two things, the first one is that i do think that having a safety net that's able to provideo, for example, health 's care, no matter if your employeh provides it or not is an important place to be. not so, i wouldn't -- so, i think o that's -- part of it is havingi the public safety net. in terms of the employer like walmart, clearly when 'em mroit is unstable and low wage, i think one of the other issues that we've been working on thate is a contributor to big problems for families is schedules that make it impossible to raise a child and work, right? so, your hours are constantly changing. when employ earls carry out those practices, low wages and a whole set of other, lack of who benefits and bad practices, they're not successfully invest income the work force they needy in the long run, so, i would san from that perspective, it's no long run either for them or for the country.pect >> one of the things that i -- really bothers me is that i

think most americans have r an m idea of what the face of poverty is, what an individual in po poverty actually looks like and i think through these recent times people realize it's ink affected everybody, rural, big cities, small communities, et cetera,le of b eve-- of every c. but today, as it stands, do any of you know, when it comes to wn the percent of people on public assistance, is the majority assn nonwhite minority or nonminority white. does anybody know that figure? >> i don't know the figure.figue >> the most recent figures figu you've been aware of?ecent >> i can tell you about child ? poverty for the broad programs,l for a program like medicaid, i r would be almost sure it would bi nonminority white, because that covers a broad swath including the inlderly and disabled. for childcl poverty, that's abl. divided roughly a third, a third, a third white, african-american and hispanic slightly more hispanic childrent

are poor, but it's pretty closep across the three of them. >> the reason i ask that question is because a i -- whatk frustrates me is, every time we see people getting a welfare check or something like that they go to the poorest inner ps city places and show a line of people and it tends to be of ont color. but wheno you step back and loo at the nation of a whole, it's n my understanding that as it's w over 50% white on public wh assistance, closer to it60%. but that's not the picture that americans see.tually. i think that adds to the stigmar and the idea that people are just lying on the couch just --s >> and yout also, when you see g the picture, don't see the see person who is working long hours. you i'm very struck in the work i'mu doing that, you know, the people they see on s.n.a.p. or medicaip don't have time to stand in theh welfare office for four hours to get their benefits, right, fits because they are working a a couple of low wage jobs and trying to take care of the kidse as well. i think that's another aspect of the accurate picture that t o

doesn't get shown. >> dr. golden, should poor w families be able tohat save mons while they're still retaining benefits? >> yes, i think there's evidence that that contributes to stability in the long run.reta and that's one of the reasons that so many states have choseni where they hadbute the possibils not to w enforce tests that wou get rid of all their savings in order to -- to >> mr. e dora, mdoar, mr. turnei >> i have thought that the tests have been a mistake.snap there's no limit r on assets in new york, due to taking up an offering of an option, so, up people can have hundreds of thousands of dollars, or $100,0 $100,000, because of what it earns in interest, and still be eligibility for the programs. and i think that is a mistake. >> thank you. mr. mcclintock? >> mr. doar, regarding the 1996 welfare reform, did some states

not follow the environmentrequi? i know back in california, the state basically excused people from the work requirement or the five-year time limit, simply slightly reduced their benefits for doing so and the result was, the state's unemployment rate, s which had beenl running well below the national average bega running well above it and the reduction in the welfare rules l was minuscule compared to those experienced by other states. did you study such comparisons and if so, what did you -- >> i have not done a full-fledged study of all the states and their different ledgd approaches. there was flexibility and there was supposed to be strong strings attached that would be enforced. >> mr. turner, any observations? >> the observation i have has t, do with the growth of ons? disability.bservat it's really taking over a lot of the low wages employment marketplace. 13% of philadelphia, working

aged adults, are either receiving ssi or ssdi. and a loort of them came on whe the rules were relaxed and allowed people with muscular skeletal -- >> i'm looking for a comparison between those states that followed the 1996 act and co allowed -- >> oh, inton see.es tha >> i can comment, both as assistant secretary and then as a researcher at the urban institute. the early information from the y info late 1990s suggested there was not a race to the bottom by race states. one of the t worries had been tt all that states would all make choices that would cut back their benefits. states focused on work, but didd not, in fact, reduce their fac investments. reduce unfortunately in the most recene few years, that hasn't been the case, becauseat of the nature o the block grant. so what you see in the most recent few years is sharp cuts.. >> i remember california performing very poorly compared with the rest of the nation afterly opted out ted ou of the welfare reforms, cost the

state about $1 billion and the reduction of the welfare rules were minimal compared to the other states. let me go to the breakdown of oe the family. seems to be that nature provide very strong social safety net, the first line of defense of our social safety nets, the interdependencies between a mother and a father and betweenn the parents and the child are perhaps theth strongest bonds i our human nature. parents care for their childrent parents care for each other throughout their lives, children then care for the parents when l the they becomedren helpless.pat is that system breaking down and if so, why? >> i would argue it's breaking s down over time because the ver federal government is replacinge many of the roles that used to be the purview of parents and families. the greatest par single income transfer program is between a father and a mother and their children.

once you start having the federal government providing de benefits directly ongo behalf o children, you're taking parents out of the equation. parent >> so, we're basically so destroying that natural safety net that ought to be our first line of defense against poverty and against want? >> yes. >> regarding unemployment benefits, do we have any data n the re-employment of individual lgs as they approach the benefits cutoff? >> i don't know that. do you know that? >> apparently a study that one i ofs the carolinas people went back to work rapidly. but i don't know the facts on u that. >> there's a u-shape with people, when they become unemployed, the -- it goes -- employment rate goes down, flat, and right before it ends, it starts going up again and at, ri people -- >> do we have data onghre how m on the relationship between thet time one spends in unemploymentb and their difficulty in finding

reemployment?ty >> we do know this recession has been a particularly problematicn on both those dimensions with oh long-term unemployment and difficulty in reemployment. >> let me touch on the minimum wage. data on how long people earning the minimum wage stay at the minimum wage?ti >> we have data showing that --e that if you stay in a low wage y job starting at minimum wage, l theow likelihood that you'll bem out of that category within six years is five out of six chances. >> but we also know a lot about the fact that minimum wage jobs are frequently intermittent and not as secure, so, there's a --t i think there's a complicated dynamic. >> thank you very much. t this has been very informative, very enlightning. i appreciate all three of the en witnesses spending their morninl with us this morning. thank you so much and we are adjourned. t

what's the state of wi-fi access in school and public libraries? fcc chairman tom wheeler recently addressed that issue, speaking to the institute of museum and library services, along with former chair reed

hunt. hear their comments, plus a panel discussion on the topic, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c spann 2. this saturday, we'll have live coverage of the iowa state republican party convention in des moines. speakers include louisiana governor bobby jindal, kentucky senator rand paul and 2012 presidential candidate rick santorum. that starts at 11:00 a.m. eastern saturday on our companion network, c-span. one of the things people don't always recognize is that during the war of 1812, it was fought from 1812 until after 1814, early 1815. and it was really about the america re-establishing its independence against the british. this was sort of our second american revolution. and this flag is the object for which francis scott key penned

the words, which became our national anthem. >> the image in 1995 that the flag was made to look whole and restored and there is a whole bottom section that was reconstructed, when the flag was moved into the new exhibition space, there was a deliberate decision by the curators not to do that again and what we wanted was that the flag becomes a metaphor for the country. it's tattered, it's torn, but it still survives and the message is really the survival of both the country and the flag and we're not trying to make it look pretty. we're trying to make it look like it's endured its history and it still can celebrate its history. >> this year marks the 200th anniversary of the bombardment of mt. mchkenry. we tour the smithsonian's star spangled banner exhibit, sunday night at 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. eastern, part of american

history tv this weekend on c-span 3. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span 2, hear on c-span 3, we compliment that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and puckly affairs events. then on weekends, c-span 3 is home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story, including six unique series. the is civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. american arti facts. history bookshelf. the presidency, looking at the poll sills and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history, with tom college professors. and our new series, ream america, featuring educational films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span 3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your

local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and foul local llow us twitter. next, deputy national security adviser tony blinken talks about u.s. and european efforts to isolate russia both politically and economically after its intervention in ukrai ukraine. he discusses the effectiveness of the sanctions and why the annexation of crimea will eventually be what he calls a stra steejic loser for russia in the long-term. he spoke at the brookings institution. this is 45 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, i hope you had a chance to enjoy some lunch. it is of course a brookings sandwich lunch, so, limits, i guess, to the vast enjoyment, but we hope you've had a good lunch. we're extremely pleased to have tony blinken here to finish off

and wrap up our annual conference for us today. tony, unfortunately, doesn't have an immense amount of time with us. hem has to leave on the dot, 1:15. i want to get us under way as quickly as possible. and we're extremely privileged to have him here, given all the things that are obviously happening on the agenda and obviously while the president and everyone is traveling in europe, he probably has a few things to do, manning the office and holding down the fort, as everybody likes to say. but we are really delighted, in particular, that it's tony that has agreed to give our keynote. he's been a long supporter of many brookings activities. he's a fellow think tanker from csis back in the day. and he was also, along with phil garden, present at the creation of this center ten years ago. phil garden, our former director, now works for tony. there's a direct correlation there.

