stand and respond to and rapidly recover from disruptions. in may of 2009 president obama took a significant step towards fasscilitating and institutionalizing national resilience when he merged the homeland security council and national security council into a single structure. and created a resilience directorate with the national security council. this directorate managing resilience policy and operates alongside the counterterrorism director. this action established resilience as a homeland security pillar and priority, which was called out for the first time in the president's national security strategy. dhs affirmed this prioritization in his qhsr, quadrennial homeland security view in 2010, promoting insurance of resilience to disasters as one of the department's core missions, and responsibilities. but the question is, how do you create and foster resilience. establishing the concept of resilience is an essential first step but it is only one piece of

pro-actively preparing for potential disasters and readily responding to a situation as it occurs. across the department, from fema, to mppd to science and technology, we work with a wide array of government, private and nonprofit faith-based organizations to build and foster resilience. not as a concept, but as an applied reality. fema is leading implementation of the national preparedness system. my colleague here today will discuss our critical infrastructure, security and resilience programs, and in my office, the office of policy, we coordinate resilience initiatives and policy across the department and are working to create the framework that fosters resilience and gives a coherent baseline. i'd like to share one example of some of the important work that we've been doing. we're creating a program called resilience star based on the energy star concept which you probably are familiar with for appliances in your own home. in this case, it will help

ensure that homes will be built to voluntarily standard, stronger standards that will incur far less damage by disasters, protecting lives, livelihoods and helping communities respond to and recover to disasters, much more quickly. ultimately, dhs aims to extend the resilience star program beyond homes and facilities and into critical infrastructure. helping to recapitalize the built environment across america in the long-term. one home, one building, one bridge at a time. our investments in resilience will pay significant dividends for the country. it is efficient and it is cost effective. homeland security is simply not about government action rather it is also about collective strength of the entire country. it's a shared responsibility requires the participation of individuals, communities, the private sector, as well as state, local and the federal government to be truly effective. the department's ready.gov website serves as a resource for citizens and businesses and communities, so that they can stay informed and take

appropriate prepared measures. this is as i said a shared responsibility. it requires that we all work together to marshal all the resources to withstand whatever threats and hazards we may face. it is truly the actions of each of us that in the end will ensure the safety and security for all of us. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> chairman, thank you very, very much. mrs. durkovich, please proceed. >> thank you, chairman carper, senator johnson, and distinguished members of the committee. i, too, extend my thoughts and prayers to senator coburn and his family. it is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the department's efforts to enhance the resilience of the nation's critical infrastructure to extreme weather. our daily life, economic vitality and national security depend on critical infrastructure. infrastructure provides essential services and functions, but it is easily taken for granted. often, it is only when an incident occurs in service is disrupted that attention is

drawn to the importance of the infrastructure itself. threats to our critical infrastructure are wide ranging. including aging and failing components, cyber threats, acts of terrorism, and climate change and extreme weather. the consequences of these threats to the public and private sectors can be seen in the events over the last decade. hurricanes katrina and sandy, the tornadoes in the midwest, wildfires, and flooding across the western states, the california drought, the extreme cold in the northwest, all demonstrate how weather can disrupt the availability of lifeline functions in other critical services. just as terrorist attacks threaten our communities, extreme weather disrupts the security of our nation. extreme weather strains our resources, diverts attention from counterterrorism efforts, serves as a threat multiplier that aggravates stressors both at home and abroad, and destabilizes the lifeline sectors on which we rely. higher temperatures and more intense storms can cause inefficient infrastructure

operations and damage and disruptions that can result in cascading effects across our communities. hurricane sandy is a vivid example of the potentially devastating impacts extreme weather can have on critical infrastructure, and demonstrates how interdependencies between infrastructure systems can magnify impacts and delay restoration. additionally, the increasing role of cyber and communication networks creates new vulnerabilities and opportunities for disruption. two years ago, high temperatures and high demand tripped a transformer and transmission line in yuma, arizona, starting a chain of events that shut down the san inevery nuclear power plant, disabilitying automaticing switching assistance leading to a large-scale power outage across the entire san diego distribution system. strides have been made to address vulnerabilities that lead to such outages but additional progress is needed to protect our interrelated systems. ed nation must take a long-term perspective in account for

evolving threats and hazards including those caused by extreme weather that are linked to changes in climate. especially with regards to building resilience for critical infrastructure. built infrastructure has a ten-year design build phase in a life span of 50 years or more. and is expected to operate under stressor conditions that sometimes we can't even imagine. as a result, it is a prudent investment to incorporate resilient into asset and system design, promote mitigation and built infrastructure and to empower owners and operators with decision making tools rather than to rebuild or redesign infrastructure after incidents occur. to achieve infrastructure resilience owners and operators must be able to minimize the disruption to essential services provided to our communities. regardless of the hazard or threat. and when a disruption occurs, ensure essential services and functions are brought back to full operations as quickly as possible. one year ago today, president obama issued presidential policy directive 21.

critical infrastructure security and resilience an executive order 13636 improving critical infrastructure cyber security. ppd 21 directed dhs to develop an update to the national infrastructure protection plan, or the nip which was released in 2013. the nip 2012 envisions a nation in which physical and cyber critical infrastructure remains secure and resilient. essential services and products continue to be delivered in the face of incidents, and communities and businesses adaptd to changing conditions and rapidly recover from poe tepgs disruptions. the office of infrastructure protection is leveraging our core capabilities, such as information sharing, capacity development, vulnerability assessments, and situational awareness to support owners and operators' efforts to strengthen resilience to extreme weather. as part of the hurricane sandy rebuilding task force, ip and other federal partners work to develop the infrastructure resilience guidelines which are sound investment principles to guide federal infrastructure

investment as we modernize and adapt infrastructure. simple things, such as consistent application of comprehensive science-based data, and a regional cross jurisdictional focus or selecting projects. additionally, i co-chair the new infrastructure resilience work group with the department of energy under the white house council on climate preparedness and resilience. through this working group, we are coordinating interagency efforts on climate preparedness and resilience for the nation's infrastructure. the working group is studying infrastructure's most vulnerable to climate impacts throughout the united states, and identifying risk based mitigation in adaptions -- adoption strategies. this will inform and aid the critical infrastructure community with planning and decision making regarding climate preparedness and resilience. ip also works with state and local partners through the regional resiliency assessment program to examine a particular industry, region or municipality's dependence on key lifeline sectors and to mitigate the hazards that could disrupt these complex ecosystems.

this year we are partnering with the state of maine to produce the first climate change adaptation plan for the portland metropolitan area. in closing, by increasing the resilience of our critical infrastructure in our communities we are better prepared as a nation to the myriad of threats and hazards we face. leveraging the partnership framework we have established over the past ten years, ip will continue to work with owners and operators of critical infrastructure to understand the impact of extreme weather, and to take steps to enhance resilience. thank you very much, and i look forward to answering your questions. mrs. durkovich, thank you so much for your time. stick around we'll have some questions. mr. gaffigan, very nice to see you. please proceed. >> senator carper good to see you again, senator johnson. thank you for inviting me here. let me also extend the best wishes to senator coburn and his family. i had the fortune to attend one of senator coburn's first hearings when he was on the hill and we told us afterwards he was going to do some oversight and i think he's followed through on

that. so i'm very sorry he's not able to join us today. zbleez announced he's going to step down at the end of the year, and while he has some health he said that has nothing to do with those just a personal decision he and his family have made. but i have said to him, well, you're still on the payroll for another, you know, 10 1/2 months, so i know you wanted to finish strong. and we're going to make sure that you do. and he's determined to. so plenty more oversight to come. >> yeah. great. i want to make three points. first there's a lot at stake. we've all talked about some of the numbers, in your opening statement, there are significant costs from extreme weather. but not only to the federal government, but also to the state, local, tribal governments, businesses, farmers, individuals, in short, everyone. second, there is uncertainty about the specific risks we might face from extreme weather, and how we can adapt to those changes, and manage those risks.

