saw mills, our lumber mills. so hopefully that's not going to happen. right now we're headed in the right direction. the fact that they've weathered the storm -- for the lumber industry this storm started in 2006 and 2007 and we're coming out of it now. the fact they're still there and operating and have weathered this storm is a very positive sign. >> hopefully. but you just wonder if people are concerned, if they really realize how important that mill is. i mean, if somebody would offer to come in here just -- i mean hypothetically and say we're going to put in a mill that would employ 200 people and turn these billions of dollars every year, we would be over there -- i mean, jumping through hoops to get those people in here. the mill is here. why aren't we jumping through hoops to keep it here? you know, it's a real

. . you would get. why not put the effort in to keep it? you can't believe it's even a possibility that they would lose that. >> that's something -- by the way, lee stewart is here. wave your hand, lee. lee has recently graduated from law school about a year ago. has been on my staff in washington about a year. is one of my legislative assistants. and i'm pleased to report to you that he grew up and was educated just down the road in kirby. and right here in this county. and so not only do i take the common-sense values that i was raised on with me to washington each week, i also take people that are raised in places like kirby with me. lee is involved in issues up there, and i coach the tree

caucus and the congress are working on ways to try to stabilize and help the timber industry through these tough times. thank you. >> thank you. >> back on the forest service. already brought it up. we had the flood, and you were there. of course, you came in. what has the forest service done to help mitigate something like that happening in the future? >> i've been in a number of meetings with the usda, the secretary, as well as the chief of the u.s. forest service. one, they're in the process of cleanup. i think they've now tagged all the personal items they found after the flood, and family members can come back and claim them. the cleanup process is close to being completed. now they've got to rebuild some of the areas so they can be

reopened. and they're also reviewing a warning system. kinds of like we have tornado sirens and warning systems. we're looking at the forest service, who are looking at some type of warning system where maybe there would be a float up the river somewhere and once it reaches a certain level, those sirens would go off to weak people up to tell them to move to higher ground. what happened there was just absolutely devastating. there's a lot of families hurting as a result of it. i see my job as making sure we get some type of warning system in place and because of the terrain, it will happen again. but i also feel very strongly that we need to get that campground back into the condition where it can be reopened, because people enjoy going there, people want to go there, and i think it would be a mistake to close it. i don't think that's going to happen. however, i do support the idea of some type of warning system

and i think we're going to see that. they're making progress literally every day up there. >> as you know, i contacted y'all about the warning system for over two years. they told me the end of july, end of august, we'd be back up and running. i donald think we've even got close to -- don't think we've even got close to back up and running. do you know the time frame? early warning is the key to this. then on the weekends and the holidays, we could have had the exact sale thing down here. >> we contacted the national weather service back when this thing blew down and you're one of the ones that brought it to our attention. they informed us that it will be back up this month. now, having said that, it probably still won't work at albert pike because of the terrain, just like cell phones don't work at albert pike. it's my understanding before the tower blew over two years ago it didn't work at albert

pike. and this new tower they're putting up this month -- or they've told us they're going to put up -- >> it actually worked in langley. >> it probably would in langley. if you get down in the campground area between those mountains -- >> it wouldn't work down here. but we're still concerned about the other areas, too. the early warning on the slope -- on the river and stuff -- >> the national weather service committed to me that it will be back this month. we'll follow up on that and get an update and make sure that it is back up this month. i'm just telling you that even if it is, it may work in langley, but because of the terrain around camp albert pike, it's my understanding it didn't work before and it probably won't work now. but we still need it up for everybody else in this region, and i appreciate you saying you support the idea of some type of warning that, based on river stage or river levels, and i hope that's something we'll get accomplished there. >> i own a small business here in town.

i really strived this year when i was making my spring orders and making my product, i really strived to buy things that was made in the u.s.a. i had several options. i found out when i stocked the things that was made in the u.s.a. i got a better product and the price wasn't much different at all. sometimes it was actually cheaper. the product that's made in the countries does not -- they don't represent u.s. values to begin with. therefore, we import and contribute billions and billions of dollars to the u.s. just like i went to a home site that was getting built and there was boards that are stammedpped "product of canada." you know, what can we do? can we get some sort of small tax incentives that would help

the small business to promote our product that's made here in the united states? i think that would be more effective than anything that i've even thought of. you know, i care about what's going on right now, and i do think there's common sense answers to these questions. i think there is a solution. and i think some of these common-sense answers, if they was applied, i think it would make a dramatic effect and it would be fast. if people like me would sell the product that's made in the u.s.a., instead of china or japan, i'm pretty sure that the small factories would add more workers. it's just common sense. i really think that it could be overturned and this thing could get back rolling really fast if small steps were took like

that. what's your thoughts? >> thank you for being a small business owner, taking the risk, making the investment and putting people here in glenwood and surrounding areas to work. i salute you for that. sometimes i think we get caught up chasing these fortune 500 companies around. when the reality is 60% to 80% of all new jobs in this country come from people like you, from small businesses. i can tell you that i think we need to have your back. we've done some things this year that hopefully will help in terms of, if you hire unemployed workers you can get a tax credit for that. because the banks are still not making the loans that a lot of small businesses need. we've increased the amount of loans coming through the small business administration to try and help get some of these small businesses back on their feet and back up and running. but the other thing that we just recently did -- you know, there were 160,000 teachers

that were going to be laid off this month. and we kept them in the classroom for all the reasons i mentioned earlier about how education is the key to our economic future. but we paid for it. we didn't borrow the money, we paid for it. one of the ways we paid for it is going after these multinational corporations that ship their jobs and money offshore to avoid paying taxes here like you have to pay. so my point is this -- we need to level the playing field. i support -- look, we can't build a wall around america. and i support trade. but we need fair trade, not free trade. i'll tell you what free trade has gotten us. it's gotten us to where every time we pass a trade agreement -- most of them i've voted against, by the the way. all we ends up doing is shipping our jobs overseas. we need trade agreements with companies that can afford to bay our products so we're shipping our products overseas instead of our jobs overseas. so that's the direction i think we need to go that would help and we need to continue to provide tax credits, tax breaks

to small businesses to help find their financial footing as we come out of this economic recession. because y'all are the real job creators, not just in glenwood and pine county, but all over america. so that's the direction i think we need to go. >> thank you. >> the war in afghanistan. in my opinion, i support what the troops are doing, but i don't support what they're being asked to do. the people don't want us there and we're trying to build them homes and stuff, a democracy, that they wouldn't have, if we can make it work. and our troops are fighting for an enemy that they can't find and it's costing us millions and millions of dollars a day just to run this thing and we are accomplishing nothing.

we have over 100,000 troops in afghanistan alone and they kill two or three terrorists and the ratio is not really very good. in my opinion if we can bring those personnel home and set up a security in the united states, then we could keep the terrorists out just as they're doing now with less cost. teas just my opinion. thank you. >> i'm go ahead and take a whack at iraq and afghanistan at the same time. in iraq we're in the process of responsible deployment out of iraq. we'll be out of iraq in about 2011. we will begin a responsible redeployment out of afghanistan in july of 2011. >> supposedly. >> in the past, i think we were so focused on iraq that our government took its eye off the ball in afghanistan. and let's not forget the real

culprits behind 9/11 that came here and attacked us was afghanistan. and i think it would be a mistake to let al qaeda retake afghanistan as a safe haven and training ground for future terrorist attacks against america. in all fairness, our government was so focused on iraq they took their eye off afghanistan and a year and a half ago we were up to about a quarter million troops in iraq. we only had 25,000 in afghanistan. we've listened to the generals. we're now increasing the number of troops in afghanistan so that we can stabilize the country, we can train their police, security and military force, just like we did in iraq and then hopefully begin a responsible re-deployment out of there in july of 2011. if we do it too fast and too carelessly, we'll end up being there and it will cost up more lives, more money long term. i think a positive sign is the fact that general petraeus is now in charge in afghanistan and he thinks this is doable.

and i hope he's right. we pretty much -- and we have captured or killed literally tens of thousands of terrorists not only in iraq, but also in afghanistan, and we've pretty much now successfully pushed al qaeda into pakistan, which creates a whole other problem for us. but i'm going to support our troops and i'm going to support general petraeus on this with the condition that he sticks to his commitment to begin a responsible redeployment out of afghanistan by july, 2011. we've already been in afghanistan longer than we've ever been in any other modern war. we can't afford to stay there forever. we're approaching $1 trillion. you want to talk about the debt and deficit. a trillion of it is from iraq and we're approaching half a trillion in afghanistan. at some point we've got to bring our men and women in uniform home, secure our borders, protect america here and start rebuilding this country of ours. >> i agree with that, yes.

>> what you said a moment ago about moving of the jobs out of this country sparse manufacturing. what is the government doing to help us with manufacturing? this has been going on for 30 years or so we've really kind of built this after world war ii, we built everybody else's economy and their taxes up. we've done nothing for our own. now we're seeing jobs go overseas. what do we need to do as a government, as a country, to stop this flow from going out? because that's where your manufacturing -- that's where a lot of our jobs have gone. >> i wasn't in congress when nafta passed. had i been, i would have voted no. i was there for cafta and i voted for that. i think we need to rethink these trade agreements. we need them with countries that can afford to buy our products, so we're shipping our products and not our jobs,

overseas. we also need to rework our tax policy in this country so we're not rewarding multi-national corporations that ship jobs overseas. we need to be rewarding small businesses, like this gentleman right here that's putting people to work in glenwood. so i think we need to look at it from a tax perspective and i think we need to look at it from a trade perspective. >> i'm going to try to relay a question that a young lady asked me this morning to ask you. she has got a young teenaged daughter, and what it is, she works for a company here in glenwood and they pay for her insurance. her husband works for another company and they pay for his insurance and they're trying to find insurance coverage for their daughter. but blue cross blue shield has, as of a couple of weeks ago, will not give an individual policy to anyone under 18 years of age. is this something we're going to be looking at in the future?

>> well, this health care reform business -- and i voted against it, as many of you know. i came home, i held meetings like this, i listened to the people and said i'd vote no, and i did. having said that, there's good parts and there's bad parts to it. it's about 20 bills, and that bill is longer than the bible. and there's about 20 bills in it. and about half of them everybody in this room could probably agree to. for example, i think most of us would agree that when our children go off to college, they ought to be able to stay on our health insurance until they graduate, or at least within a reasonable tile. by age 24, 25 or even 26 with graduate school these days. that's good. eliminating the so-called doughnut hole for our seniors is part of medicare part d. that's good. health insurance reform. that's good. telling you that you've got to buy health insurance or the i.r.s. is going to knock on your door and fine you, not good. cutting medicare a half a trillion dollars, which is the

only health insurance plan our seniors have to stay healthy and get well, not good. the health care reform bill is not even implemented till 2014. whatever problem they got is because of the problems we've had for the last 10 or 20 years in this country, not because of this bill. and i'm not defending it. i voted against it. i'm just telling you, there's a lot of misinformation out there on both sides of this, quite frankly. but, you know, blue cross is a private health insurance plan. you might check other plans. there's other competition out there. there's other private plans. depending on their income, the child may qualify for our kids first -- >> the income is more to qualify, so they're searching for -- >> so the husband has a job with insurance, but they don't cover the family. >> no. >> and the mother has a job -- >> he works for -- the company he works for pays for him and the company she works for pays for her. >> if they wanted to put that child on, they would have to pay out of their own pocket,

probably, but they would be able to do that, either through the husband or the wife. >> yes, yes. >> they should be able to do that. >> at a pretty good expense. >> i understand. and health care costs, by the way, are growing. i've worked hard to try to get us the kinds of health care reform i could support. i was very involved in slowing this thing down and trying to make it better. but at the end of the day it was too big, too costly, and the people i represent told me to vote no, and that's what i did. but i really do believe we need health care reform, but we need common-sense health care reform. we need small businesses and the self-employed to be part of a bigger group with more choices and less prices. but we don't need the government, in my opinion, getting further into the health care business. but those would be her options if thee doesn't qualify would be to go on the mom's plan or the dad's plan. >> or take a family plan, but they won't give it to

individuals. >> that's one private company. i would encourage them to check around with other companies. there's other companies that do health insurance, too. >> i just didn't know if this was something you're looking at in the future. >> well, in the future, the family will be covered through the workplace depending on the size of the business. if it's got more than 50 employees, they've got to provide it for the individual and the family once this kicks in. and if they're smaller than 50 employees, they won't have to provide it, but they as the owner, as well as their employees, will be able to go shob, what's called a state-based exchange, where you'll find all the private companies. there's like 20 companies and you pick one, like medicare part d. or you're so confused you throw a dart and then decide. it would be similar to that in terms of there will be private choices, not government