clearly, you know, kind of having worked together on european fronts. that's been very good preparation for working on other issues. phil garden went off to be assistant secretary of europe and to work at the nsc. so, tony's probably keeping him pretty busy. tony came to washington at the beginning of the clinton administration. he worked in the state department, on the national security council staff. he's been a chief foreign policy speech writer for president clinton. then he worked for senator biden at the senate foreign relations committee. he became the deputy assistant national security adviser to vice president biden and now he has moved to be the principle deputy national security adviser for president obama. so, tony has a very long record of advising people. we should pay particular attention to some things he has to say today. and now we're asking tony to go back to his deep roots and tell us about the affect the ukraine

crisis on transatlantic relations, and there's no better place to do that. tony, thank you so much. thank you. >> thank you all very much. fiona, thank you very much. it's always great to be at brookings. so many good friends and colleagues here. so many people we have stolen from here, including phil and others. and also, an institution and individuals, the administration and previous administrations and future administrations rely on on an almost daily basis for ideas, for intellectual capital, which we don't apparently have a monopoly on. it's good to be here, with kings college and i appreciate you all hosting me very, very much. i thought i would try and trace where we are with ukraine by going back and sort of tracing

how we got to where we are. then offer some thoughts on the way forward. of course, this is a very active issue and, in fact, as we gather here today, there's much going on in europe with the president, with his european counterparts, with president-elect poroshenko, with president putin, and this will be very much as always in the headlines. but i want to start going back. if we go back to the protests that began at the end of last year, it's fair to say that while the cat licatalyst for th protests and the catalyst for change were president yankovic basically reversing himself on the european union, something that europe expected, the united states expected. russia expected. but more importantly, the ukrainian people expected. well, that was the catalyst, i think what we saw was rooted in something even deeper. and that was a profound

dissatisfaction and the sense of disenfranchisement among so many ukrainians from all walks of life. with kropgs corruption, with economic stagnation, with a lack of opportunity. and these all came together and then we had this catalyst of the 180 on the association agreement and then a vicious, vicious crackdown that followed. then we had russia and the actions that it took. they were almost, i think, as it can be said, from another era. russia used its greater size and its wealth to try to bully and intimidate a smaller neighbor to use its influence through force. and we all know, the series of events that took place. the incursion, the occupation, the annexation of crimea, the buildup of russian forces, the covert and then not so covert support to arm separatists, the support for illegal referendum.

the tripling of the price of gas to ukraine. all of this fueled by an almost orwelian propaganda machine. and based on two ironies. the ethnic russians putin claimed to be defending. and second, the extreme form of federalism that russia seeks to impose on ukraine is exactly the opposite of the increasingly centralized control that president pew tonputin exerts in russia. the stakes for the united states and for the international community were, at large, three-fold. if you go back to the very first major foreign policy speech of the obama administration, which was actually delivered by vice president biden at the munich security conference in february 2009, that's the speech that laid out in some detail the idea of the reset.

but the vice president at the time also said, there are going to be clear differences between the united states and russia going forward and clear red lines. and maybe the most important is our profound rejection of the validity of the notion of spheres of influence. we believe that countries and people have the right to decide their own future and with whom to associate. that principle was challenged by russia's actions in ukraine. so was the principle that, in the 21st century, redrawing borders by force, undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a democracy was unacceptable and the precedent that would set not just in europe, but beyond was also something that needed a swift and stern reaction. and then finally, there was something particular about the situation in ukraine that was critically important, and that goes back to the infamous 1994 budapest agreement. as i think most of you in this room know very well, when the soviet union fell apart, it left many successor states with many

nuclear weapons, and ukraine, belarus and kazakhstan decided to give up their nuclear weapons, one of the great achievements of the clinton administration, but in the case of ukraine, it wasn't prepared to do that until it had a firm commitment by russia, by the united states, by the united kingdom, that its sovereignty and territorial integrity would be guaranteed. and so, the four countries signed the budapest agreement that purported to guarantee just that. the idea that this piece of paper could be in effect torn up by this move by russia into ukraine profoundly called into question what message this would send to other countries around the world who might be considering giving up nuclear weapons. a terrible message to send, a terrible precedent to set. the united states response, i think, can be looked at in two points of time.

first, before russia went into crimea, that is, from the moment the protests were met with a violent reaction, we worked very hard to try to de-escalate the crisis, to bring the parties together. the vice president was constantly on the phone with then-president yankovic. the president was deeply engaged with his european partners, as well as with president putin. the objective was to see if we could forge a diplomatic agreement for a way forward to resolve the crisis peacefully. but once the russians went into c krim me yashgs our policy shifted. and the president set three very clear directions that we followed to this day. first, we would isolate russia for the actions that it was taking in ukraine. second, we would support ukraine and build support for ukraine. and third, we would reassure our allies and partners.

first, with russia. the goals were simple and straightforward. we needed to impose costs for the actions that russia had taken. we sought to defer -- deter russia from taking further irresponsible actions, and we hoped to shape the decision space that president putin and the government would operate in going forward. this involved in the first instance political isolation, and so you all know the littany of things that happened in the immediate weeks following the incursion into crimea. the de facto and then suspension from the g-8. the efforts in the united nations to isolate russia politically, and we saw that with a very significant vote at the security council. with china even abstaining and not siding with russia, and then an incredibly lopsided vote at the u.n. general assembly where russia found itself with another ten countries, none of whom i think would be partners of first choice for most people in this room. we rejected the referendum that took place in crimea, and then in the east.

we downgraded our bilateral relations, as did europe. even with something like the st. petersburg economic conference, which has been a showcase for russia and its economy, we persuaded many of our senior ceos not to go. now, this didn't just happen. it took incredibly hard, sustained, focused work starting with the president to move all of our partners in the same direction. i know people are tempted to say, oh, so they didn't get to go to a g-8 meeting or the g-7 issued a tough statement, or there was a vote at the u.n. general assembly, it doesn't mean anything. it does. it's significant. it matters because one way that president putin and russia define power is by the geopolitical standing and influence that russia is able to obtain in undermining russia politically in the international community, isolating it politically diminishes that power. but then, even more significant

were the measures we took to isolate russia economically. we started and the president was determined to adhere to a basic principle. that we should do it with our partners, with europe and with other key countries, for two reasons. first, the practical impact of being able to impose sanctions with others is much greater, but second, the political impact is reinforced, and it reinforces the sense of isolation when it's not just the united states doing it. so i think, as you all know, we engaged in a process that resulted in visa bans, asset freezes, restrictions on doing business with key figures in russia, and in ukraine. we imposed targeted sanctions on 28 russian officials, six members of president putin's inner circle outside of government, 11 ukrainian separatists, a gas company in krim meal ya. we denied export lie senses for military technology. and the european union, canada, australia, japan, imposed similar, if not identical measures.

just as significant, we developed more severe measures, targeted, but at the same time, potentially very effective in the financial energy and arms sectors. the very knowledge that these measures were out there has, we believe, a deterrent effect, and, indeed, the fact that countries are agreeing to move forward if necessary on them, not only deters, but it creates a climate of uncertainty that actually imposes costs without having to pull the trigger. so, there's been discussion about the impact, or lack of impact, of these sanctions and these economic measures. to me the case is not even close. it's very, very clear. first, we've heard in public from russia's finance minister, its deputy prime minister in charge of the economy, even president putin himself acknowledging the impact of sanctions. very recently sparebank, the

largest bank in russia, and, in effect, a proxy for the larger economy, announced a steep decline in its first quarter profits. in doing so, it said, in particular, recent events in ukraine significantly impacted the dynamics of the russian economy. now, across a whole host of measures we can see the dramatic impact that the economic isolation has already had on russia. we saw it initially in the financial markets, which are incredibly sensitive to isolation and to the pressure that was exerted, and we saw it at various points in the crisis as we exerted pressure go to extraordinary lows. they would bounce back if something that was perceived to be positive or relaxation occur, and, of course, in the short-term, because markets are volatile, they may not be the best measure, but we can clearly see the sensitivity of the markets. second, we saw the rubel, which also was heading, at various points during this crisis, to an all-time low. it, too, at various points has

bounced back, sensitive to events. but what's very significant is that during this period, the central bank of russia had to spent $37 billion, 8% of its foreign exchange reserves, to defend the rubel. and the result in any of that were higher borrowing costses and a devees in the value of savings of russians. maybe more significant and even more compelling -- capital flight. $51 billion in the first quarter of the year alone, which was more than all of 2013, and going forward the imf, the world bank, private experts now estimate that for 2014, capital flight from russia is pekexpected to b between $100 billion and $200 billion. foreign investors have been pulling back. they're staying on the fence. they look for stability. they look for countries that keep their commitments. they look for a country that's connected internationally. and in all of those areas, russia's actions have sent a message to investors that that's not the kind of environment they want to be investing in. russia's credit rating was cut to just above the junk level.

