welcome to the heritage foundation for another one of our speeches in the homeland security and the states project. the topic that we're going to talk about today is one of the critically important topics, i believe, in this area of homeland security after september 11 and hurricane katrina, which is the importance of a state-led disaster response. you know, we are currently in this era of an ever-increasing federalization of disasters that really began back in 1993 when we went from about 43 declarations out of the federal emergency management agency per year in the 1980 to 1992 time frame where we doubled it from '93 to 2001 to about 89 declarations a year and then that then got increased even more under the bush administration to about 130 declarations per year. the obama administration is currently on pace to have about 134 declarations this year which would make that the sixth highest number of declarations in a year since 1953.

and if you think about it and reflect for a moment in terms of what's happened this year, most of us probably can't recall many disasters occurring in the country. we haven't had any hurricanes yet although we have one barreling out in the atlantic in the last 24 hours. we haven't had many earthquakes that we can remember but yet we've still had 76 declarations this year that have been fairly routine types of disasters. so with that it's a great time for us to have this conversation. it's really a great honor for me to introduce nancy dranani, who is a buckeye which i'm proud to say as a fellow buckeye but even more importantly, you know, i had the privilege of sitting down with nancy and her team to really learn what it is ohio is doing to become responsible in this era and to be honest when it comes to emergency management and so as part of, you know, the book i wrote that we talked about, i have case studies and ohio is one of the case studies on disaster response because i call it an honest approach for emergencies and they do a

fantastic job to decentralize even more so down to the local level to make sure that everyone from the individual to the lower government to the state government is doing their part in fighting this idea of federalization and that automatic response. as the director of the ohio emergency agency nancy leads the response to manmade and natural disasters. she administers the state's homeland security funding program and oversees disaster, recovery and mitigation efforts. she's been the director of ohio m.a. since january, 2005. so in her fourth year of stewardship and doing a fantastic job. in the fall of 2008, she accepted her elected seat as the president of the national emergency management agency nema which is the organization here in washington that advocates for emergency management and their issues from across the country here in washington with congress and the executive branch. and so she's taken that role and done a very good job, i think, in trying to really to spark

this conversation of roles and responsibilities at the federal, state, and local level. she's one of two-state emergency management directors on the federal emergency management agency's national advisory counsel and prior to becoming executive director, nancy served as the director of operations at ohio m.a. where she was responsible for emergency preparedness training, exercises, planning, homeland security and preparedness grants in response operations in the state emergency operation centers during disasters. she retired from the ohio national guard after 22 years of combined u.s. army, army national guard and air national guard so i thank you for that service to the country. it's really -- it's really amazing that you spent 22 years 'cause you don't like look you've done 22 years of service as well as your state-based and local experience. nancy graduated from summa cum laude and it's my pleasure to have her speak here about the state-led emergency response. [applause]

>> good afternoon. it is certainly a pleasure for me to be here. a little bit warm, i will admit, but certainly a pleasure to be here. and a pleasure to talk about this particular issue because it's something we struggle, i think, in the emergency management community and certainly we struggle with, i believe, as a nation as we have events like katrina balanced by events like the flooding that we may see in southern ohio or in central ohio later on this year of nowhere near the magnitude of a katrina or an earthquake on the west coast. and as i was thinking about what i wanted to say today, i reminded myself that ultimately the emergency management community has three priorities. and they're really pretty basic. we sometimes get lost in the money. we sometimes get lost in the planning and other issues but our priorities are really pretty basic. the first priority is to protect property. to try to the best of our ability to protect the property

that our citizens own, that they live on, that they rely on by sending their children to schools and expecting police forces and fire departments to respond. so the first goal is really to protect the property that we live on, that we rely on and protects us. the second is to minimize the impact when the disaster does occur. whether it's a manmade disaster, an intentional disaster, a nuclear power plant event, a flood, a fire, a tornado, a hurricane. the goal is to minimize the impact when it does come. and finally, most importantly, the ultimate goal is to save lives whether we do it in a minimizing mode, a protection mode, the goals is to save lives and protect property. we do that in emergency management with what we used to call four phases but we've expanded to include a fifth and there again pretty basic. we prepare, we plan, we train, we exercise.

we prepare to respond. and then we respond when needed. we call out the national guard when it's appropriate. we call out department of national resources. we bring in epa. we work in support of local authorities in emergency management who are the ultimate responders but at the state level we prepare to respond and then we respond when necessary. and if further necessary, we reach back to our federal partners and they assist us in the response of a disaster. once the disaster response is over, we recover. we bring in primarily federal dollars right now that help us recover damaged infrastructure and help peopleq5ñ replace the losses that they have had as a result of the disasters so that they can begin -- important point, they can begin their personal road to recovery. neither the federal, the state nor local government have the

resources to make anyone whole after a disaster. that's not the intent of recovery at any level. it's to help people on the path to recovery. we mitigate. simplest way for me to illustrate mitigation we elevate homes. we move people out of the floodplain. pu occurs by mitigating.minimizn finally the fifth and the newest is prevent. some would say prevent and mitigation is the same. i don't agree. prevention is a separate activity. we're used to dealing with preinvestigation in the terrorism realm. but but it could also deal with terrorism into natural hazards and it's bigger than mitigation. it's different than mitigation. it's intentionally trying to prevent the event from ever occurring versus mitigation which minimizes the impact when that event does occur. so once we understand those four phases, then i would suggest we

need to arrive at a mutual understanding, at a common understanding of some of the issues we face as we look at building capability at the state and local level. and the first and sometimes the most difficult issue that we have in arriving at a common understanding is what's risk? what is risk? what is risk in ohio versus what is risk in california? versus risk in florida? i had somebody say it's risk from what to what. in ohio, we're not at risk from a hurricane. although we did have the dry hurricane last summer, it was really just a big wind event but we're not at risk from hurricanes. we are at risks from tornadoes and floods potentially residual risk if the fault goes but we're not at risk from hurricanes. we're at risk from a nuclear power plant because we have two nuclear power plants in ohio and

