over there, i couldn't get them to roll the votes as quick as i would have liked, so i appreciate very much. ms. barra, when you were here before, you were very forthcoming the facts were going to be the facts. in fact, i think the direct quote was the facts will be the fact. my question today is have you sleped the report as factual? >> yes. >> is there anything in it you think is erroneous or misstates the facts in any way? >> i think overall the vielleux cass report characterizes and captures what happened. that's what we've dealt with and that's why we're going to implement all of the recommendations that were made. >> my question to you, mr. milliken, is if the ceo had said on the record this report is factual, why did they refuse to stipulate to the report as

factual in bankruptcy court? >> senator boxer -- excuse me senator mccaskill, i'm not aware of our position on that in bankruptcy court but i can tell you that is associated with probably attorney/client issues that are present in that proceeding and on that basis, they've probably taken that position. but i'm not familiar with the situation you're talking about in bankruptcy court on that issue. >> who would be? that's obviously an important legal decision that has been made by your company, and you're the lawyer in charge. this is obviously -- i don't know that you can have any more high profile litigation than the bankruptcy proceedings right now as to what did and didn't happen as it refers to representations made. if you don't know, who would know? >> senator, i'm familiar with that particular piece of litigation, and i have been

working with lawyers to argue on the claims that need to be made and deal with the loss claims on that part of the litigation. >> you understand it's a big one. >> i'll be happy to get that answer. >> that would be terrific because this is a big question. >> yes, it is. >> you know, if we are, in fact -- and i will tell you, i believe, miss barra -- i keep saying barra instead of barra. you're probably used to it, aren't you. i'm sorry. i believe her. but there's a disconnect here again because if, in fact, your company has decided this report is did a good in ferreting out all the facts why in the world wouldn't you save time in the bankruptcy court by acknowledging that. >> senator, if i -- >> i don't know what you mean. >> i don't know the issue. i'm assuming that issue may be

associated with that i can't imagine how evidentiary-wise. when somebody presents -- asks for a stipulation, then it is not -- the issue is your company has decided through its lawyer to they will not stipulate to the report being factual. unless you're saying the advise you have given would violate the privilege? >> no. i committed to find the exact answer and come back to you. >> okay. and who in your company is mortaring this? who -- when mr. holliday took the deposition when the bombshell dropped, he called a lawyer on your staff they as i said. he called somebody that worked for you, mr. millikin, and that

lawyer was ore at his hotel room that night in michigan picking up those pictures. >> that's correct. >> who is that person? if you have something outside of bankruptcy -- i assume you have someone for bankruptcy proceedings. who does he report to? >> mr. grus kin. >> who is mr. grus kin reporting to? >> he's a direct report to me. >> okay. what is his title? >> i've split the litigation functions since this occurred into two parts. >> i see. >> one is product litigation. one is general litigation. >> okay. >> mr. grus kin has general. >> you've never had that discussion? >> that is not an issue i remember having an issue with mr. grus kin on. >> wow. not good. okay. it will be important for us to find out why you're hesitating

to stipulate to that report as factual. the net sa answers on the death inquiries, who signs off in the legal department, the answer where gm refused -- i assume your company is not sending information to nhtsa without somebody from legal signing off on it, correct? >> senator, again, i'll have to get the answer to than get back to you because that's handled by product investigations. >> okay. isn't there a lawyer that would look at it? probably investigations doesn't get to look at that -- >> there well could be. i don't know that for a fact. >> okay. i would like to know what part of the legal department signs off on responses to nhtsa inquiries. >> i will get back to you. >> who was it that gave product investigation and authority to say we won't answer this question. >> i understand. >> okay. secondly, the technical service bulletins. there was certainly in the

vielleux cass report about not using the word stall, that stall would bring in regulators and would capture the attention of nhtsa. i assume the bulletins are also run by the leaggal department. >> i would assume so. >> do you fwhknow who does it? it's done under lucy clark. i would like to know what went out when you used the word stall in that technical service bulletin. >> i will get back to you. >> mr. valukas, one of the things that was interested to me was the digiorgio situation. this is how old i am. this is how old i am.

i spoke of i have no information. it's from "hogan's heroes." nobody under me. >> i get it. >> it's astonishing to me. you said there was no evidence that mr. digiorgio ever told anyone else about switching out the part and not changing the number. then you say there were eames but your report didn't go to other engineers that were copied. could you briefly because i'm over my time and my colleagues are here now. could you briefly explain if you can remember and if not i'd like to get it for the record who the engineers that were copied on e-mails that showed that this part had been changed? >> yes. let me give it to you briefly. i understand there's a time issue and i'll be happy to

submit that. there's a footnote on 417 which focuses on this issue. there was an e-mail of june 2nd, 2006, which comes from delphi. there are 30 people on that e-mail. six of them were associated with general motors. the e-mail related to changes that were taking place. most of the changes they were talking about were in the circuit board. >> right. >> we sought out the individuals who were on there. we thank were all on the ion side. none of them had any knowledge -- strike that. the individual we talked to said this meant nothing to him about the change in the d-10 switch. he was focused the issue of the electrical issues that were involved here. the best we can tell, none of these, from our information -- we were not able to reach the other four. they were long retired and we couldn't find them, but they were not at all involved in the

process of stalls, nonair bag deployment or stalls in particular in that issue at all. >> so this was just an issue that the people that were copied hat no understanding of the significance of that information in the e-mail. >> short and sweet, that's what we understand to be the case, but i'll get you the detail. >> thank you. >> that's relatively complicated but that's it. >> thank you. >> thank you, evan. mr. valukas, your report demonstrated the ignition switch was reviewed internly at gm as a customer convenience system and as a result it just didn't have that kind of urgency to fix it. from your report, this is a quote, not one of the committees considering a fix for the switch which were filled with engineers and businesspeople whose job was to understand how gm's cars were built and how different systems of the cars interact ever reclassified the problem from one of customer convenience to one of safety or demonstrated any sense of urgency in their

efforts to fix the switch. do you want to elaborate on that? >> what took place back -- we're taking 2004, 2005, 2006 time. they knew, in fact, there was that and the cars were, in fact, stalling. they knew at the time of one of the press events that that was taking place and they had "the new york times" articles and other art calls calling that to to their attention. what happened is engineers or a single engineer said the stall doesn't constitute a safety issue. having made that decision, that's where they were in connection with that. we went back and asked the individuals in that committee, those committees, did you know the air bag didn't deploy if it went into the accessory and the answer was, no, we didn't know that. the question was, well, if you had known that, would you have responded differently. the answer was yes. what we found is the people whoever in this silo looking at

the switch were not covering the issue of the deployment which were in another silo if you will. those were not focused on that issue and did not know about it. >> and somehow the state trooper saw those issues together. >> yes. >> so i found that interesting. miss barra, going forward now, what is going to be the process when these things are going to be considered. or is it still going to be these sigh lohse when something is viewed as a customer service issue. >> absolutely not. we put in much more on how the issues very analyzed. in addition, the group of people that are responsible do parts and design individual parts, they then will be -- they will look at it from a systems perspective and they will specifically design all around the safety systems in the field

and we're actually bringing in outside groups, for instance, from aerospace to look at the way we've designed the product integrity organization to assure that we have, you know, state of the art or, you know, the most modern possible to make sure that these types of issues won't happen again and we'll really be looking at how the system operates especially as it relates to safety. >> is there going to be some kind of a metric used to decide what's customer convenience or where it goes? >> i would say there's going to be much more rigger. all of the safety systems in the vehicle, those individuals will have -- you know, the and to change someone else's opinion. if someone on the customer parts side says something, it will be someone else to make the call and they will override if someone else has a different opinion. i think it's going to be the very knowledgeable people that were putting in the systems engineering to know that. we're also, though, looking at

the systems, and that responsibility won't cut across a couple of different folks. it will be more in one group so they understand the whole way the system operates. >> very good. mr. valukas, another thing from your report points to 2006 when systems engineers were going to move them but it was rejected because whoever interviewed you was told it was rejected because it was too expensive and did not result in savings during warranty costs. did you find in those years in replacing the ignition switch the employees used the acceptable business case as the most important metric? >> yes. what happens -- i'm sorry. what happens in that context is once you characterize it as nonsafety or customer convenience, then cost becomes an issue and the issue is would this solution solve the problem completely and how much will it cost.