choices, but private choices and you pick one. and then you pay and the government will subsidize the cost of it up to 400% of poverty, which, by the way for a family of four is $88,000. so if the governor of arkansas has two children living at home, he would qualify. most people in arkansas would qualify. right now in arkansas we're one the least generous statements and you have to be at 27% of poverty to quality. but if you're between 1 100% and 25% of poverty and on up you can go to this exchange, shop around being pick what you want and -- the most you'll pay out of pocket is 12% of your income and that's for people at or above 4% for poverty and that's 88,200 a year and there's a sliding scale. the most you'd pay out of pocket is 2% to 12% of your annual income, not just for insurance, but deductibles, co-payments and all that. but there's no income limit. it doesn't matter how well thee you are. if you don't have insurance at

the workplace, you won't receive a subsidy for it if you live at more than 400% of poverty. that's kind of how it works. >> let's say a gentleman has got product and he's got a market to sell it. he has a decision to either build the plant in arkansas or in mexico. i'm just using glenwood as an example. he's got to worry about o'sharks he's got to worry about -- osha, he's got to worry about e.p.a. and two bus loads of different inspectors, plus the i.r.s., ok? he says, oh, my goodness. he goes down to mexico. he builds him a building and starts making product and we buy it. what are we going to do besides

pass more legislation, such as the clean air act, which initially is going to be a killer to the industries and the small businesses like me and the farmers? what are we going to do to make that guy say, i want to build my factory in glenwood? it's common sense. what are we going to do to make that happen? because that's got to happen. it's got to happen. >> i agree with you. i'm from just down the road in prescott. it didn't come blowing in here from washington. i wake up in prescott as many mornings of the week as i do in d.c. and i can tell you, i totally agree with you. i used to own a small business. i understand what you're saying. we've got to level the playing field. now, do we want a clean environment? sure, we do. >> you bet. i'm all for it. >> we all do. we want to have workplace safety. we all want that. i don't think we want to turn this country into another china. i don't. and i don't think anyone does. but we can do these things with

common sense, as you and i both refer to, and that's what we need to do. we've got to level the playing field and we've got to make it -- instead of providing disincentives to small and large businesses to locate in america, we need to be providing incentives for that and streamline some of these things. that's why i voted against cap and trade and that's why i'm co-sponsoring the bill to stop the e.p.a. from doing it on their own without a vote from congress. [inaudible] >> why aren't we charging for he can porting our goods? -- exporting our goods? if we make goods in the united states, why aren't we taxing the heck on the other countries on those same goods? >> that's what i'm saying when

we need to rethink our trade policies. those are the kind of things we need to do. . .

the small business owner does not need the government to tell them how to run his business. he knows how to run his business. that and and right there could be next. it is a mistake for us to do that. we clearly saved general motors, which is a good thing. i did not agree with all of their business practices, but it would be a mistake for the government to get into the private sector's business. what we did was alone. it it every dime back with interest, five years early. we saved hundreds of thousands of jobs indirectly and directly as a result of that. i think we are -- >> let me make one more observation. sunday when you're in congress and you have some spare moments -- someday when you're in

congress and you have some spare moments, maybe you can ask people why we are in so many wars. we have fought many wars and the last seven years. [inaudible] the rest of the world has got that perspective of us. we talk peace when we are fighting wars. how do we overcome that? >> let me -- i hear you. [laughter] let me close with a couple of things. concerned about is debt and deficit. we did not get into this mess overnight and we're not going to get out of it overnight. it took george washington did jimmy carter to put this country

in $1 trillion of debt. we have added the other $12 trillion since 1981. it is becoming a sustainable for our children and our grandchildren. i'm not just -- unsustainable for our children and our grandchildren. i've been sounding the alarm for a number of years. i have a blueprint. i'm a leader in the fiscally conservative, democratic, blue dog coalition. we wrote the blueprint for fiscal reform, including calling for a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget, which we came close to doing in the 1980's. our sixth -- arkansas has a constitutional amendment. i believe 49 states require honest budget in one form or another. i'm really proud of our governor mike beebe and our state registered -- state legislature. just because it allows -- it is

on paper does not mean you have to do it did in arkansas, we make decisions. -- does not mean you have to do it. in arkansas, we make decisions. to learn more about my blueprint for fiscal reform, you can go to my website and learn more. these are tough times. i am doing the best i can. i have come home and listened. and tired of the partisan bickering that goes on -- i am tired of the partisan bickering that goes on up in washington. i do not care if it is a democratic or republican idea. is it a common-sense idea? every year, they do this covered. they analyze our voting record, not a silly procedural votes, but the votes that matter like cap and trade, health care, so

forth and so on. every year, i have made that list. their 435 members of congress. -- there are 435 members of congress. that is the exact center of the 435 members and i am right there, about as close as you can get to the center. when i say that i do not care whose idea it is, it is not just rhetoric. my record demonstrates that i am at the center of the congress. you have folks on the extreme right and left. the majority of the people in my district, quite frankly, the majority of the people are where i am -- in the middle, looking for common sense solutions to the problems and johnses that confront this country today. thank you also -- and challenges that confront this country today. thank you all for coming. the american recovery and reinvestment act -- it is a two- year program and we are only

beginning the second year now. it is working. we had 3/4 of 1 million jobs lost per month in the last quarter of 2008. we are digging 600,000 private- sector jobs -- we have already gained 600,000 private-sector jobs this year. we're putting people back to work. we're working on highway 70 improvements. he received thousands for a new fire truck, and new -- one city received thousands for the new fire truck and a new police car. glenwood is putting local contractors back to work to make reparations -- to make repairs. it allows you to spend less of your tax money on schools and utilities and more on what we ought to be doing, which is indicating our children. the list goes on and on -- which is educating our children. the list goes on and on.

if we had not done the bank bailout -- i understand it was not popular. there were loans with 5% interest for five years and 9% after that. you take the tea party -- tarpan -- t.a.r.p. gm paid every dime back with interest, five years early. the american recovery and reinvestment act invested in your schools, your local police and fire. 1/3 of the cost was not spending, but tax cuts. everybody in this room that works for a living got the project -- who gets the pay check every week, they received a $1,000 tax cut last year and they will get the same got this year. 232,000 working families in our district have benefited from that. i supported that because i think -- you have a better idea of what you ought to be doing than we do in washington.

letting you keep your money and spend it on the things that you need or want is helping to stimulate this economy. that is why i supported it. you get another $1,000 tax break this year. everybody who works for a living qualifies. 232,000 working families and our district benefited from that last year and this year. i will not rest until everybody who wants a job has one. we made the decisions that had to be made to jump-start the economy and get us moving in the right direction. we're a long way from where we need to be. i will continue to fight. i cannot thank you enough for participating in this debate. thank you for broadcasting this. thank you to c-span for letting your viewers get a taste of one of mine 35 town hall meetings that i am hosting this month across southern and western arkansas. anytime i can be of help to you, do not hesitate to call me.

may god bless you, may god bless our troops, and may god continue to bless the united states of america. >> alaska incumbent is being challenged by joe miller in the senate primary. they participated in a debate last week in anchorage. mr. miller has been endorsed by former alaska governor sarah palin and backed by the tea party. lisa townsend moderated the debate. >> we will begin with an opening statement from candidate joe miller. >> thank you. >> one minute. >> ladies and gentlemen, our nation is in crisis. we are at a point now where government is spending trillions of dollars it does not have. we are nearing a bankrupt situation where our foreign

creditors are preparing to foreclose. we must change. why are we at this points? because of a crisis of leadership. we have to turn this nation back to limited government. i am joe miller, and i am running for the u.s. senate to seize the moment and ensure we do turn this nation back. at far as armed conflict, we face much of that. i am a combat veteran. i was trailed at yail law school in constitutional law. as far as economic insolvency goes, i received a master's degrees in economics from the university of alaska. we must not allow our children's future to be stolen from them. the american dream is far too par. >> and now your opening

statement. eduled for last evening, but out of respect to the stevens family it was moved to this evenind it has caused some scheduling issues, but we appreate that and the respect that was shown to the family. alaska truly is at a crossroads. we are faced with an onslaught, a literal onslaught, of government regulation, intrusion into our lives, whre the answer is always more of government as opposed to allowing the individuals, the states, to proceed as we all believe that they should. what we need in washington, d.c. is to continually fight with the intrusions that are before us, to fight for what we in alaska believe is best for our people, for the jobs, for the livelihoods, the cultures, and that's what i'm there in

washington, d.c. to do. >> thank you senator murkowski. now it's time for the candidate question round. and first we'll start with senator lisa murkowski. >> thank you. >> i'll pose a question to mr. joe mill earl. you'll have one minute to answer, a minute rebought berlusconi and a quick rebuttal. >> -- rebuttal and a quick rebuttal. >> i appreciate that. as a member of the senate my voting record is absolutely clear. it details every vote, every every aye or every nay. i would ask you, mr. miller, why, with regards to the democratic health care bill that was passed by the democratic-led congress you continue to assert that i have somehow or other supported this bill. i voted against this legislation in committee when it came before us last july. i voted against it on the floor

in december on christmas eve. i have voted to repeal it on march 24, right after the president signed it. i have voted against the proposed amounts to repeal either allr part of it, and i've co-sponsoredeveral bills to repeal certain aspects of it, including a wholesale repeal of the bill. so my question to you is as recently as august 4, you have stated that -- and i want to make sure that i get your words right, because i don't want to misconstrue them -- which she refused to repeal the vote obama care. how can you continue to make those statements when the public record is extraordinarily clear? >> senator murkowski, thank you for joining me in this debat and thank you for that question. this issue has been raised by your campaign several times. we absolutely support the fact that you voted against obama care, but the concern that we have is the statement that you made on march 30, which

i

>> what we have to do is get control of our resources. that means federal government out. that means federalism. we are at a point today where that choice can be made. seize the moment with me. >> thank you, mr. miller. now it is time for closing statements. senator, murkowski, you have one minute. >> this is our opportunity as alaskans to come together to fight for our economy, to fight for good jobs for our families so that we can remain in the communities that we have grown up in. whether it is fighting for the struggling timber industry in southeast alaska, where i'm honored to have received the endorsement of the alaska force tri association, or fighting for fishing families up and down the coast, and again i am honored to receive the

endorsement of c.f.a. and other organizations, to ensure that as a resource production state, we are strong and firm, and we have the jobs that our families need and desire. this is what i'm fighting for. i'm asking all alaskans for your support on august 24th. >> thank you. now one minute for you, mr. joe miller for your closing statement? >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, the choice is simple. i believe in american exceptionalism. i believe that our individual rights come from god and that in fact the way to protect those is to limit the federal government. i believe in securing our southern border. i believe that and nesty is the wrong way to go. i believe in the rights of the unborn. i believe that we as a nation shouldn't tell the taxpayer they are the safety net for failing businesses. the fiscal situation has to be

turned around, and the only way to do that is to limit the federal government according to the founders' intent. we have that opportunity in the state and in the nation. alaska can join with the other states in this nation that are sending constitutionalists to congress. it is alaska's destiny to lead america into the future. >> thank you, mr. joe miller. that concludes this portion of the program. thank you for joining us for this. we will be taking a short break, and please stay with us and join us for more candidate interviews when we return. >> that was a primary debate between alaska senator lisa murkowski and republican challenger joe miller. voters will go to the polls tomorrow in alaska. we will have updates on this race on the c-span networks. besides alaska, voters in florida, vermont and arizona will vote in their state primaries. florida will choose senate candidates from the democrat

and republican parties. florida governor charlie crist is running as an independent candidate. we will have live coverage at 8:30 p.m. eastern. later, we will get an update on arizona's primaries. senator john mccain faces challenger, former congressman j.d. hayworth. live coverage at 10:30 eastern. >> up next, a conversation with white house advisor melody barnes and another on the u.s.a. education system. this 35-minute minute event is from the aspen institute. >> the theme of the day is life is unfair. i say that because, speaking for myself alone, first i have to come after walter isakson, who is smart enough to explain

einstein for dummies. then i have to come after bob shaver, who is one of the best interviewers on the face of the earth. and then melody and i have to come after two that got a standing ovation from this crowd. the only thing i can say is thank god for melody. i am glad that she is here. yes, give melody a hand. [applause] >> i was thinking of david axelrod's favorite line about winning and polling. he said every day is election day in washington. every day is a seminar or a concert at aspen, so i hope you

enjoy your time here. >> absolutely. >> i want to back into our discussion. both of us, we discovered, are children of teachers. both our moms were teachers. you grew up in richmond, went to the university of north carolina, and then to michigan for law school. who do you root for i want to ask you. >> carolina, of course. >> and then you also were in first grade the first year of busing in richmond. can you talk about how that experience kind of got you to where you are? where did you get a passion for these questions? >> first of all, thank you so much. thank you, walter, david and everyone for having us here. e.j. have been saying for some time that we were going to get together and chat. we just didn't know we would be doing it in front of so many people, but it is a pleasure to be here.

