that to scott amey. guest: it is very difficult, and i will try to handle your last question first. it would be easy to say go to your members of congress, turned to the project on government oversight or other watchdog organizations out .here, and possibly the media if you come across public information that you feel has overly weighed security against personal privacy. but better said than done. that is, unfortunately, the chilling effect of all these cases that come out, that we don't have the infrastructure in place to provide many protections for you. i don't necessarily think you have to worry about -- unless you were working for the government and you have clearance and access to classified or top-secret information -- and then at that point you need to seek the proper legal advice and go through the proper and release whatever that information is to members of congress where at least you have minimal protection. but you are raising good questions. security versus privacy.

and unfortunately, with home,logy -- in my what's we switched over to a portable phone that was no longer connected to the wall, there is a sense that you lost privacy because at that point your neighbors could pick you up on a different channel, you could get a cup on a scanner. i think at that point -- and now with new technologies out there, with the internet, with the cell phones, i wonder how much of a sense of privacy that we even believe that we have that is genuine versus that you hope we have, the ideological thought that i still have a private life and anything that i do -- but the more that you get into the internet and google and every thing else, you are seeing that people are gathering this metadata and using it to their advantage to entice you to either shop or, in this case, for the government to track who you are involved with in your life. host: let's see if we can get one last call in.

gordon, north carolina. caller: this is the problem -- the united states has laws. we don't abide by the laws. that is why everything is going crazy. plus, we use unionized workers for all these federal problems. host: we are going to leave it there and throw those 2 to scott amey. are the laws on the books stricken off and how did the unions come into play -- a strict enough, and how do the unions, to play? guest: it is the interpretation of those that we are struggling with in the snowden case? is the department of justice in its constitutional right to do what it is done in the wake of the patriot act and the national -- the national homeland security act that have subsequently come? it is also a question of are the interpretations legally correct? have they been challenged? it sounds like up to this point they are perceived blanket approval for members of

congress as well as the courts, and that will be the biggest fallout over this, that they are just that we will see that there are more checks and balances added to the system to see that the trepidation that these senior policymakers are making are the proper ones -- the interpretation that these senior policy makers are making the proper ones. on the unions, we have federal government employees unions, we have units that were for contractors -- unions that work for contractors, but the federal government has laws on the books where they have to pay prevailing wages and do what it needs to do and help out the workforce and in the economy we are in now, i don't have problems with that. i don't want shortcuts taken were government employees or contractor employees are going to suffer at the risk of a bigger bottom line for the companies that are coming in and doing that work. host: scott amey, general counsel on the project on government oversight, thanks so much. washingtonl for " journal" this morning. we will see you at 7:00 eastern time tomorrow. we will leave you to go to the senate homeland security and

governmental affairs subcommittee on emergency management and intergovernmental and the district of columbia. they are looking at [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> just repeating, we are live here on capitol hill in the

senate office building where the meeting and emergency management is about to conduct hearings examining the impact that fema grants have had on u.s. emergency preparedness since 9/11. panelists include the deputy it minister timothy manning and officials from homeland security, who will assess the role that federal, state, and local governments are playing in preparedness for man-made and natural events. we do expect this to get underway in just a moment. ranking minute -- ranking member land fall, of kentucky. , of kentucky.

[gavel] >> thank you very much for being here this morning. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the subcommittee of emergency management in government relations in the district of columbia. i want to begin by thanking all the witnesses here today for their willingness to participate as we examine the impact on the fema grants for enhancing prepare ability at the state and local level and the metrics for measuring our progress as a nation. almost $40 billion have been spent on equipment, training, and exercises since 9/11 for emergency management and homeland security professionals and first responders in an effort to enhance preparedness and recovery from natural and man-made events. these grants support investments being made by cities and communities across the country. the funding is leveraged in a

variety of ways to encourage a variety of community responses. our response to disasters have evolved over the years as lessons are learned and processes are streamlined. fema continues to struggle to quantify improvements and achievements that will inform future investments to address critical gaps in capability. congress has attempted to incur prepare ability as a measurement in the past. in 2016 directed fema to prepare a national prepared in this system and gold could be used to find the target level of fairness, requiring the level of a national prepared this report. fema has made progress towards addressing these requirements for a second national preparedness earlier this month. unfortunately after significant delays the report falls short of truly measuring stated goals. as we will hear, they haven't

encountered challenges regarding current bubbles of preparedness for clear objectives, scalable and measurable base line objectives. reporting requirements have changed many times over the years. there have been many changes recently in reporting and data requirements that states and localities must provide. their approach will naturally develops, methodology stakeholders need a sense of consistency in order to remain progressive in measuring capabilities. states and locals must be able to prioritize funding that they receive for their most pressing threats and hazards. local officials are best positioned to understand the critical infrastructure that exists within their jurisdictions and are fully invested in finding the best way to prepare for emerging threats and the disasters of all types. our intention is not to increase the number of reports that

local, state, and federal officials submit for assessment, we simply want to make sure that the reports required truly measure progress in achieving goals and leveraging metrics and standards that remain flexible and not overly prescriptive. a single one size fits all reporting methodology may not be responsive to the unique threats, hazards, and organizational structures present throughout the nation. in my home state of alaska we understand the importance of scaling generalize requirements and priorities. metrics that are applicable to york city may not translate to anchorage, fairbanks, or a small village in our state. flexibility is required to allow states to be responsive to their biggest hazards and be effective when they emerge. alaskas remote location means that we must assess hazards

internally but also consider , but from the port of los angeles, the cutting off of shipping lanes to facilitate moving food to alaska. even though the highways and transportation of vital resources from the midwest to the west coast are 1,000 miles away, an attack on a critical bridge could -- could affect the supply chain to anchorage and the rest of the state. along the yukon river in alaska, the breakup of the spring resulted in devastating flooding. these events test the resolve of the affected systems and highlight the investments made over the years in grant dollars and state general funds. since 2003 we have received over $190,000 to conduct exercises for local residents, critical equipment, building

interoperable critical capabilities. the state coordinated with the panama chiefs conference in march of this year to further develop their working relationship on disaster response and recovery. they say that you should not be meeting critical partners for the first time on the site of a disaster and these exercises contribute to the swift response and smooth recovery. i believe that these investments are worth making and federal funds can support actions already taken place at the state and local level. in pursuit of national preparedness we are greater than the sum of the parts. stakeholders have worked diligently to remain accountable to taxpayers in an effort to use the decrease in grants efficiently and effectively when accomplishing major goals. as the maxim goes, when what gets measured gets done, we must assure that we work collaboratively to actively

support investments that show clear progress. this is a national goal and it must remain a national priority. before the testimony today i would like to introduce our new members here. did i say that right? [indiscernible] if you have a few comments before we start? >> thank you very much. i, living in a state that has been so devastated over the past year, i appreciate what fema is doing to bring our state back to where it needs to be and i look forward to the conversation with these important issues today. >> thank you very much. welcome to the committee in total. we have our first panel here, i will introduce and start from this side and kind of go down. the hon. timothy manning, deputy minister of preparedness and national emergency management. anne richards, assistant

inspector general for audits. maou rer?s it thank you all free for being here. -- all three for being here. when the ranking member arrives he will do some opening comments, he may interject between your testimony is. let me start with the hon. timothy manning. >> good morning. thank you, chairman. members of the committee, good morning, in the deputy it minister of fema and on behalf of secretary napolitano, thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. these programs have contributed significantly to the overall security unpreparedness of the nation. we are more secure and better prepared to protect against, mitigate, and recover from the full range of hazards and

threats faced by the nation than we have been at any other time in our history. the slot -- this progress is fueled by the fema grant programs. over the past 10 years congress to the department of homeland security has provided state, territorial, and local tribal governments with more than $36 billion. we have built capabilities by requiring needed equipment, funding trade opportunities, response plans, exercising and building relationships, and although federal funds represent just a fraction of what has been spent on homeland security across the nation overall, these funds have changed the face of preparedness across the united states. the recent tragedy in boston, the deadly tornadoes in oklahoma bear witness to this. 2011, directing

implementation and the establishment of national preparedness goals, delivering the core capabilities needed to achieve that goal. this system allows grantees to identify assessment hazards with which we are faced, building sustained plans with capabilities to fix them and constantly reviewing our effectiveness. tracking progress in the components for the system works towards closing the gaps. in 2012 fema released its comprehensive comparative guide for risk assessment. the results highlight the gap sawing and capabilities that give fema the basis to measure progress in closing those gaps against specific capabilities over time. on december 31, 2012, states and territories submitted their first reports to fema. the summary of those results are published in the annual national

prepared this report. reports released last year included specific accomplishments identified in the goal, with the inaugural 2012 npr report highlighting the accomplishments in the decade 2001, recently transported to congress the focus primarily on accomplishments achieved or reported during 2012. the strength in areas for improvement for npr are used to focus priorities of federal grants and enable informed collaborations among stakeholders working together to approve the nation's preparedness. investments have paid off before the investors. new york city and new jersey's success stems in part from grant-field success in supplies

and community outreach systems. thefunds develop and train management team, successfully in staten island, supporting the city office of emergency shelteringnagement, up to 3605 people. these grants in new jersey to fund the area system that was one of the biggest public safety communications' success stories in hurricane sandy. federal grant programs help to bolster state and local the bostons in marathon bombing, using forward- looking imaging in a purchase with grants to purchase and locates bomb subjects. they used the swat teams to better integrate the teams in integration, a crucial capability demonstrated to all

in the aftermath of the bombing. their ability to conduct collapsed search and rescue as we have seen too many times in recent tornadoes, it is significantly more advanced than it was 10 years ago. 97% of the u.s. population lives within four hours of a structural collapse team, up 60% from a decade ago. we have demonstrated the efficacy of our grant program, with a clear product to work towards. tracking spending towards meeting those goals. mr. chairman, members of the community, thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues today. i am happy to be here and respond to any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. today willmony summarize the results of the

audits of the homeland security grant program. i will discuss the challenges we have identified and highlight some of the best practices being used. homeland security grants are awarded to states, territories, and local governments to enhance their ability to prepare for prevent, and deal with other terrorist attacks and major emergencies. including the state homeland security program initiative to fund a range of preparedness activities. since 2007 we have audited states in local areas to determine whether they have implemented their grants efficiently and effectively, achieve the goals, and funds according to requirements. in 36e completed audits states and one territory, some of them urban areas. we have 17. through them we have determined that states comply with laws and

regulations in distributing and spending grants, but they face challenges in the obligation of grant funds and reimbursement of expenditures, monitoring performance financial management and property management. of the 22 states that we audited in 2012 and 2013, 17 had recommendations related to strategic planning and measurement. other strategies include specific, measurable results and objectives, as many strategies and objectives were to general to manage their progress in improving capabilities. in addition, some states had outdated strategy that did not affect the most current priorities. obligated not always security grants in a timely manner, which could have led to

increased costs in their ability to complete projects and to deliver needed equipment and training. for example, six of the states we have audited this fiscal year between 138 and 842 days of the funds being available. in the fiscal year 2013 audits we have determined that seven states submitted oversight of grantees that consistently track their accomplishments with compliance for federal law and regulation. without adequate monitoring, states may have monitor their ability to complete goals, assess gaps, take corrective action, and use funds to enhance capabilities. some did not fully comply with federal state procurement regulations by not obtaining an adequate number, not properly justifying search procurements or requiring cost analysis. result, grantees may not

