then a hearing on food safety. representative dave brat,

republican of virginia. you've been in congress for about a year after knocking after eric cantor. how has your life changed? >> pretty dramatic. being a professor was a nice life. getting to see the kids and that kind of thing. now all that -- it's hard. when you're done here, i promise to go to nine counties in the city. i'm up here in three weeks. then i've got a week back with my constituents. i promise to go through nine counties in the city. working all that and keeping a family balance is tough, but i asked for the job and i love it. i feel it's very meaningful. it's all worth it. >> do you see things differently now being on the inside? >> yeah, a little bit. i taught economics for 18 years, so you kind of know roughly what to expect and the politics, roughly a lot of votes are taken to follow the money. so in economics, i knew that.

i've been pleasantly surprised on the personal side. everyone's been very gracious to me. almost universally not one person -- everyone's been very gracious, giving me good advice, tips. got super friendships up here already on both sides. lift weights in the weight room in the morning. bipartisan jokes. that part's been great. >> as you well know, there's some issues going on in congress. we want to talk to you about those and have our viewers participate in those. do you think that the house, the congress, the government should shutdown because of the planned parenthood issue? >> i think the whole premise is wrong. the press always asks in terms of the horse race. i get that question every day. it's important to provide the context. last year i came in with almost

this exact same thing. then you're going to throw in that we had a bust last minute. after we promised regular order, we were right on the cusp of having both, so not totally to pla blame on our side of that one. who's in charge of this shutdown? really? i'll just explain to the listeners a little bit what's going on. i'm the budget committee, and i'm not in the room talking about any of these shutdown questions. who's in charge of the united states budget right now? i ask the press that and they don't know. well, barbara mccculcculskey's e

room. i call that the incumbent protection zone in the senate. they don't vote too often, but now the appropriations process is busted. a few months ago, rogers said we need more flexibility on the budgets. the numbers are going to go up, not down. so right now, we're hearing that we're going to have a cr this year, a continuing resolution, that gets us to maybe early december. then an omnibus. then we'll throw in the kitchen sink, and representative tom cole, who is a good friend, smart guy, ph.d. in political

science, i think. he said before we went in on recess -- we've got three really tough votes coming up. we're going to break the budget caps, break the debt ceiling, and we have to do something with this six-year long-term transportation funding. how do you avoid taking three tough votes on those three, any one of which could cause headaches? well, you throw them all into one. i'm on the record giving numerous town halls. i predicted this six months ago, exactly what would, because it's on the calendar. at the end of this, there's this shiny object in planned parenthood. it's a false narrative. you find a shiny object to blame on the budget process. d.c. likes to break budget caps because they like to grow

government. the virginia school, one of our noble laureates, he said the government's no different than you or me. we want to maximize happiness, individuals. firms want to maximize profits. government wants to maximize government revenues and the size of the government. it's no surprise that both sides it looks like are going to get together and break the budget caps. i also taught ethics for 18 years. you get spending on all this good stuff? no, but i want to pay for it. so all of this is adding to the debt. the debt's already 18, 19 trillion. the deficit this year is 400, 500 billion. it's going up to a trillion a year in nine years again, so the deficit's going up. who's paying that bill? the answer is our kids. we're passing along an anemic economy that's growing subpar.

the kids can't find jobs. the unemployment rate for kids coming out of college is horrendo horrendous. we're not skilling them up to work in an international competitive environment. so we've got some work to do. and so government shutdown, i kind of reject the whole narrative because it just focuses on this shiny little object period. that's what some folks would like you to look at. look at the fundamentals. look at the debt, the deficits, the unfunded liabilities are $127 trillion. in ten years, in 2027, all federal revenues will go only to the entitlement programs and interest on the debt. all revenues. go to their website. brat's telling the truth. all federal revenues go only to

entitlements and interest on the debt. so as an economist i thought it's my moral obligation to hit on this issue, so i'm hitting fairly hard. i think it's reality. i'm glad you have me on. i get to share a little bit. >> congressman brat, what's the solution? what's a politically feasible solution to what you're talking about? >> you can't spend more than you have. firms are firing people right now instead of hiring because they can't meet payroll, so that's how the real world works. the only place that doesn't work like that is up here. our states even have balanced budget amendments. most of the states have the balance their budgets. number one, you've got to trim the spending a little bit. right now in the short run. in the long run, everyone knows it's the entitlement game.

2/3 of the pie is entitlements. that word entitlements, mandatory spending, there's all sorts of names for it. 2/3 is entitlement mandatory spending and only 1/3 is discretionary. what i just said by 2027 in 11 years or so, the entire budget will be mandatory spending, so there won't be any discretionary spending whatsoever, unless your deficit spans the whole government. if we go up to that, then we're grease. i'm not a doomsdayer, but you come up on that point and we're grease. you want to reform the programs and the solutions, the big problems, social security, medicare, medicare. they were designed when the average death age was 65. they were designed to break even.

now people live to 83. we haven't changed the law. any third grader can do the math on this. that's why they're insolvent. you can go to medicare, social security, their board of trustees reports. we're insolvent by 2030 or so, and that's severe pain for somebody in the future. everybody right now fine, but somebody in the future is going to get a 30% reduction in benefits to those programs if you don't fix them, so we've got some smart folks. paul ryan is in the back room working on something. but we need some major reforms, not just tweaks to inflation indices. you hear some clever little stuff out of d.c. but this thing, you're got to get the economy running full speed again. you're g you've got to go all in. if you do all that, you still

can't even solve the problem. at a minimum, you have to get moving down that road. >> what do you think of john boehner's leadership in the past year? >> i'd like to see us take a much stronger stand on this kind of thing. we were promised regular order as republicans and our leadership said that. i came in on the omnibus. that also funded president obama's unconstitutional amnesty. i asked the solicitor generals before the supreme court is this unconstitutional. yes. president obama said it on tv. i don't have the constitutional authority. i voted on the rule. dave, whatever you do, never vote on a rule and never vote last. you can see a little foreshadowing coming here. my first week i vote against a rule and i vote last because i'm sitting here watching all the real world horse trading going on and learning real world

economics and politics. so we ended up funding something that in my mind and most people's minds was unconstitutional. our leadership said we're going to fight tooth and nail. this was the first round -- maybe not the first, but it was a round of extreme executive overreach, the presidential powers. in the entire year, that has continued. epa overreach. talked to my farmers and ranchers. they have to fence in every bass pond. they can't do it and run their business. one guy runs a small marina. then you get the iran deal. another executive decision out of the president. should have been a treaty. should have had to have 2/3 vote in the senate. i voted no on that. that's going down the wrong road because in the constitution it

says any treaty in the senate, it requires a 2/3 vote. the reason it went through is because all president obama is 1/3 of the senate. that's through. our leadership has said we're going to fight, we're going to fight. planned parenthood, we have these horrendous videos. nobody can watch them and even think through what that is. the human mind recoils from having to picture that. am i happy with leadership? no. we're not winning. i give them all "fs." fail. we did not fight. we didn't win. my district sent me up here to score some points. you've got trump and carson and t fiorina over 55%. people on both sides -- on the left, you've got bernie and some

outsiders. the country wants to see some change, and so i hope we get it right. we'll see on the budget deal coming up. this trifecta, if we bust the caps and raise the debt ceiling and throw a bunch of programs in without paying for it, the american people are going to say what are you guys doing. >> those votes should be taking place the 29th and 30th of september? >> yeah, yeah. we'll probably do some sort of cr to give us more time, but it gives you more time to back into a christmas holiday when the pressure is to get out of town, so you can just see the drama coming. the cr hopefully is not that controversial, but then that end product, the whole nation is going to figure that out and do the math. everybody's doing the math now. shows like yours, the blogs, the news outlets now are infinite

and people are actually paying attention to their political process, so that's what's changing. >> dave brat is our guest. republican from virginia. tori, you are first up. hi, tori. >> caller: hello. i wanted to ask him about the budget. with the planned parenthood and the government shutdown, is this attached to the national defense fund because usually it is? that's the reason why they don't shut the government down and they vote that way. also, i'd like to bring up the entitlement. entitlements deny people our social security, which a lot of people pay into and they depend on that. that is something that the government was never supposed to touch. yes, they should raise the age

limit, okay, because people are living longer, but at the same time they throw in the threats to the people that are on disability or social security disability that if they shut the government down they're not going to get their paycheck. what is in that bill that's attached to the planned parenthood, which is the so-called focal point right now? >> tori, i think we got the point. >> tori, thanks for the range of questions. your questions shows the connectedness of all these issues. unfortunately, a lot of these big issues, which you're getting to these connections between military spending and controversial votes, et cetera, they're called must pass. if you're a clever legislator, in order to get your way at the end of the day you attach something you want to get through to the budget on a must

pass vote and that's what's making everybody cynical up here. we should just be in regular order debating the controversial issues, the budget issues, the social security issues you talked to. those trust funds shouldn't be rated. i think at the guts of your -- i could the angst in your voice over the social security and disability benefits. that's the true crisis that's coming. if you're wasting money on this, that, and the other thing, that's the tragedy. the money's not going to be there for the folks who really do need it. i've got people coming up -- just tragic cases. folks are severe m.s. are in the office. we had a cures act this year. i put in an amendment on the cures act, and you would have thought all heaven and earth would have been shook.