and during that point they say that was the consideration. will it solve it completely and mow much was it going to cost. had they elevated to a safety issue, those considerations would not have been in play. >> and i assume the answer would be what we talked about earlier? >> yes. definitely. once it's in a safety, we look at what it takes to fix the issue. >> one last question. we talked earlier in my first round of questions just about the gm nod and change of culture and what you've been working on. one last question along the lines of transparency. my colleagues have raised a number of instances where things weren't forward and to work with congress by being here today, that's a good thing, and an open and transparent way to improve vehicle safety. could you last talk about the steps you've taken so far to ensure that you erie fulfilling

this commitment to process more transparency and what other things you think you can do in the future. >> sure. well, again frrks a transparency perspective, a couple of categories, one, the way we do the work across the company and that would very much be looking at the integration of the car. there would be transparency in the way the systems operate and the rigger of the systems. as we work with nhtsa, again, with the appointment of jeff boyer, who's the vice president of safety, he will, you know, be working in a much more responsible way. i would also say that the way we're working with our data analytics that pieces of information as they come in, whether they come in from our plants, our warranty data out in the field, from our dealers, directly from customers, there's a tremendous amount of

information that now is, you know, through social media, through legal claims, we are working and have data analytics tools to mind that data so there won't be information in one place that isn't known across the company. those are just three examples. probably the most powerful is because it's people is making sure people understand our expectations. and i've had employees call me to raise the issue. we've turned it around in 24 hours. in addition to the engineer responsible to talking to the employee i've called them back and said are you comfortable with your answer. that type of behavior demonstrated to all of our engineers. we want to listen to them and take their issues seriously. >> thank you very much. senator blumenthal. >> thank you very much, senator.

you know, think you can fairly gather that this committee is listening with a fair amount of incredulity that this company had no knowledge thb defect or about the concealment of the defect and the deceit of the federal government and of its customers before february of this year. and you've provided answers that to me are unsatisfactory on waibing the bankruptcy shield, disclosing documents, making employees available and opening the secret settlements. i want to ask you about a specific person whose life was changed and she's still alive. her name is candace anderson. as you know, she pled guilty to criminally negligence homicide after car she was driving crashed and killed jean erickson

and she was found to have traces of a drug in her system. we now know that the crash was due not to anything she did. it was due to a defective ignition switch. she still has that conviction on her record. she has borne the feelings of guilty and suffering for years thinking she was responsible. i'd like to recommend, will you recommend to miss barra that she join me and others including former pros kulter in calling on the governor of texas to pardon miss anderson? >> i will recommend to miss barra that general motors cooperate with any governmental agency that's taking a look at the circumstances behind that conviction and what needs to be done with that conviction. >> miss barra, will you recommend to the governor of texas that he pardon miss anderson? >> i think we will provide

information to support that decision, but i don't think -- it's not something that i think is appropriate for me to do. i don't have all the fact os testify case. >> you know, with all due respect, and i'm sympathetic to what you're trying to do in terms of changing the culture of gm and i cannot say enough good things about your workers and about the company, but i think that that answer really is unworthy of gm. i hope you'll think more about it because this is a young woman whose life has really been changed as a result of a perversion of the justice process, as a result of gm knowing and concealing that she was innocent. gm allowed an innocent person to be convicted of a serious crime and, you know, we've been talking here about the gm nod. i have a feeling what we're getting here is the gm salute.

someone else is responsible, someone else should take the job of doing the right thing. i hope you'll reconsider. i'm not taking this answer as necessarily final and i hope we'll have a chance to talk some more about it. let me ask you, miss barra, about expanding compensation. i mentioned at the opening that there have been a number of recalls. i think the number is 8 million is cars with detective ignition switches which the company acknowledges caused deaths and injuries. will those deaths and injuries be included the compensation fund? >> there are very distinct differences between the population that is included in the compensation program that's being administered by kenneth feinberg as it relates to very specific issues, series of mistakes that were made over a long period of time in what i'll

call the cobalt family of vehicles. so a very specific set of facts. on the other vehicles i would say quite the contrary. we went aggressively and proactively and looked at each of the systems as it relates to how it work and recommended in some cases even with no field data and did testing, by the way, that was -- first of all, with did testing to understand what people put on their key rings, and then we generally -- 99% of the population puts 0.6 pounds -- >> i apologize for interrupting. i understand that there are technical distinctions between the two ignition switches, but isn't it true that regardless of the distinctions in the so-called population group, ignition switches failed in all of those models? >> no. i would say there's very different facts related to what happened in the cobalt ignition

switch situation versus the actions we've taken. very different. >> if you could supplement that response with more technical detail, i'd appreciate it. let me ask one more question. i appreciate your response to senator markey on what seemed to be your support for legislation on expanding accountability and information going to nhtsa. i wonder if you would agree with me that corporate officials who conceal or hide dangerous defects that can cause deaths or injuries ought to be held criminally culpable? >> i don't support that concept. i think that there's many other avenues where those types of issues are dealt with, so i don't support the change. >> do you support legislation which i propose with senator graham which would provide for a public interest standard before any settlements are sealed as

those involved in this defective ignition switch? >> i would have to understand the legislation a lot more to be able to answer that question. >> thank you. thank you senator. >> senator markey. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. o'neill, documents show that in 2001 delphi engineers drew up two designs for the gm ignition switch, two designs. the main difference between the two designs was that the one that failed dramatically, the 2006 switch has a spring that was shorter and less stiff than the other one. and it was that spring that caused the switch to fail to meet gm's specifications and caused the key to so easily turn the engine off. why was the weaker spring used

in the actual vehicle rather than the stronger one, which was clearly available simultaneously in 2001? >> well, senator, our -- >> excuse me. >> our investigation into that portion of the everybody lieu of that swigs that mr. valukas mentioned. it was the target and as the switch evolved from a developmental standpoint, mr. ray degiorgio also wanted a switch that had a certain tactile feel. and by that i mean it would feel a certain way, a smoothness as you moved it in one position to another. and i believe the description of that desired feel was to be more

european-like. and in order to achieve that feel, that is where the softer spring comes into play. and as a result of that, the torque was lower. >> liddell fie produce or review a cost estimate that compared cost of the two switch designs? >> i don't recall but i would think the cost involved to switch from one to the other would be insignificant. >> could you provide that information to us? >> sure. >> now, in 2006 when gm was starting to acknowledge it had a problem. it changed the ignition switch design to this version. and this version turned out to be of the identical stronger spring design that was not used in 2001 but available in 2001. was delphi involved in the

design discussions with gm in this later period of time and did you suggest the one over the other? that is, the one that was accepted over the one -- this one that was rejected in the earlier time period? >> obviously the change could not have been made. clearly that's there. our investigation shows that the gm team was extremely concerned about warranty, customer satisfaction, and quality issues. they actually approached the delphi side, were there anything that could be done to perhaps raise the torque level as to some those issues. not safety related but quality. and on slis what came up was a solution set that we have today. >> so do you have documentation back in that earlier period of

time as to why one was chosen over the other, and if you have that, that is, you're saying it was the's of use that ult maltsly led to the selection of one that did not work as 'posed to the one -- >> i don't think the selection of the d-10 plunger and spring that was in play is in question in terms of -- it was selected and it was approved by general motors. i don't think that -- yes, we do have that. and i think mr. valukas's report supports that. >> so did you recommend one of t the -- the one in 2006 that was ultimately used in 2010 has been working back in 2001? did you at delphi make that

recommendation to gm? >> that is a mutual take between the supplier and manufacturer, so -- >> what did you recommend? >> obviously what we agreed to do is what we did in order to make the kwee requirements. >> again, i think it's important for us to have that as part of the record here and whatever you could provide to us. >> thank you. >> madam chair, i would like to again thank you for focusing on nhtsa. the nhtsa administrator told "the new york times" just yesterday that it was gm that stook in the way of safety. and, of course, we ail agree thal they deserve much of the brain but as was described, the gm nod, they all nodded their

heads but did nothing to solve the safety problem, what nhtsa did was the shrug sa shrug. it ignored its own contracting. it requested from gchl what was involved them and nhtsa failed to notice the high amount of female complaints. nhtsa was also warned and shrugged in response. >> we have a nhtsa nod and a nhtsa shrug and i think the whole story has to get out there. i thank you for the pursuit of the trulktd. >> thank dwru. >> thank you, senator markey.