complicating this uncertainty is that the risks faced and the appropriate adaptation is going to be particular to the situations and the locations of those facings risk. to borrow from the phrase all politics is local. all adaptation is local. third thing, given the challenge going forward for everyone facing these risks, the challenge is to strive for the best, most updated information available to help inform specific preparation, resilience, adaptation, so that the investment and preparation and resilience is most effective. and as we've explained, funds are tight. so let me illustrate what's at stake and sort of challenges in four areas that are particular to the federal government. first, the federal government has a great deal at stake, as an insurer of property and crops. in 2012 the flood insurance program had property coverage of over $1.2 trillion, while crop insurance covered $120 billion

in crops. that's a four-fold increase in the crop insurance program since 2003. however the flood insurance program has a debt $24 billion, as you pointed out. and the nation's crop insurance annual costs have more than doubled from $3.4 billion in 2001 to $7.6 billion in 2012. back in march of 2007, gao did a study and found that both of these programs' exposure to weather related losses had grown substantially and that fema and usda had done little to develop the information necessary to understand what those risks were. they've since developed a report, now those reports, usda released their report in 2009. the flood insurance program released their report in 2013. they recognize the potential risks, they recognize the uncertainty, but it's still unclear what actions these programs are going to take. in the future. and that will have a lot to say for the financial solvency of these programs going forward. but also in 2012 congress passed

the bigger water flood insurance reform act which among many things required the use of information on coastal erosion areas, future change in sea levels, and intensity of hurricanes to update its flood maps. implementation of this will be key in making changes to that program. second, the federal government is a significant provider of disaster aid. the number of federal disaster declarations increased from 65 in 2004 to a peak of 98 in 2011, and has been mentioned fema's provided over $80 billion during those years. after superstorm sandy, congress provided about $60 billion in budget authority for disaster assistance. the federal government could do a couple things. it could start by fully budgeting for these costs to address the fiscal exposure that is largely outside of the budget process, and fema could also develop an updated formula. the formula hasn't been updated since 1986, to determine the capacity of jurisdictions to respond to those disasters. third the federal government is

the owner and operator of significant infrastructure, dod alone has over half a million buildings, facilities, throughout the world, including some in vulnerable coastal areas. in addition, the federal government manages about 30% of the nation's lands. forests, wildlife, these natural resources face threats from extreme weather. dod has recognized the risks to its facilities and to trying to assess the potential impacts and consider what adaptation may be necessary at facilities in many different environments. regarding federal lands, federal resource agencies are also trying to incorporate climate related information at the local level to decide what to do best. fourth, the federal government is both an investment partner in public infrastructure, and a potential provider of technical assistance. the federal government invests billions annually in public infrastructure projects. for example cbo estimates that total public spending on transportation and water infrastructure is about $300

billion annually with about 25% of that coming from the federal government. and the rest from state and local governments. our work has found incorporating considerations about climate into the planning of this infrastructure that may be in place for 50 to 100 years can help avoid the need for assistance in the future, if the infrastructure -- so the infrastructure can withstand extreme weather. however, responsibility for planning and priorityizing these projects is primarily at the state and local level. and they may not have the information or expertise they need to incorporate climate considerations into their site-specific local projects. thus the federal government is in a position to be a provider of technical assistance, helping state and local officials identify and use the best available information that is specific to their circumstances, while also enhancing access to experts who can help translate that information down at the local level. that concludes my opening statement. i welcome your questions, thank you. >> thanks so much, mark. and for the work that -- anybody

here on your team? anybody from the audience from gao? >> gentleman right behind me, yes. and there's plenty more back in the building. >> on behalf of dr. coburn and myself how much we value the work that you do, and appreciate the opportunity to partner with you. >> thank you, sir. >> i want to first talk a little bit more, talk a little bit more about the flood insurance program. dr. johnson -- well senator johnson and i both -- dr. coburn -- voted against the flood insurance corrections bill that passed the senate not very long ago just earlier this month. late last month. and i go back in time to 1990 i was a house member on the banking committee and believe it or not i think with a guy named tom ridge, who was the raking republican on the subcommittee that i chaired then and one of our focuses of the national flood insurance program because we were concerned that the program was under water and all

these years later, well, it still. and the kind of changes we're seeing in weather it's getting to be more under water. and we adopted some changes to the legislation, in the last year or two, the -- and the costs as they come to bear on people who live in areas that are prone to flooding, are in some cases very steep, there's concerns about the flood mapping and so forth, that people were not in areas where they used to have flooding, now they do. and so the question is, what do we do, if anything, in response to those conditions, those changing conditions? and to try to be humane but also to realize that it's a lot of money at stake here. and this is -- we've got to -- i think doing nothing is not an option. i -- so the house -- the senate's passed a bill it's over in the house and we're not sure what if anything the house is going to do but i my guess is that there will be an opportunity here to find a

principled compromise. that actually makes progress toward reducing this unfunded liability, and is not cruel or heartless with respect to people whose homes, businesses, are at risk. the i know how closely you've been following what the senate has done in the state of play but if any of you, mr. gaffigan, if any of you have any advice for us as to how to proceed and what might be some of the elements of the principle compromise i'd welcome hearing those, and my guess is that we're going to have the opportunity later this year to work more closely with you, to say, and with the administration, the administration, president's not crazy about this bill, but the senate has passed as you know, there's an opportunity for, for the administration to weigh in and be part of the solution. any thoughts you have with us on that? >> just very quickly and again the flood insurance is not necessarily in my portfolio. i have a lot of things, but not that one. but i will say that, you know, i think it's a tradeoff between the affordability of the program

and the individuals who have to pay the premiums. i mean at the end of the day, someone has got to pay for this and it's a question of the balance between the taxpayer, and the individual businesses, homeowners, those who own the flood insurance. i think some of the things talked about in building in consideration of what the risks are going forward. trying to build in some resiliency going forward in that program would help minimize the risk so that we're not we're not having to pay the higher premiums, because we don't anticipate the higher risk down the road. i think that's where the area of compromise is probably best sought. >> okay. mrs. durkovich, mr. heyman anything you want to make sure on that before we go to another question? if you have something you want to say, go ahead. i don't think your mike is on. >> sorry. fema has actually been working with both house and senate on this, this is obviously a concern that we hear about, and i know that there are possibly going to be amendments down the

road. right now our authority is only to complete a study on affordability. we have no authority-no authority to address the affordability of flood insurance. but we are happy to work with you to help try to think this through. >> all right, thanks. i'm going to come back to mark gaffigan, this deals with prioritizing risks, and i think in your testimony you may have mentioned three or four areas where the government could limit its fiscal exposure when it comes to climate change, and to extreme weather events. and within those three or four areas, which stands out to you for the maybe the biggest fiscal concern? >> -- >> let me just add to that as kind of a p.s.? are there high risk areas that cannot be addressed by the executive -- maybe higher priority for my colleagues and me here in the congress? >> well you mentioned the flood insurance program. that is one in terms of fiscal risk and i think it's hard to

pick one that's more significant than the others and i just touched upon four areas. there are a lot of other potential impacts that the federal government. we think the disaster assistance program, the aid program, $60 billion for one storm is the amount that congress authorized for superstorm sandy. that stands out. right now, as an owner of infrastructure, the agencies are trying to assess what's at risk. dod has some serious concerns, they have at least 30 major facilities that are in coastal areas vulnerable to flood. they have to have dry docks making sure those do not expose so i think it's hard to pick a most important out of all those. >> all right. a question for mr. heyman or ms. durkovich or both but and mr. gaffigan's testimony he mentioned as i recall that infrastructure decision makers haven't necessarily incorporated

potential climate change impacts in planning for roads, in planning for bridges, in planning for waste management systems, because they face challenges identifying and obtaining available climate change information best suited for locations and for their projects. could one or both of you take a minute or two and just talk a little bit about how your agency is addressing this concern, in particular, we'd like to hear how your agency is coordinating with other agencies to make sure that local planners have the best data possible, especially related to superstorm sandy, rebuilding efforts. >> thank you very much for that question. in our unique role within the office of infrastructure protection, we both have the ability to convene and coordinate with owners and operators, but with other members of the federal

interagency. let me speak to the latter point first. and two topics related to that. first is i was in front of you a few months ago talking about federal fasscility security and happen to chair a group called the interagency security committee that works with 53 different departments and agencies to set standards related to federal building safety and security. climate change is an issue that this interagency security committee is addressing, and is working to incorporate it into its design basis threat scenarios, which are over three dozen scenarios that federal buildings think about when incorporating protective and mitigation measures to again ensure that the safety and security of those facilities. so this is a group of physical security officers who are looking at how we address climate change when it comes to

