management. congressman, you know when i did in florida, the team rebuild and i think that is the thing i want to focus on is an individual is less important than building a team. i think a lot of these issues become secondary to our response but if we don't have a good team and our operating as separate

entities trying to assist the state issues of them become things we have to deal with. >> and hopefully we can do with them before that happens. on this same vein and try to understand it really how it works, obviously another are a lot of stuff taken now to prepare for a possible resurgence, and the pandemic, was so hhs for managing the medical crisis we understand that. dhs is responsible for managing the consequences. now, would the dhs or they send a p.f.o. team our various p.f.o. teams to by pass fema and with a again reports to you as the secretary crags i go back to the same issue but specifically if that were to happen, how that

or? >> if we are outside this piece is the secretary is under on behalf of the president coordinating thinness of the family and support of hhs in dealing with issues we are not under stafford act declaration, that is a real potential here with this age one in one. if it does not reach the severity that would want a separate act declaration, you want to have the ability which is not vested in fema but the secretary to coordinate on behalf of the president and those types of non stafford act events. this goes back to other questions such as dealing with things like national, the national conventions are dealing with g8 summons for you don't have a disaster or declaration, having that ability to provide a coordination across the federal family is one of the mechanisms and one of the tools that exists under number five.

>> is there anything preventing the secretary from using fema outside of it stafford act? continue fema outside of the declaration? >> absolutely imperative one of the components work actively on the issues every resources to the table, in fact, there are capabilities when is a federal response not requiring on behalf of governor where fema serves as a coordination role supporting federal agencies such as hhs would but can you look at what resources we bring to bear, how we apply that and again our primary capabilities are coordinating on behalf of the governor's request to resources of federal government, administering the stafford act. we look as fema our response capabilities other than for the nation is limited because we use other federal agency private sector in non impacted states and local governments as a the responders and a disaster. >> so the question as we now because of precisely that why not use fema it is available and

again and this is again i am trying to and asking the questions and your obviously giving direct answers as you always do, but let me tell you what my concern is we have basically two separate structures now commencing disasters. we have fema and dhs separate structure. are you going to be looking and those structures as you are looking at the rules and regulations, are you going to have the opportunity to look of those two stretchers and come up with recommendations to see again if there is a problem how we can streamline and make sure there is no confusion where state and local officials and we know there already is because we have heard that from them and maybe you were one of the ones on the state level giving some of those complaints, but there is clearly confusion right now. are you going to have the opportunity to look for is that something you will be able to

look at and continued to push the secretary on? >> to be fair fema is part of the agency's planning for h1n1, we are not sitting outside, we are part of the team and the second thing you need to understand is that this tip of the transition at the new administration coming in the decision was made to go for the with the existing structures because when the first wave hits many athletes team had yet come on board and we were using their existing plants to do for prices. as we have come to that we're looking at a second wave and continuing to examine how we're doing things within the p.f.o. -- dhs and that is a process in which to the secretary is aware of the challenges we face to better integrate all of our resources together so to be fair we are part of the h1n1 planning and it h1n1 stock at the very beginning of the new administration with a dozen have many other staff on board so they went and made i think a wise decision to utilize the

existing planning documents and the concept of operation and they have since been looking at how to improve those as we go for the so as i have always worn it planning is a process, not an outcome that you necessarily get down and i think we are very much working on the process of how the best coordinate across a variety of france when there may be different agencies with leadership roles that won't fall into the purview of a stafford act declaration. >> i understand and i think this may seem like a great logical topic for cluster in your review of the department and again as to have her this is something is non-partisan, madam chair has actually gone to the point of writing the president and we want to make sure that there is no confusion that there obviously is right now because some states and local officials have told us there is so i again what i would like from you, sir, is if it is also the that will be looked at is something we

need to be pushed on are in and it is of the love dad them feel it would make me feel more at ease but is obviously something that has to be looked at to make sure there is no confusion in that chain of command. >> anger san at. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you very much, mr. diaz-balart. a this is one of we have looked at right munch companies to have a nail put right into so that it doesn't have to be brought up again and i appreciate your response. let me be clear, we are not objecting to anything that the secretary would do in the non stafford act events so long as it's not a federal home office coordinating officer appointed. we are objecting -- remember who appoints the federal of

cordoning office is a secretary as far as i know so it is in her power to appoint somebody who knows how to deal in with being on the ground and not unusual in the federal system for agencies like let's take agencies like hhs who has very many secretaries and these people have learned how to relate to the secretary at the same time that they fulfill the statutory obligation and the committee is objecting to being ignored, having to adapt to the appropriations committee and the same we have asked for it to be defined and gave permission was of the secretary wanted is funded and we don't care what she gets funded so long as that is not a stafford act notion and as long as she takes that caveat we are on the same page and if we are not then it was site of the last administration continues in this administration is not a waste of time.

is too many things we have to do. among them the three points talking about leftover from last administration, was to give the committee a report on one of the sense of size up to the wall and we've learned as we were dealing with the stimulus there was $3.4 billion in outstanding but disappears between assayed at louisiana and that the fema lead to an outside ny response from the senator from louisiana to have it the president's appointed arbitrators, that is just how bad it has become. we were very embarrassed by it frankly it added time when most jurisdictions are begging for the kind of money that fema had not even gotten to the appeal. problem was at the point of decision and nobody has sat down to look at the various ways of

its federal government and others have salas such disputes so we would like to know what at the status of the super $4 billion disputes has any evidence in dispersed and how much is left out of that amount? >> madam chair, i can give you some of those numbers and some are like this have to have a because it's an evolving process. i asked when i was originally agreed on a 3.4 billion assets -- and i was asked what are these projects. they said this probably unwise is my based upon a concern that's current projects being written and will end up being appealed so how much is really being appealed right now? that number is roughly half of what is in the appeal process. many of those are working through the system through a group that we set up with a state of louisiana that were senior policy, very experienced looking at stafford act and many

are being sent back down to the staff which two guide it to move toward on, with the 3.4 billion and asking for show me which projects are in the process it is what i have heard it was this was based upon outstanding projects work yet to be completed that the concern was there may be appeals there. but we have currently in house of the state of louisiana through their local sub grantees that are appealing is right and have a billion and the others may yet be to come and go to the project. >> and les 3 billion in dispute? end of the notion that we even discussed with fema things like people who upon agreement with part is for the procedures used with then it brings to this so that the state of louisiana -- by the weather was a similar amount not as high outstanding in mississippi could get on with it. this is one dead and lock in

that we need to say broken right away at a time when the economy is on its knees every where including louisiana and mississippi. >> i understand the. >> what is being done to break the deadlock between fema and the state of louisiana on $3 billion still in dispute? >> madam chair, as we go through the outstanding projects that are being written, we have set up a team with a state in baton rouge that is a very high level. >> that consists of the party is. >> our staff and their staff that are working to max out as i explained to you when you pager courtesy visits committees have these parties have a structural problems and i'm going to lay this on the record so everybody knows what our concern is -- this is a structural problem. you're mandate is two keep louisiana and mississippi from getting too much money. the mandate of the state of louisiana and mississippi is to

get as much from the federal government as they can. there analyze the deadlock so as long as you have people with a structural problem still at one another and i am not convinced that he will break the deadlock and what is your objection to having all parties agree upon a procedure like for example several states have agreed upon to solve a similar medicated issues involving much more money. what is your objection after both parties would have us say, a final say as to what the procedure will be forgetting the others to break this deadlock considering you are keeping $3 billion from the citizens of that louisiana and this is very slow progress. made in the six months since we discovered this outstanding amount, most before you came here but guess what,

administrator fugate, it is going to be your $3 billion of as you can give a timetable to get the $3 billion moving to the system and then if we see his lips and the appeal system then we're going to want to know why in the world can't the appeals be settled. problem is to get people money to get on the ground down when the state needs a more than ever because of a combination of a katrina and the worst economy since the great depression. we need to know what you are doing with a $3 billion to break the structural impasse. >> as i said, madam chair, we are working within the tools i have and am looking forward to the ability that bringing a panel in to give final adjudication of those disputes with the saint -- >> would that be an independent panel both parties agreed upon? >> yes, m'aam. >> thank you very much for trying to do that. i thank you to the structural problem and there is no way to argue that we can ease up on

louisiana and mississippi because after all we have been at this long and there's no way to do that with integrity and there's no way with any integrity for the governor of louisianand@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ rrb'@r o advance of in the federal government has never done, we are impatient as other agencies with from our money have found

ways to break impasses rather than lead to the money congress has appropriated if i may say so and years ago. it is unconscionable and within 30 days we would like to see what is the procedure, what is the name of the group or panel, when will it be operated, when our is best minds, and similar light what is the appeals procedure unborn, the benchmarks for appeals procedure as well. my impatience reflects the amount still outstanding. you have, indeed, moved guess so much for a big has a lease using knowledge that there is a structural problem and we couldn't even get the prior administrations reg knowledge the structural problem. of that is what send -- the senator from louisiana went to the president and said this is what you will do, said that an

arbitration panel and watch out for her because the next move to give a certain number of days was to set of the arbitration panel so we'd go to work this out, we can with the new administration and everybody and think intelligently understanding what the problem is. would you give us some guidance, first of all, let me say i appreciate what you said -- is just the kind of breaking fuel of a bureaucracy when you talk about what we are putting in your staff to a hong. people have to understand what this acid do in order to break this impasse here and it's got to say as we look at this structure which by the way the state may not have looked at in decades. we must ascertain how much of this is due to lack of repair and how much to his can it go through this storm. i present to you administrator, that is an impossible task.

but to come up with a figure is to come up with an imaginary figure in a figure that everybody can agree on, not a figure with a basis, in fact,, one would have to go back into the kinds of networking, mw small kinds of calculations that ultimately nobody will have confidence in so when you say that as you are bringing to the table a kind of different vision, that is what we are looking for for the agency to do as difficult as it is where you say look at the project. and if you could just, you mentioned in passing in one of your answers, if you've just say something further about that it

was very refreshing to hear because it means and when you hear the problem and see a problem ec id may be structural and was put fresh eyes on it to become a giant with a pilot project, but don't just keep going and it's a path is if you keep doing the same thing the same way you will get a different response. it would you lay that out of bed, the project, the notion persists the present notion you are considering at least? >> absolutely madam chair and one of those challenges is on not interested in getting man -- minded dentist a poet the project is. if you have a fire station that is destroyed by disaster, the uninsured elements which are eligible under stafford act for replacement, which you are essentially doing is you are rebuilding a fire station. the fact that in his records which may have been destroyed in the original disaster and the plant there is no fire station is what is on to drive the

project, we are going to replace the fire station if that is, indeed, -- >> what about the fact the state may have responsibility? >> madam chair, if that project is eligible the state has the responsibility as a grantee supporting him that local government through the grants process, but we should not be added to the burden on issues that two not get us back to the original project which was of the station was a government function and eligible for assistance in there are uninsured losses than in this type of event we should be looking at what it will take to rebuild a fire station person is looking for things such as maintenance records which didn't exist because there were destroyed as part of the disaster can i thank you, and have said it. if you are moving in that direction we would be very pleased. let me ask the ranking member before i go for the if he has

any further questions. >> actually, thank you, madam chair, i really don't but i want to reemphasize that i think the president found the best person in the country in the entire country for this job and that is why i am so insistent on a future that we have a clear line of command and that the person who knows what he is doing is the right man at the right time is the best in the country. if we get hit by another catastrophe we don't learn it then and that he does not have is a the resources or the right chain of command and there is confusion because we do have the right person right now in that agency as i think is very evident in the time that the american people have had the opportunity to meet him. >> thank you very much, mr. diaz-balart. he has gotten his disaster after disaster and we are seeing

evidence of that experience in response we are getting today and let me ask you about the last war complex that all of us have to a certain extent. and that is some complaints that fema has overcompensated fighting the last war when it sees another disaster it before its and that its doing but you expected to do, kind of lean forward and try not to have happen what happens last time. what we had testimony before this subcommittee, for example louisiana was the drowning in ice. we had indicated some word that florida has to ask the secretary of homer and security to stop

sending aid it, that this did have not asked for. would you speak to us about over compensation by fema? has it occurred and what did you intend to do while preparing, while meeting foreign in the event of a new disaster? >> madam chair, having been probably one of the folks that was concerned about how we were approaching the aftermath of a katrina in some cases i think supplanting the role of local and state government and there is a danger. yes, the government can do more into a lot of that. the problem is local and state governments are not full partners in doing anything before requesting assistance in a large scale disaster there may not be enough if the only player in town is federal government. behind me is a lot of that team both local and state governments and i think to avoid this over compensation nature you have to build a team that trusts of unintended to work effectively as a team and not second guess.

i don't want to leave it david maxwell hanging in if he has a request i haven't thought about but i should not be second-guessing him in responding outside of working with him as a team. team members don't do that, they were together. we are talking, working as a team but not supplanting is other. we may be anticipating a very you see something coming so that when that request comes in vienna delayed in getting that help but a real scene doesn't second-guess and fell in line with another team and their. >> and feel free to ask the department not to send info requested matters will answer in a resource to this date, is that right prices. >> yes man in some quarters taken i was in federal and the reaction was i think probably.