a third that impacts us. other states don't have that risk. they may have a different risk. so one of the most important factors as we develop capability is understanding what the risk is in that jurisdiction. because the risk in columbus is not the same as the risk in southern ohio. they have a different risk. they have a bigger risk sometimes in southern ohio than they do in columbus. that's a challenge because to date we've kind of spread the risk out evenly. and we've planned for the risk evenly. and not only does that cause problems with sustainability, it causes problems with fatigue. it causes problem with frustration. it causes problems with resources and i'm going to talk about all of those things. once we understand our risk from what to what, we need to understand what actions we want to occur as we develop the

capability. who do we want to do what? what role do we want fire to play? what role do we want police to play? what role do we want emergency management to play? what role do we want the public to play? and what actions should the public and all of those other organizations take? i talked about roles and i think that's been a challenge for us, quite frankly. who role should the federal government play in emergency management emergency response? is it the federal government's s we look at roles. what is the role of local government in responding to disaster? what is the role of the state government in responding to disaster. and finally, what is the role of the federal government? and i'm going to keep coming back to the role of the individual because that's really where it all starts. i want to talk about required resources so once we've

identified what we want to build and who does it and what the risk is, what kind of resources are we willing to levee against that risk. what kind of resources are our elected officials willing to levy against that risk? there are very few states -- i guess there are a couple that are still in the plaque. -- black. but i would tell you ohio is not one of them. we had to make some difficult decision what resources we're willing to fund and what projects we're going to put on the back burner until the funding rebounds in ohio. that's not a good thing. it's not a bad thing. it just is. that's the hand we're dealt with and the hand that we have to play with right now. but sometimes we forget about that at all levels and we've created an expectation as we look at this risk that's even across the states that we think

is even across ohio as we look at this even-based risk, we forget that it requires resources to maintain whatever capability we're trying to build. and is it realistic to expect a small county in ohio to develop a capability to respond to something that we would expect an urban area to respond to. is it realistic to expect ohio to develop the same capability to evacuate ohio that we may expect florida to develop. probably not. and, quite frankly, i'll tell you it's not defensible. it's not sustainable. because we still have the other risks that are going to happen that we have to plan and prepare for in ohio. so i think understanding the required resources to dedicate, to devote to meeting that risk and planning for that risk is something that we struggle with. it's something that we don't yet, i don't think, have not yet come to grips with.

as an organization, as a profession, as a nation. and finally, ultimately what is the outcome? what is the big outcome? is the outcome that ohio has the capability to evacuate the entire 11.5 million people to indiana? probably not. i'm sure indiana wouldn't be real happy if we did. we could go to michigan. that probably would cause a riot to the north. but i'm serious. i'm joking a little bit but i'm serious because sometimes we forget what the outcome is. and all of those points have to be factored into the outcome. is it realistic? is it defensible? is it sustainable? is it based on risk for that jurisdiction? and that then drives what the outcome, i believe, is. now, can the outcome be higher than all those things could support? absolutely. and sometimes it should be but you can't lose sight of those

other factors because, quite frankly, you'll build a house of cards. and that house is going to crumble when the resources fall away underneath it. i want to talk just for a minute, probably the next 15 minutes or so, and take questions once we've done all this and once we've identified the risk and we've arrived at a mutual understanding we've talked about what actions people need to take and at what levels. we've talked about the resources that are required to sustain those action that is ultimately lead to this outcome that we're hoping for, then we need to talk about how do we build that? how do we build that capability? how do we build that capability in ohio? how do we build that capability in iowa? how do we build that capability in new york? i want to go back to risk. because risk to date and the identification of risk has been one of the biggest challenges that we faced.

i will tell you from my perspective that building -- and i'll say this at the risk of some friends in the audience who probably don't disagree with me. developing plans based on scenarios may not be the most effective way to build capability. because at some level, a flood is a flood is a flood. a fire is a fire is a fire. a firefighter needs to know what he or she is going into but ultimately they're going into a fire. a building collapse will cause the need for specific capabilities. but having the building collapse because of a faulty structure or a wind event or a deliberate act of terrorism may not be as critical to building that capability as having the capability to do search and rescue. so i would suggest when we look at building capability, rather than looking at scenarios, which

tend to stovepipe the capability, we look at impact. we look at a building collapse and the ability to go in and do search and rescue. we look at swiftwater rescue, the ability to pull people off roofs and out of swift water, whether it's caused by a dam break or it's caused by a flood or it's caused by a hurricane. it's swift water rescue. i'm concerned when we guilty plea to build scenarios that we lose sight of the overall capabilities that we're looking to build and would suggest again that perhaps building capabilities based on an impact may be a stronger foundation than building to 15 separate scenarios that have competing sometimes and have intersecting impacts. i think realistic guidance is a challenge that we face. again, as we go back to risk and building capability, the

guidance needs to be clear. it needs to be realistic. it needs to be understandable. and it needs to be measurable. and we've struggled with that and when i say "we," i am not saying the federal government alone because it isn't just a federal solution and it isn't just a federal responsibility. i think we at all levels own this problem. and we need to build better, easier to understand guidance that's targeted to the outcome that we want those roles, those individual roles, to play. the guidance that comes down to the state probably doesn't need to be the same detail at the local level. belay that, depending on the event, depending on the capability, the guidance may not be the same detail. i on the other hand don't need to know how to fight a fighter or pilot a boat to do swift

water rescue and i don't want to fly helicopters to save people off roofs and it needs to be actionable depending on who needs to perform that action. sustainable, i talked about that earlier. and i will tell you, i'm very, very concerned about our ability as a nation to sustain some of the capabilities that we've created. because right now we're facing tremendous budget deficits across the nation. we need police officers every day. we need fire departments active every day 'cause we know we're going to have crimes and we know we're going to have fires. we need schools to educate our children. we need to continue to make sure that our infrastructure is sound or as sound as it possibly be. all of those sounds are competing with disaster response and emergency management. so what we build needs to be sustainable at all levels.

