>> i think i would want to reserve judgment and look at the report in more detail. there's been a lot of recommendations about various

entities that we should construct in the u.s. government. i think there is one floating around on the house side. so i think each one of the should be looked at individually. we just in terms of the role in terms of the complexion, usip provides a safe space for these organizations, the entities, to come together. we don't necessary deconflict. they can deconflict among themselves and i think it's a very, very important role that should be preserved. >> are in a. anybody else of quick comments? if not i'd like for each of you please submit for the record your views on that particular recommendation. its recommendation 11 in our last report. a couple of question to you, ms. cole. this is neither here nor there but i am intrigued by. you made a point of saying that he's you're expressing your our your own and not those of usip i would not think of any daylight between the views you express than those of usip efficiently.

is there? and if not, why did you say that? >> usip is not an organization that advocates towards specific policy, so it is here in my individual capacity that i come before you today. my views obvious you are a result of the worst usip allows me to do so there's a direct correlation. >> and also a question on usip. you referenced this in your statement. i know the funding of usip has been under attack, i think it's fair to say recently. the work of this organization is more important now than ever. and you quickly goes status of things in that regard? >> thank you very much. our funding was the root out under h.r.-1 and house of representatives. it was preserved in the democratic senate. but now there's a deal so we expect to learn what our number is today.

or early this week. we have been very gratified by the support of the department of defense, military commanders, our colleagues here, state department, usaid and others in support of our mission, that we hope to continue that mission for the american people. >> i do too. another question. we kind of touched on this in a number of rows but i don't think we've drawn it up explicitly to get your views on this, but kind of a threshold question is whether stability has to precede development for development to be sustainable. are we wasting money and putting contractors at risk by working at more dangerous areas? it seems to me a number of you have had success rather in dangerous areas. what are your views about this question? anybody. >> what i would say i think there's a continuing. if it's an all out battlefield where you have to be holed up in a compound, we don't do that. but if it's an area which is

insecure but you're able to work out access to communities in recent activity on the part of the community for work to be done we will do that. in afghanistan we are in some of them, and more secure provinces, and places in the north. i think if it's an all out battle we are not there. but if it is insecure and we're able to gain access to the community and they want assistance, then we can work in those areas. in that sense it's not clear-cut black and white. >> how about the others of you, you basically agree with that? >> yes, irc agrees. >> mercy corps does, too. >> perhaps two of the questions if time permits. one is we have talked a lot about the fact that the vast majority, 98% is the figure heard from you, ms. richard, of your employees on the ground in the field our local afghan

nationals in the case of afghanistan, that having been said it's also the case that there can be a rather large percentage of local nationals employed by contractors, by a.i.d., et cetera, et cetera. so can you tell us what differences if any there are in terms of labor practices, pay differences, insurance issues, safety, morale, et cetera, what is it, let's say the percentage is basically the same in a given area or the same enough for purposes of comparison, what's the deal bridging factor would you say, any of you? >> i mean, in our experience we tend to hire people fairly young. a lot of our staff -- we don't pay as much as a contractor. people come to straight out of college. we were there for shop-vac in 2002 and they are still working with is because we place an

incredible emphasis entirely the same as extremely on capacity, strengthening. so that's not just sending some re-tweet train in thailand once in a while but we have english teachers on site for cooks and cleaners, we offer everybody university education, stipend. we take care of people when they get sick. we have unlimited health care services. we also are going to be around we held indefinitely. so for the same reason the communities work with us through thick and thin and take tremendous risks to guarantee our safety and our security, our staff will often take significant, the factors after a for pay cuts would walk next door to a contractor and make more money because they know we'll be around and do our best to take care of them as long as they're with us. >> thank you. ms. richard, if you could quickly respond. >> if they think they are part of the global enterprise helping people around the world, and we've had examples of, for example, our national solitaire

program which i described is an example of community reconstruction. we had a rwandan staffer went over early on in that in 2003 in 2004 to help that get started. we've had a couple of afghan staffers go to the indonesian and me and mar -- myanmar to talk about this approach a project. our staff has the ability to become international staff and to make a conjugation in of the situation. >> thank you. >> commissioner tiefer? >> part of your enterprise is kind of an elaborate network of experts in several ways, and issues my curiosity, there are some aspects in which you seem to border on government contracting entrance of public budgets and transparency and so forth. does usip take an interest in government contracting in, say,

post-conflict situations? >> are using are we taking an interest at looking at that issue? >> yes. >> yes. in fact, we have looked at that issue both in the context of our military working group but also in our operations program. we've looked at the issue of contracting, particularly in rule of law, aspects are many, many years. i'd be happy to share with you some of the results of our work. >> i would appreciate that. i would appreciate that. let me press on, this is not necessarily post-conflict situation, i'll ask ms. richard, i'll start with you. in terms of the type projects you mentioned, several of you have mentioned, roads, power

which currently are u.s. contracting. the future plan is certainly with a.i.d., that with enough capacity building by the afghan ministries, they would take over some aspects of roads and power. as this becomes more and more an in country thing, not a u.s. government thing but an afghan thing, do you anticipate staying with it or argue in parallel, you to sort of agricultural things and stuff like that and legal we were calling the big things come but would become at this point the small things, smaller roads, becomes smaller things. do you take a role or is that still somebody else's sector? >> in the last couple of years there's been a policy coming out of the state department. that i believe was prompted by a desire to avoid establishing

parallel systems. in both pakistan and afghanistan, starting with pakistan, to bypass international ngos like ourselves and to go directly to the government or to local ngos, and we felt that this is, and over the long term the to have government provide services to their own people, but in both cases the government were not ready to do that. both cases of pakistan and afghanistan. and that we were in the midst of programs that instead of being parallel were actually racing standards, stiffening the spines if you will providing sort of skeleton to support local development. so for example, in the national agora programmer working with the ministry of the village level. it's not a parallel system. it's entrance simply linked to the ministry. -- intrinsically linked.

there was an education program, that is coming to him, not because we can't continue to run into a good job of it, i think we could, but because it's time for the ministry of education to step for and take on even though all my colleagues tell me they cannot take that on. so we have talked to ambassador marc grossman about this and we talk to folks at a idea about this, but i think the pressure to shift right now is quite dominant. >> let me ask either mr. mcgee are or mr. bowers for the question on when we oversee electrical projects in afghanistan, we discovered, this was quite recent that a.i.d. has an ambitious program to turn, build capacity in the afghan public utility and turned over to afghan public utility to build a transmission line

between can't our city and tajikistan. someone informed about the capacity of afghan national institutions, are they ready for this? is this way down the road before they can take this stuff over? >> i think it varies very much from institution to institution. i think mrrd is one of the ministries that gets mentioned a lot of being very high-capacity, ministry of public health is another which ngos partner with directly and have had success with. so to build up, example that anne mentioned them it's not a question of the capacity of the ministry. it's a question of how that handover is done. and so capacity building maybe the most over used phrase in afghanistan. but we are starting about starting today for some who hope

to accomplish in three to five years. when a lot of other people talk about capacity building its this process of starting today for turnover that we're going to do in two months or six months or maybe on the outside a year. so that's exactly what happened. this is a very successful sustainable project that could have been handed over quite smoothly in the year if we started playing 40 a month ago. instead we started play for a month ago to handed over today. so i think to answer your question, it will vary a lot from ministry to ministry depending on personnel and the sophistication of the work they're doing, depending on what level of capacity they've had over the last 10 years. but also depends tremendously on how the u.s. government side and think over and whether it's a genuine handover, here you go, best of luck with it. >> i'm going to keep going and trying to build on that, either mr. bowers or mr. klosson. we have something in a sense

that because the goal of, it's supposed to be stability soon enough that we can turn over security in 2014 and pull the troops out in 2015, we are being told that capacity building is so fast that that timetable is possible. do you have some sense that that timetable is unrealistic? >> it is most certainly unrealistic, especially as it is tied to different agendas and not so much on the agenda of the right institutions had that type of hand off. i mean, for instance, if you look at the telecom industry into afghanistan which is where most part private sector led, that does not require a whole lot of interventions from a donor assistance community. so clearly, in the private sector can leave it should lead. and with the government should regulate it should. i think on some of the signature