our side created a new mandatory program. i didn't like that. that's the part that's $127 trillion short already. no, no, no, no. this cure's act, i'll give you the same amount of money, but let's put it in the budget and put it right at the top because it's very important. you would have thought i attacked something's that good. i don't have a metaphor on the tip of my tongue. we need to pyrioritize. i'm used to thinking about these things. the things at the bottom don't get funded. you don't do this budget gimmickry with this must pass stuff. i think that was the guts of your question. thank you. >> dave brat has a masters of divinity and a ph.d. in economics. the next call for him comes from

don in taylor, michigan. >> caller: i want to thank c-span. thank you, peter. we all new the constitution inside and out. this planned parenthood would be no issue. let god be the judge on that. you have no right to tell any woman what they can do with their body. you only work 100 days out of the year. that's a waste of money on congress and the senate. bernie sanders only worked 200,000. he never got rich. nobody gets rich being in the senate. he's 6 for 2 for 30 years. that metal cage around there represents fascism in this country now. you and i both know it. that's what's destroying this

country right now. you know it and i know it. >> don, i think we got the point. congressman? >> i'll get at the overarching thing with planned parenthood and religion and rights to privacy. all those are hugely important issues right now. i think we kind of are at a crossroads. thanks for mentioning -- i went to princeton seminary for three years. i've been trying to put those two together, economics and ethics together. people laugh trying to put economics and ethics together in d.c. he was talking about the european migration problem. he said we've got this underlying moral value system,

so it's interesting. we've got through 150, 200 years in this country without reaching this point, but i think we're at this point now because government is growing so much that this clash of values is reaching a focus point. so you say let god be the judge. some people say we can't legislate morality. we do every day. what's funded. what's not. morality comes up on the welfare side or entitlement side. take care of the least amongst these. you're coercing other people to pay the bill for that. we take a 1/3 to 1/2 of people's income away from them. to say government is not in the business of morality at all, i

don't agree with that one. we're in the middle of that. so we're having that issue. we have all sorts of constitutional challenges now. a couple of supreme court decisions a few weeks back that are hugely controversial. i think the values discussion is coming. the kids in the schools these days in k to 12 they're not taught ethics. there's no such things as ethics. there's confusion ethics. there they're competing systems because they disagree and that's the challenge when you live in a secular society and you have to teach all the kids. what system do you teach? what's true? i think that conversation is coming to a head. there's no way around it because we're going to be dealing with very scarce funds, and we have to reach some moral consensus going forward. >> patrick in maryland here in

the suburbs text into you, the representative failed the integrity test when he failed to list government giveaways to big corporations and tax cuts to the rich. >> who me? what's he referring to? >> when we were talking about the budget and the deficit. >> i don't know -- that's what i ran on. sometimes i miss the obvious. that's what i ran on. integrity is integrity to something. i ran on six principles in virginia. we have the virginia republican creed. it's very similar to the national creed as well. but those six principles i ran on and stayed true to them. but the feedback has been very positive. some people disagree with my philosophy. that's okay. most people say, dave, you're one of the few that's been up there and done what you promised.

what i've promised is adherence to the free market senystem. strong national defense and faith in god required for strong moral fiber. i've tried to live out those principles and implement those principles. so integrity, i think i'm holding tough, but if you want to push me harder, that's okay. >> what about support for the xm bank, export/import bank? did you vote against that? are you pleased that went away? >> yeah, yeah. it's no longer with us. there's a push to bring it back. again to the last call or whatever, xm violates a bunch of the principles and that's why i'm against it. i don't just willy nilly vote you can forecast my votes very

simply. my district montpelier, i don't think i'm that much of an enigma when you put adam smith and james madison together. they would not have been in favor of a special entity that subsidized loans to the richest agencies. if the bank is such a good thing, privatize it. if they're making profits and pushing money back to the treasury, i don't think that's true. if i were true, good. privatize it. equal treatment under the law for all people. fiscal responsibility, we're out of control up here.

we were just talking about prioritizing. that's the priority? i don't think so. i can go on and on, but i'm a no on that one. >> dave brat, you've been here a year. have you had lobbyists come by, interest groups come by, and want to hold fundraisers for you? >> for me, no. that's not a regular occurrence because i have all these principles, but i always tell everybody who comes to meet with me just get to the chase. ask me what you want. i don't like doing the dance. i say just ask me what you want. if it's in line with my values and principles, i'll say yes. i want to do the right thing for the country. if it's in the best interest of the country going forward, i'll do it. if it's not, i'll tell you right now. it's usually that simple. and so i get along with everybody. lobbyists aren't the bad thing, right? james madison, his hole constitutional architecture was

you want a lot of small competing entities. you want a lot of factions fighting against each other. the lobbyists, they're all doing their job. they're all representing their different groups. the one group that i have noticed that doesn't have a lobbyist is young people, the next generation. everybody is up here making deals for themselves in madison's architecture. every faction should be represented. the kids aren't, the debt we're throwing on them. that's one of my promise, so i pledged to do that. >> have you had an conversation with eric cantor recently? >> no. >> at all in the last year? >> nope. >> tony is in indianapolis, democrat. you are on with dave brat, republican from virginia. >> yes, my comment is about the refugees from syria. no one ever talks about saudi arabia and no people can stand their region.

our country does not need to take in none of them. a lot of them are single men because i watch every day. i seek my information. the families that are coming, the refugees that are over there in hungry, they're letting the families through, but a lot of them are single men. they need to be turned around and taken back to saudi arabia -- not saudi arabia, syria and fight for their own country. >> tony, thank you. congressman? >> yeah, thanks tony. it is interesting. there's several subgroups, countries in the arab world, and very few of those countries are taking any of the refugees. you have a valid point. the american people are

tightening the belt buckle on the budget side and asking about our force structure and the resources. we're supporting the rest of the world, et cetera. i worked for the world bank when i was in grad school up here at american 20 years ago or so. it's very interesting. if you look at the foundational reasons we arrive at this point, if you follow adam smith and james madison, you wouldn't be here. my whole life is devoted to spreading free markets and the rule of law across the world. the other side, the left, the political left does not like free markets too much. they recoil at capitalism and all these kinds of things as if human nature changes radically from society to society. human nature is the same everywhere. if you want to help the poor, the free market system is the

only game in town. i think the evidence is overwhelming on that. when i started teaching economics 20 years ago at randolph macon, the chinese and the indians were making somewhere in the ballpark of $100,000 per capita. now the chinese are up to $8,000 or $9,000 per capita. they're moving toward the free market system. they're bringing 2.5 billion people, a huge fraction of the world, 2.5 billion people out of poverty from caloric intake to providing education, some health care, electricity, the basic goods everybody wants. there's no disagreement there, but the toddata is just clear. under a top down system of government, every nation in the history of humanity has failed. there was no economic growth.

all of human history. then boom. due to what? free markets. if the left is really concerned about the poor and they're really concerned about migration from the poor, where are the poor coming? to the rich. if you want to solve this, there is a solution. i push it every day while i was teaching, while i'm up here. i think we have to get back to basics on that. i think we can help the folks where they are with food stuffs and get them through a hard spot, but encourage some of these other countries to do their share. the u.s. can't do it all. >> mary tweets, better learn to dance, sir. you are participating in secular government. >> i'm not known for dancing. what else? >> because you're working in a

collaborative secular government. >> i don't know what she means. >> she's saying play the game. >> i'm not playing the game. i'm an a-plus 100%. >> is there a lot of pressure to play the game as it is? >> yeah, when you come up first year, you've got a light switch. it's on off. you go 100% leadership or i don't. we always refer to this team. if there's this team, let me know when we scrimmage, when our practi practice is, so i can be in on it. i'm not going to go along with the secular morally nebulous game. don't worry about that. i'll stay true. >> have the appropriations and budget committees and processes been neutered with the contin

continuing resolutions over the last several years? >> yeah. i'm taking it out on my own party a little bit, but prior to that when the democrats had the senate, they wouldn't produce any budgets. the president wouldn't produce any budgets. and so we're doing them relative terms much better job. at least we produced a budget document in our budget committee. that's in that improvement, but the whole process is neutered. the american people aren't paying enough attention and holding enough of us accountable. if all the numbers are moving in the wrong direction constantly, which they are from a macroeconomic standpoint, then we need to do something. the military, et cetera, very hard decisions to make. you're got your force structures

as weak as its ever been. on top of that, now you have cyber threats. it takes smart minds and a lot of resources to go after that. you've got the new threats, the new things you've got to look at, so there's constant pressure to always go up. when you go up in government spending, you go down to private sector spending. you risk slowing down the golden goose, the economy itself. if you hurt that, all bets are off. >> will in fairfax, virginia, we have about a minute left. what will it take to go to zero based budgeting? >> a miracle. everybody should want to do that. go back. start from scratch. have to explain the basis for everything on a yearly basis.