financing deals are frozen. russian companies are not issuing bonds to raise capital. economic contraction is already clear. we've seen it in the first quarter and for 2014. most of the experts are predicting something close to zero growth. this week alone, lloyds of london withdrew a multibillion dollar trade finance deal with a large oil company whose ceo is, of course, sanctioned. now, some of this was happening before the crisis and before the sanctions as a result of the downturn in the russian economy, but virtually every expert and every analyst that we have makes it very clear that everything we did in response to what russia did in ukraine accelerated and deepened this process. so those are the measures of what we have done to carry out the edict to isolate russia in ukraine, but i think what's even more important than that when

you think forward is, i am absolutely convinced that russia's actions in ukraine are a strategic loser for russia, going into the future. first, yes, you can say that russia quote unquote won crimea. but in so doing, it is losing and has probably lost crew cruk. ukraine is more united in its western orientation than it's ever been and its sense of national identity is deeper than its ever been. and then there's crimea itself. it's true that in the short-term the actions that russia took in crimea produced a political bounce for president putin, but i think that's going to change in a significant way. russia is spending about $7 billion this year just in the direct costs, budgetary and pension support, for crimea. over the next several years most of the experts estimate it will have to spend between $50 billion and $60 billion for critical infrastructure. rail and vehicle bridges, electricity and water connections to make up for what

crimea has lost as a result of russia's actions with ukraine. this puts an incredible downward pressure on defense and discretionary spending to improve the lives of the russian people, to modernize the economy. in short, the bloom will come off of the crimean rose as people begin to understand that this was not for free. there are real costs involved. second, strategically, what president putin has done in ukraine more than anything else has re-energized n ed nato, to point i don't think we've seen in years. there's a renewed focus on nato's article five commitment. ironically, the very thing that putin has sought to prevent, which is nato moving closer in effect to russia, is exactly what is likely to happen as the allied military presence in eastern part of nato territory is likely, indeed, has already grown. and to the extent we were successful in reversing the decline in defense spending among nato countries, this is probably going to prove to be

the single most significant catalyst. third, russia's actions in ukraine have done more than anything else could possibly have done to create the potential for real energy reform in europe. it's the biggest single jolt to europeans to take real steps to decrease their dependence on russia than anything one could imagine. to diversify supply, to upgrade inf infrastructure, to develop new sources. this has the potential, ironically, to kill the goose that lays russia's one golden egg. and then, fourth, there are the unintended consequences. what message do russia's actions in ukraine in the alleged defense of ethnic rights send to nonethnic russians in chechnya? this could open a can of worms that will be profoundly against the interests of moscow. and then, finally, and maybe most interestingly, i mentioned

a moment ago that when you think about how to define power or how president putin sees power, it's probably a combination of two things -- russia's geopolitical influence and its economic strength. and indeed, there was a recent survey taken in russia, where the russian people were asked, what would be their two top priorities. and it was very interesting, the results evenly split. international influence and create conditions for individual prosperity. by russia's actions in ukraine, both of those priorities are in profound jeopardy and, indeed, so is president putin's compact with his people to deliver that influence, to deliver that prosperity. there's a way out. integrate russia's economy with the world, diversify it away from fossil fuels, play by the rules, and that way out remains on offer, but ultimately it's up to president putin whether he wants to pursue it. i have to tell you that my concern is that left with few

choices in terms of sustaining his power, there will be a strong incentive on president putin to continue to play the nationalism card, and that means to continue to take the kinds of actions we've seen in order to produce a jolt of short-term support that then evaporates as people understand the costs, which requires another jolt. that's the danger. my hope and certainly the hope of the entire administration is that is not the course that russia chooses and i will come back to that briefly at the end. the second big line of effort we pursued over these months of support of ukraine and there was an equal effort that was put into building that support led by the president in a very systematic way. it began with economic support. we produced a package with yoou european partners of $27 billion over two years, tied to reform. very critically, including cutting energy subsidies, improving macroeconomic management, strengthening the

banking sector, increasing energy efficiency and security. this was anchored by a $17 billion imf agreement which was achieved in record time, and then there were another $4 billion from the g-7 countries, from the world bank. a $1 billion u.s. loan guarantee to cushion the impact of reforms on low-income families. separate and apart from that we've been pursuing a program of transition assistance to ukraine. u.s. technical support for economic and political reform, capacity building in government ministries, anti-corruption programming, et cetera. and then most recently, we've seen, of course, selection isel port. from the united states, from europe, of course from the ioc and others. and it's worth commenting that this election was a remarkable achievement considering the duress under which it was conducted. it was the most free and fair election in ukraine's history as an independent country. we would often marvel at the irony of some people complaining

about being disenfranchised, because they were the very people creating the disenfranchisement. most folks in this room are probably too young to remember this, but there was a wonderful movie when i was growing up called "blazing saddles" by mel brooks. there's a great scene in that movie, where the sheriff is surrounded in a house by the bad guys and he comes out of the house holding himself hostage and saying, better let me go, otherwise i'll shoot -- myself. that was exactly what the -- those complaining about disenfranchisement were doing. and then it's interesting to note russia has complained about the alleged fascists who dominate ukraine. well, if you look at the election results, the too far right parties each got less than 2%. so much for domination by the far right. besides the economic assistance, besides the assistance for the elections, we've also pursued

security sector assistance. $23 million over the past three months in nonlethal assistance to help the ukrainian security forces to deal with their immediate needs, to sustain themselves in the field, to defend themselves against the armed separatists, and to better monitor the border. we provided meals ready to eat. people laughed about that. well, you can laugh, but then you can look at the photographs of deployed ukrainian forces eating those meals ready to eat and they could not have been sustained in the field without them. medical kits, night vision goggles, vehicles, explosive ordnance disposal robots. those were all short-term measures to address what was most immediately needed in this crisis. but now with a new government and in cooperation with europe, we plan to engage on comprehensive security sector reform. now, some would have us sell or provide ukraine with all sorts of sophisticated weapons systems starting yesterday. that's exactly the wrong thing

to do. it is vitally important that we begin by assessing the shortcomings of the security sector, understand the necessary reforms, establish actual needs, establish priorities. until ukraine begins to address with our help, with europe's help, systemic shortcomings, insufficient resources, mismanagement, institutional incapacity and gross corruption, assistance will not be effective. but there's a real opportunity with a new government that's determined to remedy the shortcomings of the past and we're determined to seize it with them. finally, reassuring our allies and partners. the president was determined hearing from many of our allies and partners and listening to the deep concern that they had faced with russia's actions in ukraine to take immediate steps to reassure them. to bolster the article five commitment that lies at the heart of nato, and what he set out to do and what we have done

is to produce a virtually continuous air, land and sea presence to the eastern reaches of nato. in the immediate, we sent 12 additional f-16s to poland for training missions. s we rotated ships into the black sea. and we deployed four company-sized paratrooper divisions to poland and the baltic countries. this week, the president announced a new commitment to reassurance and to european security with a $1 billion fund, a fund that would allow us to preposition equipment in europe, to expand exercises and training, to increase the number of u.s. personnel, continually rotating through central and eastern europe and increase assistant to ukraine, mull doe have a and georgia. it's obviously vital that the u.s. not be e gauged in this enterprise alone and we've taken many of these steps in order to encourage our nato partners to do the same, to take part in the

continuous deployments and rotations. we expect we'll be able to say all 28 members of nato participated. and then by the nato summit in september, we expect to see steps to reverse the decline in defense spending that, unfortunately, has characterized the alliance in recent years. ironically all of this again catalyzed by russia's actions. so where do we go from here? first, it's very important that we get a grip on and resolve the situation in eastern ukraine. what we've seen in recent weeks are two things -- there has been, on the surface, at least, a russian de-escalate, pulling back its troops from the order, racheting down the rhetoric, making even some positive statements about the ukrainian election. i believe these steps were designed principally to try to take some pressure off russia and possibly divide europe from the united states or europeans from each other to create some confusion because, unfortunately, this change in

