expended, but how effective the expenditure those resources have been. particularly with respect to contracting because it can be -- it can be an invisible world if you're not careful. >> very good. i appreciate the fact thaw do have some experience with contracting, with program management and of course logistics, important bottom line. so, thank you. one other question as well. i know tsa has committed to supporting a number of our veterans and hiring veterans. veterans make up a large portion of positions within the tsa, such as transportation security officers. and as they are uniquely qualified, i believe, for the civilian positions in the security space is there even more that can be done at the tsa to recruit more of our veterans into the tsa? >> that's a wonderful question.

i don't have an answer for you right now, but i will tell you, i'm -- i agree with you that our veterans provide a wonderful potential source of employment. these are people who know what it means to serve an important mission and who know how to accomplish that mission. i think there is room for that. if confirmed, i'll look at how that's currently being done and i'll look for opportunities to take advantage of that and to increase it where potentially possible. >> very good. thank you. last very briefly, we did have some questions about the precheck program that came out from yesterday's hearing. and we heard a lot from a number of the different witnesses that expressed concerns about the precheck program and maybe how it's being expanded too much and there are security risks with that. could you address some of the precheck ideas that you might have to make sure we're properly

vetting those passengers or travelers to make sure we're not just handing out prechecks like candy, as miss roering stated. >> the properly vetting piece is the important part of your question. i believe in the trusted population. as i mentioned before, the more you can know about a population the more comfortable i am about that population moving through a system. so, i'm a fan of vetting of people going into precheck. i think the goal should be to have a fully vetting population in precheck. i understand there have been some challenges with respect to enrollment centers. if confirmed, that's one thing i'm going to look at. how can those be expanded in a way to make entry into that system for those that want to more accessible and more available. but i think the goal should be to move towards a precheck population that's a known population, a vetted population and to the extent possible is one that is expanded based upon that rule set. >> very good.

i appreciate your answers today your testimony and look forward to working with you in the future. thank you, admiral. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, senator ernst. senator sass. >> admirable thank you for being here. in your previous testimony the hearing asked you if you felt you were fulfilling your aviation and security responsibilities. you said, quote you would ensure tsa remains laser focused on its core mission. do you believe tsa today is laser-focused on its core mission? >> senator, i think that's a question given the results of the inspector general's investigation. i believe there are still good layers of security within tsa. clearly there are challenges with respect to the equipment that was tested by the inspector general. i wanted to provide you with a true and complete answer if confirmed. immediate task is to first of

all, get the full results of the ig's investigation, and any internal work done by the tsa themselves. they have their own inspection team internally. what are they finding? are they finding the same kinds of things? how much has been linked up? what's the -- what's the extent of the gaps that have been found? what can be done immediately to mitigate those gaps as we look for what the systematic issues are across the organization. and then going back to a comment i made previously -- and i want to look at how that fits into the entire system and whether there are any gaps in the other layers tsa currently has in place for that security system because the system as it works as a whole is what determines its effectiveness. in addition to those individual components of the system such as the equipment that the t -- that the ig found deficient. >> i appreciate the layering piece of your answer but i guess i'll ask you more directly. do you think tsa is succeeding at its mission? >> well, i travel a lot.

and i traveled to the west coast this past weekend. i felt safe but i i want to know if that -- if that feeling was a good feeling to have. and based upon the findings, clearly there's a problem in with the way in which people are being screened because the screening equipment did not work. it occurred at a number of airports. i need to look at how that's been done across the system. more importantly, what have we done to mitigate that? what has tsa currently done to mitigate it and can it be safe? if confirmed -- >> i appreciate. we were in a classified briefing yesterday and i know you're trying to do your homework as well. for those of us pushing on these issues, i'll be honest i'm not that surprised by this 96% issue in this report because there are other classified reports we can't reveal the particulars of

in this setting but i think you're not answering the question of whether or not tsa is succeeding at its mission. >> i appreciate where you're going, senator. the reason i'm not giving a direct answer is because i think there are aspects that do work. i want to know how well do they work. i think some of the secure flight checking, name-based checking is working. i don't know how effective it is. i will tell you if confirmed, i need really to dig in deeper. i've had a number of briefings about the way in which they do their business. i think some of what i've heard is reassuring, some is deeply disturbing, not the least of which were the ig reports. >> without revealing any details that would give the terrorists a road map to our particular vulnerabilities, do you believe the public has a right to know more about what the administration knows of tsa's failings? >> senator, i'm a fan of transparency in government. i'm a fan of making clear to

people how effective their government is, how its performance is and more importantly, what we do when we find out performance has not lived up to standards. i'm a fan of that. i'm not afan of giving away secrets to our enemy or not a fan of exposing vulnerabilities we know exist. that's a delicate line that has to be walked but i don't want to give any comfort to those who would harm us or help to those who would harm us. >> i don't either. my calls to the administration to declassify more of the information and for the president to come clean with the american people about how badly tsa is failing clearly include the caveat we shouldn't reveal any details that would give the terrorists a road map. but chairman johnson's point about security theater clearly one of the main benefits of tsa, has been the deter rent of people who thought it was functioning much more effectively. politico yesterday said you would be leading a herculean

turn-around at tsa. do you think a herculean turn-around is what's required? >> i think a turn-around -- i think -- first of all, a refocus, as i said on the basic mission. and an understanding that this organization has got to be one that continually changes and adapts. the day you think you've got the security system right is the day you're going to be defeated in that security system. one of the things you learn in the military is that you question every assumption you have about your performance. and you question it because you know that somebody is going to be questioning you if you don't do it yourself. so, if you don't -- if you don't question yourself, then you're not head of the people who are already questioning you. it doesn't surprise me there are people out there that have found ways to defeat the system. the question is what do do you about it internally? i do think it's a huge effort to do that. >> if you're going to fix a broken institution i think that requires us admitting the institution is broken. secretary johnson at this hearing last month said, quoes -- not quote, but said that tsa is the best model of

risk-based security at dhs. he specifically highlighted the precheck system. however, we now know tsa failed to catch weapons 96% of the time and that we have 73 airport workers that have links to terrorism. i'm curious, your sense of the institutional history, how can we have these kind of security lapses 14 years after 9/11? >> i think that is the question, senator. it's a question that -- it's the question that made me say yes to taking this job. because i travel. my family travels. i want that to be safe for my family to travel and i want it to be safe for americans to travel. i care very deeply about the safety and security of this nation. and i want to be able to answer that question in an affirmative way. i want to say, yes, it is safe to do so. i don't know if it is right now. if confirmed, that is going to be my focused. what i promise you is i will come back to this committee and other oversight committees and i will lay out what i find. i will lay out the challenges i

find in a transparent way. where it doing so in a classified setting, we will do so in a classified setting. >> i think the turn-around is going to require admitting the magazine tutd of the challenge. i'm curious as to what letter grade you would give tsa and dhs as you begin this mission? >> it's difficult to assign a letter grade to it. i'll come back to you with that if i get confirmed. ly tell you they're not where they need to be. >> as a former college president, i don't know any institution where a 4% success rate could be anything other than an "f." i think we need to admit the magnitude of this problem and i think the american people have a right to understand the problem more clearly. thank you. >> thank you, senator. i want to underscore your point. solved a lot of problems. the first step in solving a problem is fully admitting it, that you have the problem and properly defining it. admiral, have i to say, i feel safe flying as well.

i think the line of questioning senator sass was undertaking there is exactly right. we have to admit the problem properly define it. senator ayotte. >> thank you, chairman. admiral, i appreciate you being here and for your willingness to take on this position. you are a nominee for this very important position as has been outlined today with the failures we have seen that the american people can expect so much better from tsa. i appreciate your willingness to take this on. as you've heard all of this testimony yesterday, before this committee, both in open and classified setting what would you prioritize as the first thing you're going to do if you're confirmed for this position? >> thanks, senator. as you know secretary johnson

laid out a pretty clear set of directions to just the immediate challenges. i think my first priority is to ensure that those are carried out. that the answers that he's demanded are found. more importantly, that they're extended as necessary to address the immediate crisis. that's the most important thing. to restore confidence in the system to the extent possible, to close the gaps and to mitigate the vulnerabilities to the extent possible. but more importantly, to look systemically across the organization to see how much will it take to do over time. some will take some time to fix. >> let me ask you, to the testimony we heard yesterday, that was quite disturbing with respect to the 73 airport workers that the ig found links to terrorism. then we were told that, in fact tsa was not fully vetting those employees against all the information that the fbi had in terms of those that we might

have on -- based on intelligence on our terror watch list. so, here's the question that i have for you. when i heard it yesterday before the committee, i heard yes we identified this problem in '14, but then we went over to the fbi and asked for information. here we are in 2015. when we think about something that urgent that there wasn't an meet fix to that is pretty disturbing. so, what i would ask of you is this committee and our oversight function, you find something like that that you don't wait for the bureaucracy to answer. that you let us know and that we make sure that a fix like that, that is so obvious and so immediate, so that we don't have 73 airport workers with ties to terrorism, that we find right away that we're vetting people fully, that we fix something that is so obvious immediately and don't let the bureaucracy bog us down. will you commit to us that if you find something like that

