work very hard to find the right schooling for them the right teachers for them. she was able to do that. but because she had a lot of latitude in choice and because there were a lot of services provided by the state, funded by state government to give her those choices. >> breanda, thank you very much. next one from dennis? >> yes, dennis. >> good to see you, sir. >> nice to meet you. >> you've been a ceo of a fortune 500 company. >> yes, sir. >> and you're considering a run for the presidency? >> yes, sir. >> do you believe there's a glass ceiling in american business and politics, and if so, what would you do about it? >> well, you know, i hate that term, glass ceiling, because it implies that there's this invisible barrier. you can't see it until you bump your head on it and that hasn't been my experience. i started out as a secretary. a secretary in a nine-person real estate firm. and i got on my path to business

because two men in that office came up to me and said we think you could do more than type and file. do you want to know what we do? they mentored me, took a chance on me, gave me a helping hand. in all my career, all my life people have taken a chance for me. it's also true that it's still different for women in some ways. women in positions of authorities are caricatured differently, scrutinized differently, because it's different, it's new. ask that and that sometimes makes it very hard. the way we should think about this is to recognize that human potential is the only limitless resource we have in this world. it's also the only resource we need to solve every problem we have and attack every opportunity in a successful way. women are half the potential of this nation.

women are the majority of voters. if you look around, women's potential hasn't been fully tapped. so that means something for all of us. we ought to be tapping everyone's potential and make sure that regardless of what somebody looks like, or what their gender or circumstances are, that their life and defined by possibilities and they can go as far as their gifts can carry them. then we will have arrived as a nation men and women alike. >> we'll go to a social media question. michael is asking, what are you going to do about the illegal immigrants in the country? >> well, and it's such an important issue, because -- for obvious reasons, but it's continued existence in our nation is corroding people's

faith in government. how long has this been going on? and we haven't solved it? so i would start by doing the basics. we have to secure the border. it hasn't been secure for a very long time. people have been talking about it. we haven't been doing it. it's clearly something that the federal government is responsible for. we have to secure it because our enemies have figured out we have a porous border. don't think they don't know. and finally we have to secure it because when government doesn't do its basic job, people lose faith in government's ability to do anything. and that's corrosive to our democracy. secondly, we have to fix the legal immigration system. the legal immigration system has been broken for decades. we have 16 different visa programs. half the people who are here illegally came here on a legal visa and just overstayed it and nobody cared. we're letting the wrong people

go home. we're letting the wrong people in. so we have to fix the legal immigration system. the political class just hasn't done it. and finally, we have to decide what to do with the people who are here illegally. my own view is this, if you have come here and stayed here illegal illegally, you don't get the privilege of citizenship. because there are a lot of people who played by the rules. maybe you know some i do. they study take the oath of citizenship seriously. i don't think it's fair to say somebody who hasn't gone through any of that just gets the same privilege. perhaps you can earn legal status at some point. perhaps your children can become citizens. americans are compassionate people, but we're fair-minded people. so we have to be fair to those who worked hard, played by the rules and earned the privilege of citizenship.

>> next question, mckenzie. >> how are you? >> fine thanks. thanks for taking my question. in new hampshire, minimum wage less than $325 a week it's barely enough to live. if elected, how would you ensure the success of these families? >> first i think minimum wage is a classic example of a policy best carried out in the states. because if you're here in nashua, new hampshire, it's not the same set of conditions as l.a. or new york city. to so to me a national minimum wage doesn't make a lot of sense. if states raise the minimum wage and many have and i don't have any problem with states doing that, but i think people have to realize there are tradeoffs. so one of the tradeoffs is we

have extremely high youth unemployment in this country. and one of the many things that young people do is start in minimum wage jobs. a lot of people start in minimum wage jobs, not because they want to end up in minimum wage jobs, but because they want to learn skills that allow them to get a better job. i say to young people all the time, having started as a secretary, not being paid very well. i say to young people all the time, don't wait for the perfect job. just get a job. because any job you get, you're gonna learn things you're gonna learn skills you're gonna learn about yourself and the world around you. so when we make it harder for businesses to hire young people, i worry about that. bauds young people don't get the skills they need. the most important job creation in this country is small and family-owned businesses, the nine-person realize office they started out in.

the family-owned auto body shop that my husband started out as a tow truck driver. i come from the world of technology and we celebrate steve jobs and bill gates but we should celebrate the nail salon, the dry cleaner, the auto body shop, the real estate firm, because they create 2/3 of the new jobs in this country and employ half the people. for the first time in u.s. history we're destroying more businesses than we're creating and those are the small and family-owned businesses. unless we get the engine of growth going and going again,eer not going to get the middle class going and grow again. >> we're almost out of time for the tv portion of our program. but i want to ask you this. a lot of people complain about the influence of big business when it comes to government. given your former positions, does that offend you when you hear that, or do you agree with it because you've seen it? >> no it's true. look let's be honest, as the

ceo of a $90 billion company i may not have liked regulation or taxation or legislation but i could hire accountants and lawyers and lobbyists to try and change it, or to try and understand it, or to try and take advantage of it. that nine-person real estate firm, they can't. that's why we're crushing these small and family-owned businesses. big government and big business and big labor by the way too, get all intertwined and they work the system. if you look at something like a dodd-frank big piece of legislation, ten banks too big to fail became five banks too big to fail. 3,000 community banks have gone out of business. they can't handle the complexity. >> for now we're signing off the television portion of our program. this will continue online and in our mobile app.

you'll find another 30 minutes of questions from our studio audience, all of it commercial-free. but for now, thanks for watching. have a great night. >> presidential candidates often release books to introduce themselves to voters. here's a look at some recent books written by declared and potential candidates for president. hillary clinton looks back on her time serving in the obama administration in "hard choices." in "american dreams," marco rubio outlines his plan to restore economic can opportunity. mike huckabee gives his take on politics and culture in "god, guns, grits and gravy." and in "blue collar conservatives," rick santorum argues the republican party must focus on the working class in order to retake the white house. in a fighting chance elizabeth warren recounts the events in her life that shaped her career

as an educator and politician. scott walker argues republicans must offer bold solutions to fix the country and have the courage to implement them in "unintimidated. and rand paul calls for smaller government in "taking a stand." more candidates with recent books include former governor jeb bush in immigration wars. he along with clint bowlic argue for new immigration policies. in "stand for something" john kasich calls for return to traditional american values. former virginia senator james webb looks on his time serving in the military and senate in "i heard my country calling." independent vermont senator bernie sanders announced his intention to seek democratic nomination for president. his book, "the speech" is a printing of his eight-hour-long filibuster against tax cuts.

and in "promises to keep" vice president joe biden looks back on his career in politics and explains his guiding principles. ben carson calls for greater individual responsibility to preserve america's future in with the "one nation." rick perry explains government has become too intrusive and must get out of the way. another politician running for president, lincoln chafee in "against the tide" recounts his time serving as republican in the senate. carly fiorina from hewlett packard shares lessons learned from difficulties and triumphs in "rising to the challenge." louisiana governor bobby jindal criticizes the obama administration and explains why conservative solutions are needed in washington in leadership and crisis. and finally, in "a time for

truth," texas senator ted cruz recounts his journey from a cuban immigrant son to the u.s. senate. look for his book in june. coming up live tomorrow a hearing on the future of u.s.-cuba relations before it is seasonality foreign relations committee at 10:00 eastern in the morning. at 2:00 tomorrow afternoon, u.s. capitol police chief will testify about issues facing his police force. some 1,775 sworn officers protect the capital. plus our website will cover a hearing look at the response to the nepal earthquakes. again, c-span.org will have that at 2:15 eastern tomorrow. >> for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my

brother. be he never so vile this day shall gentle his condition. and gentlemen in england now abed shall think themselves accursed that they were not here. >> one drop of blood drawn from thigh country's bosom should be the more than streams of foreign gore. >> director of the shakespeare library, michael whitmore talks about shakespeare and how politicians use quotes from the famous playwright in their speeches. >> sometimes you have to go with the music of the words the poetic images, the sound of the rhyme and also as senator bird did, you're able to pause and linger over a long phrase and then stop and keep going. i think he's really using the rhythms of the language, which is something that shakespeare

did so brilliantly. so that he can take english and put it into high gear at one moment and then he can slow down. and that's something that shakespeare lets you do if you're a politician. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q & a. >> goodnight, goodnight parting is such sweet sorrow, and it really is. >> the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral james winnefeld recently gave an overview of threats to the u.s., including the nuclear programs of north korea iran, and russia. he discussed u.s. missile defense technology and joint efforts on missile defense -- [ inaudible ] >> -- to have all of you here. and i want to say special thanks to admiral winnefeld for joining us today. before we begin, many of you have heard me say this before, but when we have public events,