tactics, i don't think it can yet be said, indicates a change in heart. russia still seeks to intimidate ukraine into giving russia undue influence, by sewing chaos in the east, through covert support, to separatist fighters and support we saw recently for the illegal referendum. through increasing flows of militants and weapons across the border, and this is maybe the most striking development in recent weeks. i think you've all seen it. the numerous videos and media reports of armed militants admitting they came from russia, including many chechens. multiple attempts every day by convoys of vehicles to cross the border with armed men and weapons. recently there was the incident at the airport where separatists sought to take over the airport. the ukrainian military responded, and in that battle some 30 fighters were killed, and they were russian with russian passports. the separatists, unfortunately, have become increasingly

violent, increasingly heavily armed, and actively targeting and killing ukrainian security forces. so, you can't have it both ways. you can't on the one hand purport to take steps to de-escalate the crisis but at the same time under the surface actually take steps to accelerate it. so it's vitally important we continue to keep the pressure on russia to change course and that's exactly what happened this week in europe at the g-7 and in the president's meeting with his european counterparts. at the g-7, president obama secured commitments from our partners to continue coordinated actions to raise the cost of russia's unacceptable interference in ukraine. and most importantly, to affirm their readiness to intensity sanctions and implement sig yant significant additional measures

to impose further costs on russia if it proves necessary. wee also been making clear what it is russia needs to do and what it must stop doing in order to meaningfully de-escalate the crisis and provide an opportunity to move forward diplomatically. it has to recognize the results of the election and engage directly with the government of ukraine. it needs to completely withdraw its military forces from the border area, stop the flow of militants and weapons across the border, exercise influence among armed separatists, to put down their arms, leave the buildings, renounce violence, resolve th p course, in terms of what it can't do, no military intervention. if russia takes these steps, it's equally important that ukraine respond in an appropriate manner. the president-elect has a plan for what he calls peace, unity and reform. it includes things like pursuing the national dialogue, a cease-fire, decentralization, amnesty for those who put down their weapons and drawing separatists into the political process.

ukraine should pursue those steps. it should avoid having to pursue martial law, disproportionate use of force, or full-scale counterterrorism operations again, if russia takes the important steps that i outlined to meaningfully de-escalated. ukraine needs to continue to pursue political and economic reforms, especially anti-corruption. because, again, let's not forget what we started with. what's really at the root of so much of the turmoil in ukraine is this profound sense of disenfranchisement from a country that's fueled, in large part, by the cross corruption that we've seen over the past decades. and, of course, it needs to implement the imf reform program that is so critical to its near-term success. let me conclude just with a couple words about relations with russia and then we can throw it open for questions or comments. throughout this crisis, diplomatic relations with russia have not ceased. we've remained in contact.

the president has spoken to president putin a number of times and indeed, they spoke today in normandy. we have tried to make clear repeatedly that our objective is not to weaken russia, not to contain russia, it's not to deny russia's relationship with ukraine. rather, it's to uphold a very basic principle. ukraine's future must be decided by the people of ukraine, not by russia, not by the united states, not by europe, not by anyone other than the ukrainians themselves. as fiona knows better than anyone and can attest better than anyone, president putin tends to see the relationship with us and with the west on the basis of two decades of pent-up grievances. alleged broken promises regarding nato enlargement, missile defense, the use of force in kosovo and libya. he seems to believe we want to keep russia weak and guided, that nato is aimed at russia. from our perspective, none of these things, of course, are true and none are objectives,

and iconically, the very things that president putin claims to fear are likely to be precipitated by the actions that russia has taken. they risk being putin-fulfilling prophecies. the president was very clear in brussels in march. and he put it, and i quote, since the end of the cold war, successive administrations have worked with russia to build ties, not as a favor to russian yashgs but because it was in our national interest. we continue to believe it's in we continue to believe it's in the world's interest for russia and the united states and all of europe to work constructively together. it's hard to imagine most of the major 21st century challenges being effectively addressed absent that kind of cooperation and already, we've clearly demonstrated the possibilities of cooperation, through new start, through wto success, through the effort to remove chemical weapons from syria, the

transit of our troops and material to and from afghanistan. counterterrorism cooperation after the boston marathon bombings and in advance of the sochi olympics. so, going forward, there is a way to get back to a more productive path. if russia will de-escalate tensions over ukraine by the steps that i discussed previously, if they work to find a diplomatic way forward that respects and restores ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and resets the relationship between russia and ukraine, there is a basis for moving forward. we can continue cooperation where it's in our mutual self-interest on counterterrorism, on nuclear security, on iran, on chemical weapon, in space, and we can work together to try to overcome old, outdated suspicions and rebuild trust. that is certainly the path that the united states would prefer to take. the question is, is that the path that president putin wants to take? and in the coming weeks and months, we'll find the answer.

thank you very much. [ applause ] >> as tony is getting miked up, i'd like to start with some of the questions from the floor. we have a little time. ambassador raised his hand first, and the gentleman over here and then -- i'll get over to you, as well. do you mind taking just a few questions? >> no. >> thank you, tony. i feel very comfortable with what you sketched out in terms of the policy approach. i have one question on how we should deal with russia. when i was in ukraine, as you know, for the last several weeks, i heard ukrainian leaders say to me repeatedly that

ukraine should not be left alone in facing russia, that they felt too weak to handle future negotiations with russia alone. obviously the question came up all the time, what about geneva two? what about a repetition of this international effort? and should that happen? and if so, do you think it could be turned into a process to accompany ukraine on their way forward? >> thank you. gentleman here? identify yourself, first, of course. >> my name is irvin with the russian news agency and my question is, president obama traveled to europe on tuesday, and since then, he took part in a number of very important events.

just to mention, the east european countries summit, saw president-elect poroshenko, the g-7 summit place today in particular in normandy. so the question is do you see any changes in the overall situation around ukraine and dealing with russia, taking into account all these events, or are we on the same spot as a week ago? thank you. >> thanks. great question. i'm going to try to take as many questions as i can and then give you the time. here, please. the former georgian ambassador. >> i have $1 billion question.

when the senator biden and yourself initiated the $1 billion assistance to georgia it was very clear and crucial for georgia to remove the consequences of the war with russia and just recently also the president announced the $1 billion security fund for the europe. so could you add a little more specific what is this fund will be dedicated to? thank you. >> thank you. and jeff goldstein and then we'll come down here. thanks. >> thank you. jeff goldstein from the open society foundations. following up on the ambassador's question, i understand that the administration will request $1 billion in extra appropriations from congress for this initiative. will the administration also request a new appropriation for nonsecurity assistance to ukraine as was done for georgia after the war with russia? >> thanks. could you pass the microphone to the lady in front of you? >> american correspondent in

berlin and author. i would like to ask you just to say a few words about how you assess cooperation in responding to putin's actions with the europeans in general and with germany in particular. >> somebody else had their hand up. a little earlier. here. thank you. and then we'll go back to tony. >> kind of follows up on the last question. in terms of cooperation with the europeans, how concerned are you that you have five months until the weather gets cold and you might -- because you talked about a jolt but arguably we could have the crises in early 2006 and 2009 should have been jolts as well. so are you concerned that you're seeing europeans flaking off in five months time and what can you do in five months? thanks. >> i think you have plenty of

questions to respond to in five minutes or less. >> rapid fire. first of all, it's always great to see and i want to thank you for the remarkable service you performed in recent weeks which made a big difference, and with regard to pursuing the geneva track, we're certainly open to that. we've heard the same thing from the ukrainians, a desire to have as they engage with russia the support of the united states, of the key european countries, of the european union and they will certainly have that but we have to decide and define what the best mechanism or process might be but we're fully prepared to continue to engage in that process if that's the best way forward. to the gentleman from tass with regard to the meetings in europe and whether there's any change in the situation. my answer is i hope yes, but we have to judge this not on words but on actions. i think there have been some positive statements that have been made. i think there was a statement

out of moscow today would referred to the president. elect poroshenko, which seems to recognize some signs. but the bottom line is this depends on the actions that are taken, not the words that are spoken. we'll test this in the weeks ahead and our strongest desire and strongest interest is to meaningfully de-escalate and to find a diplomatic resolution that we believe profoundly not only can sustain the interests of ukraine, europe, and the united states but also russia. that's what we'd like to achieve. ambassador, with regard to the fund for european security, there are a number of things we would aim to support through this fund and they're critical. the prepositioning of equipment and material in europe, support for more exercises and training missions in europe including central and eastern europe and direct support to georgia,

moldova, and ukraine. we hope this can be a catalyst for our countries doing more for themselves. as we head into the nato summit. it's not we expect everyone to get to 2% of gdp spending by september, but if we can start to reverse the negative trend, that will be very meaningful. hopefully that fund will help catalyze that. with regard, jeff, to a question of the new appropriation for nonsecurity systems, we're looking carefully what the needs are, what the means are, and whether we need further assistance. i think it's significant that as a result of the leadership that we've exerted, the amount of money being made available to ukraine is very, very we'll be prepared to look at whether there are gaps that we