you're not waiting for an answer from some other agency but, in fact, you will engage us to help you be effective in protecting the american public? >> senator, i couldn't agree with you more on that issue. absolutely. if there are legislative fixes that need to be there i will be the first one to come back to congress and request those fixes. in the meantime, if confirmed, first thing i'm going to do is make sure we're connected to all those databases. as a full member i understand the importance of connection. in fact, as we said earlier, that was one of the key findings out of the 9/11 commission -- >> 9/11 was all about connection and communication and knowing the information and sharing it with each other. >> i'm in full agreement with you. absolutely commit to that. >> i appreciate that. i would say that you take on this very important task of leadership right now that understand this committee is very committed to having your

back. if you find things that need to be fixed right away, if you find things that are wrong, thaw need legislation, you need us to say to the administration, this has to be a priority we want to do -- work with you to make sure we get this right. one thing i wanted to ask about as well, we yesterday had testimony before our committee from whistle bloe-blowers. they were compelling. but what they went through to tell their story is something we don't want to happen in an agency where you have a culture, if you bring forward bad information, you're either punished or you're swept aside. so, i would like a commitment from you that as you engage with the employees in the organization and you have those that come forward as whistle-blowers or with information with deficiencies in the agency, you'll fully support

them and make sure you support them so that we can make sure we understand all the problems and can address them. >> i do commit to that, senator. i believe strongly in listening to your workforce. i believe in finding mechanisms for workforce to express their concerns. if they see a problem i want to hear about it. if they don't feel there's any other way than go outside the organization to tell that information, it's still important to get that information. i don't believe there should be any punishment against an individual who finds that. again, i go back to -- these are people who raised their hand and took an oath. they're finding something. and if -- it takes a lot of courage to speak out. it takes a lot of courage to go outside your organization and do it. we should commend them for the courage. we should listen to what it says and we shouldn't be afraid to tackle the challenges. >> i was glad to hear you say in answer to senator ernst that you think that in terms of precheck we need to get we need to ensure

a fully vetted program. that's a priority. the other thing i would ask you to look at is the cita badge issue because that issue has propped up in other contexts where we know those badges behind the scenes the access given with one of those badges in the airport and that, in fact, the system is one where the airports are controlling that, but we can't account for where all the badges are. i would ask you to take a careful look at those badges to make sure we're not giving people access we shouldn't be. >> i will do that. >> thank you. >> one final thing that i would say is the other thing i took from the testimony yesterday, both classified and unclassified was, we've seen that there are many sops as director recoveryoering mentioned. so whether it's a checklist or more consistent application of sops because it only takes as

you know admiral one instance of an sop not being followed to protect the country to allow a terrorist through. i wanted to get your perspective on that and what you think we should be doing to make sure there's consistency. >> that's a great question. that's fundamental to how people form their mission. as you know in the military it's all about standard operating procedures. the reason do you that so you can ensure you're focused on the mission. those get refined over time. it's important, first of all, they be straightforward, clear and understandable. that you have a consistent way of training to those standards. whether that be through resident training or through teams that train individual teams or individual units. and then there has to be an oversight function, too. have you to have a way to determine whether those standards are being adhered to. so, again, in the coast guard

my experience has been, you have -- you have standardization teams. we just call them stan teams standardization teams that go around and they test the people living up to the standards. it can be up to and including things like the inspector general, but it's usually just a matter of walking people through the procedures and say, you're going to confront this situation. what's the procedure and how do you do that? checklists can help. that's very important where checklists are appropriate. it's also an understanding of the process you're trying -- again, you focus on the mission. you say, what do i need to do to accomplish that mission. what are the standards for doing that? what part can be done in a checklist fashion? how do i ensure it's being done? then i go back and do that whole process over again. so, i concur with you. i think it's important to look at the current sops. are they effective? can you understand what you're reading?

if you can understand what you're reading does it make sense to you? or are you seeing things we ought to add we're not doing? the other thing i discovered over time is that you can become a slave to your standard operating procedures and not be aware of what the real process is. have you to be careful not to just go through the motions. have you to have a thinking population that says wait a second, this doesn't make any sense. we get that all the time in the military. people say, why in the world are we doing "x "and you look and say, i have no idea why we're doing that. that doesn't make sense. let's do something else. >> thank you. >> thank you senator ayotte. senator langford. >> thank you. quite, frankly for your past service and for taking this on as a consideration. you've been asked to consider leading an agency right now that has very low morale. that has had systemic procurement problems that has some recent very bad evaluations evaluations, and quite frankly,

uses wrong metrics in some of the ways they're evaluating their own performance. you have a task to do. that's not an easy thing to step into. it's not an easy assignment regardless, so i want to tell you, thank you for your consideration for walking through this. i want to bounce a couple issues off you, things for you personally. some metrics of evaluating the issue of conduct versus metrics in performance here whether the goal is to quickly get people through the line or evaluate for safety checks and such. i think we can do both. right now we seem to be pushing on the speed side of it rather than on the safety side. it's almost like we're lulling ourselves back to sleep on critical issues. i want to talk about how you will adjust that as far as evaluation. then i want to move from there. if i want to move to the morale issue of how you re-engage some really great folks. when i interact every week with the oklahoma city tsa folks there are some great folks that serve there and are really

terrific servants of the nation. but the morale issues are terrible. if you want to talk about those we'll move on to other issues. >> yes, sir. thank you. i think you've hit on one of the key concerns, is the care of the workforce, training of the workforce and morale of the workforce. i mentioned in an earlier question that was about this very same issue. i said morale starts with an important mission. we already have that. this is an important mission. a clear sense of that mission and dedication of the leadership to the agency. to performing that mission. when you talk about the potential disconnect between what's being measured and what's most important, i think that's key to one fundamental aspect of morale. if i'm told the most important thing i can do is protect the american public and protect the traveling public but i'm not being measured as to how i do

that, that's a disconnect right there. my fear is that starts to breed cynicism in a workforce and cynicism leads to low morale. i get that completely. you focus back and say, what's the most important thing we're doing out there? why did you raise your hand and take an oath of office? these are great americans. not many people do that in this country. they're still among the 1% that say, i want to serve my nation. you deserve to support them in doing that. next comes training. you've got to train them and you've got to continually train them and get them in that continual learn process so they can do the mission. >> how is that different from what's happening now? what's the change that has to happen? all those things are occurring now. >> i think -- i'm not sure that -- again, i think over time it's very easy for an organization to shift focus, to think they have the mission right and then to work on other things. i think you can never stop referring back to it. what i found in my service in the coast guard is that it's --

you can have -- even in a high-morale organization like the coast guard, we can have pockets of low morale. what causes it? it's the day you get even a little complacent at the leadership level. no one gets tired of being reminded how important their job is. no one gets tired of being trained to do that job. no one gets tired of feeling good and learning how to use equipment and no one, no one gets tired of engaging with their organization and telling you where they think they can do it better. i think it's engagement with the workforce. that's ongoing, continuous. it can't be a one-time thing. you can't think you got it right because you held a meeting with them and moved on. annual surveys are good places to figure out where you need to start engaging more effectively. they don't answer the question for you. they raise all the questions. >> your hiring and training make a big difference because they work in close quarters with each other. if there's a couple bad apples in the group it's difficult for the group.

management and placement and attitudes on the line make an enormous difference. can we talk about procurement, an ongoing issue. tsa has millions of dollars worth of equipment in warehouses figuring out where to move old equipment, wrong equipment, determining the efficiency of equipment if it has a 2% gain in efficiency is that enough? there are lots of issues that involve billions of dollars in procurement nationwide. so talk to me about a change in attitude for on you that. >> in my current role i serve as what's called the component acquisition executive for the coast guard, so i oversee all the -- the whole acquisition process for the coast guard. that starts with the basic requirements -- first of all starts with the mission and how that mission can be accomplish the against what the threats are that keep us from accomplishing the mission. then you begin to build the requirements that you need to accomplish that mission. some of those are human requirements. some are equipment requirements. those are interactive as you go through.

then you have to have an ability to translate those requirements into the actual thing you need to buy. so, there's a process that has to be in place. what i've learned in the coast guard is we completely rebuilt our acquisition program over the past decade. we did not have one of the best acquisition processes in the government. i think we do have one of the best acquisition programs in the government now. and it's because we -- we looked at it from start to finish. you can't simply walk out to industry and say, give me something that will do something. i don't blame industry for providing you things that don't work. they'll provide you what they have. but you need to -- you need to really examine, what do i need to know? so f you're looking at a detection -- a piece of detection equipment, what do i need that thing to find? what are the limitations of the technology so i can figure out, what are the other requirements on top of it?

