tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN January 28, 2015 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
12:00 pm
obligation to regulate the voter rules and to make sure the vote is carried out freely and openly and fairly. and i believe that is the goal of many of our elected officials if not most of our elected officials that deal with this every day. the concerns that are raised are that acts that are taken when the goal toward protecting and preserving the integrity of the vote act in a different way and act to suppress the vote or prevent people from exercising the franchise. i would hope that at the first outset through the political discourse and discussion that we could have conversation about that and come to a resolution of practices and procedures that would ensure the right to vote for all citizens while still protecting the integrity of every ballot. absent that, when the laws are passed, the department of justice has to look carefully at their impact with how to
12:01 pm
proceed. there were instances when voter i.d. laws had received pre-clearance because they sought to protect the ballot as opposed to act in a different way. but where there is an indication that the vote will somehow be harmed, i believe the department of justice certainly has the obligation to review that matter and look carefully at all of the facts and evidence and proceed accordingly. >> i couldn't agree with you more. and i find it ironic and painful that at this moment in our history, as we celebrate with the movie selma and talk about 50 year anniversary of the voting rights act that many states are making it more difficult for americans to vote, without any evidence of voter fraud to back up those changes. in one southern state it is estimated that 600,000 voters were basically precluded from voting in election because of
12:02 pm
new voter i.d. requirements. in that same state a 93-year-old veteran was turned away. a 73-year-old doctor turned away, people who were proud and wanted to vote turned away by new laws, people who had a right to vote and it troubles me that amidst all of the celebration of the civil rights movement we are finding a reversal of the most fundamental principle in preserving the right to vote. i appreciate you have to say about it. i would say a word about the smarter sentencing act who i prepared with senator lee, with 32 co-sponsors in an effort to take a look at the reality that not only does the united states have more prisoners per capita than any other nation, but in many instances lengthy prison sentences do not serve the cause of justices and deny us resources we need to keep our
12:03 pm
community safe. attorney general holder who has not been held in high regards has been outspoken by this bipartisan measure and i hope you would consider sponsoring it too. but i wouldn't put you on the spot without looking at it. and as chairman as the constitution of the civil rights committee, which was the name before this congress, and we had a hearing on the solitary confinement. the united states has more prisoners in solitary confinement than any other country and we had testimony from those who spent ten years in death row in solitary confinement in texas and even longer on death row in the state of louisiana and ultimately exonerated and found not to be guilty and the devastating impact that has on the human mind and spirit for so many of
12:04 pm
these people who served time in solitary confinement, many of whom are going to be ultimately released is something the forward bureau of prisons is now addressing. you've been a prosecutor for many years, what is your view when it comes to incarceration and segregation and solitary con confinement confinement. >> senator, you raise many issues for repository about those that have hurt humans but are responsible and protect the safety of those that are responsible for guarding them and as we look at the issues one of the benefits of discourse like this and that i hope to have going forward with this committee is continued discussion on those issues. there are a number of municipalities for example
12:05 pm
looking at this very same issue. new york city is looking at it with respect to juvenile detention and looking to remove solitary confinement as an option for juvenile detention based on the studies you are talking about. i believe we have to look at those studies and listen to the evidence that comes before us and make the best determination about how to handle what can be a dangerous prison population but handle it in a way that is constitutional and effective. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator graham is next. >> thank you very much miss lynch and congratulations on being chosen by the president. this is truly an honor i'm sure. do you support the death penalty? >> i believe the death penalty is an effective penalty. my office was able to achieve a death verdict there.
12:06 pm
>> how about yes? >> so we have sought it yes. >> that is good from my point of view. i don't know about other people. sequestration, have you had a chance to look at the impact sequestration will be on your agency, all of the people that work for you. >> i have had an opportunity to look at that very closely on the advisory committee and also as united states attorney dealing with the budgetary limits that came down with sequestration. as you are familiar with the history far more than i, it did constrain the federal budget greatly. >> is this a fair statement, if congress continues to implement sequestration it will devastate the department of justice's ability to effectively defend this country. >> senator, i believe that is not only a fair statement but one that warrants fair
12:07 pm
discussion about how we manage budgets in a responsible manner which is important to this body but giving us the tools to protect the american people. >> in your time in this business, have you seen more threats to our country than presented today. >> certainly throughout my career as a prosecutor and attorney we are seeing an increased number and the highest number of threats i have seen, not just from terrorist activity but the increased activity in terms of cyber crime that has increased numerically but qualitatively. >> so we need to up our game in terms of cyber activity. >> we do need to have the resources to keep up with cyber crimes in terms of detection and even before the apprehension of cyber crimes.
12:08 pm
>> and that is more than it. >> and the cyber crime of a terrorist entity is one we take great pains to prevent to detect and to disrupt but it is an emerging threat and it calls for resources beyond personnel but in terms of our own technology also. >> does it also cry out for congress to take a comprehensive approach to our cyber problems in past legislation that would modernize our ability to deal with that threat. >> a comprehensive approach is necessary. in my experience, in the district of new york and talking to my colleagues. all of us are struck by the prevalence of cyber issues in every time of case we prosecute now. much more than even five or ten years ago. so we must have a comprehensive approach but one that allows us to work with private industry as well and then comes up with a
12:09 pm
way to deal with this threat. >> can you give us a cost to deport 11 million people. >> certainly i couldn't give you that information now. but we could see if that could be provided to you. >> do you have with people here illegally or any role there? >> in terms of deportation the role is handled by the department of homeland security and there are the immigration courts through which individuals can seek asylum or redress that are handled by the department of justice but that would be simply further along in the process. >> but that is part of the process? >> yes, it is. >> if you could give us an estimate of what it would take to deport 11 million people from your lane, call the department
12:10 pm
of justice and see what they say, i think it would be instructive for us to see what the bill would be. now do you think the national nsa terrorist [ inaudible ] surveillance program is constitution? >> i'm sorry. >> do you think that the nsa terrorist surveillance program is constitution today? >> i believe it is effective and there are court challenges to it but it is an effective tool. >> but you are okay for it to be constitutional from your point. >> certainly constitutional and effective. >> marijuana, there are a lot of states legalizing marijuana for personal consumption. is it a crime at the federal level to possess marijuana? >> marijuana is still a criminal substance under forward law and it is still a crime not only to possess but to distribute under federal law. >> under the doctrine of
12:11 pm
preemption preemption, would the federal law preemption states that are trying to legalize the substance. >> i think you raise questions about the federal system with the states and their ability to regulate criminal law that they also have, as there is concurrent jurisdiction and matters in which citizens of various states have voted, with respect to the marijuana enforcement law it is still the policy of the administration and my policy if confirmed as attorney general to continue to enforce the marijuana laws particularly with the money laundering aspect where we see the evidence that marijuana laws brings with it not only organized crime activity but great levels of violence. >> do you know a michelle lynn hart, the dea administrator. >> she is the administrator of the drug enforcement administration. >> have you had a discussion
12:12 pm
with her about her views of legalizing marijuana. >> we have spoken but not on that issue. >> could you have that discussion and report back to me. >> i look forward to speaking with her and you on this issue. >> on [ inaudible ] i believe mr. cole advised all attorneys that state marijuana laws would not be enforcing the state marijuana laws. >> i believe the policy seeks to try and work with state systems that have chosen to take admittedly a different approach from the federal government with respect to marijuana and to determine the most effective way to still pursue marijuana cases consistent with the state's and the choses they have made.
