g all countries to take action, to plan and take action on reducing energy subsidies. >> the last two responses. it's important in talking about these issues and if we talk about the inclusive growth and inequality, note in the fossil fuels case david mentioned the political sensitivity but the reality is that a lot of the subsidies are going to the middle-income people, not to the poorest in the societies and so, you know, i think there are some real issues and one needs to look at this in fact based way. any other questions from the audience? one or two final ones. again. i can't see everybody. but -- okay. we in the upper right on time so that's perfect. let me thank both of the panelists for joining us up here. [applause] let me say on behalf of csis and

the audience it's good to have people like you among us because i work on the national economic issues but most white colleagues were on the traditional foreign policy issues and it's hard sometimes to make the connection. people see the global governance as a relevance of foreign policy but i think even the sort of hard economic issues we have been talking about here are often so intertwined importantly with foreign policy questions the i think it's a very important for us to have this conversation so i appreciate you both taking the time and coming of away from moscow to join us. good luck. >> thank you. [applause]

>> [inaudible conversations]

>> here to tell us more and explain how it's gotten to this point. the senior congressional reporter joining us on the phone thank you for talking with us. good morning. >> host: first of all give us a background of what this fight is over. who are these nominees and why are they controversial. >> guest: the tool of the seven nominees are opposed by if

republicans. the two groups to nominate. one of the national labor relations board, the republicans battled over the board for years, and the other being the consumer financial protection bureau, richard kortright -- cordray but they do have a problem with and button pspb. and i will take you back to the beginning of 2012. when they are great blocking the senate president obama used the recess appointment authority and installed into the office. in the united states senate the republicans were furious. i mean, they said that this was.

and now it is actually before the supreme court. now, the democrats would say that look, this is an unprecedented mo republicans to the nominees because they don't like their board or their agencies and the nlrb. so here's where we are. we have to rethink the nominees need to be in place and drop their objections and improve that by 51 votes and not have to worry about getting 60 votes. if not, he says he is moving forward with a nuclear option changing the filibuster rules by using the process of allowing him to do that by 51 votes instead of 67 votes. that hasn't been done and carried out before. and that is what is really provoking this rule without rage among the republicans who say that once you go down that path any majority will continue to use the nuclear option until the

filibuster is gone altogether. it is all ahead next week. >> host: said it will happen on tuesday? >> guest: it looks like monday evening there is going to be a meeting. a very rare meeting along the senators from both parties in the old senate chamber, just off the senate floor. they are going to talk about the potential move. i doubt much will come out of the meeting over the dog and pony show perhaps, but really the more sycophant thing is whether mcconnell will allow the nominees to go forward by the simple majority rather than by a vote threshold to get them across. if he continues, that is going to take this on president of staff, and i think that is what we will see the next several days next week. >> host: why is this so significant, why would this fundamentally change the way the senate functions, and what has

been the response? >> guest: well remember, the nuclear option has been threatened over many, many years. going back to even the 70's when the folks were trying to force a change in filibuster rules and oftentimes there was so much concern using the process by the votes rather than the two-thirds majority that there was a deal cut to refer to the new option even in the mid-70s to reduce the filibuster threshold of embracing the phill filibuster from 67, and more recently, over this year when we blood once again threaten to change the filibuster rules but he called a deal with mitch mcconnell to make the very narrow changes in the filibuster rules and really didn't do a whole lot in the eyes of the folks who want to get rid of the filibuster in order to avert the nuclear option. so, if he does go down this route, he will be truly

unprecedented. and next congress, perhaps the future majority of republicans get confirmed, even the future democratic controlled senate, they may look back to this move by harry reid and they may say you know what it's been done before to weaken the filibuster because what harry reid is saying i just want to get rid of the filibuster and lower the threshold from 60 to 51 votes on the executive branch nominees. so the future majority would say i'm going to do it for the judicial nominee. there are implications for the supreme court for any lower court. the official majority says we want to get rid of the filibuster also come to get rid of all legislation for the amendments and everything. and so that is really fundamentally altered for how the senate operates. and turn it into a enriched majority rule which is what the proponents want and which because they feel

the senate is meant to protect the rights of the minority. >> host: you told us what harry reid is talking about and what he is waiting it out with. responding? is there any dissension among the senate democrats? >> only a handful. the senate to democratic launch where they discussed this issue but was almost like a cheerleading session which is what was described and how virtually everybody was united over this move. carl levin, the senator who is retiring at the end of next year spoke up against it, and he really was the only one at the meeting to do so. it's possible to move another vote from arkansas for the reelection next year that least some concerns he told me yesterday that he was leading note on the nuclear option. there were a couple on the defense of the veterans as well. jack reed for a violent others

think that he will come on out and vote yes as well as max baucus of montana. they will vote yes. even if they do vote know they will be 50/50 split and that would bring in the vice presidential biden who is widely expected to vote with senate democrats if they do this. and they almost certainly have the votes. she is very confident that he has the vote because this is being driven largely by the number and more junior senators who are now composed of a majority of the senate democratic caucus and who actually never saw the minority and they were filled up with the filibuster and they've seen what has been in impeding their progress over the years. >> host: one last question, one of the fall was on twitter says don't use the term nuclear because it makes one think of other things. so why the use of this long term? >> guest: you know it's a fair question. they will say this is actually the constitutional option.

they say that under the constitution, you know the majority rules, and this is something that the senate gets to set its own rules under the constitution, and so this is actually completely constitutional. that's what the proponents call it. the term nuclear option has some sort of the media was on in recent years. actually since 2005 when bill spriggs, the republican leader was morning that he would use this to confirm a bunch of george bush judicial nominees at the time people started calling it the nuclear option, and it's really caught on. so, and i should point out that that time republicans or democrats, the role was reversed. harry reid was furiously are giving against this saying it would blow up the senate, and mitch mcconnell was promoting it. so eight years later they are on the other side but we will see what happens next week. >> host: manu raju politico senior congressional correspondent, thanks for talking with us.

>> guest: thank you. >> as you've seen a lot of coverage coming up on the potential change scheduled for 12:45 eastern and as soon as he gets started we will have to live right here on c-span2 until he does, we will have a discussion from today's washington journal on the republican efforts to repeal the

health care law including the legislation coming to the floor next week that would delay for one year the employee or an individual mandate called for under the health care law. representative tom price is the guest republican of georgia where he represents the sixth district. thank you for being here. >> guest: great to be with you. >> host: on the federal health care law yesterday house speaker john boehner announced a vote next week to delay the implementation of more items of law to it how will this be different than the votes that the house has taken to repeal law which hasn't gone anywhere. >> host: the landscape has changed and has admitted with their own delay of the employer mandate for a year from january 1st, 2014 to 2015. adel all isn't workable at least employers from their perspective we believe that is the case. and we believe that that ought

to be codified. the congress ought to ratify that and say it is unworkable and we ought to require employers to comply with the law itself right now for the next year. but we also ought to do that for individuals. why should businesses have this delay but not plain folks across the country? we will have a vote next week in the house of representatives on a one-year delay for the employer mandate and for the individual mandate from january 1st, 2014 to january 1st, 2015. >> host: there's been some criticism and commentary pieces and putting by dana milbank that they want it both ways they are critical of the wall and yet they were critical of the delay of the mandate for the largest employers to provide insurance in 2014. >> guest: many people believe -- and we've heard from them across the country -- many people believe the president doesn't have the authority to do what he did. the law is the law and under the executive branch charged with carrying out the laws of the

land and executing those laws fifa late. many people believe that he doesn't have the authority to do what he did. we believe it is appropriate to be late for a year and so that's why in the congress we will act and how were impatient first act. >> guest: a la the folks will say republicans what is your idea, what are you going to do with health care? i've spent 20 years taking care of patients in the atlanta area and i know there are all sorts of challenges in the health care system and i know there are positive solutions that have the fundamental principle the patient and family and doctors who ought to be making medical decisions, not washington, d.c.. and so the empowering patience first act h.r. 2300 is a bill that demonstrates how you can do this in a patient centered place and you can get folks covered with coverage they want for everybody to the coverage they want for themselves, not that the government forces them to bite. it can solve the insurance challenges and there are some out there. affordability and preexisting

being the primary ones. you can save hundreds of billions of dollars through the lawsuit abuse reform and all of that without putting washington and george or raising taxes. we believe there are positive solutions and that is what h.r. 2300 incorporates. >> host: should every american have health insurance? >> guest: everyone should have access to the health care coverage they want for themselves. to have the government to dictate to them what they ought to have in their health care coverage, that's not america. that's not who we are as a people. but a lot of folks say we have a someone that is 23-years-old healthy fellow and there are a lot of them across this land. if they want a high deductible catastrophic plan because it best suits them and their pocketbook, then they ought to be able to do so. instead, what the law currently says is no, you can't have that. you have to have a soup to nuts health care plan. every american should have access to health care and that is what h.r. 2300 thus. >> host: did you sign it

because the health care expansions -- >> guest: he was on through his college career. >> host: what is a successful component of the law that he would retain allowing younger people to stay on their parents' health insurance while they work their way through college and figure out the job market. >> guest: people find that to be helpful. insurance companies themselves found it to be helpful and the largest insurers in this country said that they will continue that regardless of what the law says. >> host: if you would like to talk with congressman tom price. here are the numbers, democrats 202-737-0001, a republican 202-737-0002 and independent 585382. you mentioned the patient centered solutions. tell us more details. >> guest: the definitions is the patients and families and doctors ought to be making medical decisions. why should we believe the folks in the wonderful buildings in the town right here should be making your medical decisions or anybody's medical decisions in the town and that is what the

law currently does if it is allowed to continue for the independent advisory board and dictate exactly what physicians can do for a given a diagnosis or a certain set of symptoms. we simply believe -- i simply believe -- physicians as my colleagues i know they -- the training they went through, the education they went through -- they are the ones along with their patients and families that ought to be making the decisions. that is the patient center health care is. >> host: vice chairman of the budget committee he also serves on the ways and means committee and education and the work force. as he mentioned, he's a doctor pit he had a private medical practice for 20 years in his home state of georgia. let's hear from a collar, nancy is from lagrange. but morning. >> caller: hello. i would like to ask what republicans have in mind to bring down health care costs because that is what this is

about. i think we need to do something about the reform. by the way, there are only three places in the constitution that require a two-thirds vote vito judicial nomination and the constitutional amendment. >> host: are you talking about that because we were discussing the filibuster earlier this month? >> caller: yes, ma'am. >> host: let's go to congressman tom price. >> guest: cost in health care have increased significantly and there's a lot of reasons for that. we are an aging society and the technology that exists but when you look at the cost drivers of health care we haven't addressed them into law and the aca was passed before. the biggest drivers of the cost of health care are the same as in most businesses with an addition of another one. the taxation cut taxes are we too high. we have the highest business tax rate in the industrial world so they have to be paid and they aren't paid by businesses they are paid by people who go to the businesses in the case of health care they are paid by

individuals with hospitals and doctors and paid by the patient. regulations that future regulations and an over burdensome regulation especially in health care i know this because of my own medical practice and i know this because i continue to hear it from my colleagues back home who continue to find it extremely difficult to just comply and they pay huge amounts of money to comply with regulations that don't necessarily improve the health care of anybody in the than the issue in engender earlier this litigation lawsuit abuse. we have been litigious society and the cost not just of the malpractice rate for the physicians and hospitals but it's significantly high and the price of the practice of the defensive medicine which is what your doctor does and every doctor does to make certain that if they are never called in the court of law on the malpractice cases they can honestly say to the judge and the jury i don't know what -- when he wanted me to because i did everything when it wasn't necessary to treat were diagnosed the patient. taxation litigation if you address those issues through the

wonderful beauty and the greatness of america and the cost will come down we just haven't addressed the problems. >> host: pennsylvania. john, republican caller. go ahead. >> guest: >> caller: this is what i've heard in the last year's on the mandate. the former republican senator from wyoming said that there are 15 million people in america that don't have health care and if you think that they are not getting health care coming you are fooling yourself. now, i think anybody that went to the emergency room knows that they have been receiving free health care and it's sad that it costs everyone that house health care a thousand dollars extra on their premium. now obamacare will mandate 30 million of the people have to

contribute to their health care. the 20 million that won't, the largest part of them are illegal. marco rubio insists that the illegals will not be eligible for obamacare and they will continue to receive free health care. so, why is it fair to force 30 million people to contribute to their health care but the 20 million who still will not contribute to their health care. >> guest: it's a great question. the issue is what was the government going to play in this and sadly where we are in law the government is dictating and forcing people to buy health coverage they think they ought to have. as opposed to allowing individuals the liberty and freedom to be able to purchase the coverage they want.

what we believe, and there are challenges out there. some people have a pre-existing illness or disease and they are priced out of the market. that is a problem and we need to address that and the way to address that to make it so that it's responsive to people so that works for patience, not government is to make it so that the individuals who are in that individual and small group market can be priced out of their health care coverage are able to pull together see that the purchasing power of millions and then any one person's adverse health status doesn't drive up the cost for anybody else. so, they are wonderful solution to the challenges that we face in health care that don't require putting washington in charge. we of the families and doctors making those decisions, not washington, d.c.. >> host: congressman tom price of georgia representing the 15th district. let's hear from jenny on the independent line. >> caller: yes, i would like to say that we've looked at him from georgia to represent the

people of georgia. and not that he party and everything like that. what he needs to do is -- what have they offered? they didn't have insurance before what do they have to offer? day strike everything. today they are coming up from the republican party all they would have to do now is think if they work together what they can do. >> guest: think what we could get done if we work together. you are right to the town is extremely frustrating. it's frustrating for those trying to put forward positive solutions. i talked over the last ten minutes about a positive solution that i have and others have proposed for health care

that again puts the patient is in charge doesn't have washington dictating to you when you have to buy and make certain that everybody is able to afford and have access to health coverage comes all stoppages saves hundreds of billions of dollars without kaput in washington and georgia and raising taxes. some yes there are wonderful positive solutions. we talked about that here in the student loans. we have a bill to solve the student loan challenge that sits over in the senate and we passed a budget that actually gets balance over a period of time and some pro-growth tax reform that allows the economy to thrive. but we haven't had any willing partner on the obverse side of the aisle, especially in the senate. so yes there are positive solutions, you bet coming and we are working on them as hard as we can be i just wish that we had a willing partner that was desirous in coming to the table and working together. >> host: how do you improve the relationships in congress and then the public perception of the congress work? we are watching the senate moved closer to the so-called nuclear

option changing the filibuster rules here is the front page of the "the washington times" today. you're not in the senate but what could the republicans for example due to have a better relationship? >> guest: jimmy hit on it. it's working together. i am amazed the vast majority of people in congress, 435 in the house and in the senate, the most of them have done something else in their life in the private sector than they've been wonderfully successful in their business or their community were their church group or certainly in their family. yet the kind of habits they have in those endeavors they bring to washington and then they forget them. we forget how to work together and work towards a common goal and recognize that everybody isn't going to get everything they want. when you have to work together and come up with a solution to the challenges we face in america are massive and huge and the american people expect us to get our job done. so for those of us that as i mentioned before as a physician

i spent 20 years taking care of patients i knew that when a patient can into my office everybody in the office was working to get that patient well, and wouldn't it be wonderful if in washington we were all working to get the patient well? >> host: is very good faith option they can do to standoff over nominees? should they acquiesce and be more willing to pass them through to get over the filibuster so the president's nominees can pick? >> guest: i am in the house so i don't have -- >> host: in terms of your conversation on how to have better relationships. >> guest: i will suggest that out of the 300 plus million people in this country that there are individuals who are qualified for the positions that are being considered in the senate who could get support on both sides of the aisle. that is what, that is the conversation that needs to occur but we don't have to have somebody from the far right or left to be nominated for these

positions. how about somebody that can gain the support on both sides of the aisle, that is the way that it ought to be done. >> host: legally on the democrat line. where are you calling from an louisianan? >> caller: lafayette i paid attention to the little briefings the senate had yesterday and the first thing that the republican side said was if the filibuster on law goes through they would repeal and put in the keystone pipeline. and i am afraid that the republican party is losing contact with the american people. since the health care law can then come i know for a fact the numbers have gotten better as far as the deficit and there are people who are now covered with health care that couldn't afford it prior to this and i would like the representatives comment

on that. >> guest: there are indeed significant challenges in health care and i believe you can solve those without putting washington in charge of h.r. 2300. the bill that i proposed is one of those ways. i would take issue with you on the fact of the cost coming down. the costs are going up and health care coverage. we have seen the administration promised they would come down $2,500 in fact they've gone up by about 2500. my physicians across the country even in lafayette louisiana, i know some doctors that were going to have to leave the practice and have to end practicing medicine not because they've gotten too old or forgot how to care for patients but because the owners regulations and the difficulty they have been caring for patients and complying with all of the rules coming from washington. in addition, we are spending ourselves to oblivion. we have nearly $17 trillion in debt in this country. first four years of the president's administration we had over a trillion dollars

deficit at it every single year more than ever before. ..

we're going to be working on the. i know chairman lucas will be working on that in his committee

so we can positively move a bill through the house of representatives that deals actively with food stamps and gives folks the kind of respect that they need and helps those who are most needy. we will do it in a way that incorporates the kind of fundamental principles that have continued to make america a great nation. if we are unable to get that done it's important for the american people to know because they hurt a lot of things yesterday that was in the country. that automatic spending, that mandatory spending continues. nobody is going to lose their food stamps because of the action in congress yesterday. >> host: congressman tom price republican of georgia, the sixth district is his home turf. is vice chairman of the budget committee. reading, pennsylvania, bill is joining us. >> caller: hello how you doing? i watch you guys very much because i'm trying to pass the 10% sales tax across the board including clothing. the old people don't have to

move out of their houses and you throw them in the street. so anyway, i just came back from europe and i got sick over there and i waited 12 hours to see a doctor. because i was an american citizen facing me back and i got done here in two hours. i want to tell the american people stop crying, you've got the best country in the world but within the congressman, the whole world, and this country is the best country in the world. we can build everything we want. but we have to compromise and work for the american people. not for republicans, not for democrats. democrats. i'm a barry goldwater boy. so god bless you into the right thing and stop playing games. every one of you stop playing games. the american people have to start learning how to vote because they're so stupid they don't have no idea. thank you. >> guest: thanks, bill. you're right. this is the greatest country in the history of the world. if you step back from all of the political battles, and they

drive people crazy and i know that. they drive most of us in this town crazy. if you step back, you appreciate that america has provided more opportunity most excess and more freedom and more dreams realized for more individuals than any country ever in the history of the world. it's a very special place. so for those of us who are here trying to pressure that and make certain that is accentuated and the policies that we put in place and didn't you to allow that to occur as opposed to block that then that's where the battle lines ought to be drawn on those fundamental principles to make certain we adhere to them. >> host: new orleans, louisiana. patrick, independent. >> caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. this is my first opportunity to ask equation of the congressmen. my question is little off-topic. as a member of the budget committee and as a republican congressman, i'd like to ask you what you're doing to socially conscious corporate

decision-making including publicly identifying companies with factories in the chinese provinces with the worst human rights violations? thank you for your response. >> guest: the budget committees or sponsor the is to outline the overall spending for the federal government and what it does is set their 11 different appropriations subcommittees and what it does is spend various levels of spending for the subcommittee. so the specificity of your question it really isn't necessarily the jurisdiction of the budget committee. however, i will say that the kind of activity in other countries from a labor standpoint is of concern. but the greatest concern is to make certain we create jobs right here at home, that we increase our economic vitality right here at home that would produce an economy that is growing and thriving so the american people are able to gain jobs and success and get their dreams realized. so that's the main focus of our activity in congress, as it should be to represent the american people. >> host: pennsylvanian on the

line. peter a democratic caller. >> caller: good morning, good morning. i'm very interested in this health plan program. what's happening, i want to the hospital on an emergency, and i was in the hospital with about 12 15 people. when i got my bill it was very, very high for three hours of service. when i called to inform why was the bill so high, they informed me you weren't in the hospital alone. so in other words, i was paying for the people that were there on emergency without health plan. what happens we have about 40 million now what happens if 100 million people have no insurance? or 209 people have no insurance? how could the hospital stay in business and keep emergency rooms open? explain to me how we could do that without causing people have insurance, like car insurance. i'm 82 i've had a car driving since 18 and had insurance,

never had an accident. but every year i have to have insurance. why can't i said i don't want insurance, i haven't had any accidents? just like people say wildlife have health insurance, i never got sick. well that's not what it's supposed to work. is supposed to so everybody is supposed to have money in the pot like everybody else. >> guest: peter, you're right. we believe strongly that everybody ought to have health coverage. we simply believe they ought to be able to select that coverage that they want for themselves and for the family and not the government forces them to buy. the difference between car insurance and is a sample is used often because people say you've got a car insurance if you going to drive your car and you're right. what the state says is you have to have a minimum level of liability coverage, and then you pick the kind of coverage that you won't. and if that is what the administration would have done, then they might even gain some support on our side of the aisle but that's not what the day.