it's not just enough for requirements for the equipment, you need requirements for what the equipment can't do. those are combined and then you need a rigorous process. you have to adhere to the oversight, the controls and the various programs. you have to separate the person writing the requirements from the person who's implementing the requirements to the person who's overseeing the program to the person who's contracting for the program. and the more -- the more separation you can have amongst those, the more rigorous you can hold that process. otherwise you're going to run into schedule breaches, cost overruns. >> i would encourage you to evaluate the effectiveness of this equipment. not based on how it functioned in the laboratory in a sterile environment -- >> has to be real world test. >> but how it functions in the real world. that's been a problem. we have to have that real world involvement. with chairman's indulgence, one quick comment as well. the precheck issue, we have a lot of people coming through precheck that are not really prechecked. we either, a, have to change the name because we have millions

going through that are not really prechecked or focus on precheck. i'm not talking about other -- trusted traveler and other programs where they have gone through a process but it seems to be we're increasing the number of people through it to get through it and get efficiency and we're losing some of the focus of what it's designed to do and what the actual security is designed to do at the airport and other lanes here. so, when we're trying to increase efficiency and losing our focus on security, i think it's a recipe for disaster. precheck should be precheck and should have some background on them rather than just it's a random or they meet some sort of profile. thank you, chairman for that. i yield back. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, chairman. i want to add my voice to what senator langford just said. it's got to mean something. oh, you flew a lot of miles and nothing happened on that plane so now we're going to hand you the pass. we have to actually know who

we're dealing with. so, i want to add my voice to what i surely hope has been the sense of the committee here that how grateful we are that you're stepping up to take on this enormous challenge. i think too often we don't say thank you to the folks who go through what is sometimes a very onerous and difficult process. we are extraordinarily grateful. we find more and more people who put on the uniform of our country in our armed services and serving us tend to step up. and continue their service. thank you so much, admiral for what you're doing and yourleness to take this on. we're excited, at least i'm excited about the changes i know you're going to make and the things you're going to do having been in such important leadership positions in the past. the one thing i do want to talk about is something that senator langford and i have focused a lot on in our subcommittee, which is how do you engage

everyone? regardless of whether they are, you know, the person collecting the trays at end of the scanning line to the person at the top. how do you engage them in the overall overarching mission so they have a sense of purpose and a sense of what they're doing every day? what strategies do you think you can deploy to improve morale by giving people a sense of important? i talked about in my opening statement the need to look at -- the way in which -- first of all, what do we teach people when they come into the organization? how are they -- i think back to my experience coming into the coast guard. and you're taught the basic culture of the organization. in our case, everyone's read this wonderful letter that came from the first treasury secretary, alexander am i will ton, his first instruction it is to first commanding officers which was precursor to the united states coast guard. this was a challenging mission

because they were told to go do something that had never been done before which was to collect tariffs with merchant vessels trading with the brand new united states of america. something the merchant vessels were not pleased about and did not want to encounter this new government attempting to exert its power. so in the process of writing this letter he lays out all their requirements and duties and obligation and the law they have and the expectations. he says something very interesting in the letter. it's a thing that begins this cultural indoctrination in the coast guard. he says, always keep in mind your countrymen are free men and as such are inpatient of. that's a -- it's wonderful 18th century prose. goes on. the letter is multiple pages long. that one line is repeated over and over and over again throughout your career in the coast guard. we use it when we advance people in rank. we use it when we promote them

in rank. we use them when they swear in a new oath of office and remind them, you're going to do things that by nature interfere with with the free movement of people. sometimes you're going to do things that interfere with their individual rights. you're employing to get in their way. you don't have to do it in a way that offends them or in a way that doesn't respect them. so, i think, how does tsa do that? one of the things i'd like to examine is what is the way in which tsa indoctrinates -- provides a culture? there's a tsa academy. i don't know how well it's attended. over time, what are the ways in which you can continue to engage with the workforce. we live in an age where it's very easy to communicate with people. i don't accept the premise that because you have a widely dispersed and geographically dispersed workforce, you can't find a way to talk to them. i do have all the time.

i have a workforce that works in small unit teams. can't touch every single member of the coast guard every day, but i -- but i can assure myself that they're plugged into the organization. i'm going to look for ways to do that, if confirmed in the tsa. i'm going to find a way to connect leadership to the front line operation. my experience one of the other big factors of morale is how distant is your leadership from the actual people doing the work? i don't dot work of the coast guard anymore. the coast guard does that work. those front line men and women out there. how do they know i've got their back and how do they know i'm paying attention to them and providing them with the tools and training they need if i don't listen them and find a way to engage with them? those are the things i think about as i look to connecting with the workforce, listening to what they have to say, to learning from them. i meant what i said in my opening statement that i have learned about duty to people, i've learned about commitment to excellence, i've learned about

service to this nation from people who are doing that on a daily basis. i continue to learn every day. i'm astonished at the new things i learn about those things. >> i know it's been said already here, but i think improving the morale of tsa, reducing the turnover, you really having an appreciation by everyone how important their work is and how much their country's counting on them. as we saw in california, their work can be dangerous. andthy need to be appreciated for standing on the front line trying to stop -- being that visible signal. the other thing i would say that the public gets frustrated with is when they don't see value added to some of the things tsa does. they go, well why would we need to do that and this? and i think it's really important that your communication, focusing on why

they need to do that is also turning it outwards and talking about the challenges you have so that people who are like us who are at airports all the time, better understand what the goal is. so, i would just offer that suggestion, that that communication not just be kernel, that we spend a lot of time talking to the traveling 3ub about the importance of what you do. i just think we have great hope for you. if there's something that we can do and ideas that you have where laws restrict you i hope you come back to this committee, come back to us individually and say, this is something that makes no sense please change it. >> thank you, senator. i will do that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks senator. i think we've pretty well covered most of the issues. i know a ranking member has another question or two. i will just make the statement, though regardless of the fact we haven't had additional airports used as a weapon i would say that's because we

looked at the solution hardened the cockpit doors. very effective from the standpoint of security. i do believe the tsa has been in a state of denial. what processes, procedures, equipment we have in place. again, it will catch the water bottles, my little boy scout pocketknife that i was given and didn't realize had it in my briefcase. it will do that, but for determined people that are -- that want to defeat that system, i think the ig's report is pretty telling. so it is a matter of recognizing reality and admitting we have those problems. until the ranking member comes back i will ask in testimony yesterday, one of the whistle-blowers, ms. roehring, we claimed -- we talked about the morale issue but there's a feeling of fear and mistrust within the tsa and senator ayotte talked about retaliation.

by the way, we're going to have a hearing on whistle-blowers and the kind of retaliation they have faced. it is disturbing across the government how prevalent that really is. and apparently there's that kind of problem within the tsa as well. i guess i'm just asking, you know you have a significant management challenge. low morale, if it's true, i want to ask your opinion do you believe there really is is that possible there really is a prevalent feeling of fear and mistrust? but, you know, just from a standpoint of the tedious nature of the task, you know it's just prone to complacency. we're human beings. how do you manage that? how do you rotate shifts? how do you provide insen stifs to keep people alert? the fear and mistrust statement from our witness yesterday. >> i hope -- i hope it's not a pervasive fear and mistrust. i will tell you that i want the people who work for the

organization to feel free to bring problems -- that's where you learn most about what you're doing. i will commit to you that i will -- this is one of the most important things for me. it speaks to the fundamentals of morale. fy work for an organization that i don't trust and that i'm afraid is going to -- is going to take action against me if i bring problems to light, then that's -- that's a real problem. that's a real morale-killer. have you to address that right up front. what i will commit to you is that's not the way i do business. it's not acceptable in any of the people with whole i'm working or the people who report to me. and i'll take a hard look at the current climate in the tsa. >> proesht. senator carper a question or two? >> yeah. admiral over memorial day weekend, last week threats were made against international flights bound for the united states. and while those threats were deemed ultimately not to be credible, we know passengers going overseas presents an

incredible risk. if confirmed, how would you work with our international partners to improve passenger and baggage screening standards in foreign countries? >> well i think it's important to have agreed-upon national standards. those have to be rigorous and they have to be at a level that assures that you are doing the absolute best you can to stop any potential threat. i've had a lot of experience with that in the maritime sector. as you know, the coast guard represents the united states to various international bodies that deal with international maritime security, maritime safety. what i found is first of all those other countries want their systems to be safe as well. but if you have a patchwork of approaches, then you're going to have gaps in your security. so it's important to work with the international bodies in the aviation world such as iota and

ako to make sure you have clear and well-defined and consistent standards. that you have a mechanism for enforcing the adherence to those standards. in the case of the world in which i work, that includes spot checks and verifying teams. so, we send teams all over the world to foreign ports from the u.s. coast guard. we inspect to make sure that they actually are doing what they claim to be doing on paper. and when we find evidence that they aren't, then we apply sanctions up to and including the refusal to allow a vessel from that port to arrive in u.s. countries -- to arrive in u.s. ports. we do that. i think the same standards need to be -- it's even more imperative you do that in the aviation world. we know that we're having -- we have significant concerns with foreign fighters. we have significant concerns with increasing radicalization of terrorist groups. we know they're continuing to focus on the aviation system. so, i intend to work with if

confirmed, to work with counterparts around the world, particularly those countries that have last points of departure bound for the united states. most importantly, to work with the international associations to ensure the standards that are set are appropriate and that there's an oversight mechanism for enforcing those standards. >> all right. thanks. in our closed session yesterday which you were good enough to join us forring, one thing we discussed is the role of patdowns in better ensuring our security. these flights, and it's a sensitive, awkward situation it's important for our security but it's difficult for those trying to ensure security and, frankly, for the passengers who endure this. i'm sure that some other country -- some other countries may have figured out a better way to do this. i'm not sure who it is or if they have but i would just ask, is one of the things when you get settled in one thing we do to look around the world is say, all kinds of -- dozens of

nations deal with these issues and maybe somebody's come up with a better mouse trap. we can learn from them. last thing i want to ask is a various of what i asked at the end of our session yesterday. with the ig and others on tsa. give us a short to-do list for us on this side. one thing chairman johnson, tom coburn before that our committee, one thing we always looked to gao, government accountability office for, they would give us a to-do list. high-risk ways of wasting money. we use it as a to-do list. give us a short to-do list. if by some small chance you are confirmed, have the opportunity to serve in this role, what would be a couple things we could do that would be especially helpful to you as a leader but more importantly the folks you lead and to the people of our country, what could be helpful? just a couple of items.

