers, retail employees and_employees. in general security threat assessment include checks of an applicant's criminal history from immigration status and know links to terrorism. tsa and airport operators have different responsibilities within the process. airport operators collect applicant information and send it to tsa for the security threat assessment. tsa reviews the results of the terrorism and immigration checks to determine if the applicant needs the eligibility criteria for holding an airport credential. tsa transfers the results which contain information from a national fingerprint,

or history system back to the airport operator for review. based upon this information the airport operator evaluates the criminal history to identify potentially disqualifying criminal offenses and then make a determination of eligibility. the airport also enrolls approved applicants and issues a credential providing for access to secure areas of the airport. tsa has faced long-term challenges obtaining the necessary criminal history information to accurately assess aviation workers. in december 2011 the front limitations of a kemal history tax increase the risk that the agency was not detecting all applicants with potentially disqualifying criminal offenses. for the purposes of accessing fbi, history records tsa is considered an uncontrolled just as requested. similar to that of a private company conducting an employment check our new applicant. as a result the information that tsa received an aviation work applicants was often incomplete. at the time of our report tsa did not have access to many

state records with information on sentencing release dates, and parole probation violations. we recommended tsa and the fbi jointly assess the extent to which this limitation pose a security risk. tsa and the fbi concluded that the risk of incomplete information can be mitigated through improved access to state supplied records. the the fbi is as reported expending the criminal history information available. our remaining vulnerability as others have noted, is that until recently tsa did not conduct periodic criminal history checks of airport workers after hiring. in fact, workers to maintain continuous employment with the same airport authority did not undergo any assessment. in april 2015 tsa change this policy by requiring periodic criminal history checks.

according to this requirement tsa will conduct these jerks until there able to establish a system for real-time recurrent criminal history checks similar to the way that tsa conducts current vetting. in conclusion with more complete and updated information about applicant a current worker lester's tsa and airports are better positioned to detect all individuals with potentially disqualifying criminal offenses. the new requirement to periodically conduct history checks is a positive and a positive interim step will tsa and the fbi work toward full implementation which is intended to provide tsa and the airports with real-time, or activity monitoring. chairman, ranking member chairman, this concludes my statement and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. the chernow recognizes the german from the full community for any statement he may have. >> ranking member, thank you

for holding this hearing. recent reports are deeply disturbing and call into question some of the post 911 security measures. the 14 years after that islam is terrorists are still poorly barely plodding daily to kill americans and lately the threat picture has gotten worse. the aviation sector is of particular interest. they think that by taking down airplanes that can bring down our economy. last week reportedly hit the number two. the chair group has been focused for years. it won't stop terrorists aiming their sites at the skies. we stayed on the threats they need confidence

in our defenses. terrorists have to be right only once. we have to be right 100 percent. millions of travelers pass through our nation's airports every year command we need to the systems in place to protect them. in recent weeks tsa has given us more concerned than confidence. reports about the performance have along the american people and raised fears that bombs can pass through airport passenger screening and terrorist might slip to tsa's employee vetting. do everything possible. next month i plan to hold a hearing on aviation security within the tsa administrator once confirmed -- and i want him to outline his vision and give us answers on how he will close any

identifying vulnerabilities. this will not be easy. in order to win the confidence of the american people tsa needs a good wire brushing and strong leadership. we cannot become complacent about the threat. we can must improve her our screening capabilities in the aviation workers who are thoroughly vetted. as a 1st up to tackle these challenges i am cosponsoring hr 27 50 the emperor security vetting for aviation workers and used by chairman: which codifies inspector general six recommendations to ensure there are no loopholes in the security background checks. i am also strongly supportive of hr 2770 keeping our travelers safe and secure it is by ranking member rice which would close additional screening gaps and strengthen our aviation security. i want to thank the dhs inspector general for his leadership and strong oversight and bring in these

vulnerabilities to our attention. and i want to thank the tsa ngo witnesses here and hope there committed to changing the agency's direction and restoring the trust of the american people. when i heard 73 airport workers had ties to terrorism: i got the news 1st of all i cannot believe it and i wanted additional briefings. that is totally unacceptable 14 years after. the american people deserve better. the grandma, veteran, active-duty service, children being patted down with these airports in all this going on and 96 percent of the stuff goes through and we can talk about what it is because it's classified. ninety-six camara small

254 percent success rate. the american people deserve better and deserve to feel safe when they travel on airplanes. with that i yield back. >> thank you very much. i now recognize myself for five minutes asked questions and i will start with mr. roth. briefly summarizing your findings and report in the recommendations. you recommend basically four broad categories. i just want to make sure i have them i have the night. tsa should request and review additional wants the status. >> that's correct. >> number two that they require that airports improve the verification of applicants rights to work. >> direct. >> number three that they revoke credentials. >> correct. >> a number four to improve the quality.