projects, because design of them were initially done in the fog of confusion on when and how long we should be there, often they are not. their exit strategy is very poorly conceived. >> i would just say that i think capacity building needs to be sort of evidence-based and sort of baseline rather than sort of deadline driven. and example has been given on the education program i think is a good one. i think we all would agree that at the end of the day i think success represents afghan ministries being able to do what they're supposed to do, to carry out their responsibilities. how you get there is a very different question, and you can't force the pace. you can get somebody 12 years of education in two months. >> my time is up at this is very informative. thank you. >> commissioner henke. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. one thing i'm amazed with is that when we drop in with large

development programs, a billion for cerp, 309 for this, which in the world of grants in ngos, pass it on a new scale. what i'm amazed with is we continue to be surprised that we are changing the very thing into which we are dropping all that money. and it seems to me that the phrase you use in your testimony, mr. bowers, is local absorb a tip capacity. what i want to do here is open up a dialogue with you, you get a great example in your testimony come about as arbiter the capacity and skill. and it's in the section that talks about the comparative example of grants require want to do is setup and unwind you can see where you go with it. you receive, mercy corps received a grant to usaid, through the global development alliance to increase grape and

pomegranate production in southern afghanistan. three-year grant, 2008, $2.1 million. your status as the project took root and i guess that's a well-chosen phrase, and was beginning to show results. 500 farmers were trained, great production increased by 30% and farmers began to find new markets for their products. then, mr. bowers, then what took place? >> well then i will focus on stability and kandahar province that happen essentially. so, inadvertently by design or action, a little hard to tell, the u.s. government decides it wants this will invest quite a lot of money and a province which frankly that represent far more develop an aid in that province should ever receive. >> the u.s. government, who, what agency? >> usaid.

>> okay, usaid, awarded $300 million contract i suppose. >> i believe that one was a cooperative agreement, but i could check on that. >> but $300 billion through some mechanism to another organization, and then what? >> essentially money comes into the system and they lack the ability to understand where in these key terrain districts, which is the latest terminology now in afghanistan, to focus these funds into. and essential you have a finite group of farmers coming of a finite group of associations to work with, so you can see the pile effect happening. and rather than that group x. going back to the donors saying it's covered here, you shouldn't do it here, let's go somewhere else. the mandate is t-train to district, so me output by a date to show that we are part of the stabilization process. >> and your statement says the head -- had an effect its spin

rate of almost $1 million a day and effectively very little to spend it on. so what happened? your statement talks about what i would like you to talk about on the record. >> well, like anyone who's engrossed with how to get rid of money fast, it's taxpayer money in this case, you make very poor decisions based upon that timeframe that is allowed to you. so again, rather than the normal system of going back to that donor, saying we need to read/write, where else can we do that, they get locked into that area, locked into the farmer because it's built into the agreement, built into the contract to contract. >> the organization according to your statement begin to pay farmers in a program to attend trainings and to work in their own fields of both activities of local people were doing at no cost to the usg under our aid funded program. since the local farmers receive

payment, surprise, mercy corps had to refocus our program further up the marketing chain, working with more local traders to keep unwanted example of what happened. which usually to the conclusion that creates a quote contractor mentality. can you talk about that? >> well, in essence we demonstrate a little more flexibility because with so much left money to try to burn on it, monthly or daily basis. he work up to the value chain of trying to leverage different resources. so in this case it's finding the right buyer in europe, its form the relationship in different tactical systems with those farmers on how to actually package that product, if such a contractor mentality does seep into us as well. >> what does that mean? >> it means we have a deliverable, that means performance-based management systems which we encourage in our cooperative agreements as well becomes essentially will produce that result, it doesn't

really matter at the impact, in fact it isn't a sustaining impact. that farmer is being paid not to do something where previously we didn't have to pay that farmer. so the contractor type mentality, i mean the contractor typically wouldn't be worried about that but deliver is important. >> but in the context of this example from the kandahar province, you cite local people who became used to selling their services to the higher bidder rather than focused on what you all agree is the priority which is sustainable outcomes. >> correct. this analogy could be used in many other sectors where vouchers are given out for 100% free subsidy for seed provision or an input. so the mentality been in the local community and in the private sector is, why work on a market-based system, which we're trying to achieve a sustainable development market, when monies

is going to come anyway. so it is very low now for farmers increased to actually deal with these issues on their own risk basis. >> are you saying in effect that our government, regardless of parties trying to push for enterprise in fact were grading or supporting a socialistic system? >> typically you do find that impose relief environments, you have a lot of subsidies flowing in because people want to do it on an expedient basis. and the mentality there is whether or not those individua individuals, those beneficiaries don't have the ability to pay, many places in afghan they don't have the ability to pay. so right now the donor community and other donors as well, not just the u.s. government, are certainly pushing off the future of a privately led sector that can capably deal with these issues. >> okay. >> thank you for the answers, mr. bowers. and thank all of you today for

being here and for the organizations that you work for and that you represent. i applaud you for your work, hard work of the people that are in the field. thank you very much. >> into commissioner henke. we will get our executive director to ask questions to start thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to go back to talk a little bit about ideas for solutions you. in our interim report to congress we focus on some recommendations that dealt with contingency contracting with specific is office at state, usaid and defense, and even on the joint staff, the greater emphasis on the focus on contingency contracting. ms. cole, i'm going to start with you and then ask the other witnesses also respond. in 2009 you testified before the house armed services committee, the subcommittee for oversight, and investigation, and at that time you are asked to comment on an interagency coordination cell at the department of state which

basically became known as the office of the court made for construction and stabilization, and the idea was to replace the quote ad-hockery with deliberate planning and execution in the areas of reconstruction and stabilization. could you please give me your assessment of to what extent that office has had the desired effect? >> as you may be unaware under the quadrennial diplomacy and development review, that office is them being absorbed into a larger bureau. the pure force of instability, stability operations. that has been an experiment in progress. i think they have made some headway. they have with the help of the military in large part established a planning mechanism, and they have been able to exercise that in a couple of the scenarios, most

important in afghanistan they were held to staff the last planning exercise that occur there under ambassador eikenberry and general mcchrystal. they have also developed a lot of standing agreements with agencies throughout the u.s. government to bring them into the civilian response corps and then hopefully deploy the. i think that where this enterprise has fallen short is in the deployment. they have not been able to deploy the rule of government interagency teams that can really execute what the united states needs them to execute on the ground. and it is -- i'm very concerned actually that at this time some of these other agencies might be pulled out of those agreements because of the lack of progress. if you're going to send a team to sudan, you want border experts from the department of

homeland cicada on the team so they should not be a state department usaid corporate exercise. it really is a whole of government exercise. and i'm concerned that that is not what's in the offering right now. >> thank you. any of the other witnesses on that particular point? really looking for how that office, are now the new office it's into being part of the solution that we're talking about today, and whether or not there's a specific model either through qddr or through other initiatives that are out there that you know that would take the principles that you've outlined in your paper and then kind of bring into sharper focus about a specific solution or initiative that would help further that objective. do you know of anything after? >> i just want to make maybe one point. i think there is a question of optimal organization and how we go about doing this.

but what our paper is also talk about is a question of strategy and how you get the balance right, between some of the object is that the u.s. has and how you have the metrics to drive those objectives. even if there is a proper organization i think if we don't get a strategy peace right we still may not have the result we are seeking. >> ms. richard, you have a common? >> yes. i think some of the initiatives you see happening inside the civilian government may not be fully developed or may not be perfect yet. but what they do help point to are the gaps that they're trying to fill. and the gaps are real. so for example, all of our organizations have struggled with the gap between relief aid and longer-term development. and when done well, you actually lay the groundwork for longer-term development, the time you are responding to a crisis or a natural disaster.

yet, at the u.s. agency for national development, at the state department these things tend to be handled in different silos. and so is very clear to me that is need for crosscutting both in terms of looking at money to cut down on duplication and waste, and also in terms of roles and responsibilities. >> thank you. the next question i have deals with a comment mr. klosson made earlier about strengthening and monitoring evaluations of these programs, overseas, particularly the long-term programs. you also mentioned transparency. and i would just like to take a moment to ask each of you, how do you do that? who's responsible for that? is there an international standard that you adhere to do basically ensure that your strengthening and monitoring evaluation in a transparent way so that the funding that blows into your conversation is basically well spent and accounted for?

>> well, we actually, over the last number of years we put a lot of emphasis on so we actually have an office here in washington whose job it is to strengthen save the children ability to do monitoring and evaluation. in each of the major programs exist in save the children, ioc the humanitarian response. we have a monitoring and evaluation person so that if we feel a country program need additional capacity to properly carry out that responsibility, we would then send people out from headquarters to help build the capacity of the staff on the ground to do monitoring and evaluation. age of our programs, there's a methodology and each of our programs does go through a process as it is implement it. so i think if you look at where we were, say, five, 10 years ago, we as an agency have come a long way. and we much more readily deployed on the ground. >> mr. mcgarry?

