to get this thing done in five minutes. but have -- has my friend received confirmation from speaker boehner that he would take up the bill tomorrow? my understanding is the reason they've moved up their -- and this is not -- this is what i've heard. i can't swear to t i don't to it. but what i've heard is they're moving their adjournment up from thursday to wednesday so they can escape having to take up our bill. does my friend believe if they get this bill done tomorrow that they would stay 24 hours and deal with our bill? mr. inhofe: reclaiming my time, i don't know what they would do. i would just say that if we don't finish it until they're already gone, then we know what happens. but i still think that can be done. there is a sense of urgency. we've worked long and hard. people are saying that they haven't had time to get into this thing. we passed our bill -- you know,

they have had five or six weeks to absorb this. this argument on you have a six-year bill with only three years of funding it's kind of a phony argument because we have a valve that doesn't exist anywhere else that if we go through -- start a six-year bill, that would allow us to get into the major projects that the senator from minnesota was talking about and you've been talking about and i've been talking about, that you can't get into with short-term extensions. we all understand that. so we can start those projects. given three years, i can assure you that we will have the opportunity to find offsets that would be acceptable. we're operating under the gun before. that would take that away. we can go ahead and accept the fact that we have three years funded, and then for those individuals -- and i'm speaking now of my colleagues on this side of the aisle who are conservative, who have had the argument that we're not going to be -- we will then have to

borrow money in order to finish the six years. the six years stop. there is a safety valve there that will cause the six years the funding to stop exactly when that time comes that we run out of the money in the trust fund. so we can really have it both ways. we can start the projects, and then there will be enough pressure on and we'll be able to do. and incidentally, i have to say this because i have to keep reminding my friends, there is a conservative position let's pass this bill. i get so tired of people -- there are a lot of people out there who actually voted for the $800 billion way back in the beginning of the obama administration the $800 billion stimulus bill that didn't stimulate. we tried to put an amendment on there. the senator from california and i cosponsored amendments. they were all rejected. then along came the $700 billion bailout. a lot of my republican friends voted for that. now they complain that the money

isn't there. well the money can be there. if it hadn't been for those two things we wouldn't be having this conversation today. but the money can be there. we need time to let that happen. certainly as we start the major -- pass this bill, start the major projects that are going on, then we'll be in a position to do that. the key to make that happen, to allow that to happen, i'm not going to give up because the house hasn't left yet. they say they're going to leave tomorrow afternoon. well if we go ahead and yield back enough time to get this vote this afternoon we can do the same thing on the final vote. and, by the way those individuals who want to have amendments, you can still have germane amendments that would not be treated as an amendment but we can consider putting those into the managers' amendment. if that happens, that would become a part of the vote that they would be voting on tomorrow. to allow that to happen, we have to go ahead, yield back time so that we can have this vote

taking place and start working on those amendments that are germane to see which of those we're going to be in a position to consider. so anyway, that's what i'm hoping will happen. that's what i think there's an opportunity. again, people who make statements -- and i know, i have a lot of friends in the house. i spent eight years in the house. and these individuals that are speaking now, one of them made this kind of an off-the-cuff statement about you know, we're just not going to consider it. well i really believe that most people over there felt that we weren't going to be successful in passing a bill. and so it's still possible we can do that. we do have the time left. we know what we have to do to do that. let me just talk a little bit about some of the things, the sense of urgency, first of all i appreciate the fact that this could have took place. the senator from minnesota, she had some pretty graphic pictures

there of what happened that took the lives of 13 people, a bridge falling down. but today the national highway system carries more than 55% of the nation's highway traffic and 97% -- 97% -- of the truck freight traffic. we've never had a freight provision in these. this is my sixth bill that i've worked on and actually going all the way back to the house days. but we've never had a freight provision to take care of this problem. of the four million miles of public road, the national highway system represents 5.5% of the nation's most heavily traveled miles of road. americans depend on a well maintained national highway system that provides critical connections between urban and rural communities. the american businesses pay an estimated $27 billion a year in extra freight transportation costs due to the poor conditions

of public roads. look at that. how many lanes are there on this one? there's six lanes, all of them stopped. what's happening when they stop? engines keep going the air is polluted gasoline costs a lot of money and the freight can't go through. that's why we have this. recognizing it is the foundation of nation's economy and the key to the nation's ability to compete in the global economy it's essential that we focus efforts to improve freight movement on the national highway system. incidentally if we don't pass this bill and if we go back to extensions that ain't going to happen. it can't happen. and i always have to pause to remind my conservative friends -- and i can say this because i've had the ranking of the most conservative member probably more than anybody else has -- that the constitution tells us what we're supposed to be doing here. we're doing things, a lot of things that the constitution never contemplated. but it says in article 1

section 8 we in the house and the senate are supposed to be defending america in roads and bridges and highways. that's what we're supposed to be doing. so i just say, i have to remind people of the conservative position in the constitution, that is to go ahead and do what we're trying to do with the drive act today. the drive act includes two new programs to help the states deliver projects and to promote the safety and movement of these. the first new program the national freight program that's what we're talking about right now. that's what's bogged down in the traffic right now. it's distributed by a formula that will provide funds to all states to enhance the movement of goods reduce costs and improve the performances of businesses. the program will expand flexibility for both rural and urban areas. the reason, a lot of reason that this hasn't been handled before is that states send in their priorities. one of the few things in government that does work is

what we're going through right now. when we set up a formula we take into consideration what do the people at home want? what do the people in my state of oklahoma think is the most important thing in terms of roads and bridges and highways and maintenance in the state of oklahoma? there are some liberals here in washington who think that there's never been a good decision unless it comes out of washington. this we always emphasize what they consider to be the greatest concern within their states. the reason that freight doesn't often get the high priorities that it should is because a lot of freight moves in and out of a state, and the states don't evaluate the economic benefit. when in fact that's shortsighted because states on either side provide that kind of traffic that does add to the economy of the state. it's just not direct like the rest of the projects are. so we have this type of congestion taking place.

secondly, it will improve efforts to identify projects with the high return on investment through state freight plans and state advisory committees. the second new program is the assistance for major projects program which creates a competitive grant program to provide funds for major projects of high importance to a community, region or to the nation. and the program includes a set aside for rural areas for ensures equitable geographic distribution of funds. to me, the state of oklahoma is a rural state; that's a very important thing. anyway, we have that program. again, these are major projects. one thing you can't do with the short-term extensions -- and keep in mind the last time we had a long-term bill a reauthorization bill was 2005. and by the time that 2009 got here, we were working on just the short-term extension.

33 short-term extensions. so you can't do those major projects that have to be done sooner or later in our country. so we have -- you have charts on these? we have the chicago illinois, the i-20, 290 and the i-90 and 94 intersections. is that what that chart is? that's the intersection, that's what we've been looking at with the congestion that is up there. it's the number-one worst freight bottleneck in the united states. the average speed slows down to 29 miles an hour. morning and evening rush hour speeds have been known to drop below 20 miles an hour. it carries about 300,000 vehicles a day. that's the chicago i-29. houston, texas the i-45 at the u.s. and certainly the upper part -- the chair is fully aware and i'm sure has been bogged

down in traffic many times on the texas i-45 at u.s. 59 exchange. houston, texas, is the home of five of the top 20 freight bottlenecks in the nation. texas is home of nine of the top 25 freight bottlenecks. freight bottlenecks cost the freight industry in texas $671 million annually and 8.8 million hours of delay. here's what we're looking at. we're looking at houston. it happens that i was stopped there going through there one time. that is why i always fly down to south texas instead of drive to avoid that. the i-45 at the intersection is ranked the third by congestion index, the third in the nation. it is the same i-45 at the 610 north is ranked 15. so the average speeds slow down to 39 miles an hour. and there they are out there wasting valuable time.