have made -- may not have made awards based on the best defenders for property management and grantees the did not regularly inventory for property records and inventory documentation for equipment. states and sub grantees may not be able to take part in equipment loss. anddentified several states urban air brick -- urban areas, like a registry for people with medical problems that may need assistance during a mandatory evacuation. the san diego urban area created a technology clearing house to evaluate new technologies and independently assess the equipment assistance being used by first responders. hosting grant workshops at various locations throughout the state to assist agencies interested in receiving grant

funding. in closing i would like to note efforts to improve brand management and plans to continue these efforts by updating guidance with better monitoring. fema has generally agreed to our recommended actions and is taking steps to implement those recommendations. we have planned audits of all states and territories receiving grants, the overall objective remains essentially unchanged. strengthening the nathan -- nation's ability to prepare for and respond to natural and man- made disasters, including my prepared remarks, i welcome questions that you and members of the subcommittee may have. >> thank you very much. >> members and staff, i am pleased to be here today to discuss efforts to assess national prepared this for

natural and man-made disasters. over the past decade congress has appropriated $41 billion for a variety of programs designed to help the nation be better prepared for terrorist attacks and disasters. during this time, gao has been there providing objective, non- partisan oversight. what we have found is often not encouraging. they have struggled to effectively manage grant programs. it is difficult to say we have really gotten for our investment, because fema has been unable to measure how they have advanced their ability to be prepared. specifically the work has found that they lack the ability to assess how well individual grant programs are working and whether collectively these programs have helped to enhance national preparedness. for example, we found that while they have performance measures for their grant programs, they typically provide information on past activities being completed it and do not generally provide assessment of the effectiveness

of the individual activities or overall grant programs. to put it another way, fema has developed output measures for individual programs but generally relaxed the ability for outcome assessment. -- but generally lacks the ability for outcomes assessment. important to an national level question. how much better prepared to these programs make us? to answer that it comes down to knowing how prepared we are and how prepared we should be. we have found that fema has been unable to assess these questions and they lack a clear view of where we have prepared this gaps, making it difficult to address those gaps. i need to be clear, it is quite difficult to measure preparedness. fema has been working on this for years and it is important to give them credit for what they have been able to accomplish over the last two years.

they now have the basic elements in place. they have articulated a national goal, develop a plan for achieving the goal, issued two national reports on progress, enhancing the risk in the decisions. for example, fema recently issued its national prepared this report. summarizing at a nationwide local progress in identifying these gaps, vital and making progress towards recommendations. fema continues to face important challenges. most significantly, fema still lacks clear objective and quantifiable measures of how prepared the nation is and how prepared we should be. fema is not yet in a position to target grant funding towards critical gaps. their approach relies on individual, self-reported judgments on capability requirements and levels of preparing this.

in other words, funding decisions continue to be informed by what each state says it needs rather than applying a common objective across all states. ithout these standards becomes difficult to identify differences and compare capability levels between states. billions of taxpayer dollars are being invested in making the nation better prepared for terrorist attack and natural disaster. measuring how prepared this has made us is a difficult task, but fema needs to do it. the law requires it. the president requires it. fema and their efforts on this front over the past couple of years are encouraging, but the bottom line remains that they cannot clearly and objectively articulate what $41 billion in grant funding has accomplished, what still needs to be done, and the magnitude of the remaining gaps. this is vital for the future in making sure that increasingly scant funding is focused on the

areas most in need. >> thank you very much. a 5 minutert with round. david, let me first ask you, i want to follow up on your comments here. i know fema has recommended some consolidation for some of their programs. let me first ask you from your perspective, do you think that will have a positive impact in trying to streamline the process but also trying to analyze their outcome better? give me a thought on that. >> absolutely. from our perspective we have not seen enough detail in their proposal for consolidating the different grant programs to make an independent assessment of whether it would help or not help. at the highest level you could envision, it could make things easier for grant recipients to only have to provide information and respond to queries on one program.

however, there is the potential for other downside risks as well. the devil is in the details, and the details are not yet available. it is ayou think -- challenge. i know that as a former mayor you have operated emergency management systems, working with fema and lots of different groups, but how do you envision to measure the success of preparedness? in other words we know the investments. state inse with our march happened. was a lot of significant property damage, no life lost. help me understand how you see that. what is the tool to measure? i mean, i agree with you, there has to be a better understanding of how to measure these grants

of success. >> at the broadest level the conceptual framework that fema has laid out would enable us to get there eventually. i think the challenge there facing right now is fully implementing it. the biggest challenge is probably the one you mentioned, at the state and local level there are very specific requirements and threats. trying to roll that up, local to state, national, using that as a way to drive brand funding decisions, that is a difficult thing to do. in order to get there you have to have clear, objective, quantifiable measures. i think that there framework is reasonable but not fully implemented. >> thank you very much. but me ask you a couple of questions. i know that fema has had over the last couple of years different measurement levels on how you would measure success that have changed quite a bit.

assuranceeate some here, you are in the process of having some ability, here is how you want to measure, here is how you want to measure, but two years from now it changes again. i will tell you that a person who manages operations and fills out the papers, when the measurement changed every year or two years, it was just more paper that we turned to satisfy the needs of fema. i would also like you to come in on the consolidation of fema programs. what does that mean? when does that happen, in your eyes? first on that first part. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would start by saying that the administrator and i, secretary inolitano, before we joined with the state officials open to

these programs as well, we read subject to the frequent and changing requirements, so we are very cognizant of the detriments to the effectiveness of the building of a homeland security program for state and local government by those constantly changing requirements. on president's directive national preparedness consolidated a number of different and divergent directives from over the past decade. bringing the mall in line with post-katrina emergency reform acts to build this system to be implemented. one of the reasons i believe that we had a frequent swing in the requirements over the past is for new directives and requirements coming up, with recognition on the part of the department that a particular scheme was not as effective as it needed to be and in order to address concerns raised by congress, the gao, and

stakeholders across the country, the department would come up with new ideas. many times you yourself mentioned in your opening comments the concerns about the one-size-fits-all approach and the ability to assess the effectiveness of the programs from places like new york city, alaska, and oklahoma city. but we tried to achieve in that system, the goal that i mentioned, from counties around the country, throughout the department nationally, we assess and understand the threats unique to a community. it is no longer a entirely just self directed and self assessed. but the national objective analysis of those capability requirements. prioritizing the grants in the national system to achieve those goals.

giving us the ability, more importantly nationally to understand where we have been effective in closing the gaps. when i say capability i do not simply mean material, a truck or a bomb. in oklahoma the technical rescue teams used the national doctrine in a way that could be shared national and were able to respond quickly to a disaster. those teams did not exist 10 years ago. they saved many lives. our proposal in the national prepared this grant program includes a consolidated proposal to consolidate the various grant programs. exactly as you heard them described, if we can more effectively synthesize the activities within the area of the state, recognizing the very important need of high risk urban areas, transit systems we

have worked with independently and severally are the years, if we can pull those together and have coordinated efforts towards filling the gap, less likely we would have for a duplication of resources. >> let me ask you a quick question on that. do you need legislative action to make that happen? >> mr. chairman, yes. the grant proposal as envisioned works as an evolution toward the grant systems that were established in the post-katrina act. we are nearing completion on working with partners in legislative branch on proposals that we anticipate delivering to the system soon, proposing changes to the authorization. >> let me turn to the ranking member, i will turn to you right after that.

apologize, we started right -- i just wanted to keep the meeting going. >> no, that is a first in senate history, to be on time. thank you to the family members for coming today. were they used to purchase drones? >> no, there have been some grantees who have purchased controls from aircraft's, like what you would imagine as an aircraft that has cameras for monitoring. >> drums can be of different expenses. sounds like a cheaper one to meet. then,you have a policy, for surveillance? giving out money needed to purchase surveillance, is there a policy in place for the system? >> it is in place with our

grantees and fusion centers for civil rights and liberties within the intelligence analysis. >> what is the policy for drone surveillance? to defer to my colleagues across the department. i know that there were to make sure they are compliant. >> does anyone in the panel know anything about the drone surveillance program or money being used for drones? david? did you have a comment? >> we have not done any work specifically looking at the use of fema grants. we have done broader work, but not specific. >> your fusion centers have not always been the best that defending those liberties. there have been instances where they have targeted people for their political beliefs. we are in the middle of a huge crisis in the country, with the irs using it for political purposes.

a few years back the missouri fusions center was targeting people for their political beliefs, people with different bumper stickers on their car were said to be targeted by the fusion centers. there was a concern that allowing your money to be used to purchase drones without an awareness of what the rules are is disconcerting. that are some who believe once you get outside your house, there is no privacy, but i tend to disagree. we have the fbi director saying the drums are being used and he was unaware of any forthcoming specific policies, so these are not simply passing concerns. i am also concerned about where these grants are going. some grants are being used to pay office rent. some are using the being used to appease a 0% progress towards goals. david, would you have any

comment on how, exactly, we would go about having better oversight? >> absolutely. last year we issued a report looking at that -- that aspect of grant programs, looking at the four largest, we identified the capabilities they had over the specific uses and found that for some of the larger programs, fema may not know specifically how those funds are being used at the time to provide the money, which creates a problem. potential riske of an unnecessary duplication, potentially receiving funds from more than one program for activities without the internal working of fino being aware that that is happening. we look at that and thousands of grant awards and found no examples of specific duplication, but there were cases where you took the data from their systems, it looked like on paper they were being

funded for the same things, but different programs. >> this is a good example of where in the bill that you and i talked about in terms of giving people a bureaucracy of government, more pay to save money would be a good example. one is just so enormous and there is no proper incentive. since it is not my money i do we had thosere, trailers that sat there for years and years, the ice that was stored by the hundreds of thousands of pounds that never got there, the inmates in that rouged who were -- baton rogue who were receiving this place money from fema. it was not one bad person and one bad policy, it was just not there. of that amount of

money will always lead to distance from the problem in washington. most of that stuff is locally collected and locally handled, which is why i answer in states that want $62 billion all at once. surveillance and oversight of whether the money has been spent properly, it is why things ought to be done differently, instead of giving $60 billion after hurricane sandy, i feel certain we will be back here in five years talking about how that money was abused as well. thank you. >> if i could ask? could we ask the department to submit to the committee what ever written policies or documentations in utilization of drones, whenever the right term civil protection of liberties, whoever the right

person is there to submit that, we would be interested in the written policies. welcome very much to the opportunity to be on the committee. >> thank you for your testimony this morning. i understand you want to be as careful as you can be in close unpreparedness gaps with standards to be sure that there is a way to measure what we're doing. i also appreciate that it is not the easiest thing to measure, because people want to kill save all the time. this is tremendous work that gets done by law enforcement and by first responders. people feel safe. what i would like to ask you is understanding the need for an objective national criteria, there is a recognition the in kentucky and new jersey -- very different states and sorts of vulnerabilities, how does that

get calculated in the ability to create that standard? how the recognize the individuality in the balance of creating the standards? >> i think that as a general proposition the approach they're taking makes some level of sense at the local level. level,nto the national able to take advantage of the local base of knowledge and information. obviously i managers to the local officials are much better informed about the capabilities than the folks in washington, d.c.. the difficult part is trying to roll it up in a way that allows comparisons and information for fair comparisons across states to help inform these decisions. theourse having capabilities that have

established is a start towards the framework with capabilities at the national level, we want to see progress in achieving the common framework that everyone can work within. side it will be increasingly important for them to be watching this process closely and providing effective oversight of the information coming out from the state and locals, taking a look at it, making sure that it makes sense and is consistently comparable period >> i guess the dialogue continues on an ongoing basis to make sure the information is coming from, with than any state that is geographically relevant, like new jersey, every community capabilities. we see that states, grants

coming into new jersey, that some of these grants are not being obligated as quickly as they should be. richards talked about seeing these things happen on a delayed basis. >> states want the money. and what to use it as effectively as they can. take to betterwe educate the states and create a sensible protocol that allows the money to be obligated in a way that makes sense and is in the time frame created by the source of the money? course, you hit the issue right on the head. there have been requirements since the beginning of the program that obligated within a short period of time and have been defined as a particular

sub-grantee for particular projects and general areas like state strategies. tended to build on a number of different factors, with environmental reviews, important transit programs happening, the coordination of the 80% passed through the grants for the local government. a number of administrative procedures the compound, i think that the combination of giving ag into national preparedness system the idea to achieve specific capabilities that can be shared nationally to build local and state capabilities for local natural disaster and prepare a dense will help to facilitate that, because the projects will be facilitated ahead of time.