the over 300,000 federal facilities that are in the area. we are dependent, though, as a federal interagency on other lifeline sectors. and in -- in the office of infrastructure protection, we have the ability to convene our 16 sectors and partners both on the government side, but also in the private sector side to talk about what they are doing to raise awareness, to look at best practices, to identify best practices, practices to understand where the gaps are and to look at the comparative advantage that the federal government has and to think through what are some of the capabilities that we can bring to bear to help this effort. and then just to speak briefly to the work that we're doing with the infrastructure resilience working group. this is, again, a unique opportunity to look across the

federal interagency and look at the programs that are available to state and local communities, to the owner/operator community and to, again, understand what's working, where the gaps are, where we need to remove those barriers so that we can enable planning, that we can bring consistent, comprehensive data to our partners so they can begin to incorporate it into our planning. a lot going on on this front that i think we can continue to harness. >> i yield to senator johnson. do you want to add anything to that? >> sure. thank you. as part of the national preparedness plan, we work very closely with states and communities to assess their -- help them assess their -- the threats and hazards and risks that they face. this is called the thyra, threat, hazard identification risk assessment. every state is required to do this. fema has a policy of making the best available data available so

that is to say whatever is -- so the top line scientific data that's available, fema tries to facilitate to the best of their ability. two years ago there were only 15 states that had climate action plans. today there's 36 that have climate action plans. they're incorporating the best data and their risk assessment to develop an action plan to better prepare their communities. >> thanks. thanks so much. senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm a big fan of a fellow named bjorn lombard. he issues his report, i think it was called the copenhagen project. i believe he's talked about climate change. he's talked about where we should spend our dollars. my first set of questions go toward prioritization. how do we do that?

are we doing it effectively? can we be killing two birds with one stone? i'll start with you, ms. durkovich. you talked about cyber security, which brings to mind power grids, which brings to mind the attack at the metcalf transmission station in i believe san jose, california. there are a number of things that could affect our infrastructure. you know, obviously natural disasters, weather disasters as well as, you know, manmade terrorist attacks as well. are we trying to combine these and take a look at that from the standpoint of prioritization of trying to mitigate problems? >> our role within the office of infrastructure protection is to help owners and operators understand the range of threats and hazards they face and as they look across their enterprise to manage risk, to

provide them with information, with tools, with best practices so they can be both efficient and effective in application of how they go about managing this. part of the reason that we have moved to a more all hazards focus within the department of homeland security and across the homeland security enterprise is that we find as you work to adapt preventive measures and mitigatetive measures to a range of threats and hazards, they are applicable not only to just one particular hazard but to many hazards. and so we worked very closely with the owner and operator community to think through this. let me touch briefly, for example, on the substation issue. so as we think about security but also incorporate climate change and extreme weather into that conversation, as owners and

operators are looking to invest in upgrades and to modernize that infrastructure, as they make improvements related to security, we can also have conversations with them about whether these assets and these facilities are in flood prone areas, are in areas that are suggesti susceptible to sea rise so as they start to make the multi-million dollar investments, we're thinking about them in parallel and integrative fashion and ensuring that the money that is invested in these enhancements and these mitigation measures is used effectively. but, again, our role is really to help them understand the range of threats and risks and to consider measures and options that allow an efficient and effective application of resources. >> mr. heyman, in terms of prioritization, are there lists being prepared? i mean, we talk about it, we

talk about prioritization, but is there any product that's actually ever produced? >> there is. so the -- if you -- the national preparedness system has about five parts to it. one is to identify the risks that are available. two is to get a sense of where the gaps are looking at communities based upon what capabilities are required for preparedness, then to do the resources assessment and ultimately resourcing followed by training and exercising and you do that cycle again. at the end of that exercise there is a list of capabilities that are prioritized for communities for states. those states then apply for grants to fema based upon those -- that gap analysis, and that becomes the basis for the next year's preparedness planning and evaluation and so

that's a regular cycle that's done. we had the national preparedness report is an annual report and it was last released, it was last year. let me just talk a little bit about prioritization as a concept because i think that everyone has said that mitigation is critically important, and i think that's right. there was a study done a few years ago by the multi-hazard mitigation council which said $1 worth of mitigation up front led you back to $4 back in terms of return on your investment and similarly, the louisiana state university hurricane center evaluated what kind of benefit mitigation would have done in katrina and they came back with a figure of $8 billion would have been saved. how do we do that? one way of doing that, because the federal government doesn't own and operate -- it doesn't

own the residential housing or businesses out there is to try to incentivize and encourage raising standards as it pertains to the built environment, and the program i mentioned, which we're piloting in the residential environment this year, provides a basis for trying to look at how we can do that on a broader scale across the infrastructure so that people are motivated and incentivized either through self-preservation because their house will be the one standing or through other incentives, mortgage reductions or perhaps premium reductions in insurance. so we're looking at that and i think it's something this nation should take a serious look at. >> you're using the word i wanted to get to next, which is incentivize. where are those incentives best? where does it best come from?

where do they best come from, private insurance market where you have basically a million different decisions being made or from some centralized entity like the federal government trying to do a one-size-fits-all approach? >> there's a number of different actors in this world. you know, when you go to buy a house, there are the builders. they're going to build it to code plus standards. how do you get them engaged in that? as we're going ahead with the pilot, what we're seeing is a lot of builders are interested in this because they see a market advantage and so there as a benefit to being labeled, for example, resilient star. there are the insurance industry who is interested in this because it saves them a whole lot of money on the back end with possible claims for damage if you're looking at the life cycle of a house every 40 years

and residential owners may see a benefit -- let me just stop. wouldn't the insurance industry have a vested interest to develop these standards and if they develop themselves in the private sector wouldn't it be more effective than a government-run solution? >> so insurers have looked at this. in fact, we are partnering with the insurance industry to develop this pilot project. i think for various reasons, because there's so many fractions insurance markets, a number of different state players, i think one of the benefits the federal government can bring is a national perspective which is not something any individual insurance company can do. >> can i just ask one more question? because i have a great deal of concern. if the federal government is the 800 pound gorilla and everybody

in the private sector is looking to the federal government to bail them out, is that a real disincentive to do the resilien resiliency, do the mitigation efforts? if we have a big fwlolood, a bi hurricane, the fed will come in there and cover our losses and then some. to what extent are we witnessing that throughout the country? >> you're not unfortunately witnessing that in many places. you have communities that are devastated, people have packed up their bags and left. you're losing your tax base and your ability to attract individuals to come to your community and the federal government can't help when people move their feet. this is one of the issues where local governments, urban communities will probably take a good look at it. there are resilient communities, people may want to be there

because in the long run they're safe, more secure and frankly the funds you would have to repay can be paid to other priorities and public safety and education. >> that's the point, isn't it, we need to raise the price for individuals that are building in very risky environments? correct? we don't want to incentive advise people to build in areas that are going to flood. >> that's why it's important to have the best available data, so people are cognizant of the area they're building, moving to. fema has tried to get that as a basis for getting data out and when we work with communities to do their threat and hazard identification risk assessment, that's all -- with your eyes wide open looking at what the risks are and asking if there's a way we can partner together to reduce those risks. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i wish we had time for

another round of questions. i just learned that a series of votes starts at 11:30. i want to make sure we have ample time to hear from our second panel. i just want to follow up on what senator johnson was saying. we've had some demonstrations on star programs, energy star that we're aware of, and let's just make sure that we use those as laboratories of democracy. we can lobby work that may be just as important as some that were attempted and didn't work out. like senator johnson, how do we get people to use the belhavior that we're modeling. they talk about the role of government and the role of private sector. and he used to use the analogy and say the role of government is to steer the boat. t the role of everybody else is to

row the boat. there's a good role for both and hopefully we can find the good balance. i just want to say to each of you, thanks for the work you do. thanks for the folks who work with you and to say especially with flood insurance we'll work with you to try to find a useful compromise. my father would say if you looked at it from above, you would look at it and use some common sense. hopefully we'll do that. so with that, you're excused and we thank you for joining us and we look forward to some questions. there will be follow-up questions. we hope you'll respond to those in a prompt way. thank you so much. thank you.