fort lee, new jersey the i-95 that you're looking at right now connects fort lee, new jersey, to new york city. it's the second-worst freight bottleneck in by congestion index in the nation. the average speed slows down to 29 miles an hour. rush hour speeds in the morning and evening slow down to about 15 miles an hour. nearby i-95 cross bronx express way is the most congested corridor in the country. by the way that's one that anyone from here in washington going up to anyplace along the coast, connecticut on up north they have to go through that. and i've had to do that. i had occasion just the other day to give kind of a commencement talk up at the coast guard academy. to get up there, i had to go all the way across that bridge to get up there. it almost made me late to get up

there. that's one that is well-known. the george washington bridge is the world's busiest motor vehicle bridge carrying over 106 million cars a year. so anyway, that's what we have right now. we have a freight program. we have another talk that we've given several times where we go over all the bridges. the senator from minnesota was talking about the tragedy of the bridges. but if you look and you see it's not just confined to the east coast. if you look and you see the in my state of oklahoma in the northeastern section, we have more bridges deficient bridges than probably ranked number three in the nation, i would say. and those bridges are not going to be addressed until we have a chance to do it. so weecht opportunity to look into that. and, yeah, put eisenhower up there. it's right there. i always like this because in going back and looking at, i

think, a lot of people, in addition to my chairmanship in the iement and public works -- environment and public works committee i've been ranking member on the senate armed sstleses committee. i think it is deplorable what obama has done to our military, the disarch of -- disarming of america. i don't think the chair is aware of the fact that the reason eisenhower started this was to defend our nation. ep said as it is right now we don't have any type of a system where you can take goods and services and move them across either coast to be sent out in the defense of this country. and his actual quote, which i can't read from here, but he talked about his major reason for starting this system was for defending america. so i'm hoping -- anyway, this is what can happen. right now we are in the middle of not doing anything, not getting anything done.

but it's a 30-hour delay. if we move that up so that instead of voting on that at 5:00 in the morning that we can vote on it this afternoon, which would be just as easy to do. i'm going to be asking unanimous consent that we're able to do that. then we could move on and do the same thing as we move toward the bill. if that happens those individuals -- and i would p hope that staff is listening to this those who have germane amendments, we can't take up amendments after the -- this is going to pass. we know it's going to pass but is it going to pass this afternoon or is it going to pass tomorrow morning? and then we wouldn't be in a position to do anything until the house already adjourns. now, if this happens if they'll bring amendments down, we'll consider germane amendments. we still have the mearption' amendment that we'll be able to put these in. so there is an opportunity for that to take place and i wouldn't want anyone voting to

deny this opportunity to finish this bill and let the house either -- at least look at it, thinking they wouldn't be able to get their amendments in. we've had an opportunity to have amendments in for a long time. i always hasten to say this because -- how long has it been now? it's been six weeks since we passed this out of the -- out of our committee and it passed unanimously. every democrat and every republican -- and i have to say that the republicans in the chaircommittee that i chair are the most conservative republicans and the democrats are among the most liberal democrats much that's a holdover from when the democrats had control of the senate and so the environment and public works committee was chaired by my colleague who refers to herself as a very proud progressive. that means "liberal." and i'm a very proud conserve tivment so--conservative. so to just have the opportunity to have this up so we can consider it, we would have to

move this up and get this vote to take place tonight. and so i'm hoping that will stilling the case. we've -- we're making our case on that. and again that would allow us to get this done in a way -- or at least to let the house look at this and see whether or not that is an option they may want to pursue. i know several have painted themselves into a corner, but nonetheless we could do this if we hurry this up. i know there are other speakers on the floor so i would yield the floor. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i want to compliment the senator from oklahoma for his work on this legislation. he has been a fierce advocate for transportation funding for doing highways bills on more than a short-term basis as he's mentioned numerous times. since 2009 we've had 33

short-term extensions, patches if you will, which really makes it very, very difficult to run a highway program. and the senator from oklahoma has been, as i said, a fierce and persistent advocate that one of the responsibilities we have around here is to make sure we are building the infrastructure in this country that keeps our economy competitive that allows people and freight to move in an efficient way and to ensure that our economy is strong and vibrant because i can tell you as someone who represents a rural state in the middle of the country, that if it weren't for the supply chain that we have between our highways and bridges, our railroads our ports, all of those things are critically important for us to get our products, the things that we raise and grow in south dakota to the marketplace. and agriculture is our number-one industry. it drives our economy and it is incredibly dependent upon transportation. so a strong, vibrant robust

economy depends upon transportation. and obviously you want to have a system that's safe, and that's one of the issues that i want to speak to with regard to this bill as well. but i appreciate the great work that senator inhofe and his time team in working with senator boxer, have done on this bill. we're going to continue to debate this. i hope we can bring it to a close, as the senator from oklahoma pointed out. if we did that, we would have an opportunity to put it before the house and give them a chance to act on it, whether they choose to or not. i would certainly hope that the house of representatives would take a hard look at this bill and consider taking up and moving it because there's been a lot of work that's gone into it. we have a deadline ahead of ors -- of us, and if we don't act we're going to be stuck with yet another 34th short-term extension, just kicking the can down the road and making it more difficult for those making decisions to plan and design our infrastructure in this country

to do so. a lot of people -- a lot of jobs who depend upon the decisions that come out of washington with regard to this bism so i bill. so i would too encourage our colleagues to quickly complete action on the bill here and a how the house of representatives to take a chance at considering it and perhaps getting this issue resolved, a long-term bill in place. these bills are nothing new in the senate. it is the first transportation bill as i mentioned in many will a decade to -- in almost a decade to provide more than two years of funding for our nation's infrastructure needs. since 200 congress has passed more -- since 2009, congress has passed more than 33 short-term extensions. that's an average of approximately five funding extensions a year. that's not a good way to manage our nation's infrastructure, and it wastes an incredible amount of money. around the country hundreds of

thousands of people and hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on funding contained in transportation bills. and when congress fails to provide the necessary certainty about the way transportation funding will be allocated states and local governments are left without the certainty that they need to authorize projects to make long-term plans for transportation infrastructure. and that means that essential construction projects get deferred necessary repairs may not get made, and the jobs that depend on transportation are put in jeopardy. my home state of south dakota has been forced to defer important construction projects thanks to the lack of funding certainty. mr. president, no individual or business would start building a house or an office building if it could only promise a contractor three months' of funding. in the same way congress can't expect a state to begin construction of a new bridge or highway without theceptor that the project going be -- without the certainty that the project is going to be fully funded.

the drive act reauthorizes tramsauthorizes transportation programs for six years. all three years of funding have been paid for without raising the gas tax and without adding a dime to the deficit. this bill will give states and local governments the certainty that they need to plan for and commit to key infrastructure projects. it will also help to strengthen our nation's transportation system by increasing transparency in the allocation of transportation dollars streamlining the permitting and environmental review processes and cutting red tape. over the past few years of democrat control the public has grown increasingly skeptical of congress being able to function. when republicans took the majority in january we promised the american people we'd get the senate working again and we have been delivering on that promise. this transportation bill is another major legislative achievement and result of hard work by several committees who put together key provisions to

spur important infrastructure investment and safety improvements. republicans and democrats alike got to make their voices heard in this process and the resulting bill is stronger because of it. as chairman of the commerce committee, i had the opportunity to work on the commerce section of the bill. our focus was on enhancing the safety of our nation's cars, trucks and railroads and the bill that we produced makes key reforms that will enhance transportation safety around the country. over the past year the commerce committee has spent a lost time focused on motor vehicle safety efforts. last year was a record year for auto problems, with more than 63 million vehicles recalled. now, two of the defects that have spurred recent auto recalls -- the faulty general motors i.g.motorsignition swrich and the defective air bags from at that takata -- are responsible for eight reported deaths in the case of attakata and more than 100 deaths

in the case of general motors. indications point to the takata recalls as being among the largest and most complex set of auto-related recalls in our nation's history with more than 30 million cars affected. given the seriousness of these recalls, when it came time to draft the highway bill, one of our priorities of the commerce committee was addressing auto safety issues and promoting greater consumer awareness and corporate responsibility. the commerce section of the drive act now tripless the civil -- triples the civil penalties that nhtsa can impose for a series of related safety violations to a cap of $105 million which should provide a stronger deterrent against auto safety violations like those that occurred in the case of the faulty ignition switches at nen motors. -- at general motors. our portion of the bill also

improves notification notices so that consumers are aware of recalls. the inspector general at the department of transportation published a scathing report identifying serious lapses at the national highway traffic safety administration, or knit, is a the government -- or nhtsa ofthe government agency responsible for overseeing safety in our nation's cars and trucks. there were questions about the agency's ability to properly identify and investigate safety problems a concern further underscored by the circumstances surrounding the takata recalls. in addition to targeting violations by automakers, our portion of the highway bill also addresses the lapses at the nhtsa. in its typical fashion the obama administration claimed that nhtsa's problems could be solved by simply throwing more money at the agency. but based on testimony -- expert testimony from the inspector