>> yes. this tsa agree with all those recommendations? >> yes. >> i want to focus on requesting and reviewing additional wants the state of 1st. i we will start with mr. rob. mr. rob. tell me -- you mentioned but 900,000 individual employees nationwide will run through the national counterterrorism subject identities. >> yes, sir. >> help onerous was that? >> it was actually the actual task of running it. in ctc did it for us. the legal authorization took some time. we have to get a memorandum of understanding to do it. it took about 18 months. the requirements of the data matching act. legally and bureaucratically it was a huge lift but then to do the match was quite easy. >> the mechanical checking against the database is relatively easy. >> the size of the data is not that large so it was

not that big of a task to match one set against the other. >> if we can fix these hurdles it should be relatively easy to have this go through the database. >> yes. >> okay. a couple questions for you. i would like to know when they 1st became aware of this problem not getting appropriate codes. i no police may of 2014 there was a memo advising they needed additional codes for ties to employee screening. >> that is correct. >> to your knowledge is that when the administrator 1st became aware of the problem? >> that is my understanding. >> may of 2014 at least the administrator, the head of tsa was aware of the fact that they were getting incomplete data and that may affect whether individuals

with terrorist ties are working in airports across the country. >> if i may explain the distinction of the information tsa received lots of information that it maintained by the fbi terrorist screening center. that information is the information we primarily use in our process. that is to the federal government has deemed to be known or suspected terrorists every -- meets the reasonable suspicion standard which is why that is been shared with us. what we are seeking access to his additional intelligence related information that is contained in the end ctc tied database. and it is important to understand that the information -- the information on the watchlist is tied, but not everyone is a a terrorist and means that reasonable suspicion standard to be put on the watchlist.

>> understood, but the fact remains that there are 73 73 individuals that have potential ties to terrorism that were not identified. >> that is correct. we are seeking access. we did review the cases making that determination. >> may have some nexus the terrorism. to terrorism. we will consult with various law enforcement and intelligence committee partners. >> did you do that? >> we do that regularly as part of the process. >> the question is clear. with respect to a 73 individuals tsa has made their own independent determination that they

don't pose a threat. >> tsa reviewed the records and determined that they did not pose a threat. that is part of tsa day in and day out process. every time we understand the someone may have a potential lexus, they may not be designated as a known or suspected terrorist. we do that consultation. >> i just want to make sure your answering the question, a brief yes or no. did you consult? did you consult? >> yes. >> and i take i take it that is something we can see in a secure setting? >> yes. happy yes. happy to share that. >> more importantly, this has raised a concern about the a gap. the amount of time it takes once a concerns raised until the time tsa acts upon it.

i guess we have may of 2014 when the information was brought to administrator pistol. >> yes, sir. >> what the tsa do after that? i know as of today a year later the problem has not been fixed. >> certainly. the administrator did sign a memorandum acknowledging our interest to receive access to this information. we have been engaged in ongoing discussions in the inner agency to receive access to this information. i recently came back to the office of intelligence and analysis in march. since my return i have had numerous and her agency discussions on this topic, and we are working to expedite this process in our request to gain access. >> with all due respect it's been a year.

it's it's been a year. what could be a potentially serious security gap. it has been a year. that does not sound like expediting. >> i understand your. we are working hard to gain access. >> what you say hard what does that mean? >> frankly with regard to employee screening we have had this problem since 2011 command we are still talking about it. we hear the same thing all the time. well, with all due respect, and i no you're just the person here filling in for someone of available but that is not acceptable. you have the nation security in your hands. to sit there and give us a bureaucratic response you are talking about a a gap in terrorist watch lists and you're saying you're working on it?

>> we are working on it but what is important to understand is that we do receive the terrorist screening database, and those are the individuals that are deemed to be threats to transportation security. we've that all the aviation workers against those in the taken action. but we are seeking to do is gain access to additional information that will assist us in providing full a context of who these are and potentially identify unknown associations. >> the.is command i ask you take it back to your supervisors. mr. rogers and i made it clear again and again. the fact remains tsa is not responding very important issues. as it stands now i highly doubt we would be any closer to getting access to the database.

we cannot have a bureaucratic -- in charge of guarding our airports. we just can't. i yield my questioning. >> thank you. you mentioned something in your testimony. limiting the ability for them to give relevant information. is that a change that needs to be made? ensure that the vetting to be thorough and complete. >> this is been a topic of discussion for years. the compact act from 1998 is what set the requirements for requesters the considered to be having criminal justice access versus noncommercial justice access.

when we did our work several years ago tsa position was that they did not really fit neatly into either one of those categories. it was their position that the noncriminal justice access records was not meeting the needs of which it clearly was not. at the time they only have access to information from about 15 states and really did not have the information needed to make a complete determination of eligibility they have worked with the fbi in the past to determine that they are not eligible for the different statuses of criminal justice and have expanded the database. database. i believe that they have access to information from 41 states and that certainly comes much closer to meeting the needs. >> but that is not going to be complete until they have access to all 50. we have to deal with that

change. so you answer the 2nd question. one of the 1st things you said in your testimony was that the vetting process has been found to be effective whether it's mr. ross findings are yours. and i have to tell you sitting here how is it possible that anyone can come to the conclusion we are talking about all of these deficiencies? >> i understand. let me provide some context. yes, the inspector general, part of this report did say they found a vetting process to be generally effective. additionally the department sponsored a review of dhs vetting program command we participated in that. the review of that found the tsa was one of the best performing and effective

systems that dhs has in the vetting of price. one of the key things that we have to keep in mind and part of what we're talking about is the information we have access to. we have a sophisticated vetting system that takes millions of records and effects that against the databases of known and suspected terrorists. we are absolutely dependent on having access to the right information about individuals who posed a threat to transportation and you also may have some value the other piece is important. the applicants who are seeking to work. we are focused on those areas right now. my comment was specifically referencing the effectiveness of the system that we have built, this very complex vetting system.