>> i'm curious about -- >> i'm sorry, there was background noise. i couldn't hear you. >> it's a weird deal. they work at gm, they work only for gm, but they ee another gm employs. >> no, they're not. why is that? they don't work nr anybody else in this would but you. are they a subsidiary of your company. >>? >> not to my knowledge. >> so the people on the front lines gathering the information and handling these claims as they come in, i'm trying to understand for what business pirms would you want them to be separate from your company if they're completely captured by your company and dog nothing but

a zb m function. >> they've been quite a jomt for is for some peej yo i've time. i dough no there are naples i'm familiar with, product litigators. they say they do a very guided guidedown. it's not unusual to take on others. for a long time we outsourced or security function. >> i think a security function is a little different. i whauns you're saying. if you can provide information as to why that biddle makes sense o is it unusual? my experience? obviously they have a lot lout

of claims people. mr. valukas, you made a couple of diop p kohn clueses. i'm very familiar with your report. i thought i was back in school, studying, cross rf rensing, going to the acronym table. a couple of conclusions are interesting to me. one, you said -- you kind of went out of your way to say fw m did not put cost over safety as related to this ee femd. are in conclusive in that rye forward. this is what they told you and you have cad them for lack of urgency, indifferent reince.

is there anything you can base that conclusion on? >> u sure. if i could -- >> sure. >> my experience is that peoples he rem leg lekkings are. sometimes they change overtime. i focused an we focused initially zpends than. look at that pup. i'd hike to know what you were thinking and doing then. as rereviewed those documents on that issue, do we have evidence on the issues where swulgs wu sending an e-mail or writing an e-mail or doing an analysis? so where you would have cost over software tiffer tin. we looked at that number in a

different of didn't way. you have that in the report but the documents to not reflemgt a cost over safety matter. >> i understand. that makes sense. >> there was a cost run at this time. people who were assigned to safety thinks had signed on to two or three where they hadn't before. >> so mackerel cost-cutting could by part of it. you found no smoking gun in evidentiary documents that this was bug discussed. >> yes. they said absolutely that was not the way they were doing business. >> the other thing that jumped out of the report they found

astounsing. what was interesting about that is, of course, you did not consider a recall for the stalling problems be the falting injury. according to the report gm did not consider the steering problem a safety issue. you determined it was ordinarily the drive 'eers decision. all nhtsa had to do is write a letter saying they were going to look into the power steefring defect and your guys were calendar. you did the recall. alan adam was going to label it

a customer manufacturer's issue but as are result or toyota, it was afwleed that gi m should poej it it. so, quote, we would not get dragged into the senate. that's concerning to me, ms. barra, because it looks like there was a quick action when barra -- nhtsa threat mded. that was so tragically needed. by coincidence one of the victims cars had been taken in. she took it back because it was due to the egg ning situation.

i'm -- have you figured out why there was a quick response on something you wouldn't have quickly row responses to and do you have a feeling lie you do that? >> you've stated largely the reasons and if you look at the data around the power steering. it clearly led to support that. thing we have data to support that with the recalls that we've done. when you look at the fact that in some cases of the 29 million vehicles that we eefrp i had think you. in some they have no field of incidence. when we went back and looked as it. even if there was no field data,

we medal the recall. >> i appreciate that. senator? >> thanks. i had one las question on the rah recall. i think we're well aware. and i've been trying to foe dison thee second roind of questionings. i think we all know the tragedy and judgment compensation and others, it's key for the victims. it's going to be the changes made going forward. i think we can learn as much as we can from the past and i want to know exactly beyond the power steering issue how you're doing these recalls differently and how that will continue in the future. >> first off i would say we're dedicated to designing and validating vehicles that won't need recalls.

that's the work and validation work and systems enengineering. but if indeed we get information from sources we've already shared. that data sbg processed much more quickly for us to look add and say is there a system that affected the safety recall. i would also say jeff boyer sits on that committee. i get an ajechb da of that before the meeting occurs. i'm cot plealy aware along with our general council, cfo, and president. this is now at the top of the company. we're demonstrating we're focussed on safety. we're mining the data. and, again, as we see issues we're going to be quick to respond as we demonstrated. >> i was just at one of your dealerships -- gettingmy 15-year-old saturn tuned up a little bit, but there was a lot of action alt those dealers had

repairs. you could see repairs going on. i hope the next version of these cars don't have those repairs. dwlierg very much. >> senator blumenthal. >> thank you. i was interested in your response on the testimony and the documents which seem to support gm's contention on putting profits ahead of safety, mr. valukas, and i was interesting because it seems it wud made public schl that so? >> i'm sorry, senator. i have a little problem with the hearing on the right side. if you would appreciate the last question, i would appreciate it. >> sure. i'll try to restate it and i

hope my time will not be subtracted. >> that's my fault. >> >> you have the closing end of four minutes. >> it would a peppear to be in s interest to do that. here's an example of transparency actually working in gm's interest. >> senator, i can't respond to that question. my responsibility -- the board asked me to write the report to gather up the facts. i believe we did what we were asked to do. the information of what to explosion around how to expose it resides with the client. i don't have that authority. >> thank you. may i ask you, miss barra, will gm know about the applications

of the fund at the time they're made? how much knowledge will gm have of what the an indications are. rewards are in real time so to speak. >> mr. feinberg is completely independent as he administers this. i don't know of his procedure if anything will be shared but it's to his sole discretion whether he shares and what he shares. >> will it be his discretion alone whether ak can'ts are given time to expose it and after they conclude their investigation. in other words, will applicants be given the choice to make unthe they'll know what the full story is? >> i think with the fund we've been very clear that claimings will begin to be accepted on august 1st and it will end at the end of the year and then he

will evaluate and make decisions. >> but he has not at least as far as i'm aware. definitively stated whether applicants can postpone the decision. i don't know the time frame in his process how long he has. i don't know the time frame on that. >> that would be his decision. >> that would be what's called out. i just don't have it in front of me. >> if it's not part of the protocol now, it would be within his discretion? >> again, i don't plan to change any part of the protocol. but think it's very well defined and it's going to stand. >> let me ask mr. o'neal if i may, can you do anything to accelerate the production of these replacement parts whan

goes into repairing them? >> we have -- sorry. we have work hard to do exactly what you said. we're up to a million completed at this stainless and it looks like the $2 million mark will be clipped right around the end of august, and there's very little more we can do because of when we started. >> if gm were to pay more or invest more, are you saying there's nothing you can do? >> no. i don't think it's a money issue. there's only so much you can accomplish in a short period of too to ramp up from literally nothing to $2 million. i think the fastest we can go -- but we'll go back and look at it again. mary and i have talked a few times about this and things have improved considerably from when we started talking probably by

essentially months. we'll look at it again. i understand the need to get done as soon as possible. >> i'm hearing from the dealers that they're having trouble, at least in connecticut and think it's probably elsewhere in really getting parts they need as quickly as they would like to do. i understand you have to make the machine tools. there isn't a magic want here. if you can tell whether there are steps you can take, i would appreciate it. >> right now it's to exceed $2 million by the end of august. >> and i just want to make a final question to miss berra. on the situations where he said he has the bankruptcy shield issue, i hope you'll reconsider

as you will on the candace han ders issue. i know yu ee making valiant efforting to overcome these props and they're appreciating the numbers of recalls and frankness and contact door. my hope is the new gm won't be hide bhiejt the old gm's bankruptcy on give iing those pre-2009 customers to go to court and get the fund they would give them and what they could obtain in court and always others who have been damaged economically. thank you very much for being here today and all of the witnesses for your testimony here. thank you. >> i want to thank all the witnesses. mr. millikin, ms. barra, mr.

o'neal, and mr. valukas. thank you for your patience. i'm sure you're not looking forward to a visit any time soosh. >> that is correct. >> i knew i could speak with you in that regard. it is important and the fact that you acknowledge our role and respect this is important. we all want general motors to succeed. there's no one in congress that doesn't -- this is an american company that all of us are very proud of. and those u who helped shape general motors are very proud what the american automobile industry has accomplished since those days. you've got a big problem still ahead of you and we'll continue to ask questions and do follow-ups on this hearing but know we appreciate the efforts you're making and we will look forward to checks in wu you

after we have a further visit with nhtsa and making sure that all of the systems are working the way they should so we're never dealing with this again. thank you all very much.