we always start with a little safety announcement. i am your responsible safety officer. i'm going to take care of you. so you follow me we're going to go, if we have to, out through that exit and that exit, the stairwell is around the corner. we'll go down and meet across the street. it's too early for the bar to be open, so we'll meet in the park right next door and i'll see if i can bring refreshments. but please follow me if we have to do anything. thank you all for joining us today. this is the third in a series that we've launched. dr. thom karko is the new leader for our missile defense program at csis. i should also say special thanks to our friends at boeing that are letting us do this public event to present the issues associated with missile defense. i'm old enough to remember the days when missile defense was theology not programming. that was 30 years ago, and we

had great controversy associated with missile defense issues. fortunately that's passed us. we're now into the details of what's appropriate how much is appropriate, how is it positioned, when do we get it online, things like that. admiral winnefeld has been more influence than anyone in reshaping this debate. there's a significant increase in the budget this year for missile defense. i think it reflects a geopolitical reality. it's part of that that we're going to talk about today. i'm very grateful that he's taken the time to join us. as i said this is a series. he said, is this the end? i said no, it's a mid course correction. so he's going to give us the mid-course correction. so could i ask you with your applause to please welcome admiral sandy winnefeld. [ applause ] >> all right, well, good morning, and thank you so much for that very kind can

introduction and for your friendship and for the invitation to speak today. it's great to be here at csis to provide an update on where our thinking is and where my thinking is, and where our progress is on missile defense, including national ballistic missile defense, regional ballistic missile defense and i'll add a little bit about cruise missile defense. i know for the most part it's a technically savvy audience knowledgeable on the topic especially the mid shipmen off to my right, which i'm happy to see here. i suspect there are friends of mine mere, keith who has been extremely helpful to me in my journey and richard fieldhouse, who has been very supportive of the program all along as well. those of you mixed in it's good to see you here. i'd like to start "snl" a little bit of an abstract for my discussion today. the first abstract pete is we

recognize two basic pillars of defense -- or deterrence, excuse me. mainly, denying an adversaries objectives and imposing costs on an adversary for its aggressive acts. missile defense is in the realm of denying an adversary's objectives. we want them to know that not only is there a price for attacking us or our friends but also that the attack may not succeed in the first place resulting in pain but no gain. the second baseline thought is that we believe any sensible nation has to prioritize its investments in defense along some kind of strategic framework. if we don't do this in a sensible way, we'll end up with a cacophony of demands and an era of declining means. and we know the means dedicated to defense have been going inside our own country. this has implication said for our missile defense investments. the operative word here is

prioritize. which is something this town hates to do because it means there are winners and losers. some would suggest that this framework should be around prioritizing regions. i say that serious threats come from nearly every region around the globe. so that doesn't work so well for us. others would suggest that this sensible framework would be simply around prioritizing capabilities. but i would argue, yss, you need to do that, but they don't arrange themselves. they don't prioritize themselves. capabilities are ways and we can't prioritize them before we prioritize our ends. so the chairman and i, and an increasing number of people inside the defense department, believe that our investments have to be prioritized along the lines of what it is we're being asked to protect. some of you have heard me speak of this before. some things are more important than others. call them whatever you want. the chairman and i call them national security interests. and we try to look inside each

one at the threats to that interest and whether or not we have those threats properly mitigated. it stands to reason that we node to ensure that we take care of the highest ranked interests first. compromise in an era of decreasing means will have to come in the area of lower-ranked interest. and missile defense falls into various levels along that spectrum of interest. at the top of our list of national security interests, as it is for any nation, is the survival of our nation and at the top of the list of tletss to that interest is a massive nuclear attack from russia or some other high-end potential adversary like china. this is about existential attacks, attacks that are extremely hard to defend against. because we prefer to use missile deterrence in situations with the highest problts of being most effective, we've stated that missile defense against

these high-end threats is too hard and too expensive and too strategially destabilizing to even try. so even though our russian interlocutors refuse to believe us on this, it has the very great virtue of actually being true. so we'll use the cost imposition piece to dever russia by keeping strong and robust. but we do have other interests in the world. what we call limited missile defense falls squarely within the next security interest in line namely, our determination to prevent catastrophic attacks on our nation. the number of nations trying to achieve that capability is growing, not shrinking, with our most immediate concern being north korea because they're closest in terms of capability followed by iran. a robust and capable national missile defense is our best bet to defend the united states from

such an attack. that's why the ground-based mid course is going to remain our first priority in missile defense. in a shrinking defense budget, this system will be accorded the highest priority within the missile defense share of our pie. further down the line our other global national security interests, including support for our allies and partners around the world as well as protecting american citizens around the world, including our own troops wherever they may be present. thus, we also place a good bit of emphasis on regional missile defense, closely cooperating with a number of key partners in this area and i'll talk about them a little bit later. but in a world of declining budgets, it's likely we'll come to rely more on those partners to resource their own missile defense systems and i wanted to get that out, because it's important context for where we will and will not do missile defense and how we will prioritize our investments where we will do missile defense. now let me spend a little bit

more time talking about each of these two interest-based priorities. defense of the homeland and regional defense. regarding the homeland we have to take the iranian and north koreian threats seriously, even though neither nation has a mature icbm capability. and both nations know they would face an overwhelming response to any attack. while we would obviously prefer to take a threat missile out while it's still on the ground, left of launch we won't have the luxury of doing so. because it's our policy to stay ahead of the threat, we don't want there to be any doubt about our commitment to having a solid right of launch capability. so it boils down to how many missiles we can knock down, versus how many the threat can launch. and that's much more than just a function of how many interceptors we have in the ground. it's also a function of how the

whole system works. we in the military often say quantity has a quality all of its own. in the missile defense world, quality has a quantity all of its own and the level can be enormous. if, for example, because of system improvements, we only have to shoot half the number of interceptors per incoming warheads then we can handle twice the number of inbound warheads. that's why we're taking time to improve the capability and reliability of aur entire system. the missile defense agency, led by jim searing, has done a terrific job of this. it's not easy to hit to kill at the kind of closure speeds that we're talking about, but we've done it. and it's hard to make advancements in a program when it's so expensive to test the things you change in response to the things that you might find wrong. i give mda great credit for understanding that. and understanding that when you find a problem, you don't stop at the first thing you see, you

wring out the entire system. you don't stop at the first possible fix to what you find wrong. and mda has done exactly that. they've taken their time and done it right. sometimes people like me get frustrated because we want to go faster, but mda has done a fantastic job taking a thorough and deliberate approach to these kinds of problems and they've done terrifically. in january 2013 they launched an improved ce 2 irpt scepter not against a target, but to run it through its paces to solve a problem and it performed magnificently. they send it up against a real target about a year ago and it performed magnificently. i was in the room watching it, and you can imagine what it felt like to see that thing have an treel successful intercept. it was a very good shot in the arm for that program. and we were able to resume

production of eight planned gbis in the new configuration. that allowed us to increase inventory from 14, increasing the total with 40 in alaska and 40 in strandenvandenburg. four have the improved design. we'll keep improving those missiles and testing the improvements because we fly before we buy. the next flight of the gmd system will take place later this year. it's gonna be another non-intercept test of a ce 2 gbi because we want to keep costs under control. we'll demonstration the performance of an alternate diverse tlufrter in a flight environment and test end-to-end discrimination of a complex target scene through the gmd fire control loop. at the end of calendar year 2016, we plan to conduct the

first intercept test of the real deal with a new avionics package. that will be our first intercept package of a true icbm target. should that be successful, we'll deliver ten over the next year to achieve our goal of 44 gbis by the end of 2017. we're also making great progress with all three vendors on the redesigned kill vehicle, which we expect to flight test in 2018. but improving the whole system, again, is not just about interceptors. we have to take a wholistic view and invest our limited resources as wisely as we possibly can. in this light, there's been a lot of talk about instaulging an east coast missile field, our environmental impact statement should be complete in the middle of next year. however, the only reason to make that investment would be to void the capability to shoot assess,

and shoot again. we can only do that if we have the sensors we need to do so. so we need to put our ability to see targets at the head of the line, and therefore there's been no decision yet by the department to move forward with an additional interceptor site though we could do that. meanwhile, our current sites, vandenburg and alaska, protect the u.s. homeland from the threat of north korea and iran should either of them really emerge. and even though an additional interceptor site would add battle space and capacity a decision to con struct the new site would come at significant material development and service sustainment costs. so we need to be careful. while that site could eventually be necessary upgrading the kill vehicle on the gbi, improving our ability to discriminate are higher priorities for us in improving our protection against

limited icbm attack. and we have a lot going on in this area. working with our very close japanese partners we completed the deployment of the tippy 2 radar in key yogo miss aga. and we're grateful to japan for their close cooperation. it's gone well. this radar and the new capability will enhance the overall performance of both radars radars. we made a technical capability declaration for the key yogo misaky radar this past december. that will relieve the need for us to put ships under way for tracking purposes in the sea of japan and eastern japan, and that's important because it frees assets for other missions. we're continuing to operate in the pacific to provide discrimination capabilities for

kona's and hawaii defense. we're planning to deploy a new long-range discriminating radar for the specific by the 2020 time frame. finally, we're continuing to pursue greater use of space. uav-based technologies and increased integration of existing capabilities across the system in order to significantly enhance our missile defense discrimination capabilities in the future. now, i don't want to overlook cruise missile defense, particularly as it regards the homeland. you might ask, if we choose to not invest the enormous resources that would be required to defend against a massive russian attack over the north pole, then why would we care about cruise missile defense in the homeland? the element of surprise is nearly impossible with an icbm activity. we will always have time to react. we can't say the same thing for a cruise missile attack which could be intended to take away our ability to decide and respond.