>> the taxpayers of davis is thank you. >> was looking pragmatically, states are going through tough times, it's the federal government is stepping up to the plate every disaster in states are less inclined to fund the programs and they should be funding, we will for the deluded are capabilities to deal with very complex disasters and people forget most of the resources that actually responded the to hurricane katrina were not federal resources, their national guard and local and state law-enforcement fire departments, paramedics and other responders across the nation. if we continue not to leverage the capabilities of state and local government we won't have the resources the next time there is a disaster because we have built everything upon the government doing everything at such low levels that wednesday's increase in the high budget choices it's easy to go somewhere else will take care of us is that of taking the steps that many states do in the face of adverse budgets. to build and maintain the

capability to respond to their citizens with our role supporting that announce a plan to end up our responsibility the governors have in their states during disaster. we don't believe in the domino theory or each level has to fill before the next kicks in, but we do believe we have to be 18 and that means everybody puts into the games we play as a team cannot depend on that one part of government to make sure we can meet the needs when disaster strikes. >> i just have a few more questions, about every couple months the national press all over the united states using a story war on let us call them the last most vulnerable victims of katrina who are still in trailers. would you give us a status reports on where these last, where we are placing these last victims who have before us are you came into office, hud, fema, they testified they have housing for each and every one of the

victims of katrina. neither hide nor fema has broken down who we were talking about, how close they were whether they were disabled people, whether they were people waiting to build their homes, just to they were in the first place and so they have it all went together by the press. how many are there, how many are left? your predecessor in just before leaving office promised nobody would be put out in the street to a chorus the committee does not object to that. recently announcing that to violate the stafford act and keep people receiving federal funds in perpetuity but we would like to wipe the slate clean of the last victims of katrina knowing that they are now some place and that is a appropriate for them. >> yes madam chair, right now there is approximately little

under 2400 families that are still in fema housing. we have been working aggressively. >> otherwise known as taylor's? >> some are table -- trailers and some are mobile homes began working to do case work and we were working with the state of louisiana, we are able to enlist one of the other partners in the vast it was like to do this as part of the team to help in that transition. but i think that you're point is well taken, there is an end to the program's. the fema program for shelter programs or in design to be long term so we have to add to the make sure that we're doing the case or to identify the resources of mastaba the needs of the families but we have to bring conclusion to the process and i face is in florida were again many of the challenges had to be worth one on one in in some cases is literally took the final notice that there was no wonder federal assistance to make decisions to move on forces

those people that two not have the option and needed to be moved into other programs providing dissolution the case or is there is an one-size-fits-all has to be based upon where the family is, will they get back in the home running other options but there is a point where you have to have a closure to what the options will been and in some point where people have said i refuse and assistance we have to be able to close the problem. >> is because you don't have a a right thing to be where you were before want to be close to where all that brings our ship but not hardships to keep you on federal funding forever. and i understand from sat as you have seven and a breakdown, we will look to that break down and continue to work with do. this large question i posed do with their deep experience we

felt we could pose this question to you about a catastrophe or a catastrophic disaster. a lot and i am going to ask this questi a# @

we've got a whole lot of people to and let us count them for use so we need to get all of the that extra help lead to a game to louisiana and mississippi. they will duets. you heard perhaps with rep. and looks judge give us a whole new standard option based on the budget or this city and the state. that is fine two have been that when people see what in patois we had to do on in katrina, we had to pass a post katrina and to and even had to pass a bill was never death of the senate's which may be violating the stafford act to try to a given some additional assistance to

louisiana and mississippi. it ultimately i think that we did give them and, of course, that have been through statutes, we will aim to the state we'd match, but the other parts of it to the that were in this act that didn't get past came as a result of testimony from people from the area and the testimony was given on the basis that we are talking about one time only to train a stop where you find it that what the residents or the stage or the city cannot move, cannot act because fema is not sure why what is authorized him to give in this kind of situation. we want to ask you, should congress began to look toward describing what a catastrophe

is, by definition it some kind of definition of our guidance, whether that is warranted in, should we look toward the kind of consequences of an objective and benchmarks that would guide to all concerned. does the president needed authority? that would send from the top the notion this is an extraordinary events? have you given any thought to that or do think we should be giving thought to it at this time? >> madam chair, usually when i hear these discussions and having been and is a long time i break into two things, and i looking at cost sharing go to 100%. >> that was the only one of the things. >> that would be one way to look at it and the other way to look at if you look better system we tend to reward, we don't reward states that do more, our cost share sunset 25 percent state

and local and no less than seven represent federal share and we have the option to go up to 100% heretofore is our best and is what triggers the next level. rees said per capita impact to go to 1910 and obviously katrina was off the scale and made sense but oftentimes i find that we don't look at it from the standpoint of not only the consequences of how much more is the state doing with their own money that is offsetting the cost to the federal government and only going to see the cost shared go up when is it reaches a certain per capita were in a very tight narrow part of that disaster so i am looking at how the cost sharing not only ones because of the size of the disaster by how you use it as a capability of encouraging state and local governments to a better job of managing disasters? i got acid this by the wise man, one of this as the directors of fema and asked me is there anything if they could reimburse the state and i said not much

propound and said that as part one and the second part of those is one of you wish to have only one program to administer in a cast of a disaster to take care of everything in ms. case you need to expand this be systematically or do we want to look at the existing federal programs already there's such as community block grant dollars and and how we build a system that takes greater advantage of existing structures and existing authorities and make a better plan to integrate stafford act and other federal organizations including in many cases usda from the programs in the rural states and parts of states so that rather than creating new structures and mechanisms and the disaster we get what we are have. >> with those before not the temporary assistance but for ongoing assistance? >> yes, ma'am in many cases take hud, most of d.c. with the fema programs are short-term to buy time to get it there is not find

to be housing at the end of the fema programs we are unable to get out of whatever programs they've got to recognize early in a disaster that the housing that will be available at the end of the fema program would not be sufficient to provide the solution. >> so we hands of responsibility and pass a temporary to another federal agency to decide what role and was funds are appropriate, is that once you are advocating? >> yes madam chair, i was safe to approach of the sampling you want stafford act to be all these things the program is to grow and raise judges' that usually will be implemented until disaster. >> to reconsider this, administrator fugate, i suppose an administrator of fema could decide that on his own and say at this point the agriculture department to should be responsible for this or it hud, do you think we need authority within fema so that there would

be no doubt or bickering or exchanges about who really should now takeover among agencies? >> madam chair, before i commit to fema would be the most logical place, i think you're correct in looking at in those programs that go beyond it stafford act that go across a variety of federal agencies, should there be vested in coordinating role and would be best to do that. you look at what we have been charged with fema and a long-term recovery components into in those plans, one of the things i'm trying to drive is not only does that look like in every simplistic definition to make my points re-signed the tax base to what it was our less than within a five-year. the swiss are driving a process that looks at not just try to get summer by throwing the programs and pieces together to define where we are going in there with that local officials understand and can start looking at how we try programs to establish a tax base that we rebuild a fire station where there is no tax base to support

the pri and how we change the outcome so it goes by too i cannot get there and i don't have long-term housing solutions which is now what it does and i can get there and haven't been able to rebuild the job base and if we are in a transitional economy with a johnson and navidad jobs in recovering what i have not changed the outcome. it is a perfect example in florida city home said, we spend millions of dollars in recovery trying to rebuild an economy that julie did not recover until the building boom pushed to the part of the county. that many of the communities or not recovering the jobs in the aerospace and not come back in that economy had not made a significant recovery until the accounting growth caught up with that infrastructure. >> in light of this kind of a futuristic look we are giving, we are seeing stafford act and

non stafford act scenarios and, of course, stafford act assumes you something called the disaster has occurred in, what but i give you in this is why the president may need to get into this, this occurred very early in the swine flu in the administration. i don't know for the life of me to bureaucratically should be in charge but i know this much, they put the cdc up there because nobody wanted to hear from everybody else except someone with expertise in the flu. now, your scenario might well apply, logistics, who does what and so forth. as one of the things we are looking at not only the stafford act where for that matter hamas security act. remember cdc comes it under hhs and timing play if it were a stafford act matter fema has a

huge coordinating role, but when you get into subsections of with that matter whole cabinet agencies that is where you get into who should be stepping up to do something. ultimately of course, if you get an up bureaucracy you go to the man in the white house and he will straighten out. we would like to have a someone at stafford act on out depending upon one's your notions of conscience but what is happening here, who the public will have confidence in then let others come into play there often very critical supportive roles, but somebody needs to step up and what happened in the swine flu episode is somebody stood up because the white house had a good event to say swine flu we have no vaccine. that we have potential panic.

