>> given existing law, don't you think? >> yes, ma'am, i do. and i think that the best place to start is probably to 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 we could solve believe issue by forming this council of governors and working with d.o.d. to resolve it. i think from a doctrinal point of view it could be accomplished. northcom, in the relations with canada and mexico -- and i

realize we're talking sovereign nations versus states if we send forces it's imperative that we put it -- if canada sent forces to the united states it's possible they would put those forces under the tactical control of the u.s. commander. it doesn't mean you've given up authority. you could recall those forces and higher levels of control continue to exist. you mention the national guard. when we deploy national guard forces to other states, which is a similar parallel, i've done this this year alone from wisconsin to both north dakota for the floods and kentucky for the ice storm, i give tactical control 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 the right to recall them if needed. but i think from a unity of command, unity of effort 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 lowest level up and from that perspective we wouldn't be talking -- probably wouldn't be talking lots of federal troops. we'd be talking about a company of engineers, or a small capability that could easily fit into our joyce headquarters in our case in wisconsin or another state's 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 i'm going to ask any of you to look at what happens here at the inauguration. the state to state, the guard to guard does not present a separation of powers problem. it's state to state and we lend across state lines all the this

time but the armed forces of the upstairs constitutionally is under the commander in chief and that constitutional barrier bears some interest to us. there's certain things you can't weigh very easily. >> yes, ma'am. >> during the inauguration -- and here i do not have all the way facts in mind but i represent the district but i was concerned the inauguration is so big this time that there was at first the notion that the reserves should be on to some dual command. we were able to -- apparently, it had always been under the dc national guard, the commander of the dc national guard and there was some kind of swearing-in, i'm not sure what it was -- but there was some kind of swearing-in that everybody else who came in so that they were sworn in at the 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, these were reserve people. they were on the ground at the inauguration. and my recollection is that although the dc national guard is technical under the president that the commander of the dc national guard swore in these troops as something other than troops for purposes here that may suggest there's some paraphernalia -- parallel there. if we're planning for the next one we better assume, assume,

that you will need to go beyond the national guard. now, national guard is best trained to do this, no question about it, from across the country. there are a whole lot of guards. it's not that i think that 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 "lost locker"? [inaudible] >> "hurt locker." this is the movie so far from the iraq war. and "hurt locker" is about a whole lot more than the kinds of capabilities that our bomb deconfusers. they are setting off bombs

designed to destroy entire cities and all the people with them and i could see a hurt locker situation where you want some of those d.o.d. guys -- what does the general ask him? how many bombs have you diffused? 842? those kind of guys to help you with one of those massive explosives. to go off, for example, in a subway where you need a little more very important and nowup graded capability of even the best of our 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. >> ma'am, if i could just make -- >> please do. >> for the record state the reserves are, in my opinion,

even though a national guard commander just as professionally and well trained as a national guard and do a phenomenal job for the country. you mentioned the dual-hat command? >> the what? >> dual-hat command. under the law the president and the governor can agree on one national guard officer in a total of 32 who would be given a total 10 command authority at the same time and that would allow, in effect, both those chains of command to end at the same commander in the state response and would avoid the separation of power of state. you're talking and allow us to function under the governor's control through the state coordinator officer and the stafford act if that, of course, was going on. and that was designed for that very outcome. >> if you looked at this rather serious problem? this is the problem we have yet to confront.

that it may be right up the line. because we know how to deal with, you know -- we're beginning to finally deal with mass transit except we're particularly concerned with underground are we dealt, we think to deal with planes? so the next disaster if terrorists so prove as prescient 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 with people of experience in that line of work. have you done any work in all the work you've done on this issue. >> madam chair, i haven't myself because i've mostly concentrated on the stafford plan. and some of my colleagues have

worked in this area and i could refer some of their work together. >> we would be pleased to receive that. this is truly virgin territory. finally, mr. becker, you have spoken about housing in particular, which has been the -- really we have had such concerns, although, i think dr. moss says, you know, there are other areas that are of greater importance if you think about the disaster itself. the fact is that in this country we always focus on the person. and so, you know, they've got -- if they have 10 people in trailers, those are the people the press will focus on and, in fact, the average american is focusing on, even if your computer stuff is out. they want to know what you're doing as family or this disabled person or this person who cannot find housing or is still in a

trailer and the rest of it. the administration after entreaty, entreaty in this plan did offer a plan and this plan of the last business day of the last administration. do you believe that this plan is adequate for addressing the needs of a catastrophe or for that matter a disaster? >> madam chairman, i would suggest 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 to understand how it needs to proceed. what we need to do is if -- if the administrator wants to continue with the disaster housing task force that the plan calls for, that needs to be staffed. it's yet to have a permanent head and it's been in existence for over a year now. it needs to be supported and needs to be a multiagency resourced body. it needs to have state, local, tribal representation although the red cross is on it. but from that, the most 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 of what the urban housing needs would be in a catastrophe hitting new york city that's very differently than travel trailers and mobile homes in big vacant lots. you need to have menu of options