it isn't a federal responsibility to sustain these capabilities. at the same point the requirement -- the requirements that the federal partners levy on state and local governments need to be sustainable by state and local governments and there needs to be a recognition on the part of our federal partners that there's a cost to sustain them. i can buy a fire truck for a local jurisdiction. i can buy a s.w.a.t. vehicle for a local jurisdiction. i can buy a boat for a local jurisdiction. all with the money of my federal partners. can they gas it? can they put oil in it? do they have drivers that are trained to drive it? all of those are costs that they have to bear so we need to look at the entire picture when we build capabilities and not just a piece of the picture. i talked about measurement and meaningful measurement. so how do we measure capability? what does it look like? is it sustainable? we've got a lot of different measurement tools out there.

all of them have been challenging. all of them tend to measure things and widgets and stuff and not true capability. now, i'm here to tell you i don't really know how to do that. but i do know that what we're measuring right now is not necessarily capability. and i do know that's something fema is very, very actively involved in with new leadership, not that the old leadership didn't do the right job. it's just a tough issue. it's difficult to measure something that is inherently subjective until the hurricane comes. until the hurricane comes. and then you find out whether or not you planned, trained, exercised and bought the right stuff so it's a challenge. meaningful measurement will continue to challenge us. continue to challenge us and it's something as a system we need to continue to struggle and work on.

public accountability. in the 14 years, 15 years that i've been in the emergency management career field, i have seen a shift from personal responsibility to personal expectation. from when the hurricane winds begin to blow, clean out your bathtub and fill it with water so you have drinking water to when the hurricane threatens and the winds begin to blow, find out where fema is going to deliver ice, food and water. and we can't survive that. as a country, we can't survive that. we've got to begin to remind ourselves as a people of personal accountability. it's my responsibility to the best of my ability to take care

of myself, my family, my dog, my cats, my mom who lives down the street and the lady that lives next door. i believe that's my responsibility. i believe it's your responsibility. maybe not the cat, the dog and the grandma but, you know, it's your responsibility. we've lost that as a country. we've lost that as a culture. and we've become a culture of entitlement. within hours of an event, the question is, where's fema? where's my check? where's my water, food, and ice? it's not sustainable. it's not defensible. and i think we need to change that culture. and we think we need to go back to a message of personal preparedness and an expectation to the extent possible people take the time, the energy, the money to prepare themselves and their family so they don't to have wait for fema to come in on

their white charger and fix the day. i want to talk about honesty a little bit. and i appreciate that matt walked away from our conversation with that impression of our agency and the staff that work with us. but that's not really where i'm headed with honesty. i think that we need to be honest and transparent at the elected official level about what is sustainable and what is appropriate. now, that's not easy. but i will tell you if we have clear guidance, if we have clear management, if we have clear tools and we're honest and transparent about it, it actually works. and i'll tell you a quick story on why i feel that way. in ohio, in 2005, in january, we were going through the largest, widespread disaster that we had gone through since the blizzards of '78 that affected the entire

midwest. we had two-thirds of our state declared as a result of a winter storm followed by appear ice storm followed by a snow melt and i took over as the director of the emergency management in the middle of that response event. took off my ops hat and put on my director hat at about 11:00. we had the ceremony passing of the blackberry and i became the director. that disaster just grew like molasis and we picked up counties here and there we ended up picking up county that had two or three homes with minimal impact because it just grew. there wasn't a good fence to say, does this make sense? is this the right thing to do? if somebody came in, if a county came in with a declaration, we added them to the federal

declaration and i said i will never do that and we created guidelines. i went back to my recovery folks and said what's defensible, what's clear, what's realistic, what's honest and let's create it. we created a small business administration agency-only declaration guidance which very simply is 25 homes or businesses with more than 40% loss. uninsured. now, i will tell you 40% loss is more than you think. 40% loss is about 12 inches of water on the first floor of a slab home. 6 inches of water doesn't get it. it has to cover the outlets. so we've had disasters where people came to us and they said we have 60 homes, 12 inches of water on the first floor, slab homes. didn't cover the outlets. they were minor.

now, again, i am absolutely not discounting the impact on those individuals. if it was my house, it's significant. but there's a level of measure of personal responsibility. and so we created this guidance that said 25 homes or businesses, more than 40% uninsured loss before we will ask not only for an sba declaration but if we have a federal declaration and we want to ask it to be extended to pick up counties, those counties that will be added to have meet that 25 homes or businesses with more than 40% loss as well. so we won't have another disaster where we had a county declared with two homes of minor damage because it's not defensible. it's not the right thing to county. you'll to have come in with a declaration because the pressure is going to be too great. but the guidance was so clear and so defined that we've been able to work with it.