need to fill on specific types of assistance going forward. i should emphasize though that this assistance is not going to work if it is not met by a clear dedication to reform on the part of the ukrainian government. we've been down this path before with previous ukrainian governments where the international community proved itself quite generous but the assistance did not produce lasting, meaningful results. because the reform of that required was lacking. we have a strong feeling that this is an exceptionally critical moment but also a moment of real opportunity. because of everything that's happened, because of the commitments that have been made, and, indeed, we see on the mydon and the force that that represents, a profound desire for change. that is putting pressure on the entire ukraine iian. we'll see if that happens. elizabeth, great to see you here today. with regard to cooperation with in general and germany in

particular, from our vantage point, it has been exceptional. one of the things that people don't see on a day-to-day basis because it happens behind the scenes is the coordination, communication, cooperation between president obama and his european counterparts. throughout this crisis, he has been on the phone for hours on end particularly with chancellor merkel, president holland, prime minister cameron, with prime minister renzi, with the eu leadership and many others. that process of constant communication starting with the president but then throughout the administration, throughout the departments and agencies, i think has produced exemplary cooperation. now, none of this is easy. there are competing interests among european countries and within european countries. there's obviously the desire for a positive relationship with russia. there are profound economic

interests that are at stake, but at least from my vantage point, we've manage to remain remarkably united. chancellor merkel has been an extraordinary leader in this effort. her voice and everything that she has done with russia, with her european colleagues, and with us in this situation has been exemplary and i also think it's fair to say that we would not be in the position -- the positive position we're in absent her leadership along with that of other colleagues in europe. and the question is can this be sustained. a good question about going into the winter, different pressures being exerted and that's a great question. right now my belief is the answer is yes but it also required countries to take significant steps in the coming months to put themselves in a position to sustain and to also

be able to resist competing pressures and influences. you're exactly right. we've had energy jolts before and the jury is out on whether this one will be different. my sense is it will. we had a very, very significant ministerial among the energy ministers in the g-7 in which they agreed to a series of steps that i actually think can advance the ball, including significantly basic stress tests in all of our economies to gauge the extent of our energy security, efficiency, and independence and the results of those tests hopefully will be translated into concrete action to meaningfully diversify sources of energy, supply routes, connections within europe, connections from the united states to europe and elsewhere, but i would acknowledge the jury is out on that. so maybe when we get together at the next annual conference i'll be able to answer the question. >> i will take that, tony, as a commitment that you will be back for the next conference. i have lots of witnesses including c-span.

we're very pleased you can join us today. we know you have a very business agenda and you're going to have to dash out and hope the construction all the way back to the old executive office doesn't hold you up. thank you so much for joining us. >> great to be with you. thank you very much. [ applause ] venttle coming up tonight on c span 3, a house natural resources hearing on earthquake technology. after that, consumer protection bureau director richard cordray. later, delayed medical treatment at v.a. facilities. next, a house natural resources subcommittee hearing on the latest technology being used to study earthquakes. an official from the u.s. gee logical survey is among the witnesses as well as the

director of the pacific northwest seismic network. this is a little over an hour. s. >> the committee will come to order. the dhar command noets the presence of a quorum. the subcommittee is meeting today to hearing testimony on an oversight hearing entitled advances in earthquake science, 50th anniversary of the great alaskan quake. it is the practice to allow either the ranking member of the full committee or the chairman of the full committee to make statements if they are here at the subcommittee meeting and i would ask unit nous consent to include any other members opening statements submitted to

the clerk today. hearing no objection. >> no objection. >> no soared. i ask that mr. don young be allowed to participate in this hearing. hearing no objection? so ordered. i now recognize myself for five minutes. today mark the 50th anniversary of the good friday great alaska earthquake. it was a massive 9.2 magnitude quake, making it the secondest largest earthquake ever recorded with modern seismic equipment and the largest in the u.s. the earthquake aoccurred along a 580 mile stretch of the fault and the aleutian trench fault and lasted between four and five minutes. the earthquake caused the greatest amount of vertical uplift ever measured, almost 34 feet, and southern alaska moved more than 65 feet sea ward. the earthquake also caused the

largest tsunami to ever hit the west coast of the united states and canada. the largest wave, 222 feet high hit valdez at the bay. all theering quakes and ensuing tsunamis caused deaths. the town of valdez was destroyed and 30 people lost their lives. many of them children who had come down to the dock to meet a freight ship. as tradition would have, the crew would toss fruit to the children that had come to meet the ship. two crew members were filming when the earthquake hit and they captured the tragic destruction on film. i would ask the film now to play by staff.

>> at valued did he see, the jean comes in. always a red letter day. for the men, it means the first day of spring, working cargo in the hold and down on the dock. for the women it brings fresh fruit and vegetables to valdez, the first they have seen since winter set in. and for the kids, it's always a little like christmas. it's dusk. almost too dark for good photographiy but aboard the ship crewmen take some pictures of the grinning youngsters and their dogs at the dock below, then at 5:36, a dozen miles deep, under the mountains north of prince william sound.

the earth shivers, begins to move. suddenly the whole harbor at valdez begins to empty, drains almost dry. a subterranean chasm opens along the ship. the dock splint erb's goes down with it, while crewmen try to reach the people on it. out in the gulf of alaska, the ocean bottom plunges and heaves up ward a full 50 feet and a wave starts racing to shore.

it smashes it down where the dock had been and drives it into the heart of town. fred holds on for dear life and keeps its camera running. no one on the dock at valdez will survive, the long shoremen, the kids, or their dogs. the great alaskan rth quake is one of the most studied natural disasters. the federal response was significant not only in economic relief and reconstruction but also in research. geologists from the u.s. gs were

some of the first scientists on sight conducting field mapping, surveys and taking core samples. their findings were published in a series of six professional papers. research on the quake made significant contributions to the emerging theory of plate tech ton iks. according to the u.s. g.s., knowledge gained from the research conducted open the alaska quake has provided the geologic framework for assessing the earthquake and tsunami hazards at couldn't ver jent plate margins around the world. many other contributions to earthquake science and hazard reduction were also made that provided geo scientists with tools they could use to identify other plate boundaries that had

ruptures in the past and future ruptures. hazards caused by movement on secondary fault structures, a better understanding of liquefaction, a better understanding of earthquake hazards in general and tsunami hazards, asexts and warnings, these are all things we've learned more about since the great alaskan earthquake. as was evidenced, death and destruction from the tsunamis can be greater and more widespread than the damage caused by the shaking. the tsunami can happen thousands of miles away from the epicenter of the earthquake. in recent years, massive earthquake and tsunamis have wreaked devastation across indonesia, japan, chile and hate at this -- haiti. earthquakes in haiti and chile

of nearly the same magnitude have caused massive differences in death and damages. much of the differences are as a result of efforts to establish standards. in japan, the trans sit system was shuttle down -- shut down. today, we are here to remember those who lost their lives in the great alaskan quake. we are to remind ourselves that we cannot be complaisant in proelking against hazards and to remind ourselves that the advance many of science depends on our vigilance. i would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. i look forward to hearing their thoughts on what we know about advances in earth quake science over the last 50 years. i would now like to recognize the ranking member, mr. rush holt of new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman and i would like to thank tower very

distinguished panel for being here today on the 50th answer verse -- anniversary. >> it's sobering to think that when the earthquake happened, we weren't even familiar enough with the theory of plate tectonics to understand what was really going on. that takes us to the point of this hearing. we needed it then and we still need now significant research and scientific development in geological sciences and earthquake sciences. the past half century has seen some impressive advances, but there is quite a bit more to learn. i'm a little surprised, mr. chairman, that you didn't originally invite the u.s. geological survey to testify at this hearing and i thank you for allowing us to invite the u.s. g.s. to be here. it is one of the world's leading authorities on the topic.