>> senator thank you for that. well, first, thank you for the offer to help. i believe strongly in working with the congress because have you an important role to play not only in oversight but ensuring that the right laws the right -- the legislation is in place to allow the -- a mission like the security of our transportation system to succeed. and i promise to work with you on that. but wha i'd like to do is to if confirmed, bring you a list of those things that can be most effective for this committee to attend to. i really do appreciate the -- the willingness of every member of this committee with whom i've met to work with me. i promise you that it will be just as much coming from my side as it is from your side. what i'd like to do is bring to you in a very open manner the challenges that i find, where those challenges need to be addressed by work this committee can do and where those challenges are and that the

agency has the ability to do but you need to be aware of before it's put into place. >> all right. thank you. >> i would close by saying, jeh johnson, our secretary of dhs, is not one given to hyperbole. when he said a couple months he said we've got our leader to tsa. i said, who is it? he said it's an admiral his name is pete. he's in the coast guard. he warsz a lot of stars. he said, you're really going to like him. i must tell you, i'm impressed. hopefully we'll get to you work. >> senator sass, an extra question? >> yes. thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member carper. they need to get to another nominee, so i will flag two questions. one of which i'll submit my letter. the other is i'll ask you here. the first is, i appreciate many of your statements about your desire to skate to where the puck is going to be and ultimately dealing with the security threats we face in the homeland and the jihadi opponents from abroad over the course of the coming decades and to be forward-looking on that. i also appreciate your clear

care and concern for the workforce and for the morale issues inside the organization. there are lots of good and freedom-loving americans inside tsa. and my worry about the magnitude of the challenges we face doesn't start chiefly with workforce issues. obviously, you've flagged some technology failures, but i think weville big leadership problems inside the organization. and i think we are at a gap as far as strategic priorities and measurement of our performance against those priorities. you mentioned, and yesterday director roering talked about the fact that there is this tension between a couple of different tsa missions but none of the metrics actually go to the success at interdicting prohibited weapons and explosives. i'm curious and we'll submit this by letter, about what your familiarity is what briefings and performance metrics secretary johnson from the department receives at least on a weekly basis. some of us who have been pushing

on these issues for a number of months have not gotten adequate answers about the frequency and quality of the performance metrics inside the key components and agencies inside dhs. i would like to understand what familiarity you've had with the briefings that the leadership team of dhs gets on a regular basis when you've been at the coast guard and what you expect to be included on as far as these performance metrics are in your potential new role at tsa. so, we'll submit that by letter today. the final question i'll ask in person is, i've had a chance to to meet with inspector general john routh three -- roth and appreciate the work of his organization. and he has said directly to us sometimes in classified settings but he also said in a public hearing the other day that he does not believe that the leadership of tsa "truly understands the nature of the risks that they face." doesn't believe that tsa truly understands the nature of the risks that they face. i'm curious which camp you would put yourself in. do you believe that he is right,

that tsa does not understand the nature of the risks they face? or do you think the leadership has understood the nature of these risks? >> you know i had a chance to sit down with inspector general roth as well as part of my preparation for this. i understand the risks -- the nature of the risks we face. i think there are people in tsa who do understand the risk. what i want to understand is how effective are those voices and how well can those voices be heard. and more importantly what's the -- one of the reasons why that information appears to be challenging to the right level of the organization. i think it's tied directly to your previous question. i look forward to answering that question. more importantly look forward to engaging with this committee in the future as we look to ensure that the things we do measure are the right things. continue to question whether they're the right measures. again, it's just like security the measures you put in place might be appropriate today. got to continue to refine those and you have to be relentless in

your examination. >> thanks, senator sasse. >> someone i think is very well qualified, very well suited for this position, this enormous challenge. and so i certainly want to tell you and voice my appreciation for your past service, for your willingness to serve and also make the commitment i think for this committee and for myself a number of us have already voted for your confirmation out of commerce committee. we will try to move your confirmation as quickly so you can get on the job. again, we're just so thankful for your willingness to serve. and the further commitment too is to have this committee here to have your back, to do everything we can. we'll commit ourselves to help you succeed in your mission to keeping this nation safe. thank you again we look forward to working with you in the

future. >> thank you senator. >> mr. sha peer now. >> in a couple of moments we'll go live to capitol hill to bring you a hearing looking at international child abductions. the house foreign affairs subcommittee will look into that, starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern or so. we understand the house has a series of votes under way and that could push the start time of this hearing. we'll have it for you live when it gets under way here on cspan3. right now a discussion with a member of congress on

appropriations. >> we are back with congressman david price democrat of north carolina ranking member on subcommittee on transportation. that's the bill passed earlier this week gives $1.5 billion to transportation housing programs. what does that mean in terms of dollars compared to last year? what does that mean for these agencies and the programs that they run? >> both housing and transportation are areas that have bourn the brunt unfortunately of our current budget strategy i say ours, the republican budget strategy that's focused on domestic appropriations almost exclusively for deficit reduction, has left -- you know, it doesn't work as fiscal policy. the tax expenditures unaddressed, entitlement spending is unaddressed but it certainly devastates our domestic investment. so this is a bill where that comes home to roost. and so we're just looking at a state of need in this country

something like $78 billion in capital backlog for transit systems. $25 billion backlog for maintaining public housing. it's a dire situation. this bill attempts to address it. i'm new in the ranking member's position and we have a new chairman of florida. it's been a pleasure to work with him. he's done the best he can, i think, with a very very tough budget allocation. so to answer your question the funding is basically leveled from last year. it's actually a little less than last year. we got a somewhat improved allocation, but other factors cancel that out such as the cost of the vouchers. so we're actually $1.5 billion below where we were this year and this year's already inadequate. so it was not a bill that could have bipartisan support. we said on the very first day that we want to work cooperatively, we want to prepare to have a bill down the road that addresses our needs. but we've got to have a budget agreement. we simply cannot fund this thing

at sequestration levels. that was the problem tuesday night. if you fix one thing you're going to dig another hole. you know there's just not enough resources to do what we need to do. >> as a party line vote the bill passed the house 216-210. increasing funding for department of transportation and hud by $1.5 billion. $9.5 billion less than what the president, the president threatening to veto this. >> yes. it's partly a matter of underfunding transportation and housing, which it both certainly does. it's also a matter of demanding a recalibration of this budget strategy. we're going down a path it isn't working fiscally. but it also is just decimating the investments a great country has to make, investments in research and education and -- i mean, there's not a single housing and community

development program that isn't underresourced. and transportation, i represent the raleigh-durham-chapel hill that part of central north carolina. we are trying to develop transit. we have invested ourselves and gotten federal help through the recovery act for inner city rail, high speed rail. we're building train stations. we're doing good things. and we've had some federal support, but that federal support is increasingly hard to come by. the so-called tiger grants we're counting on, that's part of this bill. the tiger grants we're counting onto help with these facilities. we're getting maybe one out of every 20 applications we can address. the backlog there is incredible. so we need to address this and it cannot be addressed just with heavy lifting by members of this subcommittee alone. we had a short-term budget agreement as listeners might remember that got us through this year, the current year. and the question is can we do at

least that much? we need a longer term agreement really allow the big budget agreements of the '9 0z. we're not going to get that because our politics is so polarized right now. but we at least need a short-term deal. my question to my colleagues is why can't we do that right now? why do we have to wait until this fall and have presidential vetoes, have a threatened shutdown? we know what we got to do. you know you can pass these appropriations bills through on party line votes, but everybody knows this isn't for real. this will never be this will never be enacted. it'd be prudent i think, rational to do this now to adjust those budget caps, pass bills that will do work for the country. >> speaking of politics and ideology, the heritage action fund, the conservative group, scored this bill saying -- asking republicans not to vote for it. this is what they wrote, the bill provides $41.6 billion for

spending from the highway trust fund on highway projects and $8.6 billion for spending on trains at formula grants. however, the congressional budget office projects revenues flowing into the highway trust fund to be roughly $40 billion in 2016 not enough to cover the spending authorized in this bill. >> well, the highway trust fund is in big trouble. that raises a couple points. one is you kind of went over that 216-210 number but that's close. i mean we had only three democratic no-votes. so there were a lot of republican nos. there were a fair number of moderate members who shared our views of the bill. there were others who were marching to the tune of heritage action. you know, just -- they just don't believe in a federal role in transportation basically at all, or at least that seems to be where they're coming from. because this bill is so inadequate to say it's too much