>> it is clear after today that we can't use that were effective. i just want to ask you said that the denied credentials to 4300 applicants who had previously been found to be okay. >> a couple others. >> the airports are legally responsible. >> the information. >> the airport operators the background information. >> legally able to work.

>> with the tsa does is take that information. >> fourteen years post 911 we saw federal agencies. >> well, certainly the airports themselves have the obligation to certify 450 airports across the country.

only about 1 percent of the applications. >> airport operators are not doing their due diligence to ensure the people they are sending to you, there not giving you the relevant information. >> are escorted escorted access to anyone in the airport. load baggage, have access, do basically anything unescorted. that is concerning.

>> thank you. i yield back my time. >> the chair now recognizes mr. rogers alabama. >> you have further you'll have access to give you the relevant information to make sure they don't get it. you made reference a little while ago. is saying you don't have that access. >> we do have access. we're seeking access to additional intelligence information. >> that is a database we're

seeking automated access. >> pursued any axis. >> am trying to figure out why we should have access to the database. >> why wouldn't you already people again? >> will we have to understand is that the watchlist which are maintained by the fbi terror screening centers individuals who impose threats to transportation and we receive those watch lists purposes of our vetting. we're recognized over time

and understanding the additional intelligence information the value of what we do by identifying potentially individuals who may be unknown. >> who has control of the database now? >> maintained by the nct see >> are they giving you any problems? they have the airports airlines, airports airlines, cementing information to us from our systems, getting information from the watchlist and community. more community. more of the complexities of that inner agency coordination process.

>> frequent an ongoing discussions. >> just for the record that hurts me. >> sixty days, 90 days. >> daily conversations. we will be continuing those discussions. >> somewhat. a little more complicated. a number of girls were talking about. about. >> what? >> codes or categories individuals are names.

known or suspected terrorists that tsa does not have access to. really not used for watchlist and purpose. there are really two categories of information some work that information. some than others good. difficult to describe. we can certainly explain it later on. >> the 1st time. >> we have done reports on access badges. this is this is the 1st time we have done a day to run.

>> identifies having terrorist ties? >> once we give them was named in november last year the more decisions that you make. whether or not these individuals did not pose a threat of terrorism. >> they recognize mr. payne. >> thank you. thank you to the ranking member think. a bit of a kind of confusing element in your most recent

report the vetting process can be considered generally. >> into little contradictory. >> thank you for that opportunity. what we're talking about is the operation that the vetting unit does. they are does. they are only as good as the information they get. they do a very significant job. over 2.2 million recurring vetting its. that's about 6000 per day. additionally they additionally they have to manually review 24,000 records in your to look at

potential hits of the terrorism screening database to see whether or not these in fact are the individuals listed. they do a good job. they uncovered a vulnerability. did not have all the information they needed. >> the volume that individuals. you only need one to have the her we will. >> that's the nature of the threat. asymmetric threat. >> your report acknowledges numbers as being strong matching elements yet neither is required.

in your view can tsa effectively identify potential risk of such elements are discounted? >> it makes the job more difficult. that's the best identifier you can use to match an applicant of the database. the privacy act which has some exemptions does not exempt tsa from requiring applicants to have a social security number something that i think would be usable >> okay. and during the q&a with the members appear what leverage do we have with the airport operator if they are not complying and giving the information?

a lot sometimes at the airport operator in doing that job. job. what leverage do we have to make sure that they are complying? >> before we get to the compliance piece of what is important is is working closely with the airport operators to identify the areas where improvement but without guidance on how we can do that will work with them to implement that and it sure we have a robust compliance mechanism to go back and you and ensure that they are doing that and take collective action if we continue to find that they are not complying. >> what would those collective actions consistent? continued issues around and getting to where we need them to be. what leverage do we have if they are falling short?

>> we have formal security programs with all the airports that they are required to comply with and have inspectors to go out and review the performance against those requirements. i am not intimately familiar with the consequences with respect to if there are issues of noncompliance but happy to follow up. >> what can we do to strengthen the relationship tsa has potential and current aviation workers? >> thank you. we concur with the recommendations that have been made. we have been making improvements are putting in system logic so that people reject information that maybe erroneous or inaccurate. we have also added

automation to allow the upload of identity documents so that we have the information to review. looking forward to our continued opportunities. one of the things we're looking at is further automation. the way the information comes from the airport operators through channelers is through both automated and some manual processes and we're looking to move to a fully automated process that will reduce the opportunity for erroneous data to be submitted. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. the chernow recognizes mr. rehnquist taxes for questioning. >> thank you, chairman and ranking member for holding yet another hearing on this matter. it feels a little bit like the movie groundhog day where the same things keep happening over and over again. you are back here again. we have had several hearings on this matter before the

subcommittee on security breaches caused by improper screening most recently in april we have been tsa administrator carol way talking about the steps that have been taken to make airport and airline employees creating more secure. earlier this month we have the report about official be able to get banned items through security checkpoints 95 percent of the time. we have your report revealing that the tsa failed to identify the 73 active workers was linked is terrorism setting a lack of effective controls. i know in your report you conclude with this statement will with our recent report we had another security vulnerability. i agree with you. tsa does need to address these issues.