for him or for arkansas that might be very different from that. so this social work moving too slowly and this task force needs resourced. it needs to be headed by a permanent member or a permanent leader and it needs to get moving. >> yes, i'm going to ask mr. mccarthy who has been working on these areas. when we got this so-called housing plan it looked like a 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 received the highest visibility and recovery in louisiana and mississippi was housing, to think that we still don't have a plan. mr. mccarthy? >> i just want to mention i think mr. becker is saying is collect 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 target to -- >> applying what plan, sir. >> the disaster housing plan to start having specifics for it of how it --. >> to make it into a plan. >> yeah, to make it into a plan. the act did quite a few good things. and i think one of the best things it did was to authorize case management and a couple things that took the caps away from housing where you could spend what you needed to in repairing your home within the overall cap. it provided all that freedom. it wasn't retroactive to the population affected by katrina and so in some ways those tools -- >> why wasn't it and why shouldn't it have been? disaster, you know, you only know after the fact. >> yeah. >> we after the fact waved the state match. we never would have done that

before the act. some of these things you're not clairvoyant. maybe it was mr. fugate that some kind of reward incentive for mitigation. when i think the way we have done mitigation, we are -- this whole committee is a huge fan, subcommittee is in fan of subcommittee, yet we put tiny resources in it. i know that's not going to be anymore. we were doing that long before the -- those little resources long before. i don't know if states wait for mitigation resources from us. that is really waiting for good dough. now, in fugate indicated some type of reward or incentive system. i don't know if you looked into that and ms. bullock have looked into that. >> and you have done some of that. the disaster mitigation act of 2000 -- one of the things it did -- one of the things it did

was provide fema with authority to do cost estimates and pay on that, which hasn't been implemented yet after eight years. but the other -- one and the other -- >> we're just trying to help people recover from the disaster so that if somehow -- was it in the -- was it in the earthquake, ms. bullock, that you spoke of there was actual criticism because the rebuilding took account of the fact that there might be another earthquake? >> yes. >> and who criticized that for goodness sake? >> actually, it was the fema i.g. it was an internal criticism but what we did there and what certainly after a catastrophic disaster has to be considered -- building codes which have been mentioned and the committee is very supportive are only for a life safety protection. in other words, that way the building won't fall down. what we did after northridge is we worked with the hospitals,

specifically, the ucla hospital system to rebuild those hospital buildings for a continuity of operations. if it there was an earthquake, those buildings would not collapse they would be able to be fully functional. and, obviously, hospitals are things you need absolutely critical after any sort of disaster but particularly an earthquake. and it's those kinds of innovations that we took and ran with. and, you know, what fran has talked about and what we've talked about with mitigation, unfortunately, state and local governments are so strapped post-disaster that they cannot meet that match. it's the last priority. when it actually should be the first priority. because we have all sorts of evidence that shows that when we do do mitigation for every one dollar invested in mitigation the federal government saves $4 in future disaster costs. and the congressman that talked about the flooding in iowa, i would bet that the buyout

program, that fema participated in after the '93 floods and again, in 95 with the repeat floods probably kept so many of his homes and his constituent's homes from being flooded. we have to make an emphasis of mitigation. >> fema approved of the rebuilding, reinforced rebuilding i take it? >> yes, yes. >> you see what this does. the ig -- and the rope -- this is very interesting because it certainly was in the early '90s by the time everybody was afraid of earthquakes in california. was the i.g. looking only at cost? >> the i.g. was looking at cost and the i.g. was looking at the regulations and perhaps we exceeded our application of our our regulations. if we don't do the steps we'll

keep putting money out again and again. there is a lot of strain on the san andreas fault right now. there's been a lot of geological work done recently that we may be looking in a major earthquake in that area. and the idea -- and california is way ahead of the rest of the country relative to applying building codes and retrofitting. but there's still -- there's still going to be huge problems. >> well, i would like to think that today nobody would criticize anybody for re-enforcing housing. i'm not sure about that. >> the criticism didn't come from the congress, and the issue is, it all comes down to money. i mean, the fact that -- >> well, but fema, you say, had approved it. >> but the fact that they didn't weigh the litigation cost-sharing in katrina when those house could be built in a much faster than --

>> fema could protect itself by simply coming to the congress and we take the wrap. i can think of no instance where fema asked us for congressional authority or authority even from the committee, which we then had counsel investigate. and i can think of one instance where they would ask that. if that doesn't protect them what else could? let me finally ask you given what mr. becker has seen and certainly what those of you in emergency management have seen whether or not -- where you would stand given your studies of implementing public assistance on the basis of estimates, whether that would speed recovery. whether you think fema would act more quickly, whether that would be viable in terms of the i.g.