i'd be a huge fan of that. unfortunately, there's 12 appropriations bills. they're territorial. within those, there's programs. every one of those programs are territorial. they have interest groups fighting for their continued existence. i'm all with you on the logic. i'm doing everything we can to move in that direction. >> how much time -- are you running for re-election? >> sure. absolutely. i've term limited myself to 12 years. >> 12 years. >> 12-year term. if you have a term limit of 12 years, your whole life is not aimed at being a chairman of a committee, building up this nexus of power in d.c. i think it keeps you a little more honest to your responsibilities back home and to your constituents. i've signed onto every term limit bill i can sign on to. i think that's the most

important single thing you can do up here to improve the structure of things. >> dave brat, republican from virginia, first time on the washington journal. please calm back. on your screen, representative jim himes, a democrat from connecticut. you probably heard a little bit of our earlier conversation with america regarding ahmed mohamed. what are your thoughts? >> that kid had the ninth grade day of all time, right, where it starts out in big trouble and it winds up with mark zuckerberg and the president. on the one hand, obviously just terrible what happened to the kid. on the other hand, we spend all our time telling people if you see something, say something. be vigilant. maybe you could argue that folks overreacted. i suspected they probably did.

>> "wall street journal" editorial this morning stuck on zero, criticizing the fed for leaving interest rates where they are. do you agree with the fed's decision? >> yeah. let me put it this way. i'm not sure with my three years of college economics i'm willing to say i know more. oil prices are shockingly low reducing the possibility of inflation. i'm not going to second guess them. the wall stre >> put on your former vice president of golden sachs hat. do you approve of what the fed

did? >> they were pretty clear that rates were going up this year. i don't see the point into getting into a huge argument of whether the right month was this month or next month. the economic recovery in the country has been pretty solid, but they did their work. i think they probably arrived at a smart decision. >> is the government going to shut down? >> i get asked that question a lot these days. what you're going to see play out in the next couple of weeks, i've got to tell you it makes me crazy. we're now eight legislative days from a government shutdown. this week the house of representatives has been focused on planned parenthood, trying to focus on what they consider out of line lawsuits. we should be focused on a

budget. this is a political fight between the far right-wing party and the john boehner establishment wing of the republican party. i think it's quite likely they're going to have to throw a bone to the conservatives and watch the government shut down. remember, they tried this before. we had a 17-day shutdown. it was a hugely politically costly for the republicans. my guess is you're going to see a very brief shutdown and people like mitch mcconnell and john boehner are going to reassert themselves. we're going to move on. >> could this planned parenthood issue -- has it been politically damaging to the democrats at this point? >> i don't think it has, peter. like a lot of issues, immigration where the national headlines aren't really about what's the right way to solve a complicated problem, they're about donald trump calling mexicans rapists and criminals.

my friends on the other side of the aisle can't resist the temptation to take this a lot further than it needs to be taken. so i think sure, there's a lot of people who are anti-choice, who are really upset. i get that. those are pretty tough videos. on the other hand, half the people in this country are women. they're watching a bunch of guys who look like me in ties and suits middle-aged white guys talk about their reproductive rights. >> you have submitted an amendment to the planned parenthood bill that's going to be debated today. we've put the numbers up on our screen if you want to participate in our conversation today. >> my amendment says let's set aside this conflict we've had a very long time over pro-choice versus pro-life. i happen to be pro-choice

strongly, but i have a lot of respect for people who see it differently. if you're pro-life, let's be pro-life. let's not cut off the funds to planned parenthood, until medical experts can look us in the eyes and tell us you're not going to see more abortions or women dying in childbirth or more women dying of breast cancer or aids, then once that's true, once we know this act won't actually kill more women, then let's let it through. if they succeed in cutting funds to planned parenthood, more abortions will happen because fewer women will get access to birth control, to the kinds of education and training. my point is simply you're going to achieve the exact opposite of

your objective by defunding planned parenthood. >> one more topic before we go to calls. this is on the front page of the wall street journal morning. obama rethinks strategy in syria. you're a member of the select intelligence committee. what are your views? >> i've been pretty frustrated for a long time by our strategy in syria. i would almost put that word in quotes. if you think about what we're doing -- you saw the head of central command testify this week. we are trying to train up through the department of defense so-called moderate rebels against assad. think about what we're telling them to do. go in and fight asaad. by the way, fight isis. isis and asaad are fighting each other. we're on both sides of a middle eastern civil war. we haven't made a lot of

procesproces progress. i think what we need to focus on at this point let's get at the root cause. let's get everybody who has sway in the region, and that includes vladimir putin, who is pouring weapons in right now, the ir irania iranians, the jordanians, let's get them around the table and make an attempt to stop the civil war. you almost have to do that on a moral basis as long as people are dying every single day and thousands of people are dying in the mediterranean. the smart thing would be to do to get in there and stop the war that's causing it. >> with the refugee problem, should we increase our quota? >> the president has proposed 10,000 refugees in the country. i happen to believe that that number is way too small. think about it. the nation of lebanon, which is about the same size of my state

of connecticut, has taken hundreds of thousands of refugees. the idea that we can't help more than that is a little miserly. >> let's talk some calls. you're on with representative jim himes, democrat from connecticut. >> caller: good morning, guys. thanks for the call. about planned parenthood and those arguing for defunding and shutting the government down, it seems like their main argument is that a crime was committed, that there was profit being made. you have to ask people what is the cost of procurement and transportation of that tissue because in order for them to claim that there was a profit being made, that monetary value that there was in the video, has to be more than what the cost was, otherwise there's no profit, no crime, no argument,

in my opinion. >> all right. congressman, any comment? >> carlo is exactly right. it's worth remembering in the messiness of this debate that there is zero evidence, zero, out of a number of investigations that planned parenthood committed a crime here. they are reimbursed for the expens expenses which are associated with conveying fetal tissue for research. also not an illegal thing. people donate their body to science. again, you can say that that's wrong. that's a question of values and ethics. though i would disagree, i would treat the people that feel that way with respect. it appears that planned parenthood committed no crime. a woman has the right to an abortion if she chooses to

exercise whichthat right. the opponents have a standpoint. they're seizing on every possible opportunity as a practical matter to reduce the availability of reproductive services to women. you see laws in states which are designed to as a practical matter reduce the number of clinics where a woman can go to get an abortion, to reduce the kinds of educate that might prevent a woman from getting pregnant in the first place, all in the service of trying to reduce abortion. if that succeeds, you're likely to wind up, as i said before, with more abortions. if women don't have access to planned parenthood, they don't have access to birth control. they don't have kiaccess to the kinds of educational things that serve to reduce the number of abortions in this country.