once you identify your threats and hazards, you have to achieve them using specific resources. national specific management sources, as i mentioned before, people and equipment, training to do a task. it is no longer a nebulous idea of wanting rescue capabilities. you want to go to type a through 3 rescue teams, something easier to achieve administratively. of drawdowne issue for many years. multi-year appropriations against that program, the system grantees having delays in the implementation of the expenditure of those funds. we have worked very hard, all of them working in partnership with us in changing some of their rules and implementations.

achieving some great progress, roughly $8 billion in unspent money as of last february. as of this month it has found $4 billion and it is on track. we have made great progress in what you heard this morning. >> i asked you continue to work with the states as quickly as you can, they want to use this money to make sure they're taking the steps they need to take. we want to create a conversation that makes sense so that people can do the things they need to do. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we will do another quick round and move to the next panel. another follow-up question, i know that senator paul had this -- mr. manning, i guess anyone else could switch to anything and i would not want you to have nothing to say, but you're probably thinking please get done with this testimony and get

down, so i understand your feeling. we have these minimum grant levels that happen. that range,ght in but really they're spending plants, giving money to the state saying that this is what they will spend it on. this is what we need to do to fill the gaps, can we spend this money? do you see an opportunity to improve that? i look at this and listen to the want toy, i do not offend anyone here, but there is , the of mill churning capability to respond to manmade natural disasters. and maybe congress has done this and created so many layers that

are required now, it is not as easy for the agencies to operate. carefully and just visualizing my days as , i could tell you that from the mayor's perspective we won and were able to respond. we are not going to wait for the box to be checked. trying to understand if there is a better way to approach this, or if of all things it is much different, something local in the response? local communities will always be, depending on the situation

and how it is laid out, there will always be first responders. they cannot respond as well as a local responder can and should, because they understand the nuances of the community. any thoughts on that? i do not know if that is a question i gave. >> i heard a question. you raised import -- important points, mr. chairman. our approach to these grant programs have always been about building a national capability to respond to what may strike the nation. during that to support state and local governments, they do that in response, frankly, as the public is the first true responder and agencies are coming, the federal government supports the governors and mayors in their path.

these grant programs have always been about building capacity to protect against acts of terror and build response. the grants are focused on the highest risk communities in those urban areas, including -- >> except the minimum amounts for each does not really differentiate. one out of zero for her number. i am just saying that these population centers are different. risk analyze the approach? distribution follows the risk formula established in the post-contract. amounts for basically population.

based on a risk formula in capability consequences. limited to the award of the top 25 riskiest places in the city. there are a minimum for the communities that do not have as high a risk and are not rewarded additional funds. every state there is a for man among, essentially, with the understanding that risk is everywhere and that oklahoma is a good example. there are disasters in alaska and kentucky with menem states like mexico. where responses are performed using capabilities under the grant, but more importantly they filling national purpose, building national preparedness. the ability of the united states to respond to a crisis is an aggregated capability in local

governments. a thousand state and local from around the country, hurricane sandy was similar. is capability built through the national grant program. ,> i did not want to leave you as i know there have been a lot of questions left on the table. in a few seconds, and a comment on the general issues with regards to everything from consolidation to the things we could be doing better to be sure we are fairly managing these from a risk perspective? is there data we are not asking for? have a few comments. a few years ago we published the efficacy on the grant management programs identifying legislative

barriers to the efficiency of the facts around different grant programs having different deadlines. making it difficult for the applicants. >> i am assuming that congress has does -- has done nothing with those. >> we have made comments to team up. reportsve all these that we would love to get, but then move on to the next crisis. >> it also goes back to the senator's question as well on the difficulty of getting grant funds obligated in a timely manner. obligation there has to be something from the recipient. recipients are often local or small. they did not meet the criteria that the other agency does, so

they cannot predict where the money will be available and if the paper market is going to come down. so, the funding just sits. some greater regularity and consolidation of when these time frames are would be helpful. >> senator paul? >> when we started we mentioned the abuses, i thought it would be good to go through a few more. have you gone through the report? it says the united states is fighting terrorism one at a time. purchasing 13 snow, machines, a $11,700. that would embarrass me if i was

in charge of this money. saw this in the news. san diego, the sum the apocalypse demonstration, for the actors dressed as zombies did some kind of simulated terrorism thing that was offset by a grant money from fema that i think would embarrass me also if i were in charge of this money. i wonder if something has been done about it. regarding these armored vehicles, maybe in new york city, but in keene, new hampshire, there have been two murders in the last 15 years and $285,000 vehicle. i am sure that those people thought that that was ridiculous.

county,e, montgomery texas, got a $300 shadow hawk drone. i would be concerned about not only the expense of it, but the rules with regards to how is being used. the open spaces doctrine means having to fly a drone anywhere. kentucky and alaska. i think you do deserve privacy when you are out hunting, sweating, whenever you are doing. really, we should be going to court and saying that we think that this person is committing a crime. the government from top to bottom is drop -- buying these drones. let's get a warrant. of we just can not be funding this. it just gets so large. the money is not accountable and it is just everywhere.

these snow cone machines, drones, long-range acoustic devices. they bought one in pittsburgh that can cause permanent hearing loss. it is this year's flooding noise and we have to and so is because is paying attention to the dollars spent. trillion everyar year, and we should be doing things. we have an anti-terrorism center in kentucky. if they get to kentucky, we are done for if they get that far. we do these things because they are work projects and communities like them and they bring in money instead of saying, where do terrorists attack us? it is like who attacked us on 9/11 q? splittingey for your

devices and for snowcone machines, we did not have enough money to look at people on student visas. we do not have enough analysts to see when we are targeted, when a foreign government like russia, reports you to know that you are flying back to a part of a world where you become radicalized. we empty our pockets spending money, but things we ought to do we are not doing and things we are not supposed to be doing we are doing. it is because of the overall philosophy of throwing money at problems, and i would appreciate if there have been reforms mr. done sincet has been the apocalypse, and maybe on the snowcone machines and anything else. yes, we have done as you can imagine a very close and analysis of all of the examples raised in the report and many that we hear. formalou have a response, i would not mind

seeing that. >> we will be happy to provide that to your office. answers andually reasons for those. -- well,achines were intended for exactly that. as a buddy who has been hospitalized, they are given ice chips when they are recovering rather than water, and the idea was to provide, to shave the eyes in the large quantities for heat response. we have processes in place to scrutinize equipment being purchased, but what we have in grant program now, it would eliminate those kinds of acquisitions because we are talking about to find capabilities, the number of individuals with training as is defined as a type resource to be able to achieve, and much less , this isof more vague

something that i think might be useful. >> i am not sure why we sent any money to these cities. why do we send money for terrorism too little, tiny cities around the country? towns, but ilittle am not for sending antiterrorist grants to any cities. new york, d, l.a. is a problem, but i sending them too little cities, it seems like all editions got involved. there was a report that said i think this was in indiana, there were 9000 requests for preparedness grants, popcorn festival, all these cute little things that my family goes to in a small town, but they do not need terrorism grants. why not just say no? often capabilities

procured by the state through local governments, and the idea you provide response capabilities. her vegan and interdiction of an attack that occur somewhere, but you build the response to come in in outlying areas to come in as mutual aid. in the case of snowcone machines, that was in the thatit area, and had device not failed, that aircraft would have blown up over detroit. >> and the snowcone machine was going to save anybody? >> the snowcone machine, as i , supposed to build capability for mass casualty response for them to have shaved ice available, and as we all know, it was used for other purposes. we have procedures in place to prohibit that from happening. the bearcats are another good example.

we saw the utility in the boston area, and that idea was to invide statewide capability a statewide response to wherever a threat might occur. , the timesthat zazi square bomber, was building his bombs and planning in remote denver and transited most of united states and route to new york. muchrant program has a more constraint on capabilities developed against specific identified threats and hazards that we have all worked shortly on identifying. >> mr. manning, would you mind submitting this and we will and this panel, but would you mind submitting? is point that senator paul making, how are these expenditures managed, what are

the capabilities and needs, but you indicate you have a newer approach to how you are dealing with grants in the future. i would be interested if you could do this.i am very visual . we love to create mills of paper. can you show how i grant program existed before, what it looks like in the future, and a very simple chart style. here is what be used for,uld some examples, and now is what is happening. is that something you could do? it does not need to be complicated. inundate us with paper because that is how we will get blurry eyed and forget, but i want something simple that says our current program, here is what we are moving to, and that would be an interesting point to see, because that would help us

understand how you have plugged these problem areas that have occurred. would that be within reason? >> most definitely. and wethe two others, probably do not do enough of this, and it is something i am trying to do with this unity, and that is better oversight, not just something went bad happens. not you submit -- you have -- the ones we have right now, but you mentioned you did a report a couple years ago with legislation. could you submit to the committee, here is what reid recommended, the last two reports, and what we have done. i do not need a big fancy documents. i need here is the recommendation, completed, partially completed, not completed, what is your analysis of why, because one of the things we do not do here, it has

dawned on me after five years now, sitting here, the have great for fashionable staff in your group at gao doing all this irk, and three years later, have been here and 60% of the senate has changed. he say why haven't you done this, and you said politely, two years ago we did this, and all of us said we never saw this because we were new. this might give us a better understanding of what you we should be doing or not doing when there are recommendations, what is our follow-up to make sure that is done. otherwise, we have committee meetings about something we talk about a year and a half ago and you all, the agency folks, i know what you are doing, they say we told them this two years ago. help us do a better job in oversight. if you would not mind doing that?

i would say for the last quarter, the last two, because if it is 10 years, times have changed quite a bit. here's what we recommended, here's what happened, and if you can show what agency or us, the elected body, was opposed to be doing something. would that be ok question mark -- ok? >> absolutely. and ifave another panel, we will do a switch out here. >> my point is we get all these grants for surveillance to the surveillance. even the fbi, why are we doing all these surveillance of all these agencies? this is a shirt button camera, pinhole cameras.