>> with in country would face a tremendous amount of scrutiny so we are audited once a year extremely by the government of afghanistan. we're audited introit every two years by our headquarters for monitoring and evaluation where accountable to the donor for the. we're accountable to the ministry so we do joint visits our committee base schools with ministry of education representatives. we do this is to farmers with the minister of agriculture represents. we are checked upon by the mission of economy and ministry of finance. we have a technical advisory. we have deputy regional directors for manager called him doing a full-time permanent in country technical advisory positions for the quality of our natural resource management. and also a head of programming of management quality quartet who can get out and get their hands dirty making sure things are the way they're supposed to be. >> very briefly but i ask either of your ms. richard, mr. bowers, is the margin of our country

here over what you do compare with the monitoring that other countries have for your work when you're getting assistance from other countries, or the world bank for example? are we better, worse or the same? >> i would just say, this is anecdotal what i hear from our country directors is that there's a lot more done for us-based the donors than there are for others. >> i don't think even within the u.s. government we can't say, or even with usaid it varies a department to department. we have an extremely mutually supportive relationship with the agriculture that monitors us very rigorously with some of our other european donors, that can be very hands off and there was other departments they may also be very hands-off. >> i just have one more very brief comment, and it has to do with thank you again for all the things that you do. but also for taking the time to

write a paper which has stimulated a lot of discussion and ultimately led to our interest today. so thank you, mr. chairman,. >> thank you mr. dickson. the full commission would also want to tell you that that paper was very interesting and provocative and well written. first, to say i was mostly an iraq when i was a member of congress and went 19 times. the first four times and went with ngos, not the military. in fact, i want the first two times they had to sneak into the country and i remember we are at the gate and dod was calling up saying don't let the congressmen get in and he was able 2003. and missing persons that i sorry, i can't you, i'm sorry but i was trying to break into iraq. a very fun. but i learned more in those four times that i learned in the other 14 times i went. and i really believed had a

government bent on the ground like you all are on the ground, we would've don't think so much differently. we would have spent less money and we would have ended that war much sooner because we wouldn't have made mistakes if we hadn't been there. and one of the things i'm pretty convinced of is that you focus on what folks want, the question i'm now asking though is, what happens if what folks want is something they shouldn't have? they don't always get it right. and you step in and you allow them to make a mistake and say well, you know, if we start this process we got to let it would. ms. richard, i will start with you. you can sol so the answer. >> i don't know if i know the answer. >> mr. mcgarry? >> i think it's a striking balance their that it depends on how the egregious speed

sometimes use embassy we just don't think that's a good idea. kelly tried to do something else spent in everything we do we do generally try not to be overly prescriptive, and so in my experience these last few years we will sometimes go to the committee and u.s.a., the first thing community's always want is security and we have to explain that's not who we are, that's not what we do. we can work at peace building and conflict resolution. but inevitably the first priority is always security, even in -- >> that's important. my fellow commissioners and i were saying it's refreshing to have you just tell us the truth, was it always makes you look good or not. and, frankly, but always telling us the truth it makes you look better even when you're acknowledging a mistake made or lessons learned. so you're getting an example of what you can't meet a need. that's important and thank you for doing that. that's something military has to deal with. >> no question. and so the next line down is

certainly one education and health it we don't do housework, it's a lot of time with of a series of conversations which we explained we can't build a clinic or we can do mobile health unit. and then eventually either the committee comes around and says okay, we will prioritize the water systems are something you can help us with our we agree to disagree. if it's something we can't do, we don't try to do it just to make them happy. we connect them up with someone who can do it. >> and granted you the flexibility to do what the committee wants to do, it's not you have to go to school at this place at that time. >> right. in our case we don't really build schools. it's all community-based, and that's one of the nice things about grants or cooperative agreements is that ultimately we are able to walk away. so within an individual community if there's an extremely volatile conflict and working with anybody within the community will exacerbate the conflict and so off the power

dynamic and groups inadvertently power this command and the additional resources if you go after -- >> i did it. mr. klosson and mr. bowers real quick. >> one example would be infant mortality rate is really hot in afghanistan so the interventions to do with that would be training midwives. so save the children is part of a grant to train midwives which means having younger girls go to another town to be trained for 18 months. it was very, very, very hard to get that first group of gold and 10 -- first group of girls to go. the good news is the second time around you that fathers, brothers, parades, all kinds of things going on to sort of pick my daughter, take my wife to do. so there are ways this can take place. >> great story. mr. bowers and. >> i think although i'm told failure could be set up on capitol hill, there is failure

with good intentions. there's also success with really bad development. and often went to check it what's on this, what's the committee spent that year, what's the reward. it is failure in that, we need to run from in and understand what to avoid any future. then there's say no to money that just looks wrong. >> just quickly, i will start with you, ms. cole come i don't want a long explanation. are we spending too much development money in afghanistan, particularly right now because we're trying to do too much? so that's the question. >> it's my judgment from everything that i hear that we are throwing way, way too much money at the situation right now in order to facilitate a rapid transition. >> would anyone independent disagree with that? okay. >> i think women are spending too much money in afghanistan. and also what happened is when you have countries that become

so associated with american success, success of administrations, they tend to vacuum up all the money that could be spent in other countries. >> so your bottom line why you're coughing i would just say spending too much money and we are missed spending money, and that's two very important points. let me just end by saying i don't usually respond this way, but dr. zakheim got an e-mail from someone who is watching this saying they were enjoying the questioning. and it happens, actually be a cousin of one of our employees, heather mercer who was 24 years old when she was with dana curry. i think i have it right. and they were imprisoned shortly after by the taliban after 2011, working for shelter now international. and the question i have, correct you, mr. mcgarry, how to do

with being a catholic relief service, a christian organization in a muslim world? is there a challenge that you face, and should we be aware that there's certain things you should be doing because you have a religious name in a muslim world? >> first, the first thing is just being incredibly explicit about who we are and what we do and what we don't do. and so both internally and extra weird relief and development organization. we are not a prophet organization. >> and you feel pretty much that you're able to convince people? >> so long as we do good quality work, we've never had a complaint about the catholic american organization until we mess up. then the grumbling starts, these catholics, they're here for no good. as long as we did all the work and have a zero-tolerance policy for afghan staff for our initial step, it hasn't been an issue for a.

>> let me just thank you all for coming again. i will let you will have the last word him in the last closing remark. and thank you for making this such an interesting and productive morning for us. ms. cole, we will start with you. any closing comments you want to make. >> i want to thank you very much for offering the opportunity to have this hearing today. i think that you have opened up the door to understanding and there are three unique capabilities, if which is bringing to bear any more predictable and efficient manner we might have proven success on the ground. >> thank you. >> i also want to send a sincere thank you for your commissions work and i think in the end it's in their best interest to see how we can better serve the communities we work in, but also better serve the american taxpayer. >> thank you mr. bowers. mr. kostin? >> ditto for the appreciation of focusing on the issues with your commissioner i would say that

this would've on your looking at afghanistan, sort through the issues that kind of confront you. one is the question is a good. one is corruption, one is capacity i think that all three counts when you look at community-based approaches that's one way to tackle a big portion of those and that's what i think we've been discussing today and what we can bring to the table. >> mr. mcgarry speaker just appreciate the opportunity. i miss you when you're in kabul, so as ms. richard mention we're one of the organization that was was pushing for the duration of severe -- sigar a few years ago. and very grateful. >> i want the commission to know that when mr. mcgarry took the oath and said i give them a second time he said i do. he get married on saturday so this is part of his honeymoon. [laughter] >> was in it i suppose to say i will? we all get it wrong. all groups get it wrong. we say i do. [laughter] spent thank you.

