oversight and she suggested results in these numerous contracts. the results are that there are difficulties pressuring performance and insuring sufficient use of taxpayer dollars. this is an important issue for me and many of us and hopefully i will introduce legislation. i have been working on legislation to promote the

importance of program management. and that is all throughout the federal government. if you are confirmed, sir, how would you address the issues raised by ms. roaring in regards to the numerous contracts and obligations? >> thank you, senator ernst. i have a lot of experience with overseeing contracts and seeing how they were put in place in the coast guard and my current role i am what is is called the component acquisition executive and it means i am responsible for all of the ways in which we spend money to buy things or to hire people to help us do things. so the coast guard contracting is mostly in the area of it services and financial management services. you have to look at them carefully. contracting can be a useful tool if it is used appropriately. but what i found is when strong control is in place, and those controls are not just the

program management level, you have to have people trained and qualified, but you have to have a process. and you know, i tell people i am a substance guy but unless you have good process, substance doesn't occur. that means what are the requirements. how do i generate the requirements for why i am hiring a contractor in the first place and how do i review those requirements on a regular bases and how well do i explain the requirements to the potential contractors that will bid on the contract. are they tight enough they can be overseen and controlled and once the ongoing oversight of the management of the contract so i understand that contract when laid against the requirements is working and what is the exit strategy if it isn't working. there is a lot more to the process but you have to look

from front to end. it isn't a matter of whatever this is right now. if confirmed one of the things i i need to do and intend to do is look carefully at not just the way the resources are expended but how effective the expenditure of the resources have been particular with respect to contracting. >> i appreciate the fact you have experience with contracting and logistics. so thank you. one other question as well i know the tsa committed to supporting the number of our veterans and hiring veterans and they do make-up a large portion of positions within the tsa such as transportation, security officers, and as they are uniquely qualified i believe for the civilian positions in the

security space is there more that can be done at the tsa to recruit more of our veterans into the tsa? >> well, that is a wonderful question. i don't have an answer for you right now. i will tell you i agree with you that our veterans provide a wonderful potential source of employment employment. these are people who know what it takes to serve a mission and accomplish that mission. i think there is room for that. if confirmed i will look at how that is being done and opportunities to take advantage of that and increase it are potentially possible. >> very good. thank you. and last very briefly, we did have some questions about the pre-check program that came out from yesterday's hearing. we heard a lot from different witnesses concerns about the pre-check program and maybe how

it is being expanded too much and there are security risks with that. can you address some of the pre-check ideas that you might have to take sure we are properly vetting those passengers or travelers and not handing out pre-check like candy as ms. roaring stated. >> i think the properly vetting piece is important. i believe in the population and the more you can know about the population the more comfortable i am about them moving through the system. i am a fan of vetting people going into the pre-check and i think the goal should be to have a fully vetted population in pre-check. i understand there have been challenges with respect to enrollment centers. if confirmed, i am looking at how those can be expanded in a way that can make the entry into the system and those who want to make it more accessible and

available. but i think the goal should be to move toward a pre-check population that is known and vetted and that to the extent possible is one that is expanded based on that rule set. >> i appreciate your answers, and your testimony, and look forward to working with you in the future. thank you. >> senator sasse. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral, thank you for being here and thank you for your past service. in your pre-hearing questions the committee asked you if you believe the tsa is fulfilling their responsibilities and you didn't answer but said you would insure tsa remains laser focused on its core mission. did you believe they are doing that today? -- do -- >> i believe there are still good layers of security within tsa but there are challenges particularly with respect to the equipment tested by the

inspector general. i want to believe able to provide you with a true and complete answer to that question if confirmed and my immediate task is to first of all get the full results of the ig investigation, go investigation and any internal investigations that have been done because they have their own inspection team internally. what are they finding, is it the same things, and what is extent of the gaps found what can be done immediately to eliminate them while we look at systemic issues across the organization. and going back to a comment i made previously i want to see how that fits into the entire system and if there are gaps in the other layers in place. the system as it works as whole is what determined their effectiveness. in addition to the equipment the

ig found deficient. >> i appreciate the layering pierce of answer. do you think the tsa is succeeding at its mission? >> you know i travel a lot and i travel to the west coast this past weekend and i felt safe. but i want to know if that feeling was a good feeling to have. and based upon the findings, clearly there is a problem with the way in which people are being screened because screening didn't work in the institutes they are done and it occurred at a number of airports. i need to look at how that has been done across the system and more importantly what have we done to mitigate that and can it be safe. >> i appreciate we were at a classified briefing yesterday and i know you are trying to do

your homework but for those of us pushing on these issues i will be honest i am not that surprised by this 96% issue in the report because there are other classified reports we cannot reveal the particulars of in this setting but i think you are not answering the question of whether or not you think today tsa is succeeding or failing at its mission. >> i appreciate where you are going, senator. i think there are aspects of the system that do work and i want to know how well they work and i think some of the security flight checking, some of the name-base checking is working, i don't know how effective it is. so i will tell you if confirmed i need to really dig in deeper. i have had a number of briefings about the way they do business and some of what i have heard is reassuring and some is deeply disturbing >> without revealing any details that would give the terrorist a

road map to our vulnerabilities did you believe the public has a right to to know more about the tsa's failure? >> i am a fan of transparent governments and making it clear how effective it is how the performance is and what is done when they don't leave up to the standards. i am not a fan of giving away secrets to enemies or exposing vulnerabilities we know exist. i think that is a delicate line that has to be walked. but i don't want to give comfort to those who would harm us or help. >> i don't either. my call to the administration to declassify more of the information and for the president to come clean with the american people about how badly tsa is failing include the not revealing details that give the terrorist a road map but

johnson's point is one benefit is the benefit of people believing it was functioning much more effectively than we know to be. politico said you will be living a herceles turn around is required at tsa. do you think that is true? >> i think a refocus on the basic mission. an understanding that this organization has got to be one that continually changes and adapts. the day you think you have the security system right is the day you will be defeated in that security system. one of the things i learned in the military is you question every assumption you have about your performance and you question it because you know somebody is going to be questions you if you don't do it yourself. if you don't question yourself then you are not staying ahead of the people who are already questions you. it doesn't surprise me people out there have found way do is defeat the system the question is what do you do about it

internally. >> if you are going to fix a brogan institution that requires us admitting the institution is broken. secretary johnson said that tsa is the best model of risk-based security at dhs and he specifically highlighted the pre-check system but we know tsa failed to catch weapons 96% of the time and 73 airport workers have links to terrorism. i am curious, how can we have these kinds of security lapses 14 years after 9/11? >> i think that is the question senator. it is the question that made niasia ellisme niasia ellis yes to -- me say yes to taking the job. i want it to be safe for americans to travel. i care about the safety and security of this nation and i want to be able to answer that question in an affirming way.

i want to say it is safe to do so. i don't know if if is right now. if confirmed that is going to be my focus. i promise i will come back to this committee and other oversight committees and lay out the challenges i find and do it in a transparent way and where it requires doing so classified setting we will do so. >> but the turnaround is going to require admitting the challenge. what letter grade would you give tsa and dhs beginning the mission? >> it may be premature to assign a letter system. i will come back if confirmed but i will say they are not where they need to be. >> as a former college president i don't know any institution where a 4% success rate would be anything other than an f. i know i think the american people have a right to understand the sure more clearly. >> thank you, senator sasse.

i want to underscore you are coming from manufacturing background and the first step of solving with solving the problem is admitting it. i feel safe flying but only because of the odds. 25,000 flights. what are the odds. i think the line of question senator sasse was undertaking is exactly right. we have to admit the problem and define it. senator ayotte. >> thank you, chairman and admiral appreciate you being here and your willingness to take on this position. you are a pneumnominee for this important position and you are seeing the outlines of the problems and know the american people deserve better. i appreciate your willingness to take it on. as you heard the testimony before this committee, in open

and classified setting, what would you prioritize as the first thing you are going to do if you are confirmed for this position. >> thanks, senator. i think as secretary johnson laid out a clear set of directions to just the immediate challenges and i think my first priority is to make sure they are carried out and the answered he demanded are found and extended to trust the immediate crisis. restoring confidence in the system is the most important thing, close the gaps mitigate the vulnerabilityies to the exponent possible and look systemically across the organization to see how much it will take to do this overtime. some can be fixed right away and some will take time to fix. >> let me ask you to the testimony we heard yesterday that was quite disturbing with respect to this 73 airport workers that the ig found links

to terrorism and then we were told in fact tsa was not fully vetting those employees against all of the information that the fbi had in terms of those we might have based on intelligence on the terror watch list. here is the question i have for you. when i heard it yesterday before the committee, i heard yes, we identified this problem at 14 but then we went over to the fbi and asked for information, and here we are in 2015 and we think about something that urgent that there wasn't an immediate fix to that pretty disturbing. so what i would ask of you is this committee and our oversight function you find something like that that you don't wait for the bureau to answer. we don't want to have 73 airport