and we've been able to adhere to it. now, are there exceptions? of course. we haven't had one yet but i anticipate we will. if we have a county that has significant wind damage and on the other side of the strait where a county maybe only had 10 homes destroyed because of a tornado i'm probably going to look at that county that's adjacent and look at those folks because at that point that is the right thing to do. so there's enough room in there that we can expand it if we need to but the guidance is clear and now our county directors understand that guidance and when they come to us they will come to us and say we had a wind event. we had 17 homes with major/minor damage. they know what the criteria is. and they don't ask for a federal declaration because they understand what the criteria is and i fully believe if we develop clear criteria we adhere

to it, we're honest about it, we're transparent with the criteria, then people understand that. it's not always easy. but i think it's the right thing to do. and so that's what we've done in ohio. i certainly couldn't talk about building capabilities and disaster response and all this great stuff if i didn't talk a little bit about funding. and that's the challenge in all of the capability building that we do. that's the challenge in response to any disaster. because the reality is, most of the united states has what i would call recovery disasters. and they're not easy to get. they shouldn't be easy to get. in ohio, our population is 11.5r m for states and locals

providing a om mechanism for state and locals to recover from disasters that the rest of us have. stat not willing to say is the state's responsibility because quite frankly the states don't have the funding to do that and we do have expectation from our citizens that when a disaster large enough to warrant it, there will be funding available. but i do believe we need to create a mechanism to relieve the burden from fema of having to respond to some of those smaller disasters and create the rapability at the state level to do that on their behalf whether

it is a block grant type program, another funding mechanism that the states can administer, that would relieve a ma of a tremendous amount of pressure of responding to those disasters that occur with great frequency that need assistance al psupport, that don't meet the full force of our federal partners. the challenge in that is there has to be a mechanism that the state to deliver those lysources. my recovery program in ohio probably not lot different from most states, has--let's see, people. those four people administer probably seven people, i don't want to sell them short, we have ns aic assistance and individual assistance side. gose folks that minister illions and millions of dollars to local government. they work with fema to havenister individual assistance grants to people that have been impacted. b the states assume that responsibility, there has to be

the recognition that they need to develop the capability to do .hat on behalf of fema. it would be a disaster for fianna to say we are going to give you a grant, put 3% limit on it. you can't hire anybody but now blu have to administer that $30 million public assistance program. it is doable. creating this is doable. creating a path to relieve the administrative burden on fema is doable and something as a nation that we need to explore. ultimately, if i go back to those goals and i go back to the responsibilities, if i end on any note, i want to end on the note of personal accountability and responsibility, because i truly don't believe the more we resh the responsibility to somebody else the worse off we

are as a nation. the more we push up from individual to local to state to federal, the responsibility, the less prepared we will be as a nation because it is far faster, far more effective, far less costly to drive that ability to respond, the capability to act, down to the lowest level possible. so with that, i would be happy to take questions. tpplause] >> i am dan fowler from

congressional quarterly. i have a question for you. it goes along with what you are saying but earlier this year, secretary janet napolitano talk about public perception, she said the public perception of fema needs to change. she said fema is not a first responder, that role belongs to the local government. but she said the common perception is in an emergency, fema is supposed to be there first and if not, something is, quote, wrong with the agency. you talk about that in your remarks today. she also said should locals be able to and emergencies when the state provides assistance and after that, fema and is the scene. i was wondering if you could comment. is it important to change the public perception of fema as the secretary does? >> absolutely. she is right on target. some of that goes to recognizing this roles and responsibilities

and the importance of building the capability of the local and state levels so that when fema ate s in, particularly as a responder, they're coming in always in support of state and local, always in support of local. between 9/11 and katrina, the pendulum shifted for this expectation that she not would be there and ours, that they would be passing out food and water in hours as opposed to being there after states and locals had begun to provide reose servicess to their capability? >> you agree fema is not the first responded? >> i do not think fema is the first responder, nor is the atate emergency management agency the first responder. >> terry noe rollins of the heritage foundation. i am so glad to hear you talk

about personal responsibility. not enough people do. er obviously a problem in asciety in general, in every aspect of society. when it comes to disaster preparedness, i wonder if you could talk about -- i don't know if there's anything to say but if you could address the aspect, on the one hand, people don't want to do anything for themselves and expect the government to step in immediately if something happens, on the other hand they act like nothing ever will happen, especially when it comes to terrorism preparedness, i feel like a lot of people are in denial, i don't know what the tason is, but if you go out of your way a little bit to dge are, they act like you're paranoid. in 2004 when tom ridge talked about the possibility of biological attacks or chemical attacks, to go out and buy the duct tape and plastic sheeting, i am absolutely the only person that i know, i don't know if you know anybody, who bought a duct tape and plastic sheeting.

i keep bottled water at home, i have cat food, i have a first-aid kit, i don't know anyone else who does. all my friends and acquaintances humor me and think i'm slightly wacky for being prepared. how do we get people out of the you are coo coo if you actually have a stash of stuff to be prepared, i don't understand how to get over that mindset? >> it goes back to risk. defining the risk in a way that is appropriate for that person md where they live. the risk here is obviously much pgher than it is going to be in columbus, where i am from, or southern or northern ohio where it is moral in nature. anybody who lives around a nuclear power plant understands the risks of a nuclear power plant. anyone who lives around a chemical facility, i guarantee you, has the tape and plastic sheeting because they have been emained on what to do if ntmething happens at that

chemical facility. the challenge is identifying risks in such a way that people isel they can act on it. and what they are acting on is appropriate. it has been so squishy to date, the risk has been ascribed across the entire united states, i think that has caused people -- i'm not saying you did it, glad you did what you did, some people overreact, people get fearful or underreact and they get fatigued by it all. we have heard it too often, many times, it is never going to happen here, they just disregard all of the messages. a clear and consistent risk-based message appropriate for that location is probably most important. i am glad you got your duct tape and plastic. >> mickey mccarter. i wonder if you could elaborate

more on the block grant concept and how that would work for d work. >> i don't really know, ,ractically, how it would work. the threshold for federal disaster declaration, fema brings in tremendous resources and spends a significant amount of their budget to come in and manage infrastructure grants, assess the damage to provide funding to recoup the cost of damage to infrastructure repair. doat to me suggests it is something a state could probably do with the right resources. if there is a way to eliminate the joint field office environment that requires fema to bring in 100 plus folks to