>> announcer: you can watch this hearing again on the gm ignition switch recall. also read the investigator's report itself by going to our website c-span.org. we've also been asking you today the question, has gm's response to tig nation switch problem been appropriate. you can leave your comments on twig ore go to our facebook page. a couple of more facebook posts here. duane says just another reason to drive a ford, the only company that didn't need a

bailout. rose points out bet these parts wither bought from china. again join we'll be live at about 2:10 p.m. eastern with coverage of remarks by president obama. he's in wilmington, delaware, today to talk about infrastructure and the economy. live coverage coming up shortly when it gets under way on c-span3. in the meantime, a portion of today's "washington journal." >> and we're back now with representative steve king, republican from iowa, here to talk about immigration policy and the recent influx of migrant children over the border. congressman, thank you so much for being here. >> thanks a lot for having me. i appreciate it. >> i wanted to point out you are a member of the agricultural and judiciary committees and that you also sit on the immigration and border security subcommittee as well. i want to start by asking you

about the recent legislation from your colleagues, represents john cornyn and democratic representative henry cuellar, that would make it easier for the government to turn away some of these legal immigrants right at the border, send them back to their home countries. is this a proposal you support? >> well, i think it's unlikely i'll be able to support the entire proposal, and, you know, i have suggested instead that we do the very simple thing, and first i believe the president has the authority to transfer these unaccompanied children back to their home country without changing the law, and i think that you look at the definitions a little more closely, it seems like they essentially exploited the language and opened the door rather than read the language more carefully and closed the door, but aside from that distinction, i have taken the trouble to write the bill that fixes it and a very narrow bill and i introduced it into the congressional record about three

weeks ago, but i did not file the bill so that it doesn't get assigned a committee and move through the process in the house because i'm concerned if we send anything out of the house that has to do with immigration, it goes over to the senate where they attach the senate gang of eight bill to it and send it back to us or some form of the senate gang of eight bill. instead, i have messaged it over and asked a couple senators will you pick that fix up and send it to the house as a stand alone bill. it's more of a shield for the administration anyway. if we need to take that shield away and say you no longer have a reason or excuse, how far you want to define that, you can start dealing with these unaccompanied children from other than mexican countries the same way you do the mexican unaccompanied children. that's all we need to do. the rest of this thing is because of the administration. i would call it a man-caused disaster and the man sits in the white house. he's had a lot of tools to enforce the law and this is the product of him defying a law with his executive edicts.

>> explain your fix more specifically. >> current law in the 2008 human trafficking bill or the women wilberforce bill, two names to it, it sets up a provision so unaccompanied children from contiguous countries, being canada and mexico, primarily mexico, we would direct health and human services, the state department, and homeland security to negotiate with the adjoining countries to return their unaccompanied minor to them. it's worked well. it's turned the mexican unaccompanied children back relatively quickly. we need to set that same provision up for the noncontiguous countries. and that's really all we need to do and the balance of this -- and actually we do get along with it, but the president is using that i think as an excuse so let's fix it but pass it in

the senate, send it to the house and we can send a clean little fix to the president without a lot of contention except i have learned that there are liberals in congress that do not want to send these kids back, and so they're going to oppose a fix because they want these kids to be spread across the country in the fashion that they are and what we're learning is that health and human services will deliver them to just about any address that they request and pull up at the curb or in the driveway and let this child out, don't check who is inside, they don't check on the verification of whether they're parents, whether they're related, or whether they're lawfully in america or not. we're creating a big problem and the real truth is the administration is completing the crime of human trafficking. >> i want to remind our viewers a little bit about what the cornyn/cuellar humane act does. it would require all unaccompanied migrant children to be treated equally regardless of the country of origin. it would require immigration judges to hear cases of migrant children within seven days of the initial screening.

it sounds like this bill does address some of the verification procedural issues you just mentioned. what parts of the bill are you still uncomfortable with? >> well, one part is to expand the adjudication process. this sets up a permanent system where we have a whole series of new judges and puts money into judges and prosecutors where currently we have border patrol agents and homeland security people that are making that decision for the -- for those whom they interdict at the border. so i don't think there's any reason to expand the adjudication. let's just give that same authority to the people making the decision for the adjoining countries, the contiguous countries, mexico, for example. it takes us down a path or it's got border security language in it that mirrors much of the border security language in the gang of eight bill which didn't solve the problem. so i think we get diverted down some other paths here. there is one person that can

easily secure our border. it's the president of the united states. if we get diverted going down the paths of trying to work a bipartisan bill that gets a little complex, and granted this isn't complex as many we have seen, we take our eye off the ball. it needs to be this, mr. president, secure the border. stop the pleading at the border. congressman fill gingrey of georgia made the most excellent statement on this. and he's an emergency room doctor, and he said when they bring a patient into the emergency room and the patient is bleeding off the gurney all over the floor, i don't grab a mop and the bucket and clean up the floor, i stop the bleeding. this doesn't get the bleeding stopped. you cannot force this president to secure the border until he decides he's going to secure it. so i don't want to get diverted. i want to focus on this. call on the president to do this job, and if he doesn't, i have con to the conclusion i will not, it's not in his political interest to secure the border, then the next person we need to go to is the governor of the border states. they're the only other people in

the country or on the planet that can secure the border. if the president refuses, then the governor of texas can secure the border by calling up his own national guard. >> i'd like to take some callers. you can join the conversation i would calling us at 202-585-3880 on the demeanor ib line. on the republican line at 202-585-3881, and on the independent line at 202-585-3882. we'll take our first caller, julius from greensboro, north carolina, on the democratic line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning, you're on the air. >> caller: yes. i just want to ask steve king why does he not like immigrants? you were an immigrant when you first got here. >> well, i think you have leaped to a conclusion, julian, and here is where it is. so much of this dialogue that has to do with immigration the

term illegal immigration and legal immigration has been conflated to where when we talk to each other, we miss that point, and i don't know anybody that's not pro-immigrant. that means pro-legal immigrant. i'm for the rule of law. so i've taken an oath to uphold the constitution and that means to defend it, preserve, protect, and defend the supreme law of the land, and that's the rule of law, and i can't be pro-illegal immigrant and pro-rule of law. my decision is i want the integrity of this country to be held together. i think we're a far better country if we restore the rule of law, and let's have a legal immigration policy designed to enhance the economic, the social, and the cultural well-being of the united states of america and let's treat everybody on the planet with the dignity that every human person deserves. >> our next caller now is tyrone from south carolina calling on the independent line. tyrone, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'd just like to ask mr. king there why is he following the rule of law?

the rule of law was dictated in 2008 by george bush. everybody signed off on it. why ain't you following the law? why you all of a sudden want to change the law? >> i'm not sure which law you're speaking to -- >> caller: to the law when the kids come in here and you can't just send them back, they have a day in court. >> tyrone, first, we're in this business to change laws, to write them and change them. that law in 2008 was filed in the house of representatives on december 9th, 2008, the day before we gaveled out for the entire congress, the two-year congress, and that was late in the day. the next day it was referred to three committees. the next day after last votes in, everybody went to the airport to go home for christmas, they called up that bill and asked for unanimous consent to clear it from three committees and voice voted it over to the senate where they were waiting to do exactly the same thing.

t it was never debated on or voted on. it was slipped through in what you would consider to be the dark of the night, but i still accept the law. we have an obligation to change it. the language within the law does not produce the result, the interpretation that the president is using, but rather than have that argument let's fix the law so we can send these kids back to the home countries the same way we do the children that are from mexico. >> i want to bring in another caller. this is bea from texas calling on the republican line calling from a border state. >> caller: good morning, represent king. >> good morning. >> caller: i have a little bit of knowledge about the border seeing as i was born and raised down there, and i'm real disappointed in our elected officials, all of them, not just one or two, because you're not telling the truth, and you sit up there and tell people things

and they believe you. that is ridiculous. you talk to border patrol, and they'll tell you they've been told not to deport. now, i don't know why you're not telling that. it's true. the other thing is you can stop those people from coming across that river, and you know it. it's hurting this country, and the people that call in saying, oh, you don't like immigrants, that's a crock. they're the ones that are probably out of work and if they think they're out of work now, just wait until you bring in all of these 16, 17, 18-year-olds that are uneducated, have no money. who is going to support them? i can't even hardly support myself. >> well, bea, you know, first, when you speak generally, i think you're talking about people not telling the truth generally. i think you can search through google or the congressional record and find out i have said most of the things you assert this morning. and i actually pulled together a group that brought about a lawsuit because the president