12:13 pm
the deputy's policy still requires federal prosecutors to seek prosecution of marijuana cases in cases where children are at risk and where marijuana is crosss state lines particularly where it is being trafficked from a state that has chosen a legal framework into a state that has not chosen a legal framework and those driving under the influence of this. a great concern certainly within the department and those of us who are looking at these issues is the availability of the edible products and the risk of those falling into the hands of children and causing great harm there. >> if a state is intending to try to legalize personal consumption at a small left of marijuana, what would your advice be to that state? >> well certainly i'm not sure if a state were to reach out to the department for its views and i don't know if that has
12:14 pm
happened or what advice has been given, the department would have an obligation to inform them of the current forward status of the narcotics laws and the department's position that the federal narcotics laws will still be enforced by the department of justice. >> in 2006, you signed an ameek us brief supporting planned parenthoods to partial birth abortion plans is that correct. >> yes. although the ameek us brief we signed was focused on the issue of the facial issues of the law and how it might impact the perception of law enforcement's discretion and independence. >> the only reason i mention that is if there is a republican president in the future, and the attorney general nominee takes an opposite view on an issue like abortion, i hope our friends on the other side will acknowledge it is okay to be an
12:15 pm
advocate for a law and that doesn't disqualify you from serving. same-sex marriage, this may go to the supreme court very soon. and if the supreme court rules that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional and it violates the constitution for a state to limit marriage between a man and a woman, that is clearly the law of the land, unless there is a constitutional amendment to change it what legal rational would be in play that would prohibit polygamy, what is the legal difference between a state -- a ban on same-sex marriage being unconstitutional but a ban on polygamy being unconstitutional. could you explain how one could
12:16 pm
be a ban under the constitution and the other not. >> i have not argued under the cases before the supreme court and i'm not comfortable about analysis without the relevant facts and the precedent there so i would not be able to provide you with analysis at this point in time but i look forward to continuing the discussions with you. >> before the senator from rhode island asks his questions, this would be my plan and you tell me if this will give you enough time. the rhode island senator, senator lee and then senator cloebishar and that will take us until 12:45 and then come back at 1:30. is that going to give you enough time? >> yes. thank you. >> mrs. lynch, thank you. congratulations on your nomination. i look forward to working with
12:17 pm
you as we go forward. since there is a significant amount of commentary about the president's immigration measures, the ranking member has asked me to put into the record letters from law enforcement leaders in ohio, utah iowa, indiana, and wisconsin supporting the president's policies and concluding, while the executive reforms improve a broken immigration system and we continue to recognize that what our broken system truly needs is a permanent legislative solution and urge congress to enhance comprehensive immigration reform. and a similar letter from the national task force and sexual and domestic violence and a letter from stan merrick, from
12:18 pm
the president and ceo of merrick companies and i'm asked those be made part of the record. without objection. and there has also been considerable commentary about attorney general holder in a hearing at which he does not have the opportunity to defend himself and it is my view that a significant amount of that commentary would not with stand his ability to defend himself if he were here. so let me say, in response to that there are legal arguments and policies that fall out side a particular political ideology that does not make them outside of the mainstream and it does not politicize a department to make those arguments or pursue those policies.
12:19 pm
i would argue it is the effort to constrain the department within that ideology that would be politicizing. i would further note as a former united states attorney that the department that attorney general holder inherited was in a very grave state of disarray and that is not just a matter of opinion. the office of legal counsel wrote opinions that were so bad, so ill-informed and so ill-cited to the case law that when they posed to review, they were widely ridiculed and withdrawn. the united states attorney caused a rebellion among sitting u.s. attorneys at the time and drew in past u.s. attorneys appointed by both republican and democratic presidents.
12:20 pm
we were exposed to hiring practices within the department that were on their face overtly political and had political litmus tests, a first in the department's history, never gone that way before and ultimately a series of other issues as well that led to the resignation of the attorney general of the united states. so it is easy to critique attorney general holder and blame him for politicizing the department but i think history's calm and dispassionate judgment will determine that this brought the department back from a place it was sadly politicized and i can say first-hand that a lot of my u.s. attorney colleagues from republican and democratic administrations were very, very concerned about what was happening to the department back then. so i shouldn't waste the time of this hearing on that but with all of the things that have been said about attorney general
12:21 pm
holder without him having a opportunity to defend and rebut i wanted to say that. so some of the areas we need to work together, when you are confirmed, as i hope you will be, senator graham raised the issue of cyber security and he has been extraordinarily helpful and forward-leaning helpful member of the senate from the dangers of cyber activity or whether it is the theft of wholesale on behalf of chinese industries or the really dangerous threat of laying in the cyber sabotage traps that can be detonated later on in the event of a conflict. i'm concerned about the structure within the department for handling cyber security.
12:22 pm
at an investigative level it spread across the fbi and then secret service and to a degree homeland security and it falls in the criminal division and the national security division and i hope that with the assistance of the office of management and budget, you and i and the office of management and budget and other interested senators can continue a conversation about what the deployment of resources and structure should look like against the cyber security threat in the future. will you agree to participate in such a process? >> certainly, senator i think you outlined an important issue and if confirmed as attorney general i look forward to working with you and all of the relevant partners on this committee and throughout congress in making sure that the department is best situated to handle this growing threat. >> there is considerable bipartisan legislation in the senate on the subject and i hope there is one where we can get something serious accomplished
12:23 pm
in the months ahead. another area where there is considerable bipartisan legislation is on sentencing reform. senator durbin mentioned his and senator lee's legislation that is at the front end, the sentencing end and senator cornin and i have a para little bill that relates to the end of the sentence and how to encourage incarcerated people to get the type of job training, drug and alcohol rehabilitation anger management, mental health care, family reconciliation and whatever it is they need, so when they are put in society they have a less of a chance of crime, or recidivism and i hope you and the department will continue to be supportive of our
12:24 pm
efforts. >> certainly, senator. you have raised, i think the next challenge as we look at how to manage our prison population and crime which is how to help people that are released return to the communities from which they came and become productive citizens as opposed to returning to criminal behavior that returns them to the system and creates new victims and that is my focus. within the eastern district of new york we have strong participates in the programs that are sponsored by our colleagues at the brooklyn district attorney's office in my district in brownsville. we work with the re-entry efforts and the re-entry efforts focus on job training and building skills so those out of prison can become productive members of society as opposed
12:25 pm
that continue to harm others in society. so you have raised very important issues and i look forward to continuing the discussion with you and people on this committee and throughout this body on those issues. >> thank you. >> another piece of legislation we are working on thanks to the court he issy and care of our -- courtesy and care of senator grassley is the juvenile justice and delinquency act which has been 12 years since the last reauthorization and i appreciate very much that the chairman has been willing to work on this and has made it one of the priorities for this committee obviously the way in which juveniles are treated in our correction system and as they are detained has been an important issue for the justice department and i would ask for your corporation and active support of our process going forward to reauthorize the jjdpa. >> certainly, senator. the way in which we handle juveniles in the justice system is something of great concern to
12:26 pm
me in both my practice in the eastern district of new york and in talking to my colleagues, the other u.s. attorneys across the country that face these issues. i believe it is incumbent upon all of us to look at the latest research on issues of how juveniles develop and manage themselves in certain environments. and always be open to reviewing those. i look forward to looking forward with you and others in discussing that statute. >> in my last seconds, you and i have both had the experience of being united states attorneys and i suspect we both had the experience of finding people who were targets of our criminal enforcement efforts, who, if we look back into their past might have avoided their attention, had they managed drug or alcohol addiction or gotten the mental health treatment they needed. >> certainly. >> and it is sort of a -- it is a societal sorrow when someone doesn't get the justice they
12:27 pm
need and a great burden for the taxpayer. we have other legislation, the comprehensive addition recovery act that i hope you will work with us on to see where we can intervene with appropriate addiction treatment and mental health treatment we with move people with a more appropriate treatment rather than burden people with the prison system which is a more appropriate treatment. >> certainly. we are more forward-thinking when great support for people and enabled them to provide temperature and become productive members of society and escape from being trapped into a spiral of criminal behavior. >> thank you. and now senator lee. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you mrs. lynch. thank you for your service to
12:28 pm
our country. i appreciate our visit recently when you came to my office and i'm grateful to you for your support for sentencing reform. the bipartisan legislation that i'm working on with senator durbin that he referenced a few minutes ago is important and i appreciate your views on that as well. i want to speak with you briefly going back to the prosecutorial discretion. as a former prosecutor, i assume you agree there are limits to prosecutorial discretion, it is an exception to the rule and not to swallow the rule itself. would you agree with me that far? >> certainly. i believe in every instance, every prosecutor has to make the best determination of the problems presented in their own area. in my district then set priorities and then within those priorities exercise discretion. >> and so prosecutors have limited resources and so it is understandable why they would
12:29 pm
choose when they have to prioritize to perhaps put more resources into punishing for example, bank robberies than pickpocketers or more resources after pick pocketers than going after people that exceed the speed limit. but at some point there are limits to this and that doesn't mean it is okay that it would be a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion to issue permits for people to speed, right? >> special, sir. if a prosecutor were to come to the view they had to prioritize one crime over the other, you still want to retain the availability, even if it was an area of not an immediate priority, because it became one because a particular neighborhood was being victimized or to use your issue of speeding, deaths resulting from that, you would want to have the ability to still if you
12:30 pm
could take resource and focus on that issue. it might not be the first priority, but you would want to have the ability to go back and deal with that issue. >> and for that reason, prosecutorial authorities or law enforcement authorities typically don't go out and say we're only going to punish you for a civil violation involving a traffic offense if you speed and then it results in an accident with injuries. they leave open the very real possibility and indeed the likelihood that someone can and will be brought to justice in one way or another for any civil violation they commit while speeding? >> well certainly i can't speak to all law enforcement agencies. i know that depending upon the agency, sometimes the priorities are known, sometimes they are expressed. every office has guidelines. certainly the law enforcement agencies are aware of certain guidelines in terms of a dollar amount involving certain types of crimes. >> if someone went out and said i'm going to issue a permit to someone saying they may speed,
12:31 pm
going up to 100 miles per hour without getting a ticket, that would be illegal to our laws that were made. >> again, without knowing more about it i'm not able to respond. it doesn't sound like something that a law enforcement official would engage in but without knowing more of the facts i'm not able to respond to your hypothetical. >> okay. thank you. let's shift gears. do you agree that citizens and groups of citizens should not be targeted by government should not be the recipients of adverse action by the government based on their exercise of their first amendment rights? >> certainly i think that the first amendment is one of the cornerstones of a free society and i believe that our jurisprudence has set forth great protections for
12:32 pm
individuals as well as groups in the exercise of their first amendment rights to make sure that they are protected and not target targeted. i would also say that certainly as a career prosecutor and u.s. attorney, there is no place for bias or personal view in terms of how we approach the types of crimes that we pursue. >> and presumably you would say the same with respect to someone's rights under the fourth or the fifth or the sixth amendments or the eighth. someone shouldn't be punished by government for exercising their rights under those provisions of the constitution. >> there are safeguards in place to prevent that. i think we have to balance that with the possibility of an extreme situation in which we may have to move quickly, for example, to protect someone or there is an imminent threat there therein but there are rights set up for that purpose.