manage those grants and shifts that responsibility in a defined and audible way to states, everybody benefits. tes.challenge will be doing that in such a way that there is an ability to check the funds, that at the end of the day, when the inspector general comes in, we fl agree the funds for used appropriately and relieve the burden from fema or on fema from having to come in and set up those large, elaborate joint field offices. ould that kind of answer your question? i wish i had the plan because i would take it to fema. anel am jim gilmore, former chairman of the advisory panel on homeland security. we were established in 1999 and we read the originators of the

idea that natural disasters and rrrorist attacks ought to be responded to by local responders first. we originated those ideas. and largely it was because of the fear that if this became exclusively federal first responsibility, inevitably in a major catastrophe would end up with the military intervening and controlling. so our concept was more the local responders. in a minute i will ask how we leange these perceptions. that is requested i'm going to ask you but let me point out how we got to where we are. sibie is a fundamental belief in society, that it is a federal responsibility on almost any rk wster. personally, a presidential responsibility. we have seen for example the katrina disaster, and president bush's major slide was in some measure because he appeared to

be ignoring this. then you have the political aspects, his political opponents wanted to encourage that. and create that slide for him, oich in large numbers -- measures why barack obama is president and janet napolitano rw secretary, and security, and the danger of local survivors when they get overwhelmed, publicly throwing their responsibility to the federal government. i am reminded of the mayor of new orleans who basically of dolphins off of any responsibility of any kind saying where's the president? where's the federal government? which the natural -- national press love. sugge are going to change all this, the question is how would you suggest that we begin to deange the perception of the american people? today, any president who didn't take complete charge immediately and for federal tax their money into it overwhelmingly is headed for the same fate that george w. bush had. how do we and do this?

>> i have read your report. what i would suggest is probably not realistic, as i talked realistic actions, but i think it is the right thing to do. that is where politicians at all levels own the responsibility to at honest about their responsibility. that is probably not very chanistic and i understand that. i don't know how we will ever change that perception without someone -- the florida governor did it a couple years ago when he said this is our responsibility, we said we would do this, it is not fema's responsibility. if there was a failure here, it was ours, not fema's, and that

is the kind of honesty and transparency that we need to strive for because i don't know how else we will do it. in reality, with our political system, that may not be something that could ever occur but it needs to because quite frankly we are doing our detizens a disservice by doing anything else. >> tree to quick questions. there's a task force on the color-coded system. cd be interested in your thoughts about changes. the other one is, one of the ones we have looked at his rgeparedness and recovery for small and medium businesses. a portion of our economy is small business, the backbone of the economy and when a disaster strikes their most vulnerable because they can't endorse long-term business disruption. any advice on changes and the color code system? how do we engage in small and

medium business? >> if we are going to have a color coded system we need to recognize obviously yellow is the new green. and come to grips with that. we are now at a heightened state, a higher than we were on september 10th, 2001, and we need to recognize that. if we're never going to go back to blue and green, why are they there? but start fresh, identify what cke levels should be, use them judiciously, use them in a ,argeted fashion, recognizing that if we ever go to read on a national level, we have effectively shut down everything, and that is not something we can do very often for very long. edry similar to what most of the people who have input on the color coded system would say. we need to get rid of green, we

need to get rid of green and blue or recognize that we have gew greens and blues. it needs to be targeted, actionable. when we go to orange, what does that mean? romike to use my mom as my measure, because she knows just enough from listening to me to .nderstand some of the issues but not enough to necessarily not everything i know, certainly. when my mom says we are at orange, do i need to buy a duct tape and plastic sheeting? or do -- what do i need to do? there needs to be some realistic action beyond be more vigilant. because it doesn't make sense to most people. be more vigilant doesn't really nswed actionable. that is probably my answer on the color coded system. the second question, i am sorry,

can you remind me? small, medium-sized businesses. that is a huge issue because right now the only thing llailable to small and medium-sized business, small business is through the small business administration. it is a loan, not a grant. every disaster we have that has , hognificant impact on small business, the challenge is how do you recover a community when you don't have the businesses to jump-start the community and keep people there? end up with a chicken and egg kind of thing. i will say that one of the things i have been excited about with the new administrator of fema and the direction he has gone, is we need to figure out an a disaster recovery mode, how we in government can help businesses reopen so that they can then help the community recover. he has a wonderful story, many

of you have probably heard, that i really took to heart, about ceanding in a wal-mart parking lot and delivering ice, food and ooter to people in the wal-mart parking lot while behind him stood the building and the business that could sell ice, food and water, get the government out of the middle of delivering ice, food and water and get the economy redo it in that community. we need to shift the way we look ernmusiness in order for that to uappen. we need to stop as a government asking what can you do for us, what can you sell us, what can you bring to us and instead say what can we do for you to help you do what you do and provide your resources. >> let me build on gov. gilmore's topic on the political aspect. i will start with a smaller

bite. you in ohio had to change the political calculus in order to implement your risk management methodology on homes. you commented you expected political backlash but you didn't seem to have any. is there something to be learned from your perspective on how your state shifted the dynamic? do we need to go about this on a state-by-state basis? the national approach, i agree entirely, it is too hard. we can't have the national risk-management conversation because we would never have consensus on that. what did you learn from your shifting of the paradigm? what have other states learned from that? >> i will go back to clear and consistent guidance. we actually have a little primer

we developed with pictures that says the water is this high, it is minor. if it is this high, it is major, if it is that high, it is destroyed. what that did, we passed it out to our emergency management directors, give it to the new governor when he came in, governor strickland, what it did, it created a very clear measuring tool. and in fact, i use the example of the community with 60 homes, their director recognized, as difficult as it was for him to have to tell his citizens they didn't meet the guidelines, he iew what they were, and he understood it and was able to convey it. ablic assistance is a fairly easy criteria for us to meet at state level. let me rephrase that. is a very clear criteria. i know that in order for a high to get public assistance disaster declaration to help