that's a key point. it's why homeland cruise missile defense is shifting above regional ballistic missile defense in my mind, as far as importance goes, since defending our national leadership and our ability to decide through our command and control capability is part of the imposed cost leg of deterrence. this has implications for budget and for stationing of our missile defense assets. we're devoting a good deal of attention to ensuring we're properly configured against such an attack in the homeland and we need to continue to do so. this includes the j lens test we're conducting at aberdeen, in case you have seen that dirigible hovering over maryland. as well as other systems we're putting in place to greatly enhance our early warning around the national capital region. we're looking at changing out some of the systems we would use to knock down any cruise missiles headed toward our

nation nation's cop tal. this is a big country we can't protect the entire place from krus missile defense, unless we want to break the bank. now turning to regional ballistic missile defense there's been a massive proliferation in recent years. within this patrol ifreration, we see a number of technical advancements, including advanced liquid and solid propellant propulsion technologies and missiles that are being more mobile, reliable accurate and capable of striking targets over longer raferms. some can even target ships at sea. many have shorter launch preparation times and smaller footprints that are making them much more survivable to the ground. technical and operational

measures to defeat missiles are also increasing. many nations experience salvo firings of medium and short-range missiles. again this, not only have we brought our own missile defense capability to bear and deploy some kind of missile defense system in ten different countries around the globe we now have 33 each ships capable of doing the mission themselves. a number of which are on station at any given moment. we're encouraging our allies and partners to acquire their own missile defense as i mentioned earlier and to strengthen regional missile defense cooperation that will result in better performance than individual countries acting on their own. but this integration of capability system quite a challenge. our combatant commanders have found we need to be continually mindful of the sensors shooters and platforms deployed by the

united states. adding the systems of our friends and allies, adds a whole new level of challenges which we're successfully addressing. before combined deployment of missile defense system diplomats and warriors have a great deal of work to do. painstaking establishment of biand multi lateral agreements will pave the way to more effective regional ballistic missile defenses. in in vein, the united states is working across the globe with our partners against regional threats. let me give you a few examples. in the middle east, the united states is working with partners on missile defense including supporting purchases made through foreign military sales. in a joint statement coming out of his recent meeting with our gcc partners at camp david

president obama said quote the united states policy to use all elements of power to secure our core interests in the gulf region and to deter and confront external aggression as we did in the gulf war is unequivocal unquote. this includes missile defense. mda is currently executing a case with united arab emirates for two thad batteries and accompanying launchers, radars and interceptors. this year we'll deliver the first bad battery to our partners and begin equipment training. kuwait is purchasing batteries and saudi arabia is in the purchase of upgrading to the pak 3 configuration. the united states also maintains a strong defense relationship with israel. our cooperation has resulted in a comprehensive missile defense architecture. israeli programs the u.s. has supported, iron dome the swing, and the arrow weapons system create a multi-layered

architecture designed to protect the israeli people from various threats. results have been very successful to date. in europe, united states continues its engagement with nato to build on its commitment to european phase, adaptive approach, while also encouraging greater burden sharing by nato and non-nato nations in the region. they're on schedule for phase two by the end of this year. phase two will include deployment to romania with capabilities and upgraded versions of the emd weapons system. the required installation and integration testing activities will be complete for technical capability declaration in 2015. and we expect to hand aegis ashore over to the navy for

testing. just last year, we had a successful test shot in hawaii, that demonstrated the functionality of the weapon system by verifying its ability to launch, control establish up link and provide guidance command and target information to a guided missile. and in an important next step, we should be conducting aur first non-intercept test in the next couple of weeks. another test in november and two intercept tests of that very important missile next year which is vital to keeping phase three of the epa on track. currently three of our 4 bmd capable ships, donald cook ross and porter are stationed in spain. and the final ship to be permanently stationed in the mediterranean, the uss carney will arrive later this year. we are living up to our commitments. this program is on track and our

nato allies are making significant contributions through their purchase and deployment of bmd capable system in deployment and support of nato missions. it's not the plgs of the united states to build a system to counter russian ballistic missiles president the sites in poland and romania are designed to encounter missiles that may be lauveed from other nations against our european nato partners. so let's lay that to rest one more time. the most helpful thing that a russia or a china for that matter can do, is to persuade north korea and iran to drop their ballistic missile programs. unfortunately, we don't see that happening anytime soon. and finally in the asia pacific we have a strong missile defense posture in that region for homeland and regional ballistic missile defense. the cornerstone of our diplomacy

and security has been our alliances with south korea, japan, and australia. going forward, we'll continue to emphasize the importance of developing regional ballistic missile defense systems. it's a politically sensitive topic for several of our allies but progress in this area would only increase our confidence in the face of persistent north korean provocations. it appeared that nk might conduct a test of a regional ballistic missile that could potentially reach u.s. soil in guam. in response, the u.s. army did a magnificent job of deploying fab to that island. there it remains, readily deployable if necessary, and in the meantime defending u.s. soil from potential threats. and just a few weeks ago, pyongyang was raving about a test of its submarine launched ballistic missile capability. fortunately they've not gotten

as far as their video editors and spin mifters would have us believe. if they are eventually able to do so it would present a hard-to-detect threat for japan and our service members in the region. this only reinforces the important of regional ballistic missile defense. with the unpredictability of the north korean regime, we have to reassess our posture in the region. some of you are brimming over with the potential for thad in the republican of nksouth korea. including our own troops who are there to defend any attack from the north. it's a good system that would not pose a throat to any other nation in the region but i want to make it clear that we have not yet engaged in formally engaged with the r.o.k.

government about this possibility. as always, we're respectful of our host nation's concerns, and it goes without saying that the r.o.k. will want to have this system in place, or we simply won't put it there. while we're on the topic of regional defense, i'd like to make the point that we need to keep our eye on the cost curves associated with that problem. chairman dempsey hit it home on this topic a little more than a year ago. the simple fact is that a fad which costs around $11 million could find itself being launched against a scud that only costs $3 million. and that's only if we launch one thad against that threat. this cost curve is working against us. there are four things we need to consider doing about it. first, we need to keep the pressure on how much our own interceptors cost. it would be helpful to buy them this increasing economic quantities, but it's tough to do so under the increased budget

pressure that we're feeling. second, we can continue our emphasis on developing the technologies required to hit ballistic missiles and their launchers left of launch. we're optimistic about a number of initiatives in this area. we're putting a lot of work into it, but we have a long way to go. third, we and extend r & d effort to find a more cost effective way of knocking down missiles in flight by inverting the cost curve in the other correction direction. we're serious about pursuing those as options and they may bear fruit. finally, there's no shame in passive missile defense, such as denial, deception, mobility and hardening. our potential adver sears do these things, and there's no reason why we shouldn't, and are. first and most obvious is the claim that our missile defense systems won't work.

that we can't hit to kill help well, as i mentioned, fdgo 6 b was a statement in this regard about a year ago and we continue to make improvements. overall, the ground-based missile defense system is 4 for 7. there's nothing like having your most recent shot a success. and we have an excellent track record with our regional systems. to date, for our operationally configured interceptors, not development prototypes, thad is 11 for 11. aegis bmd is 21 for 25. and the patriot pak 3 is 21 for 25. that's not bad. but we're determined to make it better. >> the second thing, it's easy for an adversary to deploy countermeasures. we'll continue to do everything we can to improve our discrimination capability, but as hard as that job is, so is the challenge of deploying effective countermeasures.