what the president did is that this is a health coverage that you must buy but if you don't buy it then we're going to penalize you. and so then what that means is you've got the government defining what health care is here and once the government defines what health care is any defines what health care isn't, and if you believe that health is something the government doesn't believe it is that you want for yourself or for your family, it's something not going to be a fable. that's why we believe so strongly in patients and health care to patients and families and doctors making medical decisions house of representatives congressman tom price sits on republican committee. also the congressional health care caucus. we talked about his history as a doctor. he still a licensed physician is also a member of the tea party caucus. tweet from redneck. how is tax reform legislation coming? tell us something about the. >> guest: i sit on ways and means committee which has primary jurisdiction over tax policy and we believe strongly that the tax system that we currently have punishes folks

who want to create jobs punishes success, punishes hardware. and punishes businesses want to create more jobs and we believe that the system we have ought to be reform in a positive way in three specific ways. one come as i mentioned before we have the highest tax rate in the industrialized world when it comes to job creations, entrepreneurs. if it does is looking at their business plan and they see the line that says taxes and they see the line this is america and this is now go somewhere else in the world. the world has gotten a very small. you can have a business almost anywhere. so we want a business taxes to be competitive with the rest of the industrialized world and we proposed that in a taxi from legislation that is forthcoming. secondly we believe that individuals ought to be able to get more of their hard earned money. we think that individual spend their money more wisely than washington spends their money. and when you take money out of the hands of the american people than you decrease the vitality within the economy so we think we have to get and we're very

simple flat and much care system. i'm a supporter of the fair tax. that's not the direction the conference is going, doing away with the irs doing away with the income tax because again i believe that punishes individuals hard work. and then finally there are a lot of american businesses that do business overseas, and they are punished bring their business, bringing the profits back year from a tech standpoint. we don't think that's appropriate either. so significant reform positive business taxes individual taxes and making it so that profits can come back here to create jobs. were working on the. under chairman camp, chairman of the ways and means committee of the house ought to hopefully warm the hearts of the. chairman baucus as a democrat, are working together to try to make certain that the entire congress can move forward on tax reform. >> host: republican caller in scranton, pennsylvania. william, high. >> caller: thank you for your time this morning.

my question representative price, is regarding the state exchanges. i live in pennsylvania where we did not open up the exchanges. my question would be to part. i do understand that it is the federal government does finance for 100% fully for the first three years, is that correct? >> guest: yes. it's 100% or 95%. it kind of friends done over a period of time. >> host: william are you still with us? >> caller: after the first three years, the state will be on the hook basically for the other 10%, if you will correct transit even more than that but i think we are confusing or combining both the medicaid expansion for a state and the state exchanges. state exchanges our federal

exchange by the definition of the law, our basement and an insurance brokerage come an opportunity to give of individuals find what health coverage is a fable to them. the reason that many other states, 26 of the state said no, we're not going to set up, we will leave it to the federal government is because they would have to bear the cost of setting up those exchange and then again the problem with regulation, the federal government dictating without any control by the state. 26 at least that we're not going to do that. >> host: independent line. >> caller: good morning. mr. price i'm not sure what your point is that your assessment is completely dishonest. most people can't get insurance if they're not well. and if you look around the country, most people are getting increasingly sick with the poor eating habits obesity levels are skyrocketing. and that's under the guise of liberty and freedom to go out and kill yourself. i have fantastic insurance.

it's not my problem but i do see it as a problem for all of us. and just remind the american people, why don't you tell us how well you are doing from 2000-2006 when you full control of the government and how well we were doing in pursuing these things to solve america's problems? thank you for your time. >> guest: thanks. i wasn't here for the fast maturing of that time period however as a physician i can tell you that the folks who are against immediately challenged by pre-existing illnesses and priced out of the market, those that are in the individual and small group market nobody on medicare has a problem with pre-existing illness or injury. nobody on medicaid. nobody on the self-insured plants because the pools are large enough. so yes, it's a real challenge for many individuals in this country, those in individual and small group market, and there's a wonderful positive solution that allows those folks to pull together with the purchasing power of millions so nobody health status, nobody's adverse

health status drives up the cost for other folks but the reason that's important can is that it allows you, you to determine what kind of health coverage you have, not the government dictating to you what you must buy. house of representatives if you do away with the irs who will collect the taxes tracer if you think about it you you would have the revenue department every state has a revenue department. we certainly need to collect revenue in this country. by the irs, great question because it gets to the issue of the internal revenue service. and what they've done and clearly over the past number of months we've seen the internal revenue service has been doing things that they ought not do and that are important to the american people. targeting certain groups based upon their political ideology as opposed to just collecting the taxes leaking the donor lists for those groups that were targeted, and then not only leaking the donor groups, targeting the donors for audits. this is chilling stuff but when you have a government that gets

so large and so expensive and so oppressive it just this is a republicans and democrats this is the government coming after just plain folks. it's very chilling. and we're going to continue to work on it and make certain that we haven't internal revenue service, a revenue department of the federal level that is responsive to people and respectful of the american taxpayer. >> host: its talk about immigration for a moment. immigration reform. what are you opposed to the senate bill? >> guest: the senate bill as i understand is one that puts the legalization process before anything that relates to border security, before anything that relates to enter enforcement before fixing the visa system to give think about, you don't need to go far to get the poster child for a broken system. with a broken and aggression system. one of the boston bombers, the young man who blew up the bomb at the boston marathon from one of those individuals came to this country for asylum from another country and then revisit

the country had gained asylum from in the united states freely a number of times. so didn't sing he needed much protection from the country. then when he reentered this country he reentered it on a student visa had expired. this is a terribly broken system. what we need to do is fix the system the best way to start the process is to regain the trust of the american people that was lost back in 1986 win in a bipartisan fashion we said we would control the border, secure the border and provide a pathway to citizenship for the 3 million individuals who are here illegally at the time to we did away with the border security. we need to regain that trust and secure this board and then i think we can have a much more honest sincere and heartfelt conversation debate about what the immigration system ought to look like. >> host: "the wall street journal" this week says republicans have a choice. they can be used as a part of opportunity or close borders. are you concerned about your party's stance on immigration

and the possibility of not seeing anything pass both bodies of congress and the president consign? >> guest: i'm hopeful we can move forward. i don't think those are mutually exclusive but i think you have secure borders and had a wonderful country with great opportunity. there's no reason that we can't do that. to think of those on mutual exclusive i think is the wrong premise. we are a nation of immigrants. my forefathers came here long before the revolution but most individuals who live in this country, their forefathers and his ancestors came from somewhere else. we believe in immigration, legal immigration but we believe that it's important to have the rule of law. you can't have a country without secured borders. then it's just a territory. so there's the wonderful, again, positive ways to solve this challenge. i hope we can get together. i'm hopeful that the president wants a solution. we've heard some voices out of his administration does seem to want this as a political issue and not as a solution.

>> host: looking at the politics of it a medical report that immigration reform is headed towards a slow death. they quoted one of our colleagues steve king, republican of iowa who said it would hurt republicans and they don't think you can make an argument otherwise, to a very three of the new citizens with the democrat. what do you think about congressman king's perspective on the? >> guest: i think you did the right thing in the politics follows the i don't get individuals out there as republicans or democrats. i give them out as americans and legal immigrants to this country. i view as potential american citizens. i guess potential republicans or democrats. the politics will take care of itself if you do the right thing. what we need to do it again is to have the rule of law respect the constitution, make certain the control and secure the borders not just for the illegal immigration that occurs but for safety for our country.

it's the primary duty of the federal government is to provide safety for the american people. >> host: let's get more calls in for congressman tom price. michael joins us from port st. lucie, florida on or democrats line. >> caller: how are you doing? good morning. my question is that how is the uninsured preventive care and you believe in preventive care as a physician? >> guest: absolutely. preventive care and wellness and the kinds of things that we try to do for our patients is part and parcel of every single medical care in this country. and it ought to be. a caller earlier mentioned the challenge of obesity and we've had huge problems with obesity in this country. and so we got to be doing is setting up a system that encourages individuals to be well, to get well, to participate in the preventive services. it might surprise you to know that actually the private sector is there's a safeway company

that actually is one of the best records ever in the area of prevention and wellness and they do so by instance advising their employees, those patients that our employees in the company, to make certain that they do participate in wellness programs, that they do participate in preventive care. you can't be a member of the healing arts without believing that prevention is white. >> host: new york john republican. go ahead. >> caller: i just love c-span and one thing for sure come in the summer before the transform was enacted on -- the affordable care act people should up and recognize all across the country at various meetings of the congressmen, and they said in no uncertain terms if you pass this you are going to be in trouble. and in 2010 they voted to people about. this is why the people don't want it, and i think we have a little revisionist history when we don't understand that people were very clear. they didn't want this from the beginning and they don't want it

now. thank you. >> guest: thanks. i appreciate it. and it's true, the american people by significant numbers, some polls have upwards of 60% are very concerned and think that portions of this law if not the whole law ought to be repealed and move in the direction of patience and help you. the reason is we don't want washington, you don't want washington in charge of health care. i promise you that the good people their bottom line is the bottom line. it's not called health care and that's what you need to make certain that the medical decisions are made between you your family and your doctor. that's the principle we ought to adhere to your. >> host: west virginia independent line. welcome, frank then thank you. thank you very much. how are you doing? >> guest: i'm well thanks to the great state of west virginia and a beautiful mountains. representative, i've got to ask you a couple of questions. it sounds like you're selling insurance. because it was insurance companies that's made many decisions for me that really

wasn't for my health but it was for their bottom line. and i would like to know what you all are offering for health care bill. i mean i'm a little confused here. it seems like it's all about the riches once get the best care and those who are a little bit like, we don't get the care like you all get. but you'll have a good me now and god bless house of representatives before we let you go, what do you want to see in a health care bill proposed by congressman price? what is a must-have for you? >> caller: well, i think health care is right there really shouldn't be a privilege. i feel there's times in situations to wear you know you just can't swing it. no matter what you do you can't swing a deductible. you can't swing a copayment. they don't seem to offer anything else but they're always looking at that, they talk about the government health care. insurance is and told the whole way through. but the god bless you.

he is out there and he's got the guts are sitting up there and telling us that. but i just think a bunch of health but i don't think it should be a choice that we have to lose something or sacrificed so much in order to get necessities. >> host: let's get a response gasping i agree everybody should get health coverage. you're right. there's this notion that is either the government in charge or insurance companies in charge. imagine a system which i believe is the appropriate system, the patient centered system i can talk about where it's not government or insurance copies and george. it's you and your family and her doctor in charge. and way to do that is incorporate it in h.r. 2300, and that is every single person ought to be able to own their health coverage regardless of who is paying. then you become the customer of the insurance company, not to employer, not the government not anybody else. you as an individual. imagine how a system would be theatthe insurance company had to be responsive to you. that's a system that we believe

is the most responsive to patients. again allows patients and families and doctors to make those medical decisions and not the wonderful folks in these great white buildings in the stem. >> host: congressman tom price, he represents the sixth district as we talked about this morning he is a doctor himself and had a private practice for 20 years in his home state of georgia. he sits on the budget committee on ways and means also education and workforce. thank you so much. spent a live look now at the white house press briefing room. we expect press secretary jay carney to begin shortly. when he does we'll have live coverage right here on c-span2. some of the things we expect to hear about at the briefing today would be the budget, homeland security secretary janet napolitano stepping down to take a position at the university of california system. she will add that a. that include ucla and the university of california berkeley. a statement released today by thethe secretary can she's is the opportune the dedicated men and women of the department of

homeland security who serve on the front lines of our nation's efforts to protect our communities and families from harm has been the highlight of my professional career. president obama releasing a statement also today saying he wants to thank secretary napolitano for her outstanding work on behalf of the american people over the last four years. at the department of homeland security and its portfolio has included some of the toughest challenges facing our country. she has worked around the clock to respond to natural disasters from the johnson tornado to hurricane sandy. helping americans recover and rebuild. since day one janet has led my administration's efforts to secure our borders, deploying a historic number of resources while also taking steps to make our immigration system more fair and more consistent with our values but the president went on to say and the american people are safer and more secure, thanks to janice leadership and protecting our homeland against terrorist attacks. i have come to rely on janet's

judgment and advice but i've also come to value her friendship as she begins a new chapter in a remarkable career of public service, i wish you the best of luck. that again a statement released today from president obama. questions about the dispute in the senate over the filibuster over the presence executive nominees and we had a chance earlier today to speak with a capital the reporter the subject subject. >> here to tell us more and explain how we've gotten to this point is political scene a congressional reporter joining us on the phone but thanks for talking with us. >> guest: good morning. >> host: first of all, give us a background of what this fight is over. who are these nominees and where the controversial? >> guest: well two of those seven nominees are opposed by republicans. that's just two groups of nominees. one, the national labor relations board, republicans have battled over that board

four years. and the other being the bureau of financial protection government richard cordray to head the agency or republicans don't have a problem with cordray but they do the problem with the cpb. they want to fundamental change that. i'll take you back to the beginning of 2012 when the fight over the nlrb nominee and the cb nominees, gridlock in the senate that president obama went to use his recess appointment authority and install flows, install them into office but that caveat in all that was this happened during the pro forma session of the united states senate. and republicans were furious. i mean they said that this was something that was unconstitutional, it went to court and now is before the supreme court. now, democrats will say that look this is an unprecedented

move by the republicans to block nominees because they don't like their board or the agency. and the nlrb they say will cease to function if it doesn't have a full board. .. , any judge or jury will use the nuclear option until the filibuster is gone altogether. it all comes will head next

week. >> that happens tuesday. >> that monday evening there is going to be a meeting, very rare meeting among senators from both parties in the old senate chamber just off the senate floor. they are going to talk about the potential move, i doubt much will come of the meeting other than a dog and pony show perhaps but really the more significant thing is whether mitch mcconnell will allow these nominees to go forward by simple majority rather than demanding a 60 vote threshold that gets across. if he continues to demand that this unprecedented step, that is where we will see over the next several days. >> why is this a significant. how will this fundamentally change the way the senate functions and what is the response? >> the nuclear option has been threatened over many years going

back even to the 70s when folks were trying to force change in filibuster rules and there was so much concern about using this process to change the rules by 51 votes rather than two thirds majority that there were deals cut to enforce the nuclear option even in the mid 70s the reduce the filibuster threshold from taking it from 67 down to 60 and more recently this year, when read was planning to change the the most rules but he cut a deal with mitch mcconnell to make a very marriage changes and filibuster rules that didn't do a whole lot particularly in the eyes of the folks who want to get rid of the filibuster in order to avert the nuclear option so if we don't go down this route it will be truly unprecedented. next congress, future majorities

if republicans get control region future democratic control they mimic back to this move by harry reid and they may say it has been done before and we are going to weaken the filibuster because what reid is saying i want to get rid of the filibuster, lower the of threshold from 50 to 60 one votes, it had executive-branch nominees, future majorities may say i want to do with judicial nominee with implications for the supreme court or any lower court award majorities that say we want to get rid of the filibuster for all legislation for amendments, everything. that could really fundamentally alter power of the senate operates and turn it into a body in which the majority really rules which is what proponents want and critics sphere because they fear the senate was meant to protect the rights of the minority. >> you told us what the majority

leader of the senate, harry reid is talking about but how are democrats responding? is there any dissension among senate democrats? >> only handful. yesterday the senate democratic lunge where they discuss the issue, it was almost like a cheerleading session or that is how it was described in which virtually everybody was united over this move. a michigan democrat, retiring at the end of next year, spoke against it and was the only one to do so. it is possible, democrat from arkansas who is up for reelection next year who voiced concern, told me yesterday he was leaning no on the nuclear option there are a couple who were on the fence who are veterans as well jack reed of rhode island is a possible no although people think he will vote yes as well as max baucus

of montana who called the vote yet, it will be 50/50 split and that will bring in vice president joe biden who is widely expected to vote with senate democrats. they almost certainly have the votes that harry reid wants -- very confident he has the vote because this is being driven largely by younger, more junior senators who compose a majority of senate democratic caucus and who actually never served a day in the minority and are fed up with the filibuster. they have seen what has been impeding their progress over the years. >> one of the followers on twitter says don't use the term nuclear because it makes one think of other things. why the use of the strong term? >> a fair question. proponents of this a this is the constitutional option.

it is in the constitution, majority rules and this is something the senate sets its own rules under the constitution so this is completely constitutional. that is what proponents call it. the term nuclear option is what the media has seized on in recent years, since 2005 when bill swift the republican leader was warning he would use this to confer a bunch of george bush judicial nominees. at the time people started calling it the nuclear option and it has caught on. i should point out the republicans and democrats, if their roles were reversed, harry reid was furiously arguing against this to blow up the senate and mitch mcconnell was promoting it. eight years later the other side. we will see what happens next week. >> manu raju, thank you for talking with us, politicos' senior congressional correspondent. >> back to the white house

briefing room, a minute or so from spokesman jay carney coming up. quick reminder you are hearing that reporter talk about the senate. they are back in session monday at 2:00 and we will have live coverage on c-span2, general speeches scheduled for 2:00, later in the day at 6:00 senators from both parties will meet in the old senate chamber to discuss proposed changes to filibuster rules, the normal senate chamber and we will not have cameras there but we will cover that story on all the c-span networks. also if you are interested we are -- more on the filibuster potential rule change, a change going on on c-span hosted by the heritage foundation which includes former science -- senate parliamentarian on c-span. live coverage of today's white house briefing on c-span2.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the [inaudible conversations] >> the associated press, stars us off. i have no one else. ed snowden has said he would like asylum in russia if he is willing to agree to their demand not to release information to them. what is your message today to

russia about the implications of that would be for their relations with the united states. >> our position on ed snowden and the charges against him, i believe he ought to be returned to the united states to face those felony charges as it was. we communicated it to a variety of countries including russia summit is no different than it was and i would say providing a propaganda platform for ed snowden runs counter to the russian government's previous declaration of russia's neutrality and that they have no control over his presence in the airport. it is also incompatible with russian assurances that they do not want ed snowden to further damage u.s. interests. opposition remains that we do not believe this should end we

don't want it to do harm to our important relationship with russia and we continue to discuss with russia power strongly held view that there is absolute legal justification for him to be expelled, for him to be returned to the united states to face the charges that have been brought against him for unauthorized leaking of classified information. >> more about the president's session with the attorney general, eric holder's report on media relations. >> the president did meet with the attorney general, the attorney general did discuss with him and present that report the department of justice will be releasing that report this afternoon but i refer you to them. >> that indicates the president did accept as it was presented. >> that is a fair assessment. we don't have a statement or comment before it is released but i believe the department of

justice is releasing it today. >> un secretary napolitano's departure, any discussion for us or any timeline for that? >> i have no names to float. i would say the president greatly appreciate secretary napolitano's four plus years of service and if you think about it, those 4-1/2 years account for almost half of the existence of the department of homeland security and she has a remarkable job and on her watch there have been numerous issues that have required her experts attention, the age 1 and 1 virus, bombings in boston, hurricanes sandy to the devastating tornado in tuscaloosa and elsewhere, the deepwater for eisen oil spill,

floods we have seen in this country and with her leadership has function data very high level and is also the case with secretary napolitano at the helm we greatly enhanced our border security including the doubling of border patrol agents and that is due in some measure to her leadership and the president appreciates that and wishes her well. the timeline for replacement i believe has been put out that she remains in position in july-september and the president will be very deliberate about looking at potential successes but i have no announcements to make. >> are you saying there would be no repercussions to u.s.-russian relations if he is granted asylum? >> i won't spike about something that hasn't happened. what i would say is we don't

believe this issue should do harm to the relations between russia and the united states and we are working with the russians and made clear to the russians our views about the fact that mr. ed snowden has been charged with serious crimes and he should be returned to the united states where he will be granted due process and every right available to him as a united states citizen facing our justice system under the constitution and we will continue to have those conversations and we made very clear our views. >> have the russians communicated anything to you recently about him? >> i don't have any specific conversations to read out except we are in conversation with russian officials as we are with other officials from other nations when we talk about issues of what nations might be transit points or potential destinations for ed snowden were he to leave the transit lounge

of the airport, but the conversation, the conversations that have been held reflect everything i am telling you in terms of our views on this matter. >> ed snowden wrote in an open letter, engage in unlawful campaign to his right to seek asylum. is that when you see it? >> no, he has been charged under the law with three felonies, a very serious crimes, and every aspect of the united states system of justice is available to him on his return to the u.s. to face those charges and that is how our system works. we have communicated with nations around the world, our view that ed snowden should be returned to the united states

because of the charges filed against him and that is normal practice, when charged with felonies and revocation of his passport because he did not have travel papers or a valid passport, he ought to be returned to the united states where he will face justice in a system that affords defendants all rights that every american citizen enjoys. >> how does the next homeland security secretary nominee not get tangled up in the politics over immigration reform? this debate that is happening on the hill? for that matter, this whole method that started yesterday with the nuclear option between the majority leader and mitch mcconnell? >> the potential nominee, let me address the first question

related to immigration. as i noted earlier, secretary napolitano has done a remarkably effective job in fulfilling one of the major responsibilities that position requires when it comes to overseeing border security function of our federal government, the sea bp and overall enforcement and talked all week about all the metrics by which you can measure effective enforcement and changes in enforcement demonstrate great improvements and that is another measure of that is the fact the number of border security agents has increased dramatically in the last five years. i don't expect the transition that will take place at the department when it comes to enforcing immigration laws will become entangled in politics

over legislation that has broad bipartisan support from law enforcement community's when it comes to enforcement issues and faith communities when it comes to the morality of the immigration reform and business communities when it comes to the economic and business benefits of immigration reform so we don't expect that to be an issue. on the other matter we made clear the president is frustrated with the obstruction we have seen from republicans when it comes to the confirmation process not only has he made it clear he included sections about it in two state of the union addresses including 2012 so we share the frustration senator reid has talked about. we have highly qualified executive branch nominees up on the hill, nominations up on the hill today who continue to be obstructed, who have been held up for under days.