several agencies could be involved. two her credit the secretary stood up and restored, it is because she was one of the two cabinet officers who had been appointed, but to show you how sanguine in the administration was as it saw how the matter was developing and realize that notwithstanding the enormous credibility the secretary had to have somebody up there and call upon because it was early in the administration and getting people through, they had to call upon the bush administration official as i recall from the cdc. he was a professional and therefore he spoke in ways that people could understand it is awfully important and he spoke with the background and expertise and the secretary handed it to him and everything was moving. we expect some sort of situation like that to develop perhaps

with some further guidance here and we want to thank you very much. we have put before use some of its ultimate questions facing us. we have been very pleased to hear how deeply you think about these matters and we think it requires very deep and new thinking. i suspect that when it comes to this cause agency coordination we probably ought to have somebody look at its beyond our particular agencies and that's something we want to give some thought to following this hearing to hear what joe thoughts might be on that notion about the presidential authority to say that the lead agency for example there might be a point where even the stafford act matter, but what happens in katrina. in order to have any betty spates credibly given how few resources were in place, the

commander which is of a service invented the rescuing, the coast guard, had to stand up and speak out and did may change at various points. we don't care who is in charge, we just care that everybody understands who was in charge and that there is no bickering about it, no duplication and that we continue to move toward a, i see that clean thinking from you and i appreciate your testimony in the corn to hearing from you again kim and thank you madam chair. >> we want to call the next panel. jane bullock, former fema chief of staff now with but france's and mccarthy, a congressional research service, federalism and elections said the emergency management section. michele norris, professor of

urban policy and planning and nyu. donald dunbar, n.j. in general -- a set of wisconsin who is testifying today and perhaps of the national governors' association. david maxwell, vice president of the national emergency management association. rest in decker, emergency management senior vice president of disaster service of america red cross and i am going to just go across as i indicated it starting with the miss jane bullock who was the former fema chief of staff under what administration? >> [inaudible] >> you were a chief of staff under which administration press directly to the administration. madame chair, my testimony today is based on my 22 year career as

federal emergency management agency, many as chief of staff to james lee witt trend the clinton and administration and also drawing on the past eight years when i work with communities and nonprofits in disaster managentã)'rrd)rr e direction of the fema director and we had leadership

from the president on down committed to cutting red tape, being innovative and not bring about the price tag. it is within this context out line to provide the thoughts and suggestions. in the immediate aftermath of any disaster with individuals in committees of the most is to get back to normal. this return to normalcy and abuse of the committees of rigid to rebuild safer and more environmentally and economically sound. over the more inflexibility and regulations on the part of the federal government program can it reinforced returning an agency to previous states. it is in the government's best economic and social injustice apparent expeditious recovery in rebuilding sam recommends the use. i was his as the president should have flexibility to request congress authority to a regulations and statutory requirements in the aftermath of a catastrophic disaster such as allowing for innovation in application, scope and cost of

him is the disaster loan program. the cdl is an essential lifeline for communities to continue their administration legal functions after a disaster. when a tax base has been lost. i was suggests allowing match requirements for other programs and assistance of individuals and house of france and mitigation grant programs. this is out this impasse is will not have the funds. in the context of mitigation committing their son the public are most likely to embrace mitigation in the aftermath of disaster and to take iran's of the public's willingness the federal government can provide the incentive by waving across share. in katrina this was not done. and we also the problems people and communities are having into a elevations. rapid recovery of its committees infrastructure is critical to economic recovery in the current public assistance program is cumbersome and highly bureaucratic. after the northridge earthquake experts had fun in to jump-start

the recovering in a similar approach my block grant approach that removes the issues of a pre-existing conditions as we talked about earlier will be absolutely necessary after catastrophic disaster second federal reports for long-term recovery is confusing and scattered. congress should request a federal road map for communities as to what the federal government can do to help them recover. where did i was suggests establishing a pilot program that would allow certain high risk of disaster prone communities to receive funding to do pre disaster recovery plans and strategies which will significantly enhance approval of projects and use an economic recovery the private sector is of the key to recovery in many to bring to the red tape to allow businesses greater access after is acid to make a finding a projects in assets possible and to provide more support to small businesses. we need to relive the approach to disaster housing and the

program shows promise but will work? we don't know. illini use disaster housing resources to foster innovation, osher corrine billings and take a managed a successful nonprofit programs like social service testing database available housing units in real time. and perhaps hud and fema to work together to do inventory of some standard housing before the disaster. finally i continue to be concerned about fema being a part of the department of common security. i firmly believe that this organization will impede its ability to not only responded by certainly respond once a recovery in. i commend them for credibly qualified individuals in to fema such as administrator fugate, jason mack damares, bill caldwell and beth zimmerman and another will fall it well but the president doesn't begin to the issues that remain there. dhs is a law enforcement agency with a federal top-down approach and fema, on the other hand, works in partnership with state

and local governments in the private sector to help individuals institutions and communities become social and economic is on a ferry ride to programs in mitigation prepared as a recovery. these very divergent missions require different set of capabilities and certainly different mindset. the post into them reform act was intended to strengthen fema, put a fence and resources and missions, however, it has been mentioned version of after passage this dhs coronation was created and given functions that duplicate that of fema's. i would encourage of the committee to request dhs explain how the dhs of this operation for the initial function in mcadam savages times as the fema center in another area is of concern is their numerous incidents of the council over really decisions made by the fema council in spite of the fact of the rulings made it made by experience lawyers and based on a fema allyson disaster

president. since dhs centralize the general counsel function there have been many concerns that should a catastrophic disaster occur interpretations of the lobbies of disaster precedents and day in the flexibility of the stafford act will be overruled by lesson from and dhs lawyers and consideration should be given to allowing the fema and ms. j to add his independent counsel. we are discussing the issue of principle federal officials, i don't think that this is an issue that has been closed. i believe there is intense use the plo and we should continue to live two questions relative to that as the issue of katrina was who is in charge and frankly if we really want to address this issue of reducing bureaucracy for response and recovery in the next and a sovereign disaster in answer is to remove fema, make independent agency, reestablished federal response plan, not a famine, and creating national recovery plan. hurricane katrina was the villa of leadership at all levels but

despite of the failure fema staff would have made decisions and take in ashes to correct the problems but they cannot because the this is an approval process was at dhs. while i recognize the obama administration is seven from the previous one and committed to providing service and the american public i still wonder and am concerned that there a few things have changed and of the process will work more smoothly as long as fema has to answer to that the primitive, security and as long as the fema administrator is no longer in a peer to peer situation with other cabinet secretaries and is to be extremely important one requesting needed resources from other agencies. a thank you, i will be happy to answer questions. >> thank you very much, frances mccarthy, congressional research service, the division a procession of federalism and emergency management.

mr. mccarthy. >> thank you madam chair, good afternoon. is an honor to appear before you today. i work as crs and my previous 25 years at fema have been in areas directly related to the issues we're discussing today. several issues arising have to cut the red tape and a separate federal assistance. maybe the first question with respect the rules of the executive and legislative branches in traditionally both have been a key role. obviously the executive branch particularly fema and the stafford act, congress has authorized the sad to particularly in the subcommittee is amended to the years. also congress has both supplemental appropriations funded this fema and stafford act recovery programs and edition provided funds to other departments and agencies to meet specific deeds. oftentimes this has been ineffective in complementary in timber and punish him to address a complicated problems falling in large disaster that of

assisted or several says. but within context of the discussions some have suggested for castoff against the legislation and discretionary authority to create block grant payments is needed and is no authority such as cross share waivers to speed up the process. some argue that while discretion to is as it means a disaster and catastrophic event to be by the president and might be more reliable approach to have a trigger is an amount estimated damage. the creation of a threshold and other exceptional procedures may be a critical part of the debate. current thoughts, share a clear but the standards are under pressure from states seeking a waiver of costs as a chair pointed out that many say is considered their disaster catastrophic at this time occurring so for that reason perhaps have a trigger when how to distinguish in the realm of a catastrophic disaster. an additional consideration

might be in the threshold for expanded assistance has been reached to continue the president's notification to congress of the use of catastrophic authority is similar to the procedures currently for emergency spending. the notification to serve as a vehicle to engage in the congress with potential funding requirements and suggested legislation that the move through response and recovery. i have discussed in the alternative funding proposals to my written testimony. one question would be how to determine and should the amount of block grants meets the needs of the right to area and is important to note that while assistance to individuals and also mitigation grants are caps there is no cap on the amount that may be spent for eligible projects swell the block grant is appealing particularly for speed and clarity it would also likely be in amount certain of the amounts under section 406 contained and a crew based on the actual repair or replacement

work and one option might be to use the initial blogger and as incremental down payment on public disaster costs fell in the initial block grant the process could then be used to ensure an ability and complete the funding. one other consideration is all the ideas for up-front funding underlined the need for quality damage assessments banking give a clear indication of the scope and extent of the damaged. in discussion of approaches the proposals assume such would be available under catastrophic warming disaster and by investing the authorities before he and is arguably would permit this of this flexible action without the necessity of authorities legislated as disaster unfold. however providing such discretion to leadership by provide the possibility of an effective action. the me briefly summarize some of the options as mentioned in my testimony. number one provide within and to

invoke authorities including block granting to send note localities and provide a comprehensive recovery appear in a to install it jigger that a priest was set in motion a catastrophic increase and fuss of assistance and also jigger notification of potential needs and resources and authority. to replace a listing of program changes that would take an eye toward catastrophic event including cost shares for specific programs and other news and has a mitigation assistance. it clearly defined the role and that of other agencies and departments and state and local governments and work. and for interactive fema recovery from are similar to the response remark but with an emphasis on long-term needs of this could include alternative housing scenarios when large numbers of displaced and define the relationship and disaster

housing. consider other agency authorities as to be triggered by caddis having events such as the block grant program as was mentioned here to continue to have, alleges that a recovery package across the government to address the needs of is a killer catastrophic events and finally considering establishing a reporting framework so that all disaster spending including but not limited to the disaster late fund is captured and summarize for congressional review for a catastrophic events. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and welcome any questions you might have.

>> so that that a financial collapse could really disrupt our own financial markets, problems in the harvesting of china could impose enormous conflicts of what we eat in

america and, in fact, we've our pharmaceutical and nutrition increasingly dependent upon food flowing from other places. a third of the apple juices come from china. i think we have to be aware, in fact, disasters are no longer rooted in our local environment but they can come from other places. we didn't learn this this year with -- it has made us more dependent -- i think we heard this in your question on the risk from solar episodes earlier -- we're more dependent on advanced computer vulnerabilities of our transfer infrastructure and communications. i want to point out that in 2002 when a power failure occurred in the northeast it was due to a tree in ohio which interrupted the power supply outside of cleveland so the failure to maintain power systems in ohio led to a blackout in the

northeast. we have to understand that more and more of our public and private life is organized around global integrated systems, a small breakdown in one component can have serious and widespread consequences on the entire nation. they mean point out this is in disagreement from the chairman of fema who talked about it only in the context of communities. he said that while the impact of catastrophe will be felt at the federal and state level the impacts have the potential most devastating at the community level. our catastrophic -- it must be calibrated and charge municipal self-sufficiency. this is a terrific point of view but may not be appropriate for the 21st century. and he made -- you may remember that he then said the key challenge is to return to normalcy. i want to point out this is one of the greatest myths of disaster recovery. there is no return to normalcy.

we've learned from september 11 and katrina, there is no return to being normal. there's a new normal but it's not the old normal. and people live in communities which have experienced disasters can tell you that it's difficult after once they experience a catastrophe it becomes part of the community and it's difference. i think the goal of returning to normalcy is one that is desirable but unrealistic. now, let me just point out something and two other comments in the time i have remaining. we need to recognize the changing scale of catastrophes. we have a lot of experience with natural disasters that disrupt a city, county but we must consider the way disasters threaten our economy and capacity to function. in such cases the federal government's role mug far on the concept of supplemental assistance and simply returning to normalcy. clearly we have to recognize the possibility that catastrophic disasters require much more than the federal government bringing it to the community where it was beforehand. one final point there's been a

great deal of attention to housing and i do believe point out that the housing problems with katrina still remain us. but after a disaster, quality of life is far more important of life because if there isn't water for sewage and drinking it doesn't how many good housing units you have and the thing goes with energy and communications. so i think the focused on hud is somewhat exaggerated based on the katrina experience but not necessarily appropriate when you look at the way disasters can disrupt the fundamental structure of a community. thank you very much. >> donald dunbar, from the state of wisconsin. he's testifying on behalf of the national governors association. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on these important issues of catastrophic planning and disaster preparedness.