whatever counter issue test is critical to the success of any complex weapons system when it comes to missile defense countermeasures our adversaries don't do much of that, which means they can't know how well they perform. we've had our own extensive countermeasure program and we've learned how difficult it is to get that right. kourn measures take up payload space and have weight consideration so there's also trade-offs there. so the bottom line is that it may not be as easy as it looks on paper. and the last misconception is the narrative that missile defense has to be 100% effective in order to be successful, especially where nuclear weapons are involved. no system can achieve perfection even though we always strive for it. it would be huberous to believe otherwise. so if deterrence does fail, we don't necessarily expect to stop every single missile, though to

be ursure, we will try. rather our systems are intended to deter an adversary by injecting consider doubt of the likelihood of his success versus our likely response. the enemy knows there will be a significant price to pay for missile launch against the united states. the worst of all worlds for an enemy is that the attack is not only not effective but invokes a nasty spngs from its victim. again, the two pillars of deterrence. i believe our missile defense interprize is on an upward trajectory. very healthy at the regional level and rapidly coming back in for the defense of our homeland. i give credit to jis admiral jim searing and his staff and pred sezors. shooting a bullet with a bullet is not an easy technical problem to solve. even harder when you're under time pressure and still harder

when the assets are expensive and difficult to test. but we continue to make progress. progress with our international partners, progress in developing, testing and fielding national and regional ballistic missile defense systems that are flexible survivalable and affordable and progress in investing and promising technology to ensure future systems will be capable of defeat the complex threats we expect to face in the future. as we all know, the advantage in warfare shifts look a pendulum between offense and defense over time. in our limited way, we're trying to shift that pendulum in favor of the defense, as far as ballistic missile threat goes. as uch innovation is leadership opportunity for this generation of missile defense practitioners. which is why i believe csis's effort to keep this topic alive is so very important. i thank you all for your interest in missile defense. i hope the discussion has been useful for you.

and i hope that you'll come away convinced even more of our commitment to this important contribution to our security and our allies' security and that we will continue to make progress. thank you very much and tom, i think we can take a couple of questions and after you do a little bit of moderation, we'll make a deal that the first question goes to a midshipmen. all right, fair enough, thank you. [ applause ] >> if it's a question i can't answer, i'm giving it to -- >> well, i think you really covered the landscape there. deterrence defense the offense-defense mix, everything. so one quick one, how do you see this missile defense kinetic and non-kinetic in terms of its priority in the third offset, in the electronic warfare that

deputy secretary talks so much about? >> we're doing a number of things in the third offset. and just for background, for the members of the audience who might not understand it. the secretary of defense has opinion innovation initiative that not only includes the department becoming more efficient, trying to get 21st century workforce in here, but also technical and conceptual advances that will give us a leap ahead with the first technical offset being nuclear weapons that would stop a russian invasion of western european second, precision guided weapons where you go from sorties per target to targets per sortie and the third one is out there, which may not be a magic bullet or interesting single technology. but a combination. among those, we're looking at what it would take to get another offset in the field of ballistic missile defense. that's where the cost curve comes in. we're doing such a good job with

the problem the way we're handling it now, but we have to keep the cost curve in mind, where we can't continue to buy very expensive interceptors to knock down an increasing proliferation of less expensive missiles. we're very, very interested in exploring that and i think the acdp we call it, will give those efforts a shot in the arm and know that mda is working on that very hard with the navy as well. >> all right we'll go ahead and take one over here. actually go ahead and get the microphone. >> thank you, sir for coming today and speaking on this. i'm mid shipmen third class david larkin. wi question is in the context of the cancellation of the european interceptor site under president bush and also the cancellation of phase 4 of the european phase

adaptive approach. both decisions to cancel the programs were made based on strategic objectives and information about north korea and iran. however, both of these decisions irritated our regional partners. so my question is how do our regional partners -- >> it's vital to regional missile defense systems. we very very closely consult with them on any type of offering that we make or cooperative effort that we do together. we couldn't do this without them and if they weren't there, we wouldn't be doing it in the first place. so absolutely we consult with them. i wouldn't go so far as to say that our regional partners were irritated about the shift. because they had to get agreement to do this in the first place, any nation has to

do that it was inconvenient for them to shift the way we were going to do it but it was very clear to them that we weren't shifting our ballistic defense of western europe. there was a much better way to do it. and we are actually bringing that better way to fruition today. and i would vouch that we consult very closely with members in the three regions europe, the middle east and asia on every aspect of ballistic missile defense and that's been a very fruitful process. japan and south korea have been very good partners in this regard. our partners have been interested in this the foreign military sales that we're going to do and it goes without saying that we've had a robust discussion within nato. it's a good question. are you a new third class or an upcoming second class? >> upcoming second class. >> congratulations. have a great cruise. >> we've got one back here in the back.

>> thank you very much. i'm josh rogan with bloomberg view. thank you for your time today and thank you for your service. i want to ask you about the inf treaty. russia is in violation of the inf treaty and i'm wondering if you could help us understand what options we have to respond to that violation if we were to increase capabilities for u.s. and nato partners in europe what might that look like and is that your personal recommendation to the president? thank you. >> the first thing i would say because it's under consideration i can't say much about it. that's only fair to the president to not remove his decision base in which is an important topic. it's something that congress is interested in it, obviously we're very interested in it. the first solution is for russia to stop doing this. that's the most important thing. our diplomats are working very hard. secretary kerry has spoken very recently, in fact to russian leadership about this. and that's the way out of this problem. if it doesn't look like that's

going to happen, then there of course, are options that i would place in two general categories. one is defensive and the other is offensive that would indicate to first of all, russia that this is not going to do them any good. it imposes cost pieces of deterrents and will reassure our partners about nt waing to keep russia's adherence to the treaty that we signed so long ago. >> all right. i think we've got one more right here in the front. i know you've got to run to another -- >> admiral john hudson with general foreign policy magazine. the russians obviously continue to make the point and you've tried to put the rest the european missile shield is not about threatening russia. in light of the emerging iran nuclear deal, russia has argued that a defense shield is no longer necessary and they've also according to u.s.

officials, been extremely helpful during the p5+1 talks. does russia have a valid point in bringing this up in light of the emerging p5+1 deal? >> just so i heard the question, first of all, if you look at the capacity of the system that we're installing in europe, this is the analog of the fact that our national ballistic defense missile system is not in line with russia. we don't have the capacity. with a large reasonably powerful country like russia could overwhelm that system fairly quickly. it's just not about them. they shouldn't worry about this. they should actually be encouraged that we are helping our allies there potentially defending iranian or other threatening from the regions. in regards to p5+1 this agreement is not concluded yet and once concluded you know we still have to make sure that iran sticks to it.

and a ballistic missile defense system isn't something that you turn on overnight. and, in fact it would probably take us long or longer to re-establish a missile defense system if iran decided to break out and build a nuclear weapon and the discussion that the p5+1 is having doesn't address ballistic missile threat at all. i think there's every reason for to us continue what we're doing in western europe with our nato allies. it doesn't threaten russia. and it does maintain a hedge against an iranian or other threat in the region or outside the region that could threaten our partners and it's really, to me, a no-brainer to keep this program question. >> a real quick question before you go. real quick. >> thank you. two short questions. one is what would be the

effective defense mechanism if [ inaudible ] threat is going to arise in a couple of years and if formal con ser tags between two countries begin, what would be the goal of the negotiations? in purchasing from korea or partner sharing or you just want u.s. deployed there to [ inaudible ]. thank you. >> i'm not sure i understood the first question. >> the slbm, the slbm threat, this is the potential north korean missile there are a number of ways you can go after an slbm threat, including taking out the submarine that is carrying it. it goes without saying if you can put together a hypothetical scenario, any of you could do this, if submarine gets under way, it appear it is might have an intent it would be in

everybody's interest to not allow that to happen. if it successfully launched and one of the things that north koreans do is don't test their missiles, they can't have very great confidence in something like this. again, if it launches and doesn't work boy, they are in such trouble because we will have seen their intent. but if it were launched, theoretically, we would have our regional ballistic defenses to be able to defend against that threat whether it be against japan or south korea. and in terms of a future, i don't want to speculate on what the configuration would be of a morrow bust missile system inside south korea. our partner nations need to contribute to defending their own soil but we're potentially interested in helping with that particularly since we have so many troops on the ground in south korea.