thanks for coming. --ff that thank you. i think 9/11 has become -- it is not just a security thing. the little towns, there are maybe one or two courts in alaska -- >> thank you very much. thank you for being here. i will mention who is here and i

will start with you, john, but let me introduce everyone here again. john madden, director of the alaska division of homeland security and emergency services,. mayor of the, city of alexandria. we are glad you are here. filler, president of filler security strategies, and matt mayer, visiting fellow from the heritage foundation. john, welcome, and i know you are dealing with significant tragedies and disasters in alaska. we literally have one every two weeks. he have some sort of situation in alaska, and i know you have come some incredible work. i will turn it to you, and we will go down the road here. >> thank you, senator baggage, thethe -- begish, for

opportunity to look at the overlook aspect -- >> you are also now the president of the national emergency management association also, not just from alaska, but you represent the whole group. i want to give you that proper introduction. extend my thanks to you, senator, and your staff, and urkowskim concerning the floods on the yukon. we learned in this last month at our investments in building capabilities did save lives, did alleviate human suffering some and did reduce property damages. i speak today for both the national emergency management association of which i am the president and the governor's homeland security advisory council and the national governors association of which i am a member. the question, what is the return on our investment, is not new and neither are the considerations from the states

and our local partners. the national preparedness task force comprised of leaders from state, local, tribal, and territorial governments addressed this in the report to congress in september of 2010. any of the task force regulations focused on building a problem solving system made through skill analysis and continuous assessment of risk. 2 thousand 12, the national emergency management association presented to congress a proposal for a comprehensive grant system based on facts ability but balanced with accountability. state set priorities and make investments and capabilities in support of their local governments for their risks and measure performance of those investments. in june of this year, the national governors association submitted its governors principles for homeland security reform including many of the

measurement needs. threat hazard identification and risk assessment must be at the center of this enterprise and be the basis for our enterprise. thira held on to as options that complex risk to be quantified by classifications like red, green, yellow, low, medium, high, also limiting the range and variability of hazards and fit everything into a snapshot on a day. encourage enable or collaboration between states ort share the same hazards, be a resource provider through mutual aid. the threatsecognize and hazards and the risks from them do not stop at the state line, county line, or city limits. ,e must measure and manage risk

we must invest in capabilities based on risk him and we must measure the effectiveness of investments in drawing down those risks. with each investment and with assessment, we must feed this back in and adjust our priorities. must follow thira the supply lines from consumption to production. it must follow what are sheds and reverence and not just the geopolitical boundaries. must consider the interdependence of our system and the possibility that a single investment they reduce the risk from several hazards. we must measure far more than we do now. we must measure the effectiveness of our decisions, of our assumptions, and of our actions. i can measure the effectiveness with great position of a three- legged sled dog, but perhaps i should question the effectiveness of my decision based upon the ability to win the race.

consider the statement developed in port of the national governors association and the national emergency management association and documents provided to congress ash he must build and sustain a skilled cadre across the nation, that is trained, vigorously exercise, properly equipped, prepared for all hazards, focused on capabilities, and resourced for both the most serious and the most threats and hazards. there are 13 opportunities in this statement to measure performance, and we need those 13 and more. while not endorsing the national preparedness grant program overall, both the national governors association and nema believe any grand framework should have consistent methods for measuring and assessing progress in achieving those core capabilities. only through the comprehensive thet reform can we ensure

continuous assessment of risk across all levels of government, encourage strategic planning rather than spending planning, and to base funding on priority needs of the communities and to measure progress and fill gaps in our capabilities. this nation is not well served when the grant system or the measurement system is an impediment to our national ability to be agile and adaptive changing hazards, emerging threats, and emerging risks. i will stand ready for any questions. >> thank you very much. as i said in the opening, i am the highest toward mayors, and at the end of the day, no disrespect to my friend john sitting to your right, mayors have to deliver the end product, so i appreciate you are here and representing the conference.

andhank you, mr. chairman, the comments are appropriate that mayors are closest to people and we have to deal with these issues and be responsive. i appreciate the opportunity on behalf of the u.s. conference of mayors to testify before you about the suite of homeland security grant programs and how they help cities across the country to respond to terrorism and national disasters. begich,ciate you, mr. that you did have continued to reach out to mayors. we know you have not forgotten where you came from and we know we have a real friend in the senate. my basic message today, your opening comment is a good segue in terms of why i am here representing the mayors.

the basic message is mayors and other officials across the nation strongly support the existing and you of homeland security programs. as i believe my testimony will show, they are working great we recognize they may not be perfect and some changes may be needed, but they are the product of years of work by congress, the administration, state and local governments, and first responders. the federal grant funds which the department of homeland security and its federal emergency management administration have provided clearly have improved the nation's planning, mitigation, prevention, or spots and recovery capabilities. the april 15 bombing in boston provides an excellent sample of hs'investments have paid off. there can be no doubt that they contribute significantly to the thisn area's response to terrorism. you ask these funds provide salaries for intelligence and analysts at the boston regional

intelligence center. these assets article in protecting and providing information to the first responders in the field. the analysts monitor and vet information over 280 criminal acts following the bombing. son dues on area -- the tuc area has used funds to train responders, law enforcement, and emergency managers across southern arizona prepare for a casualty event. this is played a major role in the effective interdisciplinary response to the january 8, 2011, shooting of gabrielle giffords. in alexandria, we have learned learn lessonsd to increasedecisions to capabilities to protect against future occurrences. after the anthrax attacks in 2001, funds were used to enhance

andre communications awareness in the region have produced ncr net a fiber-optic connector. a public health surveillance system and installation of chemical and biological sensors in the metro sensors. 2013 -- 2014 budget proposed a major reform and consolidation which wouldograms replace the current programs with a new national preparedness grant program. no secret that the u.s. conference of mayors and other -- organizations have registered serous concerns with regard to these proposals to convert the current suite of homeland security grant programs interstate-administered lock programs in which funding decisions are based on state and

multi-state assessments. this would no longer guarantee the retention of key programs, removal of the 25% set-aside for law enforcement terrorism terrorism prevention, and expanding applicants for the proportion of the funds that must be passed through to notify all governments. we especially appreciate the fact that as far congress has rejected the administration's proposed changes to the programs and agreed with us that those changes must be considered by the authorizing committees. we know you will examine a proposal that you sent to the u.s. conference of mayors. we have urged fema and it ministration to work with us and congress to develop program reforms which will incorporate successful elements of past programs that identified new approaches which can have broad based support. we suggest any program

improvements increase transparency, local involvement, provides flexibility, accountability, protect local funding, sustain tourism, provide incentives for mentor metropolitan areas. >> thank you very much. let me mr. filler. >> thank you. good morning. i am joshua filler, president of filler security strategies, a consulting firm in washington. it is my privilege to discuss with you issues surrounding our nation's preparedness, how to evaluate it, and what impact homeland security grants have had on preparedness on local, state, and national levels. the purpose of homeland security supplement local and state spending to allow urban areas and states to build capabilities that bridge traditional investing public

thety, largely handled by states and localities, with national security imperatives. traditionally managed by the federal government. without such funding, state and urban areas would not have the resources to develop capability levels necessary to integrate those missions. measuring the effectiveness of specific grant programs is different than measuring overall preparedness. grant effectiveness is about how grants impact and abilities. however, the overall level of preparedness in an urban area or state is influenced by numerous other factors. most importantly, state and local resources. while homeland security grant programs are critical to enabling urban areas and states to enhance preparedness, they represent a small fraction of the tens of billions of dollars spent by states and urban areas on public health and safety each year. to measure grant effectiveness and preparedness, states and

urban areas must establish their own capability targets and performance measures and neck rates based on their unique risk profile and planning assumptions. that risk profile should also determine which capabilities are a priority to address high-risk threats and hazards. we cannot measure everything, and no signal part of the nation needs to be fully prepared for every conceivable hazard. targets,ally developed measures, and metrics should all fit under a common framework such as the corporate abilities under the national preparedness goal. this will ensure a consistent strategic approach are recognizing the differences across a country as large and diverse as the united states. with these targets, measures, and metrics in hand, state and urban areas should engage in a regular assessment process involving self-and valuations, quantitative modeling, and performance indictments,

particularly involving exercises and especially real-world incidents. all in order to build a consistent picture of preparedness over time. in each case the following steps should be addressed -- first, identify the gaps in the state or urban areas priority capabilities, next outline grant and other expenditures to close the identified capability caps on, and based on the measures and metrics, identify the outcomes produced from grant and other expenditures in terms of closing capability gaps and attaining the capability target. throughout such a process, the best way to determine grant effectiveness and overall preparedness is to review how capabilities performed in a real-world incident. based on the need, what were the strengths, what were the gaps, when the jurisdiction or agency has to perform? we are making these investments in the and to more effectively operate when we have a threat or disaster. that is what matters most. to date i have worked on five

grant effectiveness studies and have developed tools to evaluating preparedness in numerous regions. the sanclude in francisco bay area, san diego, hampton roads, riverside and anaheim-santa anna. theresay with certainty is no silver bullet or a single answer for addressing the questions of grant effectiveness and overall preparedness. what i have learned is grant effectiveness and preparedness cannot be measured by just looking at the united states as a single operating entity, which it is not. rather, the u.s. is a vast network of independent actors, towns, villages, cities, counties, states, private sectors, and federal departments and agencies that must unify to achieve homeland security priorities and perform critical operational tasks before, during, and after an incident. when attempting to answer how effective a grant program is or how prepared a region of the nation as a whole may be, we

must take a varied approach that -- addresses the question through multiple lenses. this should include the local, state, and national perspectives as well as others. they can together, each lens will help provide a more complete understanding as the grant effectiveness and overall fairness across the nation. thank you. >> thank you, very much. >> thank you for having me this morning. to the question we are trying to address, are we prepared, and we have to ask this question --are we prepared for what? in 10 years, the fact we you not know what we have, and what level it exists is problematic. i do not envy mr. manning and it is not ama, place you want to sit as you try to struggle through these issues after 9/11. we have to do so because we are interested with the public's

money and have an obligation to do in an effective manner. i will say congratulations for pushing for a reduction in the number of her urban area security initiatives. it has now come down to 25. that that is a great advancement so we do not squander resources. i think the idea is to consolidate the program is a good idea. it is not a new idea. we tried that during the bush andnistration several times special interests said no, but we have to be looking at consolidating so we can target funds where the risk is the greatest based upon the current risk model that the intelligence is driving. one of the mistakes we make is we assumed the risk is everywhere, and if we do so that means protecting america from that risk is incredibly hard. there is risk everywhere, but we safe place it a 100%

to live everywhere. we have to be smarter about saying where is the risk and where a meaningful level of risk, where finite funds, resources, finite time, people can be applied so we can raise a preparedness to the highest degree possible in order for us to prevent an attack, and if we are hit to respond effectively. boston is a great example. it shows we have spent a lot of money on response sides and can respond effectively whether it is a tornado or a boston attack. problems are made in preventing those attacks. in boston it was a preventable attack that we missed on opportunities because we fail to learn some of the lessons over the last decade that we should have learned. when we think about it, one of the things we do and you noted this in the turnover in the senate, i was a turnover in the department is just as high or higher, and we see in orissa amounts of turnover. this is not the first national preparedness goal.