>> congratulations. >> we are very eager to talk about these things. and if the other commissioners would like an informal chat we would love to follow up and do that. we appreciate so much that you went to kabul, that you met with some of our staff in the capital there. and you know, if you have former colleagues you think want to talk about this, so thank you for shining a spotlight on the. >> thank you. i want you all to get the last word but mr. mcgarry i don't want you to make the mistake that a congressman made who served in columbia, in bogotá, it was such a memorable moment for him that he thought he should take his wife on their honeymoon and go to the bow race of bogotá. and when she got there she said what the hell are you taking here for? so afghanistan is not where you're going to have your honeymoon. thank you. and with that we will in this

hearing. that's the best advice i've ever given anyone. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> now white house senior director for preparedness, brian kamoie. he talked about president obama's recently signed national directive on how the country respond to major emergencies. this event is hosted by george washington university. it's about an hour. >> the president's highest priority is the safety and security of the american people. he is committed to securing the homeland against 21st century threats, by preventing terrorist attacks, preparing for emergencies regardless of their cause, and investing in strong response and recovery capabilities. we aim to prevent what we can, and respond rapidly to what we must. in support of that commitment, last week president obama signed a new presidential policy directive on national preparedness, ppd eight.

the directive outlines the president's vision for strengthening the security and the resilience of our nation through systematic preparation for threats to our security. including acts of terrorism, pandemics, significant accidents and catastrophic natural disasters. what i'd like to do this morning is to outline our approach to preparedness, tell you more about the directive, and what departments and agencies are already doing to move out and embody its principles, and leave time for some discussion. i brought copies of the dvd and hardcopy for those of you here this morning. and the directive will be posted later today. to the website of the department of land security and if the emergency management agency. our approach to preparedness is reflected in the ppd rests on three key principles. first, we are focused on all

nation approach, aimed at enhancing integration of efforts across the federal state local, tribal and territorial governments, closer cooperation with the private and non-profit sectors and more engagement of individuals, families and communities. as we've seen during countless incidents which have informed our development of the directive, from the 2009 h1n1 pandemic to the response to the bp deepwater horizon oil spill, our natural response to strengthen when we leverage the expertise and resources that exist in our communities. all of us can contribute to safeguarding our nation from harm, and we must continue to lean forward together to prepare for all hazards. and using this principle already. it's reflected in the department of homeland security's quadrennial homeland security review. it appears as a cornerstone of our approach to health security reflected in the national health

security strategy of the department of health and human services, and you can see it and hear it in the approach of team administrator craig fugate. who talks about those who have structuresuffered disasters nots victims, but as survivors. who can help the community respond and recover. craig has initiated a whole of community planning effort that recognizes communities are inherently strong and resilient, even in the face of disasters. this approach relies on understanding and meeting the true needs of the entire affected community engaging all aspects of that community of private, nonprofit, public sectors. in both defining those needs and devising ways to meet them, and strengthening the assets, institutions, and social processes that work well in

communities on a daily basis to improve resilience and emergency management outcomes. you can also see it in craig's rotation program that brings private sector representatives into the fema operations center. so that the government can learn from and to leverage the private sector expertise, avoid trying to re-create functions that the private sector does well every day, and learn how and where public-private efforts are best applied during emergencies. and you can also see all of government approaches to identify over the horizon and short-term threats. the u.s. government continually detects, assesses, and preempt terrorist threats. the national counterterrorism center brings together the entire intelligence community to review and prioritize is these threats into the daily threat matrix. so across the federal family,

the focus has turned outward to how we integrate our efforts with one another, and how we integrate better with the communities. second, we seek to build the key capabilities we would need to confront any challenge. capabilities defined by specific and measurable objectives are the cornerstone of preparedness. rather than rigid approaches that apply to only certain centers if specific assumptions come true, the focus on capabilities will enable integrated, flexible, and agile all hazards efforts tailored to what we know our unique circumstances of any given threat, hazard, or actually been. for example. building flexible capability such as search and rescue and medical surge, enable the response to a wide range of

incidents regardless of the gothic so the fema hold effort demonstrates this approach, known as the maxim of maximums, the focus is on planning around a catastrophe and 13 core capabilities were extraordinary levels of mass casualty, damage and disruption over well our traditional plans and processes. this effort is a concrete step in making the all of nation whole of unity principal real and operations. another example comes from the centers for disease control and prevention. just a few weeks ago the cdc released 15 capabilities to serve as national public health preparedness standards to assist state and local public health departments with their strategic plan. third, we are actively pursuing more rigorous assessment systems that are focused on outcomes. so that we can measure and track

your progress over time. we said we need to do better in articulate our current level of preparedness and demonstrating what innovations have worked. theme and hhs are actively if i waiting their grant programs, allowing them around outcomes to be achieved and seeking to clarify guidance so we had even better data to answer key questions such as are we prepared, how would we know, and how bitter are we this year than last. and so consistent with these principles we undertook a comprehensive review of our national preparedness policy, as part of that review we spoke with 24 national associations that represent a wide range of stakeholders. including a variety of disciplines, law enforcement, public health, emergency,

medical services, emergency management, the national guard. and i'm pleased to see that a number of representatives from those organizations are with us this morning. and we also evaluate our preparedness policy in light of the requirements of the post-katrina reform act of 2006. the result of that review is the policy we announced today. which replaces homeland security presidential directive aid since 2003. and annex one of 2007. but for a few minor exceptions that are noted in the new presidential policy directive, or ppd. the directive calls for the establishment of an overarching national preparedness goal that identifies the core capabilities necessary for the spectrum of preparedness, which encompasses five broad nation's. prevention, those capabilities

necessary to avoid, prevent or stop a threat or actual act of terrorism. protection, those capabilities necessary to secure the homeland against acts of terrorism, man-made or natural disasters. mitigation, those capabilities necessary to reduce, loss of life and property by taking steps to lessen the impact of disasters. response, the capabilities necessary to save lives, protect property and the environment and meet basic human needs after an incident occurs. and recovery, those capabilities necessary to assist communities affected by the incident. and these capabilities will be defined in terms of risk and objectives. first, the risk of specific threats and vulnerabilities which will into defined using objective risk factors companies the capability, where, and how

much that capability is needed, and why. and concrete measurable and prioritizing objectives, define what needs doing, how much, how fast and for how long based on a critical few specific performance objectives that will define each capability. the directive also calls for the development of a national preparedness system to guide activities that will enable the nation to meet the national preparedness goal. the specific planning, organization, equipment, training and exercises needed to build and maintain domestic capabilities, what you all recognize as their preparedness cycle. and with respect to capabiliti capabilities, we heard clear feedback from our stakeholders. one size does not fit all, and communities have differing needs based on the risks they face.

that said, we believe it's important to come to agreement on a few critical few priority capabilities that most communities will share. for example, medical surge information sharing, so committees realistically need, instead of a one size fits all approach where one size approach. this focus on capabilities will also drive the evolution of our planning, which will seek to identify how we can most effectively mix and match our capabilities where needed to be the most agile and flexible in our approach. and so the ppd requires capabilities-based planning frameworks across the five mission areas i mentioned to prevent, protect, respond, recover. we have a national response framework which is currently in the process for review and

revision. the national disaster recovery framework is a requirement already provided in statute, and that's the framework for prevention, protection and mitigation will similarly galvanize playing around the key capabilities necessary for tho those. that said, the intent is not to produce long documents that merely take up space on our shelves. our stakeholders were also quite clear on the need to streamline and rationalize all of guide documents and plans. because we recognize at the local level especially, that the same person who has to develop the plans, the documents and their grant application packages that we call for is the same person who has to respond to the next fire or the next heart attack. and so we want to avoid from overly burdensome requirements,

and will continually streamline and simplify. there are many federal departments and agencies that support activities across the national preparedness spectrum. and the ppd specifies the number of roles and responsibilities. notably, the department home integrity will undertake the inner agency efforts to develop a national preparedness goal system, and annual report. is our multidisciplinary efforts by design and would involve me departments and agencies. we've also come in the ppd and otherwise, place a renewed emphasis on individual and community preparedness which we believe is a cornerstone of our national resilience. the public a critical role on our nation's emergency management team in every type of incident. and our goal is to empower americans with the information about the risks we face, and

actions we can all take to protect ourselves and our communities. for example, during the 2009 h1n1 pandemic, the cdc communicated clear messages to the american people about what they could do to prevent the spread of disease. you probably all know this instinctively now. cover your cough, stay home is sick, keeping sick children out of school. and so we're very confident the american people provided information about the risks they face and what they can do about it will take appropriate action. fema's ready campaign at ready.gov provides simple and practical steps all americans can take to become better prepared, including how to prepare a family emergency plan, an emergency supply kit, and how to get involved in community preparedness efforts.

given your expertise and your interests in this morning's topic, i'm also confident you are probably among the most prepared audience as i can imagine. but i would be remiss if i did not mention the basics, even here. our challenge continues to be making more effective use of the resources we have in our communities, and at all levels of government. and it's no surprise to you that yes, our resources are constrained. our thinking need not be. so that we measure and track our preparedness efforts over time, based on the key outcome measures i talked about, and community our level of preparedness to the congress and to the american people. the directive requires the national preparedness report every year. a clear articulation on the return we receive for investment and preparedness is even more

critical in the current fiscal environment. the good news is that the nation is better prepared to navigate a catastrophic incident than ever before. this is true first and foremost because of the ongoing integration of efforts across all levels of government, but also because of the active engagement of the private sector, the nonprofit sector, and individuals and commuters. ppt eight means to enhance further this integration of efforts. by actively breaking down barriers between levels as layers of government we are more agile and better able to mix and match respective capabilities to confront unique circumstances. ..