>> the planned parenthood issue is not about abortion. it's about harvesting body parts. why would he deceive us? >> i happen to disagree with that. whether it is all the state rules that make it harder for a woman to get into a clinic that are focusing on -- i'll give you another example. today on the floor of the house of representatives there will be a bill that says if an aborted fetus is alive subsequent to that abortion, that medical aid must be rendered. who disagrees with that? yes. why are we talking about? because like a lot of medical procedures, this is not something you want to talk about over the breakfast table. it's like autopsies or anything else. the fact of the matter is tissue research has contributed to medical advances, to the development of cures that are

helping an awful lot of people, and you can be squeamish about that. you can oppose abortion. as i've said, that's a respectable position i happen to disagree, but then we ought to have the conversation and use the mechanisms of the law to revisit. if you believe abortion is wrong, go back and revisit roe v wade. >> 202, if you would like to text in a comment to representative himes, you can do that as well. 2027179684. if you happen to send a text, if you could include your city and your first name, that could be very helpful. dennis is calling in from katy, texas, on our republican line. hi, dennis. >> caller: how y'all doing? >> hey, dennis. >> caller: seven years the

democrats have had the house and the senate. y'all haven't had a budget yet. you're sitting up there and talking like you'll have been doing it. y'all haven't done anything. you've spent more money than anybody i've ever seen. as a private business person, i think it's absolutely person, i think it is crazy what you all have done. and as far as the president goes, he's done a terrible job, i'm sorry. >> well, dennis, i guess i agree with half of what you said. the congress has been dysfunctional and not gotten a budget done. the only thing i would change, is that you started by saying that the democrats have had the house and the senate for the last seven years. of course the republicans took control in 2010. so it has been a republican congress since 2010 and later when the republicans took the senate. so i couldn't agree with you more, that the failure to produce a budget, that the fact that we're probably going to see a government shut down and elements are calling for a shun

down in favor of planned parenthood. that is beyond irresponsible but the fact is since 2010 the house of representatives had a been run by the republicans. so i'm with you. we ought to change that and make this institution more functional than it has been. >> robert in orland park, illinois. >> good morning. c-span and representative. i have a comment about the v.a. i'm disappointed with the so-called customer service i receive at the v.a. while a patient there. and recently there has been talk about lives mattering. and according to what i heard in the media, apparently 300,000 veterans have died while waiting for health care at the v.a. i'm normally a democrat, and i'm very interested in supporting ben carson for president because he's interested in abolishing

the v.a. i wonder, representative hines, could you comment on the scandal at the v.a. recently and give me and other veterans an idea of what we, as veterans, can expect from the v.a. in the future, thank you for your comment. >> yeah, thank you, robert. and of course, thank you for the service that gave you access to v.a. services in the first place. you're absolutely right, and this sort of came to light a couple of years ago when it became evident that certain hospitals and parts of the v.a. were really incompetent. even corrupt. and you ask what has happened? as honorable as a man as general shinseki was and as much as he served his country, i think a lot of us arrived at the conclusion that bad things happened and so now we have a new head of the v.a. a lot of senior managers at the v.a. have moved on.

we're seeing progress in terms of building out the systems which solve the problems that we assign to v.a. hospitals. i point out, this is spotty. it is interesting, we've had some areas in the southwest where the v.a.s were beyond belief. in my own state of connecticut, the west haven v.a., they struggle with a lot of volume and people coming in but the service is quite good. and so i make that point just to say that it is not the organization as a whole, it is certain elements of it. and of course the elements were stressed by the fact that people don't realize this, but what is really causing the bulge in the python in terms of the demand for v.a. services is the vietnam veterans are reaching an age, 60 plus, where they need a lot of health care, just at the time our younger men and women are coming back with injuries and other trauma associated with -- both the afghan and iraq wars. so robert, you're good to remind us all of the need to stay

focused on the v.a. but i do think that directionally things have turned the corner and over time you'll see better service in areas of the v.a. that were short. >> congressman hines, a tempt from the 330 area code. i think the rate should stay until congress does something about a jobs bill to help us get out of poverty. >> i assume that means the interest rate. so i think -- i'm not sure who that came from in the 303 area code, but in nonfederal reserve terms, that is what they said yesterday. that could turn into less demand for our goods is concerning for them. when you say less demand for our goods, you are saying jobs for the people who make the goods. so i think the 30 area code is exactly right. and what i agree with there and made me crazy the last couple of years what i would say with

respect to a jobs bill, where i come from, we have highways falling apart and bridges falling down. we missed a huge opportunity in the last six years to make a major national commitment to an investment in our infrastructure. we're -- you talk to any of the engineers, forget the democrats and republicans, talk to engineers and people who understand our highways and railways and tell us the bill coming ought us is in the trillions of dollars. we have zero interest rate and if we had a program to bring our highways into the 20th century, we could have borrowed that at 0% and put millions of people to work. and i say this, not to castig ate where we were and i hope we will do this and bring the focus of congress a little less

planned parenthood and to the things and the constituent of my our. >> and your financial services hat and your former career at goldman sachs, why do the markets respond negatively when the rates are kept at zero. >> explaining financial markets. i'll tell you, if i was at any good at this, i would probably be doing something different. no, so market behavior is not so much about the facts as it is how did the expectations of what was going to happen, in fact, correlate to what happened. so where were expectations. so you're see a company reported $0.25 per share profit and the stock goes down because the market expected $0.30. there were probably people betting on a rate decrease. they sold whatever they bought to try to play that game. any way, the point is day-to-day market moves are really not that important relative to the much

longer term. >> what is the new democrat coalition that you are part of? >> so the new democrat coalition is a group of some 50 democrats, a lot of us have business experience, and therefore we're very open-minded and like to encourage and think about what you do to help new innovative businesses get started in this country. if i had to summarize the new democrats in one word, it would be the word innovation. what he had casual systems, what infrastructure, what do we need to make sure that the next google or the next microsoft or the next facebook or the next tesla, that those world beating companies are here in the united states. and so we focus on things like immigration. what can we do to make sure every huge brain that will start the next intel is here and not in china or germany. so i would call us sort of pragmatic policy oriented innovation oriented democrats. >> next call for representative

heims comes from kelly in georgia. republican line. >> yes, sir, thank you for taking my call. i have three questions i wanted to point out. i just had one question. it seems like a lot of barack obama's successes seem to be coming off of people don't understand are republicans giving him successes. i wonder why democrats, when they oppose the trail deal, y'all weren't called racist and bigots. you opposed him on policy, however, whenever republicans oppose obama, we're called racist and bigots. we didn't do it on policy, we did it because of his skin color. my next question is about planned parenthood. i live in a county that offers almost 10 clinics that do not perform abortions an they offer services to women who are poor

and cannot afford health services. and if i'm not mistaken, doesn't obama care also now offer free contraception. you mean to tell me out of 40 different ways of contraception that abortion still needs to be offered in this country? no. if you need planned patierentho they should only offer -- only offer what the -- the services that you say they should offer. if you need an abortion, then let another company offer it. but the tax funders, those of us that are against it, we should not have to pay for it. and every single one of you that think you are for an abortion, go walk through one of those clinics and watch the women walk out and -- >> kelly, we're going to leave it at those two comments. that is a lot on the table. representative heims. >> thank you, kelly. first, i don't think anybody,

republican or democrat, is for abortion. the question is, should a woman who chooses to end a pregnancy have the right to do so. and that's a fair argument. and as i've said before, i happen to think the answer to that question is yes. i happen to think that middle aged men, which make up most of the united states congress and most of state legislators ought to be humble about telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies. with you i get -- but i get it. this is a fair debate. nobody is pro-abortion. however, it is the law of the land, two things -- number one, subsequent to rowe versus wade in the 1970s, it is the law of the land if a woman wants to have an abortion, she has a legal right to get it. you can, if you disagree with that, work to change that law. i would suggest that there are better ways to work than shutting down the federal government and hurting the economy an the american people but you can work to try to

change that law. bup secondly, the only point, under the hyde amendment, zero taxpayer lawers, this is a matter of law that go into the abortions. the v.a. program and medical health care, the government does work in the health care, and under the hyde amendment, zero taxpayer dollars go toward abortion. so this comes down to what do we think about the attempts -- the practical attempts to make it almost impossible for a clinic to get started that performs abortion. as long as it is legal and women want to exercise their legal rights, i think it is wrong to instead of trying to change the law, to try to do things like get rid of planned parenthood and the clinics that provide these things, that is the way to go about this. if you disagree with borgs, i respect that, even if i don't

agree with it. but the fact of the matter is taxpayer dollars don't go to the performance of abortions. obama care, by the way, also had a an exemption for churches. the catholic church, for example, which and -- and other religious institutions that oppose abortions, there was a wor work-around, so it wouldn't go to birth control, let alone a borgs, that would get through a work around so they don't have to directly provide that birth control. >> representative heims, we've heard a lot about tax reform, something that you are interested in. how would you reform the current system? >> gosh, i hope it is not just the republicans we're hearing about tax reform. tax reform is a problem, it is urgent for everybody, right. in all sorts of different ways. the tax code is about assin efficient and -- as inefficient

and uncompetitive as it can be. it is way too long and complicated. it incentivizes the wrong thing. our corporations have hundreds of billions of dollars trapped abroad because we have a high corporate tax rate so why not keep the money in islareland or elsewhere and the code is riddled with exceptions and credits that allow businesses with a high tax department to bring the high corporate rate down. so the answer in brief, in my opinion, is make the code a lot simpler. get rid of so much of the gunk, the credits, the deductions, and in favor of a lower rate. get rid of the credits and deductions. many of which, what we call the tax expenditures, the credits and deductions, most of those go to benefit the top third or so of the income distribution in this country. so the wealthier people are actually getting the benefit of that complexity.