i'll leave it to the diplomats. we did not open up any kind of a discussion formally with south korea on this particular topic. when it's ripe, i'm sure we'll get into that. we have such great respect for our partners. >> well thank you. this has been an offense, defense, operational cruise missile. thank you for your time. i know you've got to run but i also want to briefly say this is an ongoing project and your national security project. we'll see more of this stuff and i want to thank our program sponsor for putting this event on today. >> thank you for hosting it. [ applause ]

with live coverage of c-span 3, we show you the most congressional hearings and public affairs events and then on weekends c-span 3 is home of american history tv including six unique series the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts, touring museums to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history bookshelf the best-known american history writers, the presidency, looking at the policies and legacies of our commanders in chief lectures in history with top college professors delving into america's past. archival educational films from the 1930s through the 1970s. c-span 3, funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us on hd or "like" us on facebook and follow us on

twitter. >> here are a few of the book festivals. we'll close out may in new york city where they showcase the books and we're live, including our three-hour live in-depth program. your phone calls, that's this spring on c-span 2's book tv. tonight on c-span 3, a hearing on the consumer product safety commission. joint chiefs vice chair admiral james whitfield and senator joan manchin and ways to discuss youth violence. the consumer product safety

commission is an independent federal agency that regulates the sale and manufacture of thousands of consumer-related products. the chairs and commissioners were at a house hearing today to discuss the agency's regulatory activities. congressman michael burgess chairs the subcommittee on commerce manufacturing and trade. chairman will turn on his microphone while the guests take their seats. we will now come to order. the chair will recognize himself five minutes for the purpose of an opening statement. the consumer product safety commission was established in 1972 by congress to protect

consumers against unreasonable risks of injuries associated with consumer products. the statutory mission is a serious responsibility for the commission and is critically important that congress conduct oversight to ensure that public confidence in the commission's adherence to its responsibilities and stewardsship of the taxpayers dollar. i'd like to thank chairman kai and adler and buerkle for their statements today. the rov in-depth examination act and open rov rule making that has garnished substantial bipartisan for both sides of the capital. difficult budget decisions are being made across the government and it's critical that agencies are held accountable.

particular concern about the role of sound, scientific principles at the commission, the interaction between the commission and regulated industries, the rule-making agenda and the execution of congressional mandates for third-party burden reduction and the continued request for new authority to impose user fees. there is a fundamental constitutional issue with moving the power of the purse from congress to a regulatory agency with no experience in dispersing fees. a wide range of open agenda items at the commission require significant scientific evaluation and testing to nano technology to window curves to recreational off-road vehicles. the commission has a capacity to base its decision on supportable scientific findings and for an agency to move away from science and scientific principles as may

have happened with the chronic hazard advisory panel report where even the office management guidelines for peer review were ignored. the commission's authorizing statute is based upon the presumption that the preferred regulation for product safety. safety is a strong incentive for both parties. there are a number of open rule makings that fundamentally change the relationship between the commission and the regular la regulated industry that the threats to consumer safety are created by 10% of the participants, it seems counterintuitive to put barriers between the commission and regulated industry when the common ground is consumer safety. this is especially so where resources are always going to dictate the commission will need help from industry in identifying problems. one open rule making

fundamentally changes the fast track voluntary recall process an award-winning program established 20 years ago to address long recall processes which has produced tremendous results. under this program last year, 100% of recalls were initiated within 20 days, the positive impact for consumers is real when potentially dangerous products can be taken off the shelves in days instead of weeks or months. finally, there has been bipartisan support to reduce third-party testing burdens for small businesses around the united states. in 2011, congress passed hr 2615 with explicit instructions to the commission to evaluate in good faith but the commission has struggled to carry out this statutory requirement even with additional funding. 3 1/2 years later, small businesses are reporting they still have not seen any real burden reductions and are facing

seemingly endless comment rounds but no real solutions. we are here to make certain that we are doing what we can to prevent tragic and unfortunate injuries however the funds for the commission are difficult to justify when there are so many questions about the scientific methodology used by the commission to support the regulatory agenda and how the administrative procedure act solicited comments are incorporated through the rule-making process and how the commission operates without bipartisan support for many initiatives. the consumer product safety commission mission must remain a touchstone for important work and not driven by headlines rather than science and economics. sectional approach compromises the trust in an agency that has successfully removed thousands of unsafe consumer products from the economy from product -- from consumer shelves as well as the voluntary safety standards

that builds safety into the products on the front to end. the chair will recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee miss schakowsky for the purpose of an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman for holding this important hearing about consumer product safety commission. the commission and its mission protecting consumers from unsafe products is very near and dear to my heart. i began work as a consumer advocate many moons ago as a young mother working to get freshness dates on food. so when you look at the date on food, mua. and i know how important it is that consumers have access to health and safety information about the products that they purchase and use and that they are protected against harmful products. in 2008, the landmark consumer product safety improvement act was signed into law by president

bush. the bill was brought by bipartisan and the responsibilities into decades. i also want to thank some of the advocates here in this room. i appreciate their work. the bill passed the committee 51-0 and a house vote of 424-1. it was slightly amebded again on a bipartisan basis in 2011 and legislation gave the cpsd additional authority so it could become the consumer watchdog that americans should come to expect. there are provisions to the bill requiring mandatory standards and testing for infant and toddler products, such as cribs a he high-chairs. i added to the reform bill a requirement for postal paid recall registration cards to be attached to products so that customers can be quickly notified if products are dangerous. the cpsc has been incredibly

successful in efforts to protect consumers in the last few years there. was 34% reduction in product recalls in 2013 to 2014. the 75 childrens product recalls in 2014 was the lowest number in more than a decade. thank you very much. we have seen enhanced proactive outreach to provide consumers with information about the dangers and best practices associated with everything from window blinds to electric generators to lawn mowers and we've seen rule making to reduce the likelihood of preventible tragedies. i applaud the commission on its important work. while i'm disappointed that we move forward with this hearing on a day that commission robinson was unable to appear, i look forward to hearing the information from the other consumers about the cpsc's work and next step. this will provide analysis of the hr 999 the riot act which

is statutory authority rule making affecting recreational off-road vehicles rovs, until a study is completed at the national academy of ascience, it's not clear why this is needed. taking into account the input of technical experts the private sector and the public. i'm also not sure why the national academy of sciences would analyze the feasibility, among other things, providing consumers with safety information at the point of sale while the nas is a highly skilled staff, marketing consumer analysis is not its strong suit and makes no sense that nas would be required to consider the rule making on rovs used in the military. the cpsc is responsible for consumer products, not military vehicles. i believe this legislation is a delay tactic, pure and simple.

it would delay the implementation of the cpsc's consumer focussed rule and enhanced safety and increased consumer information. it's not as if this rule making is moving too fast. the risk of rov death is not a new one and the public comment period for the rov rule making is currently open. there's nothing preventing the supporters of this legislation from making their concerns and their suggestions known. that's the way the process is supposed to work. what we cannot do is usher in a long delay for the sake of delay. the 335 rov-related deaths and 506 injuries from 2003 to 2013 i think it's time to act to enhance rov safeguards, not tie the hands of the cpsc. again, i look forward to hearing from our witnesses, thank them for coming today and i yield

back. >> thank you, general lady yields back to chair recognizes miss blackburn five minutes for an opening statement, please. >> thank you mr. chairman. and i want to say thank you to our witnesses. we appreciate that you are here. you know 2008 was really the year of the recall and since that point in time, we have been very interested in the work that you're doing and have looked at your deliverables and your outcomes. now, one of the things that is of tremendous concern to us -- and i've got to tell you i heard a lot about this during small business week, which was just a couple of weeks ago and i was out about in my district visiting with small businesses, visiting with some retailers and there are a lot of complaints that are coming about the way you all are going about your task. and some of the unnecessary burdens that are being put on

retailers and on businesses and changes in reporting requirements. and i've got to tell you, i think there's a lot of unhappiness with the american public and how you were doing your job. i would say, too, there's probably some confusion as to what your mission statement is and how you are meeting that. now, i think it's fair to say that as we look at the cost of business and the cost to consumers and a cost ben mit analysis, what we want to do is drill down with you a little bit. we share the same goal being certain that the supply chain is safe that products are safe when consumers get those products. there are different ways to go about this. and we want to make certain that there is an accountability issue, a transparency issue and a fairness issue or standards

that are being met. so we will have questions and we'll move forward with those. i also want to take a moment and welcome our former colleague, commissioner buerkle. it's wonderful to see you back in these halls and in a hearing room and we appreciate the work that you are doing. and with that, mr. chairman i'm going to yield the balance of my time to mr. pompeo for a statement. >> thank you, madam vice chairman. thank you all for being here today, chairman kaye and your colleagues today. we have an obligation, just as you do to make sure that the cpsc is implemented in a way that is useful and the economics and safety balanced just right. i think with respect to the rov rule that y'all put forward there's a lot of work that can be done. the industry is trying to get to a good outcome, that is a better place than the rule making that this proceeding will end up. i was out last week, too.