as the chairman as the chairman noted it has been almost 14 years. some of what i see in your report calls to mind the troubling pre-september 11 trend we had. your. your former department of justice official we will formally assistant united states attorney. we had a problem before september 11 where intelligence were not sharing information that had an excuse back then. a lot of not allow. we changed the law. i want to ask you about your report. tsa did not identify these individuals because tsa is not clear to receive all terrorism categories under the current inner agency guidance. >> you talked a little bit about this.

i'm not clear. is this a situation where we need to change the law? >> it may very well be. the office of national intelligence and determine whether or not they will have access to this information. if not it may require a change in the law. i share your concerns that information sharing is critical. even if there is information contained within the database that is unsubstantiated is useful for individuals doing a review of someone who will have unfettered access to secure areas. what is troubling is that tsa is being treated as if they were walmart. an individual stands in line

with walmart to determine whether or not there will be a criminal history check. >> let me ask you about that. we talked a little bit about that. you talk about the fact that airport operators review the criminal histories for new applicants for badges. but tsa and the airports are not legally authorized to conduct recurrent criminal history. >> that's correct. >> currently have is tsa and the airport know if an employee has committed a crime during her tenure? >> that is the difficulty of the. try to attempt to get recurring vetting. as far as the current conditions that is a vulnerability.

>> of a checking, do they have the ability to check against marshall service wants and warnings this? >> we do check against the open wants. >> that does not include disqualifying crimes. >> correct. i see my time has expired. i yield back. >> thank you. i recognize the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you. reminded him of the movie groundhog day and reminds me of the leonardo dicaprio movie catch me if you can. these are real issues. we had a hearing at the oversight community. one of the major things that

came out of that was there was real jurisdictional problem with airports, and we are hearing it again today. i want to follow up. if you have noncompliance what can you do? we found holes in fences were parameters not being looked at cited in vulnerability assessments and nothing was done because there is no enforcement. whoever runs these things. we are seeing now in testimony this morning that when you are reviewing some of the employment that you are doing only 1 percent of the and finding mistakes. how is that followed up?

how are they penalize? what are they threatened with? it seems like we have a basic jurisdictional issue. ..

are you aware of what that effort has been to shift that responsibility? the >> i want to make sure that i understand the question. you're asking if we would take back that responsibility. >> you've been asking over the last couple of years to shift the responsibility in that exit lane out of the airport and which many are coming in and that's been delayed in part of members of the committee expressing concerns is it fair to say it's not going to be pursued anymore. >> when we are looking at the numbers on the vulnerability studies of the aspects of this

we found it's less than 3% being reviewed. this morning we found out that only 1%. is there a need to have more accountability and needed to enforce the operations of the airport authority's? when they can look at the recommendation and what has been found and we are not even clear if anything has been done. in the the minnesota airport authorities they are pointing at

the federal government other law enforcement are pointing fingers. it's dangerous and it's going to get us nowhere and that's what we have been dealing with for the last few years. do you think there is a need to put teeth into what the tsa can do with airports? >> you raise a good point and we haven't done any work on that but it's something we would be willing to consider purchase irrespective of whether they follow up and actually find out for example. when they find noncompliance would do they do it about it. >> thank you mr. chairman i

appreciate your leadership in this most disturbing situation that we find ourselves in a. it's my understanding that security credentials are being given to individuals regardless of their work or authorization date is that correct? >> that's correct what we found is what say you are authorized to work for 18 months he would get a security badge that wouldn't turn off at determination to work. >> so you are saying we might have people -- we probably do have people that are walking around unescorted in the airports and security areas who are here illegally. >> they do not have authorization to work yes we identified that as a former buddy. >> you know certainly we have

these peoples social security numbers, correct? >> i'm sorry i missed the question. >> we have their social security number, we have that. so you are telling me we have people walking around on escorted in secure areas of airports and we don't have their social security number? the passport number or the social security number. >> the report in the inspector general's investigation found that we have thousands had thousands of incomplete or inaccurate applications and biographical information. can i ask you if you will bear with me please can you give me the first initial of your first name? >> i have three minutes left to ask questions.

do you think i can get guess your first name in a three-minute? my point is simply this we have applications that only have the first initial in the first name. >> i usually travel once or twice per the busiest airport in the world through atlanta, hartsville jackson airport. >> we have people walking around the airport and we don't even know what their name is. we don't have their social security number. >> i am okay.

my son is coming up later today and i want to make sure he's okay. isn't this something that should be taken care of immediately? immediately? i can't believe in the world's busiest airport. we have people walking around on escorted in secure areas that we don't know their social security number, we don't know their names. we have to figure this out i'm

just appalled at this and i appreciate the efforts here and appreciate all of the efforts of all of you that we but we need to take care of this immediately on passenger rail safety but instead we chose to have this hearing and i want to juxtapose. we will fix this right after the hearings at the point is if you have issues and you need things done i highly encourage the tsa to come to us because we can get your legislative fixes for the security gaps continue.

i know they are trying to fix things. let me tell you what they are doing in the meantime. we have a problem with pre- check that can be introduced next week or in the next couple of weeks. we put them into pre- check because it flows. that can be fixed and they are introducing a bill regarding that. we have access control and screening issues that are absolutely positively abysmal. and when people have guns on airplanes or they are dealing dope out of the oakland airport if the problem.