>> to solve what we know are some very serious, challenging requirements of rapid distribution of medical countermeasures that would be necessary to save lives. in addition, as we saw during the earthquake in haiti and are seeing in the current response to events in japan, many departments and agencies from state and usaid, hhs, dod, the department of energy, the nuclear regulatory commission are enhancing international cooperation and collaboration on the ground through active disaster management assistance. we will study every aspect of the response in japan so that we can learn lessons from the unprecedented earthquake,

tsunamis and nuclear emergency. beyond the ppd ourself, we are seeking to be responsible by identifying rate-limiting steps and planning accordingly, reducing points of failure through plan simplification, developing emergency action documents to enable life-staving action -- life the saving actions and authorities and establishing well understood protocols for communication and coordination. and then practicing them through exercises such as the upcoming national level exercise or nle 2011 which next month will simulate the catastrophic nature of a major earthquake in the central united states region of the new madrid seismic zone which includes eight states. while all disasters are unique, there are things that we can and

are doing every day to assist in better navigating whatever catastrophe might occur. the president's new policy on national preparedness aims to enhance these efforts. i want to thank you for your time and attention this morning and your interest in our national preparedness, and i very much look forward to our discussion. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, brian. that was a great overview of the directive and also of preparedness in general, something i think everybody in this room really beliefs in. i see a lot of my former colleagues from the bush administration here as well as new colleagues from the obama administration. i think preparedness and homeland security in general is one of those bipartisan issues that's actually out there today. brian, i can't think of a better sign of bipartisanship than you occupying my former office at

the white house. i'm pleased to have you there. >> we still have a few things you left. [laughter] >> brian, on a serious note, resilience. that's a word that our task force that we had talked about a little bit at the beginning is focused on because resilience seems to be one of those words -- i don't want to call it a buzz word, but it's certainly a word we affix to a lot of different issues. and if you could provide us an understanding of what resilience means to you and the obama administration and how that interacts with what you just discussed, i think that'd be a useful way to start this conversation. >> i'd be glad to, and it's a very useful question. thanks, dan. when the president integrated the staffs of the national security council and the homeland security council following presidential study direct e number one, he created a resilience direct rate which spans the full range of preparedness through response activities.

and we decided very early on that we need to approach the term in a way that was easily understood by many different disciplines. and so we did a little research paced on the research skill -- based on the research skills i learned here at gw. and found very quickly that some two dozen disciplines use the term, "resilience." from systems engineers to folks who work in the environment in ecology. and what became clear pretty quickly is that it was not going to be fruitful to spend six or eight months arguing about the precise 38 words that would be in one single definition of resilience. but that, rather, we would focus on a few key principles of resilience that we thought all of the activities and everyone who was trying to advance them

could see themselves in. and so as applied to this discipline those principles included withstanding. we have to be able to withstand an incident. adapting. adapt to change. because incidents bring us different circumstances. and then rapidly recover. and so those three principles -- withstand, adapt, rapidly recover -- became the organizing principles around our resilience activities. and so we think that owners and operators of critical infrastructure can see themselves in that, their facilities need to be able to withstand disruption, rapidly recover, adapt to change. we believe that applies at the individual and family level to be able to withstand ideally built upon some preparedness steps you have taken. and so you'll see these

principles articulated in the national security strategy where resilience has become an imperative to guide our work. the principle is featured in the quadrennial security review. but all of these programmatic efforts to support those principles we've gone beyond the notion of the definition alone and gone beyond any notion that it's simply a buzz word, but that we believe these efforts will enhance not just our security, but our resilience as a nation, will leverage the strength and inherent resilience of the american people who can withstand disruption. who can adapt to change. and who can rapidly recover. >> i think let's now drill down on a specific situation that, frankly, the world is facing. questions have been raised here

domestically, and that's nuclear preparedness. we're all very familiar with the disaster in japan, and many of us are asking now how well prepared are we here in the united states. and as recently as today in the in "the washington post" there's a story particularly with health care facilities. so, brian, could you address nuclear preparedness specifically? >> sure. as i mentioned in the remarks, we're taking and will take a very close look at the response in japan so that we can learn the lessons there. we've done a number of initiatives and efforts to aggressively prepare this nation for radiation emergencies of any type because, as you know, we could experience a radiological emergency from a nuclear power plant, from an improvised nuclear device or a radiological dispersal device. but i'll just highlight a few of those efforts. in june of last year, we issued

the second edition of planning guidance to state and local colleagues for preparedness for an improvised nuclear device which includes planning considerations for sheltering in place, for evacuation. and for communicating with the public ahead of these kinds of events. as you know, the key message to a community in any kind of incident would be the same, and that is follow the constructions of your local emergency management and your local leaders who, obviously, have the best information about what's happening on the ground. but we think it very important to communicate with the american people ahead of these kinds of events. and it's the second edition because it takes into account the latest in scientific evidence from a number of studies that the department of homeland security and other aspects of the u.s. government have funded to understand better

what the threat is and what actions would be most helpful. because the guidance on whether to shelter and place or evacuate may differ depending on the type of event. and so we've tried to focus on what are the right planning considerations and how do we communicate to the public. the national exercise or nle process in 2010 actually focused on events related to radiological emergencies including a september 2010 exercise that included state and local government around the accidental release of radiation from a nuclear power plant. and just a few weeks ago the cdc convened after two years of planning, i might add, a conference on preparedness for radiological emergencies that involved 450 state and local radiological preparedness

experts. and so even during the midst of a response where those folks and their technical expertise were needed at home, they all assembled in atlanta to discuss our preparedness for this. and so, again, that was planned well in advance which led us to ask our colleagues what they were planning two years from now just so we could be ready. [laughter] but we've taken a number of steps to improve our preparedness for a wide range of radiological emergencies, but we will take a very close look at what's happening in japan so that we learn even more. >> absolutely. i think you would be, for all of us, you know, who went through katrina, it's always a difficult conversation to compare anything to katrina. but the key there is we want to make sure our government learns from those mistakes. do you feel today that we are better prepared as a result of katrina, and can we become even

higher, gain a higher level of preparedness as a result of what happened in japan? >> i don't want to make comparisons to specific events because they're each unique in their own way, but that really shows us why the focus on capabilities is what we believe is the most effective way to approach this. that if we build out certain core capabilities, we'll be able to respond to a wide range of incidents. and so we know that based on guidance and planning and organizing, training and equipment that local emergency managers, local public health, local law enforcement can put those things together in ways that they need to to respond in the most flexible and agile wayment so i think this approach of focusing in on key capabilities, being with very clear about the outcomes we're intending to achieve will make us even more prepared. >> like to take some questions now. as we're waiting for the

microphone to be passed around, please, raise your hand if you'd like to ask a question. i'll look to my task force, first, if anybody would like to ask a question. so, marco, the microphone is back there. marco right here. front row. in -- and we'll say, again, a special thanks to our task force members who have been working these issues, and we look forward to putting out a first report very soon. marco, please, introduce yourself. >> brian, applaud the administration for feting this out. i -- getting this out. i know it's been a long and difficult process but, certainly, will prove to be an effective one. my question revolves around part of of the national preparedness report that has to be done. you have to base it on standards, definitions of various levels of preparedness for capabilities, etc., for planning. the challenge has always been agreement on what those measurements ought to be. across the federal government,

state and local government. what do you view as the next steps to achieve some discreet set of measurements that folks can actually agree to, buy into and, therefore, apply resources for so they can be measured? >> obviously, it's engagement of the stakeholders with a focus on what the key capabilities are. the cdc, for example, did that. if you go to cdc.gov, i'm sorry, i don't recall the exact page, but you'll see the 15 capabilities that working with their stakeholders at the state and local level, they said, you know, these really are the core things we need to focus on in terms of building capability, the ability to do medical search, the ability to distribute and dispense medical countermeasures. it's an engagement process with stakeholders, and so the implementation of the directive is the next step. those consultations in the development of those measures is