it is not the first core capabilities. it may the third or fourth iteration of those first announced in september of 2004. this process has been an ongoing process where an enormous amounts of churn have adopt -- resulted in effectiveness, but at the stake and local level, that creates and numerous problem. they do not have the resources to deal with this constant churn of policies, and all they do is chase the next iteration, do the milk, burning and you spoke of, and we should do what is the next shiny object we are trying to get money for? another problem that we have not addressed is the subjectivity of the measurement process, weathering we measure

effectiveness is subjective. you and i may see something different in terms of whether it is effective, and that objectivity is a problem. we need to put more objectivity in the evaluation process so we know when you and i both say that capability is working, it has common language, it has, understand, and between jurisdictions what i say is an effective rescue squad is what you say is so when i call for your usual eight, he cannot fail because it can do what i said it would do. we need to make sure it is commonality in order for us to do that. are-evaluations problematic. as you have seen in my testimony, the 2012 assessment, 2013 assessments, and we have lost ground and normatively in a year even though we gave more money out. fema will say they are measuring different things, but that demonstrates a problem of how we measure things. we need to move further down the line of being smarter about what

we measure, how we measure it, and where we put that money. i would suggest that the high- risk urban areas are the places we need to focus our funding. after 10 years and more than $40 billion, if we have not secured small-town ohio, it is time to let smalltime ohio take care of itself. we need to focus our federal funds in big places where we know there is risk of a terrorist attack. i will and my testimony and will be happy to take questions you may have. i thank you for being here. let me start with you, john. ,t sounded from your testimony as you look at federal land and spending plan versus strategic plan -- i think everyone would agree with that. you think fema is moving in the direction that makes that the focus, and i will use what

justayer just said, i quickly looked at the 2012 you are terrified that we have gone the wrong direction. then you hear the arguments from pima that we are measuring things differently, which then means mayors and state folks have to turn paper to respond to are wend yet what measuring, are we doing it right, and what is the answer in this? states trying to get fema to be on one set of parameters at some point, or is it just that fema is jerking and you are trying to chase it and make sure that you fill the paperwork out so we get the resources that we think we need on the ground? >> it is constantly a chase between intent and execution. in the heyday of all the funding, and there used to be

several times more of what it is now annually, it was all about spending. if i give you this money, can you spend it? not a question of how you can spend it. the performance measurement was i said i need three things and i bought three things, therefore, i am successful. has been movement away from that, but we have not fully abandoned it. >> abandoned the spending concept? entrenchedt because -- these two were there many years ago, so is it an entrenched -- change is difficult to adapt to in the way this program should operate? >> we live in a time that cries out for innovation, but unfortunately he have to create that innovation within every are whichy -- bureaucracy, does not change rapidly. they will need to change

something, so they need to measure something comfortable before difficult. the challenge comes in in the system is trying to integrate it across. if you are thoughtful and say this element is very critical for the recovery of a community that would be hit by any disaster, are we yet taking that knowledge and priority and putting it over into let's make that an emphasis for mitigation, and emphasis for protection? we do not have that cross. therefore, we are still emphasizing on execution, and the strategic value of all these is to emphasize that thinking, the planning, the setting of priorities that then yield the spending. we need to start at the beginning of this thoughtful process rather than at the end. >> what is your thought on that, and i will ask both of you if you agree with that kind of analysis? >> not directly involved on a daily basis in terms of overseeing emergency preparedness. we have paid staff that does

that very well. i will agree with john's comments, but what we're looking thatere is a comfort level works for all, both localities, state, and federal government, but also we are committed to making certain that we are effective and efficient in terms of what we do and how we do it. about small-town versus large towns and not having the need to have the same type of equipment, adequate equipment, services that other cities and towns have, that makes sense in terms of risk analysis,, but the reality of this, take alexandra, we are in the middle of being right next to the nation's capital where the small pea in a pod -- we have just as much a major commitment to secure and protect the get region in terms of our mutual aid, whether equipment,

manpower, what have you. we need to have the resources to be able to be responsive. >> a good example might be using alaska as an example, and i will ask for additional comments. galena is not a terrorist location, but it is a flood disaster. you have different risk levels on different areas. we know natural disasters could occur there much more rapidly than a terrorist activity. and we go into valdez, alaska, where we have a small town, but we have the oil terminus for the pipeline. higher risk, but also on multiple fronts. last week when it was 90 degrees, but the fire risk has increased dramatically, but also has oil terminals to have a huge risk factor. it has multilayered risks. >> that illustrates the need for

that interdependence, that alaskan oil is an economic driver for the entire west coast that enables them to have back toto shift these alaska. the vulnerability for alaska exists outside of our state as much as it does inside. where anye part assessment of risk has to be recognized, that the vulnerability for a city, county, or state often resides outside its borders and that every city, county, and state protects things that are value to others. we protect a strategic national oil supply. others protect food supplies. there are pipelines that run from louisiana to new england through many states, and each state is viewed differently for how they are assigned a risk. earlier,what you said there are 34 states who have received the identical security

rent funds last year and this year. that just cries out for it is not based on risk if 34 states get the identical amount. but i think you would agree with that in a broad sense, not specifics, but that last i could sit here in my limited knowledge and say certain states have a higher risk than other states, but 34 all the same seems odd. , i remember last year, maybe two years ago, when we got word in terms of the washington metropolitan area, what the grant funding that we were receiving, and we all said, this is ridiculous. we should almost be equal to what new york city is receding, yet the washington area got a tremendous reduction. i do not think it should be allocations across the board. it should be based on risk. let's either one of you want to respond on that analysis?

both of experiences, you, because you have worked inside the systems at different times, so you have seen the beginning of these grants, now you're on the outside looking in, and is a unique experience you bring to the committee. either one? >> [indiscernible] is your mic on? live withue having to the consequences of some of your decisions on the health side. it gives you a unique perspective. side, i think what has been happening here is that the risk analysis that is being used is pushing more and more of the funding to the top, which, by default, leaves so little funding for what is left that everybody gets the same amount. >> just spread it. spread it because the

real risk analysis is taking place at the top of a urban area or state list, depending on which list you are looking at. when you do that, you only have certain amount of money left. if there are minimums, you have to meet the statutory minimums. >> i have two pressures going on, the minimums and high risk and what is left. >> exactly, so when those two forces come together, it produces the result where 30 or some odd states get the same money, even though the state had not the same amount of risk. there's not enough money to differentiate those risk levels in your putting so much money at the top. i think that is probably what is happening. >> there are a couple of responses to issues you have raised. one of the challenges is we have a dual sovereignty system. the tension between government telling states what they need to do or not do and

states wanted to have control , that tension is always there and the challenge is to navigate that for any issue, including homeland security. on the risk issue, it was interesting, when mr. feller and i were there in preparing for the 2006 allocation, we thought we would try to get creative with the risk formula and add natural disaster or risk to formula to see how it would impact things as we were going through the analysis. what we discovered is, if you put natural disaster risk into their formula, it overwhelmed the terrorism risk because the risk of fires, floods, tornadoes, is huge. it is more frequent. so our question is, are we preparing for natural disasters or terrorism? 2008 years,07 to

they added for cds, and every city got cut from top to bottom. that goes to the question of how in the world mathematically -- and i am not that smart -- what is the algorithm where you get the same outcome, a three percent cut from top to bottom? it was trying to feed more mouse. >> with an amount that was shrinking. >> correct. let me ask again, whoever wants to answer this, and we have these grants, about preparedness, we have two major areas, terrorism, natural disasters, that is a fair national security terrorism this category, and natural disasters -- i had a panel about a month ago and we had folks from the

insurance industry, and their risk analysis on natural disasters is being incorporated much greater than they have ever had to. the size and frequency. do you think fema is is antanding that there ever growing now on the natural disaster and that is getting -- end that is getting bigger, the price tags are getting bigger, then when the thought was decade ago when it was developing this? theyrism was a driver, but were not infrequent, but not like they are today, or what we classify as national as asters. no one would have anticipated sandy, for example. they would never have that on the risk analysis plan. now it is. the frequency and the intensity of some of these disasters. do you think the model has to be

-- you made me think about the natural disaster issues overwhelm the system when you calculate that in, which will be bigger in the future, it seems to me. t? he thought question ma >> we have taken the position that the vast majority of those are not issued because they are creating catastrophic events. sandy is a question. we have removed the [indiscernible] fliers aboutine tornadoes are starting to qualify, and lots of money is being poured to that. we need to decentralize that and get that back as the prime responsibility that they need to fund and prepare for, rather than have finite funds and fema's time being used for that -- because there's more people

living in places and those places have routine issues, whether a tornado in the oklahoma alley or the toledo area. >>any -- >> i am one of the 22 states, alaska is, where responsibility for homeland security and emergency management akamai and invoicing of division. i looked at this in a different way. that is why the integration of our efforts needs to be the objective. consequencesilar to terrorist acts as there are two natural disasters. there is disruption of a central service, disruption to the population, their suffering, there are injuries, and that is why if we build capabilities that serve the nation for natural disasters, for the consequences, it well serves the nation against the terrorists. we need to take different

protective and mitigating measures in those, but we have some universal risk, also transcended risks that we need to have the true foundation. but always have a base. >> because ciber to attack can in anyany time, community. chemical or biological or hazmat can happen at any place within the nation. casualty for many forms. it could be a terrorist attack or could be an air plane crash. some of these capabilities that we can increase that well served across a range of those hazards. the separation between terrorism and natural disasters not only is artificial when it comes to fights nces, it in extreme measures. -- invites it invites the spending of money to a compass

the spending of money. if we bring this back in and recognize that terrorism is not a logical, rational predictable non-zerobut it is a every else in the nation. oklahoma city in 1995 was not a rational terrorism attack. it was symbolic. that can happen anywhere. tornadoesity also has . the same skills they used for the one can be used for the other. command structure, communications, mass casualty. debris. all those are capabilities that well serves the entire range of those hazards. and that is where the separation , not only is it artificial, but it is a detriment to the should teach it thought of how to we develop the capabilities, for what purpose, and how do we integrate that between cities, between states? >> do you have any comment?

>> briefly, we had this discussion in las vegas in terms isbeing responsive, but it about flexibility and the fact that for most cities and towns and states across the nation, we have all of this under one umbrella. you do not separate offices on homeland security --it is one umbrella, they work as a team together. and in terms of natural disaster, in terms of homeland security, rather, the eye is always on the prize, making certain that our communities and cities and towns are safe from tourism and everything else. i had on my monthly tv show a campaign -- see something, say something. it focuses on the terrorism elements, but in terms of natural disasters, you cannot face something because you do not know when it is going to

occur, and then it will happen and you have to be ready to respond. for all the comments and expressions by mr. madden here, i support and believe that we need to keep them intertwine. it is a disability is the key here. before ist comments close out? >> i would add from the early stage, the department has embraced the concept of dual use, which is basically if you acquire a capability, you can use it for either an natural hazard or a terrorist event. there is a difference in prevention, and i think state and urban areas around the thatry have embraced that, this split between terrorism and natural hazards, when you get to the ground level, really does not exist. prevention side, the intelligence side, but for all other practical purposes, it is really an academic issue and one that i think most of the

community has worked through and understands. if you change how you allocate funding come based on terrorism risk or natural hazard risk, that will have a change. new york is a greater terrorism risk and it is from an earthquake or from a hurricane to my despite sandy. for purposes of once the money goes out and is used him a dual use has been embraced for almost 10 years. >> very good. thank you very much for being here. first panel, second panel, you guys are on the ground, feeling and dealing with it. your experiences have been inside and outside the system. sometimes you wonder, do i really want that radiation, and i want to do with it? it is helpful. me moreit is clear to and more as we look at this issue of fema how do we create consistency, how we do not just do that churn and burn on the material or do it is a thing

that bothered me the most, the kind of spending plan approach first of what is strategically necessary and where those gaps exist and how we do that. and the mayor brought up, in alaska, we are unique because we have this unique relationship with cities and state, but another city, in others cities and states, it is not as clear- cut as it should be. john, you are an exception. we have to figure this out, how to make sure that cities who are always going to be, no matter how much we strategize will be the first person on the ground, maybe a terrorist attack as we saw in boston or natural ena, isr in gal that first body that is there, a firefighter, emt, and then right next door will be the state system and the federal system. if we are going to be as

responsive, not only in preventive mode, but in the preventive mode, and also the responsive mode, but which is not one of the most important, we can do certain things, but there are these risk factors. it will be interesting to see over the next. of time as we see some recommendations on how we analyze his money and use it factors. money weot the kind of have available anymore and we have to be much smarter about it. your ideas and your testimony as well as her written testimony, i want to say on behalf of the committee, thank you very much for being here. let me check one thing. the record will be kept open for 15 days for additional questions or comments from members of the committee. we may submit some written questions for you. we would be anxious for a response. thank you for being here.

