I think there is something to that. The way i would summarize it would be to say the United States is still the most powerful country in the world, but the margins of our lead are contracting. And what that means in terms of policy is that big problems in the world cannot be solved without the United States, but the United States can no longer be solving them alone or be dictating to others exactly how they get solved. So the premium in these coming years for the United States, i think, as the leading power in the world, is going to be on Coalition Building and alliance management. When we think about terrorism, think about cyber terrorism and big ideas of the chinese around the world i think the nature of our leadership is changing. It has to change. Ive written a lot about u. S. Power. At the end of the day when you add it all up, all the factors of power in the world, compare china, russia, United States, the United States still comes out ahead in almost everything, innovation, demographics and so forth, strength of our military and all that, but its a different model of leadership that we are going to be faced with, i think, given we are now working in a world that is a kind of balance of power world with rivals who dont agree with our concept of order. And yet rivals with whom we share some important interests, both russia and china, and we look at our traditional partners in europe, for example, where weve always been able to turn and have a reliable, someone has our back or is with us and following us. There you have centrifigal pressures. You can take immigration was the principal driver of brexit. If you start to see the eu come apart, its who knows whether thats going to happen . But we have to put it out there as something to think about. That is a very different world that the United States has dealt with for the last 70, 80 years. A different type of leadership that is more follow this event available online. We are going to take you live to a house subcommittee hearing, energy and commerce subcommittee hearing. Thats tim murphy of pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee looking today at the security of bioresearch labs across the country. Live coverage here on cspan3. I would like to thank the geo for their hard work and report for todays hearing. I would like to thank the department of the army for their participation today. Thank you for being here. Disastrously, recent incidents at bioresearch labs revealed lackadaisical methods used to activate anthrax. Such negligence continues to put human rights at risk. The proving ground shipped live anthrax thought to have been successfully killed to contractors, subcontractors in private labs in all 50 states. And nine Foreign Countries for more than a decade. Dangers presented by such a careless mistake are unacceptable. Thankfully no one was harmed so the arm dodged a catastrophe in this manner. Without Major Overhaul how deadly agents like anthrax are handled and research is conducted at the risk of repeating this mistake remains viable. In 2014, the subcommittee held a hearing on the shipment of live anthrax thought to have been activated. The anthrax was shipped from a high Containment Lab at cdc to another lab with a lower level of biosafety. The trans ferret potentially exposed over 80 cdc employees. Internal cdc review at usda inspection found multiple failures, unapproved knack vags techniques, a virulent strain of anthrax was unnecessarily used in research. Lab staff, lack of training, lack of Standard Operating Procedures, inability to find anthrax samples and disinfectant use was expired. These instances drove direct action from the white house, federal laboratory standdown ordered in the summer 2014. However, disappointingly, even with consciousness raised about lab safety, bioresearch labs persisted in questionable inactivation practices today. The cdc in ft. Collins sent a shipment of zika, dang and chicken virus to atlanta. The viruses were used for diagnostic tests under emergency use authority. Despite cdc forth collins knowledge of the inactivation had not been confirmed, the shipment was sent. Dangerous live viruses, including zika were handled and shipped accord the country. Cdc ft. Collins told atlanta, dont open the package until inactivation was confirmed and ultimately, thankfully the package was not opened. This continued problem of mistakingly shipping live anthrax and other pathogens led the committee to make a bipartisan request to evaluate issues relevant to inactivation. By coincidence, the request was made two weeks before the discovery of the massive anthrax inactivation problems at dougway. Today the gao will present its findings and recommendations on the inactivation of dangerous pathogens. Failed inactivation has been long overlooked by regulators in the Research Community. The go brings several important findings. The gao found the federal select Agent Program operated by the department of health and Human Services agriculture does not require laboratories to identify incidents involving failed inactivation in its reporting resulting in inconsistent and incomplete reports. From 2003 until 2015, the select Agent Program reported 10 incidents being, a gao documented an additional 11 situations in which select agents were not effectively inactivated. Since this select Agent Program lacks standard practices for identifying such instances, we simply dont know how often they occur or why. This is extremely disturbing. In the report, the gao noted a need for better and more consistent followup with problems of inactivation are discovered. As one example, two incidents at cdc under investigation by the usda in 2014 were not referred for further investigation. The lack