that is not -- there are exceptions to that. the earned income tax credit which helps lower income people. but you have a code benefiting people that don't need the benefit as much as others so we have to start with scratch. a lower rate and less complexity in the code and that will make americans happy and our businesses a lot more competitive abroad. >> colleen from florida, texts into you, what happened to the irs scandal. it seems wrongs are brought forward and revealed and that is it and we never hear a resolution. >> gosh, i don't think there has been no resolution. the irs has been pretty badly beaten up over the last couple of years over what i think was some pretty irresponsible behavior in one of the units with respect to making judgments about which political groups they scrutin ize more than others. and in fact, just in the last couple of weeks irs people have been in front of congressional panels testifying. i saw the chief of the irs just

yesterday in the capitol. the other thing that is important in the irs is that they are getting squeezed, badly. so people are angry at the irs and cut their budget. this is like the other thing we were talking about earlier, a little counter productive. you may not like the irs or taxes and most americans are in that camp but at the end of the day we need the revenue for armed sources, for social security and if you are angry at the irs and you don't have to know that that will result in less revenue collection and more fraud and less of an ability for that agency to be as good as it should be. >> brian is in waldorf, maryland, independent line. hi brian. >> good morning, gentlemen. i think it is rich to listen to everybody on the tv be shocked that mrs. yellen didn't raise interest rates.

any intelligent person with a mortgage would recognize if you have a zero percent mortgage, why would you want to raise your rate. what makes you think this will raise the amount of interest on the debt she has to pay. and secondly, obama would never allow the interest rate to be increased on the people. he wouldn't allow the banks to make more money on charging people more interest. the interest rate will not go up at least at minimum, until after january 20th of 2017. there is no way that will ever take place. now, sir, i heard you say something that you wanted to have more of the so-called refugees, as you used the word, come into this country. now i take it you have no military knowledge as all. why would you want to allow an enemy, which we are at war with, come in free, without even a gun in their hand, to invade our country, to unleash 20,000 enemy

troops into our country. why would you want to unleash that on us? and thirdly, a woman does have a free -- a right to choose. she has a choice to make. if you do not want to get pregnant, keep your pants on. >> that is brian in waldorf, maryland, representative heims. >> um, brian, of all of the things you said, most of which i don't agree with, the one that really troubles me the most is that you would suggest that the refugees who are fleeing war zones in places like syria are the enemy. i don't know about you, but i'm looking at the pictures of these people, these are bakers and policemen and firefighters from places likal eppo, who are leaving god awful war zones with their kids and crossing deserts and getting shot at and just want to survive. these are refugees. they are not the enemy. my faith said you look after the least amongst us so your

characterization of the people, i couldn't disagree with most. and this country was founded, where i come from, south of me, is a huge statue in new york harbor that says on it something i think part of our american values, bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses and my family were poor and huddled masses and now we say sorry, not only will we slam the door on people who are terribly needy and in trouble and change the country to we slam the door on the rest of the world. i couldn't disagree with you more with the way you articulate that. and quick point on economics, they are set by the federal reserve. one of the traditions is that we've isolated the interest rates from the meddle of the of the president an the congress of the united states. so what happened yesterday was a good example of one

strengths the country has is guys like me who may have an agenda or who lived at 1600 pennsylvania avenue don't get a vote. >> as always -- >> on the next washington journal, adam brandon with freedom works will talk about the group's call for the removal of congressman john boehner from his position at house speaker. and the possibility of a government shut down. and later issues important to black women in campaign 2016. melanie campbell of the black women's round table public policy network and editor of essence magazine vanessa deluca will join us. washington journal live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and we welcome your comments on facebook and twitter. our road to the white house coverage of the presidential candidates continues on saturday morning with a new hampshire democratic party convention live from manchester. speakers include five presidential candidates. former sect of state hillary

clinton, bernie sanders, former governor of rhode island, lincoln chaffee and martin o'malley and lawrence lessic, saturday at 9:30 a.m. on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. the c-span campaign 2016, taking you on the road to the white house. good evening, ladies and gentlemen. i'm speaking to you tonight at a very serious moment in our history. the cabinet is convening and the leaders in congress are meeting with the president. the state department and army and navy officials have been with the president all afternoon. in fact, the japanese ambassador was talking to the president at the very time that japan's air ships were bombing our citizens in hawaii and the philippines and sinking one of our transported loaded with lumber on the way to hawaii. by tomorrow morning, the members of congress will have a full

report and be ready for action. >> eleanor roosevelt is the longest serving first lady for an unprecedented 12 years all the while her husband unknown to the public was physically limited by the effects of polio. she dedicated her life to political and social changes aand her legacy continues today as she is discussed as the possible face of the $10 bill. eleanor roosevelt this saturday night on c-span's series, first ladies, examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency. from martha washington to michelle obama, sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span 3. >> dr. steven ostroff has been acting administrator of the food and drug administration since april. he recently testified on capitol

hill about food safety protocol in the u.s. s in an hour and 20 minutes. >> good afternoon. i thank the witnesses as well as those in the audience. this hearing will come to order. this hearing will focus on the fda's efforts to improve and maintain the safety of our food supply. i thank you, commissioner, for for your presentation here today. thank you for participating in this hearing. we're delighted for that and dr. ostroff, i appreciate the warm working relationship we are developing. and i appreciate the conversations and dialogue we've had on a number of fda issues over the last several months. thank you personally and professionally for the way you are treating me and this

new chairman of the subcommittee. one in six americans falls victim to food-borne illness each year. americans expect that food will be safe and the fda is largely tasked with maintaining that confidence. passage of the food safety modernization act in 2010 gave your agency significant new responsibilities in implementing a very sweeping set of changes to the food safety laws, probably, certainly the largest change in the last 70 years. our hearing today is timely, as it follows last week's publishing of the first two final rules for preventive controls on human and animal foods. in delivering these new regulatory responses, your private sector partners expect transparency and certainty from the fda. when i speak to small businesses and agriculture producers in my home state, their major concern is a government that limits job creation and stifles innovation

through burdensome regulations. i'm pleased that the agency took many of the suggestions and comments from the agriculture community into account by reproposing portions of the fsma rules because they were unworkable for farmers, and i thank you for that. modernizing fda's regulatory and educating industry and consumers are controls are at the heart of fsma implementation, and that starts the compliance process. it's vital that fda continue in collaboration to issue proper regulatory guidance throughout this process. i also recognize that successful implementation, and this is the part you want me to say, mr. commissioner, i also recognize that successful implementation does not come without a cost. and this subcommittee remains committed to investing in fsma's implementation with the resources that are at our disposal, and has done so since fsma's enactment in 2011.

i think spending in the last five years has increased 8%, something that can't be said for many other federal agencies. but we know that you face additional challenges and additional tasks. we're interested in exploring how we can be more helpful. and as the continuing process, as the process continues for appropriations this year, fsma funding will undoubtedly play a significant role in our deliberations and establishing priorities. i look forward to discussing these and other topics with our witnesses today. we have a lot to cover this afternoon. i turn now to my colleague for any remarks he may wish to give. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. thank you, dr. ostroff for attending. the safety of our food supply is something our people take for granted. when people head to the grocery store, for the most part people don't give a second thought whether or not the food they pick up for their family

will make them sick. america has and continues to have the safest food supply in the world. that of course doesn't mean that it's perfect. as anyone who has ever had a food-borne illness will testify to. we need to continually work to make sure we stay ahead of a changing marketplace. we don't think about strawberries or melons out of season, because we have access to food from all over the globe. to stay ahead of this is a monumental task and there are multiple federal agencies involved, including usda, which regulates 20% of our food supply, and fda, which regulates 80%. outside of the federal government, businesses and farms are we're working continually to make sure a domestic onion is always safe to eat, as well as an imported strawberry. the food safety modernization act, the law changed the way we look at the issue of food safety. prior to fsma, an outbreak would take place and we would spend

our time and resources tracking it down. now we are working to make sure that we prevent that outbreak from occurring in the first place and giving fda the tools and the teeth it needs to do just that. it's a better way to do business. the law had about 50 specific deliverables, no small task for any agency. and although it took longer than many would like, fda published two of the seven major final rules next week and the rest will be out, as i understand, by next spring. we're at the point where the rubber meets the road and it will require a new way of thinking for food inspectors who have been trained to look for a specific problem rather than making sure those problems never materialize in the first place. it's not always smooth sailing and i know that folks have learned about food processing along the way. i think most people would agree that you have done a good job working with industry to make sure that these new rules are effective while minimizing the disruption. so again, thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. it's timely, and i'm very