this committee is now adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> there are about 1400 monuments on the battlefield. the peak building time was the 1880's and 1890's. they want to make sure what they did here was her mentor.

they will do that by building monuments. otherern times we have ways of commemorating things like that, but in those days at us how they commemorated the service here. to thea momenument leaders, to their soldiers, and the monuments help us interpret the story. most of the monuments are union monuments. the battle will be a union victory. we are in a northern state. ends, time the war there's is not a lot of money in the south to build monuments, especially in a northern state. day coverage of the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, sunday at 9:30 eastern with stories and authors. followed at 5:30 with your calls

and tweets. at 8:00, the commemorative ceremony with keynote speaker doris kearns goodwin. candlelight procession to the cemetery. tweets.5, or calls and all day sunday on c-span3. >> a look outside the supreme court this morning, where justices this warning struck down a key provision of the 1965 toting right acts. the court declared unconstitutional the formula used for determining which states must obtain federal approval for making changes to how they conduct their elections. the justices said congress

relied on 40 --year-old a debt that does not respect societal changes. the ruling does not invalidate the act's preclearance requirement, section five has no determination. the court in its opinion said congress may draft another formula based on current conditions. casesings today on other doing the same-sex marriage, and looking at proposition eight in votersnia, approved by in 2008, and another challenging the defense of marriage act. the court term wraps up tomorrow. we will cover the decision on those key cases as they are announced. attorney general eric holder will talk about the supreme court's decision on the voting rights act, set for 12:30

eastern. the u.s. house is about to gavel in for the week, following a speeches. then it will recess until 5:00 work on remaining bills. requests for recording votes will be delayed until six: 30 eastern. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., june 25, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable kerry bentivolio to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority

leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip each, to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for five minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the chair. last thursday, speaker boehner called president obama, quote, absolutely crazy, end quote, for moving forward with rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that cause global warming. what i think is absolutely crazy is the republicans' constant denial of the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and human activity is

largely responsible. i think it's absolutely crazy that the republicans voted more than 50 times in the last congress to block action on climate change. in march, i talked about a new peer review report from oregon state and harvard that looked at temperatures over the last 11,300 years. and they found that over the last 100 years, coinciding with the widespread use of fossil fuels and turbines, etc., that we have seen more temperature increase than over the previous 11,000 years. 100 years versus 11,000 years. last month i came to the floor again to talk about a new noaa report. oceans warming, many commercial fish stocks are moving north. other things that aren't capable of moving are deteriorating in stocks. and then on the west coast we've had shellfish failures due to ocean acidification and

the shellfish, of course, are only an indication of what might happen to the rest of the food chain in the oceans. no one denies the acidifications are due to the co-2 in the atmosphere. but the do-nothing republican congress says there's nothing to do. unlike the republicans, president obama accepts the science and in about two hours the president will release a plan to combat climate change here at home and lay out steps of working with the largest polluters, including india and china, to reduce emissions abroad. the details aren't all out yet but the president is proposing to do something that we -- i said we should do five years ago. that is use the regulatory powers of the clean air act to regulate new and existing power plants. that's responsible for almost 40% of our greenhouse gas emissions. we can make a huge dent in our emissions by moving forward on responsible, flexible fish and sea standards for coal and natural gas plants. as the administration moves

forward, it should take a close look at the climate plan outlined by the natural resources defense council. their plan has two key elements. sets state-specific emission rates to reflect the diversity of the nation's electricity sector and give power plant operators broad flexibility to meet those standards in the most cost-effective way through a range of existing ex-technologies. the standards for every state would be would be a rate average of all fossil fuel plants and individual plants could emit at a higher or lower rate. above the state standard could meet the target by retrofitting more efficient boiler or it can burn a mixture of coal and cleaner gases. it would have them average emissions, the rates of their plants and meet the require emission rates on average. increasing generation from cleaner sources or integrating more renewable sources.

such an approach is exactly what makes the clean water act one of our most successful, environment analal and public health statutes -- environmental and public health statutes in history. get serious about climate change. the supreme court has given the president the authority to regulate. the only question now is whether the republican leadership in the house of representatives will listen and act. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, for five minutes. mr. brooks: thank you, mr. speaker. america suffers from four consecutive trillion-dollar deficits and a $17 trillion debt that risk a debilitating american insolvency and bankruptcy. financial responsibility is the key to minimizing america's risk of economic disaster rocked by crippling debt. yet, the senate gang of eight

amnesty bill is the height of financial irresponsibility. it makes illegal aliens a bigger financial burden on america, racks up higher deficits and increases america's risk of insolvency and bankruptcy. the senate gang of eight bill immediately gives illegal aliens state and local welfare. that is in addition to the federal welfare illegal aliens already lawfully and unlawfully get. for example, watchdog group judicial watch reports that a case manager in charge of food stamp application stated, and i quote . illegals would come by the van load and we were told to give them their stuff. management knew they were illegal. it was so rampant in a some employees would tell their illegal relatives to come and get food stamp. judicial watch adds, the promotion of the food stamp program, now known as snap,

supplemental nutrition assistance program, includes a spanish language flyer provided to the mexican embassy by the united states department of agriculture with a statement advising mexicans in the united states that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance. judicial watch goes further and, again, i quote, the united states department of agriculture spent taxpayer money to run spanish language television ads encouraging illegal aliens to apply for government food stamps. the mexican consul in santa ana, california, starred in terrible commercials and ensured that illegal aliens that receiving food stamps, quote, won't affect your immigration status, end quote. judicial watch concluded that, quote, adding insult to injury, last spring the united states department of agriculture inspector general revealed that many food stamp recipients used

their welfare benefits to buy drugs, weapons and other contraband from unscrupulous vendors disclosing that the fraud has cost american taxpayers nearly $200 million. a comprehensive study by the heritage foundation that, again i yote, many unlawful immigrants have u.s.-born children. these children are currently eligible for the full range of government welfare and medical benefits. the study notes that, quote, in 2010 the average unlawful immigrant household received ound $24,721 in government benefits and services while taxes. ome $10,334 in this had benefits received minus taxes paid around $14,387 per household. the heritage foundation confirms that the senate gang

of eight amnesty bill will, quote, after 13 years unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and obamacare. at that point or shortly thereafter former unlawful immigrant households would likely begin to receive government benefits as those with the same education level. as a result, government spending and fiscal deficits would increase dramatically. the senate gang of eight amnesty bill is reckless with the truth and misleads the american people. not only will illegal immigration increase american taxpayer burdens through welfare, obamacare and other payouts, but illegal immigration is already costing united states taxpayers more than $14,000 a year per illegal alien household. all told, for the federation of americans for immigration reform, illegal aliens already cost american taxpayers roughly

$100 billion per year in net tax losses. the senate gang of eight amnesty bill does not properly manage welfare, does not give border security, mismanage manages tax dollars therefore hammering already stressed american taxpayers while aggravating america's already bad financial situation. thus increasing america's risk of a debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy. mr. speaker, the senate gang of eight bill must be defeated at all costs. america's future depends on it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, for five minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in five days, unless congress acts, the stafford student loan program, which helps 7 1/2 million students pay for college, is

set to see the interest rates increase from 3.4% to 6.8%. this is now when student debt exceeds $1 trillion, exceeds credit card debts, it exceeds car loan debt. and yet, despite the fact that in fact students and families are facing this mountain, crushing burden, unless we move in a very short period of time, we are going to add to that burden by allowing the interest rates to go from 3.4% to 6.8%. again, five years -- six years ago, this congress acted to pass the college cost reduction act, which cut that rate from 6.8% to 3.4%. it was a five-year bill tied to the higher education re-authorization act. last year with minutes to spare, we extended that lower rate for one additional year and, again, here we are today five days away from this rate doubling. i've introduced legislation, h.r. 1595, the student loan protection act, which has 196

members of the house who signed a discharge petition demanding that the speaker of the house bring this bill up for debate and passage which will protect that lower rate for an additional two years. and we need that time so we can pass a new higher education authorization tact which will deal with the broad range -- act which will deal with the broad range of how we pay for college which, includes, of course, the stafford student loan program, the workhorse for families to pay for college. it also deals with pell grants. it also deals with perkins loans. it also deals with the obstructions and hurdles that people face when they want to refinance student loan debt after they've left college. again, that's a big part of that $1 trillion debt burden that's out there in society. we need a broad, long-range plan to pay for higher education because the stakes are huge. we know that the u.s. economy needs critical skills in our work force if we are going to continue to grow and prosper. the baby boomers are now

hitting retirement age age at increasing numbers and a whole range of critical occupations from medicine to science, engineering, we need to refill the ranks and higher education is the avenue that we can continue to succeed as a country and as a nation. our competitors know this. they are investing in higher education at a much higher rate than we are in the u.s., and we must act to make sure that that -- again, we don't go backwards on july 1. now, the house passed a bill on may 23, the republican majority pushed a bill through which they claim solves the problem. it changes the fixed rate loan program to an adjustable rate tied to the treasury note, the 10-year treasury note which is roughly now about 2.6%. it adds an additional 2.5% to that and claim -- and they claimed when they passed that bill that that solves the problem. unfortunately, the

congressional budget office drilled down deeper and analyzed what the real net impact would be on students. the problem with that variable rate program is that for a freshman entering this fall, a new student like my daughter who's starting college this fall, she doesn't use the stafford loan program, but for some of her fellow students, if they sign up for the stafford loan program under the republican bill, they really don't know what the rate is because it will reset every year that that freshman is in college over a period of four years. looking at where treasury notes are projected over the next four years, the congressional budget office has told us that in fact for that graduating student four years from now, their interest rate on the loan that they will graduate with will be over 7%. so in other words, congressional budget office told us if we allow the republican bill to go forward, it's actually worse than doing nothing and allowing the rates to double to 6.8%. president obama has proposed a different version which would again use the cheap cost of

money today with an inflation add-on, but that plan that the president put forward locks in the rate for the student who takes that loan out next year. so in other words, that freshman that will go to school with my daughter next year who signs up for a stafford student loan program, narrate will not reset from one year to the next. they -- their rate will not reset from one year to the next. they will have a fixed rate using the treasury note baseline. it is a better proposal. the republican bill has a cap in terms of how high these rates can go over time. the president's does not. we need obviously to get both sides to come together and come up with a real comprow nice which comes up with -- compromise which comes up with an important way for the stafford student loan to work. the better course now is to protect the lower rate, give us time to come up with overlapping ideas from both sides of the aisle to fix this problem. let's not let the rates double.