where we go from here. but it certainly recognizes that we can't do it all here at the federal level. there are not federal solutions many terms of -- in terms of, you know, we identify for every community what we think they need. they understand their risks. we need to focus on their understanding. and try and focus on the core capabilities and agree, then, how we measure those. >> alan mccurry, front row here. i'll introduce alan. former chief operating officer of the american red cross. >> thank you. and, again, i'm listening for the words about ngos in discussion, and they're critical. and i understand if you don't want to go to specific events, but when you take a look at a disaster the size of katrina, the only groups that can bring the number of people to help the

displaced survivors are ngos, whether it's my old organization, american red cross, salvation army, catholic charities, the list goes on and on. but it always has been, and i think it probably still is true that the assumption is that the ngos have the resources necessary to short notice implement, care for a large number of displaced people. and that's not necessarily true because it's quite expensive for ngos to warehouse materials large enough. not for a small family fire, not for a small tornado, not for a small flood, but for truly large numbers of displaced people. i think there's a flaw in any philosophy that believes ngos are going to be ready to respond to a large migration of people, just interested in your thoughts on that. >> well, i mean, the key principle of all of nation, obviously, includes the

nongovernmental organizations. and as with, you know, planning with our state and local colleagues or with individuals and families, i think it's only through kind of that sustained dialogue and experience working together as to understanding what the, both the capabilities and the nonprofit sector are, what the challenges are, what we might to to address those -- do to address those. and so, again, without respect to any specific incident or assumptions you've described about what has been done in the past, i think we immediate to continue to evolve -- we need to continue to evolve our approach in terms of how we work together collaboratively. and so many federal departments and agencies that are on the front line of response engage the nonprofit and the ngo community. we have seen it in all of the incidents that we've experienced in this administration from the

influenza pandemic to the bp deepwater horizon oil spill. so we'll continue the dialogue so that we do understand what organizations can and cannot bring to the table so that we set realistic expectations and that we, you know, don't make plans based on assumptions that won't come true because we haven't fully understood what the capabilities are. and so i take the point that further understanding and collaboration are needed, and we'll aim to do even more. >> great. the next question. don loren. we'll wait for the mic, i'm introduce you. -- i'll introduce you. tomorrower deputy secretary of defense. works with the national framework response with us. >> thanks, brian. don loren, as dan says, former deputy secretary of defense,

homeland security. thank you for being with us today, thank you for all that you do, and thank you for continuing to move the ball up the field. one of the difficulties associated with much of the fine work you have done and the things you've talked about here is that even at the interagency level as dan and i would sit at the old drg, inevitably, the response you would get from many agencies when you would discuss the need for this type of preparedness and planning and capability development was that covered under the stafford act, how am i going to pay for that? i don't have the people to send off for training that's required to have interoperable planning system and that sort of thing. so commensurate with many of these things in the new p do, the d -- pdd, are we starting to look at the resourcing and the leadership required to get everybody in alignment and

enable it to be able to execute this fine plan? >> well, the interagency has, as you know, don, from your prior experience -- and thank you for that -- you know, robust discussions of how to build those capabilities. we've encouraged discussions that focus on making the best and most effect e use -- effective use of the resources we have. i can't really speak to ongoing budget negotiations, so or specific requests. but, obviously, the discussions around constrained resources speak directly to the all-of-nation approach. and that is making sure that we've leveraged the resources that exist not just at the federal level, not just at the state and local levels who are similarly constrained in their resources, but looking to the private sector who does things like supply chain management and logistics of movement of people and things very effectively.

and so leveraging those resources as well, making them part of the community planning effort, the nongovernmental organization community. and that's not with an intent to shift cost. that's with an intent to leverage those resources. because those folks want to help. they are members of that community. it is in their personal and professional interest to be actively engaged in the response to and recovery from incidents at the community level. and so you're absolutely right. we need to continue to have robust discussions of how we improve our preparedness efforts, and that takes leadership conversation. but i hope you'll agree with me that the president issuing a new directive is a clarion call in that leadership for improved preparedness. >> next question is from a guy who epitomizes the bipartisan

nature of homeland security. it's someone who was called into service post-9/11 as a democratic congressman and served at the department of defense, paul mchale. first of all, thank you for your service as a marine and then in the bush administration. we have had many conversations about hurricane katrina, you and i, so i know that this is something you're passionate about. paul, former assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense. >> dan, good morning and thank you for the kind words. brian, good to see you again. >> good to see you, paul, thank you. >> brian, as i review pdd8, it seems to move away from the scenario-based planning of hspd8nx1 towards capabilities-based planning. my question is, if we were to have a truly catastrophic event of the type that we had with hurricane katrina or in fukushima today where the local community experiences comprehensive and dramatic damage, where many public servants, perhaps, are the victims or, in this case, a few

of the survivors of the original event, in be light of that damage -- in light of that damage at the local level, for instance, in new orleans one-third of the police department did not report to work after the event occurred. if you move to capabilities-based planning where you've got an inventory of capabilities, in the aftermath of a truly catastrophic event of the type envisioned by the 15 national planning scenarios, who would assemble these capabilities into a deployable force? and if you only have an inventory of capabilities rather than a scenario-based plan, would you in the aftermath of such a crisis be able to quickly assemble those capabilities in order to save the maximum number of lives? >> sure. appreciate the question. scenarios don't go away. scenarios are still very useful to tease out requirements, but in the evolution of our approach o planning -- to planning, we think starting with the core capabilities and how they're

organized which actually you can see reelected -- reflected in the framework of identifying structures and processes through which we bring those capabilities to bear in deployable ways. we're going to continue to look at the nrf and the other planning processes that are necessary to make sure that they take account of the capabilities and how, you know, those processes need to be brought to bear. but let me move away from that for a second. you know, what we've seen throughout the incident we've confronted is that it really is the, you know, the mixing and matching of capabilities at all level of government that provide us the most flexible and agile way to do things. planning, as you know more than most in the room, incredibly useful in terms of building the relationship, identifying gaps,

etc. and i think it will borrow from general eisenhower that no plan provides first contact. and so what we're seeking to do through use of scenarios to tease out requirements through these conversations to identify the core capabilities that then allow us to have the more detailed operational-level discussions, if you will, about, okay, now how are those brought to bear. but we've gravitated away from -- and it's just an evolution in the approach because of what we've seen in the incidents we've confronted that we think the best way to approach this is through a focus on those core capabilities and then have the frameworks in place to have the conversation about how they apply. >> other questions. question down here. i'd like to acknowledge one person in the audience, daryl daughter knell. daryl worked on brian's staff and probably helped with a pig part of this -- big part of this, and we were able to refer

daryl here to gw. >> we still feel the loss, but we know the students, faculty and staff of george washington university are more safe as a result. >> question? >> i'm steve from itt defense. i'd like to ask about an international aspect of their policy. obviously, if we have an avian flu break out in aiz a ya -- asia or, perhaps, a release of radioactivity of some measure in some foreign soil that could impact on the united states, what are the aspects of international cooperation that are embodied in this ppd? >> the ppd largely focuses on the development of our domestic capabilities, but certainly an event such as the h1n1 pandemic, those capabilities can be brought to bear internationally,

so we are working on our international collaboration and cooperation. and many u.s. government agencies are on the ground in japan. providing technical assistance. and so, again, as we look to identify what resources and capabilities we need here, we're also looking to strengthen our international partnerships because, again, among the first incidents that the administration confronted was the influenza pandemic which, as you know steve, was a global event day one. and so our conversations about what our capability was to develop vaccine and antiviral in this a quick manner was immediately a global conversation. our experience there led the president to propose a medical countermeasure initiative that he first introduced in the first 2010 state of the union address that focuses on how we more rapidly and reliably develop

medical countermeasures. and we've made a number of proposals pursuant to that initiative. to remove the bottle necks in the development process for medical countermeasures. but that's the example of the kind of capability that while it may start domestically, the threats we face and some of the incidences we've already experienced are truly global in nature. and so a longer answer, perhaps, than you wanted to a short question about how we see this affecting our international collaboration and cooperation, but we believe focusing on the development of our domestic capabilities while in tandem we continue to enhance our international collaboration and partnership is the right approach. >> other questions. as a firefighter we can talk