of consistency by select regulators and cdc leave this subcommittee and the public with zero confidence in regulators ability to protect the safety of the american public. The gaos most alarming discovery is today we still dont know what it takes to effectively and reliably inactivate certain pathogens. The chemical or radiological dosing is not actually effective. In other cases, the process for verifying the inactivation is not reliable. It is extremely troubling after 15 years of efforts we lack competency ensuring the safety of the public from dangerous and sometimes fatal bacteria viruses. Its been 15 years since we became aware of the need for select Agent Program, and clearly there is a lot of work to do. I want to commend the army for its response to the shocking shipments and cooperation we received from both nih and fda. Both worked to identify improvements needed and to implement these changes, including creating new offices and committing adictional resources. I welcome and thank all the witnesses testifying today and recognize our Ranking Member. Sadly, there are six minutes left on the vote on the floor. I will consolidate my Opening Statement and ask unanimous consent to put the full statement in the record and other statements of the eeb members and register my displeasure with this process this morning, not letting members fully speak. As the chairman said, we are continuing to examine the issue of inactivation and whether we have the profit scientific processes to ensure pathogens are inactivated before shipping or releasing them this gained public attention following the armys dugway proving ground incident where researchers for years had been shipping live anthrax to labs across the world inadvertently. Researchers must inactivate pathogens for a variety of reasons. For example, federal agencies, universities and others inactivate disease causes agents so Vaccine Development and diagnostic testing can occur in lower safety labs. This work is critical for promoting medical advancements and bolstering Public Health preparedness. Its a part of this committees ongoing bipartisan efforts to accelerate the path of cures and medical breakthroughs, but as valuable as this research may be, it can be very dangerous. All of the agencies here today share the responsibility for making sure that harmful pathogens are being handled without posing a risk to the public. Now its true weve all taken inactivation events very seriously all the agencies here have been acting to try to implement reforms to ensure past mistakes arent repeated. Im eager to hear about those efforts, but i also want to know what more needs to be done to address the possible risk to Public Health. The gao is here to testify about their body of work. And what theyve done is identify a number of issues around the reporting and referral of incidents regarding incomplete inactivation. For example, the number of incidents of incorrect inactivation is unknown. The select Agent Program failed to identify at least 11 inactivation incidents in the last 12 years. How many more are there . We dont know. I really am interested in hearing from the witnesses about their plans to implement the gaos recommendations, and how we can go further. Im also interested to hear about the scientific gaps that exist for the inactivation process for pathogens. High Containment Labs across the country still have not adopted a uniform approach to the inactivation of dangerous pathogens, which of course increases the risk that this may happen again. This is something we just simply have to get right. And so i think research is really important to National Security, and the process of working with these pathogens must minimize all potential risks. I guess were lucky that nobodys been injured or killed from exposure to these agents in the last few years, but just because weve had good luck doesnt mean that we should take this for granted. And i know nobody here does. I know nobody here does. So im looking forward to working with everybody here and im looking forward to working with you, and the other members of the committee, mr. Chairman, to make sure that in fact we get this right. With that, ill submit the rest of my statement for the record and the other Opening Statements of the other democratic members. When they return, if the members want to give theirs, the Ranking Member does. You are recognized for one minute. Thats exactly right. We are going to have to run to the floor. I do want to welcome you all. As the chairman has said and Ranking Members, we have been here before on this issue, july 16, 2014 we had a hearing on this issue. I have visited the cdc to bloc at processes and procedures and it is such a concern to us, even in your own report. You have found what is at the core of this problem. The lack of approval, the lack of written instructions. There is not a best practices processes in place. So the gao, were delighted to have you here. And want to talk with you about three of your findings. The tracking, the gap, scientific gaps that exist and then the federal select Agent Program and the inconsistencies there. So we thank you so much for being here, mr. Chairman. I thank you for your attention to the issue. Thank you. The panel, we are going to run down and vote. A half hour or so for the voting. Well be back so you get a slight reprieve and well be right back. Thank you. The subcommit eave energy and commerce taking a break on their hearing. Look being at bioresearch labs, the result of a recent gao report on the need for stronger oversight of dangerous pathogens in high Containment Laboratories. The hearing will resume. There is a series of votes on the house floor right now. Once that wraps up or just before