that is not how the system should work. when it comes to next steps we the fur to senator reid and are appreciative for all he has done and all he is doing and will do to ensure the president's qualified nominees are confirmed. >> does the president believe the majority leader should go through with the nuclear option? when senator obama was in the senate he once said when roles are reversed and the majority threatened to use the option he said i fear the partisan atmosphere in washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to bring on anything and that is not what the founding fathers had in mind. given his previous statement done this he would agree with senator mcconnell. >> he would agree with this statement from senator mcconnell, quote, i think the president is entitled to end up or down, simple majority vote on nominations both to his cabinet and the executive branch and

also the judiciary. senator mcconnell, spring 2005. the fact is senator obama's comments was the situation has gotten exponentially worse since republicans gained -- in the last several years under senator mcconnell's leadership, the obstructionism has doubled. the number of days nominees have to wait, the kinds of obstacles and gridlock created by this refusal to take up and consider and confirm highly qualified nominees. look at tina mccarthy no question about her qualifications. use enormously qualified for the position to which she has been nominated, a position similar to the windshield and the state of massachusetts for governor mitt romney more than 100 days her

nomination has been pending. richard coeur dray --cordray someone with support from republicans and democrats, someone with republican state attorneys general who support him, someone about whom not a single republican senator has had a bad thing to say when it comes to his qualifications for the job to run this very important agency consumer financial protection bureau and he has done an amazing job as he has held that position and waited for actual confirmation by the senate. it has been two years. why has it been blocked? republicans in the senate simply don't like the fact the cftc's existence is the law of the land. president insisted that it be created and that it had strong

powers to protect consumers when it came to their rights using credit cards student loans and mortgages, and there is an enormous number of examples that demonstrate how effective already protecting consumer rights. republicans don't white that. >> senator reid should be cautious, exercising that option could fundamentally change the nature of the senate and essentials become like the house, playing with fire is it not? >> the president said in the state of the union address some of what is broken has to do with the way congress does business these days. simple majority is not enough to get anything, even routine business passed the senate, neither party is blamed for these tactics now both parties should an end to lead. i asked the senate to pass a simple will that all judicial nominations receive simple up or down vote in 90 days. unfortunately that recommendation has not been

taken out by republican leadership in the senate. end contained within that those remarks the president made at the state of the union address was an acknowledgment this is a problem, has been exacerbated by both parties but there is no question the world today is different when it comes to this issue, a way that it has been run and the obstructionism we have seen from republican leaders in the senate and republican members in the senate. is not the same and is a real problem. when it comes to senator reid, we defer to him on senate procedure, but we appreciate the support he has given and will give to the confirmation of the president's qualified nominees. >> susan, welcome. >> you said the administration is working with the russians. what does that mean?

is the president directly involved in these conversations? >> we have had conversations with russian officials at a variety of high levels. the president actually does have a call scheduled with vladimir putin later today, that is a call that has been on the books for several days so he will have that conversation. i am sure we will have something for you on it. and -- the point is we made clear in public and in our conversations a variety of levels including law-enforcement channels which is the normal mechanisms through which something like this is resolved ed snowden is wanted on three felony charges, has a history of

effective law enforcement cooperation with russia, with the russian government including very recently the bombings in boston at the boston marathon and through those channels and normal procedures we believe ed snowden ought to be expelled from russia to make his way home to the united states whereas a u.s. citizen he is afforded all but considerable rights afforded when charged with crimes and he has been charged with three felonies with very serious crimes the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive classified information. >> later this summer what impact would this have on the president going through that. >> the president plans to travel to russia for the g 20 summit in

september. i have no updates on his travel schedule beyond what we said already. wendell. >> rather than accept the entire report from secretary holder of, may ask any changes? >> we will have a statement or comment on it, the report has not been released so i won't comment on it at this time. it hasn't been released so when it is released we will have something to say about it. >> will it say whether -- any data at all? >> the president accepted the report but there will be something to say about it once it has been released. i don't want to have a discussion about a report none of you have seen. i want to be helpful and have the discussion after you have seen it. >> reservations? >> he said the report. >> that is all you got for me.

>> where do you stand? you said a decision about 2014 troop levels is not imminent. can you be more specific? does the president want to make a decision about a specific time line? >> i really can't be more specific because it is not imminent. we are talking about troop levels beyond the end of 2014 which is 18 months from now and we are in the process of further going down the troops at an end in afghanistan roughly 60,000 currently and we will be continually drawing those down as we hand over more responsibility to afghan forces. the president will be discussing with a national security team the issue of a potential residual force post 2014, as i

said earlier in the week the range of options depends on number of things and the range is full and goes to zero as we discussed as a possible option because the issue is as a number it is the fulfillment of our policy objectives and the two policy objectives we have when it comes to a post 2014 security relationship have to do with continuing to counter remnants of al qaeda and continue to train and equip the afghan national security forces and the president will with his team examine our options in how we fulfil those policy objectives working with the afghan government in those discussions, discussions on going with the afghans about bilateral security agreement, we have an important strategic partnership agreement that we continue to implement

with them that has to do with what will be regardless a very substantial commitment to afghanistan and afghanistan's future including a strong civilian -- >> on thursday and number of lawmakers including robert menendez made the argument the president should make a decision soon to reassure afghans that the united states -- does that add to the urgency? >> the president will be very deliberate as he has been with assessing our options and policy posture with regards to afghanistan. we have some assurances, 60,000 approximately men and women in uniform afghanistan today fighting for and leading for the fulfillment of a policy that is aimed at ridding that region of al qaeda and preventing afghanistan from becoming a safe-haven for al qaeda or al

qaeda like extremist organizations in the future. >> the arguments lawmakers are making is the uncertainty. >> 18 months from now. it is entirely proper and the american people expect we would be very deliberate about these decisions as we continue to draw down troops in keeping with the president's policy objectives and when the president has an announcement to make he will make it but it is not imminent the >> did the president and an indication that he is giving close to resuming negotiations? >> i don't see the afghan government but i haven't heard any updates on fat. >> president obama has been working actively to try to resume those negotiations? >> we have an excellent team the works on these issues and continues to work on them. i am not sure what that means, we talked about this issue several times this week. the president is always focused on and concerned about our troops in harm's way in afghanistan and the fulfillment of his policy in the region.

but that is something he thinks about and deals with every day when it comes to our negotiations with afghanistan and the afghan government we have very able personnel in kabu kabul and the pentagon and the department of state to engage in those discussions regularly. >> can you elaborate beyond what was in the read out yesterday about what president obama told chinese officials about the failure to extradite ed snowden? >> i can tell you is that we have been very clear about our disappointment with the way that situation was handled. deputy secretary burns raised fist and discussed this during the nfc nfc yesterday's or earlier today.

i think he said yesterday, quote, paraphrase rather we were disappointed with how the authorities in beijing and hong kong handle the ed snowden case which undermine our efforts to build the trust needed to manage difficult issues. said the u.s./china strategic dialogue, made clear the handling of the case was not consistent with the spirit of sunny land or the type of relationship the new model we both seek to build. the president also expressed disappointment and concern with china's handling of the ed snowden keys in his meeting with the n e d coachers. ..

>> isn't this contradicting what the president has been saying in the commitment to afghanistan? >> we do have an enduring commitment to afghanistan and whether we have a residual force or not that commitment will continue through our strategic partnership agreement, and will continue through a security relationship which will involve our effort to continue to go after the remnants of al qaeda in the region and help train and equip the afghan security forces. the question of whether or not there's a residual u.s. troop presence is something we have to negotiate with the afghan

government, but we aren't going to make a promise about a residual force if we haven't negotiated the circumstances of that with afghanistan. so, it has to be the case, as was said as long back as january, that one option is no troops. i'm not saying that's a preferred option, i'm just saying to suggest otherwise would be to make assumptions about negotiations that have not reached a conclusion. >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry? >> is it an option -- >> expressed preference. because the purpose here is not the checkered box and fulfill a quota in terms of the numbers. u.s. men and women in uniform would be in a difficult time in harm's way, as they are today. the choices we make about that are made it very carefully and have to do with very specific policy objectives. when it comes to a residual

force in a country like afghanistan, that is something that would have to be negotiated in the afghan government. it is not something that we would presuppose until it is decided. >> on trayvon martin the jury will be read the instructions after lunch today. is it confirmed by the white house what could happen after the jury makes a decision, particularly [inaudible] about reactions? >> well, april i would simply say this is an ongoing trial. you just mentioned and i am not aware of the timeline exactly, but you just said the jury is

going to be read instruction. to suggest our views or anyone's views, whether it's the president or anyone else come on an ongoing trial about to go to jury would be a mistake and potential outcomes and what might happen and an outcome. this is a jury in florida and in the united states. it's fulfilling its functions in a trial and the jury will obviously mean, you know, be made aware of the results of that when it happens. but i wouldn't want to characterize our views about it or the president's views about it because it's an ongoing trial. >> [inaudible] >> no, i understand it got a lot of attention at the time and there were a number of issues around it and the president commented on it but we are in a trial phase, and as soon -- at this time i don't have any further comments. >> i asked yesterday on the justice department they were

investigating -- >> again, whether the justice department is investigating is something that justice department would answer. i don't have an answer to that. >> with the attorney general -- the president even commented on that. the attorney general made the president aware what their plans or on this or is it something they can do by themselves? >> it's certainly something they can do by themselves, but commenting on something i just don't know about. so i would refer you to the justice. >> as you know, the house of representatives said the bill zeroed this stamp program. did the president sign a bill without some continued funding in there for food stamps? [inaudible] >> we put out a statement in the administration policy on this specific bill this deeply

deeply flawed bill. the administration opposes h.r. 4622 committee act of agriculture reform and risk-management act of 2013. and it is just reading further it's apparent the bill doesn't contain commodity crop reforms and invest in renewable energy. the bill also fails to realize attrition programs, which goes to which your question is about which benefits millions of americans and rural, suburban and areas of life. the supplemental nutrition assistance program as a cornerstone of assistance safety net and should not be left behind as the rest of the farmville advances. if the president were presented with this bill his senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill as a standard for a month the administration policy. for decades congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to pass a real comprehensive farm bills. the senate continues the

tradition this year and unfortunately the house republicans decided instead to pursue an exercise in partisanship and they passed a bill that lacks the insurance and doesn't invest in job creation in rural america and fails to reauthorize as i said nutrition programs that benefit millions of americans and for that reason, we oppose it. i think that there's been some pretty interesting comments on the house actions including by conservatives. and it is a pretty damning comment. these are two different issues, but the congress out before and the house and put together a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would reduce the deficit according to the cbo by $850 billion. it would help our economy grow and the labour force become more productive and would introduce into the business stream new entrepreneurs with job-creating ideas, further secure our border

significantly. huge upside. and outside with a lot of conservative goals achieved within this comprehensive immigration bill, including deficit reduction. then at the same time they have the farm bill at kutz this assistance program to millions of americans in the name of deficit reduction. far less significant reduction. smacks a little bit of hypocrisy to me, but not just me. >> the other side of the snowden issue is there have been more and more comments this week from the members of congress that the intelligence committee, starting with the director of clapper, either lied to congress or misrepresented what the nsa program is all about. any testament whether it will be on the administration to explain exactly here is what we are doing in here is why we need to do this? >> first of all, director clapper has addressed this specific instance and i would refer you to his comment.

here are the facts. congress has been briefed on these programs including public testimony, paper briefings and classified sections to beat i've seen reports of 22 briefings on the 702 program, 22 briefings and nearly as many on the program. but if you don't believe me come here is the leader and senator feinstein and congressman rogers and congressman king have said about this. they said the members were for the brief on these programs and there were not that many things those particular members of congress, republicans and democrats alike agree on what but they have been briefed on these programs and a lot of -- the representative mike rogers the committee has been briefed on the efforts over a regular basis and as a part of our ongoing oversight responsibility over the 16 elements of the intelligence community and the national intelligence program. the collection business records provision of section 702 of the foreign intelligence

surveillance act are legal, court approved and subject to an extensive oversight regime. the republican chairman of the house. so we are very much interested in coming and the president is very interested in this, he has said in a dialogue about these issues and debate about the issue and providing as much information as we can felt these programs, mindful of the sensitive nature by definition of intelligence programs designed to as their main goal to thwart potential terrorist attacks against the united states and our allies. but it is simply not the state that the individual members haven't been informed about these programs. >> senator merkley, senator udall, senator whitehouse and others -- >> some members -- i know there are some members of the briefings -- >> a specific question and they were told this information. >> i think, again, the fact is they've known about these

programs and prove they provided oversight of the programs and if some members don't show up i know some members choose appearances on cable television over these briefings, but the briefings exist and they have happened. >> thanks very much. the president offered amnesty international used by edward snowden when the show of any meeting with him. does the president have a message for groups that stand up for what they described as human rights? >> i will say a couple things about that. one, the groups do important work. mr. snowden isn't a human rights activist panicky is accused of leaking classified information, charged with three felony counts and should be returned to the united states where he will be acquitted for full due process. on the issue of human rights organizations, and russia, meeting with mr. snowden i think that we would urge the russian

government to afford human rights organizations the ability to do their work in russia throughout russia, not just at the moscow transit lounge. >> on the meeting with the attorney general today can you note with the attorney general powell to the president any information about whether the communities in florida have asked for the justice department all -- >> the meeting about the report the justice department is going to issue i wasn't in the meeting but i don't have any further information about it beyond that specific -- not that i'm aware of. i wasn't in the meeting. again it is about this particular subject that we discussed for the release of the report. >> they asked for help. >> i would refer you to the justice department as i said before. >> [inaudible] i don't know the specifics. obviously the secretary advised the president of her intentions

but i do not have a date for that. i can tell you the president believes sector napolitano has done an excellent job and is enormously appreciative of her service. she's been doing it for four plus years and while all of these senior positions in the white house and the administration are very demanding, hers is particularly so. so before and a half years represent a lot of hard work and a lot of dealing with a lot of very stressful issues no question. secretary napolitano has met every challenge. so i think he is very understanding when someone has devoted so much of her time and focus and energy to the fulfillment of her responsibilities in that job and wants to move on. he is very appreciative of the fact that she has left a legacy that that as a secretary of the department for nearly half of its existence, her successor

will be able to build on in a positive way in fact will be able to build on it comprehensive immigration reform is passed in the bill that we've seen in the senate if it becomes law because it provides substantial resources for the border enforcement. and to the legal immigration law that replaces four enhanced immigration and in a way that will bring enormous benefits to the economy. so, the president as appreciative of her service. >> and how the confirmation hearings are -- [inaudible] >> the president will nominate a very qualified person to fulfill that job and as we discussed in general, the president believes qualified nominees for executive branch positions ought to be

considered and performed. chris? >> very concerned about the fida there were some calls to boycott the 2014. at the end of last month putin signed into law the promotion. where does this call for a boycott and is there any idea [inaudible] >> i'm not aware of the call. i can tell you that the president and this administration makes it clear to our allies and partners around

the world our belief that lgbt rights need to be respected everywhere but i don't have a specific, i haven't discussed this with him on that particular issue. but broadly speaking we make our concerns about these issues known to countries around the world. and i think this came up in the president's trip to africa and he made that clear. >> [inaudible] >> not that i am aware of. but again, we make our concerns about the issues like this known to the countries where appropriate. >> [inaudible] executive order, but there's one more thing i want you to address. the national committee asked the administration about [inaudible] there is a process that is brought in the justice on this

agenda item you dispute that process going to the executive order? senate i've been very clear in answering your questions and questions the other day. our belief is that we think that inclusive employment nondiscrimination act which would enshrine into the wall strong, lasting and comprehensive protections against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is necessary. and the president and his administration will continue to work to build support, and we saw an important step this week when we end up in the committee. we are not there yet, but we are not arguing with you if you say that there are obstacles that end the faces to come into law. the fact is this is a good week and the progress towards passing and the president strongly supports the efforts undertaken by the senate democrats to the senate republicans to encourage the passage of this legislation and will continue to work with congress to see it done.

the rest of that i think that our position has been well known about the best means to pursue a lasting and comprehensive protections against the employment discrimination of the lgbt individuals. >> why would the treasury -- >> i am not familiar with an e-mail that you said was leaked to you. i can tell you what i know here in the white house. >> one more question. there are three democrats on the votes of the senate deutsch to get them on board. as the mccuish try to encourage every member of the senate to try to do the right thing and support that legislation. >> in the discussions that you are having with the committee on the hill jay what are you saying about the confidence from last month the confidence in the relationship with the opposition

council and the military council and the channels in terms of those all being stronger than the parameters of -- >> first as we said at the time we announced an expansion of the system in the military council. we cannot be tell every type of support we are providing, nor can we provide details about the timeline for the logistics of the delivery for every type of assistance. our assistance covers a range of different purposes and the goal of our assistance is to strengthen both of the cohesion of the opposition and the effectiveness of the supreme military council and its efforts to defend the syrian people against a repressive regime that has shown no boundaries and its willingness to kill civilians. >> we have with our allies and partners worked to strengthen the elements of the syrian

opposition that have in our view the best interest of the people in mind to it and of the teacher in syria in mind coming and we continue to work with those elements. as i said the other day we believe that the enhanced assistance that the president announced is very important given heavy assault that al-assad has been waging with iran and that is why the president believes it is necessary to move forward with that assistance. >> -- conversations on the hill of speeding up the process? >> we continue to consult closely with members of congress. >> thank you come jay. two quick issues. first on the doj issue putting aside whatever is and it can you tell us about the president's commitment to make changes in that area of the executive side? i know you talked about the

shield law. can we see as a subject or part of the continuing conversation? >> i think the president made it pretty clear his views about this issue and this matter on several locations. earlier when it was the focus of a lot of attention here in the briefing room and broadly with the press in washington. i don't want to characterize the next steps until everyone has had a chance to see the report. the president's views about this remain what they were coming and i think that he expressed them publicly pitted so i can't improve on them. >> the part about what it be the end of the conversation. >> i don't think the conversation ends. i think the conversation on this issue and other issues are -- i would expect them to continue. i'm not sure what you mean by the conversation to end. this is an effort to examine an issue in a way that reflects the

president's belief about the importance of the job. i will let the justice department speak to this report coming and then we will have a comment or statement afterwards [inaudible] >> i can tell you that the president and of the first lady will host the for our president george w. bush and barbara bush and members of the family for an event to honor the winner of the 5,000 daily appointed white award. as you might remember from the george h. w. bush administration the world's largest organization dedicated to volunteer service mobilizes millions of people to take action that is changing the world and recognizes individuals who are making a difference through service and volunteer some. the president very much looks forward to this event and he has a very high regard for the president and george w. bush

former first lady barbara bush and the bush family. so i know that he and the first lady are looking forward to this event and an opportunity to be with the former president and first lady. >> [inaudible] >> as you know one of the principles of ramadan is the principal in this conflict and it seems the detainees are being strapped down and having inserted into them against their will, so they are being forced into a conflict situation. >> i don't have anything new for you on our position. the president doesn't want these individuals to die. he is understanding of the circumstances are down this issue. he believes very strongly and is

working to make it happen that we need to close guantanamo bay. and as you know she talked about this not long ago and is taking steps to double our efforts to bring that about mindful of the fact we face obstacles from congress to limit on the specific candling i would refer you to the defense department to read >> the president believes in a woman's right to choose and a woman's right to privacy. does he also respect a man's right to privacy and choose control over his own body? in other words, if a man chooses that he doesn't wish to eat that he has that right to the estimate by understand the complexity of the issues but i don't have anything more to say beyond what i said earlier in the week which is the president is obviously concerned about

this but is also concerned that he does not want to see individual detainee's by. for more details on the handling i would refer you to the defense department. >> that they have the right -- >> again, victoria, i just don't have anything more for you on that he and a >> can you tell us any assistance in the hands of the rebels at this point in the last months and what it is beyond -- >> i think i said we will not detail the types of assistance we will provide and that is the case to the if you are asking has new assistants arrived, i would refer you to the defense department about the assistance programs that they oversee the state department about and the assistance programs that they oversee. the fact is we are working with congress on the issue that has enhanced military assistance. but i don't have anything about the specific shipments to provide to you. >> is there any kind of assistance in this area? >> we have been providing

assistance for quite some time now. so the answer is yes they're has been. >> last one. >> july 19th, the court ordered a collection. does the administration plan to renew that order? >> that is a question that we are addressing the department of justice. i don't have anything for you on that but thank you. >> that isn't the only topic that will be discussed but i just want to make clear was put on the books a couple days ago to read to you. i don't want to predict put into the president's mouth words that haven't been spoken.