12:33 pm
>> second amendment rights. >> i believe the supreme court has set up clarity on that issue so regardless of the amendment that certainly that is a protected right. >> are you aware that there is a program called operation choke point within the department of justice and through this program, the department of justice and other federal law enforcement agencies have on some occasions put financial pressure on legal businesses including hard-working americans who happen to be involved in the business of selling firearms and ammunition by essentially telling banks not to do business with them? >> i'm generally familiar with the name operation choke point and my understanding of it with respect to the department of justice current work again i haven't been involved in either the implementation or the creation of it but my general understanding is that it looks to target financial institutions
12:34 pm
that are involved in perpetrating frauds upon consumers in where there might be a financial institution that is instilling consumer bank accounts being looted or consumers that are the target of that. i'm not familiar enough with the specifics about it to know the underlying businesses that the transaction might have originated from but that is my understanding of the program. >> i assume it is safe to assume should you be confirmed you will work with me to make sure that legitimate law abiding americans aren't targeted for their rights. >> on that and any other issue i look forward to hearing your concerns and working with you on them. >> i want to talk about civil forfeiture for a moment. do you think it is fundamentally just and fair for the government to be able to seize property from a citizen without having to
12:35 pm
prove that the citizen was guilty of any crime and based solely on a showing that there was probable cause to believe that that property was in some way used in connection with a crime? >> senator i believe that civil and criminal forfeiture are important tools to the department of justice as well as our state and local counter parts through state laws in essentially managing or taking care of the first order of business which is to take the profit out of criminal activity. with respect to civil forfeiture, certainly as implemented by the department, it is done pursuant to supervision by a court, it is done pursuant to court order and i believe the protections are there -- sorry. >> what if you just ask the average person on the street whether they thought the government could or should be able to do that, shut the government be able to take your property absent of showing you did anything wrong. thereafter requiring you as a
12:36 pm
condition for getting your property back, whether it is a bank account seized or frozen, whether it is a vehicle that has been seized, that you would have to go back and prove your innocence. so you are guilty in essence, until proven innocent. at least guilty untilin the sense of your property. >> i certainly understand there has been a lot of discussion and concern over -- over asset forfeiture as a program as expressed by a number of people. >> and particularly at the state level, such that some states have adopted in response to a widespread citizen outcry laws significantly -- restricting the use of civil forfeiture proceedings for that very reason. which leads to why i raise this with you. it is my understanding that the department of justice has in
12:37 pm
many instances been used as a conduit through which law enforcement officials at the state and local level can circumvent state laws restricting the use of forfeiture in the state court system. in other words under the state law established system that forfeiture is prohibited. people with go through the department of justice and the department of justice will take out a fee, maybe 20% of the value of the assets received and those can be returned. it is a process known as adoption. don't you think most americans would find that concerning if the federal government is facilitating efforts to circumvent state laws that are designed to prohibit the very thing they are doing. >> i think that a number ever people would have questions about how the department of justice manages its asset forfeiture program and my understanding is that those questions have been raised about various aspects of it. my understanding is that the
12:38 pm
department is undertaking a review of the asset forfeit program and as u.s. attorney i'm aware of the fact that the adoption program you have just described which did raise significant concerns from a number of parties has been discontinued by the department. that is the guidance we've recently received with the exception of items of danger with explosives an the like. but it is part of the on going review of the asset program and should i be confirmed i look forward to continuing that review. and i would also say senator that i look forward to continuing these discussions with you as you express concerns and interested on behalf of constituents or others as an important part of the department as being transpatient as possible in explaining how it operates. asset forfeiture is a tool. we return assets to victims and we want to make sure we are being as responsive as possible for those people were serving.
12:39 pm
>> thank you. i look forward to those discussions. i see my time is expired. >> thank you senator. and to senator klobuchar. >> i understand i am the only thing that stands between you and your lunch and this entire room and your lunch. i think your dad liked that. you have an impressive resume and one thing that was brought up about you as we have this old saying in our family is obstacles in our path, and no one represents about you, and when i read about you scoring so well on a test in elementary school, they didn't believe you had taken that test and scored even higher, the obstacles are the path. or the time you became the
12:40 pm
valedictorian of your class and the principal said it would be too controversial so they added other students. and i think in this room there would have been other valedictorians, and i don't think that would have happened to them. so i thank you for your courage and your parents' courage. and i know you touched with on senator schumer. and i'm a former prosecutor and i worked with about 400 and some of them you worked with, todd joeps, now head of our alcohol, tobacco and firearms and todd heckle finger who is the u.s. attorney under bush and now andy lugger who you are aware of and it is important, the relationship with the local prosecutors and the u.s. attorney's office and i wonder
12:41 pm
if you would talk more with how you would view that as the attorney general in terms of how you would like your u.s. attorneys to work with prosecutors who can be inundated with a lot of cases and we would see the u.s. attorney's office getting the luxury of working on cases as we would work with tens of thousands of cases coming in the door. >> well, thank you senator. one of our benefits is getting to know the prosecutors not just my fellow attorneys but the local and state prosecutors with whom we work so well. i'm so privileged in brooklyn to have a strong relationship with the district and into manhattan and the bronx and beyond. we talk often on issues affecting the community and issues effecting the entire district. i was privileged to be able to share starting my prescription
12:42 pm
drug initiative with the brooklyn district attorney's office and work closely with district attorneys in nassau and suffolk county in handling the problem of prescription drug abuse which has spiked and led to violence and deaths. >> i think you know the stats lately are that four out of five heroin users started with prescription drugs and then turned to heroin. i think people are shocked by that, but you see that connection with the heroin as well. >> we do. because of the opioid substance of both drugs and we are seeing a resurgence in heroin, not just in my district but across the country. this problem like so many others must be dealt with in a cooperative and collaborate manner and i'm proud to say that all of my united states attorneys, colleagues take seriously the privilege of working with state and local counterparts in crafting prescription initiatives and heroin and violent crime
12:43 pm
initiatives and work closely with our state and local counterparts to determine where is the best place for a case to be brought. we look at things like the type of sentence that can be achieved or the type of evidence admissible in the different proceedings and we cannot have those discussions without building on the positive working relationship and it is really a hallmark of this u.s. attorney community. should i be confirmed as attorney general, i intend to draw upon that strength of my u.s. attorney colleagues and all of my state and local counterparts throughout the country. people who are at the ground zero of these problems often come up with the best solutions. they pull in the health care community, they pull in parents they pull in community leaders and they come up with the solution that works that can often be replicated in other places. i've seen that happen with my u.s. attorney colleagues, particularly in the area of heroin abuse and some of the initiatives they are working on as well. so if confirmed as attorney
12:44 pm
general, i intend to rely very heavily on my prosecutorial colleagues. >> well thank you very much for that answer and at some point i think we talked about this before, but certainly core win and i did the drug take-back bills and we've gotten the rules out on dea on that and look forward to working with you on that. and something else i think i'll talk to you later about your work in rwanda but the fact you've done important international work and you've done prosecution of international terrorists here at home. and what lessons have you taken from those cases. i'll tell you why this is important from home state perspective. as you know, our u.s. attorney's office in minnesota indicted and prosecuted al shabab over in somalia and the first person with isis was from minnesota and our u.s. attorney has issued
12:45 pm
indicts against others that are over in syria. and there is an indictment involving l.a. boston and minneapolis, st. louis and there is an extremist conference coming up but can you talk about your experience with these kind of cases and, two, how this pilot program can be founded, because we are concerned it is coming out of general funds and if you can confirm some sort of specific funding for the program. >> talking about combatting violent extremism, one of the most difficult things to see are young men and increasingly young women, many of them american citizens who are turning to this radical brand of terror. and being recruited to go overseas and become trained and are being sent back to perpetrate threats against the homeland. and the sources of this and the reasons for this are debated endlessly and i think we need further discussion about that. but we must take steps to combat
12:46 pm
this and understand the level of disaffection that these individuals are feeling with their current society and also help them and their families understand the risks they are facing. some of the most difficult conversations i've had have been when i have visited the mosques in my district and had frankly wonderful interaction with the participants there and wonderful interaction with the residents there. but we've talked about violent extremism and talked to parents who said to me, i don't understand why the government is targeting my youth. and we've had very frank discussions about how it is difficult for any parent to know what their children are seeing on the internet and how they are responding to what is being put forth on the internet and the harm it does to our society but to those families because they lose their children. they absolutely lose them when