it just means they probably favor the states doing this totally alone. which would be a major departure for this country. >> well, what does this mean though for the highway trust fund? which runs out in july. >> yeah, sure. that's the other issue. and it is somewhat confusing because the transportation funding is partly based on the highway trust fund, which is mainly the user fee, the gasoline tax that has diminished as a source. it's not been raised in years. and besides we're more efficient now, we're burning less gasoline. so the gasoline tax is a diminishing source. it is not adequate for our needs. and that refusal to face the revenue issue on the republican side is behind a lot of this. it's behind the budget standoff. it's also behind the failure to do more than just patch up our transportation authorization going forward. so alongside this annual appropriations bill which is in

such trouble five-year transportation appropriation which is also stymied. the president has done an interesting thing on that. he has, you know, talk about thinking outside the box, that's what he's done. we've just been for years beating our heads against the wall. can we raise the gasoline tax? if not that let's maybe do some tolling. that's not great but maybe that's one way. or let's do transportation account that brings in an investment fund that brings in private money. nothing has been acceptable to the republicans. and so the president says all right, outside the box you've got these overseas profits parked from these corporations. and there's been a lot of debate about the conditions under which we tax those and bring them back home. let's tax them at a reasonable rate, bring that money back

home. and let's put that toward infrastructure for the next five years. it's not a permanent solution, but it's a lot better than what we've been doing now. so that may be where we get this fall because i do think the republicans are feeling lots of heat on this. we all are. and we should be. i mean, the business community across the board, our state and local governments, people beside themselves. we didn't used to worry about this. i remember one of my first votes here was an override of a ronald reagan veto of a transportation five-year authorization. and we could not get to the floor fast enough to override that veto. and that applied to republicans too. and so that's how far things have deteriorated. the bipartisan support we used to have for infrastructure is not there anymore. >> we're talking about transportation issues. we'll talk about some other

topics, key debates in congress this week. first we'll hear from jim in hamilton montana. you're on air with the congressman. >> good morning. >> good morning representative price. >> good morning. >> good morning. i have a couple comments. transportation is so important. it makes for safer roads for everybody it's important for the country. my question is you know, our president has spent more from george washington to today, where did all that money go? i mean, i don't see anything that shows all that money that has been borrowed. because you guys should have plenty of money for all the money that's you know that has been borrowed by the president. and i don't understand why we have such a lack of money in all

these different areas in the government government. >> well, simply because the budgets don't add up. the president came into office at the height of the great estest economic downturn since the great depression. the recovery act under democratic leadership, democrats were in charge and we did a recovery act legislation which i think most economists of all stripes would agree, got the economy off of that downward track steady month of growth and comeback. it's too slow. it still is too slow. but i think the recovery act did that. and that money was barred. a lot of it came back. and the investments in the auto

industry for example paid rich dividends and basically saved the industry. in 2010 there was a backlash election. believe me, we felt it here and the leadership of the house turned over to the republicans. there was a kind of abandonment i would say of that recovery philosophy and effort. fortunately the federal rezerveserve helped keep us going. i don't know where the country would be if we didn't have the monetary policy that allowed for the recovery. anyway, since then since the republican takeover, we have been faced with budgets that simply aren't adequate to our needs. what should we have done? there are fiscal challenges as you say, no question there are. and we need to address those. i look back to the 1990s and to

those broad budget agreements that we reached. one on a bipartisan basis with the first george bush in 1990, and then with democratic heavy lifting alone which i remember very, very well early in the clinton administration. why can't we look back and learn those lessons? because we balanced the budget. we paid off $400 billion of the national debt. and it was a roaring economy. and we continued to invest in things like our infrastructure. this republican budget ideology does not let us raise the necessary revenue leaves lots of things off limits and whacks away at investments domestic investments, which faults the economy. it really is hurting us. that's what's manifested in this transportation hud bill. >> we're talking with congressman david price, he's the top democrat on the appropriation subcommittee on transportation and housing. serving his 14th term in congress. and lynn on twitter wants to know the u.s. has worse safety

record when it comes to trains. this budget is lower than last year for transit, how can we compete with the world? two different issues there. competing with the world but by having better infrastructure. but also this issue of train safety after the crash we saw in philadelphia. >> yes. well, she's done her homework because both of those things are on point. the committee markup as we call it of this bill occurred the day after the pennsylvania train crash. and the leadership of the committee had had to say, yes, indeed, we're cutting amtrak in this bill. we've underinvested in amtrak and in maintaining amtrak. we've underinvested in this new transportation technology so-called positive train control that probably would have prevented that pennsylvania crash. it's being installed but being installed at far too slow a pace. so it did bring into sharp

relief the problems in transportation funding. and, you know, if we're serious about inner city rail and i think we need to be. i think this is a mode of transportation that people like. it's a great alternative. has all kinds of benefits. but it does require some investment. you know, we had some battles on the house floor over this, over amtrak and what kind of support was appropriate. every mode of transportation in this country is subsidized one way or another. we ought to just understand that going in. so the question is not do you subsidize or don't you but how do you subsidize wisely prudently, how do you have a balanced approach? and in my opinion inner city rail is part of that balance. >> well, the "new york times" with the story about regulators on capitol hill testifying about that crash in philadelphia at the hearing. federal regulators said 71% of commuter railroads would not have this system, that positive train system, in place by the deadline. the total cost to commuter railroads of putting the system

in place will be $3.5 billion. none of the large freight train companies will have the ptc system installed by the december deadline. outside the northeast amtrak uses freight lines to operate. so far freight rail line companies have spent $5.7 billion to install this system. let's go to pennsylvania, greg an independent. thanks for waiting. you're on air with the congressman. >> caller: thank you. long-time listener, first time i got through. first, i think it's a mistake that you don't rotate the independent line to the top of the list on at least the third one in this segment. people are more undecided with both parties and i think you should rotate independent to the top of the list every third -- okay. i watched representative messner this morning. please cross exam all of the

people that appear on your show. now, as to the representative, sir, don't elections -- two questions. don't elections have consequences? and i believe you referred to it a couple of minutes ago that the democrats did control their congress and had a democratic president for at least three maybe four years? >> two years, sir. >> you're criticizing the republicans for not doing what you want them to do right now, but you were and your party and i don't know about you personally, were crowing about the elections of '06, '08 and '12. don't you share some of the responsibility for this not happening? thank you. >> sure. we're in an institution where it's incumbent on us to figure out how to work together and to address the country's pressing needs.

the democratic takeover of the house, the change in leadership came after the '06 elections and then '08 of course was a democratic year. and then we had a democratic president, democratic control of both chambers. and that changed in 2010 with a really radical change then in budget policy as we were discussing earlier. so i'm very proud of the record during those years where we were writing the bills and usually passing them in tact. that would be the first two years of the obama administration. they were very tough years economically. we were struggling to get back from this economic downturn. but we did pass the recovery act, which was largely appropriations in areas that would create jobs very quickly and would have a good economic impact. and then we had during those years reasonably generous appropriations bills. but it was part of a budget process where we were also

dealing with revenues and had a plan going forward. that was changed very very radically after the 2010 elections. now, do we just abandon efforts to cooperate at that point? no, we don't. i mean appropriations -- one reason why i like appropriations and i sought membership on it and wanted to serve on appropriations is that it is one of the less partisan committees. you know there's a tradition here. this is the house's committee. the power of the purse is the critical congressional power in the constitution. it's the appropriations committee that implements that. and i think history will bear me out. it works best when it's cooperative. >> all right. >> so then we try to make it cooperative. and i have a cordial relationship, as chairman or as ranking member, but these budget issues are just too stark. i mean, they just -- they do not permit us to write adequate bills. that's why we have to have a

budget agreement. hopefully one we bring both sides together and can do that later this year. >> all right. back to calls. jenny in lakewood, washington. independent. >> caller: good morning. i called and made this point before but i think it's an important point and i'd like to repeat it, and you don't look at revenue sources. the sources of revenues. corporations are the ones that want this global economy they're pressing to be able to operate globally. they have money sitting offshore they're not bringing back. revenues currently corporations represent about 12% of our revenue. historically if you look at the office of -- they used to give