interested to hear from our witnesses. >> dr. ostroff, again, welcome. you may commence your testimony. it is a significant number of pages. and i've extended the deadline from the normal five minutes to ten. >> well, thank you. >> so please proceed. >> thank you, senator moran and other members of the committee. i share your enthusiasm for the warm working relationship we've been able to develop in the last several months. we look forward to continuing to work with you, not only on food safety issues but all the other issues that fda deals with. so i'm steve ostroff, acting commissioner of food and drugs. i really, very deeply, i appreciate the opportunity to be here and talk about the food safety act, also known as fsma. i would like to thank you and for holding this hearing and

the committee members for their ongoing interest in this particular topic and for the strong and growing working relationship that has developed between the committee and fda to achieve our mutual goals of assuring the safest food supply in the world for american consumers. i hope that everybody in this room knows that this is food safety month. and i can't think of a better way to celebrate than by starting the process of bringing fsma's important new rules online, as we did last week, and by discussing with you today the critical next steps that must be taken to realize the goals of fsma. so although i've only been working at fda for two years, actually began my public health career considerably before that, 30 years ago when i was working at the cdc on food safety and food-borne diseases. particularly at that time the newly recognized and deadly pathogen e. coli 157. while working in washington state, close to oregon, over a two-year period, i personally interviewed every person or a

member their family in the state diagnosed with that particular infection and visited a number of them in their homes. i subsequent did the same with people with other food-borne pathogens. i can say without question that i have a very deep appreciation for the suffering and consequences of food-borne illness and have carried that perspective throughout my career as a public health practitioner and as a physician. in fact, fast food safety was the reason that i joined the fda in 2013 at the urging of the person sitting to my left. despite today having much-improved technical methods to detect and investigate food-borne illness from when i started my career 30 years ago, along with some notable successes in reducing the incidence of certain pathogens, there simply remains too much food-borne illness. as you mentioned, nearly one in six americans fall victim to food-borne illness each year.

that's 48 million people. of these, 128,000 are hospitalized and and 3,000 die. this burden is shared by each and every one of us, consumers and food producers alike. the economic costs are also quite sizable. since we know that the illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths can be prevented, we must also quite frankly acknowledge that it is simply time to start preventing them. so over here on this side, cdc's food net data has shown that for many, many years now, the burden of illness due to the major food-borne pathogens remains essentially unchanged. as you can see, the illness burden from some pathogens goes up while for others it goes down. looking at the poster over here

on the other side of the room, in total the line remains distressingly flat. so i say to you that it's time to make that line start bending in the right direction. we believe that we now have the tool to be able to do that. and that tool is called the food safety modernization act. during my time at fda i have been thrilled to be able to participate in the process of modernizing our food safety system. this agency has stepped up to solve problems by identifying the best science and risk-based solutions that can benefit both consumers and industry. that is what we do at fda when we're confronted by such problems. i know that mike and his team have embedded this concept in their work to modernize the nation's food safety system through fsma so it can meet the challenges of a new global era. the enactment of fsma was inquestionably the product of foresight and the recognition of common interests.

members of congress on both sides of the aisle came together with consumers and food industry leaders to enhance fsma's ability to protect the food supply in a modern diverse world of free flowing commerce. fsma stands for the proposition that the standard across the food system should be to have processes in place that we have learned work to prevent food problems that many food safety producers -- practices that many food safety producers are already implementing. this means having prevention oriented standards in place that are equally applied to domestic and foreign producers, reasonable verification of compliance with those standards, and accountability for those who are unable or unwilling to comply. fsma directs fda to build a mod ern food safety system based on these ideas.

fda has fully embraced a dynamic collaborate approach to implementing fsma is working very hard to build partnerships and strengthen existing ones. this effort includes the food industry from farmers and manufacturers to transporters and importers whose capacity and responsibility under fsma for producing safe food is the absolute foundation of the new system. it also includes fda's food safety partners and other government agencies at the federal, state, tribal and local levels, and it also includes foreign governments which can play an important role to help assure that the foreign supplies to the u.s. market are being produced in safe fashion. and it includes consumers and patient advocates who have been victims of foodborne illness. because after all, they are ultimately the ones we are doing this for. two final preventive control rules we issued last week are

critical linchpins for building our new food safety system. they focus on implementing modern food manufacturing processing for both human and animal foods, thus ensuring food companies are taking a 24/7, 365 day a year approach and working with the fda to pro vent -- prevent problems on the front end rather than waiting until a problem is recognized through identifying people with food born illness as you know happened in your state of kansas earlier this year. these rules are important in their own right but they are only the first in a number of steps towards building a comprehensive food safety system. three more rules will be finalized by the end of this year, those being the produce rule, foreign supplier verification process, and accredited third party certification. then the final two rules will be issued this spring -- sanitary transport and intentional adulteration.

these form the network for food safety called for by fsma, all based on the principle of prevention. writing the rules is clearly ooh big step but it's only the first step. right now they exist on paper. the bigger challenge ahead is implementing those rules and making them exist on the ground. we strongly believe that if we do not implement the new fsma mandated food safety system in the comprehensive way that congress envisioned right from the start that we will fail to achieve the fsma goals of food safety, strengthen consumer confidence and a level playing field for u.s. producers. the line mentioned earlier will not bend as it should and it must go. so i'm very proud of this work and i am proud of our team. mike taylor alone has been a force of nature when it comes to fsma. so please continue to work with us to achieve the level of funding that we need to

accomplish on ground what is set in statute and in rule. american consumers are depending on us and they expect this of us. i will just end by thanking you again for your support of fda and for the opportunity to be here to discuss fsma with you. >> commissioner, thank you very much. let me begin just by asking, you outlined the scenario by which these rules will be announced. what was the basis for their prioritization? is there something about these rules that make them more difficult, easier, significant to pursue in what do we expect in the future? >> well, i will just say that they're all important. the preventive control rules are probably amongst the most important of all of these rules and they are the ones that are expected to be implemented first, and so these are the priority to be issued. and the other ones will come shortly after that.

>> the process you've been through, it will be the same process for the next promulgation. >> i will let mike answer that. >> the essential answer is yes, we will issue these. deadlines for these are set by the court. we are obligated to be able to meet all of them and we will meet all of them, i can assure of you that. >> just add that as the commissioner indicated, these rules from a wholistic package of standards that congressman dated to frame this comprehensive preventative system. and so we've been through a dialogue with our stakeholders that's addressed all of these rules because they have to fit together. we have to have a coherent package of regulations. we are at the end of the process for all seven rules having gone through the notice, comment, public meetings, dialogues. so now we are able to actually issue the rules in final. sequencing has something to do as well with just the capacity

to get rules out the door and give a little breathing room between rules so that we are on track to get these rules out on that timeline and just as the commissioner indicated. >> mr. chairman, if i might, mike can just make a couple of comments about the implementation plan and that may help to put some of this in context. >> well again, this is a large topic. i'm sure your questions will draw it out in detail but we are embarking on implementation and are deeply cognizant of the challenges. hundreds of thousands of facilities, the complexity of supply chains. but we know we can meet this challenge because we have the alignment of stakeholders and we've done the work and dialogue and support of shake holders. some of the themes that we are pursuing undergirding the implementation that we think are crucial to success, first this

commitment as we implement to provide clarity throughout reach and guidance about the new rules. what they require and to be supporting the industry in achieving what's expected through education, through technical assistance. we've said on any number of occasions that we will educate before and while we regulate and we absolutely need that. that's the first theme -- clarity and support for compliance. the second thing we need to do thematically is fundamentally revamp how we conduct our inspections, how we conduct our oversight and compliance activities so that we are targeting our efforts based on risk and actively fostering and supporting vot untearily compliance through front line oversight that's historically been enforcement and reaction oriented. now it needs to be prevention oriented. and supporting compliance. i need to add the caveat,

fsma has given us rules to take swift action to protect consumers but the goal has to be compliance in food safety and not just enforcement in an end itself. the third theme is strengthening and expanding our partnerships with state, agricultural and health departments. this is absolutely essential. we have a mandate from congress to establish a national integrated food safety system and we fundamentally understand that fda cannot possibly implement this law successful by itself. it has to work with our state and local partners. finally i just -- we emphasize and i think this is crucial, the commitment that i think we all need to have to this integrated comprehensive implementation of fsma. this system is a system that doesn't work if we tease out parts or delay parts or don't integrate this in a holistic way. i think the import safety provisions are particularly a crucial part of this overall system of prevention. this is how we will get a level

playing field for u.s. producers. we'll meet the expectation of consumers that the food that is imported into this country is as safe as food that is produced here. these are themes that we hope to come back to and we want our feet held to the fire with respect to pursuing this. in this way i think if we do this we can, as daunting as it may seem, with the hundreds of thousands of folks who are seeking to bring into a new system, we think we can do it sticking with these themes. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. taylor, thank you. commissioner, your charts particularly this one, what's the explanation -- what's the cycle that occurs here? you said there are ups and downs. we've had reductions and increases, both. is there a cause and effect that you could describe to me? why that is with one particular pathogen? >> yeah. that's a good question. i think if you look over here, one of the other things that i think is quite notable from this particular graph is that for

many of these pathogens that many of the reductions -- the reductions being the ones that you see that are lower than 1 -- occurred during the very early years of implementation of some new food safety activities in the late 1990s. and that really, if you follow that along into the 2000s, for many of these it's been incredibly flat. now i think it is important to recognize that food safety and foodborne illness is an incredibly dynamic area. we have new challenges. we have an incredibly diverse food supply. i would venture to say it's much, much more diverse than what we had back in the 1990s when we started keeping some of these statistics. increasingly the proportion that comes from overseas has grown. sort of the locally grown phenomenon has increased over that time period.