12:47 pm
thur sucked -- when they are sucked up by this radical extremism and only to come back when they will be, to be determined and dealt with. and they start off as relatively peaceful individuals and were caught up in radicalism and recruited and then return to the u.s. and perpetrate attacks there. we've seen that on more than one occasion. >> and the funding. you are aware of the pilot program in the twin cities? >> yes. a very important program given the nature of the problems that have emanated from that community and the devastation that it has wrought within those families and within that community. i think those issues are very, very important. i certainly look forward to working with you on finding the most effective way to fund those programs because they have a lot to teach all of us working on
12:48 pm
this issue. >> thank you. and the last thing i'll ask about it sex trafficking and i know you've done an impressive job of involving the investigation and trafficking cases. this is something certainly cornin and i have again that created laws for sex trafficking and we think we can build cases so those will come and testify against those running the sex rings. can you talk about about your work in this area and how you view these safe harbor laws. >> i think the safe har lor laws are the next step in helping the victims of this horrible scourge. my office has been privileged to lead the way in prosecuting numerous individuals who have
12:49 pm
essentially tricked women through lies, deceit also coercion and duress, even rape before they are brought to this country and forced to work here as sexual slaves. it is a tremendously degrading process to these women and one they find it difficult to escape because of a language barrier or the fact that sadly often their children are being held in their home country to force them to behave and to force them to continue this activity. and certainly it is some of the work i'm most proud of is the efforts my office has undertaken with the number of organizations that help victims of human trafficking and with other governments to reunite these children with their mothers after the cases are over. thank you. and i also look forward to working with you. we have a number of domestic victims that i think 80% are from the u.s. as well. >> absolutely. >> especially when you get to the oil patch of north dakota
12:50 pm
where the attorney's office has taken control. and thank you for your grace and i hope the chairman will let you get some lunch. >> thank you. >> thank you senator. >> is it going okay for okay for you president bush. >> >>? >> yes, and thank you for inquiring. >> we will now adjourn until 1:35. the senate committee taking a break now in this it hearing on the lynch nomination to be
12:51 pm
the next attorney general. set to return about 1:35. live coverage will continue on c-span where we will open the phone lines to get your take on the hearing and the nominee. all of that taking place on c-span. if you missed of the hearing, it will reair tonight at 8:00 eastern also on c-span. we posted a facebook question today related to the hearing. what should the priority bs for the next attorney general? here is some of your reaction so far. focus on dark money corrupt justice systems and discriminatory voting laws. she'll have plenty of work with this congress. shane says, criminal charges against the federal reserve for fraud, extortion and free son. your responses on our facebook page. a short time ago chuck grassley tweeted out that the hearing is moving right along. we must finish even if we go into the evening. it sounds like the plan is to finish tonight. if a second day of questioning is called she would return to capitol hill tomorrow along with a number of other witnesses to
12:52 pm
appear before the committee to talk about the nominee. day two's live coverage will be on c-span tomorrow starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern. here reason c-span 3 tomorrow, the senate banking committee meets to consider legislation to impose further sanctions on iran. if negotiations over their nuclear program fall through our coverage starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern. this sunday on q&a, dr. fran ses jensen on the recent discoveries about the teenage brain. >> they don't have their frontal lobes to reason. the cause and effect, consequences of actions are noot clear to them because their frontal lobes are not at the ready. they are not as readily accessible. it's not the connections can't be made as quickly for split second decision making. also don't forget a lot of the hormones are changing a lot in the body of both the young men and women and the brain hasn't seen these yet in life until you
12:53 pm
hit teenage years. so the brain is trying to learn how to respond to these new hormones that are rolling around and locking on to receptors of different types. they are trying to -- it's sort of trial and error. this contributes to this very roller coaster kind of experience that we watch as parents. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. fema director craig fugate was on capitol hill to testify on discover recovery on emergency management. he called for predisaster mitigations and buildings lacking insurance as reasons for the increasing costs after natural disasters like hurricane katrina or sandy. this is about two hours and 15 minutes.
12:54 pm
>> the committee will come to order. i'd like to thank the chairman for the opportunity to serve as the chairman of the subcommittee. ranking member carson, welcome back. i look forward to building on our bipartisan record of establishments. let me welcome the new and returning members of the subcommittee to our first hearing. last congress we saved $2.2 billion on gsa projects and passed the sandy recovery improvement act. these were major accomplishments and i thank everyone who was involved in them. this congress, my two top priorities are going to be public buildings reform and disaster legislation. i think we can exceed the savings and we have some important reforms to tackle in
12:55 pm
the emergency management world. i hope that we can have disaster legislation, and a reform bill ready for the committee to consider in the first half of this year. now the purpose of today's hearing is to launch a public policy debate about the growing human and financial costs of disasters and to review if we as a nation are responding in the most appropriate and cost-effective way. the private sector and government are spending an ever increasing amount of money on disasters. those numbers are going up and i don't believe we fully understand why and what can be done to reduce those losses and protect our citizens. over the past eight years, chairman shoouser and this committee made critical emergency management reforms
12:56 pm
through the post-katrina emergency management reform act and the sandy recovery improvement act. these bills and the hard work of fema and our state and local partners have made tremendous improvements to our disaster response capabilities since hurricane katrina. now is the time to take a look at how the nation responds to disasters and where we want to head in the future. there has not been a comprehensive assessment of disaster aid in trends in at least 20 years. in recent years specifically in reaction to hurricanes katrina and sandy, significant disaster aid has been provided outside the standard disaster relief programs. there are many questions we should try and answer. for example, how much do we really spend on disasters? where's the money going? and what are the key drivers of those cost increases? how have disaster programs
12:57 pm
evolved over time? are they still targeted at the greatest need and are they cost beneficial? what other principle guiding federal assistance and how is it used to rebuild in the wake of a disaster? some of the answers may surprise you as they have surprised me. i notice testimony only a handful of disasters account for over 90% of all disaster spending since 1989. if we want to understand why federal disaster -- try to move
12:58 pm
their possessions to another floor but the creek rose too quickly. the house next to their was knocked from its foundation. water started gushing through their front windows as they called for help. they had to be saved by a helicopter. the women there told me that they can never live in that home again. i will never forget that preparing for natural disasters is about more than the loss of possessions. it's our friends and neighbors' lives that could be at stake if we do not plan in advance. as we were rebuilding, i was amazed that much of the federal assistance was to rebuild in the same place, in the same way leaving people vulnerable to the next storm. we have to be compassionate and responsive to our citizens but we also have to have the duty to be good stewards of the
12:59 pm
taxpayers' dollars. i am committed to establishing a framework to tackle these issues and come up with solutions that are driven by facts and data rather than the emotion that inevitably follows a disaster. e i don't. have all the answers, but we'll put together the right people to get them. the first step is this hearing, where we have brought together some key people to launch this discussion. i am also excited to announce that following this hearing on february 26th we will host the first of several roundtables on this topic. the first roundtable will look at disaster losses from all levels of government and the private sector. i look forward to the ongoing conversations starting with hearing from our witnesses here today and i want to thank you all for being here. i ask unanimous consent that members of the full committee not on the subcommittee be
1:00 pm
permitted to sit with the subcommittee at today's hearing and ask questions. without objection, so ordered. i now call on the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. carson, for a brief opening statement. >> thank you, chairman, good morning and welcome to the first subcommittee hearing. i'm pleased to return as ranking member of the subcommittee and look forward to continuing the good working relationship we both share as my friend the chairman stated, we were able to partner on several items before the subcommittee in the last congress. on a very personal note i'm deeply thankful that the chairman is back ready for warfare. he's looking fit as always. always i would be remissed if i didn't mention a true american icon in our mid-skpst that's the honorable eleanor norton. so among the many issues we will consider this congress. i'm very interested in examining
1:01 pm
the training programs available to our first responders ensuring timely and efficient emergency response whenever and wherever disaster strikes is critical. some of the emergency managers in the great hoosier state of indiana have reached out to me regarding the limited accessibility of fema's training centers. in order to ensure ready responders, we must make certain that adequate programs are available. that sufficient access is available to those training programs. further, after a disaster we sadly hear stories about elderly individuals having to fend for themselves because they were not adequately informed prior to the storm or they were unable to access resources after the storm. this was particularly the case after hurricane sandy. we must ensure that emergency preparedness and response systems are inclusive of vulnerable populations and those with language barriers.