workers with ties to terrorism. we need to find them right away. we fix something that is so obvious immediately and don't let that bog us down. would you commit if you find something like that you will not wait for an answer from another agency but let us help you protect the american people? >> senator, absolutely. if there are legislative fixes that need to be there i will be the first one to come back to congress and request those fixes. if confirmed the first thing i will do is make sure we are connect connected to all of those databases. as a member of the house committee, a full member i understand the importance of connection and as we said earlier, that was one of the key findings from 9/11. >> 9/11 was about knowing and

communicating the information to each other. i would say you take on this very important task of leadership right now and understand this committee is very committed to having your back as you find things that need to be fixed right away if you find things that are wrong, that you need legislation, you need us to say to the administration this has to be a priority we want to work with you to make sure that we get this right. and one thing i wanted to ask about as well we yesterday, had testimony before our committee from whistleblowers and i think they were compelling but clearly what they went through individually to tell their story is something we don't want to have happen in an agency where we have a culture where you have bring forward bad information that you are either punished or you are swept aside. so i would like a commitment from you that as you engage with the employees in the

organization and you have those that come forward as whistle blowers or with information as to deficiencies in the agency that you will fully support them and make sure that they have the support so we can make sure we understand all of the problem and address them. >> i do commit to that senator. i believe strongly in listening to your workforce, i believe in finding mechanisms for workforce to express their concerns with problems, if they see a problem i want to hear about it. and i will tell you, if they don't feel there is any other way than to go outside of the organization to provide that information that is still important to get that information and i don't believe there should be any punishment against an individual who finds that. again, i go to these people raised their hand and took an oath and they are finding something. it takes a lot of courage to speak out and a lot of courage to go outside of your organization to do that.

we should commend them for the courage, listen and tackle the challenges >> i was glad to hear you say in answer to senator ernst that you think in terms of pre-check we need to insure a fully vetted program. i think that is a priority. the other issue i would ask you to look at is the badge issue. that issue has popped in other context where we know those badges behind the scenes the access given with one of those badges in the airport, and that in fact the system is one where the airports are controlling that but we can't account where all othe badges are. so i would ask you to take a close look at the badges to make sure we are not giving people access that shouldn't be. >> i will do that. >> thank you. and one final thing i will say that i took from the testimony yesterday, classified and unclassified, we have seen there

are many sop's as directly roaring mentioned but there is a disconnect we know the application of the sop's. looking at whether it is a check list or more consistent application of sop's because it only takes, as you know admiral, one instance of an sop not being followed in terms of the checks that need to be in place to protect the country to allow a terrorist through. so i think -- i wanted to get your perspective on that and what you think we should be doing to make sure there is consistency. >> that is a great question and fundamental to how people perform their mission. in the military it is all about standard operating procedure and you do that so you can focus on the mission. they get refined over time but they have to be straight'forward, clear and understandable. this can be resident training or

teams that tron individual teams or individual units. and then there has to be an oversight function and a way to determine whether the standards are being adhered to. so again, in a coast guard my experience has been you have standardization teams, and these are standardization teams that go around and test that people are living up to the standards. it can be living up to what the inspector general did or it is a matter of walking people through the senator lankford.

>> thank you. thank you for your past service and for taking this on as a consideration. you have been asked to consider

leading an agency right now that has very low morale bad evaluations and uses the wrong metrics in the way they are evaluating their own performance. you have a task to do that is not easy to step in. it is not an easy assignment regardless so i want to tell you thank you for your consideration in walking thew this. i want to bounce a few ideas off you. some of the metrics of evaluating the issue of conduct and performance e evaluation and whether the goal is to get people through the line quickly or conduct thorough checks. i think we can do both but we are sweeping on the time side more. i want to talk about how you will adjust that as far as

evaluation and then move to to the morale issue of how you reengage the folks. when i interact with the oklahoma city tsa folks they are great servants of the nation but nationwide the morale rates are terrible. >> yes, sir thank you. i think you hit on one of the key concerns; the care and train and morale of the workforce. i mentioned in an earlier question about this same issue i said the morale starts with an important mission. so we already have that. this is the important mission. a clear sense of that mission and dedication of the leadership of the agency to performing that mission. so when you talk about the potential disconnect between what is being measured and what is most important i think that

is key to one fundamental aspect of morale. i am being told i need to protect the traveling public but i am not being measured in you how do that that is a disconnect and that build cynics and that leads to low morale. i get that. you say what is the most important thing we are doing why did you raise your hand to take the oath, these are great americans. not many do that. they are among the one percent saying i want to serve my nation. you deserve to support them in doing that. next comes training. you have to train them and continually train them and get them in the continually learning process. >> how is that different than what is happening now? what is the change that has to happen? all of those things are occurring now. >> i am not sure --again, i think over time it is easy for an organization to shift focus.

i think they have the mission right. and then to work on other things. i think you can never stop referring back to it. what i found in my service in the coast guard is you can have -- even in a high morale group like the coast guard there can be pockets of low morale and it is the day you get a little complacent at the leadership level and think you have it right. no one gets tired of being reminded how important their job is feeling good learning to use equipment and no one gets tired of engageing with their organization. i think it is engagement with the workforce. that is ongoing. it can't be one-time thing. annual surveys are good place do is figure out where you need to start engaging more effectively but don't answer the questions just raise the questions >> both hiring and training make

a big difference because they work in close quarters with each other. if there are couple badams in the group it is difficult for everyone in the group. can we talk about precurement. this is an ongoing issue. tsa has items stored in a warehouse. there are lots of issues that deal with billions of dollars. talk about a change in attitude on that. >> in my current role i serve as the what is called the component acquisition executive for the coast guard so i oversee the whole acquisition process for the coast guard and that starts with the basic requirements -- first of all, it starts with the mission and how that can be accomplished what the threats

are that keep us from accomplishing the mission. you begin to build the requirements that you need to accomplish that mission. some are human requirements, some equipment, and they are interactive as you go through. and you have to have an ability to translate those requirements into the actual thing you need to buy. there is a process that has to be in place and what i learned in the coast guard is if we completely rebuilt our acquisition processes over the decade. i think we have one of the best acquisitions in the government now. it is because we completely looked at it from start to finish. we can't simply walk out to industry and say give me something that will do something. i don't blame industry for providing things that don't work. you need to really examine what you need to know. if you are looking at a detection equipment, what do i

need that thing to find. and then what are the limitations of the technology in order to find that so that i can figure out the other requirements on top of it. it is not enough to have requirements for the equipment. you need requirements for the things the equipment can't do. they are com ppbined and then you need a rigorous process. you have to adhere to oversight and control and separate the person writing the requirement from the person who is implementing the requirements to the person overseeing the programs to the person contracting the person. the more separation you can have amongst those the more rigorous you will hold the process or you will have schedule breaches and cost overruns. >> i would encourage you to evaluate the effectiveness of the equipment not how it functioned in a sterile environment but how it functions in the real world. that is a problem. we got to have that real world

environment. we have a lot of people coming through pre-check that are not pre-check. we will have to change the name because millions are going through that are not pre-check or focus on pre-check. there are a number of people going through to pre-check and getting efficiency and we are loosing the focus of what it is designed to do and what the computer -- security -- is designed to do. we are increasing efficiency and loosening security. pre-check should be pre-check and should have a background rather it is a random or we think they meet a profile. thank you, mr. chairman, for that. >> senator heitkamp. >> i want to add my voice to what senator lankford said.

it has to mean something. it can't just be you flew a lot of miles and nothing bad happened on that plane so we will hand you the pass. we have to actually know who we are dealing with. so i want to add my voice to what i surely hope has been the sense of the committee of how grateful we are you are stepping up to take on this enormous challenge. too often we don't say thank you to the folks who go through a difficult process sometimes but we extraordinary and grateful and thank you so much admiral for what you are doing and your willingness to take this on. we are excited. at least i am excited about the changes i know you are going to make and the things you are going to do having been in such important leadership positions

in the past. the one thing i do want to talk about is something that senator lankford and i have focused a lot on in in our subcommittee and that is how do you engage everyone regardless if they are the person collecting the trays at the end of the scanning line to the person at the very top; how do you engage them in the overall mission so they have a sense of purpose and have a sense of what they are doing everything day. what strategy do you think you can deploy to improve morale by giving people a sense of im importance. >> i talked about in my opening statement we need to look at what we are teaching people when they come into administration. i think back to my experience coming into the coast guard and you are taught the based culture of the organization. in our case everyone has read this wonderful letter that came

from the first treasury secretary, alexander hamilton and it was his first instructions to the revenue cutter service the pre-cursor to the united states coast guard, and this was challenging because they were told to do something they had never done: collect tariffs. something merchant vessels were not pleased about and didn't want to encounter this new government attempting to exhert their power. he said something very interesting in the letter. it is the thing that begins this cultural doctrine in the coast guard and it says always keep in mind your country men are free men and impatient at everything that bears the mark of a domineering spirit. it is a wonderful 18th century prose and the letter goes on and