general, it is clear that money alone is not going to solve the problem. we need to ensure that the agency fixes what is broken before we provide a significant increase in funding authorization with taxpayer dollars. our bill makes additional funding increases for nhtsa's vehicle safety efforts contingent on that agency's implementation of reforms called for by the inspector general ensuring that this agency will be in a better position to address vehicle safety problems in the future. i appreciate that nhtsa's current administration and administrator has pledged to implement all of these recommendations. mr. president, another big focus of the commerce committee this year has been rail safety. nearly half of the commerce section of the drive act is made up of a bipartisan rail safety bill put together by the republican junior senator from mississippi and the democrat junior senator from new jersey. their work on important rail and

amtrak reforms is almost ready for a committee markup at the beginning of may but after the tragic train derailment in philadelphia these two senators opted to delay the markup and then added even more safety provisions to the bill that they crafted. their bill which passed the committee with unanimous support from committee members of both parties includes provisions to strengthen our nation's rail infrastructure and to smooth away the complementation of new -- the implementation of new safety technologies. our transportation infrastructure keeps our economy and our nation going. our nation's farmers depend on you are a rail system to move their crops to the market. manufacturers rely on our interstate highway system to distribute their goods to stores across the united states. and all of us -- all of us depend on our nation's roads and bridges to get around every single day. for too long transportation has been the subject of short-term legislation that leaves those

responsible for building and for maintaining our nation's transportation system without the certainty and the predictability they need to keep our roads and highways thriving. i'm proud of the bill that we have on the floor before us today. i hope we can pass this legislation as soon as possible and work with the house to develop a final bill that will allow us to fund our nation's transportation priorities on a long-term basis. we can't afford, mr. president to continue this path that we've been on of passing short-term extensions 33 already in the last five years -- five a year, more than five a year -- and all the uncertainty that comes with that that jeopardizes jobs across this country that are related to construction of these projects that jeopardizes the planning and engineering design work that our departments of transportation across the country do, and that puts at risk all the transportation

infrastructure that moves the freight, that moves the people across this country on which our economy depends. and so i say as a member who represents a rural state from south dakota, where we have 77,000 square miles home to 800,000 people, we depend heavily to get to and from our destinations on roads and bridges. we have people who drive long distances to work. we have people who come into our state every stilinger single year. this time of year we have people descending on a little town called sturgis where the annual motorcycle rally is held. we've people come by the thousands to our state to visit the black hills in mt. rush more. we depend on a good, viable transportation system. as imansed earlier, we are -- as

i mentioned earlier, we are an agricultural economy that drives our -- the jobs in our state that keeps our main streets going and that agricultural economy depends upon getting those things that we raise and grow to the marketplace. that means good highways, railroads, appellate ports all the things that are essential to make sure that our agricultural producers can get the things that they raise and grow to the places, to the destinations they need to get them to. so this is really important work that we're doing. again i thank the senator from oklahoma for his hard work and i certainly hope that if we can push this across the finishing line here soon that we will be able to present it to the house of representatives where notwithstanding the statements that have been made there perhaps they could look at this body of work and think like we do that this gives us an opportunity to put something on the books long term, the longest term bill we've will literally in ten years, and do

something important for our economy and for jobs. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: first of all i appreciate the comments that were made by the senator from south dakota in emphasizing the fact that what can't be done on short terms i think we've been talking about that all morning. just last week a hundred mayors from across the nation wrote to senate leaders urging for a long-term transportation bill. they said and i'm quote interrogatory the hundred mayors if the status quo continues, deficient transportation infrastructure will cost american businesses $430 billion by 2020. then there are 31 construction and transportation groups who sent a harsh reminder to congress that -- quote -- "passing extensions not have led to a lasting solution to the

highway trust fund repeated revenue shortfalls." i've been around here for a while, i've been through six of these transportation authorization bills and in the interim we always end up with these short-term extensions and people don't realize you can't do major projects with short-term extensions. now, i hear the argument sometimes that in this one you have a six-year bill but you're only paying for three years. that's fine. you can make the argument. but there's something unique in the transportation system and that is that in the event that we get through halfway even thoughates six-year bill and the funds are not available to the existing sources or what we have added, then all projects stop, not a penny can be spent. this isn't true anyplace else in our government and i think we have to realize if we're going

to going to do it -- when the senator from minnesota was showing these very graphic pictures of the bridge that collapsed killing 13 people, boy, that really sends it home. you can't wait until that happens before we do the responsible thing and i have to remind my conservative friends it's the constitutional duty. we were sworn into office, we were sworn to uphold the constitution of the united states and the constitution and article 1 section 8 tells us what we're supposed to be doing, we're supposed to be defending america and then bridges and roads. now, that's what we are supposed to be doing here. so there is a way and i hope that people will -- unless they just don't want to take care of these big serious problems, and want to continue with the short-term extensions, there's a way we can do this and we'll be asking for unanimous consent to go ahead and make a vote on

this. what we're voting on right now and considering and if no time -- if all time has to expire it would be 5:00 a.m. tomorrow morning would be on the inhofe substitute for the bill. that means then we wouldn't get around to having this until -- passed until thursday, and thursday will be after the house is gone. so it's over. and that's it. this would be a very easy thing to do, and again i'm going to remind people that while we don't have the chance for amendments after this vote takes place, we could still have the managers' amendment where i personally will get in and consider every one of the amendments that comes forth and i hope that will happen. so that's what we're faced with right now and mr. president i have five unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the

majority and minority leaders i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: with that i yield the floor and observe -- i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order the senate stands in recess until 1986

and so forth. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. durbin: madam president the biness re >> madam president? >> the democratic leader. >> madam president, that business before the senate is the construction of highways and bridges and the operation of mass. >> mr. president? >> across america. how important is that to our economy and i know in my home state it's critically important. i think it's important across the nation. you see our infrastructure, roads and bridges are critical for business to operate profitably in the people the good paying jobs. we all know the tragedies that occur when bridges collapse or close and we know the thousands across this country need repair. when it comes to mass. >> mr. president? >> , come on down to the loop in chicago in the morning and stand

with me i watch the folks streaming out of the train stations and off the buses, heading to work every day. is essential to the economy of chicago and illinois the state i represent. the fact is on friday, the authorization to build these highways and bridges and maintained mass. >> mr. president? >> and buses expires. it is the 33rd short term extension of the highway trust fund. the 33rd. there was a time when we would pass with regularity and predictability a five or six-year highway bill on a bipartisan basis. and we are anxious to do it. it was a time when members of the house and senate new and needs back home and knew that the federal government played a

critical role in filling those needs. and so they voted for the highway trust fund reauthorization. in my state of illinois 80% of highway construction is paid for by the federal government. when the federal government stops paying, folks stop working. you've seen it haven't you? the potholes, the highways are not finished. you wonder why connected to put all those blockades up to slow down the traffic and no one is working. the problem has to do with the way we are currently funding our highway program. we are doing it in bits and pieces. my colleague and friend from california, senator boxer, draws a pretty interesting analogy. she said if you are setting up to buy a home and went to the bank and the bank said what of course will offer you a mortgage, here's a 60 day mortgage to buy your home. you say wait a minute. i'm not going to make an

investment like buying a home if i could only get a loan for 60 days. that's what's happened to the highway trust fund. the expiration of this authorization, this temporary authorization on friday is the end of a 60 day mortgage, which we've offered to america to build highways. well, several members of the senate decided to do something unique. not totally unique but unusual i say, try to find a bipartisan compromise economic this country forward. tried to break through some of the rhetoric and debate on the highway trust fund and find something that works. i want to especially salute senator barbara boxer of california for leading this effort on the democratic side and join with senator mitch mcconnell, the republican majority leader. and center in half of oklahoma

who is the chairman of for environment and public works committee. -- senator inhofe. madam president, this is indeed an odd couple barbara boxer and mitch mcconnell, but they have come up with a plan a compromise, to solve a problem. when i go to illinois, madam president, what i hear over and over from the people of representatives, senator when are you folks going to stop squabbling? when are you going to stop fighting? can you basically sit down and reach an agreement to solve a problem that we face? that's what senator boxer and mr. mcconnell have done come and i enjoyed in the effort. here's what they are proposing. instead of 60 day extension of the trust fund it would be a three-year extension. six years of authorization but three years where the money is on the table. i wish it were longer but at this point i will jump at that. it's been more than 10 years since we've had a highway bill

that long. so after three years there is a modest growth each year in spending. i wish it were more and it ultimately is going to give the resources back to the states and localities so they can start building the infrastructure america needs to be successful and to compete. and we have worked long and hard on it, and its controversial. it is divided caucuses. there are 46 democrats in the senate, 21 of us last night voted to go forward on this bill. so even within our ranks 30 difference of opinion. 22? i'm glad the senator is here to keep on my toes. 22 last night. so i wish all of them were on board but some of them have their own legitimate concerns were not being there. the point i'm getting to is that when it came to the necessary vote we need to 60 we had 62.