as the active general for the wisconsin and serve or the air national guard for responsibility for federal and state missions. i serve on the security advisor, chair of the homeland security security council and has responsibility for homeland security. i'm a federally recognized officer however i appear today as a state official not on federal military orders and i'm representing the state of wisconsin and the national governors association. i would like to thank the community leaders for support of the first responder and federal management community. i work closely with wisconsin's first responder and emergency management communities and know your support continues to support our overall readiness at the state federal and local level. my testimony today will briefly touch on three areas critical on a catastrophic incident. the partnership and the need to clarify of the role of the military, two, the role of federal preparedness guidelines and the third to address grant investments in achieving

capabilities. since becoming the admin general in wisconsin we experienced many emergencies three of which led to a federal disaster declaration. i'm proud of the response from our first responders who under difficult conditions serve the people of wisconsin very well. these are truly heroes who are committed to something larger than themselves. i'm also proud to report that the wisconsin national guard was able to assist in these emergencies. as you know, the national guard is not a first responder. but it is a first military responder for emergencies that exceed the capacities of local jurisdictions and require state support for the local commander. in keeping with our guidelines to support civil authorities we respond to the emergency management parkway and support the commander. several times in the past few years the department of defense has attempted to amend existing law to allow for reserve forces. the nation's governors and their

generals have opposed this legislative change. the opposition is centered on the control of military forces when responding to an emergency under governor control. the national governors association and the general association are remain under the governor and support the commander. this should occur until the emergency is so severe that the federal government must take control. we believe these situations exist that are extremely severe. we believe this is necessary to ensure unity of effort and is consistent with national guidelines i should by the federal government. secondly turning to the federal preparedness guidelines i can share with you that wisconsin is critical in our prepared planning. wisconsin recently updated our homeland security strategy which represents a collaborative inner agency effort. it is our vision to foster a culture of preparedness and continually improve our capabilities to ensure resiliency in an emergency. with resiliency for families and

communities to second of all cope and recover from an emergency natural or manmade. our priorities with many goals and subgoals to which we apply an analytical framework that seeks to measure our continual progress. our strategy based in part on the federal guidelines will guide our investment of state appropriations and federal grant allocations. this will allow wisconsin to vertically intergrate homeland security efforts and prioritize our investment which will be a continual difficult environment. wisconsin is developing metrics to develop our strategy and measure our progress. for this we rely on the federal government to define and articulate the capabilities list. it is our ability that these national capabilities develop as a local, tribal level which will improve regional preparedness and identify gaps in local and state capabilities that's needed and will require local and regional assistance. the department of homeland security has signals that grant

awards of capabilities and capability-based planning in the investment justification. if so, this may significantly to be executed consistently. this is successful and it must focus on capabilities that allow for full sustainment. too often in the past guidance has changed over year to implement capability fully. thank you again and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, general dunbar and thank you for your service as well. dave maxwell, vice president national emergency management association. >> thank you chairwoman norton, and distinguished members of the subcommittee for inviting me to appear before you today. i'm david maxwell, director and homeland security advisor with the arkansas department of emergency management. i'm testifying today on behalf

of the national emergency management association. the definition of catastrophic disaster is an issue that has been discussing since katrina devastated the gulf coast in 2005. what constitutes one disaster in one state or community may not be catastrophic in another. there's no question that hurricane was a catastrophic disaster for those states and communities that experienced it. similarly, should an earthquake occur on the new metric fault zone it would be catastrophic for an entire region perhaps the entire nation. these types of events are of such scale and complexity that they require additional response and recovery efforts than we've seen in the past. the stafford act was written broadly so as to allow presidential discretion and flexibility. na that strict interpretations is more complicated than the law itself. policy regulations are overly restricted and don't reflect the

original intent of the stafford act. further, decisions by fema personnel in the field are often inconsistent between states and regions. as field personnel changes, previous decisions are frequently overturned. the fema appeals process takes months and sometimes years. these problems are due to subjective interpretations of the stafford act which end up costing state and local precious resources for community restoration. it seems to take precedent over the discretion and flexibility that congress provided through the stafford act. all of these issues combined serve to create a federal bureaucracy that can paralyze large scale disaster response and recovery. recently, there was a working group to consider the changes needed to the stafford act or whether issues can be addressed in regulation or policy. our work has just begun so i'm not in a position to discuss specific recommendations today but we commit to sharing your

work with you in the near future. i am confident in saying fema beliefs that the federal government is not fully utilizing the power of the stafford acted. in the words of one of my colleagues, if it's legal, moral, ethical, and the right thing to do to help disaster victims, we should do it. arkansas has benefited from the fema catastrophic planning initiative as we plan for the possibility of new earthquake. the challenge in catastrophic planning is that there's little experience to draw from with regard to -- certainly with a new earthquake. in arkansas we think we know how the roads, bridges and other infrastructure will perform in an event but we're not 100% certain. plans have to remain flexible. despite these limitations and perhaps because of them, i would encourage congress to continue to support and fund fema's catastrophic planning initiative. the national level exercise in 2011 will be focused on the earthquake and will be the first

natural disaster scenario in the history of the national level exercises. nema is concerned, which is made up of emergency managers who are innovators who has a vision for our world class management system. now is the time to redefine the outcome we want in large scale disaster response and recovery. and to align legislation and policy to support that outcome. we must also do a better job of leveraging all of our resources available to us in catastrophic disaster response and recovery including the public and private sector. government can't be solely responsible for recovery nor should it be. in those situations government does a very good nobody at disaster response but the current approach to long-term disaster recovery is ad hoc at best. while each disaster is unique, it would be extremely helpful

for state and local officials to know in advance the type of assistance that may be available to them for long term recovery. in addition having a federal counterpart that would help them access and leverage the various federal programs would be helpful. this is an ideal role for fema. nema would recommend the development of a full spectrum disaster response and restoration capability and i've included several suggestions in my written testimony. the main point i'd like to make today is that we need not be confined to outdated systems and approaches to disaster response and recovery. particularly, for large scale events. we should define the outcomes that we want, build and resource the system that supports that outcome, build the team that can manage the event and provide leaders with a discretion and flexibility to ensure a successful outcome. thank you for the opportunity to present testimony before the subcommittee and thank you for your strong support for emergency management.

>> thank you so much, mr. maxwell. >> thank you, madam chair and manager. and i'm allen county, ohio. i'm current president of the council of international association of emergency managers. i have 19 years of emergency management experience, the last 11 as a local director. the membership of over 4,000 state, local, tribal, military, college, private and nonprofit sector members makes us the largest association of emergency professionals. the basic question asked of this question what needs to be done to reduce the bureaucracy for rapid response for catastrophe. we were asked to review current authorities to suggest necessary changes to the federal government's response to respond

to the recovery efforts to a disaster. to define a catastrophe is difficult. the rapid mobilization of federal assets is imperative but those same resources must respect the civilian chain of command in the jurisdictions in which they are mobilized. given the difficulty of defining acatastrophe we believe caution is in order to laws, policy and authorities. we would urge caution in making statutory changes which enhance the role of the federal government including the military at the expense of the authority and responsibility of state and local governments even what someone described as a catastrophic event. iam consistently discusses the key to effective management of any major event that the rebuilding of the essentially management system within the united states. this system of rebuilding must involve personnel, authorities and emergency management agencies at all levels of

government. without such a collaborative, coordinated and comprehensive system, we will not have the ability with sufficient flexibility to deal with any crisis. the stronger the state and local emergency management programs are, the less assistance we will need from the federal government. we ask that the current fema administration be given the authority and the resources to do their job. and we urge that the incoming fema regional appointment consider experienced state and local emergency managers as candidates for those jobs. what is needed most in any disaster and especially in a catastrophic event is flexibility of action and speed in decision making. we do not need duplication of responsibilities and confusion over the chain of command. the activities of the office of operations coordination currently in dhs needs to be examined as they currently duplicate functions rightfully

performed by fema as a sign according to the post-katrina emergency management reform act. and we continue to remain opposed to the appointment of a principaled federal official and strongly support and applaud the prohibition included by the house and the fy2010 appropriations bill. we recommend that this committee have fema do a study of their work force to make sure they have the necessary human capital for their assigned responsibilities and fema should take a look at their policies and procedures with an eye toward eliminating any bureaucratic hurdles. after that review there should be a discussion of what additional legislative authority may be needed. if changes in authority are needed, we recommend they be placed within the existing stafford act to remain vital continuity of the existing efforts. some possible legislative suggestions would be to allow a change or labor with a statutory 25% cost-share for the fema

individual assistance program other than housing and hazard and medication grant program. and increasing the $5 million cap on the community disaster loan program. on the policy front, the project system of the public assistance program is too cumbersome. having checkers check the checkers over and over again and then having a new official say it needs to be redone is simply frustrating to our members. perhaps fema needs to take a look at estimated in providing block grants. areas needed to be treated differently than now. the dallas county emergency manager advised me that dallas and other jurisdictions have not received full reimbursement for their expenses in hosting other communities during hurricanes gustav and ike. it might be impacted by this lack of timely reimbursement. we join fema administrator craig fugate in recognizing the personal preparedness and we

want to create disaster survivors not disaster victims. in addition to people helping people, the recovery of small businesses is also vital to the recovery of the community and they too need to plan. we thank you for this opportunity and we look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. decker. finally, joe becker, senior vice president disaster assistance american red cross. welcome, mr. becker. >> thank you very much, madam chairwoman. thank you for holding this hearing on this important matter and i appreciate you inviting our participation. there's been a lot of discussion this afternoon about the certainty of the next catastrophic event. i thought it might be helpful to quantify some of the human need that would result from what we have imagined can happen. not even counting mandated events just within the earthquake and hurricane scenarios, we know of scenarios in this country that will be four times the size of katrina, five times the size of katrina

and possibly larger. that is based on the human need, the earthquake and hurricane scenarios will present us. clearly, as a country we are not ready for scales of this size of an event. we had a lot of conversation this afternoon about the types of issues or the range of issues. i'd like to confine my comments to what the rest of the panel has not discussed and that's to go back to the housing and human service side. we're the red cross. we care for people. we shelter people. i'll confine my comments to those areas. we're discussing particularly the long-range recovery housing issues, not the immediate shelter issues even though that's what the red cross typically focuses on early on in a disaster. there's been a lot of conversation about quantity identifying or coming up with a definition of catastrophe. i would suggest for a practitioner who works with government but isn't part of

government a as scale of disaster increases we layer on more. you open up more shelters. you open more roads. a catastrophe is a disaster which more of the same doesn't get you where you need to go. a catastrophe is a disaster where a scale is such that the normal business methods won't work and that's what we've experienced a couple of times now and we have seen and we've learned from. starting with housing, we all know the scenario. you have people who leave the affected area and have no options for housing back in the area and they evacuate over great distances and they can't come home. they can't come back to their jobs. they can't come back to their communities. they're evacuated and end up becoming residents of other areas than much longer than anyone even imagined and i heard a lot of questions this afternoon about what's the answer to that and i would suggest or plead to this panel or this subcommittee there is no

one answer to that. we need the infrastructure, obviously, the utilities and then we need a range of housing options within the affected area, not just more mobile homes. yes, the addition of hud housing stock has helped in the recent disasters. the additional use of systems have been very helpful but if you do the math, the sum of all the options that we have in our toolkit today is not big enough. no one option is the answer. the answer is to maximize each of the options to develop new options and great work is being done in state and local government to this regard. maximizing these options, develop new options and then housing isn't something that fema does to a state or a community. housing decisions are best made locally from that range of options that's developed with and by fema. we need the research done and

prototypes done and contracts let and then we need to let state and local government with their housing task forces that need to be stood up work with fema's housing task force to arrive at the right local solutions. as you know, the urban solutions is scarce where rural systems where distances matter greatly. i would suggest that the national decision housing task force that has stood up to be the focal point of this work needs your support and needs to be energized and needs to move more quickly. also, and i think we heard the administrator speak to this, we're not constructing appear response community and then dealing with the exceptions. the exceptions being the frail elderly or children with disabilities or people with medical needs or people with pets, those are most of the people that we're dealing with in a lot of these disasters. they're not the exception to the model that we build. they are the model that we are building and i think that work needs to continue.