70% of our revenues used to come from corporations. now with that kind of drop and everything we're doing globally why aren't they carrying their fair share? you keep wanting to look at entitlements as you call them. well we the people do pay for entitlements. we pay for ourselves. >> all right. >> all right. well fair enough. i appreciate the chance to clarify what i was saying. the whole point is not to focus on any one aspect of the budget exclusively. that's a disaster. first of all, it's not going to work as fiscal policy. and secondly, it's going to have gross distorting effects. and those are evident in our transportation hud appropriations bill, gross distorting effects of the republican strategy of almost exclusively looking to domestic appropriations for deficit reduction. now, domestic appropriations ought to be on the table as

should military appropriations as should so-called mandatory spending or entitlement spending as should the tax code and tax loopholes and tax preferences. i believe it's a pretty sound historical generalization that this stuff works only when everything's on the table and when there's a balanced package. but probably isn't popular politically, i would add that. you know, the budget deals back in the '90s that actually balanced the budget and produced surpluses and by the way help produce a roaring economy, those were not popular at the time. i know very' in the '94 election. that's the year i lost my seat. but i still think the votes we cast for those budget deals that involved everything, something for everybody to dislike of those budget deals are probably among the best votes i ever cast because of where the republican party is right now those kind of

comprehensive deals are simply not in reach now. there was talk of this the grand bargain, remember that a few year ago? but it didn't happen. what we have to hope for now is a little bargain. something that puts us in a better place for this next year. >> congressman, i want to ask you about another issue and that's trade. here's "the wall street journal" yesterday, unions flex muscles in bid to stop trade bill in north carolina it says you are being pressured by union members concerned that their call center jobs could be outsourced overseas. where do you stand on trade promotion authority? >> i have been trying to weigh the pros and cons of this particular trade deal and have not come down on one side or the other exclusively. it's a moving target. i know you had earlier discussions about some of the pieces that areos-i )s& not totally resolved. i have a history of voting for trade deals when i thought they did what they're supposed to do,

which is level the playing field for our country and for our workers to positively influence labor and environmental consumer intellectual property standards internationally. and i voted against deals that i thought were not sufficiently strict or stringent in that respect. this big pacific deal has the potential, i think to right the rules of the road in a positive way. but i think the process under which we're dealing with this, and i know you can't just bring a trade deal to the floor and amend away. that's not how it works. however, i wish we had a better process, more transparent process, one allowed more in so-called fast track getting this deal together. and i also wish that our republican friends hadn't been so insistent that no improvement improvements in the fast track bill will be permitted or what we'll see as improvements are going to be permitted in the

house that they amended away in the senate. in the house we're fast tracking fast track. and the kind of provisions that might deal with the currency issue or with this question about what kind of rights corporations have to challenge governmental rules, those things could be articulated, maybe not perfectly but at least articulated as negotiating goals or objectives. i just -- but the door's been shut. and that's one of the things under discussion right now. are there going to be chances to make this a better fast track bill before we have to vote on it? >> what's the pressure been like for you? >> well, i've read the stories about what's going on in some parts of the country. and there's some pressure gotten intense on a lot of my colleagues. i've had intense conversations. i've had lots of -- on both sides, you know but mainly on the opposition side. but i would say it's been civil. and i would say it's been

respectful. fortunately it's not deteriorated, not at all. it's this sort of vigorous engagement that i really value. >> what industries would be largely impacted in north carolina by a transpacific partnership? textiles? what does this mean? >> well you know, it's interesting because if you'd had discussions of trade ten, 20 years ago, we would have talked about textiles first thing, first sentence. >> sure. >> it's not about textiles anymore. >> not in north carolina? >> well, a couple years ago when we were first working on this i worked on behalf of some of our textile firms. and actually we got some good textile provisions in this bill. ings tex-- i think textiles are fine. so they favor it and actually stand to gain, i think, some of them do. some of the firms. the farm interests are very

strongly -- most farm groups are supportive. agri business, ibm and other i.t. firms, pharmaceuticals, a lot of the big firms in the research triangle area are highly dependent on international trade. >> how often have you heard from the president or if at all on this? >> yes. not repeatedly but i've heard from him and his cabinet members. they're working this very hard. >> what was the conversation like with the president? >> well, i was listening to your earlier discussion with another member and some of the points are very familiar, you know about how most presidents for most of their tenure have had this. not exclusively. fast track hasn't always passed but every president for part of their tenure has had this bill to get a trade agreement through on an expedited basis up to the congress. so why not this president? and then the president i think

sometimes it's like ships passing in the night. because the president -- and i think this is very legitimate, the president and national leaders are looking at the geopolitics of this and what's going on in the pacific region and what american leadership is going to require. some of our competitors are and the advantages that will come for us and for the international community if the rules of the road are written in a responsible way. and of course that's what they're striving to do. but the other ship passing in the night is globalization. and globalization's a mixed bag. it's certainly been a mixed bag for north carolina in terms of some people help, some people hurt. we try to compensate that with the taa, the trade adjustment assistance bill, which is also being tweaked as we speak. >> and could get a vote on the floor today? >> it could. that's a preliminary. i don't know whether democrats are going to vote for fast track or not, i think virtually every

democrat says that you know, it's a nonstarter if you don't do trade adjustment systems. republicans a lot of them don't feel that way, but we do. so yes that vote probably will come first. so globalization has been a mixed bag. and the question is do you in trade agreements are you just furthering globalization, or are you in significant ways mitigating it and controlling some of the race to the bottom that otherwise might occur? >> all right. let's get back to calls. andrea waiting in south carolina, democrat hi, andrea. >> caller: hi. how are you this morning? >> morning. >> caller: yes, i do know david price used to live in north carolina. >> oh. >> caller: during the time of jim hunt and yourself and lauder hill constituency. >> good. >> caller: i have a question and that question is the

democratic party has had the reigns now for several years but it appears to me that everything is personal. it's not about the american people. it's not about the trade agreement. it's not about obamacare. it's about trying to blackball, we would say when i worked in d.c., we called it blackballing a certain entity to make them look bad in front of the american public. however, we are looking at it from that point of view. we're not looking at it that what this person says is the gospel according to the politics in washington or in raleigh. we know that jim hunt has a lot of export import kinds of things coming in which made north carolina a great state.

of all the other states i've been to in the united states, which is all of them, north carolina is probably the best state of them all because of what jim hunt did. >> all right andrea. >> well, jim hunt was a great governor. no question. he's a good friend of mine and i owe a lot to him in terms of our working together over the years. you know i agree with you but i also want to say something about this personalized politics. i expect you're thinking of the president, at least you're thinking of the president. and i do think there's been a tendency among some people in politics some people in some of our citizens to oppose almost anything president obama puts forward. it seems sometimes have more to do with him than it does with the merits of the case. this trade battle actually is not like that.

in fact, there's some pretty strange alliances here. and the president's counting of course on republican leaders to get this fast track and then the subsequent trade agreements, probably, through the congress. i agree though our politics often is too personal, too -- people need to rise above whatever their rivalries and animosities are and look after the common good. i'd say though we were talking earlier about appropriations, the committee i serve on and why i like that committee, and one reason is that it's the constitution institutions committee. and we do have a history of working together. we have sharp, sharp disagreements. we voted against this bill. it was a party line vote and of course some republicans voted against it too. but i would say that we on a personal level we really try to not let it get personal. that we in fact find areas of

common ground. and i think we just to -- i don't want to be too pessimistic about this. i think we will get a budget adjustment for this year and i think we will eventually write a transportation hud bill, which it won't be everything i want but it will be a lot better than what we passed tuesday night. >> let's go to jerry in ashboro north carolina, independent. >> caller: yes good morning. >> morning. >> caller: i'm wondering why our congress can't introduce a bill. you say so much on tv and the internet where veteran 67 years old it can't be a felony or some type of penalty for stepping on our flag. because when they do that that's dead americans they're stepping on. >> well, i'm glad to hear from ashboro by the way. that community was in my congressional district. i had an office over there for many years. i'm very fond of ashboro.

my political mentor came from ashboro. so glad to hear from our friend this morning. and to -- appreciate his service as a veteran. and i think i understand the hurt that is imposed on veterans, really on many americans when the flag is desecrate desecrated. we do in this country permit all kinds of speech, all kinds of expression that is reprehensible and that is obnoxious. that is what the first amendment is about. and so we have to be really careful in protecting the flag, protecting the symbols of this country not to at the same time reject the very freedoms that we've fought for and defended over the eureka california,

on the air with congressman david price. >> caller: thank you. good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: i'm very so -- it will take me just a couple of minutes to say what i got to say so i don't take up a lot of air time. i've been waiting a long time. i'm a retired greyhound driver. now you know where i'm coming from, i think. amtrak is federally subsidized, federally subsidized means it's all of us taxpayers money going into this train which it's a losing proposition from day one and everyday. you're putting billions with a b, not millions into this transportation system. greyhound has been struggling from the time that i started working there back in the '70s. there was only two forms of bus transportation at the time that was interstate and that was chairways and greyhounds. >> i remember that.