i highly encourage the tsa to work with us and not just close ranks and say we are looking into the issue. your employees are getting checked in the database and after people start requesting that information has been and they are still spinning their wheels. you interested the security and we need to do a better job we just flat just flat-out need to do a better job and it starts with leadership. it took us months of begging the president just to appoint a successor for tsa. that is unacceptable in such an important agency. we can't wait for these to be fixed and i encourage you to keep doing what you're doing

keep exposing issues that need to be taken care of. i know it's a lot of work and i can tell you it's critically important to the safety of the country and i applaud both of you in your agencies and staff for what you're doing so keep it up. i want to thank the witnesses for their testimony and members for their questions. we would ask you to respond to these in writing. the committees and adjourned that i would note that we are going to market 15 minutes after break

today the senate voted to end debate on the annual defense program bill in the 83-15 vote. democrat leaders have been critical of the bill because for the of the extra $38 billion added for the pentagon's more fund. they also considered several amendments to the bill and improved one that prohibits certain enhanced interrogation practices critics consider

torture they remain sponsors to make a dianne feinstein and john mccain discussed the issue before the senate voted. i joined the senator mccain and ranking member read as well as the senator and the other original cosponsors. the senators white house mikulski wyden, murphy coming murphy, here i go warner, baldwin, brown and marquis in offering the amendment will help ensure the united united states never again carries out coercive and abusive interrogation techniques.

i'm pleased the senate will consider this amendment and i urge a vote created the amendment we are offering today is really very simple. it extends with congress in 2005 by the vote of 90-9 with the detainee treatment act which i believe senator mccain offered which banned the department from using techniques authorized by the army field manual and i banned them from using cruel inhumane and the treatment or punishment. the amendment also requires prompt access by the international committee of the red cross to any detainee held by the united states government. both of these provisions are

consistent with united states policy for the past several years. but this amendment would codify these requirements into the law. president obama banned the use of coercive and abusive interrogation techniques by executive order in its first few days in office. actually january 22, 2009. that executive order prohibits as a matter of policy the use of interrogation techniques not specifically authorized by the army field manual on human intelligence collector operations. this amendment places that restriction in the law. it is long overdue. the amendment also codifies another section of president obama is january 09 executive order requiring access to the international committee of the red cross to all u.s. detainees in the u.s. government's

custody. access that has been granted by the united states and other law-abiding nations and as needed to fulfill our obligations under international law such as the geneva conventions. it's important that the policies in and the 09 executive order are only guaranteed for as long as the future president agrees to lead them in place. this amendment would codify these two provisions into the law. and the punishment this amendment is still necessary because interrogation techniques were able to be used which were based on deeply flawed legal theory and both those techniques

that were said didn't constitute torture or cruel inhumane or degrading treatment. this would codify the prohibition on the program that was already defunct at the end of the bush administration. cia director john brennan has clearly stated that he agrees on the interrogation techniques that are not in the army field manual he broke the intelligence committee in 2013 about the president's own nine executive order. i agree with the president's decision and while i'm director

of the cia to that this program will not under any circumstances be reinitiated area i personally remain firm in my belief that enhanced interrogation techniques are not inappropriate method to obtain intelligence and that they are used to impair our ability to continue to play the leadership role in the world furthermore, it's important to point out that the senate and the house both required the use of the army field manual across the government in the fiscal year 2008 intelligence authorization bill. unfortunately, president bush vetoed legislation. mr. president what everyone may every one may think about the cia former detention. we should all agree that there can be no turning back to the

era of torture. interrogation techniques that would together constitute torture do not work. they covered the moral standing and ultimately they undermine any counterterrorism policies that are intended to support. so before i close i would like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record a series of letters and statements in support of this amendment. >> i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and by doing so, we can reconnect ourselves to the fundamental precept that the united states has without exception and without equivocation to ensure that the mistakes of the past are never again repeated in the future. i would ask for a yes vote and i would yield the floor.

and i would note the absence of a quorum. >> the senator from arizona. >> a quorum call to be suspended. i ask my colleagues to disregard the statement with the exception i don't know the military leader i don't have to remind my colleagues the commander of the forces in iraq and afghanistan after the cia and who arguably

has more experience dealing with more detainee issues in the u.s. government than any other american and here are his words. these are the words of general david petraeus. i strongly support the extension of the provisions of the u.s. army field manual that govern the actions of the u.s. military to all u.s. government personnel and contractors. the nation has paid a high price in recent decades for the information gained in the use of techniques on to those in the field manual and in my view that a price far outweighed the value of the information gained in the use of techniques beyond those in the manual. i would urge my colleagues to listen to the words of david petraeus. there is a letter that i received this month from the former intelligence interrogation professionals, u.s. military cia and fbi.

there is an excerpt here's an excerpt of a letter they sent this month. as intelligence interrogation professionals who have offered our collective voice opposing torture and other forms of treatment we strongly encourage you to support the amendment. the interrogation methods that have kept us safe are humane and produce reliable actionable intelligence in any interrogation scenario. to promote a return to the respective level of professionalism, there must be a single standard of conduct consistent with our values as a nation across all u.s. agencies to govern the detention and interrogation of people anywhere in u.s. custody. support by some of the most experienced military leaders in a letter this month 30 retired including the marine corps, the commander of centcom, the commander in chief among others

wrote the following and i quote this amendment not only solidifies the other forms of cruel or degrading treatment it also ensures insures interrogation methods used by all u.s. personnel are professional and reflected the government's best practices and we not only ensure that they are humane and lawful but also that they produce reliable intelligence on which we depend against the current terrorist threat. i ask unanimous consent for the letter for those individuals dated june 9 the 2,015th to be included in the record. >> the letter from the retired armed military officers including the former commander-in-chief of the marine corps to also be included in the record.