i was actually on an rov vehicle out in kansas in the woods, wore my helmet did all of the things right and i'm here today to tell about it, which is good. i hope we can get this right. the legislation that i've proposed isn't aimed at delaying, it's aimed at getting a good outcome. it may cause a little more time and thoughtfulness and work to be done but i hope we can get that right that we can get the best science and the best engineering associated with getting these rules in the right place and get a voluntary put that industry can do the right thing and get these vehicles in a safe place to the right people and i hope and look forward to working with you to see if we can achieve that. with that i'll yield back my time. >> i thank the gentleman and does any other member seek the balance of my time? none so doing, i yield back, mr. chairman. >> gentle lady yields back. the chair recognizes the democratic side for an opening

statement. >> all right. mr. chairman if i could just submit for the record mr. pallone's opening statement. >> without objection so ordered. that completes the opening statements. the chair would like to remind members that opening statements will be made a part of the record. we'll now hear from our witnesses. i want to welcome all of our witnesses and thank you for taking time to testify before the subcommittee. today's hearing will consist of two panels. each panel of witnesses will have the opportunity to give an opening statement followed by a round of questions for members. once we conclude questions with the first panel we will take a brief -- underscore brief recess for the second panel. we have the following witnesses testifying on behalf of the consumer product safety commission. chairman elliott f. kaye thank

you for your attendance, commissioner robert adler and we welcome you, sir, and commissioner ann marie buerkle. commissioner joseph p. thank you for being here today. chairman kaye, you're recognized for five minutes for purposes of an opening statement please. >> good morning, chairman burgess and schakowsky and members of the subcommittee. thank you for the invitation to come speak about the work of the united states consumer product safety commission and our proposed budget for fiscal year 2016. i am pleased to be joined by my friends and colleagues from the commission. commissioners adler buerkle and the vital health and safety commission touches us all in some way every day.

from the parents of the baby who gently moves his or her from crib to baby bouncer to stroller and back to the crib where the self-employed millennial relies on a room fan to stay cool and extension cord to power a computer, to help care for an ijing parent, the jurisdiction is we provide an slept return on investment for the american people. we run a lean operation and we cover thousands of different kinds of consumer products that the budget in the millions not the billions. we are very appreciative of the continued bipartisan support for the commission and our work. we solve the support in the nearly unanimous vote to pass the improvement act in 2008 and passage to cpsia in 2011. your support has allowed our

dedicated staff to drive standards development to make childrens products safer to better educate consumers about product-related hazards. our staff has also been hard at work trying to reduce costs associated with third-party testing while also assuring compliance with the law. congress' inclusion of the current fiscal year has enhanced those efforts. i would emphasize prioritizing those actions most likely to provide the greatest amount of relief, especially to small businesses. we are set to consider at least three different regulatory changes to provide relief this fiscal year with more in the works. while the burden reduction is sure compliance succeeds, our efforts to carry out and enforce cpsia is reflected in our proposed budget. unfortunately, not all of those priorities and requirements are achievable at our current levels. for that reason, we are pleased

to see the president include in his budget two important safety initiatives, both initiatives, if funded, will advance consumer safety and provide real value to those making or importing safety products. first, we are seeking a permanent funding mechanism to allow the agency to comply with the congressional charge in section 222 of the cpsia. section 222 called on the commission to work with customs and border protection and develop a risk assessment methodology to identify the consumer products likely to violate any of the acts we enforce out of all of the consumer products imported into the united states. to meet our mandate in 20011 we created a small-scale pilot that has been a success. however, the pilot alone does not fulfill the direction of congress and without full implementation, we will not be able to integrate cpsc into the much larger u.s. government-wide effort to create a single window

for import and export filing of all products. if cpsc can be fully integrated into the single window we can transform congress' vision of a national scope risk-based into reality, a reality that would meet faster entry for importers of compliant products and safer products in the hands of american consumers. our proposed budget also seeks to address critical emerging and safety questions -- emerging health and safety questions associated with the rapidly growing use of nano materials in consumer products. in light of the questions raised in the scientific community about the effects inhalation of certain nano particles might have on human lungs to asbestos exposure, as it relates to human exposure, especially to children from consumer products. finally, i would like to discuss

an additional priority of mine, one that is not reflected in dollars but to me at least makes a lot of sense. how we at the cpsc do what we do is often just as important as what we do. since day one in this position i have worked daily to try to establish a certain culture among the five of us at the commission level. the commission and more importantly, the american public are far better served by an agency where we operate at the commission level in a culture of civility collaboration and constructive dialogue. thank you again for the invitation to speak to you about the cpsc and life-saving work undertaken by our staff. i look forward to answering questions that you may have. >> chair, gentleman yields back. the chair yields miss buerkle for her statement, please. >> thank you mr. chairman, and good morning ranking member schakowsky and distinguished

members of this committee. thank you for holding today's hearing with regards to the consumer product safety commission. i've had the honor of serving alongside many of the subcommittee members in the 112 congress and i'm delighted to be back here on capitol hill in my capacity as a commissioner at the cpsc. i do hope that today's hearing strengthen's our partnership. i've been a commissioner at agency since july of 2013. throughout this time what has continued to impress me is the dedication of the cpsc staff. the commission of safety is taken very seriously. the regulated committee has also impressed me. not only was their eagerness to comply with our regulations but also with the drive to innovate and advance safety. i'm thankful too, for the tone set by our chairman and enjoyed by my colleagues. we offer differ on significant policy issues but those differences are discussed in a mute actually respective manner.

i stress three general priorities. collaboration, education and balance. number one it is crucial that cpsc builds strong relationships with all stakeholders. we can tap the knowledge and expertise of many outside experts. this is especially important in the regulated community. if we inspire cooperation rather than hostility we'll see quicker designs and removal of defective products for the consumer. that's why i'm troubled by the higher civil penalties changes to retailer reporting and the proposals known as voluntary recall in 6b. without question, i believe these undermine engagement and collaborative efforts. number two education. it's crucial to our commission. we need to make the regulated committee aware of best practices and be honest about what we are intending to

achieve. more importantly we need to engage the consumer. helping them to take advantage of safer products available to them. a prime candidate for a comprehensive educational campaign is the education of window coverings. this will prevent unfortunate injuries and death. number three while consumer safety is our top priority, i believe that that safety can be achieved in a balanced reasonable way that does not unnecessarily burden the regulated committee, deprive consumers of product they prefer or assert government into the market where it does not belong. our statutes express standards rather than mandatory standards. where mandatory standards are unavoidable, the cpsa adequately addresses the risk. mandatory stresses have unintended consequences. they tend to stagnate.

it makes sense therefore, to revisit our rules periodically and make sure they are effective without stifling innovation. i am pleased that the commission voted unanimously last week for retrospective review of our rules and hope it will become a more regular activity of the commission. regulation is a necessary function of the government and the consumer product safety action improved our authority. it is clear it forced regulation without regard to risk let alone cost. this subcommittee led the way in moderating the consequences for its work which passed into public law while i was a member of the house. some objectives of that law remain unfulfilled. last year the house included $1 million in our 2015 and to kickstart test burden reduction. there is still much more we can do to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens in this arena

and i do look forward to working with this committee on those unresolved cpsia issues. the common goal among all of us congress cpsc industry and consumers is safety. we are all people who have families for whom we want safe products. i have six children and six grandchildren. i do not want dangerous products hurting them or anyone. however, the united states government cannot and should not try to create a zero risk society. the solutions we seek should be balanced and address actual problems. consumers should be protected from unreasonable risks while the regulated committee is protected from an arbitrary government. thank you for this time today and i look forward to taking care of any questions that you might have. >> the gentle lady chair recognizes commissionered a adler.

>> thank you for the opportunity to appear along with my fellow commissioners today. i'm pleased to be able to testify about an agency that i've been associated with in some fashion since this establishment 40 years ago. at the outset i point out that we are far and away the safety agencies with the current funding level of 123 million in a staff of roughly 560 ftds. i want to put that in perspective. for fy 2016, we've asked for an appropriation of $129 million, an increase of roughly $6 million. by way of comparison our sister agency fda has asked for roughly $4.9 billion in an fy 2016 which is an increase of roughly $148 million. or to put it more succinctly, fda has asked for an increase larger than the entire budget. notwithstanding our modest budget, our scope is extremely widen compassing roughly 16

categories kwoour products found in homes and schools and recreational settings. given this broad jurisdiction the agency has adopted a database approach using the highly skilled technical staff to figure out which products present the greatest risk. and we address them using our regulatory and educational tools in a way designed to minimize market disruption while always making consumer safety our top priority. we don't operate alone. we've always sought to include our various stakeholder partners in a quest to eliminate unreasonable risks. included in this group is our friends in the business and consumer communities as well as the standard development bodies that work closely with the agency. and i want to note, looking from the perspective of 40 years just how much good work has been done. that's been an estimated 30% decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over this 40 years. and let me just cite a few

statics particularly pertaining to children. over this period of time we've seen an 83% drop in childhood poisoning, a 73% drop in crib deaths, an 86% reduction in baby walker injuries and almost complete elimination of childhood sufficient foe indication in refrigerators. i'd also like to mention the tremendous strides that the agency has taken to implement the consumer product safety improvement act, which has been noted, was approved by the house by a vote of 424-1, signed by president bush on august 4th 2008. among the things we've done to implement the law, stringent rules on children's products, prom mol gated the strongest safety standards for cribs in the word. we've made mandatory a comprehensive toy standard we've written and continued to write a series of durable infant products like play yards and strollers and developed new

approaches to catching dangerous imported products which we helped to expand. since i last appeared before this committee the commission has experienced a significant turnover in members. in fact, i'm the last one standing. although i missed my former colleague, i'm pleased to welcome as new colleagues chairman elliott kaye and kmirgs commissioner buerkle. they are a joy to work with. they have sharpened my thinking on aest ho host of issues and have brought a new era to civility. we disagree vigorously sometimes on issues but we listen to and trust one another in ways that i have not seen in this agency in many, many years. final point, mr. chairman i'd like to reiterate my concern about a set of issues around a critical demographic that i don't think has received enough information and that is senior citizens, a group of which i am a proud member.