[inaudible conversations]

collin o'mara, all the way from i want to say san jose, california. did you used to live in san jose? we stole him. we stole him from san jose at the tender age of i think 29 or 30 to come all the way to the national association of environmental control. if i had half the energy of this guy, i would be president and vice president. he's an amazing guy. very proud of the work that you do. thank you for joining us today. our second witness is from a bigger state than ours, new

hampshire, and kelly ayotte can't with be us. dr. paul, is it kirshen? dr. kirshen, research professor at the university of new hampshire. what is your mascot there? >> wildcats. >> wildcats, yes. we've had some rough football saturdays against the wildcats and the blue hens. we're all the happy to welcome you here. i understand your research focuses on engineering and management as well as climate change, vulnerability assessment, adaptation, planning. it's a mouth full but we're happy you could join us. thanks so much for coming. lindene patton, my mother was a patton, chief climate product officer for zurich international group. in this role ms. patton, i'm told, is responsible for policy and risk management related to climate change. remember my staff said you might have a member of your family here or two? is that true? would you put down your mic?

introduce your family. they'll stand up. >> my daughters, amelia and zoe. >> amelia, would you raise your hand? >> hi, amelia. zoey, would you raise your hand? who's in the middle? >> a friend of hers, sharon. >> all right, sharon. nice to come. >> and our aupere, gosha. >> you've heard me say with the first group, about five minutes or so if you will and then we'll ask some questions. delighted you're here and happy to be here along with senator jackson. colin, will you please proceed. >> thank you, senator johnson. our thoughts go out to senator coburn. thank you for holding this hearing today. your timing is good and it's an important topic to delaware.

senator carp spent a lot of time in helicopters. in delaware we spent a lot of time evaluating it. i'd like to talk about delaware's approach and i would like to offer common sense solutions that should be part of the conversation going forward about shifting the focus to preparedness and resilience and a little less on the money on the back end. in delaware our approach has been fairly simple. start with the science and economics, and make sure you have good science and economics and know your vulnerabilities and know the tradeoffs. it's easy in a political environment to move towards the things that has the most attention but not the most economic imperative. we've looked at flood plains, sea level rise and i have a report that i'll introduce with the chairman's consent. we've looked at 75 different infrastructures and the vulnerability and then we took the data and made infrastructure

impacts. we have that data drive our decision making in having the policy and it has the type of list that senator johnson is asking about, to make sure that the money is going in places that will make the sense. we had tony pratt who's behind me who is our administrator of shoreline and coastal protection, and looking at the bay regions and looking at the economics and who gets the benefit? most of the benefit is the private owners and not the broader population which suggests that the private owner should play rather than the broader community. we'd like to see the economic contribution to the coast and if i can out the economic benefits of having those protections. having that knowledge is important because it allows us to invest strategically. healthy dunes, healthy wetlands, the coast. they turn out very well after the storms. we see time and time again communities that aren't as

prepared don't do nearly as well. we're taking a lot of steps to build resiliency into going forward. modernizing stormwater. we want to stop the bleeding and make sure new development is resilient. now that we have this kind of data that we're not exacerbating the problems and costs. because of all of this the governor was invited to be on the president's climate task force with a focus on the natural structure and resources projects that we're doing across the state whether it's in wilmington or elsewhere, we are piloting projects that we believe are good. one, resiliency needs to be built into every single federal investment. we don't need a new bureaucracy. we are spending billions every year. if we build resiliency into the projects, then we're okay.

you don't want to throw good money after bad. the second is we need to invest more in protection. we're spending $5 billion in the army corps line. that's 50 years worth of investments compared to what they normally get for their protection line. it's about 100, 100 million. we're spending 5 million a year. it's become easier to pay for it after the fact as opposed to investing in it. we need to break the disaster, rebuild, it's so easy to rebuild to the old infrastructure standards. you can get money quickly as opposed to rebuilding to a new resiliency standard. there isn't a lot of conversation about this. great recommendations coming out of georgetown, but we need to

make sure rebuild to a higher standard. we also need to prioritize comprehensive projects. right now as we talked about with the border contacts, you can have the army corps that's taking a bunch of sediment out of the water way, but it's cheaper to put it in a landfill than it is the beach next door. the army corps will choose the lowest cost option. they won't put it on the beach, they'll move it somewhere else. we need to combine those. we could be saving tens of billions of dollars a year. we need to have the nfip regulations which haven't been updated since 1989. we've focused on the money side. the cost of the insurance becomes cheaper if the standards are higher. we need to prioritize the

natural infrastructure. they work exceptionally well. they shouldn't be the exception or the pilot project enmore. they need to be the default. we need to reward communities that are prepared. right now delaware is paying a lot of development money and we don't receive a lot after the disasters. it's completely crazy. we need to make sure that there are incentives and priority given to states that have made their own investments and are doing the hard work to hold themselves accountable and not relying on the federal government as senator johnson said. very two last points. we need to ensure that public expenditures can receive public benefit and really prioritizing things for a broader benefit to all people and we need a much greater community on hazardous

sites. we have super fund sites. when those wash out, it's massive. we've been focusing on these more. there's not nearly as much attention. fema will help you acquire a parcel. if it's contaminated, fema won't touch it for liability. these are things we can change. the senator is looking at these because i think our experience in delaware shows if you do prepare an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. >> thank you so much. you got a lot in in 6:50, didn't he? >> i apologize for going over. i always talk quick. >> that's all right. i was watching the body language of the co-panelists. dr. kirshen is nodding his head up and down. we'll find out now. dr. kirshen, thanks so much. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman, senator johnson, for giving me the

opportunity to talk before this committee. i do agree very enthusiastically with everything that senator o'mara is proposing. we have long-term economic consequences on a northern city being impacted by first of all extreme amounts of precipitation and secretary of all coastal flooding from large coastal storm surges. here i'm going to talk about the long-term costs of not being prepared for these present and future events and compare them to the benefits being prepared. because of the changing climate, the climate change impacts have always been part of my analyses. also want to point out that the case studies to new england are relevant to the rest of the united states and the world. the first study i wanted to talk

about is the impact on the eastern coast of massachusetts, stretching from north of boston through almost cape cod. it's an area of large cities like boston but also suburbs. when you look at the total damages of surge flooding from storms to residential, commercial, industrial buildings over the next 100 years serving moderate scenarios -- if i were looking at the damages and look at where it would be reduced, evaporation would be taking place. adaptation is measured by damages avoided and measure the costs by cost of adaptation. we found better cost ratios. what that means, for example, benefit-cost ratio is six to one. every dollar invested in adaptation reduces long-term damages six times. these are, again, showing the

true benefits of preparing for these present and future events. the second case study was the hansen seabrook falls area of new hampshire. coastal area of new hampshire with many second homes. typically on the barrier beaches. here we look at the cost of protecting privately owned buildings, in other words, homes and commercial facilities, and also key public assets, sewage treatment facilities, schools, from present and future coastal storms by developing adaptation plans protected 20-50 under low and high rise scenarios of approximately one to two feet. we found very large benefit cost ratio ratios ranging from 11 to 16 for public assets. the stormwater in the winter hill section ofsommerville, massachusetts. this is located north of

cambridge and boston on the mystic river. this is served by a combined sewer system. presently the storm system -- the sewer system only has the capacity to handle all the wastewater and a small amount of the stormwater whmpt a larger storm occurs, only one inch of rainfall, some of the extra combined sewage is treated at the regional wastewater treatment plant but most of the combined waste is combined to the mystic river and is floating in the streets as raw, untreated sewage. this will be increased by 10 to 30% higher rainfall in 2030. so again we did a benefit-costa analysis, the cost of adaptation to handle more waist with the

benefits avoided by adaptation. we found benefit cost ratios 4-1. showing the advantages of dealing with these problems now rather than later. so to summarize. so i've talked about my recent research to the cost of damages. the costs are underestimated. i did not include such items as human death and injury, damage to the ecosystems, incorrect costs such as lost employment and community displacement and disruption. but even with those costs not included and looking -- we found that we were looking at many scenarios of climate change and sea level rise, a dacht tags paid off in terms of damage avoided. no adaptation, no action, in all cases was the worst thing to do. to keep benefit cost ratios high would indicate that these

actions are useful even if we didn't have climate change, so-called no regret actions. so i want to say a couple more comments. first of all, one of the first steps we can take to control these threats from climate change, control our emission of greenhouse gases. that will make a big difference whether we have a three feet rise or six feet or 10% increase in extreme rainfall or 30%, but because we cannot reverse climate change, we cannot stop climate change. it will continue for centuries. we have to adapt, be prepared and like everyone else here, i really support we ought to take planning now to start dealing with these threats, otherwise we're going to be suffering large, human, social and environmental consequences. thank you for your time. >> thank you for coming all the way from new hampshire to be with us today. tell those wildcats we said hello. ms. patton, your whole

statement will be made part of the record. please proceed. >> thank you very much. >> make sure your mic's on. >> i think so. chairman carper, ranking member johnson. i'm lindene patton. chief financial officer for zurich. we provide coverage for customers in the 170 countries. we've been serving customers in the united states since 1912. we have over 8,000 employees nationwide. i would like to thank you for holding this timely hearing and i am pleased to share with the committee an insurance industry's perspective and the economic importance of investing today and improving resilience. zurich observes that the u.s. is increasingly reliant on disaster recovery funds and it's under invested in resilience.