>> without objection. >> in a letter this month the national association of evangelicals wrote the following in support of this amendment. while it's currently prohibited across all government agencies by executive order, this fundamental principle must be enshrined to ensure no future president may authorize and that's from the national association of evangelicals. the committee on international justice and peace in the united states contact the bishops to write the following support of the amendment and catholic teaching cannot be justified under any circumstances as it violates the dignity of the human person both victim and perpetrator and it degrades any society that tolerates it. we urge all senators to support the mccain feinstein amendment to ensure they are an activist of the government doesn't engage

in torture again. i respect the dedication of services of those charged with protecting this country. for 14 years america's security professionals and the military intelligence committee and beyond have lived every day with a determination to protect their fellow americans and at the same time we must continue to insist that the methods that we employ must always be as right and honorable as the gold that we fight for. i believe that passing policies compromise our values, stating our national honor and get rid of practical good. i don't believe that we should employ such practices in the past and we should never permit them in the future. this provides greater assurances that never again will the united states follow that dark path of sacrificing the values for the

short-term security needs. i also know such practices don't work. i know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners doesn't produce good reliable intelligence. victims of torture will offer intentional misleading information if they think the captors will be needed. i firmly believe that all people even captured enemies possess basic human rights which are protected by international standards often sent by america's past leaders. our enemies act of conscience and we must not. let us reassert the contrary popular proposition that it is essential to our success in the world that we ask those that fight for us to remain and remember there are times they are defending a secret idea of a how the nation should be governed and conducted with

others even our enemies. those of us that give them this duty are given by the nation's highest ideals and the sacrifices made to protect them. we need not prevailed in the case or any war. we need only remember the worst of times through the chaos and terror when facing cruelty, suffering and the loss that we are always americans and different, stronger and better than those that with the stratus. i yield the balance of my time. >> the senate then approved the ban on torture in interrogations and in the 78th to 21 vote. another amendment to the defense bill proposed by the democrats would remove sexual assault cases from the military chain of command. the senator debated her amendment with senator john

mccain and dianne feinstein. this part of the debate is a half-hour. >> the senator from new york. i rise to urge my colleagues to support my amendment number 1578. the military justice improvement act to ensure that the survivors of military sexual assault have access to an unbiased trained military judicial system. last year despite the support of 55 senators, a coalition spanning the entire ideological spectrum including both the majority and minority leaders are built for creating independent military justice systems free of inherent biases and conflicts of interest within the chain of command filibustered by this body. but as you say then we will not walk away. the brave men and women in

uniform who are defending the nation deserve a vote. that is our duty. it is our oversight role. it's congress responsibility to act. our husband and wives are being betrayed by the greatest military on earth. we owe them that at the very least. over the last few years congress has forced the military to make many incremental changes to address this crisis. and after two decades of complete failure and service for zero tolerance it is essential to trust us this time, we've got it. they misrepresent the data to claim that their mission is accomplished but when you dig below the surface you will find that the assault is exactly where it was in 2010.

it averages 52 cases every single day and three or four still think it's worth reporting the crime against them. 75% of trust current system. one in seven was assaulted by someone in their chain of command. and in 60% of the cases a supervisor or a unit leader is responsible for either sexual harassment or sexual discrimination. this isn't the climate our military deserves. it is no surprise then that one in three survivors believed that reporting would hurt their career. but they are more likely than not to experience retaliation, despite a much touted reform that made the retaliation of crime they made zero progress on

improving the retaliation raids that we had in 2012. according to the human rights watch report, it cannot provide a single example of serious action taken against those that retaliated against the victim. the survivor is 12 times more likely to suffer retaliation then to see their offender gets convicted of a sex offense and in the cases from the domestic space if one from each service in 2013 i found that nearly half of those that did it move forward move forward and report ended up dropping out of the cases. under any metric the system remains plagued and it doesn't provide fair and just process

but the men and women in the military deserve. simply put the military hasn't held up to the standard posed by the general one year ago when he said we are on the clock if you will. the president said to us in december you've got about a year to review this and as we haven't been able to demonstrate we are making a difference and we deserve to be held to scrutiny. i urge you to hold the military to that standard. just yesterday i received a letter from the mother of a survivor of military sexual assault who was serving active duty. she said the reason i'm writing on her behalf is because i fear she will be retaliated against for speaking out.

i'm asking you to take a stand with survivors and their family i've experienced the anguish of a child that has been raped by another service member, a fellow, brother in arms who she should have been able to trust. our military sons and daughters survived these crimes and carry higher rates of postherpetic stress disorder and a suicide. i believe that at the end if it is passed that can save lives and will positively affect the lives of victims and their families. retaliation happens so often that a majority of these assaults go unreported.