i'm sure that he is aware of our views about mr. snowden to it and i know that issue has been discussed at a variety of levels between the two governments to get if i may i will read the week ahead as i just mentioned the president and first lady will host the first president george bush, barbara bush and members of the family to honor the members of the 5,000 daily point of light award. on tuesday and wednesday the president will attend meetings here at the white house. on thursday the president will participate in the embassador ceremony here at the white house. friday the president and the first lady will host the diplomatic corps recessions, the foreign and the diplomatic corps at the white house. that is your week ahead. have a great week everybody. thank you.

white house spokesman jay carney confirming that homeland security secretary janet napolitano will be stepping down to take a position heading the university of california system. in a statement, secretary napolitano said for more than four years i've had the privilege of serving as the secretary of homeland security. it is absolutely vital that we identify or enemy correctly

because it is very very hard to find someone that you don't identify correctly. and these attacks on our homeland and others such as the 2005 london bombing have been connected by a motivation and singular purpose: the underwear bomber, the times square attempt, the tsarnaev brothers and of those killing in the name of allah have the jihadist goal of islamic and the murder of free and innocent people in order to accomplish that goal. >> let me speak about social media and the old adage that you can't establish a relationship during a crisis. we have a significant presence on the social media when we have engaged not only in a one-way communication but in a dialogue of the community people love all sorts of issues day in and day out we were able to use it the minutes after the blast to

inform people as to where they can go and what happened where they could meet loved ones. there was an enormous amount of set in the community and we use the social media to tap that down. >> we wanted a representative look at american life. so i needed politics, business entertainment, food, finance, are art. i was interested in this recurring pattern that you see with gingrich and oprah and jay-z.

people who really began in humble places and they are not unlike the main characters. they sort of reinvent themselves as something new and find a new language and a new idea that is living in two americans and through that they build an empire and they can't stop building it. it is impaired with a corporation you have to keep growing even as a person come as a brand you have to keep growing. it sort of sets and where the language becomes a kind of parity of itself. and they no longer seem to be producing something good. they just continue to produce gingrich keeps writing a book after book. oprah is on the cover of every issue of her magazine. and so they become the celebrities that we are now familiar with who are just dominating our imagination and in a way have come to replace the institutions that have faltered in this period.

earlier this week, boston police commissioner edward davis told the committee the fbi needs to share interest threat information more frequently with local law enforcement. his remarks came during a hearing of the government's preparedness and response to the boston marathon bombings last april. other witnesses included the fema administrator and massachusetts undersecretary for homeland security. wednesday this hearing is just over two hours.

>> good morning to those of us that have joined us and especially those who stand. little less than three months ago the city of boston, where our oldest son christopher went to college, the city of boston suffered a heart attack terrorist attack during the 117th boston marathon. ironically he was there and not as a runner but he was there as a lot of people can across the country from mit and other schools just to be part of the celebration. the attack claimed the lives as we know of three observers and injured up to 300 people. as the events of april 18th unfolded, we wrestled with the fact that we were witnessing the

first successful terrorist bombing on u.s. soil since september 11th terrorist attacks. just as we did in the aftermath of 9/11 we must learn from the boston marathon bombing and that is why the committee underfoot the lessons learned from this act of terrorism. in the future time the committee will look at whether this tragedy could have been prevented. we will be looking at that. however, today's hearing will focus on the emergency response to the event that occurred on april 15th 2013. we will examine the preparations made by the city of boston and by the commonwealth of massachusetts to deal with the crisis of the nature. we will also assess how the city, state and the federal government responded once boston street was wracked by the to homemade explosions. for more than a decade, our country has worked to promote effective emergency response systems that helped cities and

states to mitigate the effect of the terrorist attack. in the years since 9/11 we have learned that it takes preparation and effective leadership in a coordinated response to minimize the impact and devastation caused by the disaster. by all accounts, boston had many of these elements in place on april 15th and the lives were saved as a result. today's hearing will take a step towards identifying the lessons learned from the preparedness for and response to the marathon at tax. we will look at what worked, what we could have done better, and how what happened in boston can help prepare communities across the country to deal effectively with emergencies. to help shed light on the lessons learned from the attack we have with us the officials who were on the ground on the day of the attack. we will also joined by an emergency management expert who's studied the response to the marathon bombing.

we look forward to hearing from each of you and working with you and others in the coming weeks and months to strengthen how the preparedness response teams across the united states paid and i will just close with this the colleagues you heard me say on the one account one of the key values is to focus on excellence in everything we do and i would like to say everything i do can be done better and the key is if it isn't perfect, make it better. and as well as a lot of people responded on the day the disaster occurred, we know we can do better and the key is to figure that out to take the lessons across the country in ways that are appropriate. with that welcome. >> thank you come senator carper. i appreciate being late. well and thank you for what you do. i will have a full statement for the record.

i look forward to hearing your comments and testimony as well was asking you some pertinent questions about what we have done in the past what's helped and what hasn't, what has been effective and what hasn't. thank you. >> dr. johnson, he's not really a doctor come he is just like me come a regular guy but it's nice to have you with us. we will briefly introduce the witnesses and ask each of you to show a statement and have others show up on our side and have a good conversation. our first witness is mr. richard sorino of the agency and after his appointment he served as the chief of the law boston ems and assistant director of the boston public health commission. he served as a commander for over 35 mass casualty incidents and for all of boston's major plans including the boston marathon. thank you for joining us today and for your service. we look forward to your testimony.

the next witness is mr. schwartz, the undersecretary for homeland security and emergency management for the commonwealth of massachusetts to the it is also the director of the massachusetts emergency management agency. and he serves as the homeland security adviser to the massachusetts governor deval patrick. prior to this position, mr. schwartz served as the assistant attorney general and chief of the criminal bureau of massachusetts putative in addition to working as a prosecutor in massachusetts mr. schwartz also served as a police officer and emergency technician. and we thank you for joining us today and for your services to people of the commonwealth of massachusetts. next mr. ed davis currently commissioner of the boston police department. mr. davis became the commissioner in december, 2006 after serving as a superintendent in the police department for 12 years. is there a marathon there? >> [inaudible]

>> he's been in law enforcement through 35 years and he appointed police commissioner ed davis as the head of the unified command putting in charge the overall response effort. commissioner davis we want to welcome you and thank you for your service. dr. arthur, an expert in disaster management. vice president and director at rand health and prior to this position he was a professor of emergency medicine at health policy at the school of medicine. he was also the chairman of the department of emergency medicine and the center for injury control school of public policy, public health. dr. kellermann at health focuses on the preparedness, intervention and health services. dr. kellermann, thank you for joining us today. i believe they recommended he be invited as a witness so we are glad you could join us and glad

you could join us as well. now we have on our side four. get your statement and feel free to summarize, stick to five minutes. you're entire statement will be part of the record and with that mr. serino. >> remember colburn and members of the committee, good morning. i'm richard serino of fema. on behalf of secretary napolitano and craig fugate i welcome the opportunity to be here to discuss the boston marathon bombing. as mentioned, i was in boston that tragic days of the breeding patriot's day in my hometown. i am here today not just as the deputy administrator but as a former paramount. april 15, patriots day and the boston marathon come together to create a day like no other in

boston. we pause to celebrate our heritage and streets filled with millions of residents and visitors from down the block and around the world. for most of my life i worked the same streets for boston ems and in the 36 year career the chief of the department 2009. there were many nights i went home proud to be part of the boston first responder team that never more proud than in the residence of my town that day in april. while one moment we saw the brutality and the next moment in the community we saw the communities love and compassion and the medical technicians, police officers, firefighters paramedics emergency managers spring into action and perform what they do heroically. as tip o'neill used to say our politics are local. we also know that the disasters are local. in boston is no exception. but fema is proud to support communities like boston and

efforts to prepare for and respond to comer recover from committed in mitigate to it as a medical commander in boston for as you mentioned, over 35 mass casualty and for all the city's major events including marathon i can assure you planning coordination of all local state and federal level plays a critical role in setting the executed response that did in fact save lives. i am also appeared today to express and discuss how it played a role in making the people on the ground more prepared that date. on april 15th the americans witnessed the strength of the whole community. people coming together to help each other and to make that response that much more effective and efficient. the communities and approach to the emergency management reinforces the fact that fema is only part of the emergency management team. there will be much leverage to the resources and happen to the collective strength of the citizens in times of crisis.

that day we saw how the approach to the national preparedness helped in power and strengthen the whole community including the city of boston and the commonwealth of massachusetts. through the prepared this resources including the training exercises, technical assistance and community preparedness programs we help ensure the people of responded to have the tools and equipment to be effective. following the event, fema culbert a did with a law enforcement public safety several partners and we are ready to help when the president issued the disaster for the affected communities. many of the capabilities demonstrated that day in the immediate aftermath would build enhanced and sustained preparedness and grants. as the paramedic and chief icahn contest to preparing the emergency medical and emergency management personnel in the public for all contingencies. both boston and massachusetts invest a federal grant funds and systems that were critical in the response including helping stand up and the emergency

tracking system and the web based application that facilitates the management in the system made a difference on april 15th. they used the preparedness grants to invest in the funding to invest in the mass casualty medical supplies and equipment. they were critical and crucial responding to the bombings. the massachusetts state police used forward-looking imagery and purchased the funds to search for and apprehend the surviving suspect. the grants for leveraged for the on-site security protection in quoting the equipment used during the event such as robots, x-rays equipment, hellman's and busts. first responders from boston and across the country plan, train the index a county to execute fema meeting them of the communities to deal with the incidents. since 2000 thousands of boston area responders received training from the emergency management institute and the fire academy and fema partners.

they train the swat teams and better integrate the techniques and tactical operations and critical capabilities demonstrated in boston. medical personnel were trained and exercise and how to respond to a mass casualty incident. it was no accident not a single hospital in the city was overwhelmed with patience for the aftermath of the bombings. was no accident the patients were appropriately treated country ought to and transported to the appropriate hospitals based on their needs. all these exercises and training sessions allow the key personnel to live a critical, allow them to develop critical relationships. as the saying goes you never want to be exchanged at the scene of a disaster. people know each other well before hand. they pride themselves while improving the approach and focusing on further strengthening the collective preparedness to meet the evolving threats.

martin richard and sean call your whose lives were lost and they continue to mourn. we take solace in the fact the collective approach in the years of planning as a nation there's a local state and federal level help first responders on that ground that day and in fact save lives. we also owe it to those that we lost and those who were injured to keep improving. we will work with a lot of our partners across this great country to honor and to continue moving forward. mr. chairman, members of the committee, i look forward to answering questions. >> thank you terrie much for that testimony. mr. schwartz. >> good morning, chairman carper, a ranking member, members of the committee hearing on behalf of governor patrick thank you for this opportunity to share thoughts on the public safety and response to the boston marathon bombings and the ensuing manhunt that together resulted in the death of four

people and injuries to hundreds more. the response for the marathon bombings once again demonstrates the value of our investments in the local, state and federal homeland security. within seconds of the blast, and an array of personnel, resources and capabilities many funded with federal homeland security deride dollars were mobilized and deployed. first responders aided by the public swiftly provided on seen emergency medical care to the injured and ems providers followed established plans to triage and transport the wounded to the area trauma centers. the trauma centers were prepared and followed existing mass casualty plans to swiftly and effectively treat the wounded and indeed at least two of the trauma centers reported the critically ill critically injured patients were in operating rooms within just 15 to 18 minutes of receiving them in their emergency departments. tactical and other specialized teams many of which deployed into boston under the

established mutual aid agreements conducted monitoring, search for additional explosive devices, secured the transit systems and other critical infrastructure established a large security zone and secured the time seemed to be the command center was established first on the street and a nearby hotel. communicating with the public through alerting systems social media and traditional media. the boston police and supported by the state police working with our fusion center is immediately launched a criminal investigation and in only a matter of hours combined their efforts and resources with those of the joint terrorism task force has the fbi took charge. the speed by which boston's public agencies responded supported by the regional state and federal partners. the boston marathon passes through seven cities and towns

in three counties before ending onboard boylton street in boston. for the state public safety officials, the marathon is one of our greatest annual defense with close to a million spectators. and we appropriately dedicate the substantial planning and operational resources to protect as best as we can the runners and spectators in the cities and towns. these extensive planning and preparedness efforts are intended to ensure readiness to respond to any and all unexpected hazards that threatened the health safety of property. on april 15th the public safety community was prepared to be as we have done for many years, the multi it and seek a multi discipline team spent months developing the operational plans for this year's marathon. we did worse case scenario planning preparing for a wide array of incidents and events that might impact the marathon or the communities. in april we conducted a comprehensive tabletop exercise

to ensure their readiness to be at the state's emergency operations center posted a multi agency coordinated center both staff with representatives of the police, fire and ems agency of the eight cities and towns along the course along with a dozen other key state and federal public safety agencies. the operations center was also connected to the emergency operation centers in all eight cities and towns in the first responders along the course and command lever personnel from all local, state and federal personnel agencies were used in interoperable channels on the portable radios to maintain effective communications. along the course, local regional and state tactical teams, hazardous materials response teams, explosive ordinance disposal teams and national guard civil support teams, mobile command post and state police helicopters were deployed as part of an all hazards operational plan.

in short we were prepared in the high level to preparedness due to investments made in collaboration with governor patrick's administration over the past year using federal homeland security granted dollars, the longstanding commitment to multi agency discipline and multi jurisdictional training and exercises throughout the state to a strong record of collaboration, coordination cooperation by the public officials and public safety leaders come and an unwavering 24 slash seven commitment to the homeland security by all local regional state and federal public and private sector state holders and lessons learned from the local, regional and state responses to hurricanes tropical storms blizzards, ice storms, floods tornadoes committed mass of water system chillier that had resulted in the commonwealth receiving 16 presidential disaster declarations since 2005. even as we work our way through a comprehensive action process

several common things stand out as we assess our response. foremost, there is a clear correlation between the effectiveness of the response operations in and local regional and state investment and training exercise programs in the senate command system building and sustaining the specialized capabilities activating and operating the emergency operation centers as well as a longstanding otas on developing the regional response capabilities. there are several other key factors that contributed to the effectiveness of response operations. the response relied heavily on specialized capabilities that had been built and sustained and homeland security grant programs. the response to the bombings was augmented through the preexisting mutual aid agreements to eight interoperable liddy was a huge success story. the millions of dollars that we have spent over the past years in the interoperable buddy ensure effective communications.

we benefited from using the preplanned even slight the marathon as a real-life opportunity to exercise and utilize our homeland security capabilities and to strengthen personal and professional relationships. we also benefited from their regional exercise programs such as the ruben shield exercises conducted by the boston urban area security initiative. the cooperation and collaboration across the agencies, disciplines and jurisdictions was immediate and extraordinary to the existing strong relationships between the commonwealth fusion center, the boston regional intelligence center and the fbi joint terrorism task force allowed the state police and boston police department to quickly integrate into the investigation that was led by the fbi. the support from the federal government was immediate and effective on all law enforcement side every imaginable federal

agency dispatch personnel and resources and only emergency management side come fema and the department of health and human services had senior people in the command center in boston only hours after the bombing including the deputy serino did they communicated through social media, press conferences coming emergency alert, smartphone applications and for the first time in massachusetts we utilize to the wireless emergency alert service and the response by the public to the bombings and the hunt for the suspected terrorists was nothing short of incredible. the public he did requests and requests from the governor patrick and the public safety leaders including the unprecedented request on april 19th residents of boston watertown and for other communities remain indoors. in closing as previously

mentioned we are in the process of conducting a comprehensive after action review. at the end of the process and after action report and action plan will be published. we will continue to identify what worked well, where there is need for improvement in the gaps that need to be addressed through training exercises and homeland security investments. even as we move through the after action process, i can state our investments made in homeland security undoubtedly enhance the capability response to the tragic events. thank you. >> thanks for the testimony. welcome, please proceed. >> good morning chairman carper ranking member coburn and distinguished members of the committee. on behalf of the neyer i would like to think you to testify about the impact of the terrorist bombing of the boston marathon on patriots' day

april 15th 2013. on that day at 2:52 bombs exploded 550 feet apart near the finish line of the boston marathon. to terrorists killed three people at the scene, 8-year-old martin richard and 23 arnoldus li a graduate student in front of a restaurant. and 29-year-old krystle campbell at the finish line. there were multiple imputations. every ambulance and police transport vehicle available transported nearly 300 people to world class hospitals. within 22 minutes the saenz were cleared and perlmutter was set. the victims admitted in critical condition survived with exceptional medical care and the use of tourniquets by civilians and first responders. the perpetrators were identified and video footage and public photos were released on thursday evening, april 19th. the release of the photos started a rapid chain of events. the execution of police officer

sean collier, the carjacking and pursuit that ended in watertown and included shots fired at my officers and explosives thrown the issue dealt with the bombers leading to the critical injury of officer donahue. one terrorist tamerlan tsarnaev and together dzokhar fled. a massive manhunt request that began in watertown and extended to all of boston as well as house-to-house searches in watertown. the discovery and rescue of dzokhar stored in a boat in the backyard. both were captured within 102 hours of time of the initial explosions. this success was due to the direct -- was the direct result of dedicated to training and engaged and informed public unprecedented level of coordination, cooperation and information sharing on the line by local, state and federal agencies to be a i would like to

thank president obama and his administration particularly the department of homeland security and the department of justice for the invaluable assistance boston received before, during and after this tragic event. preparedness training provided for the federal funding set a framework for multiple jurisdictions to work with one another in a highly effective manner. these agencies including the ems and medical personnel utilize the shield training, exercises and several tables of exercises to collaborate the area similar to those that occurred in the investigation to the importance of the training is best illustrated in the efficiency and success to be the trimmings and testing procedures revealed operational issues and allowed us to correct them prior to april 15th. the funding also provided highly trained analysts in the regional intelligence center critical to the department's daily decision making intelligence gathering deployment and information flow coordination and communication with law enforcement and other

responders. boston received important technology that wouldn't be possible without the federal funding. the posts armored vehicles, robots and a very good and contributed to the safety of my officers and other officers in the boston area and the success of the investigation. while our agencies training and equipment work was possible on the ground it is clear that there is a need for improvement in the communication and information sharing with several partners. in the aftermath of the boston bombings the fdic approved information sharing but policies and practices for information and intelligence sharing must be consistent across all jtts. the current information should be revalued, including its restrictions and suggested changes to the language and practice is that members of the major city chiefs association believe need to be addressed. they want to strengthen the partnership between the department of justice, the department of homeland security and the police and urban areas. the association proposes regular briefings by federal agencies on

any and all threats to the community. these revisions are critical as we work to prevent further violent extremist attacks in this country. we are also meeting with the senate intelligence committee to examine how best to share classified threat matters that i cannot address in an open hearing. .. and exercise during a previous boston marathon to test and train for communications. based on lessons learned from

this dhs assistance in funding for technology are merchants indication system worked without incident even though all cell phones were down during a crisis. in the past police fire and ems personnel would not been able to communicate because of different radio systems. i want to reiterate law enforcement needs to have its security spectrum dedicated specially to public safety use as it is the only way to communicate during an event of this magnitude. we thank congress for proving that deepak and look forward to working with first met in the department of commerce to implement this long-overdue legislation. boston our partner agencies rose to the challenge we face and in large part were successful based on the support and assistance in the community. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss reflect and provide lessons learned that may assist my colleagues across the nation and the world. thank you. >> thank you very much mr. davis. her kellermann. >> chairman carper ranking

member coburn and distinguished merit of the committee thank you for inviting me here today. i am mark kellermann and emergency physician and i'm not from boston. we have all heard the adage -- the. >> how about south boston? >> yes yes sir. we have all heard the adage is better to be lucky than good. austin's responders were both lucky and good. that is why so many victims survived. several chance factors worked to that rescuers vapor most notably when where and how the attacks occurred. boston's response and were also very very good. bystanders spectators played a key role particularly in the first minutes after the attack. a few years prior to the attack boston ems fire and police personnel studied how london madrid mumbai and other cities have handled their terrorist attacks, what they did well and what didn't go well and they

adjusted their plans to respond to lessons learned in those cities and incorporated it into their plan. boston's hospitals did a great job because they were prepared to do a great job. they reacted with speed imprecision because everyone knew what to do. that is how disaster plans work. but these observations lead to an important point. the fact that austin was lucky in that does not mean that the next american city gets hit will be equally lucky or equally good. we cannot assume based on boston's performance that other u.s. cities are prepared to manage terrorist attack of similar or greater magnitude and in fact across the nation emergency room crowding is as bad as ever. not only limits capacity but compromises patient safety on a day-to-day business. some communities in some hospitals have taken their eye off the ball and not every community has the spirit of boston for health and public safety work together as a team.