cpsc data showed the second most vulnerable population after kids is adults over 65. and i note this is a rapidly growing group due to the aging of baby boomers and the greater longevity of our citizens. in the interesting statistic there are more of us in the over 65 age group in this country than people in canada. but what's particularly troubling to me is that seniors while comprising only 13% of the population, account for 65% of our consumer product related deaths. and by 2020, they, we, will be 20% of the u.s. population. so given my concerns while acting chair i work with staff to create a senior safety initiative which is ongoing in which i hope to have the congress included and hope to work with you. thank you for your time and look forward to your questions. >> gentleman yields back. thank you, gentleman. chair recognizes you five

minutes. >> thank you, chairman burgess and ranking members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to be here. i will keep my opening remarks very brief and focus only on one element of evolving cpsc policy and that is our import surveillance. this is one area that i think we can dramatically improve our efficiency and effectiveness. while we're better targeting illegitimate inbound consumer products, i believe we can do more to facilitate legitimate trade through public/private partnerships. with those importers voluntarily willing to have greater scrutiny, not unlike similar programs like tsa and fda. i can envision a modernized import surveillance program where harmful and noncompliant consumer goods and legitimate cargo carries down the stream of

commercial without disruption. this concept and model moves beyond incremental increases in targeting to a more evolved account-base demonstrate tif commitment to making safe products. but to earn cpsc's trust, traders would undergo thorough reviews of the supply chain competencies, clearly demonstrate a culture of compliance reflecting the highest standards. membership would have its privileges. to attract applicants trader status would offer fewer inspections and vast or more predictable time to market. should the trust be violated, the government's response would be swift and sure. no discussion of cpsc is complete without addressing the $36 million annual funding level we outlined in our most recent budget request and user fees we hope will pay for it. i'm not entirely convinced of

the legality of the fee mechanism. moreover, while i'm generally supportive of what to spend that money on i look forward to further discussions to develop a more nuanced understanding of that expenditure. however, my potential support for that spending whether from user fees or from appropriations is predicated on implementation of a properly resourced trusted trader program capable of attracting robust participation. if we're going to ask for more money, particularly if it comes from the various i ammporters if we can develop the confidence necessary to take those good actor's shipments out of our haystack, finding the needles will be that much easier. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks to gentleman. the chair would note it appears

that the good feelings is now settled upon the consumer products safety commission. you all referenced how well you work together. the chair takes that as a good sign as we move forward. and, again, i want to thank you all for being in our hearing. we'll now move into the question portion of the hearing. each member will have five minutes for questions and chairman kaye, let me begin. and again thank you for your willingness to be here and i apologize for having to reschedule during a snow day unexpected snowfall in march that caught a lot of us by surprise. but thank you for your flexibility and rescheduling. the budget for fiscal year '16 requests the -- the commission requests new commission authority to impose undefined user fees on i ammporters. i think i've already shared with you i have misgivings about that and would really welcome further

discussion from the commission as to how these user fees not just how they are collected but how they are dispersed or paid into the treasury and then subject to appropriations by the appropriations committee or are they fees that are retained within the agency for use within the agency? so i would like some clarification about that and i've just reminded members, we are the appropriation season. the appropriations for the consumer products safety commission comes through the appropriation bill. we want to be vigilant about that and make certain that we do pay attention to the agency during the aproppropriations. in the commission's performance budget request to congress, the

targeted percentage of entries sampled is identified through the fiscal year 2016 but only labeled baseline and fiscal year '16, the target is to be decided. are we on the brink of nationalizing a pilot program where we don't know the metrics for inspection and evaluation? >> thank you, mr. chairman. no, we're not on the brink of recognizing a government program even though the government is on the brink of nationalizing the electronic fig which electronic filing. we want to make sure it's as close as possible by december 2016 when the system that customs and border protection runs to receive electronic filing is up and running and there is truly one single window that we are not creating an unnecessary disruption to the market by not being a part of that. as we envision in our

appropriations request a permanent mechanism one way or the other would allow the agency to collect and retain the funds solely for the purpose of funding this program. it wouldn't be used for any other reason. there's a long history of agencies with border authorities doing this. we took the time to study those other agencies and worked with the office of management and budget to come up with the preferred method to not reinvent the wheel so cpsc could do its part with the single window. >> that's some of the activities of the other agencies and departments that has been the genesis for my concern about this. again, we are coming into the appropriations and i want to be careful. but on this single window issue commissioner, perhaps you can address this as well i was on the committee in 110th congress. that's the committee that did the reauthorization of the cpsc and the safety bill and i became very concerned we did hearings

chairman rush was sitting in this chair at the time but the -- that was the year that so many things were imported into the country and then found to be problematic. there didn't seem to be a way to stop them and then the concern came to what happens with all of this stuff in warehouses that's offloaded by long shoremen in long beach, california? nobody is saying you deal with it, other country that shouldn't have sent this stuff to us in the first place because your attention was lax. so are we any better off today than we were in 2007 or 2008 as far as containing things that came into the country that may be hazardous? >> thank you dr. burgess. in short, i think we are in a much better decision than we were before. one of the points i reminds folks of i'm the only nonlawyer on this commission. so i think in terms of metrics,

from my formal education being the only mba, i think in terms of things being risk return on investment. in applying that to public service, i think about safety return on investment and i'm committed to the fact that the investment and evolution of our import targeting activities and sophistication of those strategies is the greatest safety return on investment that we can apply in terms of our resources and budget. it completely bypasses the difficulties that you mentioned mr. kmar man, with regard to recall effectiveness, et cetera and will ensure that we don't have to learn from bad experience. of course before us we have the potential to scale up into a nationalized program a very significant program. do i believe that we have a proof of concept and do we have reason to move forward based on the success of our pilot project?

the answer for me is absolutely. but, again, i think we do have to look at it more closely the significant i.t. spin so it will be able to yield the kind of targets and targeting effectiveness that we hope to achieve as well as the operationalization. i was in the conformity testing business for eight years. i've had to scale up massive supply chain testing operations and with that you expect to see significant economies of scale. that's something that i have yet to see in terms of the operational scope that we have identified but i'm sure further communication will identify that. >> and i'm certain that it will. it may even in this hearing. i'll yield back my time. recognize miss schakowsky. >> like you, i identify as a senior citizen and wonder what you anticipate what will be or

already is part of this commission senior safety initiative. >> well thank you very much for the question. the first thing i'd like to announce is that we are participating in a 2015 healthy aging summit sponsored by hhs held on july 27th and july 28th eight commission will be in there a listening mode. one of the things that i ask the staff to do was to look at mechanical hazards because that seems to be the area where seniors suffer the most and one of the issues that we addressed was what can you do with respect to senior citizens when other citizens who are not senior citizens use the same product. >> what do you mean by mechanical hazards? >> falls, sawings cuts lacerations, things along those lines. >> uh-huh. >> and so what the staff has done, i think is a very smart thing. they've first looked to see products that present unique

hazards and they are intended for senior citizens, such as bed rails and these panic buttons that seniors wear if they fall. the next thing they've looked at is products that present disproportionate risks to seniors but that also present unreasonable risks to the public at large and a product there, i would say, would be table saws. and then even with respect to products where the commission might find that there's disproportionate injury to seniors, the staff is looking into areas where we can at least alert seniors that they are attic risk of harm and caregivers as well. i think it's a fairly comprehensive program that we're doing and i'm delighted that the staff has taken to this with such enthusiasm. >> well, as the co-chair let's stay in touch on that. i'm really interested. i wanted to get to the issue of

flammability standards. i note the consumer product safety commission has the authority under the flammable fabric act to issue standards. and i know there are some promulgated children's products and it's possible to contribute to flame resistant chemicals that pose health risks. an early reporter about this the average american baby is born with the highest recorded levels of flame retardants among infants in the world. and i know recent studies have linked flame retardant chemicals to a wide variety of adverse healthy effects endocrine disruption developmental disruptions and cancer, et

cetera. so my question, really, is if we, one, have any studies or information demonstrating the flammability standards promulgated reduced fire-related injuries and if you have any plans to revisit to find out if the issue of the flame retardants themselves is a danger. >> thank you chairwoman. i don't know if i can do justice to this topic in a minute 23 but certainly the commissioner pointed out in the beginning, thanks to large part the fire community and cpsc staff over time and i believe this is attributable to some of the flammability standards, especially with clothing in children's pajamas, there's been a reduction of fire-related incidents but the issue that you're speaking to is flame retardants. i'm not aware that they have

been proven to be effective and i'm aware of some of the studies that go to the potential health concern and i can say to you that it bothers me even more as a regulator, it bothers me as a parent of two young children that there has to be uncertainty about the products that we interact with and the chemicals in them. a perfect example of that is a couch. most don't view a couch as a potential flammable product but if the foam is doused in an attempt to cigarette fires end up getting in the dust and children as we know go under couches and put their hands in their mouth, if it's true that it's had a very negative impact on the health of children, it's a significant concern of ours. >> and on certain usefulness and reducing flammability. >> correct. one of the things that i've tried to do at my level is talk to our officer agencies who have overlapping jurisdictions and similar interests in this area to try to get the government working more cohesively to address this uncertainty.