as e.j. said, i grew up in richmond. my mother is a teacher and has always has a passion for education and taught for the first nine years of my life before she went back to school and got her master's degree and went on to become a curriculum specialist. but i think throughout her career has always in some way touched children. my dad was -- actually, i remember my father's graduation from college, and my dad went in the army, and went back to school when i was an infant, working during the day and went to college at night. he graduated from college when i was about 4 years old. we talk about the kinds of investment this country has made in education. my father will say very aggressively and firmly thank god for the g.i. bill and the importance that and education has played in his life and our life as a family. i see that over and over and over. that story about education

being the great equalizer. we heard jeff and row land talk about it, and the ticket to opportunity, the ticket to the middle-class, certainly the importance in the african-american community, but we see it played out in community after community. for me, as someone who left new york as an attorney in the private sector and went to washington to do civil and constitutional rights work, and thinking about issues through that lens, ultimately working for senator kennedy on that set of issueses, but then branching out and recognizing that civil rights and education are intertwined, and that the moral and economic imperative around doing better for our kids in the area of education is critical. that without education, we can't expect our kids to have the kinds of opportunities that we want for them. that has been part of our narrative as a country. but at the same time there is

an economic imperative for children who become adults, parents and families, but for the economic opportunity of our opportunity. education is connected to innovation, growth and competitiveness for us as a nation. over all of my career, i have seen all of them intertwinned, and that gives me great passion on a personal love. not only what it has meant to our family, but seeing it over and over again in school after school around the current. >> could you talk about your work for senator kennedy, which i think is where we first met. liberals have gone through an evolution in their thinking about this issue. their focus early on for good reason was on school integration, and it was on the underfunding of poor schools in

poor school districts -- -- and certainly the no child left behind act has shaped the conversation around education for almost the past decade in this country. the good news about no child left behind is that it focused the country on standard-based education, on accountability and on what roll land and jeff were talking about, closing the

achievement gap. that i think was an important part of the conversation and started to change. i watched those difficult conversations in a democratic caucus that took place as we got to passage of no child. the problems with no child left behind are countless. one being the lack of funding around it. but two, the fact it was so incredibly rigid. it was a cookie-cutter approach to education that didn't reflect what is going on in states. unfortunately, because it focused on failure and success and not excellence and growth, it has driven down standards in the united states. when you think about the fact that eight states have dumbed down their standards around math, and 12 states have dumbed down their standards around reading as a direct result of no child left behind, you

realize that we have a problem on our hands that we have to reform. we can't throw the baby out with the bath water. that focus on closing the achievement gap, but all the other parts of it are in our sites in terms of the kinds of reforms we need for k-12 education. [applause] >> and what about those who say that the attacks on no child are primarily from people who simply don't want those kind of fixed standards, who don't want those accountability standards? again, you worked for a guy who helped pass this thing. what do you make of that criticism of that point of view? >> well, change is hard, and big change is harder. and getting it right -- and again, i love the fact that we can play off of the conversation that jeff and roland were having around accountability, around data, around assessment, understanding what we have to do in the way that we get it

right. we are trying to build education reform on that kind of evidence. but when you think about where we started 18 months ago and the fact that we were able to use the recovery act, and a $5 billion pod of funding in the recovery act to start moving states in the right direction. with the recovery act dollars, wented to push those dollars out quickly because we had to swabe teacher jobs. we are proud of the fact that we saved about 300,000 jobs in education. but we attached some measure of reform to that. at the same time we used that $5 billion pot known as race to the top, and a small sliver of that for a pot of money we called i-3 or the invest in what works fund, and we started to drive reform. before we even put a dollar out of the door, we watched states to -- start to change their policies and laws to compete for the dollars in four areas.

one, we had to turn around the poorest performing schools, and that is something i hope we get to talk more about. we are talking about the 5% of the schools in this country that are the very worst. i am not talking about schools where you say they are having a bad day, or it's a mediocre school. i'm talking about schools that are disastrous for our children, and we have to turn them around, and we have to, based on evidence, use models to start to change that. so one, turning around those schools. and two, investing in and providing support for excellent teachers and leaders. we have always talked about the importance of teachers, but also excellent principals that are leading every school and sending a message through the blood stream of those schools about collaboration, about professional development, about curriculum development, et cetera. three, something roland and jeff also talked about, the importance of data. i know that is an issue that sort of makes people's eyes

glaze over a bit. >> not here. >> but data not only for teachers to understand what is going on with their kids, but for parents to understand what is going on with their children as well. and then finally standards and assessment, which is tied to the movement taking place around the country led by governors, to set a college and career-ready standard for the schools. those four assurances as we call them are at the base for the race to the top. even though there are people who are resistant to the kind of change that you've talked about, we've also seen people come together in great numbers across different boundaries to work together to try and move forward in the area of reform. ladies and

gentlemen. we're. it started here. if you would please take your seat. the meeting will begin. this meeting is now called to order. good morning and wedding -- welcome to the quarterly meeting of the task service. i am the newly appnted official for the commission. my ph.d. is and human services and i have been working in emergency management for about a last six years. i am the director of the office of human services and emergency preparedness and response in the

administration for children and families. since july 6. this is my first commission meeting so let's get started. highlights of. tim clarke is the recording secretarfor this meeting. i would like to turn over the meeting to mark schreiber, the chair person for the commission. >> that you very much and welcome aboard. i want to say good morning to my fellow commissioners. just coming back from a couple of days off, it is great to see your smiling faces. i will welcome the public to allow our public meeting. -- to our quarterly meeting. reportorng on our 2010 for the president and the congress. as you all know, over the last 18 months we have taken an exhaustive look at the persistent gaps in meeting the needs in children before,

during, and after disasters. we reviewed hundreds of reports and articles, held numerous hearings, field visits, and public meetings. we have testified on capitol hill and made presentations at several national patterns of government officials and disaster response volunteers. i know ipeak on behalf of my fellow commissioners in thanking everyone who is worked so hard on this report that we are going to discuss today and hopefully vote on. the benign neglect of children that permeates disaster management policy planning and an has developed oveseveral years and will take several years to eliminate. the work is exciting and much progress, but it is far from complete and in many ways is just beginning. if children as you have heard us say of the last 18 months make up 25% of our nation's

population. in many ways outlined in this report, they continue to be neglected when it comes to disaster management. if we're not protecting our children before, during, and after a disaster, will jeopardize in the future of our country. general pockets of improvement and exciting opportunities -- but we are calling on the president to submit to congress a cohesive national strategy that addresses the unique needs of children and incorporate them into disaster policy planning and decisions. as you saw on the front page of "usa today," "children still cannot get past katrina," a study by our colleague talking about the fact that kids affected in the gulf coast arles' nearly five times more likely than other children to have the emotional disturbances, and fewer than half of those children have week health.

there was a report a couple of weeks ago talking about 12 states in the country had basic minimum requirements for child where facilities in k-12. as a country, and frankly as a people, we have let our kids down. we have let them down and katrina and we're not prepared as a country to address children's needs today is disaster were to hit. i also noticed that the fourth storm of the season is approaching. we will be staring at this issue again as a country in a couple of days. i hope we will take steps to address and make some recommendations to the president. 74 million kids are at risk in this country. the time for talk has long gone by. we really do call on the president and his administration who have tely joined us here today to put together a cohesive

national strategy and we've talked about it for too long. five years is too along. we need to make concrete changes. having said that, like to ask dr. mike anderson if you have an opening statement. >> i appreciated. today is a very important day. 18 mons of hard work has come to some fruition with our 2010 report. and i want to thank our incredible staff for all their hard work. it is an important date for the partners in our effort who are responsible for putting this commission together. it is also important that our federal partners in this effort -- people from the month as well as hhs. i want to thank them for their partnership and their support. there is also much work remains to be done as part says and i look forward to ongoing

conversations and addressing the challenges they still remain. 25% of our population are under represented in planning for, responding to cover recovering from, and mitigating disasters. we hope that this 2010 report will shine a light on these issues and make america safer for kids. as we prepare for this large scale disaster, we must be better prepared for large-scale disasters involving children if we are ready for one child who is critically ill in this country, from ems systems to local emergency apartments, from day care centers to school nurses, off from transport teams to tertiary facilities, each must be prepared for the needs of children. we know that this is sobering. while most kids are cared for in the ers, less than 6% of facilities have the facilities recommended.

been large-scale disasters, my colleagues and hhs, the department of defense, and fema must make sure that the ychological needs are met. finally i want to thank you for your leadership coming your dedication to america's children, and for all the work you've done for the commission. >> thank you and i appreciate that. but all we talk to the panelists, i want to ask irwin landau -- run letter which one i signed a spotlight and makes sure that the actions happen as a result of this report. to much call in washington and not enough response on this issue. >> i will keep this very brief but i appreciate your indulgence.

hollisaid couple words as it pertains to children, something that we should all focus on. we're talking about aecovery from the major disasters. their two reports. one is san "u.s. today," which comes to an article that we wrote as children as bellwethers. hal children do in the aftermath of a major disaster and especially how they do and recovery is the tmus test of how we are doing in general and recovered. we are not recovered from a disaster until vulnerable children say that we are what they're saying to the that we in many other people have seen is that even with the trend, five years ago, but probably 20,000 children in the gulf stilleeling the aects a persistent displacement, lack of uncertainty about their future, and what so on address mental health needs. the other study that we came out with a few weeks ago with

similar and had to do with the gulf oil spill. we found out one and out of three children were facing physical and emotional psychological problems that in fact would not go away because the oil was capped. i think we have to make sure that public officials understand that the consequences are round disasters for children do not end when the physical problems stops. when the stops blowing or the oil is controlled, that is not the end. for many families it is just the beginning. and i must say that i'm concerned as other members of the commission are that we're still waiting for the national recovery framework we were supposed to have seen coming from the administration in june, i believe. we are still waiting and the children are still waiting, most important. we need to get that out and have that be the guidance for us in terms of how we proceed with recovery that will help children in particular. thank you. >> 90, per one -- thank you,

irwin. thank you all for your work on behalf of the kids and for work not only individually but with your agencies. we want read statements from each of you and then we will open up to questions. mr. fugate, would you like to start off? >> i was given all lot of talking points to tell you what a great step that we're doing. the problem is that until there is a disaster, we will not know how great it was. that is the crux of the matter. we look back at the train as it, on a five-year anniversary and was a lot of things that could have been done differely. and the steps that we've taken within fema to address some of the needs, you are aware of. we still have a ways to go. but the emphasis where policy on children is to look at this is part of the community as a whole. were you point out, when you

read a plan and children are not even mentioned in the requirements for planning, at it is a strike against being successful. we have been rewriting the basic documents, the community preparedness guidance 101 to make sure that children are not an afterthought or assumption but are actually in there that you have to look at what children's needs are going to be. if we've taken the steps of forming this process, but an important step, her children's working group which took the approach of looking at children's issues but in preparedness response and recovery to all our programs including grant programs that provide only security fundi, state and cal governments to prepare for if acts of terrorism and other disasters to address these issues in the guide is to make sure that if children related issues were not excluded because they were not mentioned as eligible for that type of funding. and finally, establishing within the working group of permanent position that will bfor the

minister continue this work as we continue its children's ises to what the program. the other thing we did is look back at taking a step back -- one of the things they need to occur early in the disaster to allow us to bring resources to children more effectively, one of the issues that this commission race was a care centers. again, fema does not regulate or provide oversight to day care centers, but in the aftermath of the disaster there had been some question whether day care services would be eligible reimbursement for state and local government. with clarify that in the answer is yes. if we've also put more emphasis on getting schools reopened in the aftermath of disaster. unnecessarily things go back to normal, but we know the schools become a tremendous. amplification for bringing services to children. and when you look at some of the troubles that children have, is getting children back into a routine where they are back with people they are used to, and necessarily normal system's but back into a routine.

many disasters especially the size of katrina, the tendency of the association of been relocated multiple times, the act was not what the future held, and oftentimes an uncertainty even about basic necessities of went what i go back to school, often times exasperated -- exasperated children's issues and prolonged the trauma that they suffered. we can bring those services back quickly if we can start addressing these issues early in the disaster response that would give us a better outcome in the future. dealing with this is not something that they might come along consol. it is going to take couple family effort. and that ishe other part that fema is committed to. in this administration we're trying to break down the silos to approach the problem from a single one of you. there is overlapping, parties,

and rather than fema assuming those roles, we want to work part of the team and become -- will look at the -- we are part of the team. the other folks here will tell you then the other programs that represent tremendous capabilities updated day but also become key points of focus in a disaster and working within thos a bracket train horn] as the train goes by, i will conclude my comments and wait for the questions that the panel may have. >> good morning, and bake for the opportunities here. calling up on the administrators at comments, whave done a lot of rewriting. we have all had experience of the past year that caused us to want to be sure that we hardware -- hard wired this entity of all the infrastructure. examples, h1n1 taught us about countermeasures for kids. it also taught us that problems

around the country, outside the federal government, like some pharmacists having trouble compound in simple things that we used to think about doing, and in haiti, we looked at our electronic health records to fine-tune our response, and 40% of the people were seen the kids instantly to change our response ther and now we're dealing wh the oil spill in haiti looking at the behavioral health needs of the community, including data kids. and we continue to fine-tune our response, and each one wants us -- makes us want to strengthen our of the structure to address the needs for kids as we see them. with that tons of valuable input from this commission, from the national science board, from lots of experts -- all of them have helped us move toward in this very important area and we're working hard to catch up to fema.