1:02 pm
moreover, they discuss concerns about the level of support services that states should be required to provide. i understand their concern but it is 2015 and no one should be left behind. especially our most vulnerable neighbors. it's imperative we revisit those issues to make sure everyone has access to the same resources. thank you, mr. chairman, and i look forward to working with you. >> thank you ranking member carson. we'll have two panels of witnesses today. our first panel we have administrator fugate, the current administrator of fema who brings tremendous experience as well as successes in implementing key reforms and driving progress at fema. on our second panel, we will be joined by mr. fran mccarthy an expert who will show us the trends in disaster assistance and how assistance has evolved over time.
1:03 pm
mr. brian kuhn director of division of emergency management is here to talk with us about his experience as well as help us see things from a state per spect i have spective. administrator david paulson, who led fema in the wake of hurricane katrina and the implementation of the post-katrina emergency management reform act. he will discuss the changes he has seen in disasters and provide some thoughts on ways to address the rising costs of disasters. finally, we're joined by the assistant fire chief for the emergency operations in san diego, who will share his experience in emergency management specifically the alarming trends in wildfire activity in this country. i ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements be included in the record. without objection, so ordered. since your written has been made a part of the record, the subcommittee would request that you limit your oral testimony to
1:04 pm
five minutes. administrator fugate, you may proceed. >> thank you, chairman and ranking member carson and other members of the committee. in my written statements i talked about some of the things we have been working on since the sandy recovery improvement act passed. mr. chairman i have to say you helped us address many issues that had come up repeatedly. first off, i have to recognize the fact that you gave us the authority to recognize the governments as an entity to deal directly with the president in requesting disaster decklarationdeclaration. this committee ensured that became part of the legislation and we have implemented us. you have also given us tools we identified in lessons learns in managing debris, but also in making sure as we began the process of rebuilding, we're able to speed up the process of identifying those large projects, obligating moneys and
1:05 pm
allow allowing more discretion to local officials on how to build back better. that was an important tool that we began using as far back as some damage from hurricane irene with the state of vermont. it's given us flexibility that states and local governments have asked for in building back better. the trends in disasters are not surprising to me. with an ageing infrastructure, a concentration of populations and highly vulnerable areas that don't have a lot of disasters. when they do occur, the costs are substantial. particularly when you look at what happens when the number of public buildings that are under or uninsured are damaged or destroyed, i think things such as dealing with individual losses that weren't ensured dealing with debris costs, dealing with response costs are going to be part of the formula. but when you look at most recently in sandy, the billion dollars or more in some projects we're having to pay to rebuild structures, it's important for
1:06 pm
us to make sure that in the future we have built back those structures to where they are ensurable and look at making sure the insurance provisions are applied and less opportunities to allow structures to come back for repeated assistance because they weren't ensured. we firmly believe we should do more diligent work with our state and local partners so ensure when we build back, we don't look at old data or don't account for the future. but we also think we need to engage the private sector more strongly in ensuring risk. in those areas where the private sector cannot ensure that risk, ask hard questions. should we build back where we were? should we build back the way it was? or do we need to change? if anything, we know that many areas are subject to repeated disasters. i personally went into arkansas last year to see damage from a tornado. i saw a school fortunately not
1:07 pm
occupied nearly completed that was destroyed. i was informed by our staff there from the regional office that that school was being rebuilt from a 2010 tornado where it had been destroyed. it was destroyed again. what really troubled me was we did not have an opportunity or did not seek the opportunity to make sure that school had safe rooms in it. and we have committed to and have now established that in tornado-prone areas when we are dealing with schools and other public structures that we will find a way to make sure that we fund safe rooms to protect children during tornadoes. so you have given us a lot of tools. many of them are still in the implementation phase. some of them have not gone as fast as i would like. part of it was the implementation and getting buy in, but i'm seeing early success and i think it will be a good discussion to have with you in the committee over our findings our challenges and where success is taking place.
1:08 pm
i firmly believe that the role of the federal government is to support officials and the cost of disasters is a shared responsibility. but i do think it's appropriate when disasters exceed the capabilities of state and local governments we must be there to support them not only the initial response but to ensure successful recovery. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for your testimony, administrator fugate. i will now begin the first round of questions limited to five minutes for each member. if there are additional questions following the first round, we'll have additional rounds of questions as needed. we all know dar costs are going up dramatically. what do you think are driving those costs and can we do anything about them? >> well one way people have said to look at disaster costs is reduce eligibility for
1:09 pm
declaring disasters. but as i think you see, the smaller disasters are not what drives the big ticket items. it's the larger events. i think it comes back to in many cases we have ageing infrastructure, we have dense populated areas in vulnerable zones, whether it's from hurricanes flooding earthquakes and those costs, i think historically, were things that we looked at insurance and other tools to manage that risk. but that risk has now moved more towards the federal taxpayer in the fema programs. i think over time it was the unintended consequences of the programs that again we were seeing as instead of being a last resort to first resort for the coverage of insurable property that was not insured and those losses. again, it is really a decision that we have to look at how do
1:10 pm
we best ensure communities are able to rebuild, but at the same time don't support or continue growing the risk. i think we have to understand there's a certain amount of risk out there right now. we have modelled some of these disasters. they are actually bigger than sandy. the exposure for south florida from a repeat of the great miami hurricane would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars in federal cost exceeding both sandy and katrina. so it is something we need to look at. i think more importantly, we have to make sure as we go in after a disaster, we're et issing the stage for the future not to repeat it over and over again. >> we continue to see new disaster aid programs emerge in reaction to disasters. they all seem to have different rules and requirements and do not seem well coordinated or focused on obtaining the best outcomes. is this something congress should take a look at so we can streamline these programs and
1:11 pm
ensure that they are coast effective? >> i would go. format. it is now in place, is to build a natural recovery framework to take all those programs and look at it more wholistically. i think congress needs to know what the total cost of disasters are. there shouldn't be hidden costs buried in other appropriations. but i will also caution that the flexibility of the programs and the fact we deal with preexisting conditions that fema's programs aren't going to deal with that flexibility is often times the success in rebuilding. let me give you one example. when we deal with housing issues in a disaster it is generally the affordable housing base that was heavily damaged, wasn't insured and we're not the program that rebuilds permanent housing. we deal with a temporary response. so the risk you run into is a
1:12 pm
rebound effect. we meet immediate needs, but there's no solution long-term. people in travel trailers for years after the disaster because we did not approach this at the beginning wholistically of if we have this many houses, we're going to have to start looking at affordable housing and start those programs almost simultaneously to the recovery programs. so the flexibility and the ability to take these different programs are important tools we should not just discard, but it's important to have a total accounting of what the real cost of disasters are, not just what the stafford act may be providing. >> one of the -- do you think the federal government could provide the state os to encourage better disaster preparation planning, budgeting and smarter rebuilding to reduce future losses and costs? >> the state will present to you, and if i put my state hat on i would look for more federal participation early in that process. one of the things that i have
1:13 pm
heard from both the general accounting office and i.g. is we ought to be raising the thresholds for disasters. i'm against that for several reasons. i think it penalizes large population states because it puts them into intolerable levels of disasters to get assistance. smaller states would have little impact on. they only apply them generally after they have been denied for federal assistance. there's almost a disincentive for a state to manage smaller disasters for fear if they do that, it may not make them eligible for a fema disaster declaration. so what we have been looking at is our current model is once you reach the threshold the president declared a disaster, we cost share back to the first dollar. we have been exploring when if you didn't raise the threshold, but you looked at how far back do we go and give states more predictability about how much they are responsible for before
1:14 pm
we do come in with federal assistance and base it just on looking at the impacts of the state, the economy, the budget reserves, the capacity of the state. but i think some states have been progressive in this area. the others have seen that the federal government will come in, go back to their first dollar and have been resistance to building their own capacity. i think if we could build more capacity for the routine disasters at the state and local level it would allow us to focus on those large disasters. i don't think it necessarily brings the big dollar ticket items down, but it starts growing and building more capacity across the states for a lot of the reoccurring events we find ourselves involved in. >> i will now recognize each member for five minutes of questions. >> thank you chairman. thank you, administrator fugate. the international association of
1:15 pm