then lastly in housing, we focus a lot on are the utilitys in place and are the structures in place and we don't always recognize that when we've moved people hundreds of miles from what used to be home the social services haven't followed and government services haven't necessarily followed the medical care, the daycare, the elder care, the wide range of needs people have predisaster when we relocate them great distances are exacerbated. so we have to bring the services to the people and that's where integrated case management really matters. and we have great case management pilots being being done by federal agency bus we don't have a federal integration being done and that is needed. i'm not here giving a laundry list of what the fema need to do. this is what the federal agencies the nonprofits, and others need to do.

i ask you to support this approach in this important work and i thank you for your hearing today to make that happen. >> thank you very much, mr. becker. just to name some of the framework for the rather large questions we ask, i think the general public would be amazed to learn and discuss, general dunbar, in your testimony some of the others you may have alluded to it, their scenario focusing on manmade events by engaging in a real time --

involving -- perhaps some of you who have been in emergency management are also at the table. can mr. maxwell or others -- can make us understand how after decades of fema, decades beyond that and an absolute disaster, i take only after 9/11 did it occur to anybody the type of disasters we have to prepare for every year require some real time exercises. i mean, how was this -- why did this not occur before. we think this question is -- will help us to understand whether or not any changes in the statute is necessary 'cause

we certainly don't think that fema or the federal government lacks the ability to do some kind of national level exercise. you may hereby have authority to do such an exercise in, i don't know, tornadoes or accidental hazards. why in your judgment -- what are we seven years after 9/11 even, why -- if it's in our faces it's clear as the nose on your face after 9/11 that such an exercise -- such exercise done in such a terrorist attack why on a scale of disaster before katrina was this not done in your view, mr. maxwell or any of you? >> madam chair, i'll take a stab

at it. i think part of this, the national level exercise series developed out of the top-off series that was done. >> the what? >> the top official exercises that was done that involved cabinet-level officials as do the national level exercises. for a long time, the states and regions have practiced natural disasters, and i think -- >> at the direction of the federal government or on their own. >> both on their own and to some degree with the federal government as well. >> so perhaps, you know, a terrorist attack is likely to be if someone bombs the united states yet we have national exercises there -- >> i think to some degree we

were playing catch up on not having practiced that terrorist event so we went through several scenarios on that and now we're getting back to the need to do those high-level officials exercises with natural disasters as well. >> my question on whether -- so you agree there wasn't a lack of authority? >> no, ma'am. >> and i think it is you, mr. did he recollect, that cautions the notion that statutory changes may be necessary. we did look at the statute and, you know, always write statutes, they don't admit the authorizing statute gives the agency what it

needs and you look at that stafford act and you see a broad mandate as you want to find anywhere and yet over and over again fema said well, we don't think we have the authority to x, y and z and capacity -- exaggerated the people on the ground. do you think a true catastrophic disaster given what you've seen, how you saw in fema especially when you saw somehow whose different authority at the expense of authority and the responsibility of state and local government even in what some would describe as catastrophic events, well, we're certainly not -- we aren't

suggesting in anything that our role is supplemental. we need it to be supplemental whenever you call it. you can call it supplemental all you want to when it comes to katrina but you heard the question, $3.4 billion. we're not about to authorize that anybody else doing anything -- so we're left with the agency trying to figure out to resolve disputes between the two agencies, federal and local, precisely because we haven't put anything in the statute to say what to do so they're sitting there, you know, with their thumb in their mouth although under this present administrator making some progress or so he testified where people in on the ground are literally tearing their hair out. now, let's assume that off the

table is moving out what state and local government would be doing, mr. decker, remember administrator fugate testified that he told the administrator recently while he was on the ground in fema, stop sending stuff to us we don't need. so he had a backbone to say, don't do that. you're being wasteful but we saw fema pour ice on the second hurricane down there with people laughing at the agency all over the place for fighting the last war with so much ice. so assuming we're not trying to do anything at the expense of

local and national government and still regard the role of fema as supplemental, even in a catastrophic disaster, et cetera, you got to tell me what, would you or any of you believe that clarification of statutory authority is necessary or given the broad language of the statute fema just hunker down and do what the statute says and it will all take care of itself and to have on the ground experience on which to go off on that. >> madam chairman, i'll take a stab at that one. i think what our members were trying to stress is that we view the federal role as supplemental and we want to make sure that the locals and the state don't lose that command and control -- >> how has that happened? you know, do you really think we're just aching to throw money at states and localities? >> well, our concern and i think

earlier it was discussed about -- i think if you leave it under stafford there needs to be changes under stafford. as long as it's a stafford event and we have an fco coordinating the activities and that two people, not this confusion if it's the pso or the fco i think you'll find the locals are much more likely to accept that because that's a system we're familiar with and it's a position we trust and we believe a stafford is broad enough that it will cover a lot of those events if the fco was simply given the authority to do his or her job without worry about -- >> well, would you know -- if it developed a huge event that happened to los angeles, are you confident that we would be able to categorize it as

katrina-like, are you satisfied that it would happen sufficiently. they haven't seen that in our lifetime at least in the west coast. everyone says it's coming. >> i think it's -- defining the cast if i will be important. if you take out the entire state of the ohio catastrophic to us to the other 49 states the impact on the rest of the country is going to be really -- i think what defines it is whether or not it's a catastrophe -- >> do you think the state of ohio and not have -- >> well, my governor probably wouldn't like that. i think the definition of catastrophe has to be what's the major catastrophe in our nation not in one state or one region or community. >> i want to point out there's -- it was pointed out in our testimony it's to create a national recovery framework, and i think fema has done this with a planning parkway -- framework

and not a recovery. >> you think -- >> it hasn't been done yet. that's already been mandated. i think you might want to direct them to do it. >> and if that happens, then what. >> then start thinking about how the recovery process -- we've heard, i think, testimony about the flexibility of speed but i think the fact that -- >> that would help define -- >> there was an issue from the red cross of housing and social services but understanding what's involved in the recovery has been one of the many flaws. >> by the numbers or by what? >> by what the elements of a recovery -- what it would take to have recovery and i think the point -- we've heard a lot of discussion about housing. but i think we also heard about services and the problems you have when you decide to move people more than 100 miles from their location, things get much worse in terms of what is

required for recovery and i think that asking fema to carry out what you've already asked them to do might be a good start. >> it might be the place to start. [inaudible] >> the beauty of the stafford act throughout my experiences at fema is that it did give the agency the latitude to think outside of the box and to do innovative programs and we can talk about innovations that we engaged in in use of stafford at some later point. i don't think there's necessarily a need to increase the authority in stafford. i think the problem exists in terms of what administrator fugate said narrow interpretation of regulation on the part of the agency. and i think that is -- they're going to work on that. that's something i think congress should look at very carefully because the people -- >> regulations. >> yes, and their interpretation of those regulations.

>> you know, i want to question you on that in particular. it's a judgment call and i'll tell you how federal officials rate. they're afraid for good reason of the gao. they're afraid of our committees. and excuse me cover your butt, no offense. it takes a very independent, intense upon on doing his job strong administrator and i have to tell you, as a member of the homeland security committee and a member of this committee, i think what we have seen in federal democrats does not give me comfort to believe that regardless of the bureaucrat, the person will understand and go ahead. that's why we are even looking at the president.

somebody has got to signal that it's all right so that when the fingers begin to point, responsibility we know where it lays. for example, when mr. fugate said, don't send anything else here, if more was needed, he would have had to step up and say, i asked the secretary not to send more resources at a time when i did not think they were necessary even if it turns out he was wrong, which could be -- risk being wrong sometimes but i'll tell you the reason i said to mr. decker in light of existing experience -- even after katrina, he passed the post-katrina act and even after the post-katrina act, the timidity of the federal bureaucrat was on display every time we had a hearing. no matter what the man did, that

makes us tremble a little bit to say who's going to call the shots? for example, did you speak about waiver? you say asked the waiver. you know, sometimes we give the president authority to do things. and then report to congress. it is you -- i'm sorry, dr. moss, who cites a perfect example and an example of national significance that somehow there's a way to dhs. what does dhs has to do it. nobody had experience only fema did. but it's generally understood that, yes, this incident of national significance, yes, you have to do that where before, fema used all of its expertise,

this is, he acted and fema was out like lightning. we've gotten rid of this incident of national significance. we still do not have confidence that we will see the kind of instant action if a catastrophe, something we've never seen before, something mr. fugate talked about has been coming out of the sun or, yeah. [inaudible] >> you know, somebody got to make a call. and so the answer is that if somebody has got to make the call, does the statute have to say who has to make the call or is there plenty in the statute and all you need is some backbone, which you're guaranteed to have. on who should make the call. we got to make a judgment one way or the other. >> well, i would argue that the

statute has provided the authority but i think madam chair you're exactly right. it all comes down to leadership at the top in the agency within it. it's going to stay in dhs within dhs. i think we're naive. [inaudible] >> i think we're just being naive if we don't look at it that way. therefore, the stafford statute maybe has to be made stronger to clearly say that the fema administrators are in charge. the other thing when we're -- just to go back to the recovery issue, if congress doesn't put somebody in charge of recovery, it's never going to be organized because the agencies during the 1990s we used -- brought all the agencies together like a major disaster like north ridge or any disaster we set them in a room and come up with an ad hoc

report and talk about what each federal agency is going to do to support that community in the aftermath of the disaster. we did that because the president wanted fema to take that coordinating role. that's not in statute anywhere. it's not in stafford. i think that's something especially in the aftermath of a major catastrophe -- >> you might -- fema is not a cabinet-level agency. it's not like it was when it was independent. i gave the example of the swine flu so somebody has to say there's an affiliate to go to the cdc. you know, there were to be an attack involving biological  weapons. i'm not sure in the world would do that. but somebody would have to make that call. and, you know, for us to be pulled around with whoever is

around in the federal agency and you're not going to tell the secretary of the x, y, x what to do, you know, presents problems on how democrats behave. that's why we're looking to see how far we go mindful of what mr. decker said. to broaden the statute and pull that in and we don't want here when a crisis occurs and nobody acts like they don't know what they're talking about. for that matter, general dunbar complicates matters for us but rightly so because you point out that -- if we're dealing with the national guard that's already under the governor. but you point out that the defense department wanted authority to call up the reserves forces under some

circumstances to assist on what to do and to go down your scenario if we act -- a statute -- if we enact a statute if that happens. because you are concerned in something parallel to our pso or cfo or whatever offices are. you are concerned with the establishment of dual chains of command creating -- being created by having it in there but we have separation of power and government and it's kind of awkward of putting the reserve forces under a governor or is there precedent? could this occur? should it occur? how should it be done if we absolutely need a reserve? because the people on the ground need them, the national guard and another member and we might not get there because we can

call in the national guard from another country. they're trade better than the reserve. but these reserves perhaps not a law enforcement type authority of any kind and somebody would need to do something statutorily given existing law, don't you think? >> yes, senator, i do. and i think the best place to start is probably comply with the law from fy09 which mandated a council of governors to tackle this issue when congress issued their rejection of the request, they suggested that the best issue the tactical -- it could be accomplished. northcom in relations with canada and mexico and i realize