and in addition to the general knowledge of the u.s. g.s. about earthquakes, i'm interested to hear more today about other aspects of earthquake science and in particular i would like to hear more about induced earthquakes and the connection between hydraulic frarkting, wastewater injection and so forth and earthquakes. i understand fracking itself doesn't cause earthquakes, at least not large ones, but fracking creates a lot of wastewater. there are now numerous examples of earthquakes that appear to have been induced by injection of this wastewater back into the ground. i understand u.s. g.s recently reported that injection of fracking-related wastewater was the likely cause of the largest

earthquake recorded in oklahoma, magnitude of 4.7. >> the impacts by fracking induced wastewater arntd limited to oklahoma. so this is certainly a concern for people who live in these areas, who maybe thought that fracking was just a mom and pop operation like drilling aw water well but it turns out to be a major industrial undertaking. in some cases, i think establishing the link between wastewater injection and earthquakes to the untrained person might seem obvious, new injection wells start up and all of a sudden an area might have -- that's never had an earthquake, might have some of these shakes, and then the

injection stops and the quakes stop. but i understand that it's not that simple, and so i will be interested to hear what we do know, what we have yet to learn in that area. it's a topic we might devote an entire hearing too. ranking member defazio previously along with then -- well, with ranking member waxman of energy and commerce requested such a hearing on induced seismicity. i'm pleased they have called such a hearing. we can touch on that subject in this hearing and that might be helpful. i'm glad that dr. leeth is here and able to answer questions about what the u.s. g.s has been doing on the subject of

introduced seismicity, and i'm sure there were other points that all the witnesses can make about what we have yet to learn, what research we have yet to sponsor, what studies yet need to be done to understand earthquakes that continue to happen in usually unpredictable ways and very -- with very important consequences. so thank you. >> all right. as i said earlier if either the full committee chairman or ranking member are here, they are invited to make a statement also, and i see that we have the ranking member, representative peter defazio of oregon and you are now recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank for calling this important hearing. as the testimony today points out, the impact of the good friday earthquake 50 years ago was not limited to alaska.

though it was particularly devastating in alaska. the tsunami that was generated killed four oregonians in part because there was no early warning system to alert people that a tsunami was bearing down on the oregon coast. the tsunami early warning system 50 years ago could have saved lives and giving people some warning, even a few minutes can save lives. we can build an earthquake tsunami early warning system with the potential to save lives. oregon doesn't just face a threat from tsunamis generated elsewhere, we have our own fault, it turns out with some of the research that came subsequent to this quake. a rather big one it turns out. the same type that generated the great alaska quake. the 2011 japan earthquake and the indonesia earthquake and according to geologic history we're overdue for a major quake

in the northwest. it has been fairly quiet for a few hundred years, but as i said it is being judged to be overdue. you know, some day it's going to wake up, and our coastal residents, not only oregon, washington, northern california and potentially we'll be sending a wave north like the wave was sent south from alaska and we need that early warning system finished and deployed, in the motion, and -- in the ocean and as needed on land. dr. vidal and the u.s. g.s are developing that system, and, you know, we know we're not going to be able to predict a quake days in advance, but just those few minutes you can stop the trains. we have evacuation plans everywhere on the coast, and warning everywhere on the coast. practice drills and schools open the coast. we have measured impacts and

found safe havens and we would benefit tremendously of with a little bit of heads-up if this was coming. dr. holt made an excellent point. i have asked for a hearing on induced seismicity, you know. i think it should have an individual hearing of its own although i believe we'll able to touch on it a bit here today. it is relatively recent, you know, phenomena, which is not yet well studied or well-known. there have been swarm of quakes in areas where they have not been before, and it's attributed to the reinjection of waste which includes lubricants, oil, and proprietary chemicals which we're not allowed to know about. this is all regulated under the safe drinking water act. our initial thought was we wanted to protect the water table but it turns out there are other assets that need to be

protected. if you have induced seismicity in an area that has dams, or has a nuclear plant, or with other above ground, you know, developments, bridges and other things that are potentially at risk, we need to know about that. we need to know a lot more about that to avoid these problems. i'm going to ask u.s. g.s a number of questions today, to see whether their budget is adequate to research this and whether or not congress i believe should be paying direct attention to it. i don't believe the safe drinking water act is adequate. we're not talking about saying we're going to bring a halt to all oil, gas, and fracking in the u.s., but we've got to decide whether or not the reinjection of the waste is wise in certain areas and whether alternatives should be developed to prevent these problems, so thank you for holding this hearing, and i appreciate the

opportunity to hear from the witnesses. >> thank you, and i would now like to ask you unit mouse consent that the gentleman from alaska be able to make an opening statement. >> so ordered. >> i thank the chairman and i thank the members. i'm not on this committee. as one who lived through the great earthquake in alaska, i'm very interested in what's going to be testified to here today, primarily the assume -- tsunami warnings. we lost 148 lives, not through the earthquake, it was the tsunami. it was a 9.2 earthquake. i believe it's the largest one that ever occurred in the united states, being on the ground when it occurred, it was an awesome experience because of the length of the quake. it wasn't a sharp jolt.

this thing lasted ten minutes. it was a puddling effect. that's why the -- all the houses and landslide et cetera that slipped into the inlet, in kodiak, that is a rock island, and it won't tip upside down by the way, but it nearly very tipped upside down. it dropped eight feet on the south side and raised eight feet on the north side and thus flooding houses and homes before the tsunami on the south side and then the north side, any of the docks or any place to have boat landings was prohibited, and it stayed that way. it was a massive quake, but if we continue and i'm disappointed in the congress, very frankly, because we've lacked the money, we've cut back on the tsunami warnings. that's the biggest danger. i do believe we can identify whenering quakes can occur and if you have to buy a pheasant,

it always worked back in california, a pheasant will tell you when an earthquake is going to happen about five seconds before they happen. i want to thank you, again, for holding this hearing. it is an awesome experience of the power of a quake and how helpless mankind can be. there's nothing you can do. we can be warned aheadive time so we can avoid that tsunami and i think save a lot of lives. so thank you, mr. chairman. >> and i thank the gentleman. i would now like to introduce our four distinguished witnesses. dr. william leith, senior science adviser. dr. lisa grant lewd -- ludwig.

dr. john vidal director of the pacific northwest seismic network and professor of earth and space sciences, the university of washington and dr. reginald desroches. like all of our witnesses, your written testimony will appear in full in the hearing record, so i would ask that you keep your oral statements to five minutes. our microphones are not automatic so you need to press the button when you are ready to begin. i would also like to explain how our timing lights work. when you begin to speak, our clerk will start the timeer and a green light will appear. at that time, you should begin to conclude your statement. at five minutes, the red light would come on and i will ask that you conclude at that time. dr. leith, thank you for being here and you may begin. >> mr. chairman, members of subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the

significant advances in earthquake science that have been made over the past 50 years. the u.s. g.s is proud to be a partner with our state university, private sector, and other federal colleague in ongoing research and monitoring that are needed to strengthen the nation's resilience to earthquakes and related hazards. as you mentioned, the magnitude 9.2 great alaska earthquake that struck southern alaska 50 years ago today, it's the largest earthquake in u.s. recorded history and the second largest ever recorded. it's also maybe relevant to understand that the earthquake shaking lasted for five minutes, about the length of time that i'll be speaking with you today. so consider that. anchorage sustain heavy damages. tsunamis caused death and damage as far away as oregon and california and the earthquake and subsequent tsunamis resulted

in 129 fatalities. >> sir, could i ask you to speak a little closer into the microphone. >> certainly. a major leap in scientific understanding followed the 1964 earthquakes, including break throughs in earth science research worldwide that have continued overthe past half century since. the '64 alaska earthquake provided compelling evidence for example for the then new theory of plate tectonics. it also had national influence. first, it showed how disruptive a earthquake can be on a modern society and its infrastructure. it also showed the complexities that need to be addressed in any national mitigation policy. third, through the iconic scenes of houses broken apart by landsliding. the '64 disaster showed the

importance of taking it into consideration for urban development. the national institute for science and technology, the other partners are the federal emergency management sgs and the national science foundation. within this partnership, u.s. g.s provides scientific information and assessments necessary to reduce deaths and injuries and economic losses from earthquakes and inter -- induced tsunamis, land slides and liquefaction. u.s. g.s is the only agency that routinely and continuously reports on current domestic and worldwide earthquake activity through our advanced national seismic system. the u.s. g.s and its university partners monitor and report on earthquakes in all 50 states,

u.s. territories and around the globe. the program has four components. monitoring and reporting of activity, assessing and characterizing earthquake hazards, conducting and supporting targeted research into earthquake causes and effects and conveying earthquake safety information for loss reduction. all these components rely heavily on federal state university and private sector partnerships. we're also looking into the future for opportunities to apply science to reducering quake losses. for example, the next step in public safety, earthquake early warning is already under development by the u.s. g.s and our partners and a test system is successfully operating now in kral california. another important opportunity that we're pursuing is to incorporate into the nasf, the

seisometers that are employed across the united states. giant earthquakes like the one that struck alaska 508 years ago produced -- 50 years ago produced grou produced major damage. so modern earthquake and tsunami planning scenarios give emergency responders and community planners much needed improved visions of what can be expected in a future disaster, such scenarios are being played out today in the alaska shield disaster response exercise. but rapid earthquake loss assessments are still unacceptably uncertain because of sparse network coverage in

many areas. also a limited inventory of the built-in environment. and how buildings and infrastructure respond to send -- extended strong ground shaking. if you are keeping time, anchorage has just stopped shaking. i will conclude by saying i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the vital research that the u.s. g.s and our partners are doing. it has made the nation and world safer and more resilient offering quakes and i'll be happy to take any questions you have. >> thank you, dr. ludwig. >> chairman lamborn, and members of the subcommittee. as a professor at university of california irvine, i live with earthquake risk every day. i'm speaking primarily of the