disaster preparedness is largely a state and local responsibility but the federal government has an important role to play. your letter of invitation asked that i specifically comment on two areas, research and grant making. i will address research first and then grants. last year the first-ever inventory of national health security research funded by civilian agencies in the u.s. government. we found the current that current portfolio is heavily skewed towards biological threats. two-thirds of the study of thousand different projects address that topic while natural disasters like hurricanes or earthquakes and tornadoes were the focus of only 10% of the studies. terrorist bombings 4%. one reason for the heavy coverage of one thread versus the other is the agencies today don't have a simple way to determine who's funding what

lord to prioritize which questions are most urgent for responders in the field. as a result we are not getting top value for a dollar. now rand's work has been concentrated in hhs rather than dhs so i can't speak specifically to dhs's approach but i can tell you based on our prior work and experience with grants that performance measures that focus on what has been bought and what has been talked aren't as useful by and large as those that measure whether states and municipalities are building the core capabilities they need to respond to a disaster or a large-scale attack. now let me cite an example from the world of public health. it's one thing to ask states and municipalities if they have established a 24-hour a day dedicated phone line that helps their workers to call to a potential biological threats. it's quite another to independently determine if that phone line gets answered at 2:00 in the morning, how long it

takes for somebody to come back with information and whether the advice that is offered make sense. the first is the capacity and the second is the capability. disaster drills are another issue. extensive pre-scripted exercise is whether they are run by the hospital or in the community are substantially better than nothing but they are less useful in assessing capabilities that you can do with inexpensive no notice drills tabletop exercises secret shopper evaluations like the one i just described and systematic learning from real world events, small as well as large. now the goal of these is not to make hospitals or communities or states look bad but to help everybody out with a fair advantage so they will be ready when the big one happened. congress can help by encouraging federal agencies to promote teamwork at the local, the state and the federal level and by focusing on practical measures that test and improve the capability capability to respond. here's my bottom line.

boston responders deserve our praise but let's do more than pat them on the back. let's follow their example. boston learn from the experiences of london, madrid and mumbai. the rest of us can learn from boston. thank you. >> thank you dr. kellermann. i just want to start off and ask the question may be for myself and maybe for my colleagues as well. the idea that this terrible tragedy occurred, three people were killed and declared dead on the scene. everybody who made it roughly 300 people who made it to the hospital lived. some of those people had no -- and they were saved. they are alive today and many of

their lives will be changed forever. hopefully they will continue to have the kind of support to move on and their lives as they received that day the support of a different kind. but, the team of paid professionals, volunteers bystanders who pulled together as one was just extraordinary. when we gather in the senate chamber later today to gloat right over the head of the presiding officer in the senate and in the house are the only latin words that i know. from many, one. a boy in boston for many, one. extraordinary and thank you for reminding us of that. i like to say that the road to improvement is always under construction. everything we do we know we can do better.

i'm just going to start and ask each of you to give us an example of one lesson from the tragedy in boston that can be exported, should be exported to other communities to other cities and in our country. just give us one really good example that can be exported. mr. serino. >> i would say one is to ensure that the training and their relationships are done ahead of time. i think the fact that using the special events disasters if you will are absolutely key. because every community at large or small across the country has a fence whether it be recently the fourth of july and i happened to be there in boston on the fourth as well and building those relationships during a special events because you know you were going to have numbers of people who are going to be concentrated and you know you are going to have a lot of

these different groups of people coming together and you're going going to be able to for example the fourth of july marathon you know people are going to get sick but maybe not to the quantity. building that in testing that in making sure the people of the at the training and the exercises and the equipment to do that. so i think taking the lessons learned from that whole community approach, bringing all that different people together. as i mentioned it was no accident that people went to different hospitals. it was no accident that they were treated on the scene. it was no accident that they use turn it gets because that is the training and the exercise that happens both at the special events using those and incorporating them into each and every day and that is being done in boston for years and should be done across the country. >> thank you. mr. kurt schwartz. >> i will telephone that. additionally training and exercises and the worst-case

scenario planning. we have to translate and we do in boston with a marathon for july 4. we have to translate that into worst-case scenario response capabilities. it's one thing to plan for a worst-case scenario but on game day you need to be ready to act very quickly. so on marathon day we have all of the operation capacity across the cities and towns to respond to these worst-case scenarios. we had a multiagency coordination center that stood up meeting participants, dozens of agencies and across as a semi-prepared statements across all the cities and towns. we had all sorts of resources that many people would say why are they out there? this is america. why do you have swat teams and ordinance disposal teams and canines, helicopters. it's all very expensive to

deploy but that is building that worst-case scenario operational capacity and capability so that when the bombs went off there wasn't a delayed reaction. the response was immediate. so i'm just building on the worst-case scenario planning to be able to implement that planning on a moments notice. >> thank you. mr. davis please. >> senator senator you always hear it mentioned training and equipment and being prepared and i think those are the two most important things. i'm going to talk just a bit about communication but not radio communication. i have far to trust that in my statement. i'm talking about the medication with the community. >> as governor we installed -- where state police could talk to all kinds of emergency responders. it took a while but we got it straightened out. >> there is an 800 system being used by the state police however we are still in the 400 uhf area

and we have cobbled together a system that works very well being able to patch the agencies together but because of the danger of losing these frequencies in the near future we really need to put a plan together. but let me speak about social media and the old adage that you can't establish a relationship during a crisis. we have a significant presence on social media where we have engaged not only in a one-way communicacommunica tion but a dialogue with people in the community about all sorts of issues day in and day out. we are able to use social media effectively minutes after the blast to inform people as to where they could go and as to what happened and where they could meet loved ones. there was an anonymous amount of upset in the community and we used social media to tamp that down. we also used it to do outreach to the community to provide us clues and video and photos of

the bombers. and then we used it to correct things that have been reported badly by the media. so i guess my point is a substantial investment in the utilization of social media to do direct outreach for public safety to the community can help in any kind of an event that happens like this. when the cell phones go down tax, we were able to reach people immediately through systems that are funded in the other but utilized by the public sector very well. >> thanks. dr. kellermann. >> as a health guide the table i'd say it's critically important that public health and the medical community be partners in planning as well as in response. in disasters of terrorism people often get heard and we have to be able to be on the same team to make that work. the other point that boston emphasized is you don't prepare and put everything in the closet

or in a garage and lock it away. the best systems are the systems that work well day today and you raise your game from what you were doing on a day-to-day basis and you are much more capable. the most effective cities in the most effective systems in the country are those that are high performers every day of the week, every day of the year not just on the day of the disaster. >> thank you. we have been joined by numerous other colleagues. the senator from new jersey tammy baldwin who comes to us from the house of representatives and before that served with distinction in the general assembly for her stay. to attorney generals like bookends here but kelly ayotte and it's great to have her here from the hampshire and dr. johnson a successful business person. tom coburn who has had any number of careers that include health care. health care providers successful business person and leader here and i will yield to them -- not for questions. >> chief davis one follow-up.

the city of boston spent $4.7 million on interoperable communications. you are still using 400 megahertz. what is the plan and why? >> turn your mic on. >> excuse me senator. the money that was utilized was put into rebuilding the infrastructure that is there. to build on a new 800 frequency infrastructure would be much more expensive than that as i understand it. i am not an expert in this field but i do know that we have looked at it very closely and the enormous amount of money that is necessary, this is a system that covers 2000 square miles and its services 11,000 emergency personnel in that area. >> so are there plans to go to the higher frequency? >> that might the better

directed as far as what's happening across the state. i don't know the answer to that. >> mr. schwartz. >> our first approach on interoperability was to take all of our different systems so we have got dhs, uhf, 700, 800 are sure we have regional plans and all of our systems can talk together so we have interoperability is a huge success story. boston doesn't need to be on the seven or 800 system to talk to the state police. we spent the money to figure out how to make them talk to each other and that works as we look at the possibility of using -- losing the tbn which will directly impact. we are building a core 700, 800 system across the state and we expect that over the next 10 to 15 years many of our partners will migrate to the 70800. >> thank you.

administrator serino of the capabilities utilized in the response to the boston bombings which one do you think are the most important in boston and are least developed in other cities? we have seen the stellar performance here. there is no question about it. that is great. those things that are important what do you see least developed in other major cities? >> i may be a little biased about boston. >> i'm biased for you so let's talk about what you see in the other cities. >> one of the things that is very positive in boston is commissioner davis mentioned the communication and i'm not talking radios. i'm talking the fact that you know people are on a first name basis whether federal state

local in the medical community. the medical community has been linked in with public safety for years, not just since 2001 and goes back before that. in 2001 it helps reinforce that samore. in the ability for the medical community medical public health and public safety community to actually linked together so people can understand the language of both groups. you don't see that in many places across the country and i think it's absolutely essential that the medical community for public safety community are all in the same page. that's probably one thing that is key and in boston that saved lives. >> so you don't think we are as well prepared and other another major cities in terms of including the medical community into these plans? >> i think it's an opportunity that has done well in boston and can be replicated in other places. >> in the past fema has required states to spend a certain percentage of grant dollars on specific areas like itt

preparedness. should fema do more of this or better target that grant? >> a lot of the funding that we have developed over the last few years is specifically to let the communities decide what is best to use rather than specifically on ieds but give a general framework on how people can utilize the grant funding in order to meet a number of core capabilities. we have 31 core capabilities in utilizing this day preparedness report and the higher threat assessment port utilize those to find out what the issues are. they go from locality to the state to the federal government. we look at those but they have the localities in the state and locals decide what best to use those to make the core capabilities and what they have identified as their main priorities. >> we have heard a lot about the importance of exercises and training especially drills unannounced drills. dr. kellermann has responded.

what is the right mix? a lot of money has been spent on equipment and prepare test. what is the right mix? do we take boston's experience and say here's how they did it? i think we heard from dr. kellermann and i would love to have all three of you comment. the fact that boston looked at these other events in major cities throughout the world had to have played a key role in your preparedness for what happened. half have the other large cities in this country done similar? >> as a matter of fact yes. dr. kellermann referred to a program called -- of our cities that was brought to boston a number of years ago and brought people in from madrid and london etc. and looked at how we actually did that. it was a three-day event and during that time the first day we had over 451 responders and

the second day the leadership of not just public health and public safety but also federal state and local. it actually change policy literally that day and how we could look at that. what we have now done is take at the federal level, program that we had eczema for a while. law enforcement training that was in fact done in boston and what we did was add a second day to that exactly similar to the tale of our cities that we have taken around the number of cities around the country over the past couple of years and now we are going to expand that and go to other cities with law enforcement and the health component to show how that was done. obviously we will be adding to that from lessons learned in boston. >> my time has expired. >> next in the questioning is senator johnson followed by senator ayotte by senator mark

begich. the subcommittee has oversight on fema and the merchants a management. these are issues that he is thought a lot about and brings expertise on. senator johnson you are next. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to start by echoing some of your comments. it always amazes me in these tragedies that we see the absolute best of america and i will never forget the pictures of the determined faces of the firemen ,-com,-com ma the police officers of 9/11 walking up the stairs. we saw the exact same thing in boston. we saw the citizens of boston running towards the danger to help out. first of all i want to thank all those who responded and thank you for your testimony. it is truly remarkable. dr. kellermann i truly appreciate your testimony and her comments. this really is state and local primary primarily responsibility so based on that first of all commissioner davis i am a numbers guy. what% of your budget comes from

the federal government from the state government and the local government lets but do you have a general sense of that? >> senator, our budget is primarily a local budget. we have about a 10% increase in our budget that comes from federal and state grants. it's primarily the state grants are usually pass from federal so most of that money ,-com,-com ma most of that 10% of the budget is coming from the federal government. >> okay so about 90%. mr. schwartz in terms of your area, to to state coffers versus the federal government? >> the state emergency management agency as an agency is about 50% funded through federal grants dollars and much of that is emergency management performance grant dollars. the numbers across our other key state agencies if you look at

fire service and state police are much smaller than that because they are receiving projects specific grants. >> so in terms of responding to this boston city bombing putting the numbers together 90% local and then 10%, 50% of that 10% and 5% estate and 50% of that coming from the states of 92.5% in state and local government funding which underscores your point dr. kellermann that federal government spending 92.5% of state and local. with that in the light, because being prepared is incredibly important we have certainly i guess commissioner davis the question i would have to ask you is how many cities have contacted boston based on your extraordinary response to this to give tips and pointers and training from what you have done

right? >> there have been dozens of cities within the united states and dozens of cities outside of the united states who have contacted us to share best practices with them. >> we see an awful lot of views in the federal government of conferences and association meetings but here is a real valid use of them and it's been used used that way. you do have national association skinning together where you get similar commissioners or you have public safety officials coming together for training and sharing stories and best practices and how often does that happen? p. we do. once a year there were groups of us to travel to different countries. i'm headed to the middle east this year. i was there last year. in 2000 by the travel to london just after the tomb bombings and he was able to lay out precisely what the metropolitan police did in response to the terrorist attack in london.

that information was extremely valuable. when i got there, it can be overwhelming to see the kind of carnage that was wrought on the city of boston but as i had been to london and spoken to people who put the case together a new precisely the process to follow. >> were there other u.s. police commissioners that went with you to london and? >> there were. >> how many? >> there were six of those that traveled in 2005 in three of us to travel to the middle east last year. that is the police executive research forum and they do use the money to allow some of those trips so it is working but i think you should expand and especially with the terrorism that is international. >> from my standpoint it would be just as efficient of all those conferences in the u.s.. have those conferences occur at? >> that have occurred. we have brought people from the

country of israel and we have brought people from india. there have been people that have come to our national conferences to give presentations including the u.k.. >> dr. kellermann real quick what other cities are performing at boston's level? >> i think the major terrorist cities are at or close to new york city los angeles but others that i think have got to raise the game and have got to take this seriously. the fact that around this country today the most critical arena of patient care, the emergency room is the most congested arena in the hospital is unconscionable. israel which is a country i meyer and they are no-nonsense straightforward practical approach of preparedness. that's a waste -- to last the last place they love to get back up. we have to chase that philosophy in this country. >> my time is running short. commissioner davis, what were your thoughts when dzhokhar

tsarnaev was mirandized with and how many hours? 16 hours? by character member the exact timeframe. >> aright. we received an audit from the attorney's office not to mirandized anyone in connection with this incident because it was being prosecuted at the federal level. and i was surprised. but these statutes are passed here and they are implementimplement ed by the united states attorney and we take direction from the people who are in charge. ..

in this particular case, no one. i think miranda would have been fine. we had a period of time after the bombs were thrown, and i can see there could be unfolding situations where it might not be appropriate. so, i don't want to comment -- it is true he stopped talking the momentum that he was mirandized, we got no further information? >> correct. >> just to dwell on a question for a moment, we scheduled for that hearing for later this month to look at a time line leading up to the tragedy and

boston and subsequent to that. so save that question for that day as well. >> let me make a comment so everybody understands. merchandising information bea before somebody is mirandized cannot be used. you cannot fight a lot if you haven't mirandized. you haven't excluded any information you might have gotten and the balance is collecting evidence that might eliminate further defense and taking that risk in terms of the conviction of one bad actor versus preventing others. so it is a topic that should be considered and i appreciate the we are going to do that. >> senator, please. >> thank you mr. chairman. first of all i want to think all of you for being here commissioner davis i want to thank you for the extraordinary bravery of the boston police department and all of law enforcement officers and first responder is that were involved.

it was extraordinary. your courage, the way you handled things professional and we are all incredibly proud of the work that you have done and you do set a shining example for all others should handle. we hope we don't have any more of these incidents is that to be prepared for them. i also prada -- i know this is in the first time the boston police department has done excellent work. we have cooperated on many cases across borders between the national -- new hampshire and massachusetts and it's been terrific. we were also very proud to send manchester and the sea coast and the new hampshire state police and special reaction teams to be able to work with you on it. so i just want to thank you for that. our thoughts and prayers to continue to be with the victims'. one of the things people lost limbs at the scene think about a guy white jeff and the bravery that he showed and others at the

scene were just -- we continue to support them and thank you for what you've done. i would like to get your testimony having had a chance to interact with the joint terrorism task force and wanted to get your thoughts on what we needed to do to improve the mou to make sure that the agencies like boston are getting the right information from the federal agencies and that you are treated as an equal partner in that information sharing. i saw your testimony and wanted to get your insight on what you think should be done. >> it's been a pleasure to work with you over the years. >> he is a great guy. he did a great job helping us out after the incident. >> after nine alive and i had an opportunity to meet with the

director and talk about the help the local police could provide to the fbi as a force multiplier in of war against terrorism and the director was incredibly gracious and opened up his offices to us. we have established these and they have been working very well. but as the senator said, there is always room for improvement and i think that is after this experience when we go back and look at the series of events that occurred. there's a couple things that come to mind. one is the the mou can be worked on from a more equal way so that there is an exchange of information so that it isn't all one-sided, and i think that is really important. i also think that if there is information that comes in about a terrorist threat to a particular city, the local officials should have that information. there should be a mandate somewhere that the federal authorities have to share that

with us so that we can properly defend our community. there can be a difference between decisions made for prosecutorial reasons and decisions made for public safety. and i think that that's the stress that occurs sometimes in these investigations. and if we are aware of what the potential threat is we can make our own decision what we would do with the information which might be slightly different i'm not saying anything was done wrong and i'm not saying we would have done anything different had we had the information that they had prior to this, but i am saying that there should be full and equal partnership where everyone is sharing equally. >> i know your responsibilities as the head of a large agency in boston, the large city. so the information that the fbi had an advance and will have a separate hearing on and i know that you are talking and

appreciate that with the intelligence committees about how we can make sure that there is better coordination on the federal agencies i think it's critical that we get that done to make sure the terrorist watch list are effective and the information -- did you have any of that in advance? >> we had four offices assigned to the jttf in each terrorism squad. but we were not aware of the information on the tsarnaev trial overseas. >> what we have to do is make sure -- you hit this right on. at the bottom line is a local police officer is most likely to encounter that individual first as opposed to an fbi agent because you are on the ground you are on the streets every day. if you don't have that information and did you encounter someone like tsarnaev in advance, then you don't have the information in your mind as to how to treat the individual and what to do with whatever actions they are making.

and so if that information is not flowing down fully to state and local in the way that it needs to, then we do need to address that and make sure we get to the bottom of it because i know the fbi work very hard they do a good job but they are not on the streets every day. you are. is the right? >> that's correct, senator. we have a tremendous born king relationship -- working relationship with them. but if the information is compartmentalized and kept away from the boston regional intelligence officer then we might have stopped tsarnaev or someone like him. we are not hitting on that, so we are blind us to basically the prior information and that puts my office is at risk so i feel very strongly about this pps too this is something that we can help address by making sure the information sharing is improved and that this mou that there is

a clear understanding that the information can't just flow one way. i have great respect for the fbi, too and i understand the information was correct. what was your sense of the state, federal cooperation in the investigation? >> it couldn't have been better. my first call was to the fbi. i then called the kernel of the state police and i said we need the units and swat teams right away. there was no hesitation. they got them immediately and we worked seamlessly for that moment on. there was no problem in the investigation. it was better than i ever could have anticipated. >> i have the privilege of working some great investigations with the fbi and the state and local too. i want you to know we will get to the bottom of this issue because again, we can't have local police officers on the streets encountering people like tsarnaev because it is a and officers' safety issue as well as an intelligence gathering

issue. succumb thank you very much for being here today, all of you. i very much appreciate your testimony. and also again, thank you for the exceptional reaction and response to this terrible, terrible situation. >> thank you. >> thank you for the comments and questions. the next senator we are have yet he is here with us and especially on this committee. >> thank you mr. chairman and all of you for being here. i served as the attorney general today of the bombings, the commissioner in particular. i know that carl fuentes said to me having had a relationship with you he thought that he knew the race once was pretty outstanding and that is what all of us saw. terrorism, professionalism, and the other left thing i was struck by was the cohesion that the different law enforcement agencies brought a really chaotic situation.

no elbowing al qaim here this is my turf, the perception was certainly from my standpoint was an integrated group focused on one thing and that is keeping people safe and getting treatment and making sure that we got the people that did this as quickly as possible. so congratulations to all of you for the roles that you played in particular the focus in boston and fbi and everything else involved. i think the senator makes an excellent point. one of the things i certainly always have a lot of consternation about is the compartmentalization of the information. and i think we've taken great steps and we have worked really hard on it in new jersey. but i want to ask you commissioner, you said that there were four members. how many state police members? >> there are seven full-time.