government recover costs, we have to meet a threshold of $14.3 million. it is black-and-white. if we get closer to thirteen may asn, we certainly ask for a aclaration. but by and large, it is a very clear criteria. is the criteria is clear and understandable and consistent, we don't bring in one county that didn't meet the threshold and hold off another county that didn't meet the threshold, if it is clear and consistently engaged, people are far more willing to accept that than if it is very subjective and doesn't make sense. i think clear, consistent adplication is important. i will also tell you i have had to revisit that several times when we had those smaller disasters but so far it has

helped. e alan snyder with household manage tree committee, piggybacking on the last question, the fema administrator has expressed interest in reviewing the federal disaster declaration process. could you speak to the strengths and weaknesses of the process as it stands and what recommendations he would make should a formal review go forward? >> part of the challenge with individual assistance disaster declarations tends to be very vague guidance. as we go back to 25 homes or businesses with 40% loss, that is an fbi requirements, very clear, very cut and dry, you either have it or you don't. part of the challenge was fema disaster declaration is not as clear. anytime it is not very clear,

iou have so much subjective eddie that what i would not ask for in ohio was not something another that what i would not ask for in ohio was not something anothu that what would not ask for in ohio was not something anotherbjectivity that what i would not ask for in ohio was not something another etate would ask for. tornadoes are covered, we had a tornado in ohio that met the theteria, affluent community, 90% insurance coverage, they didn't meet the criteria. we didn't ask for a declaration. another state, another large community had a very similar tornado, asked for a declaration and got it under the same conditions. this was years ago, a couple lead ministrations ago. the challenge that creates as my political officials of looking

at the emergency management community saying why didn't you ask? they got it, why didn't we? i am faced with doing the right thing and potentially losing my job or doing what i know is the expected thing that may not be the right thing. that is probably the biggest challenge. guidance, that people understand, and is clear and consistently applied across the nation. >> i have a follow-up question and another question. when you talk about related to that, ohio has very few aspirations, very few declarations. compared to oklahoma, that has lots of declarations because it gets those tornadoes. the seventh largest state, lot of taxpayer dollars going into

the ohio or a place like oklahoma who take a different approach and go for all the declarations while ohio does not. you talked about that political pressure. when you get to that near your funding issue, how do you deal with a system where as long as the federal government pays, it incentivizes the moral hazard issue of shifting costs. not much happened in ohio, a lot happens in tornado alley or hurricane alley, there are huge swaths of the country at variable risk. we will be paying for it year after year with tax dollars. how do you deal with that funding issue? having none of the federal pay. related to that -- related to that is could you speak just a second about whether or not we

should move away from grants into things like cooperatives where you get into your outcome side which i love, where you negotiate your outcomes and let the funding go to getting to those outcomes rather than this they will grant nightmare that i was involved in a you are involved in and all that fun stuff? >> to address the first issue, i need to be clear. i do it the way i do it in ohio because it is the way it should be done in ohio. i don't want to try to address another state or suggest another state may not do it correctly. i think that -- i hate to keep going back to clear and consistent guidance but that is an issue. i don't care if it is ohio or oklahoma were omaha, neb.. the fda has criteria. they send in inspectors and look

at those homes and you had better have your 25 or you're not going to get the declaration. the challenge again with this very soft criteria is it is so subjective and it is so at risk of political pressure that it creates a challenge for everybody because the guidance just isn't clear. that addresses some of the differences in declaration numbers, perhaps. if i look at the actuarial data and the challenge of an ohio paying for disasters that occur in another state, a gulf coast state, for instance, or a state that has great beauty and great hazard, shall we say. if we look at something like a cooperative agreement, that may be a way to address that

perhaps. i don't necessarily know. i don't know how to get away from -- i will tell you states don't have the funding right now. they don't have the tax base to pay for their own -- all of their own disasters, whether it is ohio, oklahoma were ill.. second question was cooperative agreements, which is a great idea. we use to do cooperative agreements for the emergency management for foreman's grant. -- performance grant. fema came in at the end of the year, they measured whether they did those projects, it was a negotiated agreement. clark of agreements worked tremendously well in other revenues, and i think that is one way for us to get to more of an outcome measured or outcome focused objectives as opposed to here's your money, tell me what you are going to do with it, spend it as quickly as you can

so that the auditors approved, then we will come back and tell you whether you have any outcomes. because it is a negotiated agreement. >> throughout your talk, you mentioned capabilities. i just wanted to get a sense for your thoughts on the development of the target capabilities list and the transition between version of 2.0 and three.0 as well as potential challenges that you may have encountered with the interface between the state and locality use of capabilities verses the federal government's use of substances. >> i am going to take the last part of your question first because it is a fairly simple

answer. most states use emergency support functions so most state emergency operation plans are very consistent and in line with the federal or natcher -- national response framework as far as emergency support functions. was that your question? >> greater conflict. >> i don't see that as a conflict because i think that they fit under emergency support functions. as you develop the capability, they could fit under the support function that they most closely adhere to or support. i will tell you most localities, most local governments don't use yes asked for a very good reasons. they don't have the support or the staff. is not practical to set up an emergency support function type

plan. it is much more practical and appropriate for them to set up a plan based on function like a plan we used to have several years ago under fema. target capabilities are a step forward. they are challenging to use, they are challenging to understand. in some cases, although they are an attempt to measure capability against risk, i think there are still a ways to go, but they are beginning the process of looking at the risk based on population and the type of threat that it is an developing appropriate capabilities to react to that risk or that threat. they are very difficult to plow through.