so there are a lot of things that are challenging the food safety system and influencing the occurrence of foodborne disease. but i think the bottom line is that as these trends have changed over time, we've basically been treading water. and it's time that we no longer tread water, that we actually do things that we know will work to make these numbers look different as we go forward. >> and you believe this will bend that curve? >> i believe it will bend that curve. if you take a look at several of the major food safety problems that we've experienced this year, including the most recent one that we have seen with the cucumbers that were imported from mexico, the various provisions that are in fsma are specifically designed to address the challenges that we've seen in all of those outbreaks. and so we should be able to

influence not only the outbreaks that are occurring, but more importantly i think the day in and day out sporadic foodborne illness which forms the -- bulk of this particular data. i think it's important to say that while we believe all of the activities encompassed under fsma will work to drive these numbers down, it doesn't absolve consumers of doing the right thing once this food gets into their kitchens, because a lot can happen even if the food as it comes into the kitchens is safe. so it is a comprehensive approach that must be taken to assure that foodborne illness doesn't occur. >> let me turn to senator merkley. >> thank you mr. chairman. in your testimony you note fda strategy is taking "an educate before and while you regulate" approach and note that you are currently working on guidance

documents. this is very important considering the first two final rules are about 1,500 pages. substantial amount. these guidance documents will be critical for businesses to understand and comply with the new law and they need to be timely. so folks in oregon are asking when these documents will become available and i'll just give you a chance to answer their question. >> to best answer that question, i'm going to turn to the person who's actually writing them. >> i'm writing them as we speak. guidance is absolutely essential to the success of these rules. we are investing a lot of resources in that now, even as we've been preparing the rules themselves. one thing i would note, in the 1,500 or so pages, this is 8 1/2 x 11 double space but those pages are themselves guidance, an explanation of what the rules actually mean and how we expect them to be applied. that's the first place folks should go to really get an understanding of what the codified rule language itself

actually is intended to mean in practice. but that is just the first step in guidance. as you know we are developing several -- number of guidance documents, some of which are the key foundational ones so there will be a comprehensive guidance on the animal -- the human preventative controls rule that will be almost kind of an operator's manual for those who are not yet implementing modern preventive controls like many in the industry already are. for those who aren't there yet, this is going to be a very helpful operating guide essentially for implementing the rules. they will be doing similar guidance for animal food and similar guidance for both animal food preventative controls and -- >> let me just cut to the chase and say, great, i'm glad it's going to have this guidance. when will folks -- >> these major guidances will be coming out early to mid next year, well ahead of folks' obligation to comply. and they will be open for comment. it will be an ongoing process of

dialogue but our best thinking will be out there in a timely way for implementation. >> okay. great. i've heard from constituents and that there are concerns foreign businesses may not be as closely monitored as u.s. businesses and consequently there might be greater risks from foreign products than from u.s. products. additionally, it could put u.s. businesses at an economic advantage of the compliance costs for fsma. in your testimony you state that fda can't hold domestic producers to the new standards if we are not doing the same for importers and their foreign suppliers and visa versa. so i know you are aware of these concerns. this may all further when the verification program will be finalized next month. to the degree you can tell us now, how will the fda adequately ensure the safety of foreign food products and will that oversight be as rigorous as oversight for u.s. businesses? >> i'm going to allow mike to give you some of the details. all i can say is one of the

fundamental tenets of fsma is that we assure that the safety of foreign sourced food is equivalent to domestically produced food. i think that we have that obligation to create that equity. we know to certain degrees the tools available to us to be able to deal with imported food have been limited. but this rule -- this law will not successful work unless we can assure total equity between food that is produced overseas with food that is produced domestically. and one of the critical elements of that is that the importers that are bringing this food into the united states assure that the procedures that were in place to produce that food are equivalent to the procedures that are in place for food that is produced domestically. let me let mike give you more detail. >> so congress did provide a

multi-faceted toolkit. for strengthening over site. the commissioners referred to the foundational part of that which is this foreign supplier verification requirement so that importers will now for the very first time have a food safety responsibility to be accountable to us for knowing their sources of supply and verifying that those foreign suppliers are producing under our standards. that's a paradigm shift if we can implement it well. it's combined though in the design of congress with much more overseas presence by fda. so more foreign inspections, more partnership with foreign governments, more investment in foreign food safety capacity where that will contribute to food safety here. we think this toolkit if implemented properly will work to provide that equal rigor. the question is implementation, can we make the investments needed to carry this out as intended. >> mr. taylor, you mentioned the foreign inspections. fsma mandated 600 inspections in

2011 with a doubling of the previous year's inspection level for the subsequent five years, which would mean that in fy 2015 we'd have about 19,000 foreign inspections, and i believe in fact the department plans to only conduct 1,200. so 19,000 versus 1,200. this lack of foreign inspections is adding to the concern that really different standards are going to be, if you will, practiced in foreign countries because there's not enough inspections to hold them accountable. your thoughts on that? >> you put your finger on a huge challenge. and that is how do we target our resources with resources we get to do this -- implement this law effectively for food safety. we have increased our foreign inspects from at least 300 before enactment in the 1,200 to 1,400 range currently, and those

have been very important, but they are part of a larger system. so the inspections are not inherently preventative in terms of the foreign supply verification programs is required. as far as suppliers for -- we we have to get 88,000 imports up to speed. that's a priority for funding. we'd like to do more foreign inspections but we also think we can leverage of foreign governments through things like a system s recognition tool we've developed where for countries that have advanced food safety systems we want to recognize that and be able to rely, a mutual reliance sort of relationship where we can rely on their inspections and not duplicate their efforts. so there are multiple elements of this. one of the major investments we've made over the last few years with increased funding from congress is to strengthen our foreign offices overseas which again are going to play a vital role in us building

relationships with foreign governments, outreach to foreign industry, all those things where we can leverage our limited resources to maximize prevention activity overseas. we'd love to continue to be in dialogue about how we increase the inspection numbers along with these other activities. >> you mentioned the one thing that i do have to emphasize though is that part of the request that we made in fy 16 for the full amount of funding which was 109 million was to be able to assure that we could carry out the requirements especially for foreign produced food. and with a number that is significantly lower than that, we will be challenged. i think that there is little question of being able to implement the various rules that will be coming out over the coming months in the way that we envision that they need to be rolled out. >> i think one of those areas that the funding is impacting is

in filling the foreign office. you mentioned an increase, but i believe the vacancy rate i believe is 40% of foreign offices are vacant. is that primarily a funding issues or prioritization issue? >> i will say that it is expensive for us to be able to place people overseas. however, actually placing people full-time in these offices is only one of the strategies that we've been using to carry out those responsibilities. so we do cycle in people for short-term assignments to be able to assure that we can carry out the things that we need to do in those locations. >> thank you. >> senator from california, senator feinstein. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i really appreciate the opportunity to talk with you, commissioner, for a few moments. i've long been interested in

this, actually before my colleagues came on and had tried to be helpful in getting more ag inspectors at our border. but that's a long time ago. california, as you know, is a huge -- it's the number one agricultural production state. can you give me any percent or any measurement of salmonella in california-produced produce? >> that probably is not a number that i would have off the top of my head. you know, given my extensive time at the cdc, i'm pretty familiar with the systems that they use to collect the data, including the data that went into the food net report in which california is one of the participants in that system. and so there are data that are broken out by state for the