fire chiefs notes that fema does not fully reimburse fire departments for their fire fighting efforts when called to service. in addition, fema does not cover full wages required by the fair labor stsds act or the costs of replacing a firefighter dispatch on a mutual agreement. is fema from reimbursing for these costs? if not, why is fema not reimbursing the fire departments? >> i would need specific information. i would have to look at the case. fema funds those extraordinary costs above and beyond what was budgeted. if you budgeted the fires and get declared, that does not necessarily become eligible. but over time costs where you're supporting mutual aid under the compact going across state lines, it comes back to what the mutual aid agreements are ahead
1:16 pm
of time. one of our challenges has been unless there's an obligation to pay just because you have a disaster declaration doesn't make it eligible. so we try to look at the none budgeted costs. we try to be very aggressive in identifying those costs. they are right we don't go back and do 100% our cost share. the state and locals determine how to do that. under fire management assistant grant costs, we don't go back to the first dollar because each state has a budget for fire fighting. so we look at the extraordinary cost. if your office will share with us the specific details, we will go back and research that. but my position has always been if it's eligible, it's eligible. we look at the costs what they budget for the day-to-day activities. but specific cl to what case and how much if they can give me examples, we'll try to make sure that we were doing the right
1:17 pm
thing during that timeframe. >> thank you, sir. >> now recognize the member. >> administrator fugate, thank you for your presence here this morning. thank you for your as much as to the people of florida over so many years. we remember you very fondly. we miss you at times, so thank you very much. i u represent south florida where a large portion of my district lives on or near the coast. one of the constant worries i a hear from my constituents back home in the florida keys is the need to reform the national flood insurance program. i'm a co-sponsor of the flood insurance act, a bill to extend the recent reforms to business properties and owner occupied second homes. i feel it's critical they have seen the relief to properties and single family homes afforded to them under bigger waters act of 2012. can you share your thoughts on
1:18 pm
what best can be done to provide affordable flood insurance for my constituents? do you feel that we should apply to commercial properties the same formula for yearly rate increases received by properties? >> first of all, y'all may miss me but you have a great guy in brian coons, so the state is in good hands. you opened up a good debate and a can of worms of how the flood insurance program should go. here's my question, if the private companies can't ensure it, is it something that the federal government should assume the risk? we're doing risk transference. any time we take on that responsibility, you the taxpayers are backing it. that may be good policy, that may be the desire in the intent of congress, which i would support if that's the desire, but i must caution that in transferring that risk back to the flood insurance program, which is over $20 billion in
1:19 pm
debt, we have to understand that it is not a sound program. it will not be able to pay back its debt and growing that exposure may be good policy, but it's one we need to go forward and understand what that risk is. the challenge is understanding the built infrastructure and how we protect that, but also how do we enforce the future and ensure that we don't continue to grow that risk. that does not mean we can't build in coastal areas. it does mean we have to build differently. so i think the question that i would narrow back down to is we have got a lot of businesses. we have a lot of homes. we have a lot of property that's exposed. insurance is not available or not affordable. it will be a huge economic loss to local jurisdictions from business losses, jobs loss. if it makes sense to ensure that, then we will implement it. but i also caution that we have
1:20 pm
to make sure we don't set up an unfair system that continues to grow risk by allowing people then to build in areas without taking the steps, which can be more coastly. but then transfer that risk back to us, the federal taxpayer. it's a shared responsibility it's an interesting debate. we would be more than willing to engage in it, but. i think we have to be up front that there are many people both in congress and outside that don't want to grow the flood insurance program and that exposure and other who is think they do. we would be interested in participating in that debate but we think this is the sense of congress when you need the guidance on what this should be. >> thank you, mr. fugate. the state of florida has learned a lot since 1992 and has changed a lot. do you feel that the state is adequately prepared today for a potential storm? you referred to one earlier a great miami storm. do you feel we have done enough,
1:21 pm
from your per spelktive, to prepare and mitigate potential damages? >> i'll leave it to brian to talk about what under leadership he and governor scott have been able to achieve. i want to point out one thing florida did and it was a hard painful lesson and there's always attempts to take and walk back. but under governor bush it was the establishment of statewide mandatory building codes. learning the lessons of south florida and across the state. probably the one thing that's safing taxpayers more money and making sure you have commercially available insurance is the fact that florida strengthened its building code and does enforce it. it was a courageous step given that many people said it would make homes unaffordable. the reality was without that building code, they would have been uninsureable. as we see citizens shrink as more people will buy into the florida market, it's a testament to better built homes for the environment they are in and this is the lesson i think all states should pay attention to when you have the right building codes and land use to manage risk
1:22 pm
that risk can come down to the point it is insurable and the private sector can do a better job without defaulting back to federal programs. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i'd like to recognize ms. norton for five minutes. >> thank you very much glad to see you back in the chair. mr. fugate, the nation's capital barely escaped sandy. we were very grateful just like we escaped the snowfall this time. but we know from all the scientists tell us that we are headed for major disasters. they tell us that there's no longer debate about whether there is climate change, but about how to manage climate change. so i'm interested in issues and i will be talking to the next
1:23 pm
panel about predisaster mitigation. the member was asking about florida. i noticed that they are building right in the ocean, but trying to do some predisaster mitigation as they do. fema has been helpful in what we have been trying to do with the so-called 17th street levee. without that levee the washington monument and indeed the entire monumental core would be exposed to horrific flooding. those steps have been taken. i certainly hope since those steps were taken and that levee was done before the final word in on climate change, i would be
1:24 pm
interested in your view as to whether or not you think that levee could stall a sandy-like storm. because it's taken so long, i'm also interested in the drawing of the flood maps. as i understand, and this is what gives government a bad name, the drawing of the flood maps -- i'm sorry the work of the army corps of engineers for certification is done separately from fema or other agencies. why can't that work be done concurrently so they look to see that the levee is constructed properly and they get on with the next step rather than in sequential fashion, which ensures it will be delayed?
1:25 pm
>> as far as that i will take that back to staff. part of what you gave us with the sandy recovery improvement act is at least things like the historical reviews, which agencies used to do independently so we are taking some small steps to try to look at these projects. the president said when we were doing some of these capital improvements, we should do our studies together. we're not going to change the requirement requirements, but it doesn't mean we should do each study and wait for the next. we're moving that direction, but not as fast as we should. as far as the protection for the future, none of these designs are the 100% solution. what they are designed is risk in the 1% or more. i think you just identified one of our challenges. we have always looked at mitigating back to a 1% or less risk.
1:26 pm
unfortunately, we saw this in sandy. some of the mitigation work done after hurricane irene was done to that standard and we lost the structure any way. so we're asking a different question. maybe 1% makes sense for a lot of thing, but for critical infrastructure like hospitals fire stations maybe we should build to a higher standard. we're currently working with agency on the federal side to look at should we come up with a more stringent standard not just building one foot above our elevation, but perhaps even building higher. not because we have data to drive that, but because of the uncertainty of the future data and these investments of tens to hundreds to billions of dollars of our future making sure we're building to that future with that uncertainty. >> i appreciate what you're saying. the monumental core is ir replace blt. i'd ask you to look into this whether or not one could realize this would mean further delay
1:27 pm
whether you could look into the 17th street levee and see if it should be altered now in the beginning to make sure it meets the standard you have just indicated may be necessary. could i ask one more question in light of a recent tragedy here. that was the tragedy where we lost human life and more than 80 people went to the hospital. it was sadly reported at least initially it looks like coordination in terms of communication under ground and aboveground and was lacking now. fema is there for natural as well as terrorists disasters. is fema.
1:28 pm
considered this apparent failure not only in a real natural disaster but heaven forbid in a terrorist disaster, are you involved in this disaster and help ing helping various agencies, city and federal involve z to right this situation so we assure particularly underground there is the kind of communication that could enable rescue to occur. >> first of all i have a personal equity in this. it went earlier than i normally depart but i am on that train monday through friday, both coming in and going home. i know that very spot in the tunnel.
1:29 pm
i can tell you any time a train stops in a tunnel now people start looking around. where before it was just kind of like the normal pause. people are now looking around going, why are we stopped? our national office works with those entities. i would ask that we need to wait to get more from the investigations to find out what did happen shs but we'll pledge our support both to the district and metro for any assistance they require from us both from planning, training and exercising to be better prepared for future incidents. >> the region office is currently involved with this investigation and with this work. >> we're not involved in the investigation, but we are there to support all the parties. when we get the recommendations of what to do better we'd be in a position to support the district and metro if they request our assistance.