>> chair ways got to the point they were struggling really bad and greyhound was struggling too. so greyhound absorbed them. and what that did was make one entity. so now you say we have a monopoly. well, the monopoly doesn't help anything when there's only one. >> okay. so william i think we got your point. i think what he brought up is a debate that's happening in congress is why should amtrak get more money from the taxpayers when they've been operating at a loss for decades? >> uh-huh. well, every mode of transportation including bus transportation is subsidized. i mean, greyhound -- and there are some competing bus lines now, some operators doing interesting things and niches where bus transportation is actually quite profitable. they depend, buses trucks, cars, depend on the federal highway system. and you talk about billions of dollars with a b, yes we are

talking about billions of dollars with a b that goes into maintaining those highways, providing for maximum safety and traffic control and so on and so on. it's true of air travel. it's true of every mode of transportation. now, a good deal of highway funding does come from the users themselves. these are taxpayers and they pay a gasoline tax. and as we said earlier that's not going to be adequate down the road. we're going to have to figure out other ways of paying for this. so you know we can't just pour good money after bad in terms of any mode of transportation. but where it's working and certainly amtrak's working in the northeast corridor, it's working very very well. amtrak's working in north carolina. we have train service now between raleigh and charlotte it's the way to go. easily if you have a day's work down in charlotte coming from our area that's the way you want to go. you don't want to drive back and

forth. and those trains are very well subscribed, three routes each way. so train travel especially in these regional corridors, i think, makes sense. i think it would be a shame not to develop it. but we don't have unlimited resources. we need to balance our approach. and all modes of transportation have a place. >> winston, georgia, kenneth a republican, good morning. >> caller: good morning. mr. price, i just had a quick question for you. a lot of americans out here when we have credit card debt we pay that debt off because it's obviously an economic issue that, you know we can't survive as a family without it. and i just don't understand how, you know every time when it comes to cut spending now it's both parties. don't get me wrong. i'm not cornering you out on this, but when it comes to cutting spending, nobody ever wants to cut spending.

you've got the lobbyists and the chamber of commerce and all the big fat cats pulling on your string. and y'all aren't listening to the people. i don't know how long it's been, 50, 100 years, whatever but the point is you know, it's easy to spend other people's money. but at some point you have to start treating it like a real person does where they pay their debt off. >> that's right. that's right. absolutely right. let me just add something, i think you would agree with this. you don't do it just by taking cheap shots at this program or that as though if you simply were to cut foreign aid to this place or that place that that's going to solve it. this is a huge issue the fiscal future of the country and how you get this together going forward. what i was suggesting earlier looking back to the '90s, it's not that long ago. it wasn't that long ago we balanced the budget. it wasn't that long ago we paid off $400 billion of that

national debt. and we need to remind ourselves the economy was flourishing during this period. so there were budget deals. and they just hit everybody. there was some sacrifice required all around. there was constraint on domestic appropriations. there was constraint on military spending. there were some reforms in the entitlement programs and so-called mandatory spending. and there were some adjustments in the tax code, especially requiring more of those who are better off. those deals worked. those deals worked. so i agree with you, sir. you know, you do borrow money to get you past your present needs, but you do have -- there's a day of reckoning that comes. and what these budget deals do is respond to that. that's the day of reckoning. and it's a lot better believe me, than cheap shots that pretend they're a quick and easy answers to this fiscal dilemma.

>> shirley is next in medor, georgia, democrat. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: well, i'd like to say this one thing. okay. if this trade agreement is supposedly going to create jobs for the american people to export, how is it that people in vietnam and wherever making 50 cents an hour are going to be able to afford what we export? it just doesn't make any sense to me. >> all right. congressman. >> well, that's a good question. this is a trade agreement that has a wide variety of countries involved. and some of those are more attractive markets for our exporters than others are. vietnam actually is buying more and more american products especially farm products. and vietnam of course wants to become more of a middle class country, wants to thrive economically. and hopefully that will be a

more promising market in years to come. they have some things that they're selling to this country. it's not a major trading partner either way. but if vietnam could be brought into an international agreement where they observe the rules of the road and they allow their workers to organize and, you know, don't become just part of the race to the bottom in environmental labor standards and so on that would be a positive thing. that doesn't settle it for this agreement. i mean lots of questions as we talked about earlier. lots of moving parts in this, especially about the process question, how congress is going to deal with this so-called fast track authority. but i would agree with you the vietnam right now is not a terribly lucrative market although it has some promise for the future. >> congressman, before we let you go i need to get your reaction to the president's announcement that he'll send more troops over to iraq. these are advisers to advise the

iraqi military. here's the headline though in the financial times. u.s. edges nearer to ground operation in iraq. do you feel that this increase in advisers is a slippery slope to ground operations in iraq? >> no, i don't think it's a slippery slope. actually, i think the situation in iraq warrants this additional number of forces. they're going to be in support roles. they're going to be providing some intelligence some training, some help in getting more effective iraqi forces on the ground. i don't think we're headed toward a combat role there. even the people who are criticized this don't seem to be saying that. they say we need more, we need a broader range of things that they can do. but i don't believe anybody should think that reintroducing a u.s. combat role in iraq is

going to be -- to kind of save this situation. this situation will be saved only if the iraqis are able and willing to defend themselves. i want to see them support them in that and help them in that. >> congressman, appreciate your time this morning. thanks for talking to our viewers. >> thank you, enjoyed it. live picture from the rayburn house where a house foreign affairs subcommittee will convene shortly hearing looking at international child abductions. we will have that for you when it starts live right here on cspan3, it's been delayed because of votes that are taking place in the house on defense spending and also on trade. again, we'll have this hearing on international child abductions underway when it starts here on cspan a couple moments. right now though a discussion with a member of congress on fast track trade authority. also something the house has been debating and voting on today. this is from this morning's "the wall street journal." >> and we're back with congress

luk messer republican of indiana. he chairs the republican policy committee for the gop. let's first talk then about trade because that seems to be a looming debate and vote here in the house this week. where do the votes stand? >> well i mean, it's going to be close. we've known that from the beginning. and it's going to require a bipartisan vote. but i think you will see the bill on the floor this week. you'll see it on the floor friday. and right now we're very optimistic we have the votes to get it done. we need the votes to get it done because it's important for the future of america. >> why? >> well, trade makes wealth trade makes friends. you know, we want to make sure everybody in america has an opportunity to get a good paying job. i represent a rural area of east central and southeastern indiana that's a manufacturing and agricultural based economy. and the folks in the corn fields and soybean fields of indiana are selling their product all

over the world. and in the factories of indiana from honda cars to toyota forklifts to cummins engines. my mom just retired from the delta faucet factory. she was a single mom that raised my brother and i on her own because of a job in a manufacturing facility. and the reality is is 70% of the world's purchasing power lives outside of america. obviously 95% plus of the world lives outside of america. and trade-based jobs just pay more. so for all those reasons we need to make sure that we're able to trade with the rest of the world. >> democratic lawmakers ones that have been on this program have told our viewers, how are workers like your mom going to compete with workers from vietnam that make 55 cents an hour? >> yeah. well the question is if you get past the rhetoric and look at the facts the reality is this is that the countries where we

have trade agreements we have a small trade surplus. the real problem is the countries where we don't have trade agreements, where we're not able to enforce our standards, our trade rules against them so we have about a $500 billion deficit with those countries. those are many of the countries that have the 55-cent jobs that you're talking about. so our best opportunity to create wealth, to create jobs, to increase wages because again these trade-based jobs are jobs that pay better is to have agreements that then are enforced. i think it's fair to criticize our leadership of both parties over the last several decades that often even when we've had trade agreements we haven't done a great job of enforcing them. so what we need to do is to raise standards around the globe. the way to do that is to have trade agreements. >> is it appropriate for the republican leadership to try to sweeten the pot for votes from

republicans in order to secure some more yes votes? republicans tie their favorite causes to the trade agreement. with a final showdown coming on friday, president obama's push to pursue a sweeping trade agreement the vote brokering has begun and it is all tilting to the right. representative james -- compel the united states to address climate change, for steve king republican of iowa another provision would prohibit future trade deals from loosening immigration laws or expanding visa access. representative prioritizing trade with israel and encouraging u.s. from boycotting the firm or sanctioning the jewish state. >> i would agree with all those provisions. the legislative process has forever been one where individual members of congress have input. you know there used to be a time in this city with earmarks and the like where somebody

might get a bridge built in their district or a road built in their district or some kind of new museum built to support all kinds of different bills. obviously republicans have reform that had. and we don't have that process now. the legislative process is always one of a complicated set of issues. this is a really important legislation to get past. i encourage -- i'm encouraged by our leadership's effort to get that done. >> so it's okay but to add these unrelated provisions if you will? >> i wouldn't say they're unrelated. i mean for example, i want to have trade agreements that we make sure doesn't bring -- standards on climate change. i want to make sure that the trade agreement isn't used in a way that violates our existing immigration laws. so to me those are the kinds of provisions that would make sense. of course they could add things that might change my vote. and so i think that's the challenge and really the regulator on what our leadership will do. if they add provisions a majority of members of congress don't sport, then it won't be in

the bill. >> let's talk about iraq as well and policy on that. because the president says he's noi going to send 450 more advisers to iraq to help win back ramadi from isis. why hasn't the speaker of the house and the republican leadership brought up a new authorization of military force for lawmakers to debate and authorize this war if you will against isis? >> i would like to see us bring up a new authorization of military force. the existing authorization we're operating off of is essentially a 9/11-era provision. i think it's time to re-examine as a nation what our commitments are, what our mission is in that region of the world. from my perspective we have to defeat isis. they are a declared enemy of america, declared enemy of israel and other allies in the region. there've been tremendous

sacrifice of blood and treasure in iraq over the last decade. i think it's important that we prevail there. frankly, the president needs to lead here. i mean, i don't believe the president has fully explained our nation the breadth and depth of our challenge with isis and the importance of our continued success in iraq and afghanistan. obviously isis has gained major ground in that region of the world. i'll leave it to the military experts about the specifics of the president and bringing these troops -- you know, the additional 450 troops to the region. i just believe we need a much stronger commitment to success there. >> the president did send out to congress language for a new aumf, authorization for military force. the speaker of the house could bring that to the floor or bring a revised one. >> well, if he brought it to the floor now it wouldn't pass and

succeed. the challenges many of the -- many of the members of the democratic caucus would like to see now authorization of military force in that region at all. frankly, i thought the president's language weakened the president's ability to be successful in that region. republicans would and could if we brought fourth our version would be much stronger and give the president latitude to be successful in that region of the world. the president has said he doesn't want broader latitude. i think that's where we are at an impasse. we are operating under the existing aumf. i'd like to see us have one that better reflects america's current challenges. excuse me. but to do that we're going to have to have a commander in chief who leads. >> all right. well, there are more issues to discuss, but with those two on the table let's get to calls.