disasters have increased to over 1,000 per annum. it's risen to $400 per household. that is more than a four fold increase over the past 30 years. in other words, the resilience gap is large and growing. how large? in cummings projected that unfunded response costs for weather-related disasters would grow to more than 1 trillion u.s. dollars and might be as much as 5 point poip 7 trillion u.s. dollars. taxpayers are bearing the burden of this. without decisive risk reduction actions, economically unsustainable, accruing unbudgeted disaster costs can be expected to continue on an upward trajectory.

insurance provides risk assessment, risk management and price stabilization. a study by the bank of national resilience says they're less likely to suffer from macro economic disasters. one of the many crystal differences is that disaster recovery funds typically are delivered more slowly than insurance payments resulting in slower recovery and even longer term negative economic impacts but assuring resilience to negative weather events requires being there before, during and after the weather event. should resilience be prioritized? absolutely. it provides greater protection to the public in the face of

increasing extreme weather events, reduces human suffering and creates jobs and builds more resilience to housing and infrastructure. cure zurich understands that and acts accordingly. we are very proud of our efforts. hear are but a few examples. zurich has had the world economic forum, the business couldn't knew the at this institute, the institute for building and home safety. over the years we have worked with progressive customers like marriott and verizon to demonstrate by design and implement stations that are cost beneficial. zurich has committed to buy 1 million u.s. green bonds to focus on resilience at a scale that really matters. what action might the government take in the short term, medium term and long term to close this

resilience gap? develop a national priority plan for resilience investment. promote increased government and private bonds. he educate the society and promote and enforce stronger building codes. two actions might include use the language over this to improve as a template. federal governments invest annually in water, pork, highway, transit and af reation infrastructure. they might include commercial applications and most importantly higher community resilience ratings. how much should be budgeted? it might be logical to take a portion of the predictable budget things. funding resilience is the wiser

investme investment. funding resilience provides a 4 to 1 return on your investment. our co-panelists have talked about something in conclusion, zurich believes we have an opportunity to improve the resilience of our nation's homes, businesses and infrastructure. we believe we can save annually while providing citizens a great deal. we look forward to working with the committee in any way we can help. >> great. great testimony. thank you very much for that. i'm going to slip out of the room and take a phone call. john is going to read off the questions for this panel. i'll be right back. thanks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. patton, i'd like to begin with you. you mentioned a growing

resilience gap. how much of that gap, especially the growth of it, would you contribute to the fact that we tend to build in readvice beingy areas in this country? >> i'm not in a position to identify the percentage but it's significant. we have a historand there is a lot at data and research. we have the migration to locations which have water supplies in the migration to the wilderness urban interface. under all of those circumstances you put more assets in harm's way so the suggestion is at least a portion of the drivers but we also have other suggestions that climate is changing. there is no question. >> when society subsidizes private individuals taking those types of risks that increases that type of behavior. >> the there is research i've cited in my written testimony which does demonstrate that. ' there's an interference with

risk-based price signals and a subsidy which basically provides information to an individual that's moving to this location isn't that cheap and if there is a disaster it will be subsidized then yes. >> we have been interference, correct? >> we do. >> what would cause that interference from your standpoint? >> there are a multitude of things. some of them are funding and some of his perceptive so in the case of funding there are programs to provide subsidies for government-run insurance programs. there are also circumstances where there are perceptions and there was a study done by a federal tax course after sandy which would people understood about their insurance in the study rick deal that people really didn't understanunderstand what was insured and what was underinsured in and their assumption was that federal disaster funds would he delivered kind of like insurance. >> they were correct, weren't

they? >> the reality is in fact the priorities for federal disaster funding is to really look at getting critical infrastructure started but not necessarily always focused on an individual asset which is the purview of private earning and they are not a 100% institute and i have cited research in my written testimony that affirms that and demonstrates in fact disaster recovery funds don't have the same economic value that we have from private insurance and you can't have longer-term negative macroeconomic impacts if you are underinsured verses having enough adequate insurance. >> is necessary as the federal help is in those circumstances it creates more -- doesn't? >> it's very clear that under circumstances the federal government must respond under that disaster. it's the political and social imperatives. but how you manage and structure

that is very important. as some of the co-panilist that suggest there are ways to prioritize at spending and ways to structure programs and risk-based price signals that are consistent. there have been recommendations as to how some of that risk taste price signal might be adjusted in a way for certain federal insurance programs. there are other suggestions that exists in terms of prioritizing infrastructure investment so that resilience is baked into the design. >> do you think people build 1 million, 2 million-dollar homes on the beach think of the cost of the risk on their insurance? >> i don't think i'm in a position to know that. >> is in a fantasy to think that we could over time privatize the flood insurance program? >> i think that will be something i will have to return to you on in terms of responding

in full. it's very important for us to send risk-based price signals in this context. >> that is not happening right now in the program correct? >> there are changes to the flood insurance program. >> which are suspended. >> which are designed to allow that. >> again that is not a good ring in terms of reduction of that moral hazard. in creating the incentive for risk management and risk mitigation and resiliency creation. >> absolutely. i couldn't agree with you more. it's very important risk face price signal and the insurance functionality be permitted to make sure that risk can be assessed. the asset owners can be fully informed about what not only the actual functional risk is that what the cost of the risk is so they can make cogent decisions about how they invest not only where they invest but when they put structures together how much they invest. >> we are talking about private

individuals. the government has properties which they purchase insurance for correct? >> there something called the self-insurance rule under the government and it depends on whether you are talking local state or federal government and in general the federal government is primarily a self-insurer. >> does that reduce their risk? >> it's their money. >> if they weren't forced by insurance to self-insurer with a potentially because within their budgets they are building and not mitigating risks without help mitigate risk? >> the only thing i can point you to his there is a long-standing comptroller general's opinion which dates back to the 1700's which indicates that the federal government is supposed to be a self-insurer by rule and there are policy reasons for that but the functionality of private insurance you are absolutely correct as to send a risk race

price signal to encourage people to mitigate risks so they can control those costs over time. >> issue issues edited testimony the insurance has a unique capacity to apply the bad insurance so do you two gentlemen want to -- >> folks see themselves as libertarians until they need help. we are trying to figure out ways in delaware in particular in one of our counties where they don't have some of the protective policies in place to not have state government be back up because you don't have the policies in place and coming to us and saying will you fix this? trying to realign those incentives is the same whether it's local or national. >> okay, dr. kirshen. >> i'm not an expert in insurance. it's important we send the right market signals for climate change prepared us as well.

i also want to say that i think the engineering and the science community and social science community we need to send the right signals to market people to give us the opportunity to work with stakeholders. >> thank you all for your testimony and thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. i just asked my staff to doublecheck to see when we passed the omnibus of progression bill if there is a one-year stay on the effective implementation of the flood insurance changes to the law that vigor waters legislation and my understanding is that expires at the end of this fiscal year. it's a great opportunity for us as you sit here today and with the administration to work with especially this committee and to

see if we can't make sure we are properly aligning the incentives to advise folks to do what they need to do. i noticed in the audience tony pratt reference them by name and it's great to see you and thank you so much for all the good you do for the people of our state and really the example that you set for folks in other states as well. you said something ms. patton in your testimony. i think you mentioned the actions congress could take to improve resilience and you said and i'm just going to read it. use the language in extreme weather title of the water research development act as an example of what can be applied to improve resilience requirements framing the hundreds of millions of dollars the federal government invest annually in water ports highways transit and aviation infrastructure. at that point i looked at both both -- both of your colleagues and they were furiously nodding their

heads up and down and i think i know why but i'm going to ask you. secretary lab for use so -- >> right now there's a significant disconnect. it's the proration bills were the designed system has not kept up with the rest of we can solve this where we will to beautiful bridge $150 million but we were all working with the army corps turksat sharing of a dune system to protect that assets so either having a better design or more protection and the cost business alliance is essential so whether the authority through word of our the additional language in the authorization and making sure the designs are stronger across all those. not just transportation but wastewater and the block grant particularly. those are the lifeblood of many municipalities and states in delivering projects and with the