i have to check with senator boxer to make some correct. 62 and 22 are democrats. we stepped up and made a difference to help move this process forward. so here we are. we have -- we are close to the finish line. we are not quite there. because of the procedure of this and e.g. scheduled as quickly as you like. you have to follow the rules and the rules tell us where likely to get this wrapped up perhaps tomorrow i hope this semester more. and then you say thank goodness. with the friday deadline you get something done this week before you go on the august recess. i would say from the center point of view that's exactly right. it means i can say not only to the mayors back home the governor, the contractors, the workers okay here are the resources to move forward for three years. but i can also say that we have done what we were sent here to do. to solve a problem and to do it

on a bipartisan basis. there's a problem. the problem we have is a sin action alone is not enough. we need the house of representatives to do the same thing. and so there was an announcement yesterday from a congressman from california that the house is not going to take up this measure. they want to go home. they want to start their august recess earlier than in august recess has been started in 10 years and they want to leave. the republican majority has decided they don't want to take up this bill. they just want to leave. and that is truly unfortunate. this is our chance to solve a problem for america on a bipartisan basis. this is our chance to invest in our country and put people to work building roads and bridges. and expanding mass transit. buying the buses we need. this is our chance, and yet what we hear from the republican side

in the house of representatives is sorry, we are going to. we will see you in september. spent with the senator yield for a question? >> i would be happy to yield. >> the senator from illinois has just said that the house is planning to bug out this week before the friday deadline when they highway fund collapses for the august recess. may i ask the senator from illinois this at your the following question? is it even august? isn't it july 28 today? >> i would like to take judicial notice and according to the calendar of business, it is still july. tuesday july 28 2015. >> in the past have we not worked into the early week or

weeks of august before taking the so-called august recess? >> for the past 10 years the august recess have started in august. the house of representatives wishes to start it in july. >> and friday is when the fund runs out of money and comes, the funding for the highways comes to incur it appears to be the house's intention to have gotten out of dodge abiding in order to i guess i'm dodge any consequence for not having met us on bipartisan terms that the bipartisan senate said she built? >> apparently they need a rest and to want to go home for the purpose. i wish they would stay and finish this business before. >> will the senator yield for a question? >> of course. >> the senior senator from oklahoma. >> i would observe just walking and we're all talking about the actions that are not being taken formally but several members of

the house have talked about. we are going to bail out of here. my feeling is this and i'm asking a question to the chair, if you would agree with my observation. one of the reasons that i think that statements have been made over there is that they never believed that we're going to be able to get past a six-year highway reauthorization bill over here. now, once that realization is a better, and i'm going to make an appeal for whoever is trying to string this thing out to short the time so we can have the vote right now to take place and get on with the last and final vote so that we would actually have that ready white house is still in session. they could very well take it up at that time. whether the individuals have placed himself in a corner of whether not that's going to happen i don't know, but isn't it worth a try? that's my question. >> let me respond and first

thank him for his bipartisan leadership for the environment of public works works committee. you and senator boxer heavily set a standard, bipartisanship, when it comes to this issue. you have produced a six-year authorization bill and i may not agree with it in particulars thank you for that leadership on your side on a high partisan basis. as far as your efforts to speed up the vote in the senate so that we can catch our house colleagues before you leave, i would support it completely but you and i both know that any single senator can divert and stop that effort. i will support you in bring it is for as quickly as possible. >> i appreciate that and the only other question i would have is the second part i asked you. there is time to do this. i'm going to make every effort and i think senator boxer shares my anxiety to get this thing in a position so that -- all we have to do is move this thing up

so we're not going to be expiring at 4 a.m. for a vote. i could just as easily be tonight and that would give us time to allow the house to look at it and perhaps come up with better judgment than they expected so far. >> i would just say to the chair the senator from obama, we have to appeal to the better angels of our colleagues nature and cooperative effort which we somewhat miraculous but worth a try. i'm happy to support you in that effort. let me just close and yield the floor to whomever would like to speak. this is a chance to do something the american people expect us to be. why did we get elected next i'm proud to represent the but i must introduce all problems. make life better. created an economy that is growing. there's nothing more bipartisan and more important than infrastructure in this country. if you wonder about that, go visit china and look what's

going on there. they are building cranes in every direction. highways and train routes being built in every direction. because they are preparing their chinese economy for the 21st century. we cannot patch our way to prosperity. we cannot on a short-term basis have a long-term plan to build america's economy. because of the hard work on both sides of the aisle, compromise is being made. we are at a point where we can have a three-year highway bill and it's time for us to do it no excuses. i support the senator from oklahoma. let's celebrate this innocent and then pray our colleagues in the house decide to hang around long enough to take up this bill which i believe would be a worthy alternative to another short-term extension.

>> with the senator yield for one last question? with the senator join me in sending out to try to see if we get unanimous consent to go ahead and move forward? i know that what we are doing here is more significant than other things that are going on. if you don't like the bill for some reason that's one thing but to bring it forward so that it can be done, i'm inclined to hope that we can encourage any of those who are just killing time right now to join us in doing this. is my intention to quit and make that request and i would ask if thethe senator from illinois would join in that effort? >> i would just ask, through the chair come as my colleague let's sit down and put this together and then you take it as we do to your cloakroom, i'll take it to my a let's see if we can get this moving forward. i went to protect the rights of members but i think many of them

would like to join us in accelerating this process so there is activity on the floor which is productive. i'd be happy to work with you. i yield the floor. >> those remarks of yesterday on the senate floor. the senate by the way currently in recess for their weekly party lunches. lawmakers will be back at 2:15 p.m. eastern to continue the debate on a six-year highway and mass. >> mr. president? >> bill. current funding for highway and mass. >> mr. president? >> programs set to expire this coming friday. there could be several vote this afternoon and final passage of the before the end of the week. the house has passed a five month out with an extension but house majority leader kevin mccarthy has said he will not bring up the senate bill on the floor of the house for a vote. follow the senate live on c-span2 when members return at 2:15 p.m. eastern. >> earlier today of faces from the defense department health and human services and the cdc testified on recent dvd

shipments of live anthrax spores to laboratory. under the past decade 86 labs have received life force. this thing was how before a house congress subcommittee. we were short a portion of that right now. >> good morning. welcome to our hearing once again dealing with anthrax. the subcommittee today examines continued concerns over the federal select agent program. is dumber focus on shipments of live anthrax from the department of defense laboratories that occurred over nearly a 10 year period. as yogi berra said it's like déjà vu all over again. last you held a similar hearing on the cdc anthrax incident the potential to expose dozens of cdc researchers to live anthrax due to the fact established

state procedures were not followed. cdc director freedmen testified quote to take every step possible to prevent any future incident back up at our laboratory scientist and the public at risk. it can we are again today. we examine cdc's mistaken shipment of highly pathogenic avian flu antivirals of smallpox. months after hearing and at the white house ordered safety stand down and laboratories with of all federal labs the cdc revealed to get a transfer of ebola. this is a deeply troubling. and despite the growing number of red flags these incidents keep happening. now we've learned the proving ground an army lab in utah has a niggardly ship live anthrax to facility across the goal. at last count at least 192 labs have received shipments of live anthrax but apparently the process to an active anthrax spores was not fully effective.