because of the gulf situation, but because of the train and the call oil spill so much in everyone's mind, i want to provide information about what is currently under way there and talk to you and provide updates about the current and upcoming activities both with our inner agency groups, response issues, and countermeasures. certainly the oil spill had underscored an awful lot of things and you have heard from others about those children's issues. behavioral health issues been right up there othe radar screen. our actions have been relieved of is on preventing injury and illness, preventing exposure to hazardous substances, if not only among response personnel but the general public, to monitoring the long and short- term potential to help impact, and to ensure the safety of seafood. children have the potential for long-term pact. children need seafood. there has to be a lot of

calibration of all of these exposures and all these things. we'reorking very hard across the department to be of the monitor and ensure safety. as you know, the secretary ask you about the workshop what's happened downn the gall to look at the site to the basement critics basis of what is known and to identify research and surveillance opportunities. many of the recommendations involve looking at children not as a product and i think we're very focused on that and i want to assure you that children, pregnant women, and others are very much the focus of our activity including board. if much of our sho-term focus has been and behavioral health. we have made frequent trips to the call to participate in community of fans and hear from affected populations. it was actually after one of the sessions that i reached back out to those of you on this

commission that we deal with as well as aap, because of the needs of cognitions. -- clinicians. i appreciate the average that you have done and that other provider groups have done as we move forward. the experience also provided -- let us along with others to write a piece of behavioral health and the call. and i thought i would pass around some copies for you in case you have not had a chance to see it. we've been working hard with just about everyone to ensure funding for whatever health services as well as messaging a 1-800 line.

is a wonderful example of how we're all join together -- as you know, domestic violence issues and oers are housed together. acrossed to see spikes' the hot lines to worry about and try to monitor very carefully child abuse which is u -- something to move forward to address the issues of kids. we recognize the kids are going back to school and getting to our normal routine in the next couple of weeks in the call. and a guide for teachers and school administrors with tips about how to talk to kids about the oil spill disaster and the kinds of thoughts and feelings they are having that are goi on. it is right around the corner and this is in collaboration across the entire department and very much with the department of education. our children's working group which david and i co-chair is up and running and we are really

pleased about that. his already increased collaboration in coordination tremendously across hhs. we have 20 different agencie representative. it has an extensive -- we're learning a lot from the way they used that the matrix to help our coordination in the future. already the working group has been an amazing resource. they have come out and read many parts of the department to share across the part of what is going on. some tangible results that i know you'll be happy about have been bringing together people to discuss the pediatrics requirements of the strategic national stockpile, and be part of our 2010 annual review. administrator fugate and david and i have agreed that are working groups will meet together at least twice a year to be with a share what we are learning to coordinate, and to

get mutual activities underway. and there's been an awful lot that i can detail with you. if you like that tangible activity that comes from this. one of the things i learned about as a result of the children's working group that i wanted to share with you today is some really exciting work that is going on here through these kennedy-shriver initiatives in human development, or they have been working with traumatized children for a while and the a lot of very inexpensive prosthesis, and $30, that is now in use and post-earthquake haiti. i brought this along to show people. it is little and it is cheap so that you concur with it, and it lets kids be able to do things like grip. it is another tangible example of something really cool that has come from our efforts and i wanted to be of a share that with you today. on the medical countermeasures side, the review was released on friday.

finally. the last time i met with you, i too would be around the corner and it turned out to be a long corner. but i was glad to be there to read about the lessons learned about needing to do a better job to do with countermeasures for kids, and i had an opportunity in response to this question to detail a number of activities that are already under way. if happy to talk about the during the question and answer period. if you like. and finally, we continue to be thrilled to have in the direct -- andy garrett involved. he led the hiring and pediatrics dealt with pediatric countermeasures. with his leadership, but many efforts which i in detail for you are under wayo change the configuration of barton, develop guidelines for children, to deal with basic pediatric care, etc.

i want to say how much i have appreciated the commission's focus and activities. i want to assure you that we are in this for the long run. our communication fema is in this for the long run. and we're working on sustainability plans. when i first met with you a year ago, i told you that i was launching this effort in my office with janet leigh, who is gone the activities up and running. she will be leaving at the end of the year, and we're in the process of identifying staff to carry on this effort for the long haul. my goal and i'm sure is yours is to be sure that when all of our tenures and, we had baked enough of this to the infrastructure an organization that content -- that children will continue to be a focus and never be forgotten. i look forward to the discussion that follows. >> thank you. mr. chairman, commission

members, welcome. we're delighted to have you. as i moved back into the acting deputy secretary role, all the lab work without the -- with the commission throughout my tenure here, it is a good to continue the strong collaboration i've had with you. we're delighted to host you here at acf. we have primary responsibility for meeting with human services and needs of children, we considered disaster preparedness to be a critical part of our ssion. we're working very closely with and hhs, what dr. laue, with her response tt, and with the month -- with dr. lurie, with her response staff, and with payment. we do not know where the next disaster will strike, but we know that children will be heavily affected and that is what we considered this an important part of the work we do at acf.

a lot to talk about our structure for addressing human services preparedness and response isss within acf up in children and some of the things we're doing in pipe program airs at the commission has identified as important and give you updates on where we are in each of those five areas, and then i will open up for discussion afterward. our minister of structure within acf is drawn office of human services, and it has all poor acronym, and it is headed by our captain, and you know her as the designated federal official to the commission but she has recently joined us as a director of sector ofocefer, and

this is how seriously that we take the issues that we're dealing with. she has worked as a nurse officer in the public health service with extensive experience and his had experience in the medical readiness, and also is chief of staff and the office of weapons of mass destruction, operations, an incident managements in the department of homeland security. we have a wealth of experience with her and we think it she will bring our worth any area to a higher level than we have had previously. she and her team are officially responsible for facilitating our support of the mat in emergency support section 6, to stage and make sure that they are in a position and at the capacity provide the services that ildren need in the wake of the disaster. and we continue to play a vital role in ensuring that children needs are being met while they are displaced were sheltered during disasters and we work

with organizations on the ground, state agencies, if to make sure that supplies are in state comp -- are in place, the services are available, and address the city needs and make sure that safety particles are in place to make sure that children are protected in the situation. pfizer said, like the focus on five specific program areas that are within our pope leo that are relevant to the discussion and that the commission has identified as important in the wake of a disaster. if a child care, child welfare, head start, services for what we call our unaccompanied alien children program, and our disaster case management program. let me start with child care. the child care program is administered by our child care bureau. the bureau has taken a number of actions to address the challenges posed by disaster situations, and to improve emergency preparedness and response in the wake of a disaster, and let me give you highlights of what the child's

bureau has done over the years. first of all, the bureau has provided technical assistance and guidance to the child care expertise, primarily states, to increase the number of states that have comprehensive, statewide emergency preparedness plans in place. and since 2008, we have been asking them to report to us on the progress that they are making in developing these comprehense plans as part of their biennial state plan for submissions that they are required to make to us to tell us how they are using federal funds that are provided to them for talk care purpose the doctor bureau has also provided policy guidance costs about flexibility in spending funds in response to federal or state declared emergency situations to make sure that there is continuity, opt-out care services to children in disastermost importantly, we hae

partnered with fema to identify and remedy gaps in post-disaster services. they have changed policies in ways that we think is very responsi to the commission's concerns and the needs of children. we have done everything we can do to make sure we get bored out to child care and development fund grantees about expenses now eligible for reimbursement post- disaster. we have in fact co-hosted the child care administrators meeting this month to discuss and explain the new guidance to grantees. we want to make sure states our understanding is prepared to take advantage of the reimbursement opportunities made available to them in the wake of recent disasters. finally, the child care bureau has launched a new website which features a child-care resources for planning and responding to

disasters and emergencies. if you have not taken a look at, i encourage you to do so. it has resources for grantees, states, providers, parents, people displaced in emergencies. it is a very comprehensive, very user-friendly website with a wealth of resources about chd care access in disaster situations. we are very proud to have that website up and running. closely name is our children's bureau -- they are responsible for child welfare services. they monitor the state disaster plans for children in foster care and maybe displaced during a disaster situation. those pla allow for continuous tracking of foster children during emergencies. in that area, we are continuing to enforce requirements under the 2006 review and improvement act that states locate and

insurance services to children under state care or supervision who are affected or displaced by disasterituations. states are responsible to respond to new child welfare cases in disaster areas and remain in communication with caseworkers and personnel displaced by disaster to make sure the records are preserved and coordinate services and share informion with other states since people are often displaced across state lines. we want to make sure there is continuity of services from state to state. we support states in developing and updating their plans for providing a framework setting out services on the ground and making sure they are also appropriately training foster parents and child welfare staff to protect children in disaster situions. we have a national resource center for child welfare data and technology which we fund.

it has refined database on reconnecting families and the purpose is to aid states, tribes, and local governments, any agency in the wake of disaster to make sure those children who become displaced or separated from families through the reconnect family database, this allows a child welfare to track them and reconnect them with the family or the placement where they were located prior to the disaster and reduced the number of the children left stranded in disaster situations. >> if you want to hit the highlights. >> our headstart bureau has similar responsibilities. during the day, they have similar policies in place to authorize operation centers in the wake of disaster. her division of the unaccompanied children has worked closely with the states. in 2007 and 2008, they provided

support in texas. disaster case management has been important to us and the commission. we made significant strides in that area over the past year. in december of last year, we executed interagency agreement with fema which we can now integrate that after the president declares a disaster. our first pilot responded to the needs of peoe victimized by hurricane gustav and hurricane ike. that has been completed. we were working together to see what lessons can be learned to strengthen the program. we know how the mechanism in place to provide disaster case management to the femur partnership -- fema partnership. i'm delighted to be here and answer your questions.

waschildren's working group mentioned and we are excited about the potential to increase their response to children's needs, not just within preparedness response, but across all the program areas in health and human services. >> thank you very much. just a couple of quick questions and i will open up. i did not know about the position, the full time posion within the same headquarters. at is fantastic. see the recently announced they would fill a disability integration specialist -- seem up recently announced they would fill the disability immigration specialist. is there any consideration on doing that for children's sues going forward so that there is somebody in your regional offices focused on kids' issues? >> absolutely. as you know, with the erican

disalities act, it covers not only are delivery of services, but our daily business. part of this is to ensure our compliance just from our day-to- day operations which has not been where we wanted to be. it wil also reflect the phosophy we have of "planning for easy and plan for real. communities are not made up of one pe of individual who everything tries to fit when he tried to do something. communities are diverse and have many challenges and issues. this focuses on disability compliance and children with disabilities tend to be our most vulnerable groups. in expanding that and looking at children's issues in general, i hate the term special needs because it tends to denote you are building another box. instead of keep building boxes -- building boxes, we want to -- part of this is our day-to-day

responsibility, ensuring fema is an inclusive and accessible. but as we planned for disaster response, using this as a focal point to plan for real. that means you don't just have one simple answer that takes care of the population. like to keep things simple. when somebody asks for meals, the first response is to send things like mre's we're talking about being clusive. i have to grandson's. he cannot not thugh the mre bag. -- he can g gnaw through a mre bag. we have solutions and to lease th back and start asking the question about infants. we have to feed a population and

the population is not all healthy adults. there'll be a lot ofifferent dietary requirements. oftentimes, the easy answer is not the real answer. the long winded answer ises, we're goingo look at expanding its role and plan for real. we also have significant requirements for being inclusive and accessible in our delivery of services which is one of why -- one of the reasons as was established in each of the reasons. >> -- each of the regions. >> my understanding is you're going to look strongly at incorporating this on kids' issues going forward? >> yes. >> i know that atf and see my have had conversations about disaster preparedness -- the atf andfema have had conversations about disaster preparedness. has there been discussion of our

requiring states to get federal dollars to make the basic minimum requirements for child- care centers, that they become a requirement rather than reporting back? can you tie this to in federal dollars to making sure those facilities are safe for kids? >> we expect to have the program guidance out very soon. that should be available. >> my question is very soon for you may not be very soon for me. what does very soon mean? >> i don't have a specific date. we have to go to the clearing process, and i will get back to you with the date on that. >> with regard to this specific regulatory requirement, the responsibility for licensing and regulating child care providers breasts at the state level, the federal level. the child program level is under state structure.

we require states to certify their providers are meeting health and safety standards, but they're not specific with regard to disaster and emergency preparedness. that has been a concern of the commission. what the president did as part of his 2011 budget proposal which is currently before congress is proposing a set of principles for reauthorization of the child care and development fund which would allow us to strengthen requirements in a number of ways. the focus would be broadly to increase the number of children who are in safe, healthy, nurturing a child care settings. that is abroad. what we hope to do through the reauthorization of the program is specify exactly what that would mean in a number of areas. we're looking to work with congress to strengthen our authority to create requirements

that expand on the fairly general standards that exist in a number of areas, including emergency preparedness and response. >> when the members of congress asked us to come up and meet with them when we describe that there are child care facilities that may be their staffs are sending kids to that don't have plans in place, including evacuation, taking care of kids with special needs, when it becomes real as appeared -- as compared to talking about safety -- maybe for safety it's just for fire. but if there's a much different disaster than that, make it real, i can't imagine anyone in congress if they say i'm chopping my kids off at a child care facility and -- i'm dropping my kid off at a child care facility and not know if they're safe disaster were to happen. that is real. if we are getting federal

dollars, we ought to be mandating states ensure those children are safe. if you go to a fast-food joint or high and the place, we know the food is saved because we know there has been an inspector there and it's not safe, they will close the place down. it goes to the example of we have provided food but a one- year-old cannot gnaw through that thing. i have a 5-year-old and a clear step in a shelter, there would be held to be paid with my kids. if we make it real s talking about safety in general areas and say when you drop the cap off a child care facility, you don't know if that child is safe, that will agitates some parents. you know if you go to mcdonald's or risk chris, the burger or stake is inspected.