beverly in columbia missouri, a democrat. hi there. >> caller: yes. i have one question. you said on the tpp that it would bring good paying jobs to the united states. the second question is, if that's true why is all these states putting in right to work? we know that lowers wages. the american people aren't stupid, sir. that's all i got to say. >> all right beverly. >> well, let me tell you first, i think we agree on the last thing you said. i am certain that the american people are smart. and we have to first distinguish here on the difference between the tpp and the tpa. so the tpp is the legislation that will be the trade agreement for the asia pacific region. the tpa is the agreement we're now debating this week that would give the president the authority to negotiate such agreements over a period of time. frankly would apply past

president obama's presidency. every american president since franklin roosevelt has had that authority. and i believe that it's appropriate for the president to go and negotiate under instructions of congress it's important to understand that actually the tpa strengthens congress' hands in these negotiations because it requires any agreement that is passed set publicly for 60 days before the president can sign it that alone before congress is forced to vote upon it. if congress does not approve of the trade agreement, it will not take effect. it will not become law. now, as to your questions about right to work frankly i believe everybody in america ought to have an opportunity to work in the place that they believe works best for them. i believe that union workers ought to have the opportunity to unionize if they decide to do so. and i also believe that somebody ought not be required to not work in a facility if they

choose to not want to join that union. there's all kinds of economic statistics that show more jobs and opportunity come when you have right to work. it's why all across the country states are passing those provisions. indiana passed a right to work law recently and it's helped bring jobs and opportunity to our state. >> jack in new jersey a republican. good morning to you. >> caller: good morning. to mr. messer, i am a registered republican. still a registered republican, but i haven't even voted last several elections. i've almost given up hope. the republicans time and again put the interests of their financial contributors ahead of the citizens. if you'd like an education, read a book called "factory man." excellent. my son moved to that area of virginia some years ago. it is the most depressed area i

have ever seen. used to be thriving with factories making furniture, carpeting, linens, clothing, they're all closed. they're all done. >> sorry, jack. i thought you were finished there. >> i can respond. let me tell you i know firsthand in my region the area i represent in indiana both the agricultural sector where folks are growing corn and soybeans and agricultural products that are exported all over the world and the manufacturing sector where from automobiles to engines to faucets, folks are building, making things that are sold all over the woshld. now, you make an important point which is to say as much as i'm a free trader and believe that trade creates wealth and jobs and opportunity, the facts are the facts. the facts are one in five american jobs are rooted in

exports and that those jobs pay better than jobs that are -- you know, aren't in the export sectors. the benefits of trade don't fall uniformly. there are winners and losers in those trade agreements. that's why we're debating today trade assistance that would allow and help those workers who are impacted in a negative way through trade agreements. >> and we'll go to michigan next. brian, democratic caller. hi therehi greta. good morning. mr. messer representative messer, i would like to say that all of the trade agreements, cappa, nafta, the one with columbia and the one that we have with south korea, it is supposed to be fair. we have -- i think we exported 25,000 cars roughly to korea last year while at the same time

they exported about 240,000 some to the united states, if that is fair i would like to know what is crooked. the trade agreements are not being followed through on they are not being enforced. if you are not going to enforce them -- i voted for barack obama twice and i might vote for him again but i don't think that trade agreement is right. >> yeah, again it is important that we have trade agreements. our trade deficit $500 trillion, i think it is fair to say the trade agreements have not been aud quatly enforced and we have taken an approach to open up a market even in small ways we won't require them to open up to all of our products and i believe those days have changed and leaders in both parties understand that we need to require them to treat freely and fairly with us.

but our best deal to do that is to trade with us. and i understand the temptation to draw up the draw bridges and lock in america and prohibit other products from coming to our country but it just won't work. there are hundreds of millions of people all over the globe who are ready to compete in the modern economy. 70% of the world's purchasing power is outside of our country and if we want to continue to grow and prosper and manufacturing sector to continue where america stays a country that makes things and for america to stay great, we have to stay a country to make things, we have to continue to trade. and so that is why i support trade. >> david is an independent in sanford, maine you're on the air, david. >> yes good morning. i would like to make a couple of comments. my comment is that a democratic party and this president is what is wrong with this country and

as far as trade goes, the republican party has a chance to stand with the working man and if they vote for this so-called trade agreement the chamber of commerce and the republican party is selling out the american people and the working man. and also my other comment is i believe firmly, this is not disparaging, that barack obama is a muslim or a muslim sympathizer. >> but david he said he is a christian so let's move on from that. >> yeah, i mean, the best way for us to enforce trade standards on other countries around the world is through trade agreements. we have a trade surplus with those keernts where we have -- countries where we have agreements and some of the jobs with those agreements are the best paying jobs in our economy. and i understand the challenges

are there for those jobs lost in our country. there are the old line by harry truman is a recession is when a neighbor loses his job and a depression is when you lose yours. and it is important as part of this package but for america to grow and prosper and for our kids to have a chance for good paying jobs, we need to trade with the world. >> and the laib department is poised to look at the over time rules. the current rules, employers required to pay a time and a half above 40 hours for those making less than 23,660 dollars per year and that has not been adjusted since 1970. and so the laib department set to raise the threshold to around 31,000. and congress can't object to it

and it doesn't require congressional approval. >> congress would have to pass legislation to stop it to your point, greta. it is not something that requires congressional approval. to me, it looks like one more disincentive that the president is putting out there to create full time jobs in our economy and the real problem in our economy is we don't have enough people with jobs and not those working at $50,000 jobs and working at more than 40 hours to do that. and one of the problems with this administration is it often seems to ignore basic rules of economics. the idea you get less of what you penalize and more of what you innocent. and if we raise that to $50,000 you'll encourage employers to pull less than $50,000 for those jobs and fewer of those jobz. i worry about -- is like what

we've seen in the president's 40 hour requirement in the health care law. that what woof seen is -- you've seen is employers pushing employees down to 35 or 32 hours and have programs in place. i've heard mcdonald's has a program in place where the managers -- an alarm comes up on the computer and said these clearing in on 40 hours and you need to not work them any more this week. i don't think that is the intent of the law but that is the impact of the law. and in the end if the president pushes this bill forward it will essentially hurt the people he is trying to help. >> and do you think congress will pass a bill to try to stop this and is there a compromise there and because it hasn't been adjusted for inflation since the 1970s. >> and i think it is important to realize moses didn't come down with the tablets and create the lay of the land of the law but the question is are you going to hurt or help working

americans with these provisions. the house is looking at hearings very soon that the education committee will be holding hearings and i believe you will see legislation come out of that. clearly the president has a veto power over any legislation we could pass. we have the filibuster questions in the senate. i think it would be difficult to pass a law to stop this but the question is is it good policy and i want to see us with policies that create more jobs and more opportunities and better wanls for workers and i worry if we're not careful we could key ate a distance for people to be paid better. >> our guest is luke messer, republican of indiana, serving in the second term. and he was just talking about the education and work force committee, he serves in. and this is steve from pennsylvania, an independent. >> good morning. my name is steve yeah. anyhow, this whole tpp thing has

to do with immigration. you talk about comparing jobs overseas, and jobs over here, well the regulations here are costing jobs. and then jobs overseas are made less. so what you want to do is bring the scale down for the american people to compete. it can't be done. health care, that is another big deal. i can't afford it. i grew up in the '70s, when i seen jobs start to go south. and this whole thing is about taxes. this government wants to feed the machine. i can't afford to feed this machine no more. it is out of hand. taxes are out of sight.

companies cannot afford to build anything in this country. regulations are killing this country. and you people on the republican side are doing -- are giving obama all of the power to do whatever. my thought is obama has got dirt on everybody in congress and that is why he's getting his way on everything. >> all right, congress. >> yeah, i mean listen, i understand the angst you are talking about, i represent a district in indiana where the folks feel like their idea for the american dream has been yanked out from underneath them. the answer for that is good paying jobs a growing economy and better opportunities for working americans. and again i recognize the temptation to draw up the draw bridge and block off america but

the reality is we can't stop globalization. we need to be able to compete fairly around the globe. the reality is as the caller identified, in many ways, we're not in the middle of a fair fight now and the best way to make it a fair fight and i believe the american worker can win, when given a fair opportunity and chance, is to have trade agreements, have the standards that come with the trade agreements and buckle up our bootstraps and go compete. >> and james, a republican, hi you are on the air are congressman luke messer. >> yes. the part i don't understand about this obama care come up and you all got -- for the last two or four years about him on transparency and here you are lining right up to do the same thing and all you are all doing is knocking the working man down in america. and y'all better get it together up there because y'all are doing

harm to the united states passing this bill. if it is good for the american people tell us what is in it before you vote for it. thank you. >> well the caller makes an important point in that i do believe we need transparency. frankly the president and i disagree on most t