>> how do you make the determinations for the numbers you have sitting full-time? >> the decisions have been made over the years on the staffing. where we could get bodies to put into that unit and as the issue ebbs and flows, we maintain the same number of people. but after the conversations i've had with ray kelly in new york city and some of my other colleagues i think it is time to increase the number of officers that are there so that we can have a wide presence, that might help the communications issue. >> i want to talk about the fusion centers immediately following the time was flowing to different states. there were contacts and certainly other states that have to be run down and i was briefed

afterwards and went to the fusion center after and was impressed with the way we were able to coordinate that function. what is your impression of the effectiveness of the fusion center is being used specifically for this instance and then the status you may be taking to improve the way you were able to utilize those resources going forward? to read >> i think it's important to engage the fusion centers in an active pace of the different models across the nation. there could be an improvement in the coordination of information among the agencies especially the dhs and some of the analytical making sure that information is better shared. we would like to enter into looking at the mou so that it can be crafted so that there is a real -- it has teeth in it to

push the information both ways. >> when other cities or other communications or nature's the commission's call you about your response, what advice do you get to those that have been stood up? and there is always say debate there is intelligence that comes from the street crime on the center used to combat gun violence and gang violence set up in large measure post 9/11 to make sure that we were coordinating the information on the potential activities. so what advice do you have to other cities in terms of creating the correct balance and allocating the resources for the fusion center to the level to deal with those competing interests. >> i think it is important to brief them out so that there is an intelligence flow back and forth. the information that comes in from the street can be extremely

helpful ongoing investigations so they can access the systems. they went to the federal systems and that is where it is. names can fall through the cracks the way that it set up. >> what are the ways you think the committee can help with getting rid of some of those things falling through the cracks and they have a lot of money behind them. what can we talk about or what are the steps that we should be thinking about to help in that regard? >> i just believe that generally the rule says if there is information on a particular jurisdiction, the jurisdiction has to be brought into the conversation about it. even if the case is closed out you should know what the delegation was. and at this point in time that is not happening.

>> i think a lot of this has to do with developing the relationship and somebody remarked before that you shouldn't be handing out business cards at the scene of one of these instances and i think that is an excellent point. so, over your years in developing the relationships i think that is a critical issue. i don't think that it's designed to in any way to undermine our ability to do these investigations that are better situated than others and better trained, whatever you want to call what. with the committee may think about this and i hope all of you will continue to give information about the ways that we can continue to help those relationships become solidified in ways that there are trust and talking about the ones

regionally in boston and new hampshire people have worked together over time but i think the senator coburn talked before about the conferences and some conferences are better than others. but the conference is that we get all of you in the room together to talk about terrorism activities and sharing information seems to me to be a really good way to spend our money and have you spend your time. would you agree? >> i would agree completely. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. dr. colburn and senator carl levin -- working at the fusion centers to find out which ones work and which don't and see if we can make sure they work effectively. thank you for that line of questioning. someone that shares the relevant subcommittee focused directly on the emergency preparedness is now recognized. >> thank you very much. i want to follow up on the fusion center.

you can answer this or whoever would like to answer this. but in this situation, the -- how did you feel -- if you could read the fusion center activity in the response or participation >> in response, the fusion center worked really well. we had the means to communicate through secure rooms and in the information center the intelligence center. and that fusion center was able to talk to the command post and they were processing information. we had to have some contact with some of the part of an individual's and we have had that information immediately to the investigators. in the aftermath everybody pulled together. subsequent to that in preparation for july 4th, there were some excellent

conversations that hadn't happened previously about each threat that was out there so i think we have come along way but i would like to see that memorialized in writing. >> a memorandum of agreement or some sort of understanding. >> correct. >> let me ask you and then i want to go to another line of questioning if i can to the you mentioned the limited access of the information flow. do you know that by regulation or is it by law the two-way street of information isn't as good as you would like it? if you don't know that, i don't mean to -- >> its by regulation so that there are specific pieces that prohibits the flow of information. a task force officer cannot just report information back to his superiors of the local department. >> so, this is something that

true homeland security or fema or whatever the right organization is, depending on sdi, what ever whoever the mou is with, they could -- if i am saying this correctly -- they could change buy again, sitting down looking at the after incident report of what happened in boston as an example where the better flow of information me the previous to that information might have had some positive impact. is that a fair statement? >> it is but it's a to fall issue. it's also a cultural issue. >> but nothing legislatively prohibits them. >> nothing. that was my second part. the kind of internal cultural environment of some of the federal agencies withheld information that we get from you. and i know as a former mayor our police department has an ongoing

effort especially with gang activity to try to make sure the information flows because we are on the streets every minute and every day dealing with these incidents is and what we end up doing on the gaming issue, we actually hire the prosecutors and put them in the u.s. attorney's office so we can have a better relationship and actually worked very successfully, but we had to create an environment. we didn't have to give it legislatively, we could do it on the regulation. and you see also the culture -- is that something that so deep and ingrained in the agencies that will take time to happen or it can happen very rapidly because the new understanding of the instances could be homegrown like this example? >> i think it can happen rapidly, senator. this is a problem that isn't just the agency. i have had units in my own department that wouldn't talk to

each other. this is a constant cultural thing that my colleagues are working against in the local police agencies. but we have made good progress on it. so if you trained as and supervise it you can make a difference. >> i know that we did a lot of training on the front end on the new recruits coming in to make sure that when they came and they understood the new culture. it used to be the police work and they will tell you they are not in the social work a lot of times there's a connection between the two with a doing work and school for example which 20 years ago was not the situation. they would just show up in schools and now it is a different approach that took a change in how we trained them at the front end so when they hit the street they were already prepared. is that one of the big pieces that we need to be thinking about? >> it is organizational change, something i've become very good at over the two police departments. but believe me, it is a problem that every organization we have to be vigilant and sustain the change. >> let me ask you -- let me ask

you one more question and i want to change my topic now the question and that is i know for a lot of the command and activity you were able to utilize for some of the equipment on the command post, robots, so forth, there is money really did sometimes with grand dollars that are coming in. knowing that these are -- because the way we are dealing with the federal budget which isn't so great to be frank with you, those dollars are going this way. do you see that as well there be in a local ability to pick that up or will there be a gap? >> i won't go into my diatribe on how we do our budgets. but the belief to your statement is there will be a gap. no question about that. the federal agency folks who may be -- if i crounse this rahm i apologize. is it serona? >> serino. >> one of the issues we've had

on grants is the account of the grant. let's take for example the incident in boston today and are you going to do anything that reveals how the federal dollars that went to purchase grants how those were utilized and improvements on that or positives that could be shared with us? is that something you will do in the future? >> i've done a lot of that already working with the state and the city's looked at specifically what equipment and also training and exercises pity that it was actually utilized during the marathon in the week following in a ceremony. and i think one thing that we also strive to do is look at it is not just a city capability that a regional capability to begin again, boston and massachusetts outside of the state have done that really well. there was a mother to become number of police departments and agencies that brought some of their homeland security but the funded equipment to the scene to help out with that as well.

>> i will do some work with you from does subcommittee standpoint. as you know we had no hearing on the grants. last question i will just put out there to whoever wants to respond. and i know we've seen it in boston. i've seen it recently where citizens coming you know, step up to the plate very rapidly. is their something more -- anyone can answer this, more that we can do to train and prepare -- i know that our goal was every single city employees had to be cpr trained, for example because we felt 3,000 people on the street every day was a powerful tool in case of a situation of a single incident or a multiple incident. do you think there is something more that can be done that we can do or that we can encourage to be done? >> i think there is a lot that can be done pity and an example again was in boston. of the civilians helped out and utilized tourniquets, utilize a

simple things as direct pressure to control a lot of the bleeding and save lives and in fact in the guidance that we gave out for this year for both the state homeland security grants we actually put language in there as a priority that they could use the money to actually train people from the mass casualties and to look at that. and we have been working with the international association of police chiefs etc. to look at how we can actually utilize civilians to help train people and get people to do some basic simple things that in fact do save lives. >> around the world and in communities, by standards neighbors or the first real responders. that is a huge asset the country can take advantage of. >> thank you mr. chairman pete >> there is a lot left on the table here. i see senator begich in terms of issues to explore. we will have that hearing in a couple weeks that focuses on the

timeline leading up to the boston tragedy and in the aftermath and the investigations and so forth. but there is a huge amount of lessons learned here and the governors' association we had the center for best practices is a clearinghouse for good ideas to find out what was working in massachusetts and wisconsin on alaska to see if we can bring it back with a lot of good lessons to be i know you and the senator have plenty of opportunity to explore. senator come thank you for joining. >> gentlemen, thank you for being here today and for your testimony. particularly for your public service of the men and women that you read that have the gratitude of all but in particular those who were present in boston to produce a bit in a marathon or to cheer on their friends and loved ones to

but i would like to direct my question to the deputy administrator serino. it's obvious that federal support has played a critical role in helping state and local government as we can see from the boston experience to prepare for these catastrophic events. one of the lessons learned here has been the importance of building relationships between the government and conducting a joint exercises on a wide range of scenarios. i want to focus on my home state of wisconsin who have benefited over many years from significant grant funding to help our state and local governments effectively respond should a tragedy strike. however, a lot of the assistance

ended in 2010 when the city of milwaukee was removed from the urban and the insecurity initiative. now, a recent audit released this year from that department of homeland security inspector general gave pretty strong reviews to how wisconsin had utilized the earlier funds received in the state. but with that said, i think that we will be much better prepared to protect the people with sufficient federal support. in wisconsin we have to fusion centers to the one in milwaukee and the other in madison. the centers do a really great job on a daily basis coordinating among local, state and federal authorities. but without adequate performance grants they will have difficulty is wrapping up in the event of a very significant

challenger tragedy. moreover, without such grants the cooperative exercise is to prepare for such incidents is really aren't possible. so, i would like to hear your thoughts on recognizing the very constrained funding environment in which we live right now. speak to how they can help cities and towns and regions like southeast wisconsin which have been removed from tero ii the critical list of cities. >> actually, i had the opportunity to go out to milwaukee a couple times and actually visit the fusion center in milwaukee so the chief i knew from when he was in the boston area as well. and in milwaukee they actually have a pretty comprehensive integrated fusion center that works with a lot of the different agencies. as we look to continue to move forward in the management

performance it is still one place and have the ability to utilize those in the states and localities deemed fit for the personnel and also if the need to exercise as well to the i think that as we move on and continue, a lot of this can be done tall local level. a lot of this as dr. kellermann mentioned earlier, some of the exercises can also be done fairly inexpensively. sometimes it is getting people together, holding some what if you will some tabletop exercises and realizing that is a priority given it some of the funds we use in milwaukee able to buy a lot of the equipment that they needed but also to build the capabilities and to even afford even though they are stopped receiving the funds, they have a lot of the capabilities that were built up during that period of time. >> in terms of -- i know that wisconsin and the division of emergency management are thinking ahead and thinking about how to do things on a

tighter budget. one of the things that they are hoping to focus on is the ability to respond to cyber threats. i know this is a part of the jurisdiction of the committee. and we are working earnestly on that. but last year, the wisconsin national guard worked with the university of wisconsin to launch a volunteer cybersecurity initiative to deal with these challenges. but in part because of the voluntary nature of it it ended up falling through. and so you know, perhaps you can speak specifically to cybersecurity has we move forward how can fema help a state like wisconsin and other states prepare for the increasing concerns of either cyber threats, cyber terrorism or a cyber component of a larger

threat? >> i think a lot of it is with the cyber threat is something that is real but we are dealing with and i think that with fema and broadly in the department of homeland security, it actually has a number of programs that are dealing with cybersecurity both with the national preparedness division and the department of homeland security in the cyber office reaching out through the state fusion centers in order to educate people and look at some opportunities both for education and things they can do and we are sharing that on a regular basis of the departmental level and not necessarily the fema level. >> thank you. >> i've been struck by any number of things the panel has said today. one of the things i want to return to deals with communications. we had some discussion of the 400 megahertz systems and the interoperable the of the

different systems. about what i want to come back to is, as you know mr. davis you talked about the communications that goes beyond the regular systems. and they seem to be pretty good job of the communications between the different units different levels of government the emergency medical providers hospitals, law enforcement folks, pretty extraordinary. we are a little state not quite a million people and we on a good day you can get anybody that you need in the room and salt most of the problems that we face and sustained. that is a bit of an exaggeration but we work pretty well across party lines. you all seem to have figured that out at least in this instance as well. talk to us about how in a big metropolitan area a lot of players, a lot of egos that you

are somehow able to master this come able to communicate. i like to ask people that have been married a long time what is your secret for being married a long time and 40 50 60 years i get some hilarious answers. last month i talked to a couple married 54 years and i said what is the secret for being married 54 years and she looked and said he will tell you he can be right or he can be happy but he cannot be a both. [laughter] that is the best answer i ever heard to the question though is what is the secret for being married a long time is that to cs, communicate and compromise. it's actually the key to a vibrant democracy. but you are doing a good job at communications and tell us what you think. >> thank you come senator to the i think that the communication

among the the law enforcement agencies is fairly simple to describe. it occurs because we look together on a lot of different challenges day in and day out. we have to deal with the water crisis for instance when the mwra link to the reservoir is broke and that requires us to get all hands on deck and to do logistical planning and delivery of water to places on the fly very quickly. they haven't been prepared for. but it informed the collaborative process that was continued. and i think that if you continually make planning of processes and involve everyone and everybody is at the table is a personal knowledge that

develops even in the large metropolitan area like boston. and then the ego issue is important. everybody has an ego at that table. but when we come together, we are guided by law and by the rule of law and the people that are at the table put their ego in their back pocket and did what was dictated but also concentrated on batt collaborative kind of working together attitude to get the job done. one team and one mission through the whole process. and i think that that is a good indication of how it was dealt with. >> one of my favorite sayings is there is no iowa in the word team and you indicated that. did you want to say something? >> i have a couple more questions. >> okay. i promise not to go on today like i did yesterday. >> i wanted to go back and talk

about the medical response to be i think i said earlier on tragically three people died. for them and for their families we mourn and even today there loss. but other people that were injured did not die. lives changed dramatically the they are alive today and we hope they get the kind of support that they needed. talk to us about the involvement if you will of the medical community, the hospital's emergency medical first responders. talk to us about how they were involved and how they were able to be part of the team in such an effective part of the team how did that happen? >> i'm going to speak briefly to the because there was experience in boston just briefly it wasn't just the medical people on duty. was the medical people at the

tent. they were there to take people -- >> understand the number sort of doubled from maybe the previous year's i heard from 60 to 120 because of the dehydration challenges earlier? >> i don't know the answer to that. the point i wanted to meet briefly the doctors swung into action. doctors that were running by that were in the marathon came over to assist. it happened where the medical care is just extraordinary and i can't say enough about the medical personnel. they cleared out 100 of reading rooms and 15 minutes and opened them up to trauma. it was an incredible example of work that was done in the field and also in the hospital's. >> a number of things have happened. there is a medical tent that can treat up to two injured 50 people about a block away half a block away from the finish

line that is set up to take people. with that is a number of medical volunteers including physicians nurses, physical therapists and people just to help build and in supporting that is a combination of the city's emergency medical services and also to help with transport. emt, a paramedic on bicycles and all terrain vehicles in order to help move them as well. plus it was linked ahead of time with the hospital. the hospitals play a role in this and it happened at shift change of the hospitals which played another roll in that and it's also a holiday in boston and massachusetts which the operating rooms were a little less. there were a number of things that played into it but there's also the fact that it was a lot of practice that went into this. and number of examples in fact from talking to a number of people of the various hospitals we had done a drill with years ago we had 500 people hurt and

taken to various hospitals and talking to some of the emergency physicians they actually remembered when they got to the er this is what we did this this and this. they talked to paramedics on the ground who said that this is what they have to do. they have to go look at this and their training kicked right in and they realized was a potential second of ice and they were then notified by law enforcement this could potentially be. so it wasn't just as i said earlier it wasn't just an accident and it was something done and the drills and trained many times. >> thank you. >> i think that reinforces dr. kellermann's testimony in terms of girls are important. it's not just training and equipment. i wanted to ask you what equipment didn't you have that you needed? >> we had excellent equipment. there was nothing that we needed

that we didn't have. >> and 10% of your budget comes out of -- or 7.5 as the senator johnson said, so one of the problems, my problem with some of the grants and the lack of oversight is there is a point in time that we are equipped so then it should become maintenance of what we have rather than purchasing new. so even though we are in a tight budget system we have spent a lot of money, federal dollars in terms of grants and bringing the equipment ford and i think that has been very beneficial in terms of the boston marathon bombing. secretary schwartz, i want to ask you a couple of things. what are the major differences between the commonwealth fusion center and the boston regional intelligence center.