president elect of the seismological society of america. the core purpose of ssa is so advance the understanding of earthquakes for the benefit of society. my message today is three fold, first in the 350 years since the great alaskan earthquake there has been a scientific revolution in understanding earthquakes. federal investment has been directly responsible for these investments. i want to start with an account of the great alaskan earthquake on good friday 1964. i've heard the stories from extended family many times. donna grant was shopping in downtown anchorage when the earthquake struck. as the buildings collapsed in front of her and chaxs opened in the street, she grabbed a parking meter and hung on for dear life. she had time to think it must be the beginning of world war iii and the end of the world as she

knew it. her experience is important because it illustrates the link between earthquake science and national security. when downtown anchorage was collapsing, no one knew it was being caused by the plate. the data was critical to the discovery of plate tectonics. donna experienced the most powerful in u.s. history. it was so big that seismologists had to develop a new scale to measure it. the recent japanese tsunami provides the vivid devastation that can happen following an earthquake. the greatest earthquake hazard occurs at the plate boundaries. they have been imaged by

seismologists and mapped by geologists. the locations offering quake can be precisely determined. the methods in technology are similar to ultra sound commonly used in medical imaging. the locations reveal active faults. some can be gratd by geologists like myself to determine their history and potential for future quake. research on the san andreas fault has shown occurred. it is important to prepare for the next one. i've become so concerned about this problem that i joined uc program in public health. earthquakes are not just a california problem. research has shown the potential for large earthquakes in many areas. for example, along the coast of

washington, oregon, and california, earthquakes have occurred every few centuries and the last one was way back in 1700. the old saying those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it should not apply to earthquakes in the u.s. because we know as a direct result of federally supported research and seismic monitoring that we have an earthquake problem. we know the areas that are most likely to be affected, and the types of earthquakes that are most likely to occur. scientists are developing scenarios that can be used for planning and preparation, advanced computing has enabled calculation of expected shaking. the 2008 shake-out earthquake preparedness exercise has expanded into an annual drill throughout the u.s. and other regions of the world with approximately 25 million participants last year. unfortunately, earthquake cannot be prevented. we can trigger them but we cannot stop them. in my opinion, we must protect ourselves from this natural

terrorist beneath our feet and congress is our first line of defense. how? through support of realtime earthquake early warning system, through continue funding of the advanced national seismic system, and through reauthorization of the national earthquake hazard reduction program. earthquake early warning is a proven technology and these systems have already been developed or deployed in japan and mexico. created by congress in 1977, it led to significant advances inspect understanding earthquake risk and the best ways to mitigate it. as chairman lamborn said in his statement, march 9th, 2011, earthquakes can and do kill hundreds of thousands of people. in the case of haiti, a magnitude 7 earthquake killed over 732,000 people. the tragedy in haiti was surprising to many but not to

seismologists. i'm here to tell you that the federal investment in earthquake science has given us the knowledge we need to protect ourselves from the type of tragedy we saw in haiti. in science as in life, you get what you pay for. it is in the best interests of the american people to invest in earthquake science and to continue to work toward becoming an earthquake resilient nation. >> dr. vidale. >> is this working? okay. good morning, chairman lamborn, ranking member holt and members of the subcommittee. i appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this morning about a proposed path forward to for the i fie the west coast against earthquakes. while many earthquake are great in the sense of the tranlic to the public, other only those

with the magnitude 8 receive the titles of great from the experts. the magnitude of the one in alaska is one larger. these magnitude 9 earthquakes threnlt only two places in the u.s., alaska and the pacific northwest coast. puerto rico is prone to smaller and similar earthquakes and hawaii and california get the tsunamis from the great earthquakes. the magnitude 9 might not come for a long time or it could come th tomorrow. when it comes, it will extend from northern california, up the coast of the canada, including the coast lines of oregon and washington. to prepare for this devastation, i'll highlight two opportunities. earthquake early warning and sea floor morning and discuss why the zone needs to be a special focus and why the program must

be strengthnd. one new advance in earthquake research is the development of early warning. these monitors to recognize an earthquake within seconds and broadcast a warning of shaking that's coming to vulnerable areas. it would provide key advances and mitigate earthquake risks for life safety and early warning will forestall, train, car, and airplane accidents. it will warn schools and the population in general. in the private sector, companies can mitigate losses by battening down factories, protecting computer operations and critical life lines. emergency responders can jump start emergency operations while mass communication can work and maps of predicted devastation can be more quickly and effective disseminated.

we expect one to five or more minutes of warning time prior to the arrival of severe shaking and gain valuable extra minutes in accuracy of tsunami warning. many other countries exposed toering quakes have already built early warning systems including japan, taiwan, mexico. theering quake in japan provided evidence of the strong benefits of early warning. u.s. g.s has a detailed plan. in the meantime, the regional networks run from kal tech, uc berkeley and the university of washington are experimenting with prototype early warning systems. in the pacific northwest the performance of the earthquake early warning system would be bolstered by adding sea floor

instrumentation. this information would increase the warning time and make warnings more accurate. the off shore instruments would also watch for long term signs of tectonics unrest. the university of oregon, oregon state university, and the university of washington have the right scientists and technicians to move forward. the u.s. g.s should devote sufficient resources to identify and quantify earthquake risks. the realization of this risk has come in just the last 25 years and much of the evidence is still hidden in thick forests or under miles of ocean or wiped clean by glaciers. our most frequent strong earthquakes are tied to know fault of the surface that can be mapped. it needs more dedicated study

within the region. reauthorization is needed to assure continued effort to characterize poorly understood risks. our cities in america have not been tested since the relatively mild 1994 north ridge earthquake which only hit suburbs. the funding level should be high enough to accommodate new developments such as earthquake early warning and sea floor monitoring. in summary, the great alaska earthquake of 1964 is a forerunner of the eventual great earthquake in the pacific northwest to prepare we should build an earthquake early warning system and place sea floor monitoring, maintain within the pacific northwest a vigorous earth quake science and engineering effort. thank you for the opportunity to speak. >> thank you. dr. desroches. >> thank you. the 50 years following the great alaska earthquake has launched an unprecedented period of great

progress in our understanding of earthquakes and how to build to minimize the impact of earthquakes. as a result, we are much more prepared, much safer, and much more resilient. however, much more can and should be done to protect our infrastructure. let me highlight a few areas where we've made significant progress. building codes were woefully inadequate at the time of the 1964 alaska earthquake. buildings designed 50 years ago would likely sustain damage. some of the most significant changes have occurred after major earthquakes have identified structural insufficient sis. advances in structural dynamics by the late 1960s, end kurnled structural engineers to consider the movement that a structure

goes through during an earthquake. studies and tests by researchers indicate this. these structures are highly vulnerable to damage and destruction and earthquakes. seismic retrofitting or rehabilitation strategies have been developed to reduce the vulnerabilities of homes, buildings and other infrastructure exposed to earthquakes. significant efforts from the research community have been focused on developing and testing effective retrofitting approaches. many of the approaches for retrofitting used today were developed using nerp resources. we know that it works. the impact to improvements can be scene in a number of recent

earthquake, namely 1994 north ridge earthquake. l.a. city officials say more than 200,000 people were living in retro fitted buildings, not a single death or injury was reported from the more than 37,000 units in 1,300 strengthened the buildings. the structures that were built and designed under the new stricter codes experienced limited damage. significant progress has been made in the area of public policy as it relates to earthquakes. policies regarding the performance of hospitals, emergency operating centers, city halls and schools didn't exist 50 years ago. the lack of safety and hospitals became a prominent policy consideration following the 1971 san fernando earthquake. 44 people died in the v.a. hospital alone. as a result, the 1973 california

state hospital safety act mandated that new hospital structures have higher seismic safety structures. according to recent legislation by 2030 all hospitals are to be retro fitted to a level capable of providing services and continued operation to the public after a major disaster. in the area of education and training, in 1964, the only earthquake engineers were primarily located in california, japan, and mexico. now earthquake engineering is taught over the country, including schools and states that are not traditionally thought of as being in a seismic zone such as my institution, georgia tech. in fact, just this week, researchers at georgia tech are leading one of the largest seismic retrofitting studies ever conducted right in the middle of down ton atlanta, to develop cost effective retrofit for concrete buildings. it would not be possible without continued support.