mr. ricci testing used to validate and assured the anthrax spores were inactivated failed to detect the live anthrax spores. what's most troubling is the use of this potentially deadly process four years. as i said last you this is completely unacceptable. these dangers safety lapses are threatening our nation security and public health. the committee hopes to learn today what is being done this time to prevent future safety lapses and will this be any different? last week the department of defense released a report following its internal review of the circumstances surrounding the light shipments of anthrax and according to its report that dod was unable to definitively determine the root causes for how and why they shipped live anthrax. anthrax. anthrax. yet in the report the department acknowledged all these labs routinely operate outside the validate excremental data. so in other words, it seems department of defense labs have

been irradiating larger numbers of spores and recommended. labs should have known they couldn't guarantee an activation of all spores at those numbers. especially at the doses of radiation give. this revelation begs a lot of questionsquestions beginning with why and why for so long? who was responsible for making the decisions about which inactivation presses to use including how many spores and what level of radiation? and then we evaluate. what is the role in developing and evaluating these processes? according to recent and ultimate headline, cdc has announced that it will be conducting yet another comprehensive review of how it people rate the safety and security at iowa terra maps. i think it is important to review current regulations to improve processes and procedures but past reviews have not brought about the change necessary to truly improve safety and standardize processes and procedures. maybe, we hope this review for

bring about different results. as i said a year ago what we have is returning issues of complacency and anthrax culture of safety. last year this was a wakeup call. however, it appeared critical government agencies hit this does but once again. what's going to take to change things this time and when? none of us want to be here again a year from now discussing another set of safety lapses and heaven forbid a loss of life. the u.s. government accounting office has conducted comprehensive work on the oversight of high containment labs. in fact, gao has been issued recommendations for years calling for governmentwide strategy for departments for high containment labs and the need for national standards for designing, constructing, maintaining such labs. yet these recommendations have not been implemented which is one of the reasons we are here again today discussing another safety lapses that threatens national security and the public health. today i would like to thank our

witnesses were testifying. i look forward to hearing your testimony and learning from the. please be candid and straightforward with us as we try to find ways to put the safety and procedures in our bioterrorism labs. this committee will not we let its oversight of federal laboratories compliance with select agent regulations and will further explore the possibility of an independent agency to oversee these labs. i recognize the ranking member of colorado for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman decedent want to be back in a year i could were last year but we've been here in 2007 2009 2014 and now 2015. so might as well marked your calendar now. part of that is because it's really important that the federal government work on identifying and maintaining public health risk, but the work itself inherently contains risk and that's what we got to continue our oversight.

at last assuring on the anthrax transfer i talked about the high containment lab that we have in fort collins which some years ago we identified terrible lapses and i was able to work with my former republican colleague bob schieffer from the district to get a new lab bill. i'm proud of that work but we have to continue to be able to assure our constituents that similar facilities across the country provide no risk to workers or to the broader community. now, mr. chairman, as you said frankly, the details of the incident do not inspire confidence that we're talking about a long-term series of inadvertent shipment of live anthrax from the dugway proving ground in utah which is supposedly one of the most sophisticated facilities in the world. this incident only came to light in may because a private company contacted cdc after discovering what it thought was activate

anthrax was actually live anthrax. since then we've learned 86 laboratories in 20 states and the district of columbia and seven foreign country received live anthrax over the last 12 years. those labs then transferred to live spores to an additional 106 labs. we are talking about almost 200 laps in all this judgment in all 50 states over a decade. miraculously nobody seems to have fallen ill as result of this series of incidents. still like you mr. chairman, i'm concerned this activity was going on for so long before one lab finally raised questions for the department. i'm eager to hear answers from dod how this was about to happen in the first place and what they are doing to ensure it never happens again. i understand the department review of the dugway incident released last week found that

insufficient scientific literature to develop effective protocols for the inactivation of anthrax spores. the dugway lab was relying on procedures that did not permanently or completely sterilize the anthrax spores. now, this is not my area of expertise but it seems troubling on its face. ..

i want clarification as how we have 200 separate all across the country working with amtrak. do we need to have 200 odd or is it possible that we could limit the risk while still being able to do this important research. i also want to hear about whether they are indicative of broader problems at the site or across the system. the pathogens must be to the highest standard hit the things we've seen recently raised questions about whether we can toss containment labs to handle select agents. the last year we've seen in exposure at cdc as this is what you said in proper shape hints of avian flu and even a potential it i feel lucky we

haven't had anybody affect did. we are going on our time here. i hope all of you have the answers today about what we are really doing to make serious changes to the system and include recommendations gao had made. i also want to hear from witnesses about the role congress should play in making sure the program operates safely. with that idea that we are >> does anybody else on the side wished to make any opening statement or comments? if not i don't know if you've seen this yet. the cdc article in "usa today" apply to have a look and see unanimous consent. this is titled cdc incident reporting policy despite scrutiny and promises relevant to today's hearing. i now recognize mr. poe alone

for five minutes. thank you, mr. chairman. i hope today we can get to the bottom of what happened with the result in live anthrax being shipped to labs and seven foreign countries. deputy defense secretary robb report describes labs is a massive institutional failure. i hope you can explain how these failures have occurred as well as with dod is doing to them safety protocols across all lapses in the forward. i'm deeply relieved were these known as volatile as a result of the laps and i hope this will remain the case is dod and continue to track the samples in this raises broader questions about safety of high containment laboratories across the country. hundreds of labs in the federal government assaults academic institutions and private

companies handled dangerous pathogens and toxins. high containment labs play a critical role in bio defense by conducting research to improve defenses against biological attacks and strengthening our public health response capabilities. laboratories to handle select agents are required to abide by a set of regulations can interpret the agents posed and are required to restrict access to individuals who've undergone a risk assessment at the fbi to implement safeguards, safety measures in response plans. must also ensure of laboratory work is properly trained on security measures are glad to participate also subject to registration and inspection by the division of select agents or toxins in civil penalties with protocols unauthorized possession or misuse of select

agents is subject to severe criminal penalties. incidents in the pastor involving anthrax, ebola and highly pathogenic avian flu raise questions about whether we need to strengthen our oversight of dangerous pathogens. is the current regulatory framework sufficient through the enforcement agencies with sufficient resources to ensure oversight is robust. what a cdc doing to improve the select agent program and prevent similar situations from occurring in the future question arc i understand cdc and dod have promised several more aid i look forward to hearing about the findings and recommendations and how they can be used to enhance safety and security at all of our nations laboratories. i want to know geo has an important discussion and i look forward to hearing your gao about recommendations across

high containment labs. i'm glad nobody appears to have suffered any injuries because of the latest incident. the next time the mishap a.b. from something more dangerous than liquid anthrax such as highly infectious pathogens. i hope we can learn from the latest in the data will take seriously important recommendations made by recent and ongoing investigations by gao and others to make the program safe. obviously we look forward to a discussion today and how we can improve oversight and what the committee can do to facilitate the process. again thinker chairman and ranking member of sweepers need. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. no further comments here will go to her witnesses. as you are aware and the

testimony and is the witness have any objections. the chair then advises you under the rules of the house and committee you're entitled to be advised by counsel. do it if you desire to be advised by counsel today? no one is asking for that. in the case would you rise and mouse where you in? the testimony about here is the truth come whole truth and nothing but the truth? witnesses have answered in the affirmative and you're under a subject to the penalties set forth in title 18 section 1001 f. united states code. when i give a five-minute summary. please pay attention. >> thank you chairman murphy, ranking member train to a distinguished members of the subcommittee. i appreciate the opportunity to

brief you on the shipments of samples containing spores are anthrax. my name is david hassell, deputy assistant secretary of defense for chemical and biological defense. use of inactivated or dead anthrax is an important element of the program to develop ways to protect more fighters and the public from the biological threat with the development and testing of systems protection equipment decontamination capabilities. we first learned under consideration on a 22nd of 2015 and the centers for disease control and prevention was alerted by a private come to me with the growth of live anthrax in a sample inactivated by laboratory at the army's ground in utah. cdc began investigation working with laboratories, state officials and the fbi. may 25th on a laboratories

have received inactivated anthrax samples from the same batch have been notified and is acted to stop working with the samples. dod laboratories that produce inactivated anthrax are directed to stop produce income shipping and working within a anthrax other than purposes related to the current matter. they identified other batches of anthrax containing my spores in june 2nd notified on the recipients to stop working with the material whether it was confirmed to contain live anthrax or not. there is no known or suspected cases among workers at many laboratories received inactivated anthrax in no known risk to the general health and very little to them themselves. 31 u.s. citizen eight non-dod 23 dod replaced on postexposure

treatment in this space yesterday. returning to the subject of the laboratory to produce inactivated anthrax on may 29 to deputy secretary of defense strikes is dod laboratories inventory to identify any led spores. testing is now completed and results are as follows. since 2003 before dod laboratories are regulated 149 batches of live anthrax spores. at the 96 samples available to test from the 17 tested positive for presence of live anthrax. all of these originated from dugway. we know over the years 86 laboratories in 20 states from a d.c. in some foreign countries was viewed directly from dugway mac debated samples n. addition secondary transfers