caw share having more accountability could save a lot of money in the long run. >> thanks. dr. kirshen read. >> i'm not a real expert in this but i am going to say from my observations working with the communities there are many institutional barriers to adaptation and we have to adjust them as well as the financial ones. this is an example of some of them. >> thanks. this will be a question for probably secretary o'mara and mr. kirshen. i believe we have had a lot of success in part because of the fellow sitting here in front of us today. i think we have done it for a wealth of small investment saving our state a lot of money and i would just ask a question if you could dr. kirshen and one of secretary o'mara but

dr. kirshen on your research how beneficial is extreme weather mitigation especially long-term planning when it comes to saving money? >> as i said earlier we are getting extraordinary cost ratios if we look at the benefits of adaptation verses doing nothing and the benefit cost ratio of four up to 30 in some cases so it's extremely beneficial to do this. and i think communities realize this. i'm working with quite a few communities in massachusetts and new hampshire and the communities get it because they are in charge of infrastructure and they are looking for help in how to do this. it's more giving them the data. they also need people to help interpret the data and also think about how to use the data in planning for climate change. the problem with climate change is the uncertainty. we are not exactly sure what the

future climate is that we know how to deal with uncertainty through scenario analysis techniques so i think we have got to provide support to the communities through planning, which is relatively cheap compared to the huge cost we will face if we don't do good planning. thank you. >> yes secretary o'mara to follow up on your experience what needs to be done to encourage and support state and local governments too to support individual businesses to adopt mitigation measures such as adopting, adapting or adopting updated building codes to better address the threats of extreme weather? >> i think there are two pieces to the equation. making sure the economics are very clear to folks and then also toughening up a little bit in making sure folks don't take those actions in government doesn't come in and bail them out after-the-fact which is obviously the easier political

outcome and if we are able to do those things you will see additional change fairly quickly. the money will drive a lot of these investments. i do think there are significant opportunities for the government to incented report the communities that take the actions we have been talking about so whether that's early consideration for federal resources or whether it's competitive grants or a higher percentage for percentage of allocations for other allocations if you'd done the hard work it will say the government money in the long run. in delaware we didn't have individual systems claims with a three month threshold after sandy because most of our systems work. the states to the south of us that received a lot of federal money and we didn't see federal money from hud because our systems were successful. we should be rewarded or incentivize in some ways than the states that don't do those actions should be penalized in some way. it's important for this committee to drive great

investments at the local level. >> ms. patton if i could a question for you. with the interests companies have in a long history of risk management when it comes to extreme weather are there ways to create more public or the partnerships between federal and state and local governments? >> i believe that there are and it's very important to continue those and to take those exemplars you have which are ongoing and expanding. as i mentioned earlier in my testimony i'm very excited about the resilience highlight at dhs. >> so mi. let the wreck show, so i might. >> it provides a framework in which we can actually in our collaborating in a public private partnership context. i can see it easily extended to the commercial and infrastructure contexts and when that have as we can actually create a resilient community. it would enable other private

sector opportunities, other types of incentives that may present themselves if you have a resilient community. it may be obvious that it might be a really good place to invest it might be obvious that the risk where loans are placed under those circumstances are reduced. it's not just about insurance but the long-term unction audience economic resilience of that community to be able to survive and thrive even before, during and after extreme weather events. that is just one example. i think that to the extent some of the other recommendations of the panel can be followed through in terms of providing opportunities with infrastructure investment and matching funds that will provide other opportunities for the private sector to inject themselves into the process. >> one final question i'm going to ask you. as you know we are trying to

reduce federal stimulus to this year about 550 billion dollars. as a result some of my colleagues have been critical of extreme weather mitigation efforts because it costs money and beach replenishment but other things as well. those who say that taking the steps to build resilience are too costly and therefore should not be taken and if you have any parting at vice to help better plan for extreme weather events and reduce the offense to our government. we have to brief but -- wrap it up briefly. >> we can let the economic. >> for themselves. that is a compelling argument and i will take a five-1 return in a day and the same can be

said or many infrastructure returns. there's a huge opportunity right now because we do have data that we could collect fairly easily. we should be collecting the data as we speak to make sure we know the cost of the federal government for communities that weren't were prepared. you have to communities in new jersey for example. we should be quantifying that because that could make the case to your colleagues on the cost savings and investments up run. >> thanks. you're a quickly dr. kirshen. >> i agree with secretary o'mara but an ounce of cure is worth a pound of -- an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and i think that's the solution. >> thank you. ms. patton? >> i would also read that economics to speak for themselves. i think it is not just about the expense. it's about the potential introduction to the gross domestic product for the impacted regions and about the

potential for actual communities to no longer exist were to be severely interrupted not just for weeks but for years and to not be restored to what they were before. the investment in resilience has both direct economic you but it also has social value in the short and long term. >> let me conclude first of all. thank you all. you have a lot going on in your lives and we are grateful you spent this morning with us. i said at the beginning of this hearing mike enzi one of my favorite colleagues, everybody loves mike enzi but he uses the 80/20 rule. there is a lot of agreement here and one of the things i love it is fairly controversial and it wasn't at all.

there's a good deal that we can agree on and work together on and that is what the people of america sent us here to do. i just thank you for helping us to find the middle and we are going to have a couple of more questions for folks some senators who were not here that will submit their questions. i think you have 15 days to do that in a few receive any those questions and you respond promptly that would be appreciated and with that hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> she brings financial resources to the marriage as well as managerial skills and makes mt. vernon a successful operation and makes it possible for shin to and to be away for eight years fighting in the war. >> there is something about abraham lincoln that she saw the potential and encouraged him and helped develop it. a dining room that helped polish them up for washington society, the political parties that they had were they invited a lot of important people. talking with the wives of those very important gentlemen. she wielded a lot of power both over mr. lincoln and where he was going. >> the involvement of mrs. roosevelt and the career franklin roosevelt is from the

beginning where she becomes much more active in her role after 1921 when franklin roosevelt contracted polio. she would encourage franklin roosevelt to continue with his political ambitions. democrats are meeting in cambridge maryland for strategy retreat. thursday members at a news briefing to discuss issues being considered. here is a look. it's 45 minutes. >> good afternoon everyone. thank you for joining us the hardy souls who are still here with us. i'm very honored to be here with some of my women colleagues who have taken the lead on when

women succeed america succeeds. rosa delauro who is the chair of the steering policy and leader on this issue, intellectual leader as well as enthusiastic shall we say booster of it all sets the pace for all of us. donna edwards who is the chair of the democratic women's working group who will be making a presentation. jan schakowsky is the vice chair of the steering and policy committee and a champion on women's issues as you know from the state of illinois. joyce beatty a new member of congress who has championed this issue with the administration and in her own state of ohio. you'll be hearing some singing from michelle lujan from new mexico freshman member who will be dominant in our film and judy chu of california's here of the asian-pacific caucus of the

house and a strong advocate for when women succeed america succeeds. with that i thank you again for being here. at lunch we presented what we are going to present to you two are members. it was not only advocacy for what we are doing, it's a case study on how on an issue that this popularity we are using traditional press. rosa will talk about 16,000 person teleconference as well as social media. so with that show we play it again? >> you have something extraordinary. >> this valentine's day instead of being treated special let's be treated equal. asked was christina aguilera says what a girl wants, what a real needs is equal pay for equal work.

♪ ♪ >> for valentine's day flowers, chocolates and a fine dinner are all great but they only last for a wild. what women really need for valentine's day is equal pay for equal work. >> on valentine's day you can give chocolates but it would mean more if you made some contribution to the fact that women need it quality. ♪ ♪ ♪

>> you women were holding chocolate hearts for valentine's day. they said we don't want chocolate, we want equal pay. >> i'm all for that. >> is time to do away with work place policies that belong in a madman episode. this year let's all come together congress the white house businesses from wall street to main street to give every woman the opportunity she deserves because i believe when women succeed, america succeeds. ♪ >> what all women need for valentine's day this year is to be paid equally to their male workers for the same job.