has ordered the immigration enforcement officials, particularly i.c.e., to violate the law. they are compelled when they encounter someone who is unlawfully in the united states to place them in removable proceedings. this daca order, the deferred action on childhood arrivals, it refuses to allow them to follow the law. in fact, orders them to break it. and we can secure the border. for example, we're spending $6.6 million a mile to protect our border, and to put that in perspective, it takes only $4 million a mile to purchase land through expensive iowa cornfields and build a four-lane interstate highway and fence it and pave it and seed and do all the things we could do. we could do that every year for the full 2,000 miles of that border and if you just poured another foot on top of it every year, you would be able to secure that border, i guarantee that. so we have a lack of political will. i think you recognize that. and that lack of political will

exists certainly within democrats and it exists to a significant extent within some of the republicans, and that's why we haven't been able to secure this border. >> congressman, you talk about the lack of political will. there's a poll that recently came out from "the washington post" and abc news that -- the question was overall do you approve or disapprove of the way the republicans in congress are handling the issue of undocumented immigrants coming to the united states over the border with mexico. and it was notable that the approval and disapproval rate for republicans was almost equal, 48% of republicans approve of the way the party is handling it, 45% disapprove of the way the republicans are handling it. how much discord might there be within your own party over the path forward? >> that is a really good question, and it's a hard one to answer quantitatively. it has to be a subjective answer. i would break it out this way. i think there's a number around 70 that say we are going to restore the rule of law, and we're not going to compromise on

that. and that means that we're not going to support amnesty, and amnesty, let's just define it as legalization. so that's a number about 70 that will stand strong on that. there are, i think, about two dozen that would like to join with the democrats and support the senate's gang of eight's bill although that number is eroding after they see the results of this. the rebs of them in a middle, there's a varying degree. some say they would go a little ways, some would go a lot further but they're across the spectrum. and another thing that i think we forget about is in this congress we have right at half of the members at least of the republican conference that are -- that have been here 3 1/2 years or less. so the intensity of the immigration debate has been ramping up. when that happens they get better informed and i'm watching the more informed the members of congress get, the more likely they are, at least on the republican side, to come down on the side of the rule of law and step away from amnesty. and those conversations happen

spontaneously to me as i walk around the floor or through the halls of this congress. i soo they shifting towards we have americans we need to be concerned about, and we have plenty of americans to do this work. the lady in texas mentioned that. today there are 92 million americans simply not in the workforce. another 12 million that are unemployed and listed as unemployed. that means there are 104.1 million americans of working age who are simply not in the workforce, and we have over 80 different means tested federal welfare programs. so what nation in his right mind would say let's expand welfare and pay more people not to work and bring in tens of millions of other people to do the work they say americans won't do. that's not true, of course. americans will do any kind of work. and, instead, we're paying out of one pocket to essentially support people who should be working and we're paying out of another pocket to bring people in to do some of that work. we're creating a country here that we're lowering the average gdp of our people.

each -- we should be increasing the average individual gross domestic product of our people. that means more people to work for higher wages, tighter labor supplies, not looser labor supplies. >> you've mentioned several times the issue of border security. i want to read to you some paragraphs from "the omaha world herald" that quoted you. said representative steve king of iowa employed signature hardline rhetoric when discussing this issue. he questioned the need for time consuming hearings for children. why don't we just say you do back, we catch you here, you go back. you said the u.s. government is operating under a set of rules that were not designed for the current crisis. this is an invasion into our country, king said. is that something that you still stand by? do you believe our country is being invaded by illegal immigrants and what should be done about it in terms of deploying the national guard? >> i'd say i know our country is being invaded by illegal immigrants. i have spent a lot of time on the border, and i recall sitting

at san miguel crossing in arizona several years ago at night and listening to the vehicles drive through the mesquite brush with the brush scratching on the sides of the vehicles. have them stop 70 or 80 yards south of the border. you can hear them pick up their packs, whit per and walk through and hear the fence creek 30, 40 yards down the line. i see that. i have ridden for hours and hours with the border parole whi patrol while we picked people up and processed them and abrought them back to the border. the testimony from border patrol and other security agents would be this, that they will -- the highest testimony i have heard in my 12 years in congress with many of these hearings from the border patrol or other border security officers is that the highest number they give is that they interdict about 25% of those who attempt to cross the

border. and that's -- and i go down to the border, and they will tell me 10% has to come first. if we just take the 25% and take the numbers of interdictions that we had during its peak at 2007, there were about 11,000 border attempts a night. that's every night. and that's twice the size of santa ana's army. think of that. and to describe that as something other than an invasion. today those numbers are probably about half of what they were in the peak of 2007, but there's a higher percentage of unaccompanied minors because of the reasons we know. >> but to your point about the numbers of unaccompanied minors in particular, i mean, is this situation that we're facing now an issue of enforcement? there are news reports that are showing that these minors are actually trying to turn themselves into the border patrol. >> one of the border patrol agents said we used to chase them, now they chase us. that's a shocking thing. he put it in a phrase that now we can envision what's going on. i'd say this, that especially in

the mcallen era, we should not be transporting unaccompanied minors or other illegal aliens, people unlawfully present -- >> we leave this recorded portion to take you live to wilmington, delaware, for remarks by president obama. he's expected to talk about infrastructure and the economy. introductions now under way. this is live. >> all the craftsmen here are proud to be involved with such an important project for the state of delaware and for the entire northeast corridor. this is a major artery of the 95 interstate highway system that serves to alleviate rush hour traff traffic. without this artery, i-95 and our local roads are gridlocked for hours each day. the need for these bridge repairs is unfortunate, but the jobs created and performing

these repairs are certainly welcome to our local economy. these are good paying jobs and important to the suppliers, contractors, craftsmen, and their families. it is my privilege now to introduce the president of the united states of america, mr. barack obama. ♪ ♪ >> hello, everybody! everybody, please have a seat. please have a seat. it is wonderful to be back in delaware. before i begin, obviously the world is watching reports of a

downed passenger jet near the russia/ukraine border, and it looks like it may be a terrible tragedy. right now we're working to determine whether there were american citizens on board. that is our first priority, and i've directed my national security team to stay in close contactukrainian government. we will offer any assistance we can to help determine what happened and why, and as a country our thoughts and prayers are with all the families of the passengers wherever they call home. i want to thank jeremy for that introduction. give jeremy a big round of applause. [ applause ] it is great to be in the state that gave us joe biden. [ cheers and applause ] we've got actually some better

looking bidens with us here today. we've got bo and his wife hally are here. give them a big round of applause. we love them. [ applause ] we've got governor jack markell, senator chris coons, congressman john carney, county executive tom gordon, and the mayor of wilmington, dennis williams. [ applause ] we've also got two terrific members of my cabinet, transportation secretary anthony foxx is here and treasury secretary jack lew is here. [ applause ] jack lew's signature is actually on your money. although it's kind of i will

legeib illegible. we teased him he was going to have to fix his signature because it looks like a caterpillar running along the bottom. the bridge behind me used to carry 90,000 cars every day, 90,000. since last month, it's been closed for repairs. once workers are done repairing it, this bridge will be safer, it will be more reliable for commuters and for commerce, and thanks to a competitive grant program called tiger, a program by the way that was part of the recovery act that we initiated when i first came into office and biden helped to manage, this port is rebuilding a whatever that wi -- wharf that will let wilmington compete with other ports for the biggest cargo ships. for the biggest cargo ships. so far tiger grants have given a boost to 270 infrastructure projects and thousands of jobs across 50 states and that's what

i'm here to talk about today and i've been talking about this all week. creating more good jobs, rebuilding america, and the opportunity that we have to seize to rebuild the american middle class. after the worst economic crisis since the great depression in part because of the actions we took, primarily because of the strength and determination of the american people, our businesses have now added nearly 10 million new jobs over the past 52 months. construction and housing are rebounding. the auto industry is booming. it was in a tailspin when we came in. manufacturing is adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s. the unemployment rate is at its lowest point since september of 2008, which is one of the fastest one-year drops in nearly 30 years. and the decisions we made not only to rescue our economy but to start rebuilding it on a firmer foundation, those

decisions are starting to pay off. we are more energy independent. for the first time in nearly 20 years, we produce more oil in the united states than we buy from abroad. first time in 20 years we're doing that. at the same time we're actually reducing our carbon pollution. we're creating new jobs in clean and renewable energies. three times as much wind power, ten times as much solar power. in education our high school graduation rate is at a record high. more young people are earning college degrees. 401(k)s are growing, fewer homes are under water, millions of affordable health care if they need it and the deficit is coming down to boot, been cut more than half. so by almost every economic measure we're doing a whole lot better now than we were when i