let's pass h.r. 15695. let's protect 7 1/2 college students pursue their goals and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. . mr. poe: mr. speaker, there is a civil war ranging in syria. no question about it, president assad is a bad guy. he hates israel and he hates his own people. the humanitarian situation in syria is dire. i had been to syrian refugee camps in turkey and seen firsthand the devastation of this war. one camp i went to, there were 150,000 syrians in turkey fleeing from this devastation of war. however, there are numerous rebel groups trying to remove assad from power. who exactly are these rebels? we really don't know, but we do know the most powerful among them is an affiliate of al

qaeda. these extremists are killing each other in the name of religion and the people of syria are caught in the middle. . lining up on president assad's side are the nations of russia and iran. but also the terrorist group, hezbollah, of course, sponsored by iran. lining up on the so-called rebs' saudi arabia, egypt, and numerous rebel groups from patriots to criminals to al qaeda and outside mercenaries. for two years the united states has just ignored the situation. but now suddenly the administration has decided it's time to get involved. the administration's answer? send the rebels american guns. send the rebels american guns? traffic american guns into syria and i guess hope for the best. this sound familiar, mr. speaker? we have tried this before.

we have seen this song and dance in libya and even in mexico, our neighbor. this administration is gun happy to give guns away. in libya the administration armed the rebel groups to out of -- oust omar gaddafi, another bad guy. where are those guns now? were they used in benghazi? who knows. the administration is still silent on benghazi. those guns are scattered all over the middle east or north africa. were they used in algeria? remember, mr. speaker, in algeria, there were americans working at an energy plant there, along with other citizens from other countries. two americans were killed in that. were they used in mali? who knows. only time will tell. who has died because these weapons end up in the wrong hands every time we give american guns away to rebel groups? but providing weapons to radical sectors fighting against assad, we are really taking sides in somebody else's war.

we are also arming some radicals who seek to destroy us. like al qaeda who is fighting on the side of the rebels. more weapons will only escalate this conflict. more people are going to die because the united states picks sides. but syria and libya are not the first time this administration blindly trafficked weapons to terrorists. let's go back to our own hemisphere. let's talk about our neighbor, mexico. do you remember operation fast and furious? we still haven't gotten answers on that scandal. in an effort to help fight the drug cartels, the administration sent thousands of weapons to mexico without even telling the mexican government. and who got those weapons? the drug cartels. of course these guns ended up in the hands of the terrorists, narcoterrorists, and resulted in the death of at least two or three americans and hins of mexican nationals. another botched gun running operation sponsored by the u.s. government. too bad we don't learn from

history and stop this nonsense of furnishing guns to groups in somebody else's country. did we implement universal background checks on the violent criminals we armed in syria, libya, mexico? yeah, right. is this the new policy of the united states? international weapons trafficking? meanwhile, back at the ranch this administration is on a tireless crusade to ban guns in the united states. mr. speaker, why is the white house so determined on disarming americans while arming known potential terrorists, bandits, drug lords, and mercenaries. ironic, don't you think? that's a different issue for a different day and i ask this question, what is the national security interest of the united states to be involved in syria, in somebody else's civil war? there is none. this is not our war. mr. speaker, this is a regional

religious war that we should not be involved in. it's a war between the sunnis and shiias and these two religions groups have been fighting each other since the ar 630, and now we are involved in this regional religious war. what's next? is the administration going to propose and implement a no-fly zone? if this occurs i believe the president must ask for congressional approval on the war powers act. no question we should with humanitarian aid. this is not our war. we should not be running guns to third world countries. we shall wait and see what happens. that's just the way it is. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record part of the war powers act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut, mr. larson, for five minutes.

mr. larson: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. larson: thank you, mr. speaker. having traveled home this weekend and listened to so many back in my district, concerned about the lack of solutions and the lack of effort on behalf of the united states congress to get things done, i told them to take heart. that sometimes these things are difficult. and i added what if i tell you that we could deal with the rising cost of health care, we could bring down the national debt and do it all by providing better quality and coordinated patient centered care? that would be a good goal, they surmised. what if i toll you we could do -- told you we could do this

without raising taxes or cutting medicare benefits? and what if i told you that all of this notion began from the seeds of an idea that was outgrown from the heritage foundation and it was piloted by a republican governor in a democratic state and then served as the basis of the affordable health care act which is the law of the land? the affordable health care act, in fact, what many members on my de of the aisle would have supported was something different. a single payor. a medicare for all approach. but the law of the land is based on the heritage foundation idea and a republican governor from massachusetts' formula to make sure we can provide care to all our citizens. although the health care act has

become politically driven and charged, what the american people want to see is a congress that's serious about solutions. solutions that are workable on behalf of the american people. so let's start where we all agree. paul ryan has stated over again very eloquently that the rising costs of our debt and deficit are due to health care. i agree with him. when it comes to making sure that quality of patients is improved and care is coordinated more effectively, these are not republican or democratic ideas. these are american ideas. and why do we need to move forward? we have no less than 10 separate studies, studies from the institute of medicine, reuters, the commonwealth fund, among others that show that there is $800 $750 billion to billion in waste, fraud, and

abuse, and lack of coordination within our health care system. why, then, would we consider with that kind of waste taking any money out of medicare or taking any money away from the beneficiaries who use that to pay their hospitals, their medical devices, their pharmacists, their doctors? what we need to do is face what the reality is. the reality is that the united states spends 18% of its gross domestic product on health care. we need to drive those costs down. and by doing so, as business men will tell you, any model that that -- it is that inefficient when the rest of the world is at 8% and 9% for health care and provide universal access to health care, and we are at 18% with millions of our people still uninsured, if we drive

that down and wring out all the inefficiencies, waste in the system, then we can have both health care for our system, and for our constituents that's both coordinated, that's essential, and drives down the national debt. all we have to do is recognize the simple fact. take the very best of our public health system. take the very best of science, technology, and innovation. and then take the very best of our private sector and its entrepreneurs and have this body come together in a coordinated fashion to bring that about. it's happening without us. it's happening in the private sector. fromet in a and others around this country are taking steps to drive down the

cost of health care. they are doing it by coordinating care with the mayo clinic, with the cleveland clinic, with sloan kettering, with labs like jacksons labs in my state. all of this is focused on making sure that we are going to have better outcomes for our people. we can do this together. let's work towards solutions. this congress is capable of doing it. thank you. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house

those decisions are expected to come down tomorrow, the last day of the term, and we'll cover those decisions on those remaining key cases as they are announced. well, in just a couple minutes, attorney general eric holder is expected to talk about the supreme court's decision on the voting rights act.

it's set to begin at 12:30 eastern. we're planning live coverage of this on c-span 2 after the senate gavels out for their weekly party lunches. again, that will be at 12:30 eastern on c-span2. president obama is in town today. he's speaking at georgetown university this afternoon on climate change. the president's expected to announce executive orders to direct the federal government agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that may cause climate change. we'll have live coverage of those remarks beginning at 1:55s eastern on our companion network c-span3. >> there are about 1,400 monuments and markers on this battlefield. the period is the 1880's and the 1890's. as the men who fought in this battle are getting older, they want to make sure what they did here is remembered. and they're going to do that by beginning monuments. in modern times in the 20th and 21th -- 21st century, that's

how they commemorated those soldiers, their leaders like john buford. and so the monuments really help us interpret the story, the monuments are placed on the ground where the units fought. most of the monuments are union monuments. we're in a northern state, the war is going to be a union victory and quite honestly, by the time the war ends there's not a lot of money in the south to build monuments, especially in northern states. >> live all day coverage of the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. sunday starting at 9:30 eastern with historian, scholars and authors -- ollowed at 5:30 with --

>> yesterday the american enterprise institute held a day-long conference on student financial aid ranging from financial aid access to reform. here, government officials outline higher education, the history of student aid policies and what improvements are needed for students and families. this is 90 minutes. we'll show you this as much as we can until the house returns at 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> good morning, everybody. it's 2 minutes after 9:00.

i'm a resident scholar and founding director of the newlaunched center for higher educational return. i'm thrilled to have you on behalf of our colleague, professor at the university of wisconsin-madison. we want to welcome you to reinventing financial aid, the $1 trillion question. we're thrilled to have you all here. we have a great lineup of authors and discussions, the papers are outside. nine new pieces of research on reforming financial aid. and the opportunities to do so, the obstacles that stand in the way and some interesting new ideas on how to make these programs better. so first, let me thank the authors for providing us with great pieces. you guys did a wonderful job. one of the things sarah and i sat out to do with this roster bring some new voices in the conversation. the d.c. folks tend to blog and tweet a lot at each other but not necessarily to notice what's going on out in academia

a lot. so we're really, really happy to have some talented young academics and some folks who have been at this for a very long time. [laughter] so first panel specifically -- the first panel in particular. o we really appreciate it. so just some quick housecleaning notes quickly. if you want -- the papers are available out there. please turn your cell phones to vibrate so we can get that out of the way. you can get on the wireless. there's information about how to get on the wireless if you want to tweet and blog and do whatever else you want to do, email. and the important times to remember. our lunch is at five after 12:00. there will be a wine and cheese reception the best part of the day at 5:00 in the evening. and i'd also like to take a minute to thank the gates

foundation for their generous support of this project and our program officer, nick lee, in particular, who's been incredibly helpful in helping us think through the project. so thank you to them for that. so i've been told to get across is the hash tag for live tweeting. so that -- the hash tag is there. it's reinvent fenaid. it's apropos to talk about hash tags. this hash tag which was very popular last year, it's become popular again this year. and it is the hash tag related to the fight over the student loan interest rate. it went on for about four, five months. it's going on again this year in classic congressional fashion we are dealing with the question that we should have settled months ago. what jumped out at me about that debate and about the current debate still is that we

spend so much of our time in quote-unquote higher education policymaking here in d.c. discussing these types of issues which are -- which are important but they're technical questions. and they're susceptible to short fixes, to things we can hammer out instead of actually thinking about the structural issues that underlie the financial aid programs. so i want -- sara, it's sort of frustrating that we don't tend to actually ever launch a comprehensive systematic reform agenda in financial aid. we do this opportunistic policymaking. we go from one point to the next. we make policy based on deadlines and politics rather on good research. and sara said, yeah, we don't agree on very much but i think we agree on that. so it's great common ground for our project. so i'll -- i have some slides. i'll go through them quickly here to give us a sense on why

we're here. why do we need to reinvent the system? we're going to talk a lot today about some opportunities for reform. we're not actually going to talk as much about some of the problems about the current system. we've made big new investments in higher -- in financial aid over the years. but as i said, policymakers are sort of content to tinker with these and not question some of the underlying assumptions that were made, you know, 40 years ago in some cases. and now, of course, programs that were created in the 1960's to promote access we're asking to -- completion. it's a totally different question. new policy goal. and yet we're -- we sort of take our existing stable policies and say how can we ramp them up and make them better rather than revisiting the question of how they're designed in the first place. so this -- as you all know, pell grant spending has gone through the roof recently. programs have gotten bigger but not necessarily better.