every military victim of sexual assault users to process. professional treatment by trained military individuals in the cooperative of the two seek and receive justice. our military has promised improvement and has been out of time on which to approve that the numbers show that the military has failed to live up to its promise. the department has admitted it had made no progress since 2012 and it's time for the chain of command to remove the decision-making cases to be replaced by those trained non- biased military personnel educated in the law and experienced in handling the sexual us both cases. further it specifically targets the other serious crimes with the remainder of military crimes being left in the chain of command. please hold of the military to a higher standard by voting yes to an unbiased military system. we have to listen to the victims

and survivors of the men and women who will give their lives to this country who sacrificed anything for this country. american military if they do these reforms will have fewer dangerous close and far more heroes. the men and women we send to war deserve nothing less than the justice system = sacrifice. by listening to the victims, we can deliver that. i urge everyone here listen to our brave survivors. support the end do the right thing. i would like to yield the floor to the military justice improvement act, the senator from iowa. >> thank you senator for her leadership in this area over a long period of time and i would add my voice to the support of

her amendment. she's been a great leader on the issue. as you see she's got a lot of patience in the pursuit of justice. last year when i spoke in favor of this nature, i made the point that this wasn't a new issue that required further study in the incremental reforms. we have been hearing promises for years and years that there would be zero tolerance in the crackdown on military assault. last year the national defense authorization act included a lot of commonsense reforms, but it didn't include any fundamental reform in the military justice system. we were told to give these new adjustments to the current system a chance to work and come back next year.

at the time i made the point that we had already tried working within the current system to no avail. i am not one to advocate for major sweeping reform if less well understood problem. last year after congress passed the reforms but not our department chair chief of staff said we've been given about a year to demonstrate both that we will treat this with the urgency that deserves. they wouldn't stand in a way of the the way of the more major reforms.

well, we have not seen significant movement. in terms of the number of the central cases and the shocking rate of retaliations. it cannot turn to independent system to get justice combine with a real fear of retaliation acts as a terrible deterrence to reporting. if the cases are not reported, they then cannot be prosecuted. if it isn't prosecuted it leads to predators in the remaining military perception that this sort of activity is by allowing

the situation to continue we are putting at risk the men and women who found to please their lives on the line. we are also seriously damaging the military morale. taking it out of the hands of commanders and giving them to professional prosecutors who are independent of the chain of command will help ensure partial justice for the men and women this would in no way take away the ability of commanders to punish troops under their command for military. commanders also can and should be held accountable for the climate under their command. but the point here is the that sexual assault is a law-enforcement matter, not a military one.

this is a reform that came out of the blue ether. we have an advisory committee appointed by the secretary of defense himself came out in support of the reforms. on september 27 2013 the defense advisory committee on women in the services i think it goes by the acronym that this committee voted overwhelmingly in support of the military justice improvement act amendment. they were created way back in 1951 by the secretary of defense who is who were appointed by the secretary defense to provide advice and recommendations on matters of policy is relating to the recruitment and retention

treatment in employment integration and well-being of highly qualified professional women in the armed forces. historically, this committee's recommendations have been very instrumental in effecting changes to the law and policies pertaining to military women. the bottom line is this isn't some advocacy group in the panel. it's a long-standing advisory committee and it supports the substance of the amendment. we've tried reforming the current system and it didn't work. when we are talking about something as serious and life altering we cannot afford to wait any longer. so i urge my colleagues to join

us in supporting this amendment. but as we approach this from the outside it gives me an opportunity to reiterate what i see so wrong in so many bureaucracies but as i look back over a couple or three decades. it has to happen from without. and in this particular case of the national defense being the number one responsibility of the federal government this change has to happen without because it hasn't happened from within regardless of the promises. i yield the floor. >> the senator from missouri. >> first i did ask for consent

that the army fell in my office be granted privileges for the remainder of the year. >> without objection. >> last year we gather here to debate this issue and i think it's important to point out that everyone in this body has the same heart when it comes to this issue and that is we want to make sure that the victims that are victims that are assaulted in the military are protected and supported but the system is highly trained and professional the perpetrators have due process but also put in prison if the system finds them guilty. the difference is an honest policy differences over which systems with better publish those goals. we have agreed on so much and i think it's important to point out the work of the congress has been reforming the assault in the military last year we had over 26 different provisions

enacted into the law. this year we haven't stopped. we have 13 more positions in this piece of legislation. there is a disagreement over which system would protect the veterans better. the historical reforms and commanders have been stripped from their ability to overturn conviction and they are being held accountable under the standards and oversight to every victim that now reports. it's now a crime for any member to retaliate against a victim that supports the sexual assault and the soldier defense has been removed and dozens of dozens more and yes there were panels that looked at this issue. it's put in place by this

congress spent weeks and weeks examining this. by the way, this panel was made up of a majority of civilians and majority women and a voted overwhelmingly to reject an approach that would move commanders from their responsibilities and their duties and therefore, their accountability. we went into this thinking that the proposition made sense. but when you hear the facts, it doesn't hold up. she was joined by the liberal icon who was the author of the statute here in the congress where she served as a representative and she spoke out

saying once she understood the system and understood the facts, she agreed keeping the commanders accountable was crucial. now have we seen progress? it is one thing to have anecdotal information and it's another to have a statistically valid survey. the scene that shows that retaliation is a stubborn problem that we cannot give up on also shows some very important data so if you are going to argue that retaliation is continuing a problem you are relying on the same survey that tells us the following. the reporting continues to grow up which is the stated goal as we began the reforms. reports are up 70% from 2012.