came into office, and as i said, most of it is thanks to you, the resilience and the resolve of the american people. because of that, we've recovered faster and come farther than almost any other advanced country on earth. and business leaders for the first time in a decade around the world are saying that china is not the best place to invest, the united states is the most promising place to invest. so we've got this huge opportunity to keep this momentum going, to keep growing the economy, but also to make sure that growth is broadly shared. we got to make sure we're creating not just more jobs but also raising middle class wages and incomes and making it easier for folks if they're working hard and doing the right thing to raise a family. we've got to make sure we're not just graduating more kids. we've got to also train more workers and make college more affordable. we've got to make sure our economy works for every

american. that's why i ran for president. that's what i'm focused on every day. and this is more than just some fleeting political story or made up scandal. this is the challenge of our times. making sure if you work hard and you're responsible, anybody can get ahead in this country. that's what america is about. and we can achieve that if we just see a few changes in washington's priorities. so today i'm here to talk about just one example, creating good jobs of the sort that jeremy just talked about, good jobs rebuilding america. we know that in the 21st century economy businesses are going to set up shop wherever they find the best roads, best bridges, the fastest internet connection, the fastest rail lines, the smartest airports, the best power grid. first class infrastructure attracts investment, and it creates first class jobs. unfortunately, right now our investment in transportation lags behind a lot of other countries. china's doing more, germany is

doing more. they're putting money back into building the infrastructure we need to grow over the long term. and if washington were working the way it was supposed to, congress would be creating jobs right now. jobs just like jeremy talked about. jobs like these guys in the hard hats are doing right now, rebuilding bridges and roads and airports and ports all across the country. it helps us now and it helps us create jobs tomorrow. that's what we should be doing. but instead of creating jobs rebuilding our infrastructure in a predictable sustainable way, the debate in washington lately has been about something called the highway trust fund. it's how america is supposed to support states on transportation projects. congress has to keep it funded. otherwise states have to put projects on hold, put construction workers back on the

unemployment line. the good news is democrats and republicans are about to pass a short-term fix that will keep funding going for about another nine or ten months, and i support that. the least we can do is just support the jobs that are already there, keep americans on the job, but if that's all congress does, then we're going to have the same kind of funding crisis nine months from now, and that's not how normally you fund infrastructure because you have to plan it and you have to think about, you know, how are we helping folks and how are we helping states and cities and municipalities, you know, create, you know, plans for the future and make sure that the funding streams are level. we don't need unhelpful and unnecessary deadlines that crunch a few months from now. and we shouldn't have been this close to the deadline in the first place, as your governor has pointed out. even smaller transportation

projects can take years to design and plan and build. a few months of funding doesn't cut it. and so jack said to call this a band-aid is an insult to a band-aid. that's a pretty good line. i'm going to have to try that out. so congress shouldn't be too proud. it shouldn't pat itself on the back for kicking the can down the road every few months. instead of barely paying our bills in the present, we should be planning and investing in the futu future. that's how the economy grows for everybody. the american people work hard every single day and your efforts shouldn't be threatened every few months by a manufactured crisis in washington. everything doesn't have to be done at the last minute every time. so what i've done is earlier this year put forward a plan to rebuild our transportation infrastructure in a long-term, responsible way. a plan that would support millions of jobs, would give cities and states and private investors the certainty they need to hire more workers faster. it would help small businesses

ship their goods faster. it would help parents get home from their commute faster so they can see their kids. and it wouldn't add to what is already a rapidly shrinking deficit because we'd pay for it in part by closing loopholes for companies that are shipping profits overseas and are avoiding paying their fair share of taxes. so that's what we need. a broad based plan. we have $2 trillion worth of deferred maintenance in this country in roads and bridges and sewer systems and water mains and we could put a lot of people back to work right now getting that done, and we're going to have to do it eventually anyway. but so far congress has refused to act on the idea. which is strange because infrastructure should not be a partisan issue. you think about it, it was a republican, dwight eisenhower, who built the interstate highway system. lincoln built the transcontinental railroad. both parties historically have

understood investing in this country for the long run pays off. when we invest in infrastructure, we make sure the economy is growing not just for the next five years, but for another century. that's what right now republicans in congress don't seem to be focused on. but until they do get focused on it, i'm going to do whatever i can to create jobs, rebuilding america on my own. so today --. [ applause ] today we're launching what we call the build america investment initiative, and as part of it we're creating a one-stop shop for cities and states looking to partner with the private sector to fund infrastructure projects. there are lots of investors who want to back infrastructure projects because when it's done right, they get a steady return. and lots of states and local governments would welcome more private investment, but they need a partner in the federal government to help do some match making and work through some of

the complexities of private financing of infrastructure. so my administration is going to help states and cities apply for federal loans, get more public/private partnerships up and running, get more investment flowing into communities like wilmington, and this builds on other actions we've taken to speed up the permitting process or big projects and attract new manufacturing jobs to america and raise more workers' wages. help women fight for fair pay, ease loan burdens for millions of students. we're taking steps on our own still hoping that congress at some point actually does something. you know, i keep hearing from folks all across the country who tell me, you know, if members of congress had the same priorities that most americans do, if they felt the same sense of urgency you feel in your own lives, we could help a lot of families right now instead of playing politics. we should be creating jobs by investing in what makes our

economy strong. infrastructure and manufacturing and emergency and research and development and education, all these things lead to new industries. we should be training our workers to fill new jobs. we should be preparing our kids to face global competition. we should be making sure that hard work pays off with a higher minimum wage. we should be seizing these opportunities. and there's a simple principle behind it. when the middle class does good and when people have ladders in the middle class if they work hard, everybody does better. you have more customers for businesses. folks at the very top do better. america grows best from the middle out, not from the top down. that's when we succeed. so i'm going to keep on looking for areas where republicans and democrats can agree to move this country forward but i'm not going to stand by when politics and inaction are holding us back. wherever and whenever i have a chance to help families like

yours, i'm going to do it. when i have a chance to help communities like wilmington, i'm going to do it. that's when my administration takes these executive actions, when congress won't act. and so far the only response we've gotten from the republicans is a lawsuit. you know, they're suing me for doing my job instead of going ahead and doing their job. that's disappointing. it's a political stunt, and by the way, they're using taxpayer money to do it. it's your money that they're wasting on this, which no serious lawyer thinks makes any sense. it's just a political stunt. we could be using the time, energy, and effort and money to help your families, and maybe the folks behind this think it will help them politically. i guarantee you it's not helping you. we could do so much more if we

rally around a sense of patriotism that says we can disagree on issues once in a while, but come on, let's focus on our country, let's focus on our people. a sense of common purpose, the understanding we rise or fall as one nation and as one people. that's how we built this country together, and that's what washington has to remember. and the one thing i know for certain, if we work together, if we believe in one another, then we're going to keep on rebuilding our middle class. we're going to restore the american dream for the next generation. we will continue to make sure that america is the place where no matter what you look like or where you come from or how you started, you can make it if you try. you've shown it here in delaware. we can show it all across the country. we just need a little more focus in washington, so keep the pressure on, everybody. thank you. god bless you. let's build some bridges. let's build some roads. god bless america. now i'm going to sign my

memorandum. i'm going to sign it. there you go. thank you, everybody. [ applause ] ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

the president wrapping up in wilmington, delaware. he's off now to new york city for a couple of events, one for the dnc followed by a house majority pac round table event. afterwards he returns to washington. at the top of the event in wilmington, the president mentioned the downing of a malaysia airlines passenger yet in ukraine earlier today. he said the u.s. is working to determine if any americans were on board that flight from amsterdam to cue voila lawa cu lumpur. representative cory gardner saying heart breaking to hear of the plane crash in ukraine. my thoughts and prayers are with the families from around the world that lost loved ones. charlie rangel says my heart goes out to all the victims of malaysia mh 17 and their loved ones. let's pray for highways and healing. mark kirk saying russian made

advanced sam has murdered 285 people. overdue russian sanctions should expand to oil and energy sectors. also with a senate hearing earlier today on the gm ignition switch issue, we've been asking you has gm's response to the ignition switch problem when appropriate. you can continue to leave comments on twitter using #cspanchat or go to facebook.com/cspan. 40 years ago the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. throughout this month and early august, american history tv revisits 1974 and the final weeks of the nixon administration. this weekend opening statements from the house judiciary committee as members consider articles of impeachment. >> selection of the president, it occupies a very unique position within our political