is multiple pages long. but that one line is repeated over and over throughout your career. we use to advance people in rank, promote people in rank swear in a new oath of office and remind them you are going to do things that by nature interfere with the free movement of people. and sometimes you will do things that interfere with their individual rights because they would like to go do something and you will get in their way. you don't have to do that in a way that offends them or in a way that doesn't respect them. so i think how does tsa do that? this is one of things i would like to examine. what is the way in which tsa provides a culture? there is a tsa academy. i don't know how well attended that is. i would like to look at that opportunity. over time time with what are the ways you can engage with the

workforce. we live in an age where it is easy to communicate with people. we do this all of the time. i have a widely disbursed workforce and i cannot touch every member of the coast guard every day but i can assure myself they are plugged into the organization. so i want to look for ways to do that if confirmed, in the tsa and funed -- find a way to connect leadership with the front end. how distance is the leadership from the actual people doing the work. i don't do the work as a coast guard anymore. the coast guard does that work. they are on the frontline. i cannot provide them with the tools and training they need if i don't listen and engage them. those are things i look for as i

look to connect with the workforce. in my opening statement, i have learned about commitment to excellence from the people doing it on a daily bases. i continue to learn today. i am astonished about the new things i learn. >> i think improving the morale of the tsa, reducing the turnover, you really having an appreciation by everyone how important their work is and how much their country is counting on them and as we saw in california their work can be dangerous and they need to be appreciated for that. being that visible signal is important. the other thing i would say is the public is frustrated when they don't see value added to some of the things that tsa

does. you know they go why would we need to do that and why would we need to do this. i think it is important the communication as you focus on communicating why they need to do that is turning it outward and talking about the challenges that you have so that people who are like us at airports all of the time better understand the goal and i would offer that suggestion and that communication not just be internal but we spend a lot of time talking to the travelling public about the importance of what you do. i mean i just think we have great hope for you. if there is something we can do and ideas you have where laws restrict you i hope you come back to this committee or individually and say this makes no sense, please change it. >> thank you, senator. i will do that. >> thank you, senator heitkamp. i know the ranking member has another question.

i will make a statement here. regardless of the fact we haven't had additional airplanes used as a weapon and i would say that is because we hardened the cockpit doors. very cost effective and effective from the stand point of security. i believe the tsa is in somewhat of a state of denial on what process and procedures we have in place -- again it will catch the water bottles and my boy scout pocket knife i was given and didn't realize i had it in my brief case -- but for determined people that want to cheat the system, i think the ig report is telling. it is matter of recognizing reality. once the ranking member comes back i will ask in the testimony yesterday, one of the whistle

blowers, ms. roaring claimed that the morale issue and there is a feeling of fear and mistrust within the tsa and senator ayotte talked about the retaliation whistle blowers have faced. it is disturbing across the government how prevalent that is. there is this kind of problem within the tsa as well. i am asking if you have a significant management challenge challenge. low moral. do you believe there is a prevalence feeling of fear and mistrust? is that the tedious nature of the task? prone to complacency? we are human beings. how do you provide incentives to keep people alert but speak to to the fear and mistrust issue. >> i hope it isn't a feeling of

mistrust. i start with the premise of trusting the organization. i want the people that work for the organization to be free. that is where you learn the most about what you are doing. i will commit this someone of the most important things to us. it speaks to the fundamentals of morale and i work for an organization i don't trust and i am afraid is going to bring action against me if i speak the light, that is a morale killer. that is now how i do business and not acceptable with the people i am working with or report to me and i will take a hard look at the current climate in the tsa. >> senator carper, you have a question? >> over memorial day weekend,

there were threats made that were not credible but we know passengers do face risk. if confirmed you would you work with the international partners to improve baggage standards in foreign countries? >> i think it is important to have agreed upon international standards that have to be rigorous and at a level that as assures you are doing the best you can to stop any potential threat. you have to have a lot of experience with that in the martime sector. the coast guard represents the united states to various bodies that deal with international security and safety. and what i found is that first of all those other countries want their systems to be safe as well. but if you have a patch work of

approaches then you are going to have gaps in your security. it is important to work with the international bodies in the aviation work to insure that you have clear and well defined and consistent standards that you have a mechanisms for enforcing the adherence of those standards in the case of the world in which i work that includes spot checks and verify teams. we spent teams all over the world from foreign ports and the coast guard and we insure they are doing what they claim to be doing on paper. when we find evidence they are not we apply sanctions including the refusal to allow a vessel to arrive in u.s. ports. i think the same standards need to be -- it is more imperative you do that in the aviation world. we know we have significant

concerns with foreign fighters and significant concerns with increasing radicalization of terrorist groups and we know that they are continuing to focus on the aviation system. if confirmed, i work with counterparts around the world, particularly those countries are points of departure for the united states and work with the international associations so the standards set are appropriate and there is an oversight mechanisms for enforcing those standards. >> all right. thanks. in our closed session yesterday we discussed the role of pat downs in better insuring security. this is a sensitive, awkward situation and important for security but it is difficult for those trying to insure security and for the passengers who endure this. i am sure some other countries may have figured out a better

way to do this. i am not sure who it is or if they have but i would ask if nis this is one of things we look around and dozens of nations deal with these issues and maybe someone came up with a better mas trap and we can learn from them. i want to ask at the end of the session yesterday with the it and others on tsa give us a short to-do list for us on this side of the aisle. one of the things in the committee we always look at the accountability office for is looking at the to-do list and high risk wayss of wasting money. give us a short to-do list if you are confirmed and have the

chance to serve in this role. what do you think is important we could to do help you and help the people of the country? just a couple items. >> senator thank you for that. first thank you for the offer to help. i believe in working with the congress because you have an important role to play in oversight and the right law and legislation is in place to allow the mission like the security of our transportation system to succeed and i promise to work with that is i would like to if confirmed, to bring you a list of those things that i think can be most effective for this committee to attend to. i appreciate the willingness of every member of this committee who i met to work with me. i promise it will be just as much coming from my side as it is from your side. i would like to bring it to you

in an open manner and the chal challenge challenges i find and where they need to be addressed with the work the committee can do and where they are something the agency has the ability to do but you need to be aware of before it is put into place. >> i will close by saying jay johnson, secretary of dhs, is not giving into hype and he said we have the leader he is an admiral and pete. he said you would like him. and i must say i am impressed. thank you for serving. >> senator, next question? >> they need get to another nominee so i will flag two questions one submitting by letter and the other asking. i appreciate about your desire

to escape where the puck is going to be and dealing with the security threats we mace in the homeland and the jihadist threat we face broad and being forthcoming on that. i appreciate your clear concern for the workforce and morale issues inside the organization. there are lots of good free loving americans inside tsa and my worry about the magnitude of the challenge we face doesn't start chiefly with workforce issues. you have flagged technology failures but i think we have big leadership problems inside the organization and i think we are at a gap as far as strategic priorities. you mentioned, and yesterday director roaring talked about the fact that there is this tension between a couple different tsa missions but almost none of the metrics actually go to the success predicting prohibited materials and explosives.

and i am curious about briefings and performance metrics that secretary johnson receives on a weekly bases. some have been pushing on this for months without adequate answers about the frequency and quality of the metrics inside dhs and i would like to understand what familiarity you have had with briefing that the leadership team of dhs gets on a regular bases when you benefit coast guard and expect to be included on as far as the performance metrics are in your potential new role. we will submit that by later today. the final question i will ask in person is i have had a chance to meet with inspector general john roth three times in the last week and appreciate the work of his organization. he said directly to us sometimes in classified settings and in a public hearing he does not believe the leadership tsa

quotes truly understands the nature of the risk they face. doesn't believe that tsa truly understands the nature the tsa is facing. i am curious what camp you are in. did you believe he is right or do you think the leadership has understood the nature of the risk? >> i had a chance to sit down with inspector roth too. i think we understand the risk. i want to understand how effective the voices are, how well they can be heard and more burped importantly what reasons tuss does this appear to be challenging. i look forward to answering that question and engaging with this committee in the future as we look to insure the things we do measure are the right things and

you continue to question whether they are the right merges measures. just like security the measures you put in place nay not be appropriate today or tomorrow. you have to define those and be relentless in those measures. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, senator sasse. i have to commend the president and secretary for finding such a quality individual as yourself. something who is well qualified and suited for this enormous challenge. i want to tell you and voice my appreciation for your past service and willingness to service and make the commitment from this committee. we will move this conformation through this committee so you can get on the job.

we have this committee to have your back and do everything we can and commit ourselves to helping you succeed in the mission to keep the nation safe. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> c-span two brings you the best access to congress and live votes from the senate floor. hearings and public policy events and every weekend it is booktv with non-fiction books and authors. live coverage of book festivals from around the country and a behind the scenes look at the

publishing industry. c-span 2, the best coverage of congress and non-fiction books. the new congressional directly is a handy guide to the 114th congress with colored photos of every senate and house member bio information and twitter handles, district maps and a fold out map of capital hill and a look at congression mitt xhities, the president's cabinet and federal legislatures and governors. it is $13.95 through the c-span online store at cspan.org. >> the senate returns at 3:00 eastern time and they will vote on the head of the security administration and continue to work on trade promotion authority which was passed last week by the house.