1:30 pm
>> thank you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. graves. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. fugate, thank you for being here today. appreciate your testimony and certainly share a lot of friends of yours. in your testimony you notice you made reference to the study that was done by congressional budget office noting that every dollar invested in activities saves $3 in fema study. they were the predisaster mitigation. just curious you made reference in your testimony, curious about how fema has responded to the findings of those studies. >> the challenge was it was increasingly being directed to
1:31 pm
where it would go. you asked us to cut our budgets each year. we had to make decisions where those cuts took place. we think mitigation is important. but we also knew the capacity to respond, recover and manage all the other programs were important too. this is been a lot of talk about its role and the cost savings. i would also be pragmatic in saying those savings are realized if those structures get hit again. >> sure, i'll give an example. hurricane katrina i think if you add everything up from the 2005 hurricanes you get $150 billion in total spending. based on calculations we did in louisiana, we spent about $8 billion in the front end and could have saved $80 billion in recovery. mrs. norton made an appropriate
1:32 pm
connection between the corps of engineers ask fema, and you and i have had this discussion in the past. numerous instances have been directed by congress to carry out various projects and some of those projects in the case of louisiana have been in the development phase in access of 20 years. fema has expanded over in recovery claims in the same project areas. in one case i remember where fema exceeded a billion dollars in payouts. the entire project was expected to to cost $586. can you talk about your coordination with the corps of engineers to ensure that some of these mitigation measures, if predisaster mitigation is off the table, which personally i believe may be foolish, can you talk about some of the koord coordination there to ensure the resiliency of some of the communities and cost savings for your agency? >> we work very closely with the corps of engineers both in flood
1:33 pm
insurance mitigation response and recovery. i also have to point out you can authorize a lot of projects. if you don't fund them, they don't get built. if you go back and pull the budget and look at how many projects the corps has been authorized for and look at the funding, there's a significant mismatch. again, if we were able to fortell the future and know where disasters would happen, we would probably be better at strategizing where to make those investments, but we have potential risk. the exposure is tremendous. so again, we do work with the corps, but it comes back to you're making very hard choices. you have to make appropriations decisions. there's not enough money to do everything. for the corps there are often times more projects identified than they have funding and they are having to make decisions across the states and territories of where to make those investments. >> personally in regard to the corps of engineers, the cut in
1:34 pm
funding is in response to their inability to perform in many cases, which you may not share that opinion. but one thing that we had posed to fema years ago was the idea of having flexibility when these corps projects weren't funded yet they yielded benefits in cost savings for disaster mitigation. yet fema, we were unable to work that out. can you talk about that? there was a prohibition in dollars in case when is you had a federally authorized project in place regardless of whether there was funding or not. >> this kind of goes back to authorization language and appropriations language where we do have prohibitions against duplicating sources. where a project was not originally authorized by the core and we were able to fund it, but the core was able to fund it, we were able to get good outcomes.
1:35 pm
it comes back to when we have nonduplication of federal efforts, maybe didn't have the funds to do it is again. this is something that can be looked at. is there additional language you want us to have. but the question i have is we don't want to routinely get into augmenting other federal budgets if you're not funding it. we don't want to sidestep the appropriations of congress. but obviously it's something that the committee could give us guidance on. if we're not interpreting it correctly, i'm willing to go back and look at it. if it's already authorized in a another program, there are limitations on what we are able to do. it would be exceeding congress's intent and authorization for us. so we'll work with the committee on that. i don't have an issue with that. i also caution that some of the feedback is we don't want to open up a can of worms if it's bypassing congress's intent by
1:36 pm
funding things congress had had chosen not to fund that year. >> thank you. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. costello. >> thank you mr. chairman. administrator fugate. i remember as a county commissioner following either before or just following a storm of a significant magnitude speaking with my emergency services department and them describing the various obligations that they needed to undertake to apply for and ultimately process an application for fema disaster assistance grant. the question is in looking at the recent gao report, fema was criticized for the significant costs they incurred for grants. my question what is fema doing to reduce its own administrative costs and the burden often placed on states and locals trying to get. the assistance to where it is needed for a recovery? >> first, one tool we have used
1:37 pm
aggressively has been moving away from putting in a lot of staff in temporary facilities along smaller disaster when we can work it from the region. that's driving down costs. the but the other one is the tool in the improvement act and that is allowing us to do these alternative projects and being able to use an estimated cost and come to a resolution on a project cost without doing actual cost. you know i'd like to get rid of a lot of the oversight, rid of a lot of the burden. i'd like to simplify the programs where we'll able to make the determinations and get funds to people. you have given us those tools. on the other hand, you also hold us extremely accountable for overpayments or ineligible cost. that requires a bit of oversight, so there's a balance there. i think the committee struck an important balance with the recovery improvement act by allowing us to move away from actual cost, where we have to
1:38 pm
continue. to audit and review and survey the progress of a project to being able to come to a resolution on the front end, make a determination, agree to that and make the payout. i think we are doing this with the understanding that we have accountability to make sure we're only approving what was eligible, but it was reducing our cost and overhead of managing that and giving more flexibilities to local jurisdictions. this is a new tool. not every state has embraced it. new jersey has not been as aggressive as new york. the projects in new york lent them to the project, but we have also seen particularly in debris, oklahoma was able to take advantage of these tools and vastly sped up their experience with cost reimburse. ment. knowing what we have had in the past and going forward, i have seen improvements. we have gotten feedback. we need to work on that to get it better. there's a balance there between
1:39 pm
too much burden and not being accountable to the taxpayer. >> i can certainly appreciate that balance. following up on the sandy recovery act, which you mentioned, the increase in small project thresholds to $120,000 is one of the things you were alluding to in terms of simplitied procedures. without suggesting that, could you share your observations on if further efficiencies are expedite expedited, cover ris could be realized if it were modified or are you comfortable with that it is. >>. i'm not comfortable. i let staff talk to me out of where i wanted to go. i thought that number should have been higher. we were looking at the percentage of projects that would fall. i still think there's room to move it up. we have a lot of other federal programs that administer much larger dollar figures than simplified grant processes. i u am comfortable that through
1:40 pm
the i.g.'s oversight and our ability to really focus in on what's eligible that we can move that higher. i would also like to encourage input from our colleagues at the state and local level through their organizations, but i think it's something the committee should look at is we don't just want to raise the threshold so we don't have any accountability, but there's a lot of things to simplify the oversight, would not grow the risk and exposure for uneligible work and would drive down the cost and speed up recovery. so what that number should be, i would like to work with the committee. we can go higher than $120,000. i thought we should have when we started this but staff was able to pull the data. we want to be data driven. we looked at data and a majority of the projects falling in this category. fall into that. but i still think there's room to move it higher.
1:41 pm
and perhaps my ideal world is we have small projects and we speed up all the disasters. . currently our threshold for the alternative projects is $1 million. i don't know if small projects goes with $1 million dollars, but we give states the flexibility of how they want to choose to do that. if we can maintain fiscal accountability, i am not opposed to raising the minimum threshold for small projects. i would defer to my state colleagues how high they think it should be and manage. as long as we can be accountable, it speeds up the process, drives down the cost to the taxpayer. but less overhead cost to administer it. >> i like to work with you on that. i think there's something we can do. time is money when it comes to rebuilding. i'd like to recognize each member for an additional five minutes for questions.
1:42 pm
i'll start. we saw firsthand the tremendous progress already being made to rebuild and protect nyu medical center in new york city. particularly when compared to the significant delays experienced by charity hospital in new orleans, can you attribute the expedited recovery to the new authorities granted to fema in the sandy recovery improvement act? >> as far as the benefits, it's an important tool. the other lesson we have learned from the events of katrina is there are certain types of projects that are technically difficult that exceed the average capacity for people to manage. you need to have subject matter experts. with so we engage very early. we identified where the projects were going to be whether they were hospitals. we brought in a lot of experts. it wasn't until you passed the
1:43 pm
improvement act that we really had a tool to allow us to come to resolution. if we had been using the old program and only doing actual cost, there would have been more uncertainty for the applicant on what they could and couldn't do. it would have been more overhead in making those decisions, and they would not have the ability to get what they were going to get from us and move forward. we have obligated the majority of those funds. they are now engaged in repair and construction. we still have projects from katrina that have not even been resolved yet. so i think better understanding of the complexities projects on the front end, but you gave us a tool we did not have before to more engage the applicants getting a figure agreed to and obligating those dollars on the front end versus waiting for construction to start and constantly coming back for revisions and updates.
1:44 pm
>> some of the most alarming trends you have observed in disaster preparedness response and recovery? >> i think it was alluded to by representative carson when we talk about vulnerable populations. as we have built our programs it's something that -- and i have some disagreement with my state colleagues on that but nobody disagrees on the importance of getting this right. but this is is one of the things i observed is we always tend the treat the hard to do as an annex in our planning and funding and programs. instead of looking at the communities as they are in building our programs so that they don't say we need to have an annex for kids or an annex for people with animals or the elderly. they are part of the community. we need to plan more wholistically. we need to plan for what's there and not exclude it. when you look at the vulnerable populations, and one of the
1:45 pm
growing challenges to disaster response is increasing poverty and many in the middle class who have no safety net. who a disaster will wipe out all of their savings and wipe out their most important equity generally their homes. we saw this in the '04 hurricanes. i don't think people understood the role poverty in the middle class who are just one payment away from losing all makes them extremely vulnerable to disasters in very difficult to recover. and i think this is one of the things we cannot forget there are many parts of the community that are vulnerable and has a lot to do with the economy, the distribution of wealth and the lack of resources among many people who consider themselves middle class. but one disaster wipes them out and they suddenly find that the safety nets are not there for them either. >> thank you. the chair will recognize ranking member carson for five minutes.