i have looked at several and my eyes tend to cross and i get sometimes lost in the details but it is a great half forward. >> the state of ohio with the tax? >> we developed technical advisory committees in support of the target capabilities, those that we thought were appropriate in ohio and those advisory committees, multi discipline, come together, they have self tiered, we created years like they did in the target capabilities list. we have hazmat capability statewide but we are building to specific levels based on the population. we have swift water rescue capability, urban search and rescue capability, it is specific to the area, the threat. my hot button which is sustainability. can that jurisdiction, once they have developed that capability, sustain that capability without a continuing influx of federal

dollars because if we are relying on federal dollars to sustain our capabilities they won't be sustained. i believe. >> one more question. anybody else? >> john mad that with abrams information systems. you talked earlier about the fact that you didn't think scenario based planning was the best way to go to help develop capabilities. what would you replace it with? understanding that the administration is now reviewing their integrated planning system. >> i would continue the planning half that we are on which is the emergency support function looking atpath that we are on we emergency support function looking at impact rather than scenario.

if we look at the capabilities we need to build to support whatever risk or threat we see, it doesn't really matter what the scenario is. i think the scenarios are very limiting. they are great in a military environment, they were great during the cold war because we could look at the boulder gap can't plan for it or look at north korea and plan for north korea. they're not so easy in a civilian environment, particularly a civilian environment that is made up of all of the diversity in the united states. that is where the challenge is if we look impact, building capability, we are developing a stronger plan. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, nancy. this was an excellent session, fantastic comments and great questions. thank you for attending, look for our next speakers, we

continue to try to have them on the issue of decentralizing stuff out of washington and into the hands of folks who should have the power. [inaudible conversations] >> this morning, physicians and government officials meet to discuss how to combat the swine flu at the international swine flu conference. we will have live coverage on c-span2 beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern. >> this fall, and is the home to america's highest court, from the grand public places to those only accessible by the nine justices. the supreme court, coming the first sunday in october on

c-span. >> secretary of state hillary clinton said yesterday that u.s. policy toward north korea remains unchanged and pressed the case for keeping lottery bill murray in jail. these comments came with the foreign minister of columbia, this is 20 minutes. >> good afternoon. it is a great pleasure for me to be able to welcome the foreign minister of columbia to the state department. i have had the opportunity of meeting with him before on several occasions but it is always an important time when we are able to discuss the many

issues between us. columbia is an important ally of the united states and our partnership is based on mutual respect, mutual interests and is a partnership that enhances the prosperity of those of our country's. the foreign minister and i had a very productive discussion about how we would strengthen and deepen the partnership, we discussed common concerns. i asked that we have a chance to explore our many different agenda items and i thanked the industry for columbia's leadership on regional and global issues and their contribution in afghanistan where colombian troops will soon be helping the people of afghanistan build a more peaceful and stable country. we are grateful for their service and sacrifice. we greatly appreciate the role, the's police are playing in

haiti and columbia's efforts to train security forces in the region particularly in the dominican republic and guatemala. we discussed the ongoing situation in honduras. the united states supports the peaceful restoration of democratic and constitutional order in honduras with the president's return to finish his term. we continue to believe in the need for a negotiated solution and feel that the president's plan was an excellent one for resolving this crisis. once again, we call on the parties, on the steps that increase division and polarization in honduras and needlessly place people at risk. the foreign minister and i discuss the bilateral defense cooperation agreement that our governments hoped to sign in the near future. this agreement ensures that appropriate protections are in place for our service members.

it will allow us to continue working together to meet the challenges posed by narco traffickers, terrorists and other illegal armed groups in colombia. these threats are real, and the united states is committed to supporting the government of colombia in its efforts to provide security for all of its citizens. i want to be clear about what this agreement does or does not do. the agreement does not create u.s. bases in colombia. it does provide the united states access to colombian bases, but command and control, administration and security, will be columbia's responsibility. and any u.s. activity will have to be mutually agreed upon in advance. the united states does not have and does not seek bases inside colombia. second, there will be no

significant, permanent increase in the u.s. military presence in colombia. the congressional demanded cap on the number of u.s. servicemembers and contractors will remain and will be respected. third, if this agreement does not pertain to other countries. this is about the bilateral cooperation between the united states and colombia regarding security matters within columbia. our hemisphere faces a number of pressing challenges from the economic crisis to the climate crisis to the public health concerns such as the swine flu virus, narcotics trafficking, terrorism and organized crime. these all demand our attention and our collaboration. the united states and colombia are committed to working together, and making it possible for us to deliver results for the people of our two countries. once again, i want to thank the

foreign minister for his visit and invite him to say a few words. >> [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] >> i want to say good afternoon to everyone and i want to thank the secretary of state for hosting me here today along with my delegation. i thank her as always for the generosity she shows when we come to visit and for the good will in our meetings. the united states and colombia enjoy a very close relationship just as our personal relationship is a close one. we hope and pray that this will continue in the future for the benefit of both our peoples. we have discussed very broad, far reaching agenda that includes all kinds of topics like clean energy, the fight against terrorism, the fight against narco trafficking,

technology. columbia has suffered greatly as a rest--result of market trafficking and terrorism, two issues that unfortunately go hand in hand and to a certain degree have become synonymous. this is a serious threat that we are facing, and we in columbia know this full well, unfortunately. also unfortunately, many times in different parts of the world, countries speak out against atrocities that are committed or they speak out against the assassination of people as a result of terrorism were narco trafficking. unfortunately, not all of them are willing to lend the same hand when it comes to cooperation. in the united states we have a partner who provides us with cooperation, who also provides us with very effective friendship and leadership in this area. it is important to be able to carry out efforts such as these everywhere. drug trafficking in some way is something we will make sure is going to stop and it is only when everyone is cooperating that we will be able to achieve