that measure faces a vote on tuesday. watch live senate coverage on c-span 2. and the house is back on tuesday for legislative business with bills related to homeland security and medicare spending. the rest of the week they will take up carbon pollution standards, epa and interior department funding and depending on action in the senate further consideration of trade legislation. live coverage is on c-span. >> the "washington post" mike debonis is joining us. can we start on the senate ateate side. a lot of talk about trade and the paths it has taken. what is expected on the senate side when it comes to trade? >> guest: we are expecting the senate will take action on the trade promotion authority

legislation passed in the house last week. senator mcconnell filled closure on the bill meaning the senate will vote to take up the bill and have a final vote on it as soon as tuesday and my hope is all of this will be dealt with and possibly could have a bill on the president's desk by the end of the week. >> host: what is different about this than the previous attempts? >> guest: the week prior to this there was quite a bit of drama when the house rejected the trade promotion authority legislation because the legislative mu legislative maneuverings were

engaged to get around the senate but then they combined the trade promotion authority bill with a weighted bill that is a program to give assistance to workers that istypic typically supported by democrats and not supported by republicans. and that was in the senate brought together with trade promotion authority, which is not supported by most democrats in order to gain enough support. but in the house that backfired because democrats decided they were going to oppose the trade assistance legislation in order to derail the trade promotion package. now they have gone through a different maneuver a different strategy, which is the pass to trade promotion authority alone in the house with the understanding and a promise among all of the various parties here whether it is president obama, senator mcconnell, or

house speaker boehner, that there will be an opportunity for democrats and republicans alike in both houses to vote on trade assistance and legislation alongside it. and right now, there are open public commitments from the republican leaders in the house and senate as well as president obama that all of this should move in parallel culminating with the president signing the trade promotion and trade assistance bills together or at some point at the end of this process. and that is giving democrats and republicans alike enough in both houses it is believed at this point to get the bill to the president's desk. >> host: so that is the senate side. on the house side what are we looking at? when i read the environmental

protection agencies is one of the topics this week. >> guest: that is right. there has been a great focus in recent months among republicans on some of the rules that have been issued by the epa under president obama and in particularly those pertaining to the admissions of coal fire power plants. and there is going to be a vote this week on a bill that would allow states to basically opt out, not follow the rules that have been issued by the epa, and basically stay its implementation until pending litigation is settled. there is also measures working

through the congress and appropriation process that per pertains to the same rule. it has gotten a huge amount of attention in states where coal is a major part of the economy particularly in kentucky senator mcconnell's state, and he has been outspoken saying states don't need to follow this rule and they can opt out of what the epa has suggested is required. this is a legislative response to that. >> mike debonis of the washington post covers congress and telling us about the week ahead in congress. thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> and the senate is about come to in. general peach speechers for the first couple hours and at 5:30 a vote on peter neffenger to head

up the transportation security administration. trade promotion authority scheduled for tomorrow in the senate. our live coverage here on c-span2. house not in today. they are back tomorrow working on epa rules on reducing carbon emissions and spending for the interior department. now here on c-span2, the u.s. senate. eternal father, strong to save may this quiet moment prompt us to think thoughts about your goodness and power throughout this day. may these thoughts keep us faithful and diligent in all our work, motivating us to labor for your glory.

lord inspire our lawmakers to be honorable and generous in their dealing with each other, remembering your great commandment to love their neighbors as they love themselves. o god, you have been a refuge for your people through many generations, be our fortress in every moment and every need that we face this day. guide us through the uncertainty and darkness, continually strengthening us for times of testing. we pray in your holy name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting

the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: we'll vote to be the to bring long overdue leadership to an agency in urgent need of reform and culture change and that's the t.s.a. i wish the white house hadn't waited six months to send us a nominee to lead this troubled agency. but now that the administration finally has we're glad to see

it's a highly qualified candidate like peter v. neffenger. it's never easy to ensure a senate review process that's appropriately thorough yet necessarily expeditious in the face of so many months of white house delay but that's just what chairman thune and previous chairman johnson achieved with the nominee before us. and chairman johnson achieved with the nominee before us. i thank them both for their good work. if confirmed this evening vice admiral neffenger will have a tough job ahead of him. we're aware of the inspector general report that questioned the t.s.a.'s ability to meet its security mission without significant changes. the american people will be counting on mr. neffenger to validate their trust that the elected representatives place in him tonight by pursuing every necessary reform in the wake of such troubled findings.

the senate appears to have confidence that he can achieve those goals. it is no doubt the senate and the american people will be expecting that he will. now, madam president on a different matter, when it comes to keeping the american people safe, there are many things congress can do. encouraging reform at the t.s.a. is just one of important step, but so is leading on trade. president obama's own secretary of defense recently said that the trade legislation before us was as important to him as another aircraft carrier. and this is the secretary of defense of the united states who said that the trade legislation before us was as important to him as another aircraft carrier. but he cautioned time's running out to cement our influence and leadership in the fastest-growing region in the world. we also know how critical this legislation is to lifting up

american workers american wages and the american economy as well. we shouldn't let this opportunity for a significant bipartisan achievement slip past us. if we can continue working together in a spirit of trust and if we simply vote the same way we did a couple of weeks ago, just vote the same way we did a couple of weeks ago we won't miss this opportunity. now i know how important it is particularly for my friends on the other side of the aisle to get both t.p.a. and t.a.a., trade adjustment assistance. that linkage has been acknowledged from the beginning of this process. it's why i set in motion a process last week -- filing cloture on the vehicles for both t.p.a. and t.a.a. -- so that we get one done followed immediately by the other. one will be done, followed immediately by the other. that will put both pieces of legislation on the president's desk before the july 1 state

work period. i don't want anyone to think that we're getting t.p.a. done this week with a promise to get t.a.a. done at some other time. the process this week is very, very clear. we will vote on t.p.a. and then we will vote on t.a.a. so here is how that will look. tomorrow we'll begin the process of approving t.p.a. the next day we'll begin the process of approving t.a.a. along with the agoa and preferences measure. and before the week is out i intend to go to conference on the customs bill. this is a bill with broad bipartisan support. members of both sides want to get it done. and we are going to formally begin the process to complete our work on the customs bill. so i'm committed to concluding work on that conference as quickly as possible. i'm sure members on both sides

will hold us to that commitment. so what does all this mean? it means that with continued bipartisan cooperation, we can ensure t.p.a., t.a.a., and the agoa reach the president's desk this week. and it means we can ensure the customs bill is placed on a path to swift approval too. it was always the goal to ensure that these bills pass congress in the end. it remains the bipartisan goal today. we're now on the verge of achieving it. with just a little more trust a little more cooperation and simply voting consistently, we'll get there. the presiding officer: the democratic leader.

mr. reid: over the past several years there's been a disturbing practice that's been commonplace here in the united states congress. and sadly it's with no regard for the average american. republicans have resolved to govern by staggering from one crisis to another crisis. one today one next week. unless the republican leader acts in just five days, for example, we'll see the consequences of another manufactured crisis. on june 30, the charter for the export-import bank is set to expire. this is serious business. this institution creates jobs for providing loans and loan guarantees to foreign customers to purchase american exports. this year alone the export-import bank supports 165,000 american jobs.

165,000 jobs that allowed american workers to earn a living. these jobs cost taxpayers zero -- nothing. in fact, this bank saves the american taxpayer money. in the last ten years the bank has returned more than $7 billion to the u.s. treasury. mr. president -- madam president -- i'm so sorry -- with the threat of this bank closing other countries that have similar institutions like china people are going to those -- they're going to china and other countries to get their loan guarantees and buy products not from america but from those countries where the banks will take care of their loans. this is so sad. despite the positive benefits the bank provides for our economy and thousands of americans, republicans have decided that reauthorization is not a priority. the republican leader has openly opposed reauthorization of this

important bank. here's what he said about the bank that sustains, i repeat, 165,000 jobs as we speak. and they're american jobs. i'm quoting the senior senator from kentucky. "i personally think the ex-im bank has outlived its usefulness and ought to go away." close quote. really? the bank should be put out of business? i don't think so. this resource supports thousands of jobs for americans and could not possibly outgrow its usefulness. but in the six months of the republicans taking control of congress this mind-set governs their decisions. sensible programs that benefit average americans and strengthen our economy have taken a back seat to special interests. we can see that by what's going out of this body this week. just as he has on countless issues so far this congress, the

republican leader has intentionally ignored deadlines that are obvious. these deadlines are obvious weeks and even months ahead of time. and offering no plan or solution to these pertinent issues facing our nation. today we're talking about two of those: surface transportation. i've talked about the ex-im bank. no plan, no solution, no urgency. that's how republicans have chosen to govern. this misguided policy is not governing at all. it's all about crisis management, and doing a very poor job. this crisis management could be avoided by not playing dodge ball with issues important to our country. with less than five days until thousands of jobs are threatened for no apparent reason the senior senator from kentucky should put his partisan p side and allow a voad voad -- vote to authorize the ex-im bank. this would pass, it would pass

overwhelmingly because republicans want this to -- republican senators want this to pass also. so if a vote were allowed on this, it would get a sizable majority. the senate also faces another looming deadline manufactured by the republican leadership. at the end of july, the republican funding for the federal highway program will expire. in five days we lose the import bank. in just a few weeks we lose the highway program. our nation's roads bridges highways and transit systems are in desperate need of repair. 64,000 bridges are in a state of being structurally deficient. mr. president -- madam president, this isn't 6,400. it's 64,000 bridges. and 50% of our roads are dangerously in need of repair. still, republicans in congress

have refused to work with democrats to make adequate long-term investment in our country's surface transportation programs. delaying and stalling has become their normal practice. republicans are content to take a page straight out of their play book. that play book is called republican manufactured crisis. and they do this day after day. they just go though that play book that's been used over and over again. we've seen it before, and we're seeing it again with the highways. we're seeing it with ex-im bank. instead of working with democrats to create long-term solutions to our nation's roads the republican leader will wait until the deadline is eminent. on the highways we can see it coming. he's going to offer another short-term extension to stave off another disaster of his own making. that is really unacceptable. we've already had 33 republican short-term fixes. 33. we don't need a 34th. governing by crisis is a reckless tragedy that leaves the well-being of americans and our economy hanging in the balance.