>> because we know when women succeed, america succeeds. i am congresswoman joyce beatty and i approved this message. happy valentine's day. ♪ >> yes imaging congresswoman delauro is our intellectual leader on this issue and we will be hearing from her in a moment but first we are going to hear from donna edwards who is the head of our valentine's day campaign for women. donna. >> thank you madam leader and thank you all too because what women really need for valentine's day so that we can afford to buy her own valentines if we get equal pay. we need quality affordable childcare raising the minimum wage and paid care. we have lunch this valentine's day campaign what women need for valentine's day. you can find it at women succeed .bams.gov and hashtag

women succeed raise the way. today all of our members here, men and women tweeted on the minimum wage. today february 13 marks the day when tipped workers who see $2.13 an hour their wages haven't been raised in 23 years. raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour and we can buy our own chocolates and cards. today that hashtag raise the wage if you go to twitter it is trending right now because america believes we need childcare, equal pay and paid leave and raise the wage. so thank you very much and look at all of our members. our members have really jumped on this men and women. we have helped more than 60 events in congressional districts across this country

and there are more of. really celebrating the idea and commemorating the idea that we can stand together for what women really need. you can say not just our members but are allies to matt. what women need for valentine's day, women succeed because america succeeds. >> thank you very much donna and minimum-wage restaurant workers make $2.13 an hour. today february 13, at 2:13 we had a tweet store in. we had a tweet storm and its trending now so we are very excited about that and all part of these three pillars of pay, of sick leave and childcare as i say inspired in the by congresswoman delauro. >> thank you. it's great to see you all today.

the hardy souls that you are and in to be here with my colleagues. over a number of months and even over a year, year and a half from both empirical data and conversations with people all across this country the issue of the economic challenges that face women is staggering. the fact is that women are in the workforce in great numbers. half the workforce. they are two-thirds of the bread winners primary or secondary and they have come into the labor market in jobs that pay less and occupations that pay less. there's also the discrimination with regard to pay equity, 70 cents, 77 cents on the dollar. two out of three minimum-wage workers. they have less pension protection less retirement security and more likely to file for bankruptcy. seriously economically

challenged and yet they saw the primary responsibility in their homes for all of the household duties including childcare and taking care of elderly parents. as a result of that data and those conversations what we put together was the economic agenda for women and families which is based on three pillars as the leader pointed out. one is pay equity the second is the paid family medical and medical leave paid for and childcare and we have been talking about that for the last several months. as my colleague congressman edwards pointed out all over the country with regard to that issue. one of the things that we did in january on january 29 which was the fifth anniversary of the signing of the lilly ledbetter fair pay act, we did they tell a conference where we had 16,000

participants, 16,000 folks from across the country and the leaders spoke congresswoman edwards and myself and lilly ledbetter but what was more poignant about the teletown hall were the stories from the women who were looking at leaving their children and going to work and being sick or taking their children to school sick or the inability to take family medical leave because they don't have the money to do it or not able to afford childcare and who have been the victims of discrimination with regard to pay. it was an incredible success listening to people relating their stories and their questions to us about the agenda because this is not based on something that is ephemeral. within this agenda are pieces of legislation sponsored by a 480 of members over the years, not

just in the last two or three months for the last six months. paycheck fairness, 12 or 13 years i've been working on paycheck fairness. minimum wage, mr. miller has waited a very long time and in essence that these are not ephemeral. it's real legislation which addresses that issue of economic security for women and their families and this is another reincarnation of it today with what women really want and that is pay equity, increased wages, economic opportunity and educational opportunity. why? because they are struggling financially and they want a better life for themselves and their families because when women succeed, america succeeds. >> women make less because 60% of the people making minimum wage are women and pay equity has its own toll if the average in the country is women make 77 cents on the dollar that her

mail counterpart with equal education experience and job responsibilities. that means two woman is worth -- working for the first three months of the year for free and that just isn't right. as rousseau said the sickly piece of that has an impact on elder care and the cochair of our seniors task force congresswoman schakowsky has worked on this issue in all phases of life but her focus on seniors has been valuable to us and to seniors. >> income discrimination follows women throughout their entire lives. it means that if there were a private pension that pension is going to be reduced and when she gets her social security check it's going to be less. and so equal pay as we found with lilly ledbetter and it was denied her meant that right now

lilly is living on a shoestring because for 17 years she didn't know that her male counterparts doing the same job. it's equal pay for equal work, do. this is 2014 and it is time for us to finally get there. it's really 50 years since the first passage of the equal pay act and yet we are still struggling. when we say that women on average make 77 cents to the dollar women of color do far worse. so we need to they say diamonds are a girls best friend and chocolates are finding going out to dinner is fine but what women really need is an economic agenda that works for them. >> my colleague from california

is going to speak about what she is going to do next but we are proud of her work as chair of the caucus in the house, shaman judy chu. >> thank you. in los angeles everywhere i say the words when women succeed america succeeds i am met with wild applause and that is why decided i just have to have my own when women succeeds america succeeds. i'm having it on march 10 and leader pelosi is going to be coming. we are going to hear from women. we are going to hear their stories. we are going to hear from women who are earning less than minimum wage and are working full-time yet still cannot make ends meet and in fact still live under the poverty level. we are going to hear from women who are working at the same job and yet earn less than a man earns.

we are going to be focusing focusing our intentions especially on women of color who experience these inequalities at greater degrees. and we are going to have the chops boot camp so we can offer real help to these women so they can get the assistance that they need. there already is a huge anticipation on this event and we have had this whole flurry of events across the nation. i know that there is going to be huge anticipation for what will come and i am very much looking forward to spreading the word. >> we just have folks come to the microphone in the microphone image just themselves but we are excited about the role that each of the women here in many of our colleagues have played in this. joyce beatty has just energized our caucus because of her

enthusiasm and what she sees in the state of ohio as a new relatively, a freshman member but certainly a strong voice in the congress, congresswoman baby. >> thank you leader. being from ohio the seventh largest state in this nation i could not take of a better way to have a year of action. thanks to our leader for the idea, for the intellectual research and outreach week too are going to in ohio host an event in early spring. our goal is to bring not hundreds but thousands of women so they can witness what we know and be able to say when women succeed america succeeds. i'm so excited about this opportunity because when you talk about it all pay for equal work it reminds me of my grandmother and my mother and how hard they worked and now being a grandmother i am also doing this for my granddaughter.

because it will make a difference not only in our lives but for the future and do you know why? because when women succeed, a mayor has succeeds. thank you. >> she started us off with a song and i don't know if we can coax her into singing some more but nonetheless she certainly set the tone and the pace for our wonderful film and it healed to a very enthusiastic member from new mexico congresswoman michelle lujan grisham. >> thank you very much met them later. i have solved the answer to that age old question whether to sing or lip-synch and it absolution to ben lip-synching but it's a great song and i think it helps really perpetuate we hope this really important message. i am from the state in mexico where for a long time we have been a minority majority and we

know that as you have heard and i'm going to repeat that women of color make even less than 77 cents on the dollar and is a proud mother of two grown daughters i watched them struggle in this environment. it's unjust, it's immoral and with a number of women with undergraduate and graduate degrees think about the amount of money we are being paid fairly that finds itself into the economy. so we really are talking about an opportunity agenda for the entire country in a state that is so poor they need so much assistance in a leg up. supporting women in a way that we should have been all along so we have this economic opportunity and a reasonable and fair and productive agenda something i'm very proud to promote and very excited about her valentine's day message. thank you very much. >> thank you michelle. as we told you yesterday, as we

spoke yesterday we talked about an economy that works for all americans and all americans include all women in america. this is one very important pillar of our economic agenda as we go forward. we are very proud of it. it is something that is catching fire across the country. i also presented today and we hear about it every week as a case study as to how we are going to advance our agenda. we started this morning with paul:of new york talking about when he had above the fold headline on the local section of the paper first page,:and about his women's event and how all three, four stations played one is a preview and three as covering it and then it went

into the social media. so respectful of the role that you play you want to see at first after the members just now and then we will of course, rosa talked about how we have talked about this. i thought it was more like 17,000 people but if you say 16,000 people on that teleconference then that will be standard fare for us. don is finding even more innovative ways to reach out to it she has probably had five sessions already but then we go to the social media. this will be our message today. aren't we proud that at 2:13 we acknowledge and it was interesting to see the looks on the faces of the waitstaff in the hotel. they ought gathered as we announced everybody be ready for the 2:13 to be storm because