back in 2012 only one in ten victims were reporting. we have it down to one in four. that is not a spin, that is a fact. the victims are coming forward because they have renewed confidence that they will have support and get good information and the system isn't stacked against them. the supporting occurred in all categories. the number of unrestricted reports are up and restricted reports are up and importantly the number of reports that the victims converted from restricted to unrestricted. furthermore the winter, the country and did focus groups. this wasn't the department of justice, this was the corporation that is well known for its ability to do the information. it's around the country and it's worked on the different bases and asked them to come forward

and participate in the survey and this is important. 82% agreed that the unit commanders supported them. 73% were satisfied with the unit commanders response and 73% said they would recommend other parts of the were a victim of assault. this is important. the amendment does nothing to combat that retaliation. the survey found that the majority doesn't come from commanders it comes from peers and this is a culture we will have to get after and i would stand ready to work with the senator and all of my colleagues to look and see what we have to do to get after this retaliation which is a vast majority of the vast majority of what was reported and finally the amendment weakens the punishment for the crime of the retaliation by moving deletion from the article 92 to article 93 it would reduce the maximum

punishment for this crime and it's finally prohibits the resources necessary to get this problem. it says we cannot add any additional resources to get after this. historical reforms have been made. they are working based on data and talking to dozens and dozens of prosecutors and untold victims who cares about nothing more than taking care of victims and making sure they have due process. i must urge this body to reject the approach which would move the commanders from being held accountable where they must be held accountable. i would urge a no vote on the amendment. >> dot senator from new york. >> i would like to respond to the last point of my colleagues made that somehow this reform

makes commanders less responsible. >> senators are advised that of all time for debate is expired >> i ask for unanimous consent to continue debate for five minutes. >> is there objection? without objection. >> so this statement that the commanders are removed into that we are not keeping them responsible that couldn't be further from the truth. today commander's over the only ones responsible for discipline at every level the unit commander is responsible. every aspect of the chain of command is responsible. it's their job to train the troops to prevent the crime being committed under the command and punish retaliation. they have failed in that duty

and in his chain of command 97% of commanders are responsible and do not have the convening authority that we would like to get the prosecutors. 90% of their job doesn't change one iota seducing you are making the commanders less responsible is a false statement that has no bearing in fact they are 100% responsible for a good order discipline for training the troops and to prosecute retaliations. and in one year, mr. president, they've been on the notice for years about about the spot 25 years and we've got this zero tolerance. we do something about retaliation. they have the right to the convening authority at 3% needs to be moved to some of it is actually a lawyer.

this leader where there is the alleged discrimination or sexual harassment it is the unit leader committing it. one in seven of the races are one of these commanders. the senior military prosecutors to make this decision so that perspective can be someone's got my back. this chain of command may be taken for. we are trying to make the military the best prosecutorial system in the world and they can do this mission. they need to give them the tools and having the current status quo that is in charge of no retaliation and no rates is

failing and to have the same rate of retaliation if we had that we had when the commander said you must trust us to do this, every one of the commanders doesn't have the convening authority is that better they could have stopped retaliation. they are administrative. only a commander can administer the professional retaliation. if congress doesn't take that response ability to hold the department accountable. >> the senator from arizona. >> the fiscal year passed last year included 34 new provisions dealing with the sexual assault. at the commanders have barely had time to implement the provisions, the lone assist the effectiveness. it included more than 50 individuals for the military

justice since 1968. a cumulative. the last three included 71 sections of the law containing more than 100 unique requirements including 16 congressional reporting requirements. this year's bill builds on the progress with 12 military justice provisions including every proposal that was offered during the markup of the legislation. it's true it's been reduced. that's a fact. so to somehow a ledge nothing has been done and the proposal is rejected by virtually every member of the military that i know that has years of experience we cannot remove the commanding officer from the chain of command and that's what

the senator's amendment and effort has been to remove the officer from the responsibility, and i will steadfast approves it and i would hope that at some point the senator from new york would acknowledge that we took her in this bill every provision that she offered during the markup of the legislation so with respect and appreciation for the senator's passion and forth her dedication on this issue i would respectfully disagree and urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

if someone is sitting in front left of the chamber so when he comes into the chamber he comes into the center sits down and is almost looking directly at him. his head is bowed and he is literally signing copies of the crime against kansas speech. he walks down the center aisle totally oblivious to what is happening. he left his cane over his head and says i've read your speech over twice. someone looks up at this point, he strikes him on the top of the head with a cane and his head

explodes in blood almost instantly. >> link

d. costs and and policy that has discussed the global economy. here is part of the conference inning with a discussion about the conference legislative agenda. we will hear from the michigan senator debbie stabenow followed by kevin mccarthy. >> thank you all for being here. >> my pleasure. >> just a little background, she was elected in 1996. i think think you're the ranking member on the energy financing the budget committee. you spent a lot of time on manufacturing and health and agricultural issues and i think when you grew up your family-owned oldsmobile. >> we don't own oldsmobile anymore. [laughter] >> we had a used car and i always got t