the republican leader should abandon this policy and stop dragging our country from one crisis to another crisis. the republicans can get started today by bringing authorization of the export-import bank for a vote before the charter expires in a few days. it will pass. we can certainly -- certainly he could focus on long-term bipartisan reauthorization of the federal highway program which i've indicated expires in a few weeks. the american people should not be forced to endure manufactured crisis at the hands of the republican leadership. i urge the republican leadership to change course and govern with the well-being of the american people in mind. madam president, will you announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes

each. mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the distinguished senator from florida be given five minutes and then that i immediately follow him with my remarks. the presiding officer: is there objection? with no objection. mr. nelson: and i thank the distinguished chairman of the finance committee, and i will be back at 5:00, madam president to speak on behalf of our nominee for t.s.a., admiral neffenger. but i wanted to address something that i was absolutely shocked when i saw over the weekend. we hear the term "age- "age-appropriate," and when it comes to our children, that's necessarily something that parents should be concerned about because our parents all

of us that are parents want our children to be able to take advantage of the internet's vast resources to learn to stay connected but we, as parents don't want our children, especially small children, to encounter inappropriate content. well unfortunately there's a lot of violence, profanity sexualized material on the internet and kids can too often access this material with the click of a mouse. we've all been dealing with that. that's nothing unusual. and what are we parents to do? we can monitor our kids' activityies but we can also depend on parental controls and filters in the marketplace. and we've seen the development

of many of these services for kids that promise a safe space for children. the problem is, when companies don't completely deliver on that promise. and so i've read recent news reports, and i watched google's youtube kids mobile application for smartphones and i see that it contains material that is not, in fact, appropriate for small children. according to the press accounts -- and what i saw repeated -- the app has apparently been found to include videos with explicit language mature subject matter such as child

abuse, drug use pedophilia; demonstrations of unsafe behaviors; ans and get this, advertisements for alcohol. i want to show you, madam president. okay, this is on the google you youtube app. here is a lady hawking red wine. this is an advertisement -- for little kids? it's there. and i hope that the offending parties are indeed -- will take heed to my remarks. we all recognize this. most appropriate for advertisements for the super bowl. but on a google youtube app for

little children preceded by the clydesdales pulling the wagon with the dalmation an icon in america -- but for little children an ad, the king of beers? and how about unsafe behaviors. here's someone striking a match and taking this match down to a pile of unlit matches and then, of course, you know what happens. it all goes up in flame. now, have we lost our common sense? when google rolled out its youtube kids app it said -- quote -- "the app makes it safer

and easier for children to find videos on topic that they want to explore." end of quote. that's a good thing. it went on to say, -- quote -- ," now parents can rest a little easier knowing that videos in the youtube kids' app are narrowed down to content appropriate for kids." end of quote. well i certainly agree with google on that statement. parents should be able to trust these online venues for children especially when they're designed and marketed as being safe. but is this safe for children and, madam president, is that safe for children? i don't think so. if a company creates an online

safe haven for kids, it must do everything it can to make sure that children aren't unnecessarily he is supposed to the -- exposed to the very content that parents want their children to avoid. google certainly has the technical expertise to make sure unsuitable videos for kids are screened or filtered out especially when google markets the app as being suitable for children. indeed section 5 of the f.t.c. act prohibits deceptive marketing practices. i applaud google for its efforts to create healthy online experiences for children but in this case, their efforts fell short. and i would expect google to change this right away.

furthermore, youtube kids should also be sensitive to the fact that younger children often don't understand the difference between advertisements and noncommercial content. so kids' online services that have commercial advertising should make sure that advertising is clearly distinguished from the other content. google should not take advantage of this well-known vulnerability among children. video advertisements should be easily and clearly distinguishable from other videos that the kids are watching. madam president i shouldn't have to come here and -- and the senator from utah be so gracious to give me the time. it ought to be common sense that we shouldn't be doing this.

but this senator, who is the ranking member of the senate commerce committee is compelled to come here and speak of this kind of comment. we want companies to create online services and products that allow children safe access to age-appropriate content. and we understand that companies want to tap into the kids kids market. but everyone knows just how much internet content is out there that is completely unsuitable for children. madam president need i say anymore? it's very clear and i hope there will be quick action for appropriate content. madam president i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president i ask unanimous consent that benjamin kadavan a state

department fellow in my office, receive senate floor privileges for the duration of his current fellowship in the senate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. hatch: thank you, madam president. i rise to speak today on a matter of critical importance to our nation's security. but first i wish to extend my first heartfelt condolences to our friends in charleston, south carolina. last week we witnessed an unspeakable tragedy with the shooting at the emanuel a.m.e. church. this heinous act has left families reeling and the nation in disbelief. words can little console nor can they heal hearts of those who have lost. still i wish to say just a few words to the neighbors families and friends who have suffered most. know that your nation suffers with you no question about it. you are in our prayers our thoughts. may you feel peace and love.

may you find healing in god. and may the shooter be swiftly brought to justice. mr. president, i now shift to a different threat we face. time and again -- time and time again the islamic republic of iran has lied to the international community. the latest evidence emerged in the june 2 publication by the united states security council of a scathing report on iranian noncompliance with a joint plan of action written by a diverse panel of international experts. the report catalogs a growing list of iran's iran's violations of multiple u.n. mandates. it deserves to be read widely by all those who care deeply, as i do about the ongoing p-5 plus 1 negotiations with iran over its nuclear program. the lesson to draw from the security council report is clear: if iran continues to violate its

current agreement with impunity, how can we expect that tehran would adhere to a new deal to senior--to suspend its nuclear program? this is a matter of clear common sense. the picture paints a troubling picture. iranian arms activities have continued uninterrupted despite the sanctions imposed by the international community. these arms have found their tbhie awayinto a number of regional conflicts, fueling fights fights. hamas continue to turn these weapons against israel and our other allies in the region. regional violence has been and continues to be iran's export of choice. according to this report, not only does iran illegally export weapons and oil, it it has also

prohibited materials and technologies circumventing sanctions. the iranians have long maintained a robust and. often involving false documentation shell corporations and foreign nationals. for these and other reasons our french allies have now declared that a rigorous inspection regime should be a prerequisite to any agreement. this should have been our position from the start. additionally the report describes violations of foreign travel restrictions of high-ranking iranian government officials. one particularly noteworthy violation is the case of major general kasim m sulamanie the commander of iran's special forces cuds force. earlier this year he met with

the secretary-general of hezbollah in lebanon. just last month photographs surfaced of him surrounded by shiite militia fighters in anbar province. i'm disappointed to hear some try to minimize these iranian violations of security council resolutions because some iranian arms and personnel are currently being used against the heinous islamic state. we must not turn a blind eye to iranian malfeasance. we must not fall into the trap of accepting iran's transgressions.transgressions simply because they are fighting a common foe. in this kairks the enemy of our enemy is not our friend. some of the armed shia groups fighting the islamic state are are the staple groups that were kill -- same groups that were killing u.s. troops a few short years ages. a nuclear-armed iran would be a

disaster for the world. not only for our israeli allies but also or jordanian kuwaiti qatarry and emirate allies as well. with the continuing turmoil in the region and the threat posed by the islamic state al qaeda, and the taliban and other terrorist groups, the world cannot afford a nuclear arms race in the middle east. considering the hand-in-hand history between iran and hezbollah one could easily translate a nuclear iran into a nuclear hezbollah. it is, therefore highly disstressing that iran has to quote the security council "continued certain nuclear activities including uranium enrichment and some rack at arak." if iran has failed to sufficiently address even the core cause of the sanctions against them, what confidence do we have in them moving forward?