1:46 pm
>>. thank you, chairman. administrator fugate, it talks about the need for clarification for functional needs, support for general population shelters and that fema and the doj have provided conflicting information. what is your sense sir, about when will joint guidance be issued from fema and the doj? >> it's been a lot of guidance issues. i'll have to get back. there's ongoing discussions, but let me tell you what the outcome should look like. because i think if you don't know what the outcome looks like, we're going to talk a lot of process. and as a state director, we're sensitive to this it issue. but a perfect it shouldn't be perfect, it should be the expectation. you arrive at a shelter. you should not be turned away. if you arrive because you have a pet, people have pets.
1:47 pm
we have to plan for it. if you show up on oxygen, if you show up with a family member on a ventilator, it may not always be the best place, there may be other options, but i think what you want is in a crisis people don't have the luxury of picking and choosing where they are going to go. we'd lieng to get to where most people, the majority of the population can choose their shelter based upon what is convenient for them. not what we have only been willing or able to provide. we're not there. it's unfair to say that state and local government should be there immediately. we did not get there -- we're not where we are at because of lack of effort or trying. it's that states and locals have to deal with existing buildings many of which were not designed for people with disabilities. there's requirements to upgrade them, but many times it's minimal. the level of care the type of equipment, durable goods so
1:48 pm
this is the goal most of us agree to work towards. people should not be turned away from shelters because they are not easy to accommodate. we also have to understand that's a lot easier to say than do. there are some real challenges both financially and the practicality of what can be done to get there. so we'll continue to work with our partners and with the disabled community who advocates for that right. and i think that's probably the thing that drives me passionately is this is a civil right. >> absolutely. >> we have to do everything to ensure that we are maintaining that while understanding this is not easy. if it was, nobody would be saying we have questions. but there is a lot of questions wharks is a reasonable accommodation, to what degree they should be prepared for that, to what level to implement that care and probably the hard question is always where is the money going to come from?
1:49 pm
often times in local governments who have seen tremendous reductions in their staff, yet still expected to provide the service in a crisis. many of which will not be declared by the federal government would not receive federal dollars. >> lastly sir, i have heard from some of my constituents about the long waits to atend fema's training center in alabama as well as -- i guess you could say insufficient funding for emergency response training programs in general. your last statement was so phenomenal and deeply insightful we appreciate that. could you provide the subcommittee, sir, with some description of each of fema's training programs and overview quickly of the budget of the last five years? >> well the center for domestic preparedness is hard to get into because it's in high demand.
1:50 pm
it's the only facility that offers live agent training. your hazmat team will go in and experience what it's like to handle lethal nerve agents in a controlled environment. it's priceless training for those teams. our national fire academy is a program for in fire executives as well as training many specialized training. programs that are developed jointly with the national fire academy. and then the emergency management institute to colocated providing for training for emergency managers bringing together many of them out of their normal work environment to share their experiences but also get the latest updates. it is both a capacity issue and staying current nooin these programs. so again, center for preparedness, the staff continues to look at how we can
1:51 pm
increase capacity. but it's a finite resource with high demand and we try to accommodate those that have applied. but it is again, a premier facility with capabilities not foundless where with a very high demand for that resource. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. carson. the chair recognizes mrs. norton for five minutes >> i have one question. i would like to take advantage of the long experience that mr. fugate has had in disaster mitigation and ask for his canned did views. here i'm not asking you about funding. that's not something you control. i want to contrast the difference between the way congress behaved after the terrorists attack and the way it
1:52 pm
behaved africa trina and sandy. after the terrorist attack, it scared the dickens out of the country. i'm going the say it scared us so badly that after the fact we actually threw money at the jurisdiction. if the state didn't get fund to prepare for the next disaster attack including states that they had never heard of never would venture to care about. but every state got some funds. i was on home land security at the time, and saw it happen. again, i'm not asking you about funding. i recognize and appreciate that predisaster funding we have found in the subcommittee and committee saves us enormously $4
1:53 pm
savings for one dollar nervousinvested. as we look at katrina and sandy, i mean, i recall in order to get funds for sandy even after new york and new jersey were laid low, it took two votes to get funding for sandy -- for you to begin to do your work in sandy. now, what i really want to know is as an agency, which is looked at disasters now terrorists and natural disasters for decades whether or not the agency needs revisions or structure. i mean, can you sit there in the face of katrina and sandy and not envision when you see hurricanes occurring where they're not supposed to occur
1:54 pm
when you see climate not only changes but disasters in parts of the country that have never known them. is the fema of today structured decades ago the fema that can handle the unknown that we now see before us? and here i'm looking for how the agency, whether it needs to ask for revisions in law or in its own structure, rather than what you encountered after sandy. and after sandy the finger was pointed right at you. it didn't matter what -- whether we gave money or how you were structured. you just had to take it. and instead of just taking it, it does seem to me that the agency with the expertise should come before this panel and tell us whether you are prepared for
1:55 pm
disaster for earthquakes to occur in california of the kind that it has never seen before or shall we just sit here and think that it will never happen and just wait for it to come after us. is the fema of the 21st century prepared for what we know now, from your soen experience with katrina and sandy is surely to come in parts to have country where we never expected. and if so, if you think it's prepared, you should tell us. if it is not fully prepared, i should ask you then, is the agency looking at how it could make recommendations for what appears to be an entirely new era in both terrorists disasters and for that matter and now we know natural disasters. are you looking at the future? >> i learned a long time ago the person that says that we're
1:56 pm
fully prepared and we know what's exactly going to happen is a fool -- >> you don't know what's going to happen. >> we don't. >> i want to make sure. you know that they have hurricanes in florida. you know that they have earthquakes in california. i bet you didn't know that we would have an earthquake here in the nation's capital. so i'm talking about what you don't know. and what you will be held responsible for notwithstanding the fact that you don't know. is your agency structured so it can handle what you don't know? >> that's where we're going. what we changed the question was traditionally what was fema capable of responding to. as you point out, that's a fool'ser erer errand. not looking at what fema was used to responding to but
1:57 pm
what's the worst case that could happen. we started asking questions that weren't easy to answer. it started generating response levels greater than the federal government. it started us to look at how we fund the homeland security dollars they are a resource to the rest of the nation when a big disaster happens. we saw this in sandy where many responders from outside the area were able to respond because of the capabilities built with the homeland security dollars. we're following what you're pointing out. we cannot prepare for what we expect or what we're prepared to handle. we have to prepare for what could happen. this is driving our strategic planning. in is driving at how we're structured fema. not to what we can respond to but what could happen. and that's, again driving a lot of our decisions. again, it is we don't think the resources are necessarily the first answer, but it does require resources and sustained
1:58 pm
funding. it requires a budget as you well know. operating under continuing resolutions is not how you prepare for catastrophic disasters. so i would love to have staff, and if necessary, if you are available to sit down and talk about this. we are definitely trying to look at the future looking at what could happen, looking at how you build that response. can i tell you it's built today? no. it's a work in progress. but i think we've moved past the barriers of only preparing for what we know or what we're prepared to respond to and asking a much harder question, how bad can it be. the president said in an earlier meeting, we can't protect erg. we need to know what we can live without and what we cant. so when we start looking at disasters and where they can happen and where they're
1:59 pm
expected versus what could happen based upon the modeling and the vary organizations and populations at risk. we're looking at how do we build -- it's not just fema. it's the whole government because we've come back it's going to take local, state mutual aid it's going to take the federal department of defense, the private sector and a lot of the public to respond to that scale of a disaster. and so -- >> i would just ask that at an appropriate time it would be interesting to have a briefing as to how they're looking at the unknown that we now know to expect but don't know what it is and could bring calamity to us as congress would be asked to do what it doesn't have the funds to do and never expected would happen if they could pinpoint how they go about that, i think it would certainly educate me and help the subcommittee and the full committee. >> mr. chairman, i think we have some examples that we've been doing. we call it catastrophic planning. but some of the work that we've
2:00 pm
done the cascadian fault zone off the coast of the northwest u.s., the earthquake risk which is again a very large risk over large areas. i think we can show where we're going and tell you what we think is the path to get us there. and then that will give you an opportunity to look at are there additional tools that you could give us. the last thing i would like to end with this is the staffford act was oftentimes a constraint seen as what fema was capable of doing. in the past year since i've been at fema we've responded to haiti, we were asked to support usid and we did it. last year we were asked to support the children in the defengs facilities. we supported that. we were asked to support the ebola response. many of these things may not be in the papers. but they
43 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN3 Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on