$2.13 an hour is certainly not the right thing for restaurant workers. chocolates are nice but equal pay is better. we are going share some chocolates with you and they have something on it that says paid leave, he equal pay, you get it. childcare, happy valentine's day to all of you. we will give you chocolates and you give us equal pay. any questions? excuse me? >> how? >> how were you advanced equal pay? >> that is what we are talking about here. it comes back to our friend abraham lincoln. we are going to be talking about that when we come in with the leadership but as you know george miller and tom harkin have legislation in place already for this legislation. over 70% of the american people support raising the minimum

wage. we think it's an important pillar of an economy that works for everyone and we will talk more about it when leadership comes in. >> one paycheck fairness that is has been passed twice in the house of representatives. how do we advance at? >> it's been an issue for a long time. >> it's time has come. paycheck fairness passed under the leadership of speaker pelosi twice in the house of representatives and including i might add 14 republican colleagues. on the first go-round in the senate we lost by two votes. i won't tell you who the two were in any case. we lost the second time in the senate because of a filibuster but i also understand her colleagues on the senate side are raising the issue again and

we are ready. we have 200 democrats and i'm trying to get some republicans on the legislation for 200 democrats have signed on for paycheck fairness. it's an idea whose time is long overdue and we can do it. >> i was just going to say that there has been recent polling of the women's economic agenda whether it's childcare, paid leave for equal pay. among women and there's so much discussion about republicans and democrats and who is going to get the women's vote, among women across every single demographic rip across every single economic line and every single age these issues and political party republicans and independents and democrats these have great resonance across the spectrum among women. if you want to ask really what women need and want they need it across-the-board in the street

colors of the women's economic agenda really speak to that. i guess i challenge and we do our colleagues to say you know what? women across america and americans want these things raising the minimum wage and the tip wage. it's time for us to bring those issues to the floor. the united states representatives have the capacity to do it and we will mobilize across this country so in every single congressional district people here what we hear. when women succeed america succeeds in women want this. >> 54% republican women support his women's economic agenda and that's the national partnership for women and families. >> it just want to say this. taking each part the minimum wage and pay equity. she told you what happened at the time and at the same time she advanced the lilly ledbetter the first bill signed by the president obama so more to come

in terms of pay equity. paid leave is one of the most popular initiatives. it is paid six days. it's stunning across-the-board as congresswoman edward said in every category you can name support for paid sick leave and i will just close by saying this. we had a hearing from marian wright edelman fiscally came over here and i was talking to her before her speech about the fact that childcare legislation was some president nixon's desk and you know how many years ago that was and he vetoed the bill. we talked about having a reunion of all the people. it was bipartisan at the time and the people who are still around and not in congress but still around who will part -- were part of that legislation. what happened then can happen again.

george miller has the legislation which is bipartisan for early childhood learning. the president has an initiative of universal pre-k. rosa fought really hard in the omnibus bill for a stronger and deeper head start funding and the rest. people know that this has to happen. because it's so important to america's families and because when women succeed america succeeds. >> picking up on what ms. delauro said you said republican women fired -- make up more than half the left. why isn't this economics of port translating into democratic majority? where's the disconnect between that level of support and the republicans appearing to be on the verge of keeping the house in the senate? >> i don't subscribe to that

characterization of the election but as i said yesterday this is about policy and this is about people and we will leave the third p of politics for another day. for us if we could win on these issues with legislative success that would be our victory. that would be our victory but i do think that people are watching to see where people come down on the simplicity of this. this isn't every issue can name. this is prioritize women in the work place the balance between home and work and it is the most challenging, challenging issue that working families have to deal with. we will see what it translates into. we would rather see it translate into legislative success. that would be our first priority because that would include policy and improve the lives of the american people.

all we want is a vote. we think we have the votes in the congress. all we want is a vote on these issues and again we are not setting out to set up a confrontation. we are setting out to have legislative successes. thank you all very much and again enjoy your m&ms and all that they stand for, equal pay, childcare, paid sick leave. it's written right on there. thank you. thank you all to all of my colleagues. >> xavier becerra chairman of the democratic caucus joined by the leadership team. it is day two, a great session. tonight we are going to hear from dr. kim the chairman of the world bank and tomorrow we have the president of the united states and we have to stay tuned

because since the vice president was not able to arrive today for the luncheon keynote address we are waiting to hear word of there may be opportunity for the president as well. generally speaking our members are not just thrilled that we have this opportunity to really drill deep into these issues that are so important to americans but that we are going to the heart of the issues that we think americans care about. how do you know of an economy that works for all its? how do you know those ladders of opportunity to ask how do you guarantee economic security so that everyone has a chance? that is what we have been discussing and we have had wonderful speakers who have helped us hone in on how we do that best and we still have several dynamic speakers to go including of course the president of the united states. we are ready. we said that we have easily and in fact i think we are fired up from everything we keep hearing

from folks. we know as you just heard from so many of our colleagues who have been working so hard on this idea that if we help women succeed in america that all of america will succeed. so we want to get to work on that. we have a agreed as democrats in the house of representatives that the house of representatives is not done doing its work. while some people consider this a do-nothing congress we are ready to get to work and we have decided that since the president a year and a half ago actually a little bit more than a year ago in his state of the union in 2013 said we should increase the minimum wage for all americans and the house of representatives representatives -- and a couple of weeks ago we heard the president reiterate that we should increase minimum wage and we have yet to hear from our republican caucus if they want to do something. given that yesterday the president took action to help all those employees who work

with federal contractors get a raise so they will now be able to earn $10.10 an hour. we believe we should join with the president and all americans to say it's time for america to get a raise. we are going to go back in a week to congress and we are prepared to submit the process of collecting the votes it will take in the house of representatives to pass a bill to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour for all americans. we think that is not only the right thing to do, it's time to do it. so with that we are prepared to take any questions as the democrats in the house of representatives are ready to lead and have republican colleagues in that. if rory go to questions i want to ask her assistant leader mr. clyburn to make some comments because he has been one of the champions on this issue working very hard on minimum wage issues. >> thank you very much mr. chairman.

i would simply say that all the talk about building an economy that works for all must be laid upon a solid done nation and there is no more solid of a foundation that can be built then for a minimum wage to be increased. i think that all of us are aware of where we would be today at $10.70 an hour if we had indexed the last time it was raised in to go to $10.10 an hour and to index it so we won't keep visiting time and time again is the thing to do. as you just heard from the women in our caucus 60% of the in and the fisheries of the minimum wage increase would you women of

which one out of every four households are women with children. we believe that this is the way to go and i'm looking forward to us coming back from this work period and starting to work on building a foundation upon which we can have an economy that works for all and with that i yield back. >> there are obviously a number of democratic priorities to file petition on. another one obviously would be immigration reform. can you talk about wide minimum wage was one he decided to go with first? >> well our focus in these two days has been on the economy doping an economy that works for all americans and we think this is a fundamental pillar. we do see immigration as an economic issue and we to see the deficit growing with the economy

and that is not excluded to be a discharge for right now we are starting with the minimum wage. it's part of our women's economic agenda when women succeed america succeeds and we have the legislation the miller harkin bill so that is why we are going forward with that. >> do you all know that if you started trying to collect signatures on the first tuesday that you came back he would have all the signatures you would need by wednesday? minimum-wage would be a marked marked -- much harder fight. some immigration advocates who heard about this the last 48 hours instead just do it but you are now going to open yourselves up to criticism that you are playing politics with the issue by not trying to move onto more quickly. >> would you like to rephrase that question? >> when you know you have 40 to

50 republicans i would sign that the moment you issue a? >> on the house i democrats have made it very clear where we stand on immigration. h.r. 15 doesn't leave you with the notion of and suppose. it's not some vague wording of what we might consider doing. h.r. 15 is legislative language which we believe once the congressional budget office probably will save more money in the senate bill if it passed by a bipartisan majority. we are ready to go and as our leader just said the minimum wages wage isn't the only issue we wish to tackle but we are hoping that our republican colleagues and by the way the majority will decide in mid-february there are still a lot of time for us to get things done so we are ready. we believe the minimum wage makes very clear that we want to build an economy that works for all americans. immigration unemployment insurance and there are many others who we can tackle but right now when we return we are

prepared to -- for minimum wage. >> there are 40 or 50 republicans i would sign immediately. can you report. [inaudible] they will get a chance and they will get a chance in the relatively near future. we believe minimum-wage whether talking about the economy or talking about the economy working for everyone we believe the minimum wage and i just want to make a comment frankly. from 1968 on they got a cola adjustment with the far up of $15 i think. i will be corrected on that. it was $10.57 in 1968 and $2013. it's now $7.25 and $2013 so