about policy here in washington, our nation's first responders, i'll can a question. i'm happy to turn to -- we have plenty of fire chiefs here, just looking to them to -- adam. adam teal is a member of our steering committee here at hspi, he's a member of our task force, but his day job is fire chief of city of alexandria. >> thanks, dan, thanks for coming. i guess in that vein, how does this policy acknowledge the fact that local first responders are always going to be the first to deal with disasters and emergency incidents within the broader concepts of federalism? the capability development and the conversations to understand what is possible and what is needed at the local level certainly acknowledges our federal system. i mean, this presidential direct i have, obviously, does nothing to change that -- directive does

nothing to change that, so the national response framework this terms of roles and responsibilities we will continually evaluate, but there's no change here to the recognition that locals will always be on the front lines. but we do think that a renewed emphasis on a principle such as the all-of-nation approach and a renewed emphasis on individual and community preparedness actually aims toward bringing individuals and families more into the preparedness equation such that it might actually reduce the burden on local response. and by that i mean if those who can prepare do, the needs on public response systems, you know, should reduce accordingly. and so the ppd recognizes that there are respective roles in the federalist system, does not

change that. but it also recognizes we truly do need to understand from our state and local colleagues' perspectives what are the risks they face, and how do we help them most effectively build the capabilities with that understanding in mind. >> other questions? we've talked, i guess, about federal government, state and local government, ngos, seems like the private sector's up, right? is anybody from the private sector want to ask a question? okay. i will just ask the open-ended question. [laughter] how does the private sector fit into this? >> well, first and foremost, the private sector are members of their community, and we see that, and we recognize that they have the same interests we do in withstanding events, recovering rapidly and adapting to change.

and i think it's an area we have great opportunity to understand even more what can be brought to bear. so the example i gave, and it's one of many, where craig fugate has programs to come into an operations center because it's a language issue. the private sector may not fully appreciate -- it's an observation, it's not a criticism -- may not appreciate what goes on in an operation center, what are the types of questions the government is asking, what are the immediate actions that the government is attempting to take, and how could the private sector's expertise assist in that effort? on the other side of that equation we may be attempting to recreate functions that we have neither the expertise nor time to deliver, and that exists in the private sector and are available for the discussion to

understand what is there. and so we believe the private sector, members of the community, they have an interest in protecting their employees, they live there. and we think there are resources there that bear further exploration and conversation. and so we think it's an area for great opportunity for advancement, and so we'll continue those dialogues. >> my last question will be on next steps. my assumption is that this is beginning rather than the end. in other words, there's a lot of directives that will have to be carried out by departments and agencies and, likely, through interagency processes. can you describe how that will occur? is. >> absolutely. we move into an implementation phase, but as i already mentioned, the conversation with the interagency stakeholders really did shine a light on some key principles. departments and agencies have already moved out according to some of these principles in be developing some key capabilities

around certain disciplines in engaging the private sector and engaging individuals and families. that's not to say there is not, you know, a good deal of additional effort that is now required to implement the president's direction. but the best news is that the departments and agencies did not wait because these principles were important to them as well. they've started to take action already, and so we will move into the implementation phase with departments and agencies and the further outreach to our state and local colleagues and individuals and families to enhance our national preparedness. >> brian, let me present this token of our appreciation, the hspi coin. >> oh, great. >> and thank you for being here today, brian. >> thank you very much. thanks, all. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> wednesday on c-span b 3, president obama will deliver a speech on fiscal policy at george washington university.

this comes after lawmakers announced an agreement on the federal budget friday night preventing a government shutdown. watch live coverage of president obama's afternoon remarks wednesday on c-span2. >> follow c-span on twitter. it's the fastest way to get programming and schedule updates as well as links to events we've covered. join in the conversation and tweet questions directly to our "washington journal" guests. join the viewers who already follow from c2's -- c-span2's booktv and c-span radio. get started at c-span.com/-- twitter or.com/c-span. >> the fiscal budget request is for $18.7 billion which, if approved, freezes spending for nasa at 2010 levels for the next fiscal year. this is an hour and 20 minutes.

>> the subcommittee on commerce justice science will comen together. today we take the testimony of administrator, honorable astronaut general charles bolden to review the nasa 2012 request and to, also, talk about how this might be also this light of what we just have gone through.e

administrator bolden, we're glad to see you. we want to thank you for comingo on a monday at 4:00. our hearing normally occurs on thursday mornings.he we couldn't do you when we thought we could. but senator kay bailey hutchinson and i did not want to waive the hearing because it would have taken us after the easter passover recess, and we wanted to be able to really get cracking on our 2012 appropriations. so we thank you for doing this, and we look forward to your testimony. well, i'm glad to see you, and we're glad to be here. so both of us, all of us were declared essential. i know that what we just lived through last week was a cliffhanger.en itt rattled many people. cli

it certainly rattled us. we thought there would have been a disaster had we had a shutdowt to really the economy and the reputation of the united states of america. we have now been called upon to accept $78 billion worth of cuts from the president's 2011 request, 39 billion below the 2010 level. that was the mark that was givei us.ll now, all of our staffs have worked through the night, and i'd like to thank senator hutchison's staff for really hanging in there and working with us. and i might add, administrator bolden, that congressman wolf and congressman fatale, we all worked pretty tirelessly for our

obligation.ight so you'll hear about a lot of things, and we want to hear from you about where we think that you are. we're very proud of nasa.ar this is the 50th anniversary of president kennedy's call to send a person to the moon and return them safely. from our human space flight, our visit to the moon, our ambitions to even go further, we're so proud of what we've done in w human space flight, and we look forward to supporting human space flight initiatives. when we look ahead, when we look at space science, the wonders of the hubble space telescope toscp others in the area of planetary science, protecting our powersce grid are all important. p we know that the nasa, that what nasa does is part of really creating the new ideas for the

innovation economy. today at a speech to the maryland space round table, i said every time nasa goes soft, it takes the american economy with us because it is about innovation and it is about jobs. last year congress gave nasa a new path forward. n ranking member hutchinson and i worked with senate bill nelson,n and i'd like to complement the gentlelady from texas and what she and chairman nelson were able to achieve. we believe that is the framework that we could achieve that meets the president's priorities but l understanding the priorities of the space coalition here in the senate for a very balanced space program. we need investments in sciencewe and aeronautics, but we alsocien must remember we want human space flight to be sustainable.p being able to go to the international space station

until 2010 and, also, broadenine our human reach beyond low-earth orbit with the orion capsule. we have lots of ambitions, and now we're trying to see if we have the wallet to match it. i will work tirelessly to implement a balanced space program. last year we agreed to 19 billion. well, it's not going to come out quite that way. and so for this year we're anticipating in appropriations -- if we stick to the president's request -- at 18.7. mainly, that the science request is at five billion, and we also need to make sure important projects like that don't get ou from under us like the webb telescope. and i'll focus more on that in the, in the questions. i'm also concerned abouted

aeronautics research. i'm afraid we're falling away and falling behind in that area. our european counterparts are making very heavy investments in aeronautics research, and i hope -- they would like to dominate civilian aeronautics. well, i just don't think it's. fun to go to the paris air show to hear about what paris isun doing.the i want to go -- when america are goes, it's because we're really doing the west of the best -- best of the best. we know that the budget requests 2.8 billion for a new rocket in the orion capsule for the human space flight program, and as -- and we will have to say we have to take a good look at that. we're also very impressed at what is going on, however, in cots particularly as it relates to cargo.o ca we think that's going to be a

very big success story, that we'll be able to take cargoke through unmanned spacecraft to n the space station while we observe, watch and see where we go in human space flight. we will also maintain our accountability and our oversight. but we want to get to you rathel than my opening statement. i'm going to turn to the ranking member, someone where we've really, we've worked on space now three terms, haven't we?e >> uh-huh.w fo >> and i am so glad that we're colleagues here on this matter. i'm going to turn to senator hutchison. t to thank you, madam chairman, because you hav, indeed, been a partner in trying to make the very interest efforts for nasa in all of it missions. in and i particularly want to thank the chairman's staff, gabby, foo working with my staff so closelr to assure that nasa does have a

balanced plan going forward that will achieve the results that we all want. e results that we all want. thank you for coming in and as mentioned, we are at some very major anniversaries and some major crossroads. we are about to see the end of the nation's ability to lost r -- launched our own astronauts into space. the space shuttles have served us well for 30 years and made it possible to construct an amazing science platform in space, the international space station. while nasa should be making plans to fully utilize the station, i do not think that is happening. we could be working with our international partners, universities, and with companies that could capitalize on our unique national lab in space. it was the commerce committee in our authorization that created

are part of the space station as a national lab in order to attract private and university, academic funding for research. that is just beginning to bear fruit. now i see the administration placing our investments in the space station and its capabilities at risk as well as our future exploration capabilities. once the shuttles are retired, we will be reduced to buying seats on russian vehicles for the foreseeable future. the russians have been our longtime partners with the space station, but we should not expect them to shoulder their space station program and hours when we should be able to do it ourselves. nasa has the arion capsule which has investigated to given time and resources in to carry our astronauts. yet come to this day, nasa is refusing to allow us to move forward.