it is particularly tell that the u.n. expert panel assessed that a decline in reports by member states of iranian violations results from one of two factors. either iran has decreased its prohibited activity significantly or member states have refrained from reporting noncompliance so as not to disrupt the negotiations process. in light of the revelations contained in this report, the latter appears far more likely. as the president continues to push for a permanent deal with iran's leadership, this report is alarming, it's -- it's as alarming as it is timely. past performance may not universally predict future behavior but it certainly should be part of the consideration. moreover this report is far from the only sign of iranian malfeasance.

as recently as yesterday the iranian parliament voted to prohibit international inspections of known military sites, casting into serious doubt its commitment to a workable nuclear deal. given these troubles moves, the president should explain to the american people what level of confidence he has negotiating with iran given how it repeat edly violates the international community's mandates with impunity. the stakes are too high to act as if iran is a trustworthy partner. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, the senate is not in a quorum call, is that correct? the presiding officer: that is

correct, senator. mr. cornyn: madam president i've come to the floor to speak for a few minutes about the disaster that is known as obamacare. and specifically the supreme court's upcoming decision in king versus burwell which we anticipate will be handed down later this week or perhaps as late as monday. this case will decide whether the i.r.s. can rewrite the law. and the lawsuit actually challenges the legality of the subsidies to the health care policies affecting people in up to 37 states. if the court rules against the i.r.s. that would be the third strike against obamacare in the supreme court. what more evidence skew possibly need of this administration's routine overreach of its authority under the constitution? not surprisingly, the president once again has failed to accept responsibility for this flawed law that bears his name.

and he's suggested that congress could simply fix the problem with a one-sentence provision. in other words even though president obama and congressional democrats jammed this partisan monstrosity through all by themselves in 2010, somehow after three strikes in the united states supreme court it somehow is our responsibility to clean up the mess. but, madam president what's wrong with obamacare far exceeds the issue at hand in king versus burwell. i hear the disastrous effect of obamacare every day from folks back home in texas and they know as do i that a one-sentence provision won't fix a 2,700-page legislative disaster unless that sentence were to repeal obamacare in its entirety.

if somehow this administration and congressional democrats could be sued for misleading consumers under the usual legal standards, the case brought by millions of americans against obamacare would be a slam dunk. the president claimed his law would help everyone. mir as includesly decreasing costs, increasing access, reducing the deficit when, in fact time after time after time the opposite has been shown to be the case. what we've seen instead is great damage to the health care system in this country, leaving many americans with their health care disrupted their work hours cut, and higher costs for their health coverage. although proponents of the law including the president and democratic members of congress, claim that obamacare would reduce the financial burden of health care for american families this has not been the

case. in fact, one study found that obamacare actually increased individual market premiums by an average of more than 50% or i should say almost 50% between 2013 and 2014. so rather than make health care more affordable, what obamacare did is make it less affordable and more expensive by increasing individual market premiums by an average of almost 50%. and recently the administration released rate filings showing that insurers have requested double-digit premium increases for nearly 700 plans next year. double-digit increases have been requested. and we can all remember the president's repeated promises that under obamacare those who wanted to keep their plans would be able to do so. but, in fact, the associated press has documented that more

than 4.7 million americans had insurance plans they liked that were canceled by obamacare. and of course just last week president obama himself called the web site platform for his trademark legislation healthcare.gov he called it himself a -- quote -- "well documented disaster" -- close quote. the fact that this failed law has hurt patients is bad enough but the truth is it's also hurting the economy and hurting jobs. the congressional budget office has estimated that obamacare is forcing employers to cut jobs and projected that as many as two million jobs could be lost by 2017. now, madam president if the court rules for king, the plaintiff in the lawsuit millions more americans could find their health care coverage temporarily disrupted.

just one more painful consequence of this reckless legislation. nearly obamacare was not the silver bullet for our health care system or our economy. instead, what we know today is that obamacare really just amounted to a trail of broken promises. but you'll never find the president or those who foisted this flawed legislation upon the american people taking responsibility for it. rather as i said earlier somehow they think it's for somebody else to clean up their mess. i continue to believe madam president, that the american people would be well served to see this entire law scrapped in favor of real patient-centered reforms that lower costs and increase access to care. i thought that's what health care reform was supposed to be about, lowering costs and improving access to care.

but obamacare did the opposite. but i'm here to say that while republicans did not create this mess we are ready, we are willing, and we are able to do our best to protect the american people from any more harm caused by the president's flawed law. and that's why we've been working hard for the last several months to provide the american people with a much-needed offramp from obamacare should the court rule against the administration once again. but we really need to hit the reset button and start over again. first and foremost, we are prepared to help the more than six million americans including nearly a million people in my home state of texas, whose costs would suddenly skyrocket as yet another consequence of this disastrous legislation. but in doing so, we will empower the states to opt out of

obamacare, allowing them the flexibility to more effectively lower costs and increase choices. we will promote not command and control solutions emanating from here in washington under the philosophy that washington knows best, we will promote market-based options without the threat of harmful onerous expensive mandates. repealing these mandates will help the american people finally get the coverage they need at a price they can afford. so in short, we will do everything in our power to protect the people affected by this flawed legislation but we will not protect the president's failed law. it's time to scrap it and do better. it's my hope that if the court rules against the administration once again congress will find

it within themselves to work together to protect the almost one million texans and millions more of americans from yet another painful consequence of obamacare. i know republicans stand ready to protect the american people from this failed law while providing a path forward to -- for better health care for our country. that health care includes more freedom, more flexibility, and more choices. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. sand sand madam president, i want to take this opportunity -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call, senator. mr. sanders: i would ask that the quorum call being vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. sanders: madam president ii want to take this opportunity to send my condolences to the families of those who were murdered in charleston, south carolina on wednesday evening and to the entire city of charleston. it is hard to understand how someone could walk into a church be welcomed into a prayer meeting and then take out a gun and slaughter nine people who are in the process of discussing the bible. that is hard to believe but that is accident what happened. madam president in the last 60 years, this country has made significant progress in civil rights and in trying to become a less discriminatory society. 60 years ago parts of our country were build on an

apartheid-type system, segregated housing segregated schools, segregated restaurants segregated transportation, segregated water fountains and in fact, and entirely segregated way of life. perhaps most significantly african-americans in a number of southern states were denied the basic right to vote and were unable to participate in the democratic process. today as a nation we have a right to be proud of the significant changes that have taken place in our country over the last 60 years. and the many advances that have been made in civil rights and in the creation of a less discriminatory society. we should be proud that in 2008 this country surprised the world by overcoming our racist history

and electing our first african-american president and then reelecting him four years later with a strong majority. you may like barack obama -- and i do -- or you may dislike barack obama and many americans have that view. but it is no small thing that this country was able to judge a candidate by his ideas and his character and not the color of his skin. but clearly, madam president while we have made significant progress the events of last week remind us how far we yet have to go in order to create a non-racist society. madam president, i am not the governor of south carolina. i am not in the south carolina legislature and i do not live in south carolina. but i do believe that the time is long overdue for the people

of south carolina to remove the confederate flag from the statehouse grounds in columbia. that flag is a relic of our nation's stained racial history. it should come down. if any good can come of the terrible tragedy in charleston, it is that the people of south carolina now have the opportunity to finally turn a page on our past. frankly, the confederate flag does not belong on statehouse grounds. it belongs in a museum. madam president let me also express you to my deep concern about the growth of extremist groups in this country groups who are motivated by hatred by hatred of african-americans by hatred of immigrants, by hatred of jews, by hatred of muslims

and anyone else who is not exactly like them. madam president according to the southern poverty law center, sadly, there are some 784 active hate groups in the united states and the number of those groups are growing. let me express my agreement with naacp president cornell william brooks that, and i quote "we need vigorous prosecution and vigorous investigation of these hate groups and the resources to do so" -- and -- end of quote -- and i call upon the f.b.i. to do just that. madam president about 50 years ago as a student at the university of chicago, i was arrested in a civil rights demonstration to end segregated schools and was also involved in helping to end segregated

housing in chicago. madam president, it is clear to me that over that period of time this nation has come a very, very long way. but it is also clear to me -- and i think the majority of our people -- that we still have a long long way to go. and let me conclude by real estate minding fellow americans about -- by reminding fellow americans about those great words that appeared in the declaration of independence, that moment in history when the colonies broke off from the british. and this is what that declaration said: "we hold these truths to be self-he haveheevident, that all men -- and we would add women -- are created equal among those these are life, liberty and the

pursuit of happiness." madam president, that is the dream of america. that is our vision and that is a goal that we must obtain. the tragedy in charleston reminds us how far we yet have to go. thank you, madam president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. klobuchar: thank you very much. madam president, i come to the floor today to speak about a major problem across my state that you've seen in iowa and across the country and that is the scourge of synthetic drugs. you've all seen reports of people who have hurt themselves or others, who have died under the influence of dangerous drugs. this issue hit home in my state after trevor robinson, a 19-year-old from blaine, minnesota, died after overdosing on a drug called 2 ce in 2010. i can introduced a bill to outlaw it and similar substances and with the help of senator schumer we were able to get that bill signed into law. but there is still much more that needs to be done as we've learned since we passed that bill. here's one recent example.