for the original 86 direct dreams. this brings 192 labs in d.c. in the three territories of guam, puerto rico and u.s. virgin islands. recently completed review resulted in key findings included the primary systemic issue is the lack of validation standard to guide development of protocols, processes and quality assurance measures. the resulting recommendation is three broad categories to enhance quality control programs establish testing protocols based on relevant scientific data and improved program management. the department is committed to ensuring this doesn't occur again and we will implement recommendations and further directives outlined by deputy secretary work on the 23rd of july. a top priority is the safety of

all involved. we remain committed to complete transparency of information as we go forward. thanks for the opportunity to testify today. i welcome your questions. >> before you speak i want to know we haven't had a chance to review a lot of your testimony because it wasn't until 9:00 last night and committee rules ask for 48 hours so we didn't have time to review it. when we get to testimony at the last minute is difficult to review appeared i don't want to think cdc is trying to frustrate purposes here but i want to indicate to you that for future testimony we want that 48 hour limit adhere to. at this point would like to hear from you. >> thank you. chairman murphy, ranking member degette, disinterest rumors of the subcommittee, i want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. i would like to share with you a

cdc has done to respond to the live spores are anthrax from dugway proving ground and provide a bond deprogram cdc supports. cdc works 20 for seven to save lives and protect people. we activated our emergency operation center and the scope and severity and understand how concerning the incident has been and our primary focus continues to be making certain people are safe in the anthrax materials are secured and ultimately disposed of. the incident raises a serious and challenge issue. it is important to know scientific research in laboratories is a vital component of our nation's defense against naturally occurring diseases and bioterrorism. researches complex and sometimes dangerous. while it's not possible to eliminate all risk and that

those working in the field across the country and around the world must do all we can to minimize risk. here is what we know today about the dugway incident. there have been no suspected or confirmed cases of anthrax infection associated with samples. persons that cdc has assessed some rest and accepted treatment completed antibiotic prophylaxis yesterday and no complications reported. the facilities that receive the samples that are properly secured or destroyed them and those needing decontamination have completed procedures are well underway. highlighting the news is not meant to downplay the seriousness of the situation. on multiple occasions over more than a decade the production methods fail to inactivate anthrax spores. the failure of inactivation is evident because growth was detected on multiple production runs. these runs were routinely sent back for additional radiation. this should have been seen for

what it was an indication the margin of safety at the method was not efficient. additionally to confirm the neck condition of successful killing of the organization failed to detect spores. we have looked and found no evidence that other facilities that inactivate spores. the existing rules and regulations are under review appeared here is what we don't know. the federal select agent program relies primarily on stability testing to ensure it can no longer grow and we remain unsure whether there was a problem with execution of the test in a dugway or the biology was not sufficiently understood to make the procedure reliable and here's what we we are doing moving forward. we are maintaining a moratorium on the transfer of inactivated anthrax spores until we have an acceptable incredible approach

to increasing safety and security. we are developing a research agenda is for biology to questions that enact a patient instability and we will help conduct the research. at dr. friedman's program to review will complement ongoing work to improve laboratory safety this past year. the time is right with new leadership over the cdc federal agent program for a thorough review of our program to ensure it is meeting at mandate especially with recent lab incidents. the world is the term discoveries and working with dangerous pathogen and scientists who work with organisms also have a commitment to protecting public health and safety. we must achieve a balance to protect workers and communities around them while encouraging and supporting advancement that safety comes first. one characteristic of the

federal select agent program is commitment to improvement. regulations have been refined with device or many including federal advisory and public via the input to revisions to the select agent regulations concerning personnel reliability, incident reporting, coordination of inspections of federal partners and tracking ship tens of select agents. although much work has been done to enhance effectiveness of cdc's regulatory oversight more work remains to be done. where improvements can be made to better the program will make them pay by their disagreement on the best path forward will contribute our scientific and programmatic expertise to the debate. little or diligently and thoughtfully with anyone sharing commitment to protect americans from biological threat. thank you. >> you are recognized for five minutes.

>> good morning chairman murphy, ranking member degette, members of the subcommittee. a great gift to you at the department of health and human services. appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss federal select agent program's. while cdc admin is or is the at the department of agriculture, oig has imposed for violations of regulations. we also audit, evaluate and offers suggestions for program improvement. cdc reviews all potential violations and immediately refers criminal matters to the fbi. in other matters, cdc further investigate and determines whether to exercise authority to suspend or revoke registration required remedial actions. if cdc concludes a civil violation may have occurred, refers the case to oig for potential enforcement.

oig carefully evaluates every referral and decides whether to pursue the case and what penalty to take based on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. in our experience violation to the regulation post. risks to public health and safety. today, oig proposed $2.4 million for select agent violations. two of our cases involve dugway. in april 2007 dugway shipped anthrax or research facility. the research facility tested material and found the presence of a low concentration of viable anthrax. we found dugway ignored the results of the inactivation viability test which showed viable anthrax was present. later in november 2010 government laboratory received a shipment that included a file.

small amounts of this are exempt from the regulations. packing slip indicated the file contained an exact amount but in fact a shipment included a regulated amount. the dugway than self-reported to whether an operation is that the select agent. as a federal entity, dugway presents an enforcement challenge for oig. any cmp under federal entity would shift money the government at a cost to taxpayers and may not promote better compliance. consistent with the approach with other federal entities, oig issued notice of violation letters for both cases. both letters dated oig had determined dugway violated regulations and should examine current policies and practices take corrective action and monitors safeguards on an ongoing basis. yesterday at oig received

another referral from cdc on dugway. we are reviewing the matter now. over the years of oig is audited government and private entities for compliance. for example bite out of results to the federal agency is putting them on notice. oig is expanding audits and evaluations of select agent management. we will focus on cdc oversight of the program and operation of hhs laboratories that had the select agents. through our enforcement work oig has identified several opportunities to improve program compliance, oversight and enforcement. as reflected in written testimony opportunities focus on enhanced documentation requirements and increased authority for cdc inspect yours. we stand ready to work for cdc and others in hhs to improve the select agent program and use our

person and told to promote compliance to protect the health and safety of the american people. >> dr. kross you're recognized for five minutes. >> i'm pleased to be here today to discuss work on high containment laboratories. the biosafety and bio security practices and laboratories are intentioned to reduce exposure to agents and prevent their loss, theft or misuse. the recent shipments of live anthrax bacteria from dod to u.s. and international laboratories similar to last year's potential exposure of cdc personnel to live anthrax bacteria shows multiple break downs in compliance with established policies and inadequate oversight of high containment laboratories. this is another example in an

ongoing series of safety lapses which continue to occur with the same reprise as prior incidents. we've been lucky so far. researchers are at high risk agents that might result in serious or the full infections and in some instances the potential to be used in biological weapons. these lads do important work of pathogens to develop vaccines and countermeasures and understand emerging infectious diseases. however passengers also have potential for high consequence. the types of mistakes we've seen with a transmissible pathogens like influenza, not only were the laboratory workers are close contacts be at risk but an epidemic could be triggered with consequences far beyond what we see today.

jay o. is currently conducting work to examine these issues and limiters find is from our work showed that dod is a cdc have begun to address with those in the high containment laboratories that have not yet fully implemented these activities. the steps the agencies are taking are intended to address fundamental flaws in the oversight structure, reporting and tracking the biosafety and bio security incidents after they've occurred. for example, dod officials said the dugway incident is the first and that dod is tracked at the senior department level. since 2012 dod has been revising policies and procedures including reporting requirements and expects to finalize changes by fall. changes will only cover a subset of dod's high containment laboratories. our ongoing work will also examine a dod is implementing

steps intended to improve a culture of safety at laboratories so future events or reduced or prevented. similarly cdc began taking steps to address weaknesses in assessment of the june 2014 anthrax incident and other safety incidents in his own laboratory at the agency has not yet completed implementing recommendations to improve laboratory oversight. for example an internal workgroup recommended cdc developed agencywide is to provide clear and consistent requirement for biosafety for all agency laboratories. in response cdc developed a transport policy that is not developed at the regency red policies such as requirements for laboratory documentation and emergency protocols. as stated at the outset, and to examine today are part of a long series of safety lapses.

gao has reported on issues and made multiple recommendations to improve federal oversight of high containment laboratories. federal department agreed with the recommendation and have conducted activities to respond that have not implemented key recommendation to establish a single federal entity with responsibility for oversight of all high containment laboratories. we recommend the establishment of a single federal entity to one, conduct strategic planning for requirements for high containment laboratories including assessments of risks and develop national standards for construct, commissioning, operating and maintaining laboratories. we continue to believe an entity or is another mechanism to ensure a higher level oversight is needed in the continuing proliferation of high containment laboratories and the ongoing failures by agencies to fix problems on their own.