and all that stuff that is important to keep in place. >> madam chair, i think it would be very helpful. that authority, as i mentioned, was passed in 2000. fema, as they were told in legislation assembled an expert panel in 2002 and set up kind of industry standards for estimates but nothing further occurred. and that -- that authority was partly meant to accelerate the process. >> you see, so here -- you know, here i'm putting it before you. you are pointing out very specific authority that we gave. mr. maxwell wants to speak. >> i want to address one concern. it has to be done in conjunction with review -- complete review of all of the policies within p.a. and how they're administered because the last thing we as a state want to have happen is give an award that is based on an estimate and then to have pay money back and put money back from a subgrantee from a government to turn money

back. we would want a very careful review of the policies. >> in the northridge earthquake, once again because of the scope of that disaster, we did do some upfront funding. we didn't -- you know, if a project came in or the state or local government said it was going to be $2 million we wouldn't give them the $2 million. but we would give them a portion of that so they could at least get the work started and them -- >> wouldn't that take care of it. we're not going to throw any money out of here very quickly but when people are waiting just to get started? doctor, do you see a problem there? turn on your mic? >> thank you. i apologize. no, i think -- i thought that there is a provision in housing for it to be rebuilt to higher standards but in other parts of fema i think the aid has to be rebuilt to what it was.

am i correct? i think that the -- some of our rebuilding standards means we cannot rebuild to what would be 19 -- you know, to 21st century standards. i think that's a very big problem in my view. >> huge problem >> if a building is 100 years old, are we going to build a 100--year-old building? no. >> in the earthquake, not in the earthquake in any disaster after that fema would say if the code takes it to this point you could have additional mitigation money to take it to this other point but once again there was not adequate funds to handle all that. if you're redoing a whole school system in the city of chicago after a massive tornado, there never would be enough funding to use that formula. and that's why working with communities on building codes and updating building codes is to critical. >> this is going to get to be real touchy because climate change and energy conservation

is a top priority for this subcommittee, this committee and the congress of the united states. now, we have figured out because industry helps us to figure out -- we have real time figures now about the payback. that's going to confront us in louisiana. if you're building mercy hospital, what kind of energy systems -- they're going to cost much, i'll tell you this much. we're going to built the department of homeland security over in ward 8. it's going to be a lead building. it's going to be -- it's -- it may not be platinum but it's going to be as close to that as we can because we know it's going to be there forever in this case because it is a cabinet agency. that should be pretty easy to big.

i don't know what the life of a school is. i don't know what the pay back of many energy systems is. i don't know if we have confronted. it certainly has not come to the committee's attention but this is the kind of thing that we've got to be prepared for. it would save the federal government money. it would save the state money. it costs some money in advance beyond to what we would have paid 10 years ago. and whether it get factored would be an explosive question. >> i would certainly live to see the committee ask that of fema. because there's huge dollars that have been spent rebuilding buildings. >> we will certainly ask that, you know, at mercy hospital, would you dare, for example. that's going to be a healthy part of that $3 billion. simply build it back to how it was if you could ever figure that out given what we now know of energy conservation.

that's the hottest spot on the map of the united states. it's a hospital. you're going to have -- you're going to have electricity systems running or need them running in the event of an earthquake. it's going to have override x, override that in the other -- anything else you can think of. you're not going to move all those people out again just like that. you didn't move them out just like that before. all of that now is experience that we have. did any of the rest you have before, as you can see, when we put a big question like that, what helps us to have before us is full array of experts so that you can cross-pollinate one another and all of you should pollinate us. is there anything you want to ask of us before we call this hearing closed? i want to thank all of the you for a very fruitful and productive and stimulating testimony that's going to help us. we're going to do something.

the question now before us, given the kind of information we're getting from experts at your level, what is the most we can do with the least possible harm. i say that with some -- with some meaning. we mean to do no harm. we have found that fema left to its own devices may do harm by doing nothing and thus, we need to be wise and not to simply throw down the gauntlet and offer a new statute to what we think was a very well-written statute in the first place. thank you very much to come and advise the committee. the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> how is c-span funded? >> the u.s. government? >> private benefactors. >> i don't know, some of it is government-raised? >> it's not public funding. >> probably donations. >> i want to say from me, my tax

dollars. >> how is c-span funded? america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative. no government mandate, no government money. >> now a discussion on the role of states in emergency management. we'll hear from the president of the national emergency management association, which represents officials from all 50 states. this event from the heritage foundation in washington is just over an hour. >> good afternoon. my name is eric weiss and i'm the program director for lectures at the foundation. i welcome those who are joining us. for viewers, questions can be submitted addressing to emails at speaker@heritage.org. if you would please make a final check that your cell phones and

other electronics are off as they will interfere with our recording devices. for further reference this program will be posted within 24 hours on our heritage.org events page. hosting our program today is matt mayor who is a visiting fellow for homeland security and states project. he's also an adjunct professor at ohio state university. he's the author of the book "homeland security and federalism: protecting america from outside the beltway." he was a 2007 lincoln fellow with the claremont institute and a 2003 marshall american offshore of the. he previously served as a senior official at the department of homeland security. prior to coming to washington, he served in the administration of colorado governor bill owens. he received his bachelor's degree from the university of dayton and earned his law degree from the ohio state university college of law. >> thank you.