>> i completely agree. that's a direction we have indicated we want to move. i note legislation has been introduced that would give us the authority to do that. my hope is working with congress, we can establish authority to give us direction to states to require the kind of protection to be in place you are referring to. >> can i ask one more question? the disaster case management, is that going to be renewed or do we have a time frame on that? i think that is expiring in december, right? >> i think we can best commit our intention is to keep it in place. anything we need to do toake sure that happens, we will do it. >> i'm not sure of is referring to case management in the aftermath of hurricane. we have demonstrated we can use

the funds to do that and as been pointed out, the process that was used, we need to step up. one of the things in this agreement is ensuring that the states are not ready to go, they will come in and provide immediate needs. this is often times based on the history of the state. their state will have effective case management ready to provide support, but if the state is overwhelmed or doesn't have the capability, having the ability for the federal agency to provide an initial case management until we can get a longer-term state contract, traditionally fema provided grants directly to the states. but as we demonstrated in several of these storms, there are gaps. we can cerin reproduce that if it is warranted. i think it's an important tool

that we can demonstrate that. the state cannot scale up fast enough, we have a federal partner of and can enter into an agreement with and fund them out of the disaster recovery funds. we do have funds appropriated, but for making sure have appropriately credentialed managers to provide the surface. -- provide the service. we don't know if congress will give us the funding, but that will not affect our ability to ride the service. goingon't know if you are to ask about that? >> we need to emphasize -- and speaking as an actual finances and. i've seen a lot of administrations come and go.

there have been a lot of good people in various administrations, but we have some extraordinarily dedicated senior officials and i does want to make sure that while i'm wildly frustrated, i'm extremely appreciative of the dedication, intelligence and commitment your teams have brought to this question. but like to ask more about the study that was done -- what is the result? >> thevaluation is currently under review with fema. we did the evaluation in several steps. we get an outcome evaluation to see if families in fact received the services they need and were restored -- >> this is taking an extraordinarily long time and i don't understand why it's taking so long.

if you couple that with the data we are finding, we have children still from years ago he needed case management and programs terminated without resolution of cases and people fell through the cracks and we are pang a very steep price as far as children are concerned who did not get what they needed. i'm failing to understand -- and taing with a social science have on. i'm trying to understand why it's taking so long to evaluate a study to see if families were helped. it feels like a long time ago. we need to get this done and we need the recovery framework. if one of you could respond to why we do not have a recovery from work as we speak here, i would greatly appreciated. >> i can speak to the evaluation. i don't think it's taking a long time. the disaster case management pilot that served hurricane

gustav and hurricane ike victims began in fall of 2008 and was conceived as an 18-month pilot which carried it through march of this year. we got an extension from fema because some of the services had not been completed. it's only a few months ago that the pilot ended. i don't think that's a long time to complete an outcome evaluation. we're moving forward as aggressively as we can help to people to report on that as quickly as we can. >> the framework is still in process. as we're gng into working with other federal agencies on the file recommendations and clearance process, we experienced the oil spill in the gulf which means the agency's became engaged in. in respect of of having a public strategy, we were implementing it in the tennessee floods.

as the chairman points out, words in paper are not action. what did you do? one thing that's detrimental to children is to be disaced from their homes. oftentimes, being in shelters for weeks -- we took our partnership with hud and it's something we had not done before. instead of letting people come to us and waiting for the process to help them, w targeted families in shelters as a party. we sent in case workers and get immediate work to get people into housing. rather than letting this process work passively, we took elements of that strategy and engaged in active work to get people placed out of the shelter into a more permanent housing situation. in many cases, the stability that brings to a family is important to children.

while it does not stand out as a children-spific issue, we thing getting children out of the shelter environment into a housing situation is real. a big emphasis of that strategy is looking at how do we provide housing in the aftermath of disaster because we know children being moved multiple times and not having a stable environment is a key factor. those elements were implemented and we take many of the concept in that strategy and, tenn. being one of our larger events this year, we began implementing that to make sure we were taking those elements in the draft and actually running them. while that is in process, we're doing many of the things we have identified to bring stability to a community, particularly when it is children issues, a stable housing situation is

critical to the event. >> i'm very interested in the denominator. in tennessee, for instance, how many families needed the services and how many got them? runningt's tempting in an agency to talk to at what has been done and quite a lot has been done as i acknowledge. but the question that troubles me is what is the need and how far along the get? did you take care of all of the children? do you know what the denominator was? that's what you would want to know and that's what we want to know in terms of advocating for kids. >> i would not be able to break down that way. what i can give you numbers for is how many people were in shelters and how quickly we were able to get them into a housing situation. in this case, just demonstrating we have done something we have not done before which is having hud go into the shelter with us and to case manement and get people into a rental property as

opposed to allowing the system as they had done before where they have to register and go to the whole process. we knew those in the shelter had the greatest need. we targeted shelters and this is something we started as early as last year. looking at some of the more systemic issues compound children's recoveries which is get schools open, people into stable housing, these are the macro things we are trying to do at the response level and policy level. that gives us a better way of addressing issues that are other partners. then began looking at specific, children are having individually. to a least provide a stable base to minimize therauma or the duration of it. >> i want to publicly thank the

doctor and her colleagues for their continued support of the medical subcommittee. it's great you reach out to us month after month. you mentioned in ur opening comments, i was on the call last week when the secretary rolled out the enterprise-wide review and was heartened to hear her mention children in the first five minutes of her address. as others have said, the devil is in the details. how do we positively affect countermeasures or the needs of ildren in this country. to the specific areas and that more if you wish -- how do we bake in peatric issues so we're constantly thinking about them. second, how do we use the tool

the fda has to even before a crisis or a biological attack or chemical attack to make sure kids needs are addressed? i did great there is an enterprise-wide review, now the devil is in the details. >> let me talk to you about a couple of things that have already begun. i am pretty focus on t fact that learning cannot rest with individuals. has to rest with the system. the way we do the medical enterprise system and manage a going forward is a tremendous focus. we have just completed a series -- we are going through a series of and to and reviews of major areas in e porolio, like smallpox, anthrax and so on. three of the four had just taken place and we have developed standard operating procedures on the others.

one of the boxes you have to check is what are the end user requirements up front? in there, what is the anticipated population of children. it's not just children, children of different ages and sizes need different doses and metabolize drugs differently. a much more in-depth look as part of the requirements process. down the road, and terms of developing target product profiles, to be sure we can have those end user requirements baked into the process of front. i do not think you will see other requirements going forward that did not explicitly say what are the needs for children here? in response to the question that the announcement of the review, we have already started doing a number of concrete activities in that regard.

one that relates very much to your president is one of the issues with the rrent eua has to do it the possibility of the current antibiotics. if you try to mix them up, they taste so terrible that kids will spit them out. one of the things we have is work underway thru contract with a developer to figure how do you make this stuff more palatable? i'm a quick to point out of you can do this the countermeasures in the stockpile, y could do it for a lot of other pediatric medicines. the benefit will go way beyond the stockpile. the fda has committed to actively working on looking at its eagle -- looking at its legal framework. we are hoping there is something that is in between that helps us deal specifically with some of the very challenging issues

about getting mcm for kids in an emergency. i believe when all is saiand done, you'll b qui pleased with that as well. >> i have a quick question trade in your remarks, you talked about silos, which has been a term used frequently over the past year-and-a-half with in this commission. the chairman talked about need for a cohesive national strategy. but primarily to accomplish that is through information. -- the primary ways to accomplish that is there in formation. the agencies, whether federal, state, nonprofit or otherwise have access to key information.

we're pleased and impressed with your staff to begin the national mass evacuation tracking system. i know that is a state-based system. my question as, addressing this on a long-term basis is going to be expensive and complicated for a host of reasons. i'm interested in your assessment on where you are in moving towd improved information, acquisition, and where you see the primary hurdles. >> one of the first hurdles is what information do we really need? we have to have total visibility of everything and trust me, that's not the solution. it's impossible. everybody says we need to track every individual, every person, we need to track by exception. this goes to something -- it would be ahame if i do not bring this out. as much as we're talking about a federal responsibility and federal authorities, this always

starts with the family. next month is national preparedness month. for many families that have children,aking the steps to make sure you have a family disaster plan, the top of your children, and you explain this as a keyar of them being resilience, those families that have been plan, if nothing else -- as chairman, you talked about day care centers. one of the things we know from everyday events, it does not take a katrina-style disaster, just small events thatan disrupt a community. when children don't know what the plan is or how to reach parents or famy mbers, with the contacts are, it comes back to do we have a good understanding of what we are supposed to do? for the familie that can, they should be making those plans to include their children, talking to their children about disasters and hazards.

as we work with our partners to increase our participation and focus on children, one thing we don't talk about is preparedness. the more children understand about the environment they lived and, the threats and we can do to minimize those threats, the more empowered they are. this comes back to resilient children are those that have a sense the community and family have a plan. that they understand what is going on. the unknown is what i challenging. so when we look at this, like with an evacuation, in trying to track every individual, that going to be hard to do. but there are certain groups we've got to track. our states need to do, where they have the primary responsibility, children in foster care. children that are either because of dependent status upo programs or because they're actually in the care of the state, those populations are extremely important to track. unaccompanied children, children

that have family members they have lost in disaster. and as haiti and other disasters have taught us, foreign nationals who are here because ofreatment or evacuation, those are the types of populations this we're going to devote resources to have to be the first pority. as we get a better handle on that, we can include more. to track each individual, not possible. focus on the one detractor a what reason are you tracking them. those are the ones that have a dependency and we need to make sure we can connect those resources when they going, particularly when they're moved out of their community setting where they already have the support network. >> i want ask a couple of last quick questions. there was discussion -- the child welfare systems. like to talk to you about the

recommendations about the child welfare systems. we have not made much progress with that approach within your department. it would be good to get together after this discussion and tried to follow up on that. following up on that, you talked about some of the progress made on headstart and other areas. i want to be sensitive of your time, could you tell us what the one or two things are better biggest problems and what you think should be done that this commission can follow-up on? ifou were on my seat, what are the things you think of the biggest gaps in your department? if >> i think the most important thing is to maintain the focus on this issue. we have the mechanisms in place across federal agencies to do

the planning and implementation. the important thing is to keep the focus, keep the emphasis so that there is no diversion of attention from the issues we're talking about today. >> there is nothing within your agency that we should specifically focus on are you are not going to tell me that? >> i think you have told us that and i think that's what we're moving on. adding to help set up the agenda and we're movingn the agenda. we need your continued support and focus to make sure that momentum continues. >> i guess the eloquent comments about the fact that we are very impressed and support of the work you are doi, but frustrated at times -- you have heard this from this commission and for me as well. having said that, is there anything you want to add to that? >> i want to say how much i have appreciated the monthly calls we have. i think they have been very

helpful in stepping through a number of issues and having good communication about those. i would say maintaining focus is terribly important. the one thing i would like us all to focus on is having us look at children as assets. in a response, in a dister, i think there are many uapped ways to unleash not necessarily with infants, but children of many other ages have to offer in helping us manage and recover d helping families recover from disaster. i would like to see us put more focus on that in the coming year. of the events of last year in the routine disasters we deal with has given us a lot of good ideas about how to do that and

it's a placto go for all of us in the future. >> it would be helpful to me and the other commissioners when you talk about the ability to use federal grants for children's issue that you talk about the federal dollars that could be used for child care. you are very eloquently saying that talk is cheap. is there any way to see -- and ellen may be in the future, but assuming you are here next year, are their systems in place where we could see whether the dollars are following th words we're talking about and the emphasis we're getting to kids? also, whether there are one or two things you like us to focus on? >> as far as the grant program, th would be our first grant cycle to see what the awards are.