in closing the lapses are seen are indicative of failures in the system with multiple levels of control including cross checks, inspections, training procedures and validated protocol that should prevent such accidents from occurring and incidents from recurring. mr. chairman, i'd be happy to answer questions you are other members of the subcommittee may have. >> thank you am a doctor. i recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. we will diligently and thoughtfully with federal partners than anyone sharing commitment to protect americans from biological threats. that the cdc know i don't believe them anymore. the "usa today" article i referenced earlier said the cdc refuse to produce a policy to

"usa today" regarding the reports. one was that report written. do you have any idea? thank you mr. chairman. i was asked to appear here today and i apologize for the lateness of the testimony. i apologize -- a >> you know anything about the report? >> an article came out last night. i do not know about the report. allow me to assure after the hearing we provide easy answers. >> committee would like to know when the report was written. i'm trying to this down. if i put a cup of coffee and a microwave oven and turn it on to get caught in a certain amount of time. if i put a dozen cups of coffee not all be be heeded right?

when i look here and i believe this is proud to report here on the grass as well on the screen but a very upper left.where it says the dugway radiation levels here operating way out of the realm of acceptable processes here in the report states dod routinely operates outside of validated experimental data. based on the finding that sounds like david does exist in all the dod labs whose mission involved in anthrax are operating outside of it. is that correct? >> yes sir. >> who is responsible for setting the number of spores in doses of radiation? and is it reevaluated routinely? >> is one of the steps we are

looking into. the original review is focused on compliance to make sure people are following protocols they had been no willful disregard for protocols to >> is that it was willful? >> it was not willful. the graph shows working outside the box that shows experimental parameters that should have been foundation for the work. the next step is the accountability issue. how is the decision made to move outside of that realm and as you noted all the labs are outside of that area. >> that is something that's important. we like to think there is a scientific rule set a that they are following. let me ask dr. hassell and dr. sosin has been sosin, have any agencies refer to anyone for civil penalties or criminal

prosecutions for these actions? >> for dod that is the second part of the investigation that will kick off now looking at the accountability issue to determine out. if i may not only the individual to make the decision if that was an individual that made the decision, but was there an overall systemic process that led people to gradually get outside of the experimental box. the accountability is good and taken very seriously. >> i'd also like to know which we understand your concern and take it seriously. no disciplinary actions have been taken a cdc with respect to the dod sample incident. cdc staff responded in a remarkable way to make sure samples were secured and destroyed and people that i have been exposed were protected. regarding the select agent program we continue to consider

and take advice and input to change the nature of the program. >> is the cdc work with other lab setting and reviewing standards on any basis or at all? >> cdc works at doc in a variety of ways. >> when we had hearings for general motors and someone made the decision to make at this figure this big and the cost of number of lives. it is the area when we know people at here to scientific standards i have the highest respect for them. we are not looking at something nefarious or deliver it here but it getting slipped by over time. as mr. pallone pointed out luckily no one has died over this. i recognize ms. degette for five

minutes. >> dr. crosse, you talked in your testimony how people could be infected and even some epidemic could be started if you got a particularly purulent agents that got released correct? in addition national security implications related to the mishandling of agents. is that also correct? >> that is also a concern. >> that is that these agents got into the wrong hands, right? >> that's right. >> you have recommendations not fully implemented yet. >> many recommendations have taken action. the primary one but no movement is perhaps some type of more centralized oversight. >> to have a single federal entity to set the standards for all the agencies, is that right?

dr. hassell what is your agency's recommendation for the federal entity? >> i will say in the department itself will do that internally. >> if that makes sense in many ways, why haven't we done that? why haven't you implemented that in cooperation with your fellow agencies? >> like i say we are going to do that internally. we are in discussions now on these issues. >> you don't disagree? >> no, ma'am. >> dr. sosin, what is your view of this? >> cdc works as if we are one program. we do joint inspection whenever a change is proposed or considered it is discussed with the other program. >> that is nice, but what about dod? >> the oversight function of the lab, trying to understand your

question. >> what dr. crosse's agency is recommending one thing the oversight agency that would for the protocol for dispensing of these agents. i'm asking each of your agencies if you would object, it would make sense to get one protocol to matter which led this dispensing it. what is your view on that? >> thank you. my view is a complex decision that there are constraints to one standard for all procedures. >> what would those be? >> with the anthrax are different uses of the products. developing vaccines. >> if you are sending it around, you don't want it to be lies. that is not something subject to debate. if one agency could come up with the protocol about oversight and

how you're going to make that not be lies in how you will dispense it you wouldn't object to that, would you? >> woo an object and believe the program would be the appropriate body to do that. >> a batted oversight? >> absolutely. >> to think you might cooperate to make that happen? >> we will cooperate in any way. >> i think the next that recommendation. and you are not in dr. hassell. can you work with dr. sosin on that and his colleagues? >> yes, as stated by our death are working together. >> having been on the committee for a long time, i notice all the federal labs not just ones dealing with anthrax and other agents but also nuclear labs have the same problem of a culture of safety. we've really struggled in this

committee to get people to understand how important it is to have a culture of safety. dr. hassell, can you think of anything we can do to systematize subculture of safety? >> that is a question i have myself ma'am. i spent 12 years at the dupont country which goes back 200 years making gunpowder for thomas jefferson. the safety culture is fair. i plan to see if the industry best practices for doing this. >> how long have you been there? i dod? >> a year today. >> dr. sosin committee of ideas how we can increase the culture of safety in labs? >> i do not. i know the cdc and director take the issue incredibly seriously and have developed a series of ideas. >> i think we need you guys to supplement your testimony about this because this is really important. one other question i don't have

time to take a written answer. i would like to know why all the problems in this incident seemed to have come out of this one lab. wasn't a problem with how they were handling and racks and trying to treat it or is it a problem with the procedure itself? that seems like the crux of the problem. thank you, mr. chairman. >> and i recognize the vice-chairman of the subcommittee, mr. mckinley for five minutes. thank you, mr. chairman. this is a subject that is foreign to me. i was delighted to hear and learn from some of your testimony on this. i am curious before i get a list of six questions, trying to go back to fundamentals. why would we ship an inactive to

laboratories? what would you gain by shipping from the dead? >> one of the aspects of this inactivated anthrax is that it maintains the shell around the original lives or in the physical structure is still there. that is important because it bases have the detection systems and diagnostic systems developed. the closer we get to that the better we are. >> let's go back to something the gentlelady mentioned earlier that we are doing this in 200 laboratories around the country. is that an accurate statement? we are studying that in 200 laboratories, live anthrax and 200 laboratories? >> statement or 192 laps to

receive the material were not intended to receive live anthrax. they're 181 registered entities within the program registered to process user transfer. >> apparently -- i always struggle to understand why we have to have 200 especially given the circumstances. again, i am going to run out of time here. how would you grade the dod to handling this matter? would you give them an aa and ask? >> since the incident was reported, they have moved pretty quickly to identify with the samples were sent although that was still developing over the last few days. >> would you grade a passing

come acceptable? >> i think their response was that was discovered has been probably a beat. the activities leading up to and the fact this went on for so long is definitely a failure. >> has been going on for 10 years. >> that is a failure and the fact they have four different laboratories inactivated anthrax with four different methods and four different chains of command that don't talk to one another. >> back to dr. hassell. since anthrax is probably the most dangerous age and we can handle i suppose more dangerous than ebola, big daddy mitt is probably the biggest threat we have the national security that someone doesn't get the agent. in this case is anyone tried to grow despite the anthrax after they received these products?