this. columbia wants this completely and we know that the united states will help us towards this goal. because this is something that is going to be a benefit to all of us, both regionally as well as on our entire continent and eventually for the entire globe. columbia does not just ask for cooperation, we also offer cooperation whenever we can. as i have said we have suffered, we have learned from the lessons as a result of suffering, therefore we want to be able to help all those through global programs and anywhere where it is possible for us to provide our experience. we are doing this in haiti, with mexico, guatemala, panama. we are delighted that we will soon be signing agreements with the united states on this very topic and we hope that we will be able to embrace such agreements regionally as well in the future. once columbia is free of all these scourgeds we are suffering, everyone will benefit as a result. thank you, madame secretary, for this meeting today, for your

kind words, i look forward to continuing to work on our broad agenda. >> what have you learned since your return from north korea about the state of that regime, of kim jong il, the possibility of these private issues and open the door to renewed negotiations? >> the briefing that my husband and those who traveled with him has provided to us is extremely helpful because it gives us a window into what is going on in north korea. but our policy remains the same. our policy is consistent.

we continue to offer to the north koreans the opportunity to have a dialogue within the six party talk framework with the united states, that we think could offer many benefits to the people of north korea. but the choice is up to the north koreans. they know that we are committed to the goal of full and verifiable denuclearization of the korean peninsula. so we are exploring with our six party partners as well as other international partners, what additional steps could be taken to begin the framework discussions once more. but it is going to be up to the north koreans to determine. that is up to us to determine

whether there are some opportunities and some insight that can be used to try to create this positive atmosphere, but it is truly up to the north koreans. >> madam secretary, despite the explanations in the region -- [inaudible] -- do you think in the region -- >> i think i very clearly describe what is and what isn't. i certainly hope that anyone who is speaking out about the agreement will take the time to

understand that this is built on years of agreements between the united states and colombia. this is a commitment the united states made going back three administration's, s, if i am no mistaken. we should all be supporting each other in the fight against terrorists and the fight against criminal cartels and drug-traffickers because they are so destructive and damaging to the fabric of society. the assassinations, the intimidation that goes on is not just a threat to the country in which it occurs but to everyone. i believe that any fair reading of what it is we are discussing

is about our continued commitment to assist columbia. it has nothing to do with other countries. i only hope that people will actually take the time to understand that. >> [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i just wanted to point out that i want to reiterate that what colombia needs is more effective mechanisms of cooperation. this mechanism in particular with the united states is one that we have had for a very long time already, building on a number of mechanisms that we have been working on. the principles contained therein are very clear. the principle of sovereign equality of states, the principle of nonintervention, and the principle of the territorial integrity of states. these very important tenets and i think it would be extremely good to have more agreements not just with the united states but with other states in the same vein.

>> thank you very much. two questions. the first one, i was wondering how concerned you were about the fact that the man convicted of killing 180 americans over lockerbie may be released and how much pressure are you putting on scottish authorities to convince them not to release him, and on afghanistan, there is an upsurge in violence ahead of the elections, lots of reports of fraud. i wonder where that leaves the legitimacy of the results of those elections. >> as the first question, the united states has made its views known over a number of months. we continue to make the same point that we think it is inappropriate and very much

against the wishes of the family members of the victims who suffered such grievous losses with the actions that led to the bombing of the airline. and we have made our views known to the libyan government as well. i take this very personally because i knew a lot of the family members of those who were lost because there was a large contingent from syracuse university. during the time that i had a great honor of representing new york, i -- a of these families, i talked with them about what a poor they experienced, it is wrong to release someone who has been in prison based onhorror they

experienced, it is wrong to release someone who has been in prison based on the evidence of his involvement in such a horrendous crime. we are urging scottish authorities not to do so and hope they will not. with respect to afghanistan, we have made a number of statements over the last several days supporting the electoral process, speaking out against the uptick in violence. one way you can view the violence is an effort by the taliban to intimidate people from actually voting, to try to create an atmosphere of violence and fear that will keep people away from the polls, there are problems with this election as there are with any election, but we still believe that it is the right of the people of afghanistan to pick their own leaders, and we are encouraging them to come out and vote and we worked very hard over the last month to provide security with

the help a lot of partners and others who are present in afghanistan, we are going to hold the election goes well. >> good after one. madam secretary, the state department has said on different occasions that venezuela has not done enough to cooperate in the fight against drugs in the region. some experts believe that is the reason president chavez has criticized so strongly the agreement your countries are going to sign sooner. i wonder if you agree with that opinion and by other governments like the brazilian government for example, also had concerns about the agreement, thank you. >> i don't want to speak to any other government, they can express their own views, but i want each person who speaks out about this agreement to understand what it is and to recognize what it is not.

it is certainly a bilateral agreement with very clear recognition of territorial integrity and sovereignty and all of the other key principles that the foreign minister mentioned. i hope that as more is learned there is not just an awareness of the relationship that the united states and colombia have had for many years and are continuing cooperation on what we view as not just a threat to the two of us but to the whole region, but i would also ask that more countries actually help us in this fight. don't just stand on the sidelines, and certainly don't contribute to the problems by doing and saying things that undermine the efforts that our governments are taking to try to

protect the entire region from the scourge of narcotraffickers. people are free to say what they will, but the facts are very clear here. this is a continuation of a partnership that we believe and the colombians believe have helped make life better for the people of colombia. there is nothing more than that that we want to make it possible as it now is, for people to be free from intimidation and violence in colombia when not so long ago you couldn't say that. i really applaud the colombian government, president uribe's leadership, for what they have done against a really ruthless enemy. thank you all. what happened to you? i can't take you anywhere.

[laughter] [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] patent >> thank you all, take care.