the program had made a number of unique studies a reality. from large scale testing of the california levy system. it has provided the research community with the opportunity to test the range of systems in a fashion that we can only dream of 50 years ago. finally, i would like to reiterate that we still have a lot more work to do to prepare for the impact of earthquake, particularly large earthquakes, however the american people are safer and our cities are more resilient, socially and economically than we were 50 years ago. this is a direct result of the funded research, knowledge transfer, and education and outreach programs. thank you again. >> all right. thank you, and i want to thank you all four of our witnesses no your enlightening testimony. we appreciate your being here. we're going to go ahead and start with questions now. i will recognize myself for the first five minutes, and this is for any one of you.

the trans alaska pipeline was designed and engineered to accommodate movements of a major fault but there are many types of infrastructures across the other fault structures in the pacific northwest and alaska such as transmission lines, railroads, highways, pipelines and so on. what is the status of efforts to retrofit existing infrastructure and what are we doing to require enhance the protection from earthquakes on future projects? i know you've touched on that some, but who could best summarize that for me? >> a lot of effort has been focused on lkds. the majority of casualty occur in buildings but there's been a major effort recently to look at what we call life line systems

and those are highways, buried pipelines, utility systems. i think we've made a significant amount of progress. i think a lot more can be done in this area. >> in the pacific northwest, you know, it's a real mix. we have the roads, we have infrastructure. we have the critical life lines and we saw this week landslides. if there's a bigering quake, we need to be ready for landslides. so there's not really a single answer. we're trying. things are very expensive, replacing the bridge in downtown seattle, there are $5 billion projects. we've identified a lot of the problems but it's going to take a long time to fix them. snchts one thing that's important to point out is that underlying all of thee efforts to construct earthquake resistant structures is the scientific understanding. engineers have to design to

something for something. so the more we know, the more we understand scientifically, the more we can help the engineers design to be earthquake resilient. and that was something i think we saw in the 2011 japan earthquake that their bles were very earthquake resistant but they didn't expect the size of the tsunami and so really underlying that is the scientific understanding. >> two comments, we just started a project with the city of los angeles that's directly focused on identifying solutions to the problem of life lines that includes the water system, the communication system, power system.

allows any user to quickly get an assessment of potential damage at any site. we run that system for all the nuclear power plants for the united states and around the world. thrr ways of also very quickly using the data reported through the networks, analyzed and processed within tens of minutes to get a damage estimate at life line facilities. >> okay, thank you, and dr. leith, while you are on deck here, what would you say about what's been touched on by other witnesses in earthquake early warning system. how important would it be for the u.s. to have a policy to

newt -- institute such a program? >> we've been -- we at u.s. g.s have had this an objective since 1999 when we put together our plans. and we've invested nearly $10 million so far in the research and development and modernization of the network so they can provide earthquake early warnings. we have a test operating system that's worth now in california. it's not a public system yet because it doesn't have the sort of robustness and resiliency and 24 hour operations that would be needed. it is testing out very well and with further investment it could be made public in either a part of the statewide or west coastwide. >> thank you. i would like now to recognize the ranking member, representative holt. >> thank you, dr. ludwig, you

said a moment ago that in order to prepare for, to set standards forering quakes, we need to understand the science and i wanted to first get a sense of how good the science is. in 1964 geologists spent the previous half century either denying or ignoring that continents move and that there's collisions and slippage. let me turn it into a budgetary question. if you -- usgs got additional money for fy 14, how -- this was specifically for reduced -- if you had more funding or any such thing, how would you use it?

and the more basic question is how mature is this science? are there great unknowns or lot of pieces to clean up? lots of bits and pieces? because i did want to goat the point of budget and what we might be doing in response to any inadequate si in the science. i would answer that, you know, i tend to -- my style is to focus on opportunities. and what i see is a number of opportunities for advancements. and we are -- as the science progresses along, and we learned new little pieces about how the earth works and earthquakes are

generated. there are always opportunities to move that forward. and many gaps in our understanding that need to be addressed. and there are gaps in the reporting on earthquakes that need to be addressed. and all of those could be addressed by additional resources. we have documents and published on an significant increase in earthquakes in the central part of the united states. we need to understand that better in order to map out the hazard posed by the earthquake and inform decisions about land use planning. >> i meant my question to be a softball. >> yeah. >> for do you tell us your needs. maybe the others will have comments in the brief time remaining here. >> our understanding is only as good as our data. with the earthquake problem,

it's a little bit different from some of the other sciences, because we can't take the earth and put in the laboratory and run controlled experiments. so every earthquake especially the large ones, is essentially an uncontrolled natural experiment. and we have to kind of chase it. we have to have the infrastructure, the physical infrastructure, the seismic networks and the human infrastructure, the human resources, the scientists to be able to collect the data. also, you know we have to learn from what is happened in the past, i'm a pal owe seismologists. i look at past earthquakes to see if it happened in the past. it could happen again to kind of get an idea what we can expect and use that data for forecasting. so you have to have a pretty robust infrastructure physical and human to be able to do this kind of science and to make these sort of breakthroughs.

like plate tech tonic. it took a long time and the data. the alaska earthquake really helped. that was an opportunity. >> in the remaining less than a minute. if either of the other witnesses would like to take a -- maturity of the science. >> i have a couple of points. one is that we don't understand subjections on earthquakes that well. japan had a tremendous one in the fault we didn't expect was loaded. we would benefit from knowing how our sub ductions of earthquakes might have better. another issue is, you know, how are the basins under the city amplified. seattle is over a big basin. san francisco is a basin. we need to feed the engineers the right motion to build the buildings to be strong enough. those areas need research. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to recognize the ranking member of the full

committee, representative de blasio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. fir first. i didn't understand the 1 billion figure you used in the northwest. >> it's the fema estimate from a few years ago. 800 million for oregon and washington annual losses. i guess maybe i rounded up. >> i don't know what you mean annual. i mean in the event a 9.0. i'm assume it would exceed the -- >> i didn't give the number for nine. gave it a year. and for a magnitude 9 the estimate is 50 to 100 billion. >> right. okay. so is anybody on this panel think that the federal government given the potential for 50 to 100 billion calamity which could be partially

mitigated we're investing enough money in either research or development and deployment of technology for to provide early warning. anybody think we were spending enough? anybody? okay. no one. good. i would be surprised if you did. so the issue, it seems to me, spent $10 million! wow, since 1999! we're looking at $100 billion problem in the pacific northwest we spent $10 million. you talk about countries like --tlike -- ic i think you said romania, mexico. they have deployed early warning systems and the united states of america hasn't. we have a prototype. do theirs not work? do we have to develop new technology. isn't there technology that would mitigate the loss of life in the northwest with the advent

of a tsunami that we could deploy? we might improve it later? >> is that a question. >> it's a question to either of you. to the two of you. >> no. i think we should build the early warning system. the physics is simple. we know how to do it. t a bit of a challenge to make sure we don't get false alarms and we have to adapt the emergency broadcasting system to react in seconds. >> right. if romania can do it. can't united states of america? i don't know i guess we have fallen so much the republicans have disinvested so much we can't. >> in these other country, japan, mexico, turkey that have either existing systems or developing systems, those decisions were all made after major earthquake disasters. >> so we have to wait until -- >> for example the japan earthquake in 1995. it was after that disaster and there was a national political will to install an earthquake

early warning system and bring up the base of earthquake preparedness country wide. that paid off heavily in the earthquake from 2011. the tsunami damage was, of course, horrible. but the earthquake related shaking damage was less and as mentioned the system performed. there seems to need to be a national political will in order to make investment. >> okay. and i want to emphasize the magnitude of the investment. it's probably another billion for the sea floor instrumentation they're putting down now. and china launched into a multihundred million dollar seismic monitoring system. they're planning early warning quite sophisticated as well. >> right response if the united states could as much as japan it could be $2 billion toward $100 million and thousands of lives

potentially lost or saved. thank you. quickly on to another subject. we don't seem to know a lot about it. do you have the -- are you getting dat it you need or the resources you need to investigate into seismic. it's another issue of probably prevention. not cause the problems in area that could provide tremendous risk near nuclear plants or other facilities. >> on the data -- on the resources side, congress provided us an extra million dollars this year which is put to good use and administration is requested in addition in the fiscal '15 budget. on the data side, we don't have all the data we need. in particular, there is a shortcoming in the data on the injection activities themselves. the waste water disposal wells are regulated under the safe drinking water act. i don't think it was considered

when it was put together. and so most of the epa and most of the states don't require the kind of precise data that is necessary to both understand that as a national problem or to do the kind of forensics one would want to do to connect a particular damaging earthquake with a particular injection activity. >> okay. thank you. my time is expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> yeah. i want to say to the ranking member. i would like to work with them in finding -- like major earthquake research or have the agency shift money within its budget from lesser priority objectives to this. this is a -- this is an important issue. i agree with you on how important this is. >> right. i appreciate that. i had spoken to former chairman young on the way out. he was going join me. maybe we can work out something together. thank yo