system. it's the one act in which the entire country participates and the are ult is binding upon all of the states for four years. the outcome is accepted, the occupant of that office stands as a symbol of our national unity and commitment. so if the judgment of the people is to be reversed, if the majority will is to be undone, if that symbol is to be replaced through the action of the elected representatives, then it must be for substantial and not trivial offenses supported by facts and not by surmise. >> watergate 40 years later, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span3. earlier today general joseph dumbford, president obama's nominee to be marine corps commandant appeared at his confirmation hearing. here is some of what he said to the senate armed services committee about afghanistan. >> general dunford, did you or any other senior military leader personally recommend the policy

of everybody out by 2017 no matter what? >> no, senator. >> no military -- no ranking military officer that you know recommended a hard date for everybody out of afghanistan, is that right? >> none that i know of, senator, and i think we still plan to have, as you know, some presence after 2017, but no one recommended zero. >> did anybody recommend that we have a conditions-based decision about what kind of residual force we should leave behind? >> senator, i think you appreciate that every military leader would want to have the conditions on the ground and the assumptions be revalidated as a transition takes place. >> isn't it true that right now the way that the counterterrorism capability of the afghans are today, that we cannot abandon that. if you had to make the decision

today with the lack of counterterrorism capability the afghans have, we would have to leave that kind of force behind for at least the counterterrorism mission. >> there's no doubt that the afghan forces today would not be capable of conducting the kind of operations we're conducting to put pressure on the network. >> nor right now do you envision them having that capability by 2017. >> not if you project the threat that exists today. >> including recent rocket attacks on the airport in kabul show that the taliban is still pretty resilient, and isn't it a fact that as long as the taliban have a -- basically a sanctuary in pakistan, that this situation will remain extremely complex and dangerous? >> senator, absolutely. the resiliency of the taliban movement is driven by their sanctuary in pakistan. >> is there any doubt in your mind that the announcement of a

complete withdrawal by 2017 has had an affect on the moralmoral. >> i think all of us would have preferred that be a bit more ambiguous. >> we were told by afghan military officers, quote, you are abandoning us, that's what we told me and senator graham. and i don't think they would have any reason to tell us otherwise. very quickly -- so the fact is we need a conditions-based decision because we right now are not confident that the afghans can take up the complete burden of their own security. >> cdc chief tom frieden called the mishandling of live anthrax by his agency unacceptable and he said it showed a lax culture of safety. he testified yesterday before the house energy and commerce

committee on the centers for disease control's mishandling of biological agents that could have potentially exposed dozens of staff members. this hearing runs about 2 1/2 hours. >> good morning. the subcommittee of oversight and investigation today examines the center for disease control anthrax incident last month that potentially exposed dozens of

cdc researchers to live anthrax because established safety procedures were not followed. last friday the cdc director announced the findings of cdc's own internal review of the incident and the actions being taken. the review identified a fundamental blflaw. they had to written plan to ensure the safety of their agents. like anthrax, the department of agricultural's investigation revealed more disturbing examples. it took more than a week for the inspectors and cdc management to track down the samples that are cdc's custody. agricultural inspectors also uncovered that cdc was transferring dangerous material from by logic containment labs in ziploc bags. disinfectant that cdc labs used was expired. this is troubling and it is completely unacceptable. the center for disease control is supposed to be the gold standard of the u.s. public health system and it has been

tarnished. we rely on cdc to protect us and uphold the highest standards of safety but the recent an flex event and newly disclosed incidents raise very serious questions about cdc's ability to safeguard properly selected agents in its own labs. the cd c director has called the potential anthrax exposure a wake-up call. our investigation has uncovered this is not cdc's first wake-up call. i'm not sure wake-up call is a proper determine. it's a gross and dangerous understatement. it was a potentially very dangerous failure. wake-up call is catching something before the danger exists. once a person is exposed to the serious pathogens, the danger is of a much higher magnitude. in 2006 cdc bioterrorism lab sent live an flex to two outside labs on a mistaken believe it was inactivated. later that same near inadequate inactivation procedures led another lab to inadvertent ship live botulism to an outlab.

in 2009 cdc learned from newly available test methods that a strain that can cause a highly contagious infection have been shipped to labs since 2001. one must question the scientific qualifications of these scientists. reports demonstrate these events are not isolated incidents. between 2008 and 2010 the hhs office of inspector general or oig issued three reports documenting concerns at cdc labs such as ensuring physical security of select agents and ensuring personnel received required training. an audit in 2010 found a cdc scientist discovered select agents in a drawer in an unsecured lab during a reorganization, and another cdc scientists found 16 vials of a select agent stored in an unsecured freezer that was reportedly left over from an outbreak investigation many years earlier.

this is reminiscent of the recent discovery of smallpox vials in a storage room on the nhih campus. this small pock was in a place no one knew it was there and it was discovered by accident. in 2011 they found cdc did not monitor and enforce effectively certain select agent rek layings at federal laboratories. in addition to the inspector general audits, several gao reports have raised concerns about oversight of high containment labs including those at cdc. despite the number of red flags, these incidents keep happening. we learned last friday that cdc scientists in march shipped infl influenza strains to a department of agricultural lab that was contaminated with a deadly flu virus. this cross contamination was discovered in may but it took six weeks to be reported. this is a pattern of reoccurring issues, complacency, and a lax

culture of safety. this is not sound science and this will 234not be tolerated. these practices put the health of the american public at risk. it is sloppy and inexcusable. dr. frieden, i thank you for testifying today. i have questions about whether the corrective actions you have announced will solve the problems. cdc has already reassigned one lab officials from his duties, taking personnel actions though will not address problems that appear to be systemic. cdc needs to reassure that proper policies are implemented. you said you were distressed with the notification about the influenza shipments. i want to know whether you have reason to believe they may be afraid to report instances. cdc is not going to solve human errors unless it gets as much information as possible from its own people since 2007 there have been 17 reports indicating that a worker was potentially exposed to a select agent or toxin.

thankfully, as far as we are aware, no one atc dc has become sick from improper handling. but cdc should not assume its luck with the near miss events will continue. sooner or late they're luck will run out and someone will get very sick or die. cdc needs to strengthen safety procedures. the risk from the deadly pathogens require fail-safe mechanisms and redundancies similar to those used in other contexts. the subcommittee will review the oversight system and to explore the possibility of an independent agency to oversee the cdc labs. i thank all the witnesses for testifying and i recognize the ranking member. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. last month scientists at cdc's brat laboratory in atlanta made a series of mistakes that could have had deadly consequences. they transferred anthrax spores to two other labs potentially exposing dozens of individuals

to anthrax. luckily nobody has yet fallen ill. like all of us, i'm deeply troubled by what we have learned about this incident. how did it happen? cdc conducts its own internal investigation that identified numerous failures. there was no standard operating procedure for the analysis being conducted by the cdc scientists. there were no approved study plan. the scientists used a pathogenic strain of anthrax when a nonpath againic strain could have been used. they used unapproved sterilization techniques for pathogenic anthrax and proceeded to transfer the material without confirming that it was inactive. this is obviously an alarming series of failures, but there were other problems at cdc that made this incident worse. cdc has provided to the committee a disturbing report from the u.s. department of agricultural animal and plant health inspection service.

afis conducted its own inspection of the facility. inspectors identified serious problems in lab operations and decontamination procedures. they also detailed major problems with the dcd's response to the incident reporting that the agency was inadequately prepared to handle the cleanup or to treat those who were potentially exposed. i think we can all agree the reports on this incident are bad, but what's even more troubling to me is that in context they reveal a broad problem with the cdc safety culture. we have received report after report from gao, the hhs, aig, and afis offering a multitude of warnings and recommendations on operations of high containment labs. cdc's after action report identified four other cases in the last decade where cdc shipped dangerous pathogens offsite. the democratic committee staff prepared a memo describing the

results from six inspections at the cdc facilities. there were 29 relates to facilities and equipment, and 37 related to documentation and record keeping. in some cases the ocebservation revealed only paperwork problems but in many cases they found more serious problems. they found cases of scientists using torn gloves and exhaust hoods blowing fumes in the wrong direction. i'd like to make this memo part of the record, mr. chairman. i think your staff has seen it. >> without objection. >> the record shows that cdc had ample warnings and should have been focused on the problems in their high containment labs long before the june anthrax release. i just don't understand why they