with 200 laboratories? have they tried to reactivate it? >> it was grown to show the presence of the live scores. i may not understand your question. i apologize. >> i only have one minute left. is this the same type of anthrax used in 2001? >> this is absolutely not the same type of anthrax used in 2001. this is a wild anthrax in a liquid formulation with extremely small numbers of spores. different situation taken extremely seriously. >> do you feel our national security is more at risk because of the process we've been handling for the last 10 years? >> it is yes or no. >> i don't believe the samples

created such a risk. i believe they were secured quickly and destroyed, very small numbers of spores in the material and it is a naturally caring type of anthrax. >> let me ask that my thought process initially, why are we shipping this to seven foreign nation? does someone have a written authorization from a one the proverbial e-mails someone was requesting this and who authorizes the shipment of that and under what process do they explain how they want to get it? why are we shipping to seven foreign nations? >> in several cases they were dod facilities located in foreign nations. other cases were allies. >> we don't have an don't have enough dod facilities in america? i've run out of time. >> i recognize mr. green for

five minutes. thank you, mr. chairman. unfortunate incident to today's hearing is not in the proving grounds. cdc and the office of inspector general examine safety labs and the same problems failing to specimens. is that correct. >> should dugway have made the samples to see if the process worked? >> that's my initial impression. there were serious implications they are it will be following up. similarly, when cdc announced last year as an overtly transferred live anthrax, two dod directive flat to check their own process for ensuring

anthrax was inactivated properly? >> no, sir. >> why not? >> i'm not sure. we are trying to figure out the steps leading up to this. there should've been better indicators that we should have detected this earlier. >> the reason for the hearing as it seems strange the cdc made a mistake and where the problem with the dod facility and somebody in management authority didn't say let's check to make sure dod is doing it right because what happened in cdc because of the problem at dugway, nobody decided to do that? >> it doesn't appear so, sir. >> we on the particulars fax exceptions can occur raises a series of questions about handling a select agent said dugway another labs. what assurance is there no long-standing safety problems at

other dod facilities that handle biological agents. >> were trying to see if there's lessons we can learn from that and use it to ask questions such as your previous question internally indicators that would ask other questions about other operations across the whole complex. >> what is dod doing to look across the facilities can check the biosafety and bio security event procedures? >> we undertake an effort now that the chain of command is disparate right now so we are trying to tighten that up. we are going to make sure standards for the inactivated anthrax will ensure internally to standardize across all the laboratories.

dugway is largely a production facility. the other one is a research facilities. one size may not fit all but there's definite lessons we can learn from this and we will standardize. >> how is dod insurance serious issues such as potential exposures were concerns about its use communicated from the laboratories of the senior leadership. >> some recommendations made previously would be more vigorous on. the dod instruction in process will include aspects that will bring reporting forward to a higher level. 2007 incident will not remain at dugway with the immediate command. it were, to a central office within the department. we are in the process now of polling inspector general reports come the cdc reports from laboratories to see if there is some indicators and

lessons learned. >> following mcculloch from west virginia come so far we've been extremely fortunate the incident that dugway have not lead to broader public health or security problems and i hope today's hearing and ongoing oversight ensures a call to action to tighten the processes not just anthrax and other select agent and facilities. we don't want to have to have somebody here again looking at in seeking issues. i go back my time. >> thank you for being here. the infrastructure and locations of where these may be under study because we've heard a

recurrent theme and i certainly appreciate that the ranking member degette has said earlier. i've been on the committee and it seems like there is a recurring theme here. we want everything to be perfect but they are human beings involved and sometimes they are perfect. i remember when the anthrax and what happens when the five individuals reading about the dock is experience that looks like the last 700 people to walk to the door. as we found out you can be a lot sicker by the time clinical deterioration begins you are too you are too late on the curve to rescue someone of a rescue is possible if you start early. unlike ebola, anthrax is treatable with relatively common antibiotics. bearing in mind not quite a year

ago, cdc was telling us last july, august september we got everybody up to speed. the president made a statement we don't have to worry about a bullet because the cdc has done what it needs to do to get everybody prepared and it didn't happen. this is not quite the same thing that you believe that sites where this is under study. you know unfortunately lapses can occur. do you have a 50-mile radius around the sites where you are at peace notifying people on the front lines, emergency room doctors that this is something we're working on in your community? >> thank you for the question. first with respect to hardening infrastructure yes there are support programs to address the

bioterrorism threats as you pointed out there are not only the routine treatments. their advanced countermeasures developed such as antitoxin to help treat later stages of anthrax and vaccine. those were brought to bear the vaccine and prophylaxis in the incident. the state authorities are informed of the petitions in their jurisdiction and the agents there is a part of their preparedness programs. there is no act of outrage in the absence of an inch than but we are quick to respond with how to diagnose, how to watch for a monitor. >> my time is going to drift away. could you provide the committee those materials are provided to the emergency rooms end quote

radius around where the breach occurred in with the geographic radius was? >> materials were not sent although we did consider it, we were monitoring workers and laboratories and materials were sent to the state house department. >> .the point. these people thought they were getting inactivated strains of their actors. so somebody leaves work for the weekend. a family member says go down to the care now facility and they will look well until they get deathly ill. >> that is why these were isolated and we are working directly with the workers and the health departments. >> forgive me but you didn't know what you didn't know at that point and the people in the community who may have been the

dock or his nurses and caregivers and patients wouldn't have known this is what they were up again. my concern is how to get the information out there and make people aware once he no anthrax is under consideration. fair enough. before you know it the last 1500 patients at the door with the virus in them. i have a question i need to ask and if we don't have time to get through all of it, and maybe you can provide me an answer in writing. when you look at the referrals for violations in the program, cdc nih come united states army medical research institute of infectious diseases seem to be the top three. do have an important policy that you don't find federal agencies. is that correct? >> today but not by many federal agencies.

>> he robbed banks because that is where the money is. the multiple violators seem to be coming from those three groups. can you get back to me in writing and discuss what you're doing to consider providing the same civil money penalties of any other lab in the country would have to face if they had a breach of these agents. >> yes to be clear most of the referrals and lab incidents referred to as have not involved federal entities, but certainly repeat instances and would be happy to provide you an answer. >> multiple offenders, that is the problem. >> civil penalties and other penalties to know about from there. thank you, mr. chairman. we've heard about the importance of keeping lab stays secure. i would like to explore how labs both private and public that

fail to meet critical safety standards and regulations are held accountable. the cdc and hhs to office of inspector general have roles of enforcement. cdc's division of select agent can refer to entities the office of inspector general for civil money penalties were certainly notices of violation. cdc could deny come or revoke suspend registration are required a lab to enter into a performance improvement plan. criminal charges also made in cases of misuse, unauthorized possession of unauthorized transfer. dr. sosin, could you briefly walk us through the enforcement options and how you determine the appropriate response for a given violation. >> thank you for your question. you correctly pointed out the options, the administrative

options to cdc has to suspend deny or revoke that the process of self is intended to screen and assured there's good laboratory disconnected leadership and an appropriate use for the select agent materials. that process is intended to assure that the entity itself could take the appropriate steps that it needs to take. the decision to suspend or revoke is one taken very seriously. importance of balance in the nature you are talking about here. these are important by a defense facilities doing important work in the history of the program has been to work collaboratively with these programs to identify specific albums and address them.

the referrals to the fbi concerned about suspicious activity for referral to oig. >> thank you. >> when we receive a referral from the cdc, one of our attorneys are multiple attorneys will review the application and findings of the cdc to often consult with scientists and experts so that we make sure we understand those facts. if we believe there's a violation to contact the entity that is the subject of the matter and give them the opportunity to provide us with information or arguments on why the penalty would not be appropriate, we take that into account in consultation with cdc and decide whether to go forward with the case and looking across the experience we've had make a judgment about what we think the case should be valued out. >> your office is routinely work together to take action against those of violation?

>> we certainly communicate and work together from our day to make sure we understand the fact and science in these matters to go forward. >> dr. sosin, what violations would result from a lab losing its registration? >> i can tell you the prices of revoking registration is one that is undertaken through careful after to help the laboratory address can earn and improve its product essays and the revocation would come only after the inability of the facility to make those changes whether vision to longer be interested in the work. i can get further clarification of the specific measures if you would like. >> in your opinion, how often has that happened? >> i believe it is hopping to

times i can dig at the exact number. >> i'd also like to get a sense of the frequency of violations and actions. dr. sosin, are you seeing any trends in terms of enforcement actions and referrals to the office of inspector general for an sensor performance improvement plans for a lab registration actions? >> the federal select agent program is constantly evolving approaches and tools such as corrective action plan process. relatively new and evolving so trends are hard to evaluate in the context. i know i've requested the subcommittee specific enforcement actions have been laid out in a response and should have the information you'd be looking for. >> i am out of time but mr. dempsey if you could feed the panel with that same trend that you cite, that would be helpful.

>> i now recognize ms. block burn for five minutes. the mac thank you mr. chairman. thank you to our witnesses for your patience. we appreciate this. as you know we've got another hearing going on this morning. dr. sosin, i will come to you if i may. i have a copy of dr. frieden's testimony from this committee last year. and he was testifying about the june 2014 anthrax incident. he said -- i voted for the testimony -- and i'm quoting these incidents should've never happen. it was totally unacceptable. we will explore broader implications of these incidents and incorporate lessons learned from bad to proactively