various food net sites in terms of the incidence of some of the pathogens that you see on these lists. i cannot tell you whether or not it is done on a commodity-specific basis. >> okay. now the latest salmonella for us is the cucumbers imported from mexico and i gather that's 418 illnesses across 30 states. we have seen the most illnesses of any state. 89 illnesses, 17 hospitalizations and and one death. i'm concerned that year after year the centers for disease control reports that the united states has not made progress in reducing the number of foodborne salmonella infections that occur. i was listening, and also read ing your comments, how that's these now food safety recommendations you are

finalizing will prevent outbreaks like this from mapping -- from happening with specifics. take the cucumber as an example. how will you work it? both at the border, in a foreign country, with the business -- or the farm operation in mexico that's producing these crops. >> well, i'll preface my statement by saying that that particular outbreak is still under investigation. and so we don't know all of the specific details that may have led to it happening. but having said that, i think that if you think of two of the major outbreaks that we've experienced this year, one of them being the salmonella associated with the cucumbers, and a few months earlier a parasitic pathogen cyclospora associated with cilantro that was also imported from mexico. you know, there are some themes

about the quality and implementation of measures to prevent problems from occurring in the first place. and that is at the heart of what we are trying to accomplish with the produce rule. so that produce rule establishes a number of standards that producers overseas and producers domestically could adhere to. >> could you give us an example of the standards? >> you know, some of them are the water that's being used to irrigate the crops. one of them has to do with the access of animals to various locations. there's another aspect that deals with the hygiene of the workers that are working on these particular farms. and so it's a whole variety of requirements that will be in place under the produce rule that any producer who is importing food into the united

states will be expected to meet. >> if i just may add, the difference fsma will make is we've known for years what these practices are and fda has provided voluntary guidance but there have been no enforceable standards, whether for domestic or foreign producers, and thus no accountability for doing the right thing. what fsma does is create enforceable standards, then also verification that those standards are being met. it is that simple but it is a profound difference from where we've been before where it was incumbent upon fda to find and react to the problem in the absence of clear standards for prevention. it is a real game change. i think for cucumbers, that kind of example will make a huge practical difference. >> right. no, i gather produce is about 48% of salmonella, and that's under your jurisdiction. and the rest of it -- meat, chicken, pork -- is under usda, if i understand that correctly? do you coordinate in standards

between the two of you or are are the standards different? >> one of the critical requirements of being successful with fsma is to be able to work closely with a whole variety of partners. and it is not only partners that are at the federal level but it is also down at the state and local level where a lot of the e and local level where a lot of the day in and day out work with farmers occur. so, yes, it's very important that we work quite closely with usda to ensure the success of what we do. >> with produce -- for example, i'm had campylobacter and i know how serious it can be and it was from eating not thoroughly cooked chicken. so i asked my staff to look into it. now this is not your jurisdiction but it's interesting to me that 40% of the ground chicken in markets have salmonella. and i talked to a large chicken

grower in my state and i said "what about this?" and he said well everybody knows you have to cook chicken to 165 degrees until you eat it." i said "well, i didn't know." and i don't think everybody know s so it raises the question of how these two agencies interact. i think you have a good thing going in what i read on fsma and i like very much how you're going about it. i worry very much about particularly chicken because chicken has become such a high item for people in terms of eating. and it doesn't seem to me we make much progress year over year. but with respect to this what you mentioned, cilantro,

cucumbers, ice cream, tuna, caramel apples and these five outbreaks alone are almost a thousand cases of illness and 12 deaths. do you think there's anything that usda can begin to learn from fsma? do you think it's relevant? >> again, we work very closely with usda without question. far be it from me to provided a vice to them related to things that we ourselves don't regulate. all i can say is that they, too, are working quite arduously in putting in place additional strategies to be able to address those products that are under their jurisdiction and there are a lot of similarities that we are doing in fsma that usda is doing. because from the consumer's

perspective, if they end up with salmonella, they end with salmonella and they're not interested as to what the source as s as to do what we do to keep it from happening. >> we have two big agencies, one handles the meat products and one handles the fresh produce and i've wondered is that the best way to do it i think you're taking action and i'm pleased to see that. i'm also concerned about antibiotics in products and what's been happening in the human stream of consuming products that have antibiotics. could you talk about that and what your agency is doing? >> sure, as you know this is also a very important aspect of food safety and we have had a

multiagency activity in place called narms that monitors not only the occurrence of various pathogens in a variety of food products, particularly meat sold at the retail level but also monitors the patterns of microbial resistance. we look at isolates that come from products that we regulate, usda. looks at isolates that come from products that they regulate and cdc also incorporates information from human isolates of those same pathogens so we can compare those patterns and look at those patterns over time. as you know, we also have been working quite hard to address the issue of microbial resistance from food-born

pathogens. that's a whole other large component to their activities. especially by reducing the use of medically important antibiotics used in food-producing animals, particularly when used for growth promotion purposes. so we have put out a number of guidances and rules specifically designed to address reductions in the use of antibiotics for those purposes. this has been a multiyear process to put those rules in place. you know, we have done this on a voluntary basis to have all of the marketers of these antibiotics for use in food animals make labelling changes to remove growth promotion as an indication for the use of these antibiotics and they have all voluntarily complied. the phase-in period to make those changes in the labels is

to start at the end of this year and so we would look to see changes start to occur as a result of those practices and the other very important point of those environments is to make sure that the use of those antibiotics for other purposes is under the direction of a veterinarian. so both will be helpful in terms of addressing the problem. >> thank you very much, commissioner. thank you, mr. chairman. >> you're welcome, senator feinstein. thank you very much. just to educate myself in a more general way, let me raise a couple of topics that result in the questions of the testimony. one of the things i wanted to ask about is the cause of death. you cite the cdc statistics, th related to food-borne illness. is there a breakdown related to

consumer preparation as to the food being tainted? do we know where the cause lies, consumer versus provider? >> it's not an easy question to answer when you're sometimes talking about a relatively long period between the time that the exposure may have occurred and when certainly the illness occurs and when the death occurs. having said that, we deal with a whole variety of different pathogens, some of which is have -- some of which deal with items that are supposed to be cooked, sometimes you're dealing with raw commodities like in the produce space and so ultimately in most instances what you want to try to do -- and i think what fsma is designed to do is to keep it from being there in the first place. and i think if you can

successfully do that in many of these commodity areas you will be able to have an impact in reducing these problems from occurring. >> so there's a redhaux cuction can occur in the likelihood of the problem that reduces the importance of consumer preparation in the food item. >> let me just say without question that you never want to send any suggestion that consumers can become lax in the way they handle their food because i don't think that we would want to ever send such a message. i think what we do want to do is to be able to enhance consumer confidence that the food that comes into their kitchens does not contain pathogens. >> that was very artful. i'll re-ask my question which would be there is no way, is there, dr. ostroff that consumer preparation is not important regardless of what arrives in the consumers' home? >> you said it perfectly.

>> thank you. you indicate -- first of all, i wanted to follow up on the point of imported food versus domestic food. he was asking for equity, an indication that you indicated in your testimony that there is an importance to making sure there's not an economic disadvantage to domestic producers, not a double standard is the way we'd say it in kansas. does that double standard exist today? is there a difference in the nature and likelihood of food-borne illness from imported food versus domestic food? >> since i've been answering most of the questions i'm going to turn that to my colleague. >> i think the answer is that under current law prefsma, congress has made it clear that the same safety is to be achieved whether foreign or domestic. the real difference and where there's a different challenge is in the ability to verify those standards are being met and we have very different challenges

with imports than domestic because we have an inspection force here, we can go into facilities and hold firms legally accountable. we have a set of relationships with the states who go into these facilities all the time. there's no amount of foreign inspection congress will ever pay for us to do that would provide a comparable level of oversight through inspection overseas so that's why we've got that multifaceted tool kit, more foreign inspection but very much collaborating with foreign governments. so the difference is not the standards, they're the same standards, the question is how do you verify? the imports provide a different verification challenge. >> and under fsma, the ability to enforce those standards is going to in large part rely on the verdictfication of those importing food that their providers, the foreign suppliers, are in compliance? >> that's the foundation for the

new system because the u.s.-based importer is legally directly accountable to us. we can hold them legally accountable for doing that job problemerly so that's where we have the direct legal handle but we can go over and inspect foreign to facilities. if we see a problem we can keep the food from coming in. we can work with foreign governments to foster good practices and rely on their inspection activity but the direct legal accountability for imports in terms of private sector responsibility is on that u.s.-based importer. that's why the foreign supplier rule and its proper implementation is so foundational. >> what does that mean the importer is most likely to do to sign that certification? what is that company going to do in a foreign country to make certain when they attest that standards are being met that they're being senate. >> so under the regulation we proposed and you'll see coming forward and i'm not here announcing the final content of the regulation but the elements of it are evident from the proposals