that, the committee, subcommittee should gavel back in. Well have it live when it does resume here on cspan3. While we wait for that, just wrapped up, well show as much as we can of todayS White House briefing. Well, well, well where to start . What do you decide well start . Do you have any observations from the president about the debate last night . Did he keep at least one ear on all or part of it . As predicted, the president did have the debate on Television Last night in the indian treaty room of the residence while he was reviewing his nightly todo list. The president had an opportunity to talk about this with Ryan Seacrest earlier this afternoon. His main takeaway is that the candidate he strongly supports is the candidate that performed quite strongly in the debate last night. She made a very powerful case, particularly at beginning for building on the economic progress this country has made in digging out of the worst economic down turn since the great depression. She laid out a strategy thats focused on cutting taxes for middle class families, asking those at the top income scale to pay more. Closing tax loopholes that only benefit the wealthy and well connected. Focusing on investments in Early Childhood education and college education. Growing our economy from the middle out. That is precisely the Economic Strategy president obama pursued and that is the strategy that has yielded the longest streak of consecutive monthly job Growth Numbers in our nations history. We saw in the census data released a couple of weeks ago that in 2015, the Median Income in this country rose higher than it ever has, at least on record, in one year. And that poverty declined as much in one year as it has in about 50 years. So the president has pursued a strategy similar to the one secretary clinton advocated, and our country has benefited enormously from it. He certainly was pleased to hear her deliver such a persuasive case about why thiss a strategy that is Worth Building on. What did he think when the subject turned to Donald Trumps tax, not release them and how it made him starter to not pay federal income taxes. There is any reaction from the president to that or from you . You said you dont want to stand up every day and react to everything donald trump says. The president is also in a position where he has more latitude to respond to these kinds of declarations. I think what ill just leave it to is the president is somebody who, when he was running for president , made a conscious decision to abide by the standard thats been observed for more than a generation, which is he made a decision to release his tax returns. Even while serving in office as president , he continues to release his tax returns on an annual basis. Im not aware of any federal law requiring it, but if every president ial candidate in both parties dating back to the 70s has done it, its something the voters can expect. The president believes that transparency is good for the process and good for voters as they make a really important decision about the future of the country. Senate democrats are threatening to block the cr because it doesnt look good for flint, michigan. Does the white house support the Senate Democrats in their attempt to block this bill this afternoon . The president has made clear for months that Congress Needs to act to provide resources to this community of flint. The president had an opportunity to visit that Community Back in the spring and he met with the mayor and he talked to some residents. He talked to federal officials who were responsible for coordinating their response. And what he saw was a community that had been let down by their government. And weve been advocating for months that congress has the responsibility to step forward and provide resources to assist that community in their recovery. Now the executive branch, the administration has certainly fulfilled our responsibilities. President mobilized fema. Fema handed out hundreds of thousands of liters of water. We have seen rampedup assistance to meet the basic Health Care Needs of children that potentially were negatively affected by drinking the water. And there have been an effort to try to address some of these problems at the community level, but there is a significant investment in infrastructure in flint thats required to address this problem. Congress has the responsibility to step forward and provide those resources. The president s been calling them to do that for months. So included in the proposed text, at least based on what ive been told, are steps congress has taken to provide relief that the families in louisiana and maryland and other places that have been hit by historic flooding. Those are communities that need to be rebuilt, as well. The president was among the first to call on congress to act to provide resources to louisiana. And the president believes congress should do the same thing for flint and other communities that are dealing with challenges. Republicans say they will take care of flint, michigan, in separate legislation. Does the white house not believe them when they say theyll take care of that . As ive acknowledged on many occasions standing here, im certainly no expert in the legislative procedure, but based on way understand of the situation, there is some funding for flint included in the senates version of the Water Resources bill. The house version does not include funding for flint. This is a little ironic because the speaker of the house says he opposes adding funding for flint to the continuing resolution, and believes it should be handled in the Water Resources bill. But its not included in the Water Resources bill thats advancing through the house. And then he has the ner