law enforcement officials in florida and throughout the country are dealing with a synthetic drug called flacca. this extremely dangerous drug has been linked to hallucinations and other bizarre behavior. so we're always trying to stay one step ahead of these new and dangerous compounds because the way the law works now you have to keep adding a new compound. what happens is the crooks who are manufacturing these drugs the drug leaders the people that are running these drug rings are changing the compounds up so they're different and they're staying one step ahead of the law in that way. before i was elected to the senate madam president i spent eight years serving as chief prosecutor in minnesota's largest county. drug cases made up about one-third of our case load and i had an opportunity to see firsthand the devastating impacts of drug addiction. recent statistics have shown almost half of all high school students have used addictive substances. and synthetic drugs are a

growing problem in minnesota and across the country. a recent survey staff 15,000 -- survey of 15,000 minnesota students found 26% have used illegal drugs and of that group 12% have used synthetic drugs and the problem with synthetic drugs which we've realized as i've done events with law enforcement from places like fargo, places like the suburbs of minneapolis what i've found is that many times people that buy these synthetic drugs get much worse drugs than the actual substance, much harder core drugs, much more difficult drugs, drugs that cause them to hallucinate, drugs that cause them to either kill themselves or to hurt others. that's why i've reintroduced bipartisan legislation with senators graham, feinstein and grassley that would make it easier to prosecute the sale and distribution of new synthetic drugs that are an alogs or

substantively similar to currently illegal drugs. what we're looking at, madam president, is the fact that these people that sell these drugs and manufacture them just keeping a compound here or there so that they can skirt the law. what we're trying to do with this bill is to make it easier to prosecute if new drugs that are substantially similar. the supreme court actually very recently issued a decision in mcfadden focused on the mens re standard. my bill, the salt act is focused on the underlying factors for what make something an analog drug. why do we need this new legislation? because expert chemists are able to slightly alter the chemical makeup of synthetic drugs so they get off the list of banned substances. to address this, current law provides the d.e.a. with the mechanism to prosecute the sale and distribution of drugs that

are analogues analogues that are substantially similar to controlled substances. however, the law specifically says that an analog drug does not include any substance -- quote -- not intended for human consumption. this can be a big problem because synthetic drugs often are explicitly marked as -- quote -- not intended for human consumption, but manufacturers distributors sellers and abusers of these substances all know exactly what to do with them -- ingest them or snort them to get a dangerous and many times unpredictable high. the salt act amends the controlled substances act to allow consideration of a number of factors when determining whether a controlled substance an nothing was intended for human consumption including looking at the marketing the advertising and labeling of a substance and its known use. that is a much more honest way to look at what is actual

consumption. you don't just look at the fact that there is a label on it that says it because that's what they do to protect themselves, the drug dealers. instead what you do is you look at what is actually going on here. you look at the marketing the advertising, the labeling and and the known use. the bill also says that the existence of some pieces of evidence that a substance was not marketed advertiser labeled for human consumption should not stop prosecutors from being able to establish based on all the evidence the totality of the evidence that the substance was in fact, intended for human consumption. while new synthetic drugs constantly coming onto the market we need to give our law enforcement agencies the tools that they need to combat them. this legislation will make it easier for prosecutors to demonstrate that a given synthetic drug is in fact intended for human consumption. we know that it's going on. we know that's why these guys

are selling it over the internet. they're trying to get around the law. they have actually been quite successful causing many deaths, many people hurt, many people addicted. so all this does is get to the facts. is this really being used for human consumption or not? and this legislation is going to make it easier for prosecutors to demonstrate looking at the totality of circumstances and not just a label that says it's not continueded for human consumption, looking at how it's sold what it's used for able to make it easier to meet that standard, because that is the only way we're going to go after these guys who are constantly changing the compounds to get around the law. i'd also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts, since we're talking about sympathetic drugs of the outgoing administrator of the d.e.a. and my fellow minnesotan, michelle leonard. administrator leonard has had a long career in law enforcement serving with the d.e.a. since 1980 and as its administrator

since 2010. she started her career back in minnesota and has served in the d.e.a. since for a very long time, 30 years. i'd especially like to thank the administrator for her work on the prescription drug take-back issue. during her tenure, the d.e.a. has coordinated a series of national events that have collected over 2,400 tons of unused prescription drugs. 2,400 tons. that's by the way why we work with the administrator senator cornyn and i to develop legislation which passed to make it easier to do these take-back programs and do them more routinely. but meanwhile 2,400 tons were collected. these events are critical in preventing drug abuses and overdoses and just getting old medicines out of the cabinets where people who were not prescribed them take them. i want to thank administrator leonard for her law enforcement

career. thank you madam president. i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. carper: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. partnership without objection. mr. carper: thank you madam president. the presiding officer: we are under morning business. morning business is closed.

under the previous order the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations department of homeland security, peter v. neffenger of ohio to be an assistant secretary. department of transportation, daniel r. elliott iii of ohio to be a member of the surface transportation board. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form. mr. carper: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: madam president i am delighted to serve on at least one committee with you and we have had the opportunity of late to have a number of folks come before us who have been nominated to serve. one of those is coast guard admiral, vice admiral peter neff jer. i am delight -- peter neffenger.

i am delighted to stand in stront -- strong support. the women and men who work there in a challenging environment to keep our aviation system, those of us who use it, safe and secure. the mission is made all the more challenging by two difficult and die -- diametricically tasks. we ask t.s.a. to screen 1.8 million passengers every day every day 24 hours a day 365 days a year, without allowing a single dangerous individual -- not one -- or dangerous item to get through. on the other hand, we have ask t.s.a. to perform the screening as fast as possible so that travelers do not miss their flights and luggage and cargo go to their designation on time and everybody is happy. that's what we ask them to do. t.s.a.'s job most days is a

thankless one for which employees are crairl commended but often criticized. can t.s.a. do a better job? you bet they can. we all can do a better job. we can do a better job here in the united states senate. a couple of weeks ago in the governmental affairs committee we heard from the department of homeland security's inspector general about several troubling security vulnerabilities at our airports. the i.g.'s findings were unacceptable. t.s.a. can and must do better. but it is not all on them. we can help. the. the presiding officer: has heard me -- the presiding officer has heard me talk about home depot. mr. carper: we have an obligation to do that. one of the ways we can help them do their jobs better is by voting in support of the president's nominee for t.s.a. administration admiral peter

neffenger. he served in the coast guard since 1982. assuming the position of vice commandant in may of 2014, throughout his nearly 34 year career in the u.s. coast guard he displayed exceptional leadership skills and the will to confront big challenges. these qualities will be very important if he's confirmed. i hope he will be as our next t.s.a. administrator. let me take a moment to share with my colleagues a few things that i've learned about the admiral during this nominating process. first, admiral neffenger has a clear vision for t.s.a. he said the agency must strive to be an intelligence driven, risk based counterintelligence agency. more importantly he's committed to addressing challenges head on and striving for perfection. finally, i've learned that he's committed to working with congress, with inspector again with the g.a.o., general accounting office, and with stakeholders to improve t.s.a.

but you don't have to take my word for it. admiral neffenger received the support of all three former secretaries of homeland security. here's what one former secretary of d.h.s. said. tom ridge said this about admiral neffenger. this is his quote. expertise and experience is broad. the nominee's experience is broad. his reputation superb, and his commitment to public service profound and unquestionable. close quote. after meeting with an getting to know admiral neffenger, i would not agree more. i with a nts to thank chairman thune and ranking member nelson for working close with our committee. the presiding officer our session here is our chairman of homeland security. i want to thank all of you for working closely with our committee to advance admiral neffenger's nomination. i want to thank chairman johnson and his staff for acting swiftly

on the nomination so it could be acted swiftly on the senate today. in less than two weeks we will celebrate the 239th anniversary of our nation's independence. on the days surrounding that celebration, millions of americans will be traveling to spend time with their families and friends. we owe it to each of them to have a permanent senate-confirmed t.s.a. administrator in place. the president has given us a great name, a good man a good leader and i would urge my colleagues to join me in voting for peter neffenger. with that, mr. president, thank you. i yield. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: before i speak about the two nominees that are before us this afternoon i feel

compelled to make a couple of brief comments about the tragedy that has occurred in south carolina. sometimes it's difficult to understand why there still seems to be so much hatred in the world. i remember the president and first lady of rwanda telling my wife and me that what had happened that led up to that genocide back years ago in which a million people were hacked to death by machetes because of the enmity and hatred between two tribes where people didn't think of themselves as rwandian. they thought of themselves as

hutu or tutzi. and that enmity, that rivalry turned into hate tried and hatred and the hit -- and the hatred was spurred on by mate talk over the airwaves. and we know that sad chapter of two people that have -- just did unimaginable things. and so,er too we see that this continues. mr. president, i am reminded, because it is emblazoned in my mind's eye three decades ago looking out window of your spacecraft back at earth and

from that perspective, when you look back at the earth, which is so beautiful and so color -- so colorful so creative, suspended in the middle of nothing and yet when you look at earth you don't see racial divisions you don't see religious divisions you don't see ethnic divisions. what you see is this beautiful creation and my mind's eye carries that view constantly that we're all in this together. and yet on the face of the earth we always want to divide, we always want to separate, we want to say you're different than me. and, as a result, i'm going to take it out on you.