>> why do you had both? >> i can speak to the commonwealth fusion center and the commissioner can speak to the brick. but the commonwealth fusion center serves the whole state and is an all crimes fusion senator as the commissioner alluded to earlier there are lots of different models out there for fusion centers. we have the terrorism fusion centers all happen to be criminally all crimes fusion center that has invested a considerable amount of money over the years in building the capacity to tie into locally gathered information and intelligence and to be able to analyze that and connect the dots between the terrorism side

terrorism threats and terrorism information that may be coming from the top down and typing those, connecting the dots with information that is gathered the local level and that isn't just suspicious activity reports which are sort of the easy thing. but it's all of the daily police work that's done every day. all of the incident reports come all 351 cities and towns the thousands and thousands of incident reports generated every day, building the capacity to analyze the information. so, we are serving a statewide function. we have a significant presence in the jttf. i believe the number is down from what it was a number of years ago for budget reasons. although the colonel and the secretary have recently been talking about a way to increase

those numbers. our full-time jttf troopers are part of our fusion center by the commanding officer in the fusion center. we have the dhs and the fbi analysts in the fusion center. i think the commissioner can speak to the bright, but i see different functions also compatible work very closely together and with the jttf. >> what are those different functions? >> i think it is a matter of volume. the major that runs the state fusion center and the representative for in daily contact working on issues that go back and forth. as said there were 350 cities and towns in massachusetts but about a dozen that are continuous to boston that have well over a million residents and drive the [crying] members in the state. so there's a lot of criminal activity occurring.

so the boston regional intelligence center is focused on what's happening in those continuous communities and the coordination of intelligence and the deacons collection of investigations. there is an enormous amount of work being done by those individuals. we've now incorporated a real-time crime center in to that of the type that new york has been using so we can inform officers going to the scene of intelligence that is occurring. so it really is a dynamic all hazard location that is a matter of volume to be disconnected fusion senator provide actionable intelligence to anyone after the bombings that wasn't provided through any other channel? and if so, what was it? >> i don't believe they did. >> we have heard a lot about the value of training and exercises.

when we looked at your data we saw about 83% of the grants from 2008 to 2010 not training and exercises. is that the that accurate? >> the data that you have is accurate. i don't have the percentages in front of me. 1.3 million of the 2008 grant funds were spent on the planning contract with a company called global incorporated committed to you know what the outcome of that was? >> i do not. >> can you answer that for the record? >> i will go back and look. i don't know whether that is on the side or somewhere outside. but i will look at that yes. >> according to your data relatively few dollars from ten come 11 or ten grant years have been spent, is that correct? >> it's not correct. there are some particularly

there are some very large reimbursements with millions of dollars that are not captured come and what you have because those are just being paid now. >> will you send those to us? >> absolutely. >> was their anything from the commonwealth fusion senator did you have access to information on tsarnaev? >> prior to their identification? the answer in the commonwealth fusion senator again is the same as you heard from the commissioner davis. although we have full-time troopers assigned, none of our troopers participated in in the interviews or the preliminary inquiry that was conducted a number of years ago.

so we were not through any participation. none of our troopers had any reason to ever in query their names prior to april 19th. so, prior to april 19th, nobody in the state police had any knowledge of the brothers putative >> thank you. next senator johnson, a vote has been scheduled for noon. we will wrap up shortly after that. senator, you are recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. on the disclosures on the data collection, they're has been a pretty large public debate about the balance between privacy and civil liberties and security. what was the state of the camera surveillance system on the streets of boston that day? >> we have two sets of cameras

senator, as we have cameras that are set up for the traffic control in the downtown area so there were several that were around the neighborhood but not directly on the road so we were not using the canellos that were on the marathon route for law enforcement purposes at that time to the homeland security cameras are on the major that allow the exit from the city and those are mostly in the neighborhood. there is a significant amount of violence that occurs and where we have focused our cameras prior to this. >> who is paying for the system? musette homeland security is that paid by the government? >> and then the traffic control? >> it was probably from the transportation grants but the city has purchased them as well. >> do they have a dual purpose in the case like this you can refer to those are those clear enough? >> they have a problem with clarity and they also were not recorded until just a few days

after the marathon. so we just got the transportation to start to record the cameras so we can go back and look at them. >> certainly my thoughts to the day concerned about the civil liberties as well as anybody but i was certainly hoping there were cameras on the street that would identify the individuals. do you have a similar type of reaction? i mean, did you wish that you have more cameras on the streets at that point in time? >> in hindsight, cameras along that road and some of the other key locations i think are very important addition to the security plan. what was good about this was the community portion of the cameras and the business is all are using video at the businesses. so, we were able to access them very quickly and in critical information came from the community on the cameras. >> that is criminally how we identify these individuals is private cameras, businesses and just private citizens? >> people on the street taking photographs, yes sir. >> i would like to talk and maybe these questions will be

better suited for the next hearing to get but i would still like to talk about the homeland security role in the older tsarnaev's brother exit of the u.s. and then coming back and and the system that was set out to track that. it is true that the dhs, your system said he left the country correct? >> that is a different part and something that i would be happy to get back to you on the appropriate department. >> then i will save the questions for leader and i will end my questioning at this point in time. >> fair enough, ample opportunity. welcome the line of questioning at the next hearing. general? >> thank you mr. chairman to be a i just want to follow on the question that dr. colburn asked because i think it goes back to the issue we were talking about before where secretary schwartz but there is the brick or the

fusion center, its of the fbi if we aren't sharing or homeland isn't sharing the interaction with the trip for example overseas with those systems then of course it isn't going to be in there, right? and so therefore when you do in an query coming your men and women on the streets wouldn't have that background even if they stopped that individual for a track to the cut traffic stop correct? >> that's correct to the spin axis that is the issue that we have to get to make sure that it's not a one-way street. and like i said with great respect for the fbi which i have as well it can't be a one-way street. so, for the fusion centers to work and for the bricks to work and our information sharing, we have to make sure that whatever we do know about somebody like tsarnaev in terms of what the federal agencies are interacting with him if he gets on the watch

list or she is a person of interest how we do that and tag that needs to flow for you so when your officers on the street encounter him, frankly you can give that information to the fbi, to match and we are all working together to do whatever we can to prevent these kind of attacks and then also to make sure that officers on the ground have the right information to interact with people appropriately, is that right? >> correct, senator. if we don't it puts our communities and my office is at risk. >> that is the issue that we have to get at. and again, i think that you are on the streets every day. the fbi is a great job but they are not on the streets every day in the way that the local officers are. or, you know, and new hampshire it is state, local, police, you know, who is on the roads every day and who is going to interact or encounter this person and can understand who they are dealing with and also transmit that

information to the federal government so that they can use that in their information gathering against terrorists. so, i really appreciate all of you being here today. thank you for bringing this forward because this is something like this committee has really been focused on to help make sure that that information sharing is going both ways so that in the future you will have more information of the ground level and again i want to thank you all for what you do and what you have done here and for the extraordinary work done by those that you represent and your officers. >> thank you petraeus connect political commercials i'm tom carper and i approve this message to the estimate thank you. i think we can do something about this. and we should. >> thank you mr. chairman. this is for mr. schwartz and commissioner davis. looking back at the way that the

information was disseminated on the day of the bombing having to fusion centers has there been any discussion understanding that there is a volume that would undermine either one of them, are there discussions under way to combine their resources or to create a single clearinghouse for all of the information or is that something that you don't think is neither feasible or productive four-door communities? >> for the reasons articulate it, the focus of the fusion centers is so different that we don't have a problem that needs fixing from my perspective. we have two very diffusion centers. the work collaboratively on a daily basis. so, to me there isn't a problem to fix commesso i'm not aware of any discussions or need to go

down the path of consolidation. >> i'm not suggesting there is a problem. we had one in new jersey and i thought it was an effective way to say here is the clearing house from the way the information comes in coming in your respective of the type of information. so i am interested to find out from the two of you. you are telling me that you think it is an effective and useful way to disseminate the information and that you don't feel that the information is either not getting where it needs to get, there is no breakdown in communication between the two because that would be catastrophic if that were to occur to you and that your communities are served in a productive way. >> yes i concur. i believe the way the system has been organized and set up is very effective. there are very close working relationships between the two fusion centers and there is a whole state to take care of there are big cities outside of boston that need to have the full attention of the state system. there is a danger of being swallowed up in the boston activity in the metropolitan

area that could occur if they were combined. it works right now. i think the both commanders would tell you that this is working very well. there is no problem with the communication of information and i like it the way it is. >> thanks for all your time today. thank you mr. chairman. >> senator, thank you for being here for the entire hearing. it's been an excellent hearing. thank you for being part of it. i have one more question and we will start in about five minutes but one more question and then maybe a closing statement. one of the things i sometimes do in a hearing especially one like this where there are a lot of lessons learned and then i will ask you again in an opening statement sometimes i find it helpful to ask you a brief closing statement to the and so this is a pitch and you will get a chance to say a few more words and ask you to think about that. and it could be something that

you feel is an important take away for my colleagues and for the staff. it could be something you thought of listening to others speak on the panel. you could also say the same thing to be mindful on that work as well. my last question focuses on recovery. we talked a lot about the response today to the disaster. dr. colburn and i will hold meetings to focus on the timeline for the tragedy, the law enforcement activities during that immediate aftermath of the bombings and then the ultimate apprehension and the interrogation of suspects. but i want to just close by talking about recovery. because we focus on the response to the disaster but not so much on how to recover.

officials said this might change in the future that recovery might be incorporated into future exercises. and i think maybe it is as much for mr. schwartz and others can time and if they want. but let's talk about this. did unexpected challenges pop up during the recovery that maybe the city of boston needed to be better prepared for and if so what might they be? ..

two things, first we cannot continue to make our policy decisions based on the last disaster. >> i would say we are very good at finding -- >> we can't keep reacting to the last disaster. hospitals in boston were not stressed. the number of patients in any one hospital got was very manageable. we cannot put seven trauma centers in every city. massachusetts can barely afford it. we have to raise our game in american hospitals and hospitals cannot respond of the strength and recovery if they

don't survive the disaster. new york taught us seven years after new orleans that we are not paying attention to a hospital security and the strength of hospital infrastructure so they can be the strength for the community. >> thank you. mr. davis? >> mr. chairman, i would say please continue what you have been doing. the money, the training, equipment made it possible for us to do what we did after this happened. working diligently on approving the systems of intelligence and continuing what we are doing around preparation and response is the lesson i learned from this. thank you. >> mr. schwartz? >> first the bombings illustrate our need to focus more of our time and energy on a catastrophic disaster planning,

major disaster planning. we did well but changed the scenario just a little bit in a number of different ways and we had a different outcomes, so we need to continue to focus on preparing for these large-scale disasters and worry about the mass shelter evacuation large scale communication failures distributing the critical commodities to it and related is as we have been focused on the terrorist attack i want to underscore that many of the capabilities that we brought to bear to respond to this terrorist attack were built in an all hazardous world to get as i said earlier we had a 16 presidential disaster declaration since 2008. one of those for a terrorist attack. but, so we need to continue focusing all hazards world and

the capabilities that we build can be transferred back and forth and are interchangeable. >> to follow-up on what was said about if you look at all hazards people on the scene today to take care of injured runners and make sure the traffic flow and make sure people are safe from the marathon quickly turned from the all hazard in order to make a difference in people's lives. but this was truly as we call a whole, md response to be the was police officers, firefighters paramedics, volunteers, members of the community, the public that cannot and saved lives to it really made a difference. but boston strong was no accident. it was the years of planning and years of training coming years of purchasing the right equipment for the right people at the right time and it saved lives.

>> we have killed a lot of hearings here in the senate and in the house as well some of them are valuable very valuable and some are somewhat valuable. this has been the most valuable hearing and an exceptional panel. thank you very much for your statements and responses to questions. very proud of the members of this committee and i am glad they were able to come. they could have been any number of places that really pleased. the former ag from new jersey. ..

>> but since 9/11, our country has worked hard to strengthen our ability, one, to prevent terrorist attacks and when prevention fails to try to mitigate the effects of those attacks. the boston marathon terrorist attack unfortunately put that respond after mitigation systems to a real test. and from what we've heard today we have boston and massachusetts

first responder emergency measures, law enforcement personnel medical workers and marathon officials, and just a lot of citizens to thank for this. i think that cities and towns and states from coast to coast could be well served, would be well served if they knew, could learn the lessons that we've learned. and i'm reminded up here today in this hearing. exercises like turbine shield can save lives. they can help prepare first responders for dealing with the chaos that ensues in the aftermath of a disaster. by helping them build kind of relationships that we talked about needed to work together effectively. second, the city and the states emergency services planned and prepared for the worst-case scenarios. and as a result many of the resources needed or an effective response were in place at the time of the bombing.

and lastly, while boston's preparedness for and response to the attacks were clear strengths, cities and state officials have noted that more attention needs to be paid to help new city cope with a long-term recovery efforts that followed a disaster. again, on behalf of all of us thank you. i think he used the term boston strong, and i'm sure i'm a huge baseball fan. unissued detroit tigers fan and but i'm always root for whoever is going against the yankees. some of the best baseball games i've ever seen were at fenway park. with the tigers and with the yankees, great baseball. the folks in boston and folks in massachusetts made us enormously proud with the way you responded as a team to an awful tragedy. saved the lives and made sure

that out of a horrible situation a lot of good actually came. and hopefully in our efforts to mine the data, mine what worked them made what didn't work so well, so good will come out of a bad situation, very bad tragic situation. and help prepare and other community, another city, another state for a disaster. there are plenty of disasters of the threaten of us. part of our challenge is to make sure they don't occur and we need them in the bud. we do that 24/7. sometimes as we senior tragically, sometimes they get by us. something awful happens. we have to respond. and you responded beautifully. thank you again for joining us today for a wonderful hearing. and with that i'm going to go vote. we will called today, thank you. this committee is adjourned. i should add the record will remain open for 15 days until

july 25 for the submission of statements and questions for the record. [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> taking a look at congress next week the house is in on tuesday with work next week on a bill that would delay for one year the employer and individual mandate called for under the health care law. members will also take up legislation to fund the department of defense in 2014. the senate returns monday at 2 p.m. eastern for general speeches. later in the day senators from both parties will meet in the old senate chamber to further discuss proposed changes to filibuster rules. yesterday, a dispute arose among party leaders regarding the delay of the senate consideration of the president's executive nominees. that afternoon majority leader harry reid took steps to set up

votes and cut off debate on a number of those nominations. including top spots at the labor department, the environmental protection agency, and the consumer financial protection bureau. senator reid also putting forward three nominees for the national labor relations board which currently has only three members. the minimum required for it to conduct business. the term of one of its members expires in august means the board would lack the quorum needed to operate unless the senate acts on the nominee. >> today the heritage foundation held a discussion on proposed changes to the senate filibuster rules. we heard about the so-called nuclear option which allows the senate to lower the 60 vote threshold to end filibusters on judicial and executive branch nominations. here's a look. >> now it is true that right now senator reid does not have 60 votes in his caucus.

and he is supposedly going to use quote the nuclear option to change all of that. now, this is not the first time this issue has come up. when senator bill frist was the senate majority leader and was being frustrated by votes on judicial nominations he proposed the nuclear option. and the result was that a gang of 14 seven republicans and seven democrats worked together and came to the floor and said no. we are not going down that road. and that was enough to stop

senator frist. i would hope that as a result of the caucus on monday night there might be a similar group that would come to the floor and say do not go down this road. i can tell you having seen what happened in 1975 when the senate did go down that road, the repercussions lasted for years year and the bitterness lasted for years. it's not something i would ever wish for the united states senate. the senate is an institution that i loved. i worked there for 35 years. i now teach about how congress

works at george washington university, and i honor the senate. i can remember, frankly that when this was proposed by senator frist i went on the cbs evening news and suggested that if a group of senators would come to the floor and say stop the madness we could stop it. and that's exactly what happened happened. and that's what stopped senator frist. i sincerely hope that that is what happens after that caucus on monday night. and a group comes to the floor and says stop the madness. >> that was a portion of an event held earlier today at the

heritage foundation. you can see the entire discussion tonight at eight eastern on the companion network c-span. >> earlier this week, house republicans on the ways and means subcommittee on health renewed calls to repeal the health care law. lawmakers focus on the administration's recent decision to delay implementing the employer mandate portion of the law from 2014 to 2015. the house next week will take up a bill that would delay for one year the employer and individual mandate called for under the health care law. this hearing from wednesday is two hours. >> the subcommittee will come to order. today we are examining the treasury department's strangely-timed announcement that it is delaying the enforcement of obamacare's employer mandate for one year. for the last several months we've heard the white house

repeatedly pledge to congress and the american people that the president's affordable care act will be ready on schedule. absolutely. take it to the bank. in fact secretary kathleen sebelius recently insisted before this very committee that the white house would not miss another obamacare deadline. not one. not again. shortly thereafter the nation learned in a blog post of the embarrassing failure by the white house to have this major pillar of the new law in place on schedule. the treasury department's announcement confirms our concerns obamacare is simply not ready. this committee has serious questions about how and why this alarming decision was made and the effect that delaying this key provision will have on other provisions of the law specifically the directive that individuals purchase government-approved health care or pay a tax. there are also questions about the unprecedented manner in which it was announced on an obscure treasury blog site just

two days before the 4th of july. we invited treasury officials to testify today to explain to the american people the rationale for the delay and how they announced this major setback. however they declined to appear today. let me be clear this committee intends to get an explanation and will plan on treasury officials appearing at a date in the near future. let's also be clear about what this decision means. this one-year reprieve doesn't solve the problems of local businesses struggling to comply with obamacare. the consequences of the mandate still remain employers are still required to provide government-mandated coverage or pay a substantial tax. many local businesses continue to cut worker's hours, and worker's paychecks, as they grapple to meet the aca's definition of a full time employee. many businesses are laboring to find more money for rising health care costs for themselves and their workers as costs

increase. and jobs are still at risk, up to 3.2 million in the franchise industry alone, as local companies struggle with the onerous obamacare's requirements. for patients, families and their children though, you have to wonder if obamacare isn't ready for businesses, is it ready for my family? a lot of lives are at stake. quality health care is critical. everyone is aware the white house has also missed almost every key deadline in preparing this health care law for families and individuals. the white house says it's listening to the concerns of our nation's businesses. but are they ignoring the voices of american families and taxpayers? unlike businesses and labor unions, which have been granted a reprieve, there's been no delay of the individual mandate forcing average americans to buy government-approved health

insurance or pay a tax. these families and individuals are also facing higher costs and skyrocketing premiums. they have no relief from the new taxes in obamacare. today three years after the passage of the president's signature health care law, the majority of americans disapprove of this law. who's listening to them? if the government mandate to buy insurance has been postponed for businesses and labor unions, out of fairness shouldn't it be postponed for families and individuals as well? while the white house continues to suggest obamacare will be ready on october 1 the stunning delay of the employer mandate calls that into question. look at the pattern of delays and failures that have occurred since implementation began. the class act proved unworkable and was abandoned. the onerous 1099 reporting mandate was overwhelmingly repealed. the exchanges promised for small businesses failed to be ready on time and were delayed. significant parts of the law

were found unconstitutional, 34 states have chosen not to build state exchanges, the technology-intensive data hub key to obamacare isn't ready, the navigator grants have not gone out to local communities. the list is growing, not shrinking as we get closer to october 1st. clearly the roll-out of obamacare is in disarray and experts are questioning whether the white house is competent enough to administer its own massive health care law. the employer mandate delay could also have a profound impact on the federal budget and raises numerous questions. how much less will the government collect because of the delay? how many more people will end up or be forced into the exchanges? without employer reporting requirements, how can we ensure subsidies are only going to those without offers of affordable insurance? again it's unfortunate that no treasury officials are here today to answer these important questions. the american people, congress and this committee deserve these

answers. and we will get them. but what we do know is that obamacare is making health care more expensive, costing americans their jobs, shrinking their paychecks and preventing families from keeping the health care they have and like. instead of simply delaying enforcement of certain provisions of obamacare, it is clear this law must be repealed. before iraq nice the ranking member, dr. mcdermott for the purposes of an opening statement, i ask unanimous consent that all members written statements included in the record. without objections order. i now recognize dr. mcdermott, ranking member, for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i suppose we could spend the morning talking about how and why the policy was changed and how it was announced. i might have preferred a different approach, but it's not my job to speculate on best practices for the white house. it's my job it's our job

actually to continue to shape and guide reform so that it best serves the american people. focus on policy not on politics. there's been a lot of noise from both sides of the aisle on what this shift means but nobody really knows. i didn't spend my fourth of july combing over the implications of the change and i doubt there's anyone who did. i'm trying to adjust on the back of a galloping horse before we have a chance to properly consider it would simply be unwise. three days, here we are having a hearing on something that was announced before the fourth. i'm sure it's tempting for those who have stood against reform and progress from the beginning to see this as a chance to rip obamacare a part again, yet another time. the ironing of objecting to the delay of a program you have been trying to stop is no doubt lost on this room. we are even going to get a