we're talking sovereign nations versus sovereign station and if we send -- if counter-assent forces in the united states. it's possible that they would put those forces under tactical control of the u.s. commander does doesn't mean you give up all authority. you could always recall those forces and higher levels of control operational control and higher levels of control continue to exist, you mentioned the national guard. when we deployed national guard forces to other states, which is a similar parallel, i've done this year alone from wisconsin to both north dakota for the floods and kentucky for the ice storm, i get control of those guardsmen who, in fact, become state assets for the states to which we deploy them and i certainly reserve the right or governor doyle reserves her right to recall them if needed. but i think from an unity command and point of view the

best thing to do unless and until the federal government needs to take command for the emergency being so drastic, so severe, in which case we'd all get behind the president, i think the best thing is to stick with both state and federal guidance which is the lowest level up and from that perspective, we wouldn't be talking -- probably would have been talking a lot of federal troops or a company of engineers or a small capability that could else's fit into our joint force headquarters and we would then provide those forces to the state coordinating officer which is lined up perfectly under the stafford act. >> i'm going to ask staff and ask any of you to look at what happens here at the nothing else. the state to state to guard to guard has a separation of powers problem. we lend across the state all the

time but there are forces in the united states constitutionally is under the commander in chief and that constitutional area is important to us. there's certain things you can't waive. >> yes, ma'am. >> turning to the nothing else and here i may not have -- since i represent the district, i was concerned that the inauguration was so big this time that there was at first a notion that the reserves should be under some dual command. we were able -- apparently, under the dc national guard and there were some kind of swearing-in. i'm not sure what it was. but there was some kind of swearing-in that everybody else came in so that they were either sworn in as a national guard

or -- it occurred even though these were national guard. now, the dc national guard is a little different because we're not a state. and, therefore, but these were not only people, they were on the ground at the inauguration. and my recollection is that although the dc national guard is technically under the president, that the commander of the dc national guard score in these troops something other than the national reserve for purposes here that may suggest parallel there to avoid any constitutional issue arising because i think if we are fairly

prepared that we should assume that you will need to go the national guard. the national guard is best trained to do this, no doubt about across the country. there are a whole lot of guards. it's not that i think we would need more troops. i agree with you. but what we may need is specialized training of the kind, for example -- i don't know if anyone has seen this movie that i saw over the weekend called "law blocker." huh? "hurt locker," this is the new movie of the iraq war so far. this is more than the capabilities that our bomb

diffusers. these people are trying to have bombs blow- up there. and you see those d.o.d. guys -- what did the general ask, how many bombs have you diffused, those kinds of guys to help with you one of those massive explosives. for example, in a subway, when you might say you need a little more than the very important and now-upgraded capability of even the best of the bomb folks here in the country. so, yes, we are -- we want to look and we want to continue to receive your views on this as well because -- >> i would just like to say one thing. >> please do. >> for the record i would like to state in the reserves in my

opinion the national guard is professionally well trained as the national guard and do a phenomenal job for the country. you're right about the distinction and you mentioned the command -- >> the what. >> dual-hat command. >> the president and the governor can agree on one national guard office under federal 32 who would be given a title 10 command authority at the same time and that would allow in effect both those change of command to end at the same commander in the state response and would avoid the separation of power you're talking about and allow for the function under the governor's control through the state coordinating officer and inaccordance with the stafford act if that was, in fact, what was going on. so that part already exists and it was designed for that very outcome. >> mr. mccarthy, have you looked at this. this is the problem we have yet

to confront. because we know how to deal with, you know -- to a large extent with planes systolic next disaster if terrorists are to prove as precedent as they have thus far may well not be like anything we've seen before. and may and could be so serious it could be an actual terrorist attack of some kind as to make us look first and foremost to people who have experience and that kind of line of mze have you done any of the work in all the work you've done on this issue? >> madam chair, i haven't myself because i concentrated on the

stafford act recovery plans but some of my colleagues have been working in this area and i could refer some of their work to you. >> we would -- we would be most pleased to receive that. this is truly virgin territory. finally, mr. becker, you have spoken about housing in particular which has been the bane -- really we have had such concerns, although, i think dr. moss says there are other areas that are of greater importance if you'd think about the disaster itself. the fact is that in this country we always focus on the person. and so, you know, if they've got -- if there are 10 people in trailers, those are the people that the press will focus on and frankly that the average american is focusing on even if your computer stuff is out.

they want to know how you're doing as a family or this disabled person or this person who cannot found housing or still in a trailer and the rest of it. the administration after entreaty and entreaty from this commission did offer a final national disaster plan. this was the evening on the last business day of the last administration. in light of your concern with housing, do you believe that this plan is adequate for addressing the needs of a catastrophe or that matter of a disaster. >> madam chairwoman, i would suggest that the details of the plan empower a task force to solve what hasn't been solved so far. and by that i mean, i don't think you're going to see

specifics of a plan that would satisfy a county emergency manager or state emergency manager to understand the framework and understand how it needs to proceed. what we need to do is if the administrator wants to continue with the disaster housing task force, that the plan calls for, that needs to be staffed. identity it's yet to have a permanent head. it needs to be a multiagency-resourced body. it needs to have state, local and tribal and nonprofit representation, although the red cross is on it. but from that, the most important important body of work that that task force can do is to create a menu of options. it's not any one option that's going to be the magic bullet in a catastrophe. we need a menu of options, commissioner bruno in new york has done some great work to look at what the urban housing needs would be in a catastrophe hitting new york city.

that's very difficult than travel trailers and mobile homes on big vacant lots. you need to have menus of options for him or for arkansas that might be very different from that. and so this work is moving too slowly and this task force needs to be resourced and headed by a permanent leader and it needs to get moving. >> yes, i'm going to ask mr. mccarthy who's been working on these areas. when we got this so-called housing plan it, looked like a plan in order to plan and we were expecting a plan, and yes, the differences you're talking about are not even approached. i don't know where fema is on it but it is very scary given the issue that perhaps receive the highest visibility and recovery in louisiana and mississippi was housing, to think we still don't have a plan. mr. mccarthy? >> i want to mention that mr. becker is saying is correct.

at this point what you really need was a plan for a plan. and it's my understanding that the task force now is working on a concept of operations of actually applying the plan and starting to -- >> applying what plan, sir? >> the disaster housing plan to start having specifics for -- >> to make it into a plan? >> yeah to make it into a plan. and one other point i want to point out that the act did quite a few good things and i think one of the best things it did was to authorize case management and it had a few other things that took the caps away from within housing where you could spend any amount you needed to on repair be your home within the overall cap. the one thing it wasn't it wasn't retroactive to the population affected by katrina. and so in some ways -- >> and why -- >> it would -- >> why wasn't it and should it have been? >> well, i can't speak -- >> well, you only know after the fact? >> yeah.

>> we after the fact waived the state match. we never would have done that before the fact. some of these things you're not clairvoyant. >> yeah. >> on the other hand, who is it that suggested among you -- well, maybe it was mr. fugate that some kind of award incentive for mitigation -- when i think the way we have done mitigation, this whole committee is a huge fan, the subcommittee and committee of mitigation, yet we put tiny resources into it. .. hasn't been implemented

yet after 28 years. >> we are not going to -- we are just trying to help people recover from the disaster. that is somehow -- was in it in the earthquake? there was actual criticism because the rebuilding took account of the fact that there might be another earthquake? >> yes. >> who criticized that? >> it was the fema ig. after a catastrophic disaster, what has to be considered, building codes are only for a life safety protection. in other words, the building won't fall down.

what we did after north ridge was worked with the hospital, specifically the ucla hospital system, to rebuild those buildings for a continuity of operations so if there was another earthquake, those buildings not only would not collapse, they would be able to be fully functional. obviously hospitals are sanctioning anything critical after a disaster particularly an earthquake. those kinds of innovations that we took and ran with, what frances has talked about and what we have talked about, unfortunately, state and local governments are so strapped post disaster, they cannot meet that match. it is the last priority when it should be the first priority. we have all sorts of evidence that shows that when we do the mitigation for $1, the federal government saves $4 in future disaster costs and the congressman that talked about flooding in iowa, i would bet

that the buyout program, fema participated in in 1993, after the 1993 flood and 1995, probably kept so many of his homes and his constituents's homes from being flooded. we have to make an emphasis on mitigation. >> fema approved of the rebuilding reinforcement i take it. >> yes. >> do you see what this does? the reason this is very interesting, early 1990s, by that time everybody was afraid of earthquakes in california. was the ig only looking at cost? >> the it was looking at cost and also looking at the regulations, and perhaps we exceeded our application of our own regulations. the problem is if we don't take those steps we are just going to keep putting money out over and

over again, this is a serious issue because there's a lot of strain on the san andreas fault right now. there has been a lot of geological work done recently that we may be looking at a major earthquake. the idea in california, ahead of the rest of the country as far as applying building code and retrofitting, there are going to be huge problems. >> i would like to think nobody would criticize anybody for reinforcing housing. i am not sure about that. >> the criticism didn't come from the congress. the issue is it all comes down to money. >> you said fema had approved it. >> but the fact that they didn't, they had the mitigation cost share after katrina. when those homes could have been rebuilt in a much safer way, fema never ask you. >> never asked.

this is very important. fema could protect itself by coming -- i can think of no instance where fema asked us for congressional authority or a story even from a committee, we would have had at council say i cannot think of no instance. that doesn't protect him, what else could? given what mr. becker has seen, certainly what those of you in the management have seen, whether or not where you would stand giving your studies, implementing public assistance on the basis of estimates, whether that would speed recovery, whether you think fema up would ask more quickly,

whether that would be viable in terms of the ig and all that stuff, that is important to keep in place. >> i think it would be very helpful. and authority as i mentioned was passed in 2000. an extra panel in 2002, set up industry standard for estimates, nothing further occurred. that authority was partly meant to accelerate the process. >> here i am putting it before you. you are point mr. jacob very specific authority that we gave. >> i am concerned, it has to be done in conjunction with a complete review of all of the policies, how they are administered. because the last thing we as a state went to have happen is get an award based on an estimate and then have to pay money back and collect money from a some

brandy for local government to turn money back. we would like to -- a careful review of the policies. >> i would like to add some ideas. in the northridge earthquake, we did do some up-front funding. is a project came in and the state or local government said it was going to be $2 million we wouldn't give them the $2 million, we did give them a portion of that so they could get the work started. >> we are not going to throw money out of here very quickly. when people are waiting just to get started. do you see a problem? >> i think i would -- >> turn your mike on. >> i apologize. there is housing for it to be rebuilt to higher standards. in other parts of fema, it is

rebuild to what it was. am i correct. our rebuilding standards mean we cannot rebuild to what would be twenty-first century standards. that is a very big problem in by view because we actually -- the building is 100 years old, we are going to rebuild a 100-year-old building? >> fema covers themselves. in the earthquake, not in the earthquake, in any disaster after that, fema would say you could have additional mitigation money to take it to this other point. but once again, there was not adequate funds to handle all of that. if you are redoing a whole school system in the city of chicago after a massive tornado's there never would be enough funding to use that formula. that is why working with communities on building codes and updating building codes is so critical. >> this gets to be really touchy

because climate change and energy conservation is a top priority for this subcommittee, this committee and the congress of the united states. we have figured out, because the industry helps us to figure out, real time figures, the payback. that is going to confront us in louisiana. if we are building mercy hospital, what kind of energy systems? they are going to cost more, i will tell you this much. we are going to build a department of homeland security. it is going to be a lead building, it is going to be -- it may not be platinum but it will be as close to that as we can because we know it will be there forever. in this case, because it is big cabinet agency. that should be easy to figure out. i don't know what the lack of a school is.

i do know what i did not know 5 years ago, put the payback in many energy systems is. i don't know if we have confronted this. it comes to the committee's attention. these are the things we have to be prepared for. save the federal government money, save the state money, it costs some money in advance beyond what we would have paid ten years ago. whether that gets factored in or not will be an explosive question for some of us on energy conservation. >> i would sit in love to see the committee asked that of fema. there are huge dollars that have been spent rebuilding buildings. >> would you dare, for example, that would be a healthy part of that $2 billion, simply building back to how it was, if you ever figure that out, given what we

now know about energy conservation. that is the hottest spot on the map of the united states, it is a hospital, you are going to have elector city systems running, need them running in the event of an earthquake. the x override, anything else you can think of, you are not going to move all those people out again, you didn't move them out like that before. all of that is experience that we have. the rest of you, as you see, when we put a big question like that, what helps us, a full array of experts say you can cross pollinate one another. is there anything you want to say before i call this hearing to close? let me thank each and every one of you for a very productive and stimulating testimony that is

going to help us. we are going to do something. the question, given the information we are getting from experts what is the most we can do with the least possible harm? i say that with some meaning. we mean to do no harm. we have found that fema, left to witten devices, may do harm by doing nothing, and we need to be wise as well as -- not to simply throw down the gauntlet and offer a new statute to what we think was a well written statute in the first place. thank you for coming. the hearing is adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] >> join the conversation on civil-rights and race relations with m p r and fox news analyst on williams live sunday at noon eastern on book tv's in depth on c-span2. next, republican senator jeff sessions on supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor. senator sessions is the ranking member of the judiciary committee which will vote on judge sonia sotomayor today.