didn't heed those warnings. dr. frieden has indicated that he was as surprised as anybody by the scope of the problems, and the fact, dr. frieden, you were so surprised is a problem in and of itself because what it shows is there's a fundamental problem with the culture of identifying and reporting safety problems up the chain of command. now, i'm sorry to say, mr. chairman, these lab safety issues are not new to me or the committee. this is one of the detriments of having been on this committee for 18 years. we have had multiple hearings on this problem at the cdc over the years. in 2006 and 2007 we had terrible problems at the cdc facility in ft. collins, colorado, just north of my district where we had vector born diseases that were being very sloppily handled. fortunately, we built a new facility since then up in fort collins. it's a beautiful facility, and

we are able to handle these diseases. but, you know, these issues are not resolving themselves, and so while dr. frieden, you have a strong record at the cdc, i know you have answers and recommendations, and you're acting aggressively to make sure it doesn't happen again. i appreciate that. but what we all need to know is what the plan is to change the culture at the cdc. we can't legislation -- we can do a lot but we can't legislation a culture change. it has to come from within the agency. i'm also glad to have goa and afis witnesses here because in retrospect your warnings were p p pressure yent and should have been taken more seriously. they are being taken seriously right now in the only by the agency but by the people on the

committee. >> recognize mr. upton for five minutes. >> this is a very serious hearing for sure. two years ago after allegations about problems in cdc's building 18, the home to the world's deadliest agents and pathogens, this committee investigated whether the cdc was complying with federal safety requirements in the operation of its main lab facilities. in response to our concerns, cdc director sent the committee a letter in september of '12. thec dc letter which i would like to include outlined the agency's efforts to ensure better oversight and safe handling of a select agents at cdc labs. the measures included rigger owe us training, multiple layers. a senior official who was not identified would be designated to report directly to the cdc director on safety at cdc labs. these measures sound very similar to the corrective actions that dr. frieden

outlined last week to address the current lab crisis. why should we believe this time that things are, in fact, going to be different? we asked cdc two years ago to identify each biosafety incident that had taken place at its main lab since january 1st of '05. cdc provided the committee with a list back in 2012, but we now know from cdc's internal investigation released last friday that, in fact, the list was not complete. improper shipments of pathogens in '06 including anthrax, were not included in cdc's list of safety incidents that, in fact, was provided to this committee. cdc staff has now acknowledged to committee staff that the '06 incidents, which were reported to the hhig should have been included. we don't know why they weren't. this raises the question of whether cdc leadership is receiving all the information about its own biosafety systems.

add to the possible anthrax exposure that delayed notice provided to cdc leadership about avian flu shipments and the discovery of smallpox vials in a cardbox box in a storage room on the nih campus and these dintss no longer appear isolated. a darges, very dangerous pattern is emerging. and there is a lot of unknowns out there as well. when deal with pathogens such as the ones being discussed today, unknowns a unknowns are frankly unacceptable. what you don't know can hurt you. why do these events keep happening? what's going to be next? cdc needs to solve the safety problem now as a team. they need to get as much info from its workers about true safety of biosafety and the true state of biosafety at cdc and keep this committee and the american people fully informed.

there is zero tolerance for unlocked refrigerators and zip lock bags. those days have to be over. yield to marsha blackburn. >> i want to thank our panel for being here. as you can hear on a bipartisan basis, we have plenty of questions for you. we are deeply concerned about the incidents that have occurred at the federal labs that are run by the department of health and human services, cdc with the anthrax specimens. dr. friedman, we appreciate the time you spent with us last week but i think we have plenty of questions for you about the safety and the carefulness. you could think that the priority would be safety and caring and making certain that you are tending to that culture of safety within these labs. nih with the vials of smallpox and the fact that this was in an unused portion of a storage

room, who all would have access to that? and then, of course, the cross-contamination of the influenza sample. we've all talked about the three of these events. and the fact that they have occurred within this framework of time, the fact that there seemed to be a dismissiveness of the serious nature of the occurrences, the fact that the cdc's own report pointed out some of the contributing factors in this and the lack of a standard operating procedure. and best practices. and the fact that this is not known among the employees at that agency. we know that there are some remediation measures that have been implemented but the culture of safety or lack thereof continues to be a concern to us for public health. i yield back my time.

>> thank you. now recognize mr. waxman for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. i think it's important for us to investigate this incident involving the release of potentially viable anthrax on cdc's campus in atlanta. when i was chairman of the oversight committee, we held hearings after the 2001 anthrax attacks. we looked at the safety of postal workers and the public in handling mail and the postal service and cdc's response to those attacks. we had hearings again in 2003 and 2005 where we found there were still gaps in biological detection of anthrax and communicating test results and risks to the public. those hearings showed why cdc's work on identifying and

containing public health risks from these types of biological agents is so important. but this work can also pose risks and that's why this oversight hearing is important. in 2009 when i was chairman of the full committee, we held a hearing on the proliferation of high containment biolabs and the lack of oversight over such facilities. mr. dingell also held a hearing in 2007. so this is not our first introduction to this subject. at our request, gao with government accountable office, also looked into lab safety. gao reported in a number of studies, one as recently as 2013 on the problems associated with the government's fragmented piecemeal approach to these labs. no single agency has oversight over all high containment biolabs.

there are no national standards for operation and we have no record of how many labs even exist. the health and human services inspector general also issued numerous reports on high containment labs and their handling of select agents. the inspector general identified issues with the treatment of select agents and the safety of the individuals working with these dangerous pathogens. the ig recommended that the centers for disease control labs improve training for individuals handling select agents improve record keeping and take appropriate measures to improve safety. the american people count on the centers for disease control to protect them, and we want to be able to assure them the cdc is conducting its research in safe and secure ways. i am supportive of dr. friesen's effort at cdc.

we worked with him on numerous issues in the last few years and he has shown himself to be an effective leader and a strong communicator. and i appreciate the quick actions that he has taken in response to this incident. i am encouraged to see that he's appointed dr. michael bell to oversee laboratory safety protocols and procedures. this investigation has shown us that cdc needs to change its safety culture. and i hope dr. bell can help it still a new mind-set at the agency. still, i am concerned that it took the exposure of dozens of cdc staff through anthrax to finally spur cdc to action. so we want answers from the cdc about how this incident was allowed to happen in the first place. and i look forward to hearing from afis and gao about the problems they've identified in the past how cdc should

implement their recommendations moving forward and what role congress should play in making sure that happens. mr. chairman, this is not the first hearing an the subject. we've looked tat before. we need now finally to be sure that all the recommendations that we've had are put in place so we can stop something like this from happening again. thank you, and i field back my time. >> i'd now like to introduce the witnesses in the furst panel. first dr. thomas frieden. he's accompanied by mr. joseph henderson, deputy director of the office of security and emergency preparedness at the center for disease control. dr. jerry from the health inspection services at the u.s. department of agriculture. dr. kingsbury for applied research and methods at the u.s. government accountability office.

dr. gingrey did you want to introduce somebody from your district? >> mr. chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity. i know this witness is on the second panel and it will be a little while before we'll be hearing from the second panel, but it is an honor and a pleasure to introduce off of the second panel shawn kaufman. mr. kaufman is president and founding partner of a company called behavioral based improvement solutions. his background is long-term employment with the cdc before forming his own company in my district, the 11th congressional district of georgia in woodstock, georgia. and i would encourage all of the members on both sides of the aisle if you haven't had a chance, we try to read all of the testimony, but sometimes we skip one or two along the way. but i will assure you that the written testimony from mr. kaufman really hits the nail

right on the head in regard to this overall issue. and i would commend it to you. and i am proud to introduce him to you in anticipation of the second panel. mr. chairman, thank you. i yield back. >> to the panel, you are aware the committee is holding an investigative hearing. when doing so has the practice of taking testimony under oath. do any of you have objections to taking testimony under oath? all the witnesses indicate no. the chair then advises you all that you are under the rules of the house and rules of the committee. you are entitled to be advised by counsel. do any of you wish to be advised by counsel? all the witnesses indicate no. in that case would you all please rise and raise your right hand. i'll swear you in. stand, please. do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truths and nothing but the truth? thank you. all the witnesses answered the affirmative. you are now under oath and

subject to the penalties set forth in section 1001 of the code. you may now give a five-minute written summary of your statement. >> chairman murphy, ranking member degette -- chairman murphy, ranking member degette, members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before you. i'm dr. tom frieden. with me is mr. joe henderson who heads our office of security, safety and asset management. i'll review the problems that have come to light in the past month and tell you what we're doing now to address improving lab savt. the fact that it appears that no one was harmed and that there were no releases do sd not excuse what happened. what happened was completely unacceptable. it should never have happened. if i leave you with