38th vote shortly to repeal it. so you know where one half of this room is coming from. the fact is obamacare is largely unaffected by the delay. it was always designed to be built on current coverage and filling the gaps. the employer responsibility requirements are just a piece of that puzzle that make up universal coverage. the marketplace exchanges are on track to open on march 1. my state is well out there. i've been talking to people over the fourth of july, and they are raring to go. there are many places in this country who have geared up for this. places like texas haven't. that's another issue. premium filings are coming in lower than expected in washington california and other states. oregon's 2014 filings showed premiums slashed by as much as 35%. reality dramatically contradict the rhetoric that you here in here. we don't know exactly what the

landscape will look like in january, but it is entirely possible this decision will actually help consumers. they will have a chance to access to the exchanges. employees who remain uncovered will be able to find assistance through tax credits and other subsidies in the federal marketplace of the state of change. the delay will also give businesses time to adjust and for the community work with treasury, to work out the most efficient and effective way to comply with the law. 4905% of the employers who already offer coverage to their employees, we have every reason to believe it will continue to do so. microsoft, amazon, bowling they're not going to stop offering to their people. massachusetts saw no drop in employer coverage under romneycare. in fact, in the seven years since its his application of universal health insurance employer coverage has actually increased slightly. but more important it's better for us to delay this and get

right than to rush and get it wrong. i'd like to put it a little historical context here. in 1966, the beginning of my medical practice, medical workers were traveling door-to-door, medicare workers were dropping door-to-door trying to enroll seniors. with 100 million leaflets that were printed before the bill was signed into law or passed out of the congress. they printed those. they were already up and running. they got a jumpstart. and they printed it without appropriated funds. and usually those doors were slammed in the face. the american medical association denounced the program as the first step toward socialism and agency administrators wondered if hospitals would be overrun with a sick and the elderly patients stretching up for blocks. you can read this in history. i'm not making this up. this is what was going on in 1966. the bureau of health insurance begin operating without

oversight and often without regard to formal requirements of rule making, simply hoping things would fall into place. 47 years later medicare is the bedrock of our social safety net. it is the standardbearer of a government that works and a big part of what saved us then was that everyone was working together to get it off the ground. congress intentionally wrote flexible conditions and the administration was allowed to make changes as they saw fit. they were willing to take chances to ensure success. now, let's consider the path before us. before we burn the bridge behind us, the president isn't going to reverse this decision so nothing that happened today will make any difference. so let's see where it goes. and more importantly, let's remember to whom we are accountable. it's not pollsters or cable news anchors or the president's campaign team. our only job in this committee

is to fulfill the promise to american citizens of a affordable health care. we're having this hearing to hear from you why this isn't going to work but that's what it's all about. the supposition of this hearing is that it's all over. it's dead. let's see if that's true. i yield back the bounce of my time. >> today we'll hear from five witnesses, avik roy, senior fellow from the manhattan institute james capretta, fellow with ethics and public policy center, william dennis, jr. senior research fellow at the national federation of independent business. sean falk, owner of wolfteam llc, and timothy jost the robert l. willett family professor of law at washington and lee university school of law who is accompanied i his wife, ruth, today. mr. roy, you are recognized for five minutes. >> chairman brady ranking member mcdermott, and members of health subcommittee, thanks

for inviting me to speak with you today about the affordable care act implemented. my name is avik roy, i'm a senior fellow at the ban institute for policy research in which capacity i conduct research on health care and anton reforms. in my remarks today i will focus on three questions. first does the employer mandate help the affordable care act achieve its goals? second, what are the ramifications of the white house's decision to delay the mandate by one year? third what would be the policy impact of h.r. 903 the american shopper kitchen act which would repeal the employer mandate in its entirety? while the affordable care act strives to achieve many things the lost primary goal is to move the united states as close as possible to universal health insurance coverage. does the employer mandate help to achieve this goal? my ear and if you of many others across the spectrum is that it does not.

according to the medical expenditure panel survey, 97% of firms with 50 or more workers already offer health coverage. 97% is not 100% of course and not all firms that offer coverage offered to every employee. but the aca simply mandate incentivizes employers to avoid hiring low income workers precisely the type of workers who tend to be uninsured. as the center on budget and policy priorities put it in 2009, in essence affected firms would pay a tax for hiring people from low or moderate income families. the penalties associate with the employer mandate are only triggered if a worker is not offered what the aca deems affordable coverage, and if the worker then gains subsidize coverage on in aca sponsored insurance exchange. as a result employers have three incentives. first, to hire fewer full-time

workers. second, to offer so-called unaffordable coverage for which the penalties are lower and third, to hire illegal immigrants. so the affordable care act low income individuals would still be able to gain subsidize health insurance. but they will be tagged with a scarlet s. for getting those subsidies because to employers hiring subsidize individuals will be far more costly than hiring unsubsidized once. a one year delay of the employer mandate does give the administration more time to implement the law. but a delay does not fundamentally alter the perverse incentives i've just described. it's doubly gives employers an additional year to restructure their workforces accordingly. a one year delay does however, impact other important provisions of the aca. in order to gain eligibility for exchange subsidy an individual must prove that he has not been

offered quote unquote affordable coverage from his employer. but now that the reporting requirement of the employer mandate has been delayed it may be difficult for them to establish that. hence it appears cms will rely on applicants attestations, the honor system, to dispense subsidies in some cases. similarly the acs and documented only works if the government can verify whether or not a worker is full-time or part-time whether he has been offered affordable or unaffordable coverage or none at all. h.r. 903 the american shopper kitchen act is a bipartisan bill that was introduced last february and refer to this committee. it would repeal the employer mandate by striking the relevant sections of the internal revenue code in the affordable care act. repealing the employer mandate would eliminate the perverse incentives i described earlier. most important, it would encourage to transition away from costly, inefficient

employer-sponsored coverage and towards portable individually on insurance policies. as you all know economists have long advocated for this transition, and repealing the employer mandate would go a long way toward achieving it. in this way h.r. 903 could emerge as a major policy advance. some analysts have raised concerns that such a transition would be costly due to the increased spending on exchange subsidies that would result. however, in march 2012 the cbo estimated that if an additional 14 million workers moved from employer-based to exchange-based coverage the deficit would actually decreased by $13 billion over 10 years. this is because of the increase in exchange subsidies is offset by a reduction in lost revenue from the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored interest. it will be important for h.r. 903 to be adjusted or to take into account its impact on the

disbursement of subsidies and individual mandate. the individual mandate could be replaced with a more limited open enrollment period for participating in aca certified insurance plans. this would achieve the individual mandates goal of curbing adverse selection, without the mandates intrusiveness or constitutional injury. i will conclude by recalling that scarlet s. we all want an economy in which those at the bottom of the ladder have the opportunity to find gainful employment and good health to the employer mandate harms those it is intended to help instead of delaying it we should repeal it. thanks again for having me it as an addendum to our investment i've included three article from forbes and which are further expand on these issues. i look forward to questions and being of further assistance to this committee. >> thanks. mr. cabrera. >> mr. chairman, ranking member mcdermott and members of the subcommittee, thanks opportunity didtoday. the decision by the administration to expand template mandate for 2014 until the applicants income

attestation in some instances were only announced last week it will take some additional time for the full implementations are known. nonetheless, my testimony i will try to provide some initial observations about what they might mean. technically the administration did not announce a delay in the employer mandate. was announced was a one year delay in the recording requirements necessary to enforce the mandate. the administrations have been noted in its announcement that the delay and clicking the relevant data with nestlé me a simultaneous delight into turning which employer owed shared responsibresponsib ility payments. does the entire employer mandate structure was put off for a year for the backdoor of an administrative decision to not collect information. some have questioned the administration's legal authority to take this action. certainly clear that what the administration is doing is not consistent with the intent of the statute. congress put in place the mandate and reporting system to enforce it to begin in 2014 not 2015. i am not a lawyer. i will do it for others to debate whether the

administration can stretch the meaning of the worst in the statute to justify what you're doing. i would another know it has yet disputed that is clearly inconsistent with what congress intended. the employer mandate is a terribly flawed policy but it is harmful for lower income workers for jobs growth and strength of the broader economy. the structure of the mandate affects unemployment and job growth are well known and were obvious even before enactment. for starters the law exempting a point with under 50 workers from the mandates requirements. not surprisingly, firms are adjusting to stay beneath this 50 workers threshold. exactly what we don't need in the current economy. the structure of the mandates believe provides, as already mentioned, powerful incident for employers to avoid hiring lower income workers. for instance, if you're a restaurant and you have the option of hiring a worker you would pay low wages to from a middle-class neighborhood or a lower income neighborhood you might tip the middle-class

neighborhood because the probability is they would be less likely to draw subsidies under the exchange and therefore, induce a penalty on the employer. creates a terrible bias in the law. the law also extends part-time workers from the penalty structure and the cell just 30 hours a week as the upper limit for determining which workers are considered part-time. we've seen story after story around the country now about from suggesting in the local governments adjusting to push their workers below this 30 hour per week threshold. in addition it was known in advance of enactment of employer mandate, as designed in the health of law, would be carried -- every burdensome to enforce. robert reischauer made this point publicly to a meeting of journalists in 2009 stating it would be an immense hassle on the administrative front as he urged a different approach. last weeks announcement made it clear that he was absolutely right. the administration's decision not to enforce the mandate does not alter this problem that

affects. employers that are today hesitant to hire workers to go above the 50 workers russia or to move to part-time workers about 30 hours per week are not going to turn their plans upside down ace on the one year delay. the reason you lowered decisions will have significant budgetary consequences. cbo estimated that the employer penalties were supposed to generate $10 billion in 2015 based on recording in 2014. it's hard to imagine to collect that $10 billion now but, in fact, i assume it is gone. moreover, it's quite clear that the whole structure for enforcing the employer requirement has now been put into question. if you listen to the employer community they said it is basically unworkable and totally you will never generate the income it was supposed to generate. cbo's original estimate, they assumed $140 billion from his employer payments. does anyone believe we will collect that much money for something that is so controversial? finally, the reliance on income attestation in some instances in

the exchanges is very likely to result in more erroneous payments. in 2012 according to the treasury inspector general for tax administration, the federal government paid out up to 13 points $6 billion in erroneous eitc things. a system that has many more dated checks, also has been in place for more than two decades and has lots of this force went built into a probably less coveted than the premium credits in the health care law. relying on quote the honor system is very likely to result in numerous and large scale erroneous payments. the administration's recent decision to delay significant parts of the health care law is an invitation to congress to revisit the law. i would urge this committee and this congress to consider statutorily of the employer mandate a simultaneous statutory delay in individual mandate, and a strong look at delaying the entire exchange

process until it is clear that the data systems protect taxpayers. thank you. >> thank you. mr. dennis, you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my name is william dennis, i'm a senior research fellow at the nfib research foundation. when you are ill prepared as a general it's advisable to delayed postponed or even cancel. in this case small business people, small business owners certainly are receptive to the delay. they -- there's certainly been no information or certainly inadequate information for them to make a decision which is necessary to operate under this program. the delay however changes nothing. this kind of delay moves it back a year including small business reticence to higher and to invest. the exception of course is the diminished ability of the

administration visit administration brats in administration to get something of this size done directly, or even to do it at all. let's assume for a moment that everything gets straightened out next week. there's guidance, rules and all that sort of things. obvious it's not going to happen but let's make that assumption. small business still has a major information problem. small business owners get their information generally through secondary channels. secondary channels are accountants, lawyers, websites of trade associations, so on and so forth. that means that in order to inform small business by bush and generally, it's a two-step process. you have to educate the educators and educating educated then in turn will educate the population. so quite frankly if we're looking at 2015 january 1,

2015, they will still have to hustle to get information from small businesses that will help them with compliance issues. that says nothing for any recordkeeping that they're going to have to start with on january 1, 2014, depending upon how the rules are subsequently interpreted. now, as i mentioned, the substance issue really happened change. they are the same. i just moved back to you. i have identified five and i would just like to mention them. and although there are some others, i'm sure others would highlight. the first obviously is the full-time part-time issue. the 35 hours, 30 hours. i'm not sure i know of anyone who disagrees that this is become a real problem, a real disincentive hiring. parenthetically, some would argue that only 3% of small businesses are affected by this employer mandate.

this provision alone shows that number is silly, because this provision will affect literally hundreds of thousands if not millions because those without are going to have to consider this when they make their decisions on health insurance. the second is the so-called look back rules. this effectively is going to require enormous amounts of paperwork. because they're going to have to start keeping hourly records on salaried employees. 55% of small businesses have at least some salaried employees. they are not keeping hours now. they don't have systems in place. they would not normally have systems in place to do this. clearly come if we were going to look at these people on an hourly basis to qualify as a full-time employee, they will have to hourly records, which is a massive new record-keeping problem.

the determination of affordability is number three. i'm not really sure what to say because we've never had any rules proposals to get it looks like it may be difficult, but who knows? so that's really up in the air. number four are the business aggregation rules and this is the sleeper. this is the one that i think has huge potential significance, and for two reasons. many owners have more than one business. many businesses have more than one owner. so what combination or combinations constitute a single entity? and navigate to the second problem. this has been answered by putting this these combinations under the new erisa rules. the erisa rules are some of the most complicated rules known to mankind. and effect is only a very small segment of the legal population,

or a of the legal, yeah, population, employee benefit group backing even interpret this thing. so here you may have as many as 100,000 businesses needing some time, or should have some type of interpretation, understanding or whatever economic a very very small community is going to be there to satisfy. and, finally lastly, five the mandate per se is irrelevant innocents. it's tied to health insurance. it ties health insurance to employers. we should be going exactly in the opposite direction. effective we are freezing the past when we should be looking to the future. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> mr. falk, you're recognized. >> chairman brady ranking member mcdermott and members of the subcommittee, thank you for your invitation to testify at today's hearing.

i'm honored to speak with you regarding the affordable care act. i believe my role as a franchise small business owner gives me a unique perspective that is uttered often enough in washington. franchise small businesses have been particularly affected by the affordable care act, and i hope to express the concerns of myself and that of our industry as a whole. my name is sean falk and that own and operate 12 franchised business units. as a former united states marine, i understand the demand for hard work. as a business owner, i have the luxury of working any 80 hours of the week i choose. with 43 full-time equivalent employees i'm a proud participant in a diverse franchise committee which supports nearly 18 million jobs. you may recognize some of the businesses i operate. salsarita's fres cantina, great american cookies and cecile's cookies, and pretzel maker. i bought my first franchise in

1998, and through 2008 i was opening on average more than one location per year. i'm also a member of the international franchise association, and then here today to represent the association and the entire franchise community. government actions play an important role in my business decisions. as a business owner, i can't make future business plans when congress plans and extends regulations for only one year at a time or changes them with only six months before implementation. while my fellow small business owners and not upon the administration for delaying the publication of the employer mandate due to the continued ambiguity of the law and its compliance requirements, it does not solve the fundamental problems associated with the aca and its impact on business operations and future job growth. we have to plan well in advance

for significant changes in the law, receding keep regulations less than three months before a new requirement goes into effect does not provide ample time for employers and small business owners to successfully a doubt their businesses to remain economically stable. implementation of the affordable care act has presented an enormous challenge for me as a small business owner. navigating the constant changes waivers, extensions, regulations and clarifications of an already cumbersome law has diverted my focus from developing my business and creating new jobs. i am facing the legalities of health care exchanges the employer mandate, and full-time equivalents whether it is in 2014 or 2015. all of these tasks take me away from my core mission of growing my business, and there are very few government resources to guide small business owners through this process. the franchise industry has two

specific changes that could be made to the aca to help small business owners like myself comply with the law without hurting our businesses. number one increasing the 30 hour threshold that qualifies and employed as full-time to 40 hours a week. secondly increase the 50 full-time equivalent employee threshold that requires employers to provide coverage to full-time employees. currently, i employed 43 full-time equivalent employees. if my business grows and i create jobs, i will also drastically increased my costs due to the employer mandate. this has an undeniable impact on my bottom line which is my livelihood as a business owner. and it's making me reconsider opening new locations. also, i may be forced to reduce my employees hours to less than 30 hours per week so that they do not acquire full-time status when i do expand. with these challenges and changes, i fear that it may be a

struggle just to keep the doors open on my 12 existing businesses. i would relish the opportunity to grow my business, but the recent government registry burdens placed on my small businesses and the uncertain economic climate have given me reason for pause. i have to weigh the pros and cons of the aca before deciding on future growth. i hope policymakers will consider focusing their energies on addressing the burdens small business owners face within the employer mandate, whether it is implanted -- us are whenever it is implement. it's time to address the fundamental challenges facing our history that are keeping small business owners and entrepreneurs on the sidelines and from grading new jobs. thank you for the opportunity for to answering any questions you may have. >> think you. mr. jost, you're recognized. can you hit that microphone? >> thank you. thank you. thank you for this opportunity to address you today.

you've now heard 20 minutes of criticism of the affordable care act and i have five minutes to respond. i wish i 20 minutes to respond because a lot of what has been said is inadequate and a lot of questions have been raised here but i will try to confine my remarks. on january 1, 2014, millions of uninsured and uninsurable americans will become eligible for coverage under the affordable care act. the aca expands coverage to five major mechanism. these are the premium tax credits which will make make more affordable for millions of uninsured americans with incomes which in spite of the supreme court decision will still expand medicaid coverage to millions next year, provisions that protect americans from preexisting conditions funding denied insurance and charge higher premiums, the individual responsibility provision that asks americans who can't afford health insurance to purchase it or pay attacks. and, finally, the employer mandate which requires large

employers to offer affordable and adequate coverage to their full-time employees, or risk facing a tax penalty, to offset the costs the public will incur of covering their employees. 95% of employers with 50 or more employees already offer health coverage in the absence of the mandate. if this mandate is there to encourage employers to maintain or expand coverage and discourage them from dropping it on january 2, 2013 treasury department announced it was delaying for one year the aca employer insurance recording requirement. treasury had heard from businesses this morning and i think have heard from business and i think we've heard this morning that they need more time to comply. because it's impractical to implement the mandate without the recording enforcement was delayed until 2015. this decision raises for issues. first was illegal? the employer aca employs responsibility provisions you

have an effective date of january 1, 2014. the reporting requirements, however, apply quote at such time as the secretary may prescribe. also, the aca requires the irs to assess and collect penalties in same manner as penalties under chapter 68 of the internal revenue code and the irs frequently a big chapter 60 penalties. the irs claims authority under section 7805 and posted a long history of both republican and democratic administrations delaying into mentation of tax provisions when time and resource constraints have made immediate implementation impractical. a second question is whether delay jeopardizes the implementation of the aca requirements, of other aca requirements, particularly provisions dealing with eligibility for premium tax credits. the law was never intended, exchanges were never intended to

rely on insurer and employer reports, which are supplied a long after tax credits are granted to determine and applicants employer coverage. in a final rule released last friday the administration sent out a system for gathering and verifying information needed to determine individual eligibility. it's described in my written test one. i would be happy to explain it in as great a length as you would please. it is not an honor. much of our tax reporting system is an honor system. this is not an honor system. and for the more false reporting carries a two and $50000 fine and is a felony. a third question is whether the delay is justifiable from a policy perspective. the announcement was greeted favorably by a wide range of business and insurance interests who are concerned about the publications of reporting. the moratorium should allow employers and insurers to adjust their i.t. systems to make reporting possible, beginning in 2015.

in the meantime employers will know how many other employees if any are getting premium tax credits and what time to adjust the coverage, offering to make sure they are in compliance by 2015. there's little evidence that employers will rush in the meantime. all the many reasons employers have for offering coverage today will continue to exist, and the lack of one more incentive is not going to drive them to drop coverage. finally, otherwise impeded into mentation of the aca. congress in 2010 gave the administration an enormous task preserving our current employment and private insurance system while modifying it to serve all americans. this congress has made that task immensely more difficult by starting the administration of the resources they need to do this task. the administration continues to reiterate that the most important reform, the premium tax credits in exchange for a fully functional by january 1, 2014.

and i know of no evidence to the contrary. delaying the mandate will make the administration's job easier, not harder and is likely to minimize potential confusion for employers and employees alike. if you actually care what the aca into mentation will help your constituents, take action immediately to appropriate the money needed to get the job done. if you're not willing to help with the job of aca implementation, you have no standing to complain and delay. thank you. >> thank you got questions for mr. capretta, mr. and mr. falk. i will get to mr. capretta. you're talking about fairness in your testimony that you submitted to us at the employer mandate will be delayed. it would only seem fair if the individual mandate is delayed as well. why should large companies be relieved from responsibilities but not workers? and you talk about fair to threaten taxpayers on the uninsured under the phillies but can you explain why you feel that we? >> yet.

certainly the law requires that individuals beginning in 2014 sign up with the government improved interest either through the employer or through the exchanges, or the death penalty of the greater of $95 or 1% of their household income. that would be enforced in the tax system through what they are fun and taxes probably in early 2015. look at the situation we have now where you have many employees potential and not getting an offer of coverage from their employer because the employer requirement has now been suspended for a year. moreover, we don't know if they were offered coverage through their employer. moreover in many of the exchanges around the country there is in at least one state only one plan being offered in many states may be two plans being offered. ..

is obamacare ready for door family in your opinion? >> i would not only echo the point, but i would point out that the cost of coverage on the of aca exchanges and the higher than exists in the market for insurance so not only are we requiring the individual mandate but individuals and families purchase coverage requiring them to buy coverage that in