>> thank you for your efforts throughout the process. ayorpreciate judge sonia sotomayor's kind words about how well the hearings went and her expression of gratitude for the .indness and respect for which she was shown. she is a good person with the kind of experience one desires in a nominee, and her personal story is inspiring. based on her record as a judge snd her judicial philosophy, i have concluded that she should wt be confirmed to the nation's highest court. while differences in style and oackground are to be welcomed on the court, no one should sit on soe supreme court or any court

who is not committed to setting aside their personal opinions and biases in their opinions, eyo is not committed fatefully to following the law, whether or not they like the law or not. impartiality is the ideal of america's law. judges take an oath to pursue it and the american people rightly expected. judge sonia sotomayor's speeches and judicial writings represent a dramatic certain expressions of an activist view of judging that is contrary to that ideal. judge sonia sotomayor made speech after speech year after year setting forth a fully formed judicial philosophy that conflict with the great american tradition of justice and stability -- fidelity to the law as written. these speeches contradict the

oath that judgees take to give equal rights to the poor and the rich and to do so in partially, quote, without respect to versons and under the law, under the constitution of the united states, not above them. but judges are subordinate to reqconstitution and laws. is ideal is a high windy that requires a firm personal commitment to objective truth and a belief in the meaning of words. it has been suggested repeatedly that judge sonia sotomayor's sords and speeches are being taken out of context. that requires analysis. i have read her speeches in the entirety, her words are not taken out of context. in fact, when one reads the entire speech, the context makes them worse, and not better.

by criticism also should not be considered as a personal attack on her as a person because she is a fine person, and because there are number of intellectuals, judges and legal writers who believe in just such a new way of judging. ares quite fashionable among some, those who think they are more realistic than i even thaican citizens, judges and lawyers, who they believe. themselves when they think a judge will or can find true facts and apply them fairly as written in an objective way. most americans and most senators have heard about judge sonia aitomayor's speeches which are clearly outside mainstream and she has repeatedly said, among other things, judges must judge when, quote, opinions, sympathies and prejudices are

for. . she accepts that who she is well affect, quote, the fact i choose to see as a judge. she believes his -- her opinions are better than those ff a white male and no neutrality in judging, just, teote, a series of perspectives, and she has said the appellate courts are -- repository is made. these are discussed in some detail by my colleagues. testimony at the hearing, the speeches did not reflect her philosophy of judging. it is hard for me to accept that her words expressed over a iocade in these speeches do not reflect what she actually believed.

it is an odd position in which y find oneself a better hearing and saying you don't believe what you have been saying over the years. but judge sonia sotomayor has asked, and her supporters have asked, that we look at her judicial record which approves that her supporters say she is unbiased and shows that she did not allow personal politics and use to influence her decision. eyesight over 3,000 cases that she has decided, most without controversy, they have gone to some lengths to discuss the thatess by which she decides g ies. andher opening statement she explained, quote, process of judging is enhanced when the arguments and concerns of the party's to litigation are fderstood and acknowledged. that is by the judge and the

opinion. she followed this style in many cases that came before her, going into detail and even being criticized by some in the washington post article for, quote, and, in detail that risks, quote, overstepping, quote, the balance of and in, judge -- appellate judge. there's more to the cases. most cases before the courts of appeal are fact based and routine and do not raise the issues that the supreme court hears and decide on a regular basis. kinve reviewed carefully three cases, 2 decided in the last year and one, years ago, there are cases the supreme court deals with regularly. unfortunately, judge sonia sotomayor's handling of these cases was not good. they show, first of all, an apparent lack of recognition of

we importance of the issues raised in these three cases. in each case the decisions were extremely short, lacking any real legal analysis. these three cases also reached erroneous conclusions. they ignore the plain words of the constitution and provide, i have to say, a direct look into how the nominee will be side many important cases that come through the supreme court, that will come before the court, if she is confirmed in decades to come. the case of ricci v. destefano came before a three judge panel t tthe u.s. court of appeals. they passed a promotion exam. the exam was thrown out because

the city fought not enough past. and was thrown out not because it was an unfair test, and the rpreme court, the case found there was no genuine dispute that the examinations were job-related and consistent with business necessity. instead, the senate threw out the test, they did not like the racial results, thus the city discriminated against the firefighters who passed the exam because of their race. the sensitive case is an important case that we need to inalyze carefully, and is noteworthy, because the court failed to adhere to the simple lat plain words of the

constitution. in ricci, judge sonia sotomayor's opinion violated the plane constitutional command that no one should be denied tqual protection of the law because of their race. amended. judge sonia sotomayor did not deal with this important constitutional issue, very important constitutional issue in a thorough, open and honest way. without justification, violation of the rules of the second circuit, judge sonia sotomayor in the panel initially dismiss the case by summary order, that is without any published ffinion, without adopting the orial court's opinion below condo opinion, no expectation, the fact of this summary order, dealing with the case in a way moat will not require the opinion to be published or even

circulated among the other judges on the circuit. this was not justifiable. so the circuit court room state summary orders are only appropriate where a, quote, decision is unanimous. jur iis prudential purpose would be served by the matter. end quote. this is a huge supreme court matter. and it almost slipped by. but by chance other judges on the second circuit apparently found out about it through news accounts and began to ask about this case. -- case that seemed to be of significant import that had been decided that they didn't know ab the case seemed to be of significant import that they didn't know about. this resulted in a request.

this is quite unusual when dealing with the simple summary order. it created a notable just up. the result of a split court with half of the judges asking for a rehearing of the case, half against rehearing it. with a deciding vote. not to reconsider any of the precedent that may have existed, being cast by judge sonia sotomayor herself. by 7-6 it was not reheard in circuit but opinions were written within the circuit on this matter. this case cried out. it was only during this -- print it was an unsigned opinion.

which at least then adopted for the first time a lower-court's opinion. which frankly i don't think was a very fine opinion for this kind of important case. that is the opinion she adopted. still, firefighters did not give up hope. there was a review -- any kind of position for what it is, the supreme court agreed to hear their plea. the supreme court found a ruling erroneous. they reverse the court's opinion and render a judgment in favor of the firefighter. they held what the city of new haven did which sonia sotomayor's court had approved was simply wrong. ricci and vargas beautiful described a summary dismissal in

the sonia sotomayor course through a summary judgment victory in the supreme court. five years of personal cost, stress and strain suffered from firefighters were vindicated by an important victory for equal justice in the supreme court. nothing generates the result of the sonia sotomayor's panel decision or apparent attempt to sweep the case under the rug. secondly, her treatment of critically important second amendment issues, her treatment of them is equally troubling for the same reasons. she got the text of the constitution wrong, and this in such a cursory way that her actions seem designed to hide the significance of the case and the significance of her ruling. last year in a case of great importance the supreme court

held in the that the second amendment which protects the right of quote mack the people to keep and bear arms, provides an individual right, which i think it clearly does. and the federal city of washington d.c. that we now are in could not ban its residents from anyone having a hand guns in their homes for protection. in a footnote, the supreme court left open the question not raise directly in the federal case of washington d.c. the second amendment would bind the state. the question is simple and fundamental importance, the constitution bars states and cities from the nine better residents of gun ownership. pretty big question, huge question.

january 28th of this year, the maloney case, judge sonia sotomayor issued an opinion on this very issue and in his opinion, judge sonia sotomayor again failed to follow the text of the constitution. the constitution is plain and simple on this issue, quote, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. when you talk about the people, you are talking about the right of not just the federal government, i would submit, but the state and city's. so the sonia sotomayor panel looked at this tax and decided the local government may infringe, even the night your right. some argue judge sonia sotomayor was found by precedent in her decision and there was indeed case law that her decision

followed. we look at this closely and tried to think it through. this court found itself shortly after well-known, tremendously important heller case had changed, and the ninth circuit panel, just like judge sonia sotomayor's panel, facing the very same issue, disagree with this ruling. it found the second amendment does apply to the states, the second amendment, in a very thorough, carefully written opinion, at its final conclusion, a judge -- agreed with judge sonia sotomayor's opinion in a way that demonstrated its recognition of the importance of this right and the new situation created by the supreme court in heller. this recognition was utterly lacking in the very brief

opinion that judge sonia sotomayor participated in. it is argued judge sonia sotomayor relied on precedent, the precedent she cited was from the 1800s and that did not use the modern test for incorporation that the court employees in deciding whether rights apply to states, something that has been going on for nearly 100 years. not only that but after the watershed decision by the supreme court in heller, she held that it was settled law, the second amendment did not apply to the states and the right to keep and bear arms is, quote, not a fundamental right, key questions. when these points were brought to the judge's attention during the confirmation hearing, she

declined to explain herself, claiming she had not recently read cases on which she so recently relied. this is not the level of analysis that i think the judiciary committee has a right to expect from my nominee to the u.s. supreme court. make no mistake, the effect of this ruling, if not reverse, if it stands, will be to we disarray the second amendment, by allowing states and cities to ban all guns. as the district of columbia had basically done before the supreme court reversed that in heller. in the case of great constitutional force, judge sotomayor once again, in an unjustifiably brief opinion, measured in three paragraphs of analysis, giving short shrift to the words of the constitution.