i think consumers deserve to know answers to these questions as quickly as possible. >> what are the other agencies? >> the epa fda, cbc and the national toxicology program as part of the national institutes of health and the national institute of environmental health sciences. >> thank you. i yield back. >> chair, thanks to gentle lady. the chair recognizes gentle lady from tennessee for five minutes, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman kaye let me come to you first. commissioner buerkle mentioned in reference the million dollars that my amendment put into advancing the consumer product safety improvement act. and i just want to ask you what you all have done to reduce that third party testing requirement where you are in that process, how you're putting that million dollars to work. >> thank you for the $1 million it's made a big difference.

as soon as it was appropriated we moved the amendment to our operating blend to allocate that $1 million to seven different projects that we identified, primarily based on stakeholder feedback to try to get to this issue. there are three projects that staff is close to sending up to the commission for us to vote on to try to provide some of that relief. as i mentioned in my opening statement, my direction to staff has been to prioritize those actions that will have the widest potential benefit to small businesses. >> okay. let me ask you this. in your letter to senator thune, you identified three areas for the determinations of lead content, finding international toy standards and then guidance allowing for third-party testing exemptions. >> those are three separate areas that my staff and i continue to work on and have discussions on.

in total, you're talking about ten different projects. >> okay. commissioner, do you want to respond? >> i'd love to. thank you. it's perfectly logical to wonder commitment of the commission behind reducing third party test burden and why we achieved little in terms of results, that's because we are replying to proposals and unreasonable interpretation of our statute. this language with assuring compliance. the problem is quickly it is ichb consistent with established cpsc policy. if you look at the component part testing rule which was noncontroversial. >> you're in a bureaucratic quagmire. >> absolutely. >> so you can't get to the outcome, the deliverable, because you're still talking among yourselves. >> not until we change that standard. >> what's the time line for getting it finished? we want this finished. so when are you going to have it finished by. >> we have three in the next few months to vote on then we have -- >> give me two months three

months, what do you mean. >> within june the first up and two more by september. >> i mentioned a lot of dissatisfaction, the way you're going at the 1110 rule, all of the public comment september one was against that. but i think what i am hearing is you move forward with a little more of a heavy hand than what you would represent to us. and you say you want to be engaging the industry and you want to be collaborative but the feedback i'm getting those are your words but your actions are much more heavy handed that you've determined what you want is the outcome, thereby you're going to let people think they're participating but in the end you're the rule maker and you're going to get your

way. so do you feel like that is a collaborative atmosphere in trying to work with the industry and how would you describe to those type of comments made about the way you all are approaching rule making. >> is that for me? >> yes you're the chairman. >> is that specific to 1110 rule or more general? >> it is specifically to 1110, but in general when it comes to dealing with industry. >> sure the 1110 rule is in definite pause. i was not the chairman when that came up, that was not part of what i worked on as soon as i became chairman i engaged staff and worked with them to be sure they were doing more collaborative engagement -- >> are you still advancing that? >> it is not moving now. >> going to put it completely in pause? >> it is in pause.

completely paused. what we have been doing is working with stakeholder community through an advisory panel on the issue of the single window and imports. we are running a pilot coming out, fr notice in a few months. and we are trying to get it right. we are having those exact collaborations collaborations. >> my time is out, i have one other question. but i will submit that to you in writing, thank you all. i yield back. >> thanks. the chair recognizes mr. olson five minutes for questions. >> i thank the chair and welcome to our witnesses, especially welcome to former house cleb anne marie buerkle. i want to talk about nano technology. as a 1985 graduate of rice university of houston, texas we are proud that two of our professors won the nobel prize for nano technology.

in fact, dr. swal ee caught me chemistry 102. so it is very special. chairman kaye. i wrote you a letter february 25th about this issue, the fact that your budget requests for 5 million more for nano technology at the research center is almost 85% of the proposed budget increase. that caught my eye. i appreciate response to my letter. i ask consent to enter the letter and response for the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. i have a few questions to clarify issues from your letter. you state that the reason that cpsc needs 5 million is for a new research center is because your work has, quote identified significant data gaps regarding exposure to nano materials from nano products. can you elaborate what the data gaps are? >> absolutely. it is not only that we identified, congressman, those

data gaps it is that the larger nano technology initiative. nni, the collaboration would want to see the nni working groups identified this data gap and it goes to understanding the exposure from consumer products that have nano materials in them. and so there's plenty, there's a billion dollars, more than a billion -- billions that has been spent by the federal government on advancing nano technology, but none of that or very little of that money has gone to understanding the specifics of consumer product exposure, which is unique exposure. if you have a child out swinging a tennis racket and every time the child hits a ball, nano particles fly off and the child is breathing those in and those particles mirror asbestos, these are critical health and safety requests that we want to get at and are in the requests. >> you listed four categories as

criteria for success. first is to develop robust test methods to determine and characterize human exposure to nano materials. what defines a robust testing method? >> that's what i leave to toxicologists. that's what this working group has been working on with money congress has been giving us and that we in conjunction with national science foundation as well as a number of manufacturers and agencies would hope to get to answers at. i am not a technical expert. i can't decide what reaches that threshold of reobustness, but we have expertise in the staff level to meet that. i want to staff the center with 12 scientists, 15 technicians 10 post doctoral students and 12 graduate students. these come from current staff or outside? >> i think from outside part of the funding.

>> how much expertise does current staff have ochb nano technology issues. >> we have a phenomenal toxicologist who is our representative in this space with other agencies on nni, but admittedly it is not a deep bench chlts we try to hire internally and procure test materials we may not need. we are trying to do cost efficient way of building a cost effective model and pursue through nsf. >> what kinds of interaction do you have with stakeholders? >> there's a good amount of interaction, our staff reports back. >> nni and other agencies work nano with yourselves or primary agency? epa, what other agencies? >> department of defense, homeland security, many agencies are part of nni. >> that's my questions. yield back by saying go rockets.

>> chair thanks the gentleman. gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes mr. guthrie from kentucky five minutes for your questions, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was preparing for the hearing today, i talked about commissioner buerkle, showed up it is you. glad to have you back. i didn't realize that you were in this role and always enjoyed serving with you as mr. pompeo spent time in the state of new york, always fun to talk about you about what was going on back there. i have a question. table saw manufacturers in my district, and i understand the cpsc has begun a special study of national electronic injury surveillance system data to obtain information about the type of table saws involved with incidents and other information about incidents. and this study began july 2014 and concerns me because it seems to me, and i am not sure, but seems to me no outreach to

members of the industry by cpsc for this study and for years the industry tried to work cooperatively with cpsc and input had been of value. commissioner buerkle was there any outreach to industry representatives regarding this special study? >> thank you it is good back to be here on capitol hill. in fact, a specific request was made we would reach out to industry and allow them to participate and survey and it did not happen. i think that goes to the point i made earlier about collaboration and outreach. i think it is incumbent upon the agency to make sure we have these conversations with industry beforehand, whether before a surveyor before it is a proposed rule, we engage with them so we go forward and get the right information. i will say that nice is one of the -- it is a data collection

system that we use, and it avails us of a lot of very helpful information. to that end, that's an important project. having stakeholder engagement before the survey goes out i think is critical. >> a lot of them are concerned about mandating certain technologies particularly patent questions mandating a specific technology in a federal standard, and patent concerns have been raised through the table saw discussions over the years. is the commission aware that there are 140 patents related to proposed technology held by the petitioner to mandate this technology on all table saws? >> are you referring that question to me? >> yes, ma'am. >> let me say this. quite frankly, quite honestly, my colleague commissioner adler, this is his pet project and i don't mean to pass the buck because this is not a priority of mine nor do i think it should be a priority of the agency, to your point about patents and concerns about that i have tremendous concerns about that. but it is not a project quite frankly that i think