the purchasing power has gone down of the pell grant, right, because tuition prices have gone up. we've given out lots more money in student loans. but we wound up saddling the lowest income -- lowest wealth households with the most student loan debt. not only that, but this is sort of the kicker for me. this is from one, the gaps have widened over time between socioeconomic groups. there's something going on here. we're not actually solving the problems that we first set out to solve. the world has changed tremendously. i was just looking at some mbers yesterday at david mondale's request or suggestion to think about how the financing of higher education has changed over the years, right? so on the left i chose 1981-1982 as an arbitrary date to start. on the left you have the sort of some statistics from that era and then today. what you see really is that the

federal government has essentially become a co-equal partner if not the dominant partner in financing higher education. that was usually a state responsibility typically, and the federal government has sort of taken more of this on. this is a new world but the policies haven't changed to keep pace with it. and so meeting the demands require new thinking, right? and the feds have very little control over institutions or states, the behavioral of institutions or states, right? what's remarkable is to think about the k-12 space where the federal government gives maximum -- about 10% to 12% of the funding to k-12 schools and yet the schools we're all told to test their students in third and eighth grade and once in high school on reading and math and they did it, right? in contrast, the federal government gives tons of money to higher ed and asks very little in return, right, from institutions or states? and, again, we're also asking

how they can promote completion. so how can we redesign our programs for a better -- for system improvement? this is the view of the typical response to financial aid reform but i think it's pretty accurate. we tend to layer new programs on top of existing ones. we have a fixation on some of these symbolic elements like the maximum pell grant and the student loan interest rate. that was made most clear to me when we sacrificed the summer pell which is an interesting element of the pell grant program in order to maintain the funding for the maximum pell. and then of course interest group agendas conflict with efforts to reform. interest groups are generally sort of risk averse and they like -- they like to keep the status quo intact for fear of something that could be worse of something that comes down the pipe. and we haven't done our home work and this is where sara and i started. from welfare to job training to head start, we've done serious federal level evaluations of

projects. we've embarked -- >> attorney general eric holder is speaking about the supreme court's decision on the voting rights act handed down earlier today. we're leaving this to join the attorney general live in progress. >> and invalidated an essential part of the voting rights act. a cornerstone of american civil rights law. now, like many others across the country, i am deeply disappointed, deeply disappointed with the court's decision in this matter. this decision represents a serious setback for voting rights and has the potential to negatively affect millions of americans across the country. in the nearly half century since its initial passage in 1965, the voting rights act has consistently enjoyed broad bipartisan support in congress as well as the executive branch. after extensive hearings, sections 4 and 5 of this important law, were

re-authorized. most recently in 2006. just seven years ago. with the unanimous support of the united states senate and the near unanimous support of the house of representatives. this is a uniquely legislative function and responsibility that the constitution expressly gave to congress. the last re-authorization was signed into law by president george w. bush. just as prior re-authorizations had been signed by presidents ford, reagan and nixon in accordance with core nonpartisan american values. after all, as congress correctly recognized in the hearings held in 2006, racial and language minorities faced significant voting discrimination in some parts of our country. given the successful decisions in the departments of voting rights cases over the last 18 months, over the last 18 months the need for a vital and intact

voting rights act remains clear. last year a federal court cited the texas congressional redistricting map on the grounds that it discriminated against latino voters. in that case, the court noted that the parties -- and i'm quoting. this is from the court. the court noted that the parties provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space or need to address here. provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space or need to address here, unquote. the federal court that reviewed south carolina's photo i.d. law also noted, and i quote, the voting rights act played in prompting the state to play how it will implement the statute in future elections so it would no longer disproportionately impact black voters. without the section 4 coverage

formula, neither of these discriminatory voting changes would not be subject for review and both could have been implemented immediately. these are just two of many examples demonstrating that these problems have not been confined to history. they continue to exist. their effects are real. they are of today, not yesterday, and they crode the foundations of our -- could he rode the foundations of our democracy. our nation has been better since 1965 but the destination we've seek has not been reached. in reading of today's opinion demonstrates that every member, every member of the supreme court agrees with this fact. as the chief justice wrote, and i quote again, voting discrimination still exists. no one doubts that, unquote. this is why protecting the fundamental right to vote for all americans will remain one

of the justice department's highest priorities. the department of justice will continue to carefully monitor jurisdictions around the country for voting changes that may hamper voting rights. let me be very clear. we will not hesitate to take swift enforcement action using every legal tool that remains to us against any jurisdiction that seeks to take advantage of the supreme court's ruling by hindering eligible citizens full and free exercise of the franchise. as the president has made clear, congress needs to act to make sure that every american has equal access to the polls. the department also will work with congress and other elected and community leaders to formulate potential legislative proposals to address voting rights discrimination. because existing statutes cannot totally fill the void left by today's supreme court ruling. and i am hopeful that new protections can and will pass

in this session of congress. the voting rights act has always had strong bipartisan support on capitol hill, and today's ruling should not change that. this is not a partisan issue. this is an american issue. because our democracy is founded on ensuring that every eligible citizen has access to the ballot box. finally, we need to be clear about what happened today. part of the voting rights act but not all of it was struck down. the constitutionally protected voting rights of all americans remain fully intact, and the right to vote, free from discrimination based on race or language, requires our vigilant protection. we know from many decades of long, hard struggle that the best way to defend the right is to go out and exercise it. so no one should conclude that today's unfortunate decision has rendered her or his voting

rights invalid or made attempting to cast a vote on election day futile. to the contrary, it is incumbent on all american citizens to stand up for their rights by registering to vote, by going to the ballot box, by exercising the most fundamental of all rights and by voting for their preferred candidates of any party. our democracy is dependent on each of us and on our active participation in the electoral process. although today's decision represents a serious and unnecessary setback, the justice department remains committed to moving forward in a manner that's consistent with the art of american history which has always been a story of increasing equality, inclusion and access to the franchise. this is what makes the united states of america truly exceptional, and this is what we will zealously guard. thank you. >> section 5 --

>> attorney general eric holder on the supreme court's decision on the votes rights act handed down earlier today. it's in reaction from a number of sources. today we're planning to bring you coverage of reaction from the congressional black caucus to the supreme court's ruling on the voting rights act. that will start at 2:30 eastern here on c-span. the court, again, ruling today on a key provision of the 1965 votes rights act striking down as unconstitutional the formula used for determining which states must obtain federal approval by making changes to how they conduct their elections. the justices essentially gave congress the responsibility of coming up with new formulas based on data that reflect changes in society. still to come from the court, rulings on same-sex marriage and the defense of marriage act. those decisions expected to come down tomorrow, the last day of the term. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] and back now to the american enterprise conference on student financial aid, ranging from financial aid access to

reform. >> designed by imagination, ingenuous thinking and experimentation. i think we're in the invention business of -- and not simply reinventing what i worked on with -- first with president johnson. that's not andrew johnson. [laughter] so we're inventing and we're trying to improve. and we're trying to do that by creating actionable knowledge, and i chose a word which will remind you of the military phrase, actionable intelligence. i believe actionable knowledge is what we should have. that's knowledge that allows us to make decisions to take actions which will improve the performance of something. 's not knowledge for knowledge's sake. this is fashionable in the military and foreign policy,

and it should be fashionable in our domain. as we search for this actionable knowledge to guide our invention, i think there really are a series of things or concerns that should guide us. andrew mentioned the disappointing performance and the fact that we don't really understand why the performance has been so disappointing. and andrew also mentioned contactual changes, the environment has changed, it has changed since i started working on this in 1967, and it will change again. and it may change tomorrow. and as dan will talk about, our knowledge will play a role in highly political and highly bureaucratic situations. ose will drive the

implementation of our findings. these processees are tilted toward stability, bias against change for perfectly good reasons. that doesn't mean that they're barriers, but it means we have to understand the environment into which our knowledge is flowing. this research needs to be focused on three sets of problems. we spent a lot of time over the last 40-plus years looking at market failures and market problems. how do we give people money, how do we give people information, how do we give students encouragement, how do we simplify it? those problems deserve to be a continuous -- a continuing focus for our attention, but we also need to look more carefully at some nonmarket

problems. for example, how do families operate and how does student aid potentially influence the way families encourage, reward or discourage college attendance? families are not market institutions. similarly, middle and high school, they play a key role in training and educating. hey play a key role in counseling students, particularly students who are not already oriented toward college when they come out of bassinet and yet student aid ignores these institutions and these are ones that has to be influenced. as yeas and nays are requested said, student aid has required very much an influenced very little about colleges and states.

this is at great cost. if we want to improve performance, we need to think about how aid program influences and interact with college behaviors and all sorts of college behaviors and state behaviors. and we've already dealt with some of the contextual changes. why do we know so little -- i mean, someone would ask me, you've been working on this for almost 45 years and you still don't know anything or know very little? and i think there are a series of reasons which fall into the class of where we've looked and how we've looked. we've looked at the marketplace and we've ignored in the research world several other important issues. we've focused on problems we understand and for which we have data. those -- in general, the

problems we understand and have data and for which we have data are a very limited set of the problems. it's easier to write papers. it's easier to do research. it's easier to have impurecal form results when we focus on these problems, but it's not easier to improve policy. and third, my own private hobby horse, we have searched for certainty. you could call it statistical significance. you could call it proof, etc., etc. we've searched for certainty in a field that has lots of noise and lots of uncertainty and lots of randomness. and every time we see that we say we haven't observed anything, there is no effect. the search for certainty in the arena where certainty doesn't exist is a serious mistake. to look in a en

very narrow range of ways. for example, there's very little research on higher education student aid that deals with theory and hypothesis development, and yet if we want to understand organizations and institutions, we need to build the theory. we may not be able to move ahead with theory loan, but in the absence of theory, we will always know very little. second, we need to engage in the learning process of design and prototyping. we cannot simply design a policy based on search, write it into law, write it into regulations and then operate it and believe it's going to be successful. we need to go through the learning process of trial and error, design and prototyping.

and third, the research community has to be involved in program monitoring and assessment. this we have to get not nuts and bolts into what is happening on the ground with regard to the programs we design at the federal level. absence that knowledge we will simply be flying blind, and frankly, i think we've been flying blind a few too many years. what are some potential targets? there are plenty of them. there are tons of targets for research. i put forth in the paper, i guess, about eight. i think three deserve some mention. we just expanded the pell programs and the loan programs very significantly. we need to assess them before that information goes away. we need to understand what that expansion and the time of

economic uncertainty and demise, what that expansion did and what it didn't do. and this data is available now and it will be valuable if we use it now. we have to understand institutions and governments, and we have to understand, as sara and a few other people's work are trying to understand, we have to understand how these programs influence not only access and choice and affordability but also persistence and completion and success. how does student aid now nfluence that and how might we reorient student aid so that it can play an influential role in this? ecause these are outcomes. as i look to the future, it

seems a focused research program or focused assessment, monitoring and prototyping and retesting program can play a substantial role in affecting he future of these programs. can. it won't play a role unless two things happen. ne, as researchers we focus on creating knowledge that can play a role in presenting it in a way that it can be understood, heard, debated by our colleagues in the operational world, in the government world, and in, let's say, family support world. we need to present it. we need to engage. politics is not a barrier.

it is a constraint. it is not a barrier. in a fair rchers are bit, one would say in the order of 80%, we are responsible for the fact that our research isn't used. one, we haven't looked at problems that are interesting to policymakers. two, we haven't communicated well. and, three, in many cases we've looked down at politics as causing the bad outcomes. you know, we can complain for another 40 years or we can get into that fray -- not just the academic politics fray, but the student politics fray and operate within it and we can make a difference. thank you. [applause]

>> first, i want to thank andrew for inviting me here today. i met andrew i guess a little earlier this year or last year. whenever it was. we were working on one of the gates rad projects. and in particular freight c.m. i was very pleased to find a young man who was interested in this topic. [laughter] and, encouraged him to get his friends onboard as well. but i guess part of, you know, over that period of time we were working together i would just sort of my normal act is to share some stories about what i had observed, what i participated in, what i'd seen

in 30-plus years at the education department through a series of, you know, escalating positions, if you will, of responsibility. and so andrew, you know, came to me a few months ago and said, you got some great stories, can you write them down? so that's what i tried to do in this particular section of the book. .