since those will be going out, what is to scrub that and see if there's any difference. i would not be too dismayed if in the average share you don't see much of that. my observation is when new guys come out, it takes a couple of years to be able to build it into the request cycle. this year is marginal. i would be more concerned the didn't happen next yr. i would expect more advocacy groups to be aware of it and targeting funding for that. -- i don't think there has been enough of the events to trigger some of the programs we would be out large- scale disaster. we solve some small cases, but i do not have the data to say what the changes. from a social science perspective, response data is not usually any good. we have to go back a year or two later and see why something

wasn't addressed. we'reot there ought anything sensitive. and i will be three issues. first, day care centers. even though we have identified day care centers is being provided by local a straight -- local or state government as being available for reimbursement, many of them are small operations and did not have substantial resources in a large scale disaster to reconstitute themselves. as we put emphasis on getting schools open, pre kindergarten will be a significant issue. interest on a place to go for children so parents can go back to work, it's hard. issue ashink this is a it is relevant to the entire issue -- entire picture, thiss something we will continue to work with our federal partners and there may have to be program

delivered by the federal government until they care centers can come back on line and it may have to take a form similar to what we have done with crisis counseling. but i do have that concern and i think they care will be a critical gap in catastrophic disasters is because of the nature of the industry and how difficult will be for the providers to come back online. second, drug and countermeasures. ase get new guidance to incorporate that into our funding and our proved purchase list and equipment and drug list, we provide the funding for the bulk of what state and local governments are purchasing in addition to the national pharmaceutical stockpile. this will be a secondary effect these countermeasures are identified, approved, and signed off on. that there bolton to the grant guidance and approved equipment list, -- that they are built in

to the grant approval. i think this was mentioned several times, my experiences tell me the more we incorporate children, particularly in the the kindergarten through 12th range into prepared as activities, the more brazilian children become to the effects of disaster. we continue to work with our partners at health and human services to look at how we take preparedness' messages to all levels, but particularly elementary school and k-12. so they're better informed about what can happen -- this is not about scaring children are trying to seal the children from the disaster, it is about them having a role to play. some of the best messaging we can come home to change behavior comes from children.

the ide that we dnot call them super victims, we call them survivors. children become a very powerful tool in promoting the message of preparedness which increases the more successful outcome in a disaster but also empowers children because they have a role to py. as we see time and again, people have a participation in an event and a positive influence are able to address distress and adjust to it much more effectively than if they're not included or not aware of what's going on or do not have a way to participate or contribute back. that comes to looking at the public as a resource and recognizing children apart of the resource where appropriate. >> thank you. many thanks to all three of you. you were here to long, so go. thank you very much. great to have you here. thank you for your good work.

we are going to move into a discussion on the report by asking commissioners to give a brief outline of each chapt. there are few outstanding issues we need to discuss and have a general discussion about the report and next steps at the end. before i ask larry to walk us through the disaster management and recovery peace, are we clear on the process? any comments? >> think you are ok. >> larry, which like to start a soft. >> chapter 1, disaster management and recovery, reviewing the recommendations and opening for any discussion on the recommendations. recommendation 1.1, distinguished and comprehensively integrate the needs of children across all government disaster management activities. this is an overarching consideration if we want to

protect our nation's future. specifically and it is recommendation, the president should develop a national strategy for children and disasters. the executive branch, congress, and on fedal agencies should it categorized children separately from e other categories. the executive branch should maintain permanent focal points for children in disasters supported by sufficient authority, funding and policy expertise. the executive branch and non- federal partners should incorporate children as a distinct priority to base disaster planning documents and relative grant programs. the executive branch and non- federal partners should incorporate education, child care, a juvenile testis, and child welfare -- juvenile justice in child welfare training and exercises. the executive branch and on federal partner should incorporate children as a distinct priority in relative

target capabilities, british training, and exercises with specific target outcomes and performance measures. the executive branch and ngress should institute accountability and progress motoring measures to track implementation of commission recommendations and the capability irovement. it goes with thedded that which is watched its addressed. -- that which is watched gets addressed. and discussion? >> i want to point out an amendment that was made to this section which was made at the request of the chair person and more specifically to the issue of creating a focal point of coordination, specifically at the headquarters level. there was a concern these positions should be contemplated at the regional level. as an example, acf, the regional

office have specific concerns about children's issues. to the question raised, the sub- recommendation is to urge fema to create a similar point of contact for a children's issues. it is great news that fema is looking to create a position at the headquarters level, but there needs to be a point of focus and coordination at the regional level that suggestion was made at the request of the chair person. >> moving on, page 22. the president should accelerate the development and implementation of the national disaster recovery from mark with

an explicit emphasis on addressing the immediate and long-term physical and mental health, educational, housing, and human services recovery needs of children. recommendation 1.3. the department of heland is security and the management agency should ensure recovery services to ildren and families is collected and shared with appropriate entities. government agencies and non- governmental organization should collect affirmation and children and families necessary to support their immediate and long-term family needs. the department, and security and federal and urgency management agency should expand with non- government organizations to enable a delivery of recovery services.

the department ofomeland security and federal emergency management agency should identify local and out of state voluntary and non-governmental organizations and networks that provide disaster assistance to families and relatives. >> did we ever discussed the question of what we mean by timeliness? thejust coming back to what chairman pointed out when certain things happen or don't happen. my timeliness may be your unacceptable delay. that kind of wording lens itself to a complete lack of clarity. the non completion of a particular task. >> [inaudible]

>> the issue is good information on the actual needs promotes an appropriate response. the right resources to the right people at the right amount of time. was to be promoted as immediate that with the ongoing declarations of disaster, we wanted to see this information sharing as soon as possible. clearly, there has been some movement on at the as far as whether it's trickling down at the state and local level whether thenformations ing supported among local works supporting children and families, it goes back to the overarching goal of do we have metrics and are we able to measure the implementations of the recommendations ofhe committee? >> would a friendly amendment to timely becoming a immediate and effective -- >> what i would say is that we

are talking about the use of the word timy. i'm looking for a harder definition of what the exctation as. i feel pretty confident in saying the longer the delay in getting some certainty established in terms of housing for displaced children, the worse the outcome is going to be. if it was up to me, i would say youave 90 days for any disaster on american soil toet children into some stable environment with access to appropriate services. 90 may be too little or too many, but -- i'm not sure we are prepared to answer what that is. i would suggest something the commission might want to be thinking about in order to get some degree of eight metric we can look to -- -- some degree of a metric we can look to.

five years later, people are still needing services. something makes sense to a charge of development point of view. i can see by the look on his face he is not agreeing with me. is if concern i'm having we do everything that is recommended in this report, i think it will become timely. the issue is it will be difficult to stipulate particular time. if we do some parts timely but not in a coordinated way, we might undermine some of the other recommendations we might have. as a concrete example, the discussion about in tennessee stent -- sending hud case workers into shelters is an excellent example of expediting the timely delivery of housing services, but i did not hear rescinding the case managers in

-- i heard rescinding in hud case managers. if we have not identified what hud case managers are, it may be that those children at risk of child abuse or exacerbation of ntal health issues are appropriately removed from shelters and placed in stable housing but they may have missed the opportunity to identify and address some mental health needs. why i'm concerned that we probably cannot have a media services and information -- there will always be some delay. it's not always going to be in real time. my strategy would beat let's talk about what are the components that need to be in place, get the right people they're providing the approprie services, and timely we leave to them. >> i'm concerned about that because i think one of the roles of the commission is to provide expertise that says this

bureaucratic complications or series of things that has to be done exactly interfering with appropriate placement of the child to the child to the detriment. i don't think we have to be ecologist for bureaucratic problems, delays, and issues when we know the longer this time of instability does, especially for families not supported in general, the more dangerous is for kids. i would take a more assertive view that let's at least say what would be best for children even if on some level we can't understand what they are suggesting -- >> let me make one recommendation. this recommendation is on the sharing of information to provide services. it may not be that we need an amendment or change to the recommendation, but we need to made -- we need to identify other recommendations for its re proper it to make this change as.

>> i could say going forward in terms of the implementation of the recommendation, the way it's writn would provide an opportunity to work with and to provide an evidence-based timeframe based on the very needs of children and families. we can certainly approach it that way as part of an implementation strategy going forward. >> we als have to recognize there is largely not a system in place to do that now. overarching this is that it's going to take time to build the kind of mechanisms to share information with the entities we believe are appropriate in the language i think the recommendation has stated is aspirational.

i think it's absolutely appropriate. the goal is to share information in a timely way so that services can be provided. in order to do that, we will have to build infrastructure and systems that cross governmental and agency platforms in order to share information. some of this is policy issue. as we talked earlier in our 10 year, there is concern of privacy statutes preventing people from staring information. -- people from sharing information. it's more sharing information to make sure reading is coordinated through the actual delivery services. >> we have raised this as we have gone through this process. while we are talking about this national system, we have talked

in our committee meetings about the majority of our disasters or responses down even make it to the federal level. so, while we've had this conversation, we've talked about the fact that whenever the system looks like, and we are not talking about somebody building a database, if we're talking but a formalized policy that allows you to share informationr whatever, this has to exist so that this happens at every level of the system. if fema doesn't turn the switch on, it still works. it's going to take a while for this to happen, but we have heard some positive things -- there is some for movement on this. >> the final recommendation --

the homeland's security agency and federal emergency management agency should provide disaster training and other resources to state and local child serving systems and child concrete care facilities. any questions or comments regarding this recommendation? >> i think the point was brought up to follow up some of the testimony provided -- we also have to make sure it's coupled with the requirements that the funding be used and the planning occur or other funding may n be received. the other concern i have this we can offerunding for the planning purposes, but for some of these groups, particularly child care, a small child care center or home day care

facility may apply for that funding or may not access the funding but nonetheless, it still needs to be prepared. we have to think of other mechanisms thatill insure this actually occurs. i don't know that we need to revise this recommendation, but i would like to staff to make sure it appears elsewhere on their report and perhaps even references back to this point. >> perhaps back in the metric, looking at the track of commission implementation of commissioner recommendations? >> i don't know the report as intimately as staff, but it talks about the fact that the disaster preparedness planning in things such as day care should be made a requirement for funding for revised health and safety standards. we might reference back and say as recommended by the commission in 1.4, funding from dhs fema

and might be used to meet this need. if we could tie that back together to say it's required but we also suggested funding mechanisms and interagency agreement mechanisms to make sure it occurs in an effective way. >> we can do that. >> that concludes chapter 1, disaster management and recovery. >> any other questions on this issue? hearing ne, david, you are up on mental health. >> i will say in summary that the mental health section recommendations, the only changes proposed from the diversion reviewed by the commission that was sent out to the commissioners are fairly minor editing changes. insertions of the names of agencies that have already been included as designated to take

the need in those efforts have been includeat the beginning of the sentence, but otherwise there is no significant change, so i will go through them fairly quickly. recommendation 2.1 is that hhs should integrate mental-health for children and to other disaster management activities and c'mon -- and congress should direct into lead the disaster mental health concept operation to formalize disaster mental an april health as a core component of disaster preparedness response and recovery efforts. this is essentially the same we had in our interim report and now designates it that hhs should lead does efforts in doing that. questions or comments? recommendation 2.2 is that hs should enhance the research agenda including psychological first aid, cognitive behavioral interventions, social support intervention, bereavement

counseling in programming's intended to enhance children's resilience in the aftermath of a disaster. a working group shoulde convened of pediatric experts to review the research portfolios of agencies, identify gaps in knowledge and recommend a national research agenda across the full sperum of daster mental health for children and families. this is essentially what was recommended in the interim report with the addition of focus on chilen's resilience and doing research to identify programs that would hands children's resilience. as we heard in testimony, this is an area of interest and need and one that has not been particularly well studied to date. any questions or comments? i will go to 2.3. federal agencies and non-federal partners should enhance prepared this in mental-health, including

they should strengthen the crisis counselling assistance and counseling program to better meet the mental health needs of children and families. to simplify the immediate isp ant application to minimize the burden and to facilitate the rapid allocation of funding. the discussions with ccp felt that the best way to accomplish

that was simplification of the process. this is essentially, what we have discussed before. second was to go established the position of coordinator. this was a recommendation that have come out of our iowa visit. to indicate and promote enhanced services. that is a term that had been used by c cp -- ccp services. the last bullet on that would to include treatment support and education within services typically provided under the ccp.

any questions or comments on that recommendation? in terms of 2.5, we recognize that the funding would not be sufficient in order to provide funding for direct mental health services becausehey more coordinate services and build upon the mental health infrastructure already in place within the community. if that were lacking or insufficient, we recommend that congress to establish a single flexible grant funding mechanism to specifically support the delivery of mental health treatment servis that address a full spectrum of the behavioral health needs of children.

will move on to the next section. >> thank you very much. >> they released a wide review, we modied recommendations and i do want to take a little but talk of time -- a little t of time. we actually need more. the commission is on the table information on the screen, this is pretty significantly different in a couple of areas. recommendation 3.1 -- congress should ensure the availability at the federal, state, and local levels.

the specific bullet underneath the there really have not changed whole lot. provide funding for the acquisition specifically for children and all federally funded. in 2010, they are re-examining the sms for pediatric materials. to allow the fda at the discretion of the hhs secretary -- we feel that based upon good scientific knowledge, the secretary made able to use this as a mechanism to put other agents in the stockpile. the next has been a little bit controversial. external experts to advise the secretary of hhs on issues 14

specifically to pediatric emergency. i once again believe that no matter what the life of the commission is, we have to have a constant presence at the discussions when it comes to medical measures for kids. while we have pretty little bit of the downside to this standing advisory body, i think this is an important recommendation that the commission should stand behind. there are other great agencies be out there. -- out there. pat establishes a work -- that establishes a working group to make recommendations. finally, include expertise on the hhs enterprise governance board or a successor. i want to delve into that just a second, chairman. these of the five basic bullets that we started with. if you delve into some great --

specifically on track changes. to the is a paragraph that starts with in december of 2009 and goes all the way through -- their report recommends -- and i am reading from the second paragraph. you can read the rest, including the academy. banks to steve for helping us formulate this. it will be a very important key person and development of common measures for children. i think that there should be a bullet under this recommendation. we talked about governance and

having pediatric leaders at the table. we know that this is a new projects. a friendly amendments' -- it -- this needs to partner with pediatric leadership and organizations. >> i do have two questions on this. one is back to administrators' statement. i do not see anything that addresses the concern to make sure that the funds that fema provides takes care of that. the other question i have refers to page 40, as have our is spoken to you about. the commission looks forward to working with its partners. if the commission is not extended, is a moot point. we would not be working with them going forward.

i think we need to make sure that there is forward movement and the capability still exists and it is not resting on us. >> we need to make sur that succession planning is in place. the great children's champions should be listed there. we still have a lifetime commitment, no matter what happens for a while. weeed to list important pediatric organizations there as well. >> i do not know how to address the administrative duty, it's in this section about finding that peanut controls related to -- funding that feed the controls. -- fema controls. something to do with his funding and the medical countermeasures to make sure that it gets into his granguidance. >> the medical countermeasures

for both state and local probably are funded through fema. that compaq's what is available at the local level. >> that is also part of the issue, too. >> he clearly made it a point that it was one of his concerns. >> could be i ask -- i would like to ask dr. garrett if he would comment about this. his role and relationship to what we are talking about. >> we were talking about the the long-term prospects in dealing with countermeasures. if they were funded, wre it would come from. who is minding that store? we talked about creating a new

position. is that correct? >> the secretary did. >> i would assign that to you, personally. how would that relate to what you are doing around medical countermeasures? someone should be at a senior level responsible for that in the hhs. the court asks you arise, please. [laughter] >> i am happy to answer your questions to the best of my abity. wildwood stakeholders within agency. certainly, in our role, we collabate with them, but it

there at this point. >> we are looking for ways to streamline its. really the senior personnel responsible for pediatric issues across the board. but i'm concerned about is the immersion- what i am concerned about is the evolution of multiple sources of pediatric expertise and authority in a variety of governmental agencies which may or may not be working so well together. as a senior person overseeing or reporting to the secretary about all things pediatric that relate to disaster funds. i do not know if that is feasible. a good thing. >> not clear whether you are asking my opinion. >> i am asking you whether the

creation of a senior person is something -- is that what we should be asking? >> i cannot answer that. i thi having a point percent -- medical counter brett -- medical countermeasures is a specifics science. i think it is reasonable to have someone who has pediatric expertise looking at medical countermeasures. >> this is my point. there is a potential issue for all bus, as we are making recommendations for pediatric expertise, that will do a lot of -- a lot of agencies will do a good job. who is watching the store is where i astruggling to find out how that happens. >> thank you, dr. garrett.

>> i do not think we have addressed the grant issue. >> i think bullets number one it does talk to the developments. at a higher level, bullet 1 under 3.1 addresses end. i think it does call for the equitable funding at all levels. >> i do not mean to put it in a bullet. we need to be specific. he raised that as a very specific issue that he wants to make sure that his team of grant funding is tied into that. he went out of this way to give us that. >> it is a small amendment that

would address this. under the first bullet, when we say providing funding for development acquisition of stockpiling, at the end you would say, including those of funded under the fa -- we would be calling it out at that way -- at least that way. >> let me address that. >> provide funding and appropriate brandt guidance. -- grant batons. --rant guidance. unless it is authorized in your grant guidance, you will not be asking for a period -- for it. >> i would like this recommendation to the knowledge a new enterprise that is emerging.

i do not think it needs a new bullet. this new mcm leader has to have a tie to the pediatric community. it has to be tied -- i do not know how to put that into burbage. i just do not want that to be lost. -- has to -- put that into verbage. >> is definitely a big challenge. should he wait and on the eigh in-- should he wai on this? >> i think we are trying to craft language on the new

enterprise review, the creation of a new lead. i think it is a great step for everyone. the issues in pediatric are so unique. you know the issues well. we want to make sure that this recommendation some halt -- that new leave it is somehow a pediatrician, or somehow tied very intimately into the pediatric community. >> ok. >> i think that is the area where this recommendation makes the most sense. >> within the report itself is a recognition that there's a lot of folks would different policy responsibilities for medical

countermeasure developments, decision making, acquisition, and so forth. the idea of this medical countermeasures lead is to be a point of contact in leadership across the entire enterprise. it is not specifically for a particular population. the language that has now been included in the text speaks to the importance of having such a position within the enterprise and the need to have that position coordinate, communicate with the commission and other non-governmental organizations that have an active interest in medical countermeasures for children. i think it is stated pretty clearly. we can develop some language to do that. >> this is a general question.

i do not know if there is an easy way to fix this. we have made a lot of recommendations that we have to have a spokesperson, an advocate, for children's needs. thermight be one among many people. we also have to provide some funding for children's medical countermeasures. often there is a tendency to get the low hanging fruit, the items that are about ready to hit market. but i do not really see that we have created any mechanismo remedy the deficiencieshat we have in the current strategic national stockpile. we have attempted, just one measure, and have spent almost a decade. within the commission, a solid year. we still have not remedy that, even though it was very close to being able to get approved by the fda. i do not know if there is way of underscoring the fact that we

have to do more than a little bit more. we actually have to reach equality of medical countermeasures and other federay funded cachets. going'm hearing now is forward, which the new countermeasures are going to be approved, and they have to go over children's dosing and indications. but i have not heard about going back and filling in gaps. >> if you'll recall, one of the language changes that are proposed is to ask fda -- take a look i meant -- medical countermeasures that are currently in the stockpile and place a priority on getting them labeled for pediatric use. i guess we could week that

language slightly to also address other immediate issues in. >> the concern that have is that yes, we are paying attention to it now. we may make it a priority, but we have a goal that we will hold -- tt it reaches parity? that we aually eliminate the gap and then we will judge whether we have been successful, not if it has just been a priority that we have made some effort, but actually we have remedy the problem? that is a concern that we have had. i do not know if we state that. >> the overall section says we need to go backwards, forwards, to make sure things are safe. the tenor of the section, that is there. i still believe the advisory body addresses some of your concerns. we have experts that helped reach consensus, helped reach

eight research agenda. we have had disagreements about that body, but i stand behind it. >> david, are you referring to some benchmark across the federally funded medical countermeasures system? we want the gap filled in for 25% of the population. >> correct. >> why don't we put the number in? >> that the state, at least, that only once we have remedied or eliminated the gap in medical countermeasures for children within the national strategic stockpile or supported will we have succeeded in this effort. maybe it is just a sentence that

you need to put in there, but i do think it is -- you have to say that it is ok to do more. we have to fix the problem. >> on the edited pages, the report recommends a resource with enhanced capabilities. the report recommends to work proactively with industry sponsors in targeted areas. the commission recommends that one of the targeted regulatory scientific initiatives the pediatric labeling. once again, it does not have to be a seven the bullets. i just want to a acknowledge it. i think it is an important plan.

i do not necessarily think it needs a different bullets. these are the edits that i see, mr. chairman. are there comment from the group? >> 3.2 -- hhs should enhance pediatric capabilities to the integration of training, guidance, exercise, supplies, and personnel. we talked about this before. the reserve pool of health care workers and that we have the health care coordinator on each and every disaster team. on the record, i think they have done a nice job. i think that this one stands. comments from the commission? seeing none, 3.3

we have to talk about training. health officials that may treat children, we called for the the president to work dectly to prioritize the core curriculum at and research. we have built some very good bridges with this group. the core competencies are really part of the federal funds. it would be an excellent condition. this is pretty similar to our interim report. i think progress is being made. comments? 3.4 -- we are now talking about regionalization. the executive branch and congress should provide resources for formal regionalized pediatric system of

care during and after a disaster. there were many wake-up calls during h1n1. we felt a lot of facilities that were not in any way shape or form ready to take care of children. this concept of regionalization -- i think we're just scratching at the surface. this is something we need to spend some more time on and emphasized more. this is pretty much the recommendation we have in the interim report. >> why are we focusing on its more now? -- why aren't is refocusing on its more now? >> i think it is a start.

it is a good point. this is a good start. we talk about funding and hospitals through regulatory should be prepared. i think it is a good sta, if you will. i just think that would bar band with and the first 18 months, we have not delve into this as much as we should. i think the commission remains important. anything else on 3.4? 3.5 -- recovery of pediatric -- this could be in the recovery section as well. we have an entire day symposium on recovery from disasters. we heard from great pediatricians and mental health experts and how a kid is to

have the symptoms back -- system is back on line as quicklys possible. we have had a couple of weeks -- tweaks. the executive branch should recognize mental health delivery systems. we keep hearing about the national disaster recovery a framework. incentive payment for providers that are still in disaster areas. we should adopt a new code modifier.

comment on that? now to 3.6. eta and hhs should expand research on pediatric environmental help assess it would disasters. we build some good bridges with epa and the national academy of pediatrics. there are some guidelines out there, they are not as well- known as we think there should be. there is not so much research as to what is safe and how little should there be any home before it is safe to return to a homicide take care center or a child care area? comments?

that includes -- that concludes chapter 3. >> are there any other fal comments or questions? very good. we're going to emergency medical services and pediatric transport. >>hank you, mr. chairman. emergency medical services and pediatric transport provided the medical subcommittee with a lot of work and effort. mostly because, as we delve into the issue of -- we identified that we cannot really get to the base of the problem because we did not know who to talk to any federal government. this is the impetus for recommendation 4.1. if better " -- a federal agency that is responsible for medical services.

it calls for the president and congress to clearly designates emergency medical services would primary responsibilities for the coronation of grant programs, research, policy and standards, development, and implementation. concurrent to that is the second recommendation to establish a dedicated federal grant program underage designated federal agency for disaster preparedness, specifically including pediatric equipment and training. in a discussion?

we understood very clearly that without supporting the pedtric care needs on day-to-day operations, we cannot expect them to perform well during times of disaster. congress should try it -- surprise -- supply additional funding for children. this is a longstanding program run out of hhs that has done great work over the years in supporting children's care across the country, but needs more support. we call for that specifically. ineligibility of guidelines for the center of medicare and mecaid services -- we request that reimbursement to the first responders organization who billed medicare and medicaid that they be required to meet the guidelines and advanced life-support equipment on their

emergency response vehicles. hhs should establish strong pediatric performance measures would then the re of federal emergency preparedness grant programs. hhs should also address the findings of the gap analysis research. performance measures that we have passed -- that we have asked about with the theatrical equivalent ambulances and facility guidelines agreements to expedite the pediatric transport. institutional as asian -- institutional asiization. >> we will be better prepared as a nation for large disasters

involving kids if we canake care of that one child really, really well. this is one of the most important recommendations. >> without question. >> this may seem like a minor editorial issue. the performance measures for pediatric care and transport, right there they are -- righ now they are bolted and boxed. i did not understand -- i can understand an articlor a chapter. i thought we were jus boxing anbalding are recommendations. could we just put this into the narrative and say, in particular, we would like to draw like to the critical measures which are -- i do not think it needs to be drawn out in that way. it is uncar to me why it is.

>> so often, we talk about these lofty goals that we should care for kids better. what of my dear colleagues keep talking about metrics and taking care of could -- taking care of kids. it was a bullet before. >> i would suggest that we should put it in a bullet if we want to specifically need is critical metrics. within the text, was what they e. if you are reading for the report, it is unclear as to what that means. i was not trying to minimize the importance of it. but i do not think what you're trying to convey is conveyed clearly. >>he whole thing is not clear to me. i am really frustrated about this. everybody knows that it is valuable. it is unbelievably criminally

underfunded. the same message i ge to our federal officials i give to ourselves. let's get serious about this. what is theenominator that we have not achieved yet? if we need 100 times more money to make it functional for america's children, then say that. it will cost a lot of money. this is just rhetorical. what is the cost? how does this party rank against others? -- this priority rand against others? if we advise them on rhetoric without specifics, without recognizing the need that is unmatched, we will be right -- weill not have a lot of work for the recipients to get. nobody in their right mind is saying that we should not have

pediatric education for people to work on ambulances. what does that mean? it means that we need $50 million of appropriations to support -- we have to get to that point. otrwise, this is a shelbourne document at the end of the day. i am trying to avoid that. >> we actually didave a number specifically put in that was edited out during the process. it was 26 points 26.25. >> that is a nice number. [laughter] >> it would be an increase over what they currently have. one of the challenges that we faced in determination process of what numr we would recommend is that we do not have a good ia of the gap. we struggle with actually being able to tell you how many

ambulances there are in the united states. much less how much equipment we may need on each one. while we do know is that the performance measures developed and the pediatric committee supports would meet that need on each ambulance. >> i want to quantify -- how you quantify that? is the big question. >> i would be happy to get this. i would say, thank you very much for the recommendations. if i am writing a congressional subcommittee -- what is it that you actually need? it is not actionable in this form. we have a limited life span, the commission, and will expire this

year or two years from now. i think we need a very actionable set of recommendations in general. the administrator is telling us what they did in tennessee, but did that solve 10% of the problem or 96% of the probm? if we do not know that, i do not know how to evaluate that. >> why was the money edited out? >> there were a couple of reasons. i was one of the people that suggested it. we had not really disgusted as a group and it was not clear how that number was ascertained. it may have been in the subcommittee, so it was very hard if it was adequate. was it even enough? i think there is the danger of saying we need $26.2 million and

really need $100 million. that was part of the reason. the other part was that there was not anyplace else in the whole report were we specified a dollar amount for other funding that we set were priorities. a kind of stood out from that perspective. if it is out of an instite of medicine report, we could say -- within the tax, we could say that the institute of medicine has recommended a dollar amount of whatever the number is and the commission in the absence of further data at this point support that or recommends finding at least that level. i thought it seemed odd to say that we want this exact dollar amount. >> does that make sense to you? >> sort of. there needs to be a pediatric expertise in the mix.

there is a very specific recommendation. we need to keep pushing on it. other recommendations are bureaucratic recommendations. if we'd just say, it would be nice to have more robust funding and we do not put a numr in there, i know it is hard -- and i agree with what you were saying -- this got me started. i really think the dollar amount would be beneficial in a lot of different areas of our recommendations. >> we are on this recommendation now. do we have an issue with that, chris? >> it makes reference to the budgets.

>> i do not have a fundamental problem with that. if we were to take the performance measures and specifically identified them under sublet one -- sub bullet one as a that is where we want you to go. that is a very specific recommendation. we note they need increased fiscal support and we will identify what that is in the body of the reports. but now we have given a clear benchmark that we can come back to in a year and say, how are we doing? does that bridge both the areas? >> putting the numberack in is a great idea. >> this is recommending that we authorize that the appropriate the full amount that was authorized. at the very least, we can

recommend that. >> we do not know whether the full amount -- what is the basis for the thorization. both congressional authorization, out of the air. i like david idea of tying it to something. if there is an independent academic or basis for estimating what the real number is, otherwise, we're picking a number. >> agreed. >> in the absence of that, we could say that we need further study and that needs to be done to determine the actual funding that would be required. on an interim basis, we did support funding at the authorized level. >> if memory serves correctly, david, the report that came out in 2006 action recommend a specific dollar amount. i do not have memory.

i think we action had in the interim report. >> i think the numbers that were expressed -- >> there better numbers. >> i don't remember. >> we are trying to decide a better number. >> these numbers are not necessarily scientifically based. they are numbers that are supported by numerous advocates that are pushing for greater funding for the programs. that is reallyhat we have to go along. >> i am perfectly happy about putting back again with the authorized numbers are. and the performance measures. that gives us something to go back to and physically look at and say, how did we meet this? what is the percentage? >> to remove it? -- do we moved it? >> to ensure all and build says

are appropriately -- >> the commissione was good enough to find an interim report that they recommended funding to be increased to $37.5 million. >>hat is the language we are using with metrics in there. >> we can certainly reference that. >> what we were doing was going to recommend much less than what we had recommended that the interim level? >> good catch. >> keep moving. >> i have one other comment. this has to do with the

recommendations related to the gap analysis. the concern that i had about this section in the tax was that it was not disaster specific. i completely agree that we have to have a good system in place to support children on a day-to- day basis. but i do not think we should just advocate for having good research in general. we should be talking that it needs to be disastrous pacific. as an example, we also talk about the need to increase randomized clinical trials. i do not know if that would be the right mechanism to do disaster related research. those were my concerns about that section. we also talk about the and portions of having a center for research, but we do not say that it is a center for research

related to disaster preparedness. those are my concerns abo that area. i think it is too vague. >> i think we can easily fix that by adding something along the lines -- pediatric disaster research. if you look at the gap analysis, you find that there are actual sections on disaster research. know that is one of the big gaps there as well. that is already in that gap analysis. we just need to highlight it. >> one option is that the paragraph that starts wh -- better highlighted be edited down six vividly to say that we agree with the importance of addressing the gaps that were identified, but we also specifically would like resours devoted to research as it relates to disasters and not

going to a lot of specifics that we need more randomized clinica trials. those to not seem to be directly related to that. >> correct. >> any objections? >> good. >> hhs to develop a national strategy to improve emergency transport and patient care capabilities. they should conduct a national review of existing capabilities for emergency medical transport of children. this recommendation came out of our discussion with the department of defense as well as -- about the process by which we move patients around this country in a disaster environment. it was unclear if we were meeting the standards we felt were important.

there was a factor that we felt was important to identify and understand to what extent it exists. we understand that the national ambulettes contract, there are certain requirements on them to meet when they dispatched there ambulances to a disaster area. how does that functionally work toward ensuring that children get what they need during the transport process? this also speaks back to the recommendation of regionalization issue that during the times of a disaster involving a lot of children, we will have to move a lot of kids. we will need to be able to move these children safely and effectively. this is really an important follow along for the commission as well as hhs to ensure that we

understand what our capability is and where the gap is currently in that capability. >> that would be the end of transport. >> any follow-up questions? >> talking about disaster case management. >> let's review where we are. provide a consistent holistic services that achieved tangible outcomes. this is a general recommendation that we have discussed a multiple times in the past. the executive branch and congress should should provide adequate funds for disaster case management systems for nationwide capacity and that was touched on by the administrator

earlier today. we should clarify the trantion. a point that i want to emphasize, this is particularly important as we look back on the flow of things post katrina were the transition was a profoundly on clear and a lot of children fell to the >> during that process. -- tough the crack during that process. discussions? comments?

>> turned -- i turned the page than half of that was missing. -- i turned the page and half of it was missing. >> as i am looking through this and hearings today, i think -- to say adequate funds without defining that is not sufficient, not going as far as we could or should go, in my opinion. i do not know that we have the -- 9 >> i agree with you. >> how should we handle this question? if the commission agrees that we should be getting more specific on a dollar amount, we do not have its, nor does anyone have its. >> the rack -- the

administration made a recommendation? >> the president's budget has a $2 million request. towards disaster case management capacity. but we say here -- the original request medical glove years ago was for $10 million. -- the original request made 10 years ago was $10 million. >> it is a new proam. it is a line item that has been provided specifically for the disaster case management program. >> do you have any sense whether the relevant executive- branch agencies thinks that $2 million is adequate? >> it is the president's request. what we say in the narrative is

that the commission is concerned that $2 million is not enough to adequately support to a national disaster capacity building case management program. however, we do not have the capability for the information to be able to say, what we think that number should be. $10 million, up $25 billion, pick any number. we are conceed that $2 million is inadequate. it needs to be -- >> $2 million for the united states -- you could pick any number, but i would not pick $2 million. >> i do not know what number -- there is nstandard here. we have expressed concern about it. we need to but stronger language in saying that -- it seems to me

wholly insufficient? do we need to use a much stronger language? >> we say on page 64 that the amount is not sufficiently funded. we tell a little bit about the history, the funding history. and where things currently are. >> in the actual recommendation, though, i think we should be up the language there to get a lot more assertive about the fact that the $2 million is not sufficient. could we ask for documentation of how the $2 million was rationalized? we may have the data, but where did it come from? it is probably just the number. suddenly, it is $2 million. >> a you asking me what they' plan was? >> what are the objectives for that $2 million national

program? how does that work? >> their languages capacity building. i am confident that what they're talking about is developing a plan for. our recommendation calls for build support and deploy. it is a whole different animal. it seems to me that the recommendation ought to be not just research and plan for how we could do it under the best case scenario, but actually develop a plan that deploys a case management system. i think we should come on stronger. >> you want to say, provide increased funds? we really do not have the capability to say no. specifically. -- say a number specifically. can we ask for an explanation? can we ask for a rationale for

developing i funding target? >> if it really is $2 million to develop a plan, what does at plan involved? >> actually, what could be instructive is the budget justificion language that was submitted in the year when they requested $10 million. that would give you a sense of the scope of what was contemplated within the normal course of budget negotiation and what congress dealt they would apopriate. i am sure when the number came down to $2 million,hey had to

find a way to make do with a plan. in reality, there were only provided with $2 million to make it work. that is what is trying to be expressed in this section. foa plan to work adequately -- $2 million does not appear to be a sufficient amount. about casest talking management here. this is not development of new drugs. we know what we need to know about case management and disasters. i just cannot quite get why we need a continued analysis. we had a study of the case management -- it was unnecessary. they talked about what they got to and what the results were. do not think those thing

needed to be tested against one another. case management, as it is understood by people who actually practice in the field, is not up for a 5 burk 10-year exploratory process. at the end of the day, it does not end up in deployment. i feel like i would like to see thwhole picture. what is it going to cost to deploy what people gerally considered to be critical case management after a disaster? >> david? >> it appears to me that as we finalize this report, there are a number o gaps in terms of how will be implemented in specific dollar amounts. i would think that that would be our own water commission would turn to next after we released the report. , let's get people in

some experts together. what will actually take? that may be a better strategy than trying to grab at a number as we try and a vote on the report. >> i agree, david. for this 1 especially. the other one, -- ll line >> we have already talked about that. >> is the intention to change the word adequate to something else or leave it there? >> does it matter? >> is it enough? i am trying to be as assertive as possible about getting this going and making sure it is adequately funded. . .

gg

>> up next a conference with state district attorneys. and on this morning's "washington journal". topics include the november elections and the republican party and their look at military conditions continues. watch "washington journal" each morning at 8:00 eastern. today, voters in alaska, florida, vermont and or know sa vote on state primaries in florida they'll choose senate candidates of democrat parties. we'll have live election coverage at 8:30 eastern and later get an update on arizona's

primaries. senator john mccain faces former congressman,jd hayworth. district attorneys from around the nation are meeting this weekend in washington for a conference. discussing human trafficking hosted by the national district attorney's office. this is about an hour. >> in november 202008 ran own

posted of montgomery county district attorney. he is a wonderful resource and able to reflect on ways in which his jurisdiction has had to evolve and grow to better meet the needs of victims. we all struggle will institutional change and how to reshape our criminal justice responses and institutional responses. how do we do better and protect victims more. he's the president of the national children ass lions and also a member of the board of directors of the national district attorney's association. i'd like to welcome him here right now. [applause] we're just checking to make sure there's no u.s. attorneys.

>> i want to know who the dogs are? those are yours? okay, marry, th mary, thank you. very good. well, good morning. again to all of you and a pleasure to be here. we were talking about finances and how it's a challenge to be here with the budgets the way they are. i'm sure all of you are faced with the same budget con straintses we are in o hostra t constraints as we are in ohio. it takes a might out of what we're doing and we've got to do more with less people. they've talked