the president personally revived awry and last year and congress followed. we are reinstating it as a vehicle that will take us to an asteroid or back to the moon. i heard from your assistant administrators last month in the commerce committee that they understand that the authorization law directs the building of the capsule and a heavy lift vehicle. they know that orion fits the bill as a multipurpose crew vehicle and that it will take very little to modify contracts as allowed for in the authorization law. even the scope of the contract would need letter all -- little alteration. like the president, i have no problem continuing to call this a ryan, yet we see no movement from nasa to continue the program at all. this budget proposes only $1 billion for orion in the fiscal year 2012 while the authorized level for the same your calls

for $1.40 billion and the plan for ongoing work prior to the knesset cancellation attempts would have had it at $2 billion. this deliberately hamstrings the ability for a ryan to reach our ability in 2016. the fiscal year 2012 of vision, offered as a variant of the authorization, is the creation of new prime contractors and providing them with the development funding. it is the hope of nasa that providing venture capital that they will then be able to usher in an era in space set off -- space exploration. there is little proof that what is being promised can be a reality. the commercial orbital transportation services program is beginning to show promise, but it is significantly behind schedule. last year, nasa proposes 60% increase in funding to assure the program would be successful.

because it had been slower to produce results, the one under 35 flight has now become critical for the near term viability of the space station. the nasa authorization leaves primary crew delivery vehicle to the space station open to commercial entities with o'brien as a backup. however, given the track record for cargo and masses underfunded budget proposal, the nation could find itself with neither option available when our latest renegotiated contract with the russians and. what we have done is allow for a mix of government and commercial to cover all of our country's needs. nasa needs to find a proper and justified balance without putting our human space program at risk. i know that commercial companies could eventually become successful, but i do not feel that the information available

justifies such a large investment of federal dollars this year for commercial vehicles. i also believe that the same scrutiny that has been placed on our other manned vehicle should be applied to commercial kreuz to ensure the viability and safety of our astronauts is insured. mr. administrator, i will put the rest of my statement in the record, that i am hoping that we can establish a partnership going forward that it hears to the authorization wall, that is a balance, that provides the funding for commercial vehicles, but not at the expense of haut- rhin and all the capabilities key is what we have already spent millions to do going forward. thank you, madam chairman, and i yield back to you. >> i would like to acknowledge the presence of the senator

sherrod brown from ohio. do you want to say something or will you wait? >> first off, thinking for welcoming me to the subcommittee in all the jurisdictions and nasa is particularly important to me. i appreciate you coming to cleveland a number of times and speaking at the city club and laying out an exhibition. i am concerned, as i know we all are, at what the budget may look like in the months ahead with h.r. 1, the paul ryan budget introduced in the house last week, and with the fervor on tax cuts that seems to be sweeping some parts of the house and senate and what it will mean on funding one of the most important parts of the federal government, the innovation, the research, the mission's committee aeronautic advantage that we have had as a country for decades. would to make sure we continue

to be leading, but if we're going to cut taxes and continue to cut taxes on the wealthiest people and continue to understand the important parts of government, and we will lose that scientific age. -- the scientific edge. i know that each you are helping us to not lose that and i appreciate your work. thank you, madam chair. >> administrator? >> chairwoman and ranking member, good afternoon and it thank you for the opportunity to discuss the nasa fiscal year 2012 budget request. thank you to be here -- thank you for being here, senator brown. as chair, you continue to provide critical leadership and oversight of our nation's space program. i would like to recognize a longtime member of the commander, senator kay bailey hutcheson, as ranking member of the subcommittee. i want to think both of you and the members of the said committee for the longstanding support that you have given to nasa.

we have a common passion for science, aeronautics, and space exploration and the benefits they bring our nation. i look forward to continue to work together in the same collegial fashion as we have in the past. it is my privilege today to discuss the president's fiscal year 2002 budget request of $18.70 billion by nasa. recognizing the president's commitment to fiscal restraint, i am pleased we are proposing to hold funding at the level appropriated for fiscal year 2010. the fiscal year 2012 budget request continues the agency's focus on a reinvigorated path of innovation and technological discovery leading to an array of challenging destinations and emissions that engage the public. madam share, you and each member of the said committee should have two charts before you to which i call your attention. chart #1 is the pie chart and shows at a very high level

discussion of nasa's proposed fiscal year 2002 budget which represents a balanced and integrated program. the nasa authorization act of 2010 has given the agency a clear direction. nasa is moving forward to implement the details of that with fiscal year 2002 budget. as you can see in charge two, the president's fiscal year to dozens of budget request for nasa funds all major elements of the nasa authorization act was supporting a diverse portfolio of key programs. these are tough of fiscal times and we have had to make some tough, difficult choices. reductions have been necessary in some areas so that we can invest in the future will living within our means. this must request and maintains a strong commitment to human space flight,, aeronautics, and the development of new technologies along with education programs that will help us win the future. it carries out programs of

innovation to support long-term drawbaugh growth and a dynamic economy that will help us out innovate, and educate, and out build everyone in the world. along with their fiscal year 2002 budget request, we published our 2000 tow strategic plan. if you or your staff does not have it, we will make sure we get a copy to everyone. the core mission of nasa remains the fundamentally -- remains fundamentally the same since our inception. it supports our vision, shown inside the strategic plan to reach new heights and reveal the on non said that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind. on march 9th, we completed the 133 mission, one of the final three shuttle flights to the international space station. discovery delivered a robotic crew member and supplies that

will support the scientific research and technology demonstrations, that was a joke by the way? ok. we are currently preparing and ever for mission 134 which will delivered the of the magnetic spectrometer. it will enhance knowledge of the universe in to the understanding of the origins of the universe. this will be the 36 shuttle mission in the final flight of the endeavor. with the impending completion of the shuttle manifest, it is my plan to announce my decision regarding the recipients tomorrow, april 12th, 2011, on the 30th anniversary of the first space shuttle flight. the space program continues to venture in ways that will have long-term benefits. there are many more milestones in the very near term. our priorities in human space

flight in the 2012 budget request are to maintain safe access for american astronauts to lower orbit as we will utilize the international space station, and to facilitate safe, reliable, and cost-effective u.s.-provided commercial transport for supplies as soon as possible and begin to lay the groundwork for expanding human presence in deep space, the moon, asteroids, and eventually mars to the development of a powerful heavy lift rocket, and pursued technology development to carry humans further into the solar system. these initiatives will enable american to maintain its position as a leader in space exploration for generations to come. at the same time, in our other endeavors, the priorities are to extend our reached with scientific observatories, to learn more about our home planet, the solar system, and

look beyond the origins of the universe. this budget requests of fondas of 56 national -- mass that missions and 20 more in the various stages of development. for one example, on march 17th of this year, after traveling more than six years and 4.9 billion miles, the nasa messenger space ship entered orbit around mercury. the messenger spacecraft august the first look at the planet from orbit. it will help us understand the forces that shape it and provide a fundamental understanding of the terrestrial planets and their evolution. in addition, we will pursue groundbreaking research into the next generation of aviation technology and carry out dynamic education programs that help develop the next-generation of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics professionals. that is a lot, but nasa thrives in the big things. we have increased human

knowledge in our discoveries and technologies have improved life on earth. in spite of the difficulties we have encountered with the very critical james webb telescope, we have made changes in our management, increased oversight from my office, it continued to work to revise a space line by the end of april that will include options including likely funding some areas. the official plan will be submitted as part is the the part of the fiscal year 2013 budget. i want to commend the nasa work force, both civil and contractors across the nation for their dedication to our missions during this time of transition and change. these workers are our greatest asset. they make us all proud. they fully understand the rest of our exploration and welcome the challenge. they will be the ones making tomorrow happen. in these are exciting and dynamic times. the challenges ahead are significant, but so are the oppoit