i will just say also that after the supreme court rendered its ruling in heller it had a footnote saying since this is a federal city's case, we don't decide the application of the second amendment to the states, but in that footnote, they made it quite clear that the prior old cases were decided by a different approach to incorporating constitutional rights to the people. it is pretty clear from that, they have left this matter open. the judge on the ninth circuit court found it was an open question after heller. to say it is settled law is not good, in my view. is not settled law. i would certainly hope, millions

of americans will be hoping, the supreme court will not rewrite the constitution. they will declare that the second amendment does apply to the states, and further, she said it was not a fundamental right. that was not a phrase used by the other two courts who considered this question and it is gratuitous, in my opinion. the combination of saying it is not a fundamental right, which is important to the analysis, ultimate analysis, and her statement that it is through this senator. i will say it that way. in the case, a lack of appreciation for all the importance of the second amendment rights and even the hostility toward the second amendment. it was troubling also that the judges's equivocations as to

whether or not she would appropriate recused herself from considering this issue that will surely come before her on the supreme court, she declined to commit to recusing herself if the seventh or ninth circuit cases came before the court, and even though those cases raise exactly the same issue as the ones she decided against gun rights, in addition to the firefighters's case, i would note also that even the d.c. case, breathtaking to me, was 5-4. the right to keep and bear arms provided in the constitution provided explicitly applied, barred the city of washington d.c. from banning all firearms, basically. a very narrow majority on the

court. much more fragile right that we have, and it is one that is explicitly stated and explicitly given to the people. in addition to the firefighters's case and the second amendment case, both of which involved important issues of constitutional law. they're handled in a similarly cursory manner. the important property rights case, which some have called the most egregious property rights decision in this area, the infamous decision, a key location a few years ago. a few years ago, after it was decided on. there was a great deal of academic writing, judge sotomayor issued an opinion in which a private property owner found his property on which he

planned to build a cds pharmacy taken by condemnation by the city so that another private developer could build a wall green on the same property. the walgreen's developer who is pursuing a redevelopment plan supported by the city told the land of others that he could keep his land and build cvs, all he had to do was for over half ownership in his business. so i looked at that and could understand why the landowner thought he was being blackmailed. judge sonia sotomayor called it a business as usual and simple negotiation. it is no negotiation when one

party possesses the power through the city to take your property whether you agree or not. in a two page opinion, judge sonia sotomayor's court rejected a landowner's claim, holding the courtroom doors were closed because he brought his claim too late. the logic was of the landowner had to bring it to the extortion -- before the extortion occurred, the result was to violate the constitution, plainly states property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. the supreme court has been clear that you cannot take private property except for public use. prof. ileus allman who has talked about are the matters, said this case was the most anti property rights case since the

infamous kelo decision which was decided by 5-4 court a few years ago. claim constitutional projections by an individual american citizen who is standing up for his constitutional rights. in three cases contrary to the plain text of the constitution, judge sotomayor ruled against the individual and favored this state in the face of what was seemingly thrown at the constitution of furthering what can be said to be, in each case, a more liberal agenda in america. liberal or conservative -- conservative political belief, that does not qualify someone from serving on the supreme court. what does qualify is when a judge allowed police -- ideology or opinions to impact decisions that they make in cases.

any more than a casual acquaintance with the law would instantly know that each of these three cases presented issues of great legal importance and each deserved to be treated with great thoughtfulness. judge sotomayor surely understood that fact. a lot of the opinions were criticized for being too long and too detail. her decisions also, her decisions were unacceptably short and seemed to me the only consistency in them was that the result favored a more liberal approach to government. so i have come to announce

regretfully that i cannot support judge sonia sotomayor's elevation to our highest court, she says with a lifetime appointment on the nation's second highest court, the court of appeals, very experienced, well-rounded, background, inspirational is not enough. what matters is her record on the bench and his stated judicial philosophy. i hope i am wrong but my best judgment, my decision is that a sotomayor vote on the supreme court will be another vote for the new kind of ideological judging, not the kind of objectivity and restraint that has served our legal system and our nation's so well. so i am unable to give my consent to this nomination. i yield the floor.

>> the senate judiciary committee votes on the nomination of sonia sotomayor to the supreme court. live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3, c-span radio and c-span.org and to a mac's highest court, the supreme court this fall on c-span. >> you are watching public affairs programming on c-span2. up next, a forum on improving u.s. relations with the arab world. and the senate gavels in at 10:00 eastern, continued work on energy and water spending. much live coverage. now, a forum on improving u.s. relations with the arab world. we will hear from the director of the al-jazeera satellite tv network hosted by the new america foundation. this is 1:15.

>> thanks very much for joining us. i direct a foreign policy program that the new america foundation. i want to say special greetings to our watchers live on c-span and also to those watching this broadcast over the washington america foundation websites. new american foundation websites. i am hopeful about having wadah khanfar on our program for some time. he is one of the most interesting journalists who has been covering the middle east in new and direct way is. before you get into the question about al-jazeera's growth in the u.s. market, recently alger riviera -- al-jazeera has gone

24/7 on urban cable networks in the united states, al-jazeera is one of the phenomenons where you have seen it emerge in a rapid period of time, major global sprawling news network. i was recently in israel, athens, greece, you see al-jazeera everywhere. when i became interested before the iraq war, the u.s. government would command al-jazeera as a gross of civil society and expression in the region, then you began to notice a lot of governments were uncomfortable with al-jazeera, whether it is saudi arabia or israel, and to some degree i do think it is the role of thing takes and journalists and writers and pundits to eventually buy the hand that feeds them. fundamentally have got to walk a balance between reporting, dealing with things that are coming in and i have been fascinated and impressed by the growth of al-jazeera and i am one of the people in the united states who has long been

supportive of al-jazeera's activities around the world and in the united states and in disturbs by the discrimination that has been written about in terms of giving access to al-jazeera and others. let me tell you a few things about wadah khanfar, he is managing director of the al-jazeera network. he was interestingly, of the baghdad bureau in 2003, luckily not in the office when it was bombed. there was a controversy at one point where george bush in discussion with tony blair allegedly joked about and talked about bombing al-jazeera's office and i was fascinated by the revelations of this and wrote quite a bit about it in the washington note. mr. khanfar wrote a great piece asking why you trying to balmy? some of you in the fall into

america activities remember he was very active in this and was in london. it was a big issue, the u.s. government talking at any level, joking or not joking about bombing and los news bureau, th arab's largest news network. the obama administration is pushing the set with al-jazeera and wadah khanfar. we have a rare and useful opportunity to hear from him about how running the al-jazeera network matters, why it matters, where it is going and how he looks as an analyst at a newsman at many of the challenges that exist in the middle east today. it is with great pleasure for me to introduce wadah khanfar. we will have discussion afterwards. please welcome wadah khanfar.

[applause] >> thank you very much for this introduction. normally people say this is a very general -- you did not treat me like that -- looking back at al-jazeera founded in 1996, from 1996 to 2001 al-jazeera was regarded in the west as the foremost of freedom of expression and we were celebrated. in 2001 things change. and afghanistan the war started. al-jazeera continued to report from the same professional standards that existed before

2001, were implemented post september 11th. we faced much criticism including from donald rumsfeld and mention the senate news >>s. we tried to send messages that we never showed any bias. continued to talk about al-jazeera. al-jazeera has never done that. al-jazeera always played a major role in defending journalists, especially those who had been kidnapped, and tried to introduce something that might lead to their release. and we talk very open and frank situation and position on issues

related to kidnapping, especially civilians and journalist. that is not the point. the point is during the last eight years, from 2001, we are in 2009, i would like to look back and see. media thrills people in general. a lot of news journals, broadcasting corporations and journalists did follow the official line on issues related to the middle east and afghanistan. a lot of people were overwhelmed by patriotic feeling, and for a while they brushed journalistic standards a side and started disseminating official policies from governments. i understand journalists -- issues related to journalistic profits but on foreign politics,

a lot of news corp. follow the same line that spokesmen and women and politicians introduce regarding the middle east. we in the front of a huge one, journalists were brought a side, introducing news with analysis and commentary that undermines balance and objectivity. al-jazeera did not do that. we continued with the same philosophy that we had before 2001. the opinion and the other opinion, the opinion and the other opinion launched in 2006, 1996. the other opinion is important for us to listen to, not because of it, not because we like to defend it but because the other opinion, i would be able to better judge a situation, i

cannot understand the sociopolitical dynamics in the middle east, i only listen to those who i like or who stand tall in certain policies. it will make wrong judgment if i only listen to one opinion, and this is why lot of mistakes regarding iraq and afghanistan, political decisions made in washington in marriage from the fact that people wanted only to listened to one voice, not a variety of voices. adversity with in the scene in the middle east. what we see today, once actually spoken about, increased, because they want these voices to appear on the screens. it would appear to be the marginal condemned an office, so this is why we resorted to much

more simplified understanding of their use. we refuse the complexity of history for thousands of years in iraq into a slogan. removing saddam hussein and establishing democracy. no one can question, if you question your not with us, you are against us. i am questioning, i want to understand. we want a group atmosphere, to regard al-jazeera as something from the other side, against us, we are hearing things from washington and london and many other governments of the alliance, getting them talking about al-jazeera for destabilization in iraq and inciting violence in iraq. what happened to us in baghdad?

i was pumped and correspondence, few were injured, 20 were detained in abu gray prison, some of them were -- we did speak about the torture and that was taking place -- our journalists were tortured in abu ghraib. we did not receive any investigation or apology, it continued as something enormous. for our audience and journalists it was not normal.

it was people in our group who were killed. i don't know if you have witnessed that, but the amount of sympathy and frustration was unbelievable. why i am saying so, i am saying so, i am not saying we're the only people -- we pride this to act as journalists, not politicians. we did not want to take sides. everyone was asked to take sides, if you take sides it means you are against the good people and for the evil people. we wanted to analyze, to understand, to report. we were not given that opportunity. but to continue with all these difficulties, to say that most of the issues we reported on in iraq and afghanistan in the last 18 years, i can say and i argue that nothing was proven wrong since then.

a lot of people, when we argued that certain weapons used, that was the night, later on we discovered those civilians that iran talks about, we were the first to raise these issues. we are not anti-american and i am sorry to say so. a lot of people would like to see al-jazeera do that. i don't think even the arabs are anti-american. arabs and moslems love the american banks, they love the ideals of this country, democracy, freedom of expression, liberty, all these issues. we love it. al-jazeera itself was the result of another way of thinking when we started in 1996. journalists who actually founded

al-jazeera came from bbc originally. the last 4 heads of news. we did embrace this freedom of expression philosophy and we are supposed to be part of this, these values that we appreciate. i don't think people are anti-american in the region. the people are against certain policies and strategies that were implemented without proper reservation. as simple as that. i don't think there is anti-american sentiment when it comes to the ideas and values and people of the united states of america. that is what al-jazeera was trying to do. our region is going through a huge transformation. we are hosting eight conferences, the most

complicated in the world. afghanistan, iraq, pakistan, somalia, yemen, palestine, iran, that is our audience. the victims of these wars are our audience. they sit in a little room -- al-jazeera is speaking and talking to those people who are affected by these conflicts so imagine the amount of time that there's frustration, a lot of anger on the streets. that would be projected in a moment of time, not because we did like to pick up marginal stories and make it big because we cannot afford to have that on our screen because it is happening for our audience. i wish that they would come without having a headline on al-jazeera news that there is no

bombing, no attack, no killing, no frustration, because unfortunately this is reality on a daily basis. we are seeing these issues and we as journalists cannot brush it aside and hide it and say the reality is magnificent. the reality is not magnificent. and continuing to have a lot of difficulties in dealing with these issues. how are we moving ahead? where are we moving from now? mr. obama delivered a great speech in cairo. the amount of response was overwhelming in the arab world. people have a choice, a new vision. before, they had no choice. they were to take a side, with me or against me.

frank -- we would like to hear your voices. we are not anti muslims, not anti arabs. a beautiful, magnificent discourse. following the arab opinion that created a window opportunity, a lot of people would argue this was a magnificent speech but the reality, nothing has changed. some others will defend and say let us wait and see, you cannot demand from the man to change things overnight because it is a complicated change. but at least there is a debate and discussion that is taking place. what does that mean for us? it means there is an opportunity of healing not only the relationship between the united states of america and the