the great genius of america is that we have overcome a lot of that by assimilating people of different colors and different cedes and different backgrounds and different religions altogether so that we think of ourselves as americans first. we've had in the world in which you and i live, mr. president the world of politics, we've had a lot of that divisiveness and we ought to be thinking of ourselves as americans instead of as republicans or democrats. this tragedy has riveted the nation. it's riveted the nation also on the question of the battle flag

of the confederacy. mr. president, this senator's great-great-grandfather at the time of the battle of mariana was well fast 50 years so he had not fought in the civil war but he was conscripted by the home guards to go into the battle of mariana where he was taken prisoner, ended up in the northern prisoner of war camp where so many of the prisoners died in he will myra, new york -- in el mivmentlmira, new york. he probably survived because he was passed 50 years old. they probably put him not in one of those cotton tents on the

hillside where disease and cold took over. but why should we attach our lee -- but why should we attach allegiance to a flag that represents separation instead of embracing out of many one, in god we trust e pluribus unum out of many one? and so it was announced in the press this afternoon that the governor of south carolina has said let's take that battle flag down from the capitol grounds in columbia, south carolina put it in a museum. we'll see the ensuing fight that occurs with regard to the legislature and changing the law. it was a few years ago that a

very -- very courageous republican governor that led the effort to take that battle flag off of the top of the capitol of south carolina and put it at that confederate monument still on the capitol grounds and that courageous republican governor lost his next election as a result of that. so it's time for us to move on. it's time for us to start thinking about unity and coming together as the good book says, "come, let us reason together." and those are the remarks i wanted to make. now, i want to speak about our two nominees. the nominee that the senator

from delaware just spoke about for t.s.a. coast guard vice admiral peter neffenger he's obviously had a distinguished career. his reputation precedes him 34 years in a variety of capacities. he has an expertise in critical areas of crisis management and port security. it'll serve him well as the head of t.s.a., which i believe that the senate will confirm him today. he was involved in that disastrous oil spill in the gulf. he was the national incident commander and he helped lead that emergency response to which we are still seeing the results of that spill those of us on

the gulf coast. that disaster required coordination between all levels of government and all of its agencies as well as the management of people in technology. and then recently it has been pointed out that, as we receive new information about the status and condition of that ruptured well the incident command had to weigh the risk and make difficult choices with a lot of incomplete information. well, he exhibited strong leadership then, and i believe he will give that leadership to an agency that needs that strong leadership now. the next nominee that we will consider is daniel elliott to be

a member of the surface transportation board. it's an important agency that helps ensure we have a strong and efficient rail network to move goods throughout the u.s. we know how vital to our economy the railroad industry is. and without the way to get goods to market -- and you have to do that; you can't do it just by trucks; you need the bulk of the materials carried on the rails. and at the surface transportation board decisions have long-lasting impacts on our nation's economic competitive competitiveness, and that's why last week the senate passed the

surface transportation board reauthorization act of 2015, to make the agency more efficient and effective. and we need individuals who are qualified to serve and daniel elliott is such an individual. earlier this year he was nominated to be reappointed as a member of the board. he's previously served as chairman and he also has had a great deal of experience as an attorney including close to two decades litigating in the transportation sector. and i would ask the senate to join in and support mr. elliott's nomination. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. lankford: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma.

mr. lankford: mr. president i ask unanimous consent to address the senate as if it's morning hour for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: mr. president the next coupling of days the supreme court will rule on a case that will have long-lasting impact not only on what health care is going on in our country but long-lasting impact on how the law is to be interpreted. this is a law called the patient protection and affordable care act. it is hurried through congress before anyone had time to read it and contained multiple mistakes and contradictions. already this administration has unilaterally changed over 30 times this law to try to make it work including completely rewriting a section about who gets the subsidies and who lives underneath the mandates. the law only says that the states who set up an exchange as state exchange are under those subsidies but also have those mangeds but the administration claims that, no, it was intended for everyone. within days the supreme court will release their opinion on

this matter in a case called king v. burwell basically answering this one question: does the law mean what the law says? or does the law mean what the administration interprets it to mean? it is not a political problem. this is a health care problem for millions of people. the discussion seems to circle around these days on who is to blame. the people and families were hurt in the obamacare chaos because of the way this law was written. they're not worried about blame. they're worried about the issue that's facing their family in the days ahead. i have the obligation to do whatever i can to protect the people of my state from the harmful effects of this law. and there are many. people in my state distinctly heard people say five years ago if you like your health care, you can keep it. except for the people who were forced off the state-run exchanges that already existed in oklahoma and were pushed out. obamacare, that's five years

oate old came after ensure, oklahoma, which is ten years old, except for the people in my state with higher deductibles and higher premiums. in oklahoma this year the requested rate keys for health care is between 11% and 45% depending on the plan and the county that you live in. this year's rate increase, between 11% and 45%. in addition, physician-owned hospitals are trapped in time not allowed to grow larger than they were five years ago. many people in my state like the physician-owned hospitals and want to see it succeed instead of slowly bled to death. people struggle to find a job in my state because of this 40-hour requirement that hangs over them. they now have to find two jobs each having about 28 hours so they can keep up the amount of pay. those individuals were hurt in this process. the higher premium costs in the

plans that will soon come to those in unions because they have too good of a health care insurance and in the short days ahead, union members that have premium health care policies will now get a penalty for having insurance that's too good for this administration. and by next year, the independent payment advisory board kicks off its work. its sole responsibility is to find areas to save money by cutting options for patients. this is not a mess that can be fixed with one sentence. unless that one sentence says the bill is repealed. so how do we solve this in the days ahead? let me just lay a couple ideas out before the senate because very soon we're going to be confronted with this when the supreme court actually responds. first i'd do the basic thing do no harm and stop the existing harm. we need a transition out of the subsidies and mandates of obamacare for millions of people who will lose their subsidy when

the court rules in favor of the american people and the united states the clear text reading of the law. those individuals forced into obamacare are not the problem. we're not angry at those individuals. they're trapped in a mess made around them and they were forced into. i will never forget a conversation i had with a democrat in my state who was participating in the plan called insure oklahoma who liked their insurance plan, a subsidized plans from our state and they pulled me aside five years ago ago and said is there any way i can keep the state-based plan that i have now? all i could do was look at them and say no. you can't actually. and that's not my decision. that's when the affordable care act was passed and the center for medicaid and medicaid services and h.h.s. forced the people in my state out of a state-based solution for health care and into the larger national solution.

and many oklahomans lost their health care coverage and were forced out of it. it was already in a subsidized system and they were taken from one plan, pushed into another let's do no harm and let's try to help those individuals to be able to find their way back to a plan they like and help in that transition. second thing is pretty straightforward. states should have the freedom to choose any path to help their citizens. states should not have to check in with the the federal government to take care of their neighbors and citizens. how ridiculous is that that a state leadership would have to say we want to gel a plan to help our own citizens and the federal government to say no. they have to check with us instead. this is a repeal option for all 50 states. for the states who like it, you can keep it. but for all the states that don't, they have their own way out to be able to take care of their own citizens. the tax money that's being supplemented for those came from those states, why shouldn't it

be returned back to those states and give the states the ability to be able to speak to that issue for their own citizens? we've got to stop this mentality that only the people of washington, d.c. love the individuals in each state and want to care for them and to be able to manage what's happening in that state. that state leadership deeply cares about their own citizens. let's let them step up and lead. third, the clearest of all of them people should have the freedom to choose any health care plan they want. what a radical idea to actually hand people freedom to hand people opportunities free of the mandates and the penalties patients should be able to pick their own doctor, their own plan for their own family. i have to tell you it's ironic, mr. president. i hear people call this law either obamacare or the affordable care act. and i'm fascinated with that because the law's name is the patient protection and affordable care act. and over the last five years

the word patient protection seems to disappeared from every part of everyone's vernacular on this and i would only have to say i agree. when did we stop saying to the patient you have no ability to make your own choices? i'll tell you when. when obamacare passed. and everything became about affordable rather than about patients. we've seen the consequences of this. in the days ahead the supreme court will rule on this. and i believe strongly they're going to rule for the plain text of the law. not just about obamacare but because they have to make a decision as the supreme court does the law mean what the law says or can any administration on any law in the future reinterpret it based on their preferences? if there is one area that would be a great path for us to follow, it is in the days ahead we get back to the government is

about the law and we follow the law. because we are a nation of laws. not just a nation of leaders. and the law is to be king in our nation. so let's interpret it the way it's written and let's give people back the freedom that they want and need, let's put the patient back in health care. that's the next step that i think we should take in this you united states -- this united states senate. with that, mr. president i yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent that all the time be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection. all time is yielded back.

the question occurs on the neffenger nomination. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: