billion pounds. >> this from the man who undermines the entire economy. >> he can't answer basic questions. >> that is the end of the time. [applause] >> alex hammond, you now have eight minutes to cross examine alistair darling. >> how many children in scotland are estimated to move into poverty by 2020 given the u.k. governments spending cuts? >> too many.

the time i was in government you could count -- >> how many? >> it depends on the government policies. >> a strong and secure economy is needed. >> there are too many children. >> 100,000 children in scotland moving into poverty. is that up price -- is that a price worth paying for the westminster government? the labour party -- they said that they will continue with labour -- the labour policies area, is that a price worth paying? >> as a society i said we had it an obligation to get the children out of policy. stop interrupting.

you as a government have cut one billion pounds from the anti-poverty program. most of whom only have one way out of poverty. you as a government have cut one >> 100,000 people with a and so, why are you standing here defending this success? disability, these are the people suffering the westminster government.

they can start with the resources cutting back on the money from the scottish government. >> the amount of money, the amount of money being spent on the health service has increased. [shouts from the crowd] >> you did decide at the moment how much to spend. don't start blaming other people for it. >> it came from the union. >> i know the service workers. everybody working in the health service wants to see it properly funded. it is for you to decide.

>> the cutbacks from westminster? >> you have made the point time and time again. >> it is for you to decide. >> they don't play these games. >> it is a national pub service. >> do your colleagues estimate they should try the system? >> i don't think that you choose between defending the country in the national health service? >> i don't believe it. >> do we choose to believe it? >> i am telling you, there were 13 years i was in government. spending more money in the future. >> is that a sensible allegation?

-- allocation? >> i understand that many people think trident is wrong. [applause] >> answer the question. >> i think we have an obligation to defend this country. >> name three job creating powers. >> first of all, devolving the work program. devolving further. >> what would that be first? >> secondly, it would be making sure that we guaranteed the unemployed getting back into work. >> i have told you that there is

a program for devolving the work into the program. >> part of the united kingdom. >> is this the universe? >> a guarantee for the scottish parliament if it they win the day? >> the scottish parliament has full powers over health and education. we have more powers related to welfare. public service creates jobs. just part of the united kingdom.

>> what powers are they transferring to the scottish parliament in order to create more jobs -- jobs? >> i told you. staying part of the united kingdom is the best way of guaranteeing jobs. >> you promised these additions. a powerhouse parliament. >> it is simple. all you have got to offer is what is great for starbucks. and amazon.

>> what army? >> part of the united kingdom. >> we won't get there on her own. >> 100,000 children faced with disabilities. they are going to spend $4 billion a year on trident, and he cannot name the powers of the parliament. [applause] >> telling me the money we will be using. how can you guarantee me anything in public service and you cannot tell me what you are using? >> that is the end of our cross examination section. thanks to both of you for that. one of the striking things about this campaign is how many people have become actively engaged in the discussion about the future of holland. the turnout turned out to be 80% and higher. town halls and living rooms are

alive with the noise of this great debate. >> everyone should be voting. it is an important decision to make. >> it is important that everyone should exercise their vote. this is a one-time in a lifetime opportunity. >> looking at the system, what we need is how we understand how this country works and what i want. >> this could be a great moment in history in scotland. o'er the biggest downfall. >> and employment advisor. >> i work for the scottish national heritage. >> to me the referendum should be an opportunity for the

country to live in and the society we want to live in, impacting employment. >> making sure that our heritage continues. >> get your opinions across. >> i am, in my country, entailing what will happen to us in the future. >> we will be the ones trying to obtain mortgages. setting careers. starting up families. >> it will be historic. >> the constituents get it right. >> in democracy it is wonderful that everyone in scotland gets a choice to choose which way it

goes. >> there are two sections still to come. we will look at what happened after the referendum. first we will look at the place of scotland in the world. this comes from brian connolly. >> what is going to happen to the jobs? to the people? after it is scrapped? >> alex hammond. p> the policy of the s&p -- sn will be to remove trident from scotland. there are a number of reports over the years that have

indicated as generating more jobs and wasting billions they can never be used. we have identified it as the function of the scottish defense forces. a policy that removes nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction because they are a phenomenal waste of money as well as being totally, morally wrong and the policy that gives our undertakings and obligations to a local community. [applause] >> in three years time there will be over 8000 jobs in fast lane. not just in relation to trident,

but because it is to become the uk's center for the non-trident submarine fleet. if it were to go it is certain the rest of the summary world would go with it. we could not well afford to lose another 8000 jobs. remember, there are others associated with that. never mind the costs, i understand why people might feel very strongly against those missiles. it won't reduce the amount of nuclear missiles and i think it is fanciful to suggest that a much smaller scottish defense force will require 8000 jobs. i just think it is the wrong thing to do in terms of military terms and jobs. i will throw this out in a moment, the question is about

jobs. >> you talk about a 10 year transition to an independent scotland. how long until there were as many people as you have in the united kingdom? >> obviously, we have given a 5.5 year timescale. building up conventional scottish defense forces, why not be the headquarters of the scottish defense force? >> the employment is equivalent to what was proposed. >> in the terms of onshore jobs it will be substantial as well. >> we currently have no ships to defend royal installations.

>> how long would it take? and equally it is 5.5 years. which is the timetable for the removal of trident nuclear submarines. people might make a choice. i think a very sensible choice. it would be sensible not to proceed with the next generation of submarines. not to spend 100 billion pounds. over the next 40 years on this.

>> that is also a choice the people of england can make. >> what is your perspective? >> saving money on 375 million pounds, leaving the people without jobs and you are not assured that they will be replaced? >> not at all. >> the gentleman there? >> given the remove and -- removal of trident, surely that would go some way to replacing the jobs that were lost. [applause] >> a respected think tank has said it is possible to move it but it would take until 2028.

that is eight years after your proposed timetable. >> they argued that to move it the weapons establishment would take longer. they said that they could move it in the timescale. it is a reasonable timescale. >> to stay longer? >> i think that scotland is a country of five point two 5 million people. it is ludicrous to suggest that we should harbor the largest concentration of weapons of mass destruction. [applause] it is equally ludicrous to argue

that this will harbor a weapons system in the first place to generate more jobs than the new -- then nuclear jobs ever could. >> we would miss the fact that we're going to waste our share of 100 billion pounds. on nuclearte things weapons. >> i understand, people believe we should have no part in nuclear weapons, but i can understand the part that says joined nato, a nuclear alliance. it does not make any sense. yes, the experts have said that it could take until 2008 to move it.

as i was thinking earlier, there are 8000 jobs at stake here. there are other submarines. and on top of that there is also the risk to the royal naval work on the client. i for 1 am not prepared to accept this. bolstering the rest of the united kingdom to unilaterally disarm itself. >> if they had to move the missiles, that is what would happen. the greater concern is the disruption that takes place and the uncertainty that takes place in the scottish defense force.

they are in fact turn -- in fact talking about spending that you have offered to spend 10 times over. you can't keep spending money that you haven't actually got. [applause] >> it is not at all like that. as the expenditure in scotland, to compare it to a major natural resource like oil and gas, there were many points, alastair. [applause] how on earth can you say that 50% of your tax revenue is a bonus? >> i think the rest of us realize that what you are doing is you are trying to spend money over and over again, but you can't do it.

>> they said they are not planning in that regard. do you believe that? >> yes. it is to find out what the will of the scottish are. no if's or but's or going back. that is why the decision is so a -- irrevocable. and that is why we have to make this with eyes wide ope. the reason they are not planning if there is no mandate. >> with the u.k. cap it, they said, yes, it was disgraceful that the u.k. government had not made any planning.

between the u.k. government and the scottish government. isn't it reasonable that we should have plans for the u.k. government, because of the sovereign will of the scottish people? [applause] though -- iaying went to get back to my other question. saying you are prepared to negotiate on that point? 5.5 years is a very reasonable timescale as we have done in the white paper. our objective is to rid scotland of nuclear weapons. and notmember of nato be a nuclear country. there was the prime minister of denmark, a nonnuclear country.

the next secretary-general was the prime minister of norway, another nonnuclear country. why is it not all right for us but all right for denmark and norway? >> after the 18th, after the referendum vote. our next question is submitted by e-mail. it comes from greg. has says this, in his view, been a very divisive campaign, not just for politicians but for the scottish population generally. the yes or know how no voters will react. someone asked me six months ago, has this been divisive, and will it be difficult afterwards, and i said, no, not at all, because after an election, people have their differences,

and that is it. both sides are passionate about what they believe in. they are arguing it with vigor. i do think that it is important that whatever the result, both sides have to accept it. we will have to accept it. workple that people will together to build a better and stronger scotland. equally, if i lose, and he wins, i have to accept that that is it. it is your revocable. we are not going back. but this is not just for politicians. whatis for all of us after has been the longest election campaign. i have every.est street and we have to remember, the next morning, we have to go on with making a difference for things that matter to scotland. issues of social justice.

we all need to work very closely together, and i hope we will do that. [applause] >> i will say that i agree with much that he was just saying. i don't agree about the campaign. i think this has been the most extraordinary, energizing campaign in scottish history. it are people who are going to vote who have never thought about voting for political parties. a poll of 80%, a marvelous engagement. this is a hugely exciting time for scotland. but i think he has a good point. in the aftermath, there is an obligation to bring scotland together. we're going to have to bring scotland together. if it is a yes vote, then i will betweenhe obligation the referendum and independence, not just involving the scottish national party, but all of the parttalents of scotland as

of scotland's negotiating team to get the best possible settlement for scotland in the negotiations. if he is available, i would be happy to invite him to join that negotiating team, because once , a referendum is over unified scotland is what we need. [applause] >> ok, i will let you come back to that in a moment, but i want to hear some final thoughts. what about after the vote. yes, in the front row. >> you mentioned about a turnout of about 80%. how can you make sure that they stay engaged in politics regardless of the outcome? a no vote,vent of can mr. darling tell us about the meaning for scotland? >> ok, and the gentleman in the

middle. a lot ofk so far that the points have been focusing on the risks and not on the benefits of staying in the union. case being made for me to vote no and to stay in the union. mr. darling has been very keen to stress that you should not be relying on oil, but you took our country, scotland, into an illegal war for oil, and scottish men died for that. yes?s, with the glasses, >> i think the fundamental difference is the yes campaign scotland, future of and they are fighting passionately for their jobs. >> i would let you pick it up,

first of all. with respect to the lady who just spoke, i will not win you over, because i think you are fairly much on the other side. we need to make the decision, that is why it is important that we make the right decision on september 18. there, i amleman passionate about the case because of the jobs, the opportunities, as well as the security that comes with being part of the union. this i could address gentleman's question about how do we sustain that engagement, i think one possibility for that as a yes vote is the formation of a constitution for an independent scotland. you both very much, indeed. we need to move to the final section.

we are fast approaching the end of this evening's debate, and time for closing remarks from each of our speakers. make inecision that we three weeks time will define us, this generation and also the future of the nation. societies have secured this opportunity to vote themselves to independence. this is an opportunity to do it peacefully at the ballot box and a process that has been agreed and consented. post that ballot in the next few days or go to that polling station, we will be taking the future of our country into our hands. there are opportunities both as an independent country and independents an country, and we have to rise to these challenges to solve them. in contrast, there is nothing positive to say about the future of this country.

only oney, there is thing we can guarantee, and this is what a yes vote can guarantee. election, anvery independent scotland will get the government we vote for. the choices that the people of scotland make will affect policy, and that means the policies and position of scotland will be placed in scottish hands. not the political parties or the newspapers. this referendum is about the future of scotland, and the future of scotland should be in the hands of the people. believe we can govern ourselves better than anyone else can. to be at need to rise nation again. we only have to believe in ourselves. this is our time, our moment. let's seize it with both hands. >> you know, no country the size of scotland can't compare to

what scotland has done, with our successes in engineering, medicine. scotland gave the world the age of enlightenment, and, of course, we can go it alone, but i do not think we will be as successful as scotland will be as part of the united kingdom. we will prosper better with building our strengths as well as being part of the larger united kingdom. yes, i raised the issue of currency again, because any country starting out is its currency, just as a household is about its money, and uncertainty about currency can bring a country to its knees. are thinking give independence a chance, but we cannot be sure of the currency, and it cannot be trusted. and i think the health service is with contempt. we now have prime television

time that the to of us have debated, and i still have not heard simple answers to a question. he -- you and i do not need to know what the other plan is. yes, we do. we do not need to divide these eyelids into separate states in order to assert our scottish identity. the strength and security provided by the united kingdom. i say that we have no option other than to say rightly him respectfully, and firmly, no thanks for independence. are now at the end of our time. we thank our guests and our and wee here in glasgow, thank you for being with us for this debate tonight. it continues across the bbc, on radio scotland, and on radio to scotland. good night. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

northcom's army north is preparing for possible hurricanes. since our country's founding the role of the military within our own borders has been a mart of public safety and a matter of significant public concerns. in the very brief amount of time i have i won't recount to you the content of federalist aid but i encourage you to read federalist aid because it offers a really insightful perspective on the limited role of the military within our society and the enduring requirement in a constitutional democracy for the military to be subordinate to civilian authority. hamilton's thoughts in

federalist aid i think are particularly insightful and prescient in terms of the kinds of missions i described. so where do we find a balance between essential even life-saving operational military capabilities and vital civil liberty? what's the right policy? and what's the applicable law? we do have a distinguished panel to address these issues today and i'm going to introduce them each prior to their individual presentations. our first speaker is brad kaiserman. he had been kind enough to participate in this panel for a number of years now. many know brad in his former capacity as chief counsel to fema. currently the assistant administer for recovery, office of response and recovery within fema. he is an extraordinarily talented attorney, thoroughly knowledgeable and operational capabilities. he spent years within d.h.s. as

an attorney before he moved to the subordinate element of d.h.s., fema. he's is a member of the senior executive service and he spent 22 years in civilian enlisted and commissioned capacities with the united states coast guard. brad, the floor is yours. >> good morning, everybody and -- good afternoon, i guess, as the case may be. let me begin, i think it's probably appropriate that we begin the conversation about defense support. it's probably important to begin with civil authorities. but perhaps the most useful is to begin with the basic principle of american civics. the principles of disaster management in this country assume a leadership role not by the federal government but by state, local, and tribal governments. that is a fundamental principle of emergency management in this country. if you think about it, it makes political sense as well.

the official closest to the disaster and the one most accountable is probably going to be a local mayor or a county councilman or city councilman or in some parts of the south and southwest a judge, elected judge. but these are the officials elected by the local community to govern that community and to essentially exercise all of the police powers vested in local government. and what is emergency management fundamentally if not the exercise of a police power? think about it. if you have -- and i won't say if it's you. if you have a child or a teen aged son like i might have, and that son is stopped by the police and asked to step out of his car and given a brethylizer test or patted down for any type of parafer nailia, that son has all sorts of process that is due under law. might be given a notice to

appear, might be given a ticket, booked and released, but in the end there's all manor of process that surrounds that transaction. now, think for a minute about an evacuation because of a flood or tornado. what process there? a local police officer knocks on a door, someone comes to the door and they're told this is a mandatory evacuation, you need to leave immediately because your life is in danger. and there will be no process. there's no process due and you may never be able to come back to your home again and everything you own, everything you have may be gone when you come back. and that's the exercise of a police power. not the notion of putting hand cuffs of someone or bonding them over for trial but the notion of protecting the civil population. the welfare, the health, the sanitation of that population. that is the essence of police powers. and it is what local governments do every single day

. and you may say so why are you beginning a conversation about the role of d.o.d. and the role of the defense authorities in emergency management? because when we talk about the role of the federal government and particularly the department of defense in disaster management and emergency management, at some level we are talking about an interface between the national security and national defense forces of our country with those people behind the door being told they have to evacuate because of a flood or a fire, with people who are in shelters because their homes are not accessible or have been destroyed. we're talking about interface with the civilian community on matters that are fundamentally tied and from a legal perspective to the exercise of police powers. so when the federal government gets involved in the vast majority of disasters or emergencies in this country when the federal government gets involved is it at the very

specific request of a governor or a tribal chief executive? who has determined that some municipality or counties or political subdivisions within the boundaries of his or her state or tribal area have been overwhelmed and that the state or the tribal government requires such supplemental assistance from the federal government because it is overwhelmed? so just to get the feds in the door, a governor's essentially saying i can't handle this. we need help. from the federal government. and then the president -- the president of the united states makes a decision about whether the conditions are such that that state is overwhelmed, and whether it's appropriate to bring federal resources to bear. and when we bring federal resources to bear, the federal emergency management agency is

called upon to lead the federal government's response and recovery to those declared events. we declare on the average about 50-70 events a year. we don't do water breaks, power outages, small fires. we don't do the vast majority of what most people -- what you would consider to be an emergency or disaster in your life. a very small fraction of what happens in this country is actedly federalized in terms of disaster response and recovery. when it is federalized, there are three basic forms of assistance available. what we call public assistance, designed to help repair, , tore, and replace entity individual assistance, to individuals and households, capped at about $34,000 a year. not designed to make any whole. let me be clear it wasn't designed to be your insurance

policy. and then something called hazard mitigation which are dollars generated through the total amount of money spent on the disaster some percentage of that money is set aside. it is available for states to make decisions about mitigating the risk of future disasters. so those are the three forms of assistance that are available. when the federal government comes into play, fema's role is to coordinate that system. fema is not, as you will hear our administrator say, it is not the team. we're a part of the team. there are many parts of the team. the department of agriculture, department of transportation, department of housing and urban development, the small business administration. all of these federal agencies bring dollars, resources, information to the table designed to help states and their communities respond and recover. when the president makes a declaration under certain circumstances, fema will task other federal departments and

agencies with performing certain mission essential critical functions and the department of defense is absolutely one of our key and most critical partners and i will tell you why. and this goes i think to the crux of the issues that bob and dawn and mike will talk about. so hopefully i'm teeing these up well for you. who is present in the united states? look, from the founding of the republic, when we talk about the whole community response to emergencies and disasters, who is present in the 17th century, the 18th century, the 19th century? who had forts on the frontier? it wasn't fema. fema didn't come around until 1979. , that's who was present. so there is a long tradition of defense support to civil authority. but as the role of the military

in the united states and the threats to the united states confronts increasingly expand, as the scale of the military increasingly grows, we have a fascinating tension because who is there? well, sometimes the military is there. we have people in garrison, we have people on base. ut more and more we have bases abroad. but who has the capacity? many people believe it is the d.o.d. so the question becomes, what is it that d.o.d. has available in terms of capability and capacity? what authorities can fema and other departments and agencies bring to the table to make use of that capability and capacity? and how do we form partnerships so we can leverage those authorities, capabilities, capacities in the way that make the most sense both operationly and economically? because from a cost perspective -- and i say with my brother here to the right of me, from a

cost perspective there is probably no higher value but no higher cost than working with d.o.d. to get resources. but sometimes there's also no comparable service provider who can bring those types of resources in. so it's finding that sweet spot and remembering at all times that when we are bringing resource to the table from d.o.d. they are fundamentally being used by state, local, and tribal governments for the execution of police powers by those authorities. there's a few occasions just to wrap up where the president may in fact do what's called an emergency declaration for a matter that is solely within the jurisdiction or the responsibility of the united states, a truly federal disaster. that has only happened three times in the history of the stafford act. and you might be surprised to learn that one of those was the rrorist attack on the murrah

attack, on the pentagon, and the first space shuttle explosion, all federal property. so in cases where large federal property is involved, the federal government may declare or the president may declare an emergency and the federal government pays for 100% of those costs. otherwise, the costs are shared by the state, local, tribal governments involved, generally at a 25% cost share for the state and local government, adjustable at the president's discretion, 75% floor for the federal government. so where does that leave us? we at fema do two things. we write checks and coordinate. we are only able to do the second because we do the first. when we write the check generally people are willing to be coordinated. absent that check, we tend to run into resistance. so that is our role at the federal emergency management agency, to coordinate and write

many of the checks, generally in the form of grant moneys where our partners are concerned to assist state, local, and tribal partners in recovering and responding to disasters which are primarily their legal responsibility and their political responsibility to respond to. >> so with that, i will turn to paul and to next speaker and look forward to your questions later in the day. >> thank you. so what happens when writing checks and coordinating within the interagency is an insufficient response? when teevepbt is of such magnitude that life-saving capabilities are required usually within a very short time frame in order to be successful in excutic the mission? can't write a check to do that. coordination is too late. you have to have deliverable operational capabilities. and so when there is a major delafert declared by the president under the stafford act and the lead federal agency d.h.s., fema under the homeland

security act of 2002 sends a mission assignment to the department of defense what happens to it? when fema attempts to incorporate into its response and its leadership the capabilities of d.o.d., that request goes to bob. bob is a retired marine logistics officer. i met him when he was still in uniform. homeland the staff of defense in 2002 when it was created. bob has had an extraordinary career. he is now a member of the senior executive service. and truly, bob is such a good friend i have trouble saying this without some considerable prejudice on my part but he is the expert in our nation on the subject of defense support of civil authorities. he knows more about that topic than anybody else i have ever met and he's been at it in the service of our country now for about 12 years. we are exceptionally fortunate to have bob deputy assistant

secretary of defense for integration and support of civil authorities as our next speaker. >> paul, thank you very much. let me start with i think it's important i'm going to talk about defense support to civil authorities but i wanted to provide a little bit of context before we get going on d.o.d.'s two main roles here domestically. and we've spent a lot of time, nearly a decade. and as the secretary was obviously the author of a lot of these policies that we have in the defense department but it was really to define d.o.d.'s role here domestically. and there's two mission sets. the first one is homeland defense. and when you think about homeland defense it is dinchtdinches. it is the defense mission that the department of defense executes for the defense of the nation under the president. and those are air defense and maritime defense. in those missions, d.o.d. is in the lead for those missions. so i want to just get that out

there so there's a clear understanding of that. we've also established two operational commands to oversee that responsibility in northcom out in colorado springs and paycome out in hawaii that oversee the operational responsibility for the maritime defense of the nation. the next issue is defense support to civil authorities. fascinating issue. and i try to look at it in three areas in particular. the first is how the department provides support to federal law enforcement agencies. the second big area is in disaster response. and the third in my view is public health emergencies which is sometimes overlooked. and the defense department can be called in to assist in any of those areas. all of those are governed -- obviously brad talked about our role at fema and i'm going to focus on disasters, in particular large-scale disasters and talk a little bit about sandy and the critical role that the defense

department played in sand yifment and i think you will be surprised, quite honestly, because when you think about the defense department you most often think about military members. but there's tremendous capabilities in the defense department that are brought to bear in our national response system. ut with that, -- and d.o.d. is always, always in support, whether it's supporting law enforcement, supporting disasters, or in public health emergency supporting hfs and those kinds of organizations. and i know mike is going to talk a little bit about border assistance and how the guard works and state actedive duty and title 32 and i'm not going to talk about that but maybe during the questioning period we can have a discussion. but even when the defense department is excuting a support to civil authorities mission in support of another agency, the chain of command extends to the secretary of defense.

military forces always remained under the command and control of the secretary of defense. so i want to step back and go up a little bit on this discussion. because having had the opportunity to look at this for several years as paul's indicated i think there's some leading strategic indicators out there as we think about disasters of the future. and certainly climate change -- and there's a lot of discussion about that, but certainly fires, floods, droughts and hurricanes are more frequent and a lot of cases more severe. when you combine that with the unregulated areas within the united states, that creates some real challenges for my friends in fema. you also look to the future and you see the population of the united states will grow by 50 million over the next 25 years. and 54% of the population in the united states lives within the coastal areas. in fact, my good friend paul lives in the coastal areas. but what that says to me right

at the start, that the demand for d.o.d. capabilities in the future as we talked, you'll see, are going to continue to grow and they've grown quite a bit over the last few years. i think it's important to recognize that. also our responsibilities have evolved in the last decade in this area. but again, we have tremendous partners that we work with and we're always in support of them no matter what federal department and agency, when we're excuting our defense support to civil authorities responsibilities. brad talked quickly about the federalist system that our national response system is based upon, local, state, federal. whattles drives that system, and i think it's important to recognize that, is the request for assistance process. it's a transactional process that comes from the states. so now we're talking about large-scale events around the country. imagine multiple states, multiple counties, multiple

large cities, who all at the same time are doing assessments to determine the type of capabilities that they need assistance and how that is managed. it's a fascinating system. i provided this pamphlet. we actually produced this so that our partners at the federal, state, and local level have a clear understanding how the defense department is going to interact in this whole process. and we're going to work through our federal partners. but there's multiple systems within our federal response system, our national response system. emac, for example, state to state compacts where one another provide capability. when that is obviously exceeded then they turn to our friends at fema and ask for a declaration. but let me start with sandy. and i think it's -- everybody heard about katrina and we spent many years reviewing what happened in cailt in a. but i think it's a -- catrina.

but i think it's a real tribute to all the partners in how we dealt with sandy and the work that we had done between katrina and sandy to prepare the federal departments and agencies. and in particular the defense department, to be effective in responding. hurricane sandy in my opinion, although we had several days to prepare for it, was still a strategic surprise. and the reason i say that is because of the cascading effects that ensued after the storm went through. really significant effects. and it was in a densely populated area, when you think about new york city and what happened. the other thing that was interesting was the competing demands between the city, the major city, and the state. it's fascinating when we look at our federalist response system. by consider within the first few days of what happened in sandy, 8 million people without

power, it was severe cold if you remember about 9 days after sandy we had a big winter storm role through. we also had the disruption of the largest fuel transfer distribution site on the east coast in new york. 2500 gas stations in new york and new jersey without power. they went to rationing in those particular areas. commerce was at a standstill. the port of new york was shut down for i think three or four days. total disruption. all the tunnels in new york flooded, 14 major tunnels. people were unable to go to work. public housing, medical if a stilts, municipal buildings all severely affected by the power outage, not able to provide the kind of support that the citizens within those communities needed. and then the prolonged flooding in manhattan obviously created significant problems on wall street, the first time it's been closed for two consecutive

days i think in history 71 billion dollars in damage. really significant. so as we think about our federalist system and how that impacted the area, what i want to turn to now is what the defense department did. and i think it's critical that people understand the role that the defense department plays in this nation in working with our federal partners to be responsive. i talked about the 8 million people without power. we have an organization in the defense department called the corpse of engineers. -- corps of engineers. they have tremendous capability and are a critical element of the nation ral response sps. they have their own authorities to go out and operate. it actually functions as one of the 14 emergency support functions that are in direct support of fema in an emergency. the work that they did was phenomenal.

they fortunately just before the storm a few months before that, actually go out and assess all the municipal buildings and work with the states. so they know exactly in priority sequence where the state wants the power to be put in, whether it's police station, a hospital, or some other type of important facility. ut these guys put generators in hundreds and hundreds of places. the other thing is we use u.s. transcome which for the department of defense manages all of our strategic transportation assets, whether those are ships, or airplanes or how we move on rail to our force deployment locations. s. transcome flue over 300 utility vehicles from the west coast area to the east coast to bring them. the critical infrastructure that was down in new york, the

fuel station that provided that capability, the hobe ken ferry, again the core of engineers and navy worked with city officials to help get that back up. the other thing is fuel resupply. we have another organization the defense department called dla, defense logistics agency. it for all intents and purposes provides all the military supply capability to our force services. it also functions as the logistics arm of fema there an interagency agreement that we established several years ago. dla provided over 9 million gallons of fuel to new york and was critical in resupplying fuel to a number of critical locations. talked about the corp of engineers. they were responsible for unwater -- unwatering the tunnels in new york.

the logistics support that dla provided, 6 million meals, tons of other equipment, blankets, cots, the critical care capability that's need ford folks in those situations. we also provided temporary housing for some displaced people on military insta lations and we just recently did that for hfs for the unaccompanied children who came to the border we housed nearly 8,000 children over the last couple of months. i've gotten to this point without talking about any military people per se. what i've talked about is the agencies and the capabilities of the department. we also have as you know northcome which is an operational command. we had about 4,000 people and for the first time we had title 10 reserve personnel available to respond to this event and they were brought in. and of course the national guard as always responded with

nearly 8,000 national guardsmen from over 19 states. supporting all that is another about 10,000 folks. so that gives you the magnitude of an event like this and how much of a role the defense department plays in supporting these activities and how critical it is that our roles are well defined and well integrated into our federal partners' efforts. but first, let me end with a couple of clear themes here that i think are important and that we recognize going forward. first of all, d.o.d. does a lot more than provide military people to support these events. our defense agencies are critical to how we respond to disasters, whether that's the corpse of engineers, whether it's the defense logistics agency, transcome. there is a lot of capability in the defense department that the nation depends on that should be available.

the other unique thing is we use the total force. when you think about the military, army, navy, marine corps, air force, we employ all those elements. because when we outfit them there's a balance of capabilities both at the active reserve and guard level. i think the other thing is immediate response authority. as we've talked about we have a transactional process that puts the request into the system but we also have policies in place in the defense department to ensure that our military bases and installations around the country are able to go out and help the citizens of the nation. most bases and installations around the united states have what we call mutual aid agreements. these are agreements that are already put in place with the local fire, local ems so that capability is there. but immediate response is more than that. that allows that local

community to call on the insta lation and provide that support. and i think the other thing and the last thing in closing here is we have made a tremendous investments in the defense department to be effective in this area. specifically the organizational capabilities to enhance unity of effort. and with that i mean specifically at the national guard, the capabilities that we provide, the joint force headquarters state that exists there. if you know how fema is organized and you look at the chart i gave you here, in the back there's regions. we have military people called defense coordinating officers and elements at every one of those regions. so when we do have a disaster and that state asks for assistance through fema, within that region we're there so we can expedite the kinds of capability that is are needed. that in itself speeds the process. and when we look at the situation in sandy or future disasters, the critical element

to this in my mind is the speed in which we can deliver that capability. and the ability of the federal government to integrate itself rapidly to deliver what's necessary for the american citizens. so with that i will end. i look forward to your questions. and i appreciate your time. thank you. >> bob has provide add great segue into our next situation of he told you homeland security is the war fighting defense of the united states and the authority is driveed from the president's powers as commander in chief the same war fighting authority that is being exercised in afghanistan today or has been exercised to sustain and sautsdz rise the missions of norad. and the more recent missions ramped up in the context of the evolving terrorist threat. defense port civil authorities is essentially a statutory function defined by law passed by the congress.

it ultimately has a constitutional basis but it is very carefully crafted by statute usually under the stafford act. so to sum rise, if a governor experiences within his or her state a catastrophic event and turns to the president for assistance, and if the president declares a major disaster under the stafford act, and if then under the homeland security act d.h.s. and fema move into the lead and send a mission assignment over to d.o.d. received by bob, the question arises, which military forces? how do we determine whether they are active duty, national guard, or title 10 reserve? those are choice that is need to be made and ten years ago a decision was made in contrast to past decision making, past policy that normally we should use reserve component forces for these types of domes sting missions. no institution of gove in my judgment more broadly reflects

the federal character of our constitution than the national guard, the national guard is orlando than the constitution of the united states, and its existence was well known to the founders and incorporated into the constitution. ur next speaker is mike, cornl mike noyse. he came in through the maryland national guard initially as an infantry officer subsequently as a judge advocate. in november 1995, he was appointed maryland's active guard and reserve active guard component judge advocate and subsequently the chief of international and operational law division for the ngb. he's going to talk to you about the complexity -- the legal complexity involved in the operational employment of the national guard in the various capacities available under the law -- state status, title 32

status, and title 10. mike. >> thank you, paul. when t met paul in 2006 the white house had passed word to the pentagon that the president was planning to announce a mission for the national guard on the southwest border. so on mother's day i was summoned to the pentagon and the team was assembled to work out how this operation would work given that the white house was requiring the national guard to be in state status, not in title 10 status for this border mission. the issues are -- the command and control issues and the stat stay with us issues have been remarkably consistent throughout the years. so what i would like to focus on in this particular segment

is i would like to briefly discuss the militia concept, then talk about some command and control issues, describe some of the statutory bases by which the national guard in its various status ks provide assistance in civil authorities, and then show you some information about the level of effort nationwide every year for the past 10 or 12 years. so if you would, you can refer to the slides on my right, your left, for some of this information. now, i'm not going to address the title 10 issues except to say that when the national guard is placed on active duty, they can be employed just as any other active component member. so that all of the -- for example, the possev come tat tuss restrictions apply to the national guard when they are in their status as the national guard of the united states.

when they are in other stat stay with uses, there's a slightly different set of statutes that apply. first, i would like to briefly note the statutory definition of the militia. you can find it in section 311. and basically it's all able-bodied males. and it could use some updating because the language seems a little dated now but it does refer to all females that are citizens and members of the national guard. so that basically the federal concept of the militia is that it is everybody or virtually everybody in the body politic. one of the more recent discussions of the militia concept i found in the he willer case which was an individual second amendment case -- however, there was some dick that in there discussioning the militia in its collective sense and in there the supreme court stated that unlike armies and navies,

the militia is assumed by article 1 to already be in existence. although the militia consists of all able bodied men the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them. so there is a distinction between organized miltsha and unorganized miltsha. and the type of militia that i'm going to discuss today is the organized militia, which is the national guard. and this particular distinction between organized and unorganized is carried to into each state. under state law for example in maryland where i am a judge advocate in maryland as well in the maryland national guard, you can see that the state code defines the organized militia as the nonfederalized national guard, which is national guard in title 32 status, the inactive national guard, which is basically folks that have not yet all the way

transitioned out of the guard they're on a roster and can be recalled, and something called the maryland defense force which i have a slide which is a nonfederalized militia. and then again in maryland for example able-bodied individuals, which is everybody else that's not members of the previous organizations would be the unorganized militia. so what you have is basically you have two national guards. when brad earlier was talking about the federal government response and it only happens after the state is exhausted, well, the national guard is both. for example, i have a commission from the president of the united states and i have a commission from the governor of maryland. so it's this dual status that makes the national guard a unique organization as well as unique military force in the country. so that on the left of that slide you can see where the organized militia is trained and appointed et cetera and has

federal recognition, but is governed by title 32 as far as command and control. and i've got a command and control chart in the next slide or two that will explain this. when the national guard is on the right side of the slide is in its national guard of the united states status is under the command and control of the president. so and the national guard members flip back and forth between these two statuses depending on how their orders are cut. so basically if you -- one of the touchstone references is the per fetch case which discusses this whole issue. basically it talked about the hatcome. you have your state militia hat, federal hat and miltsha hat. you can only wear one at a time. so for example i am on title 10 orders so i have moved out of my title 32 status even though

i main tain it but it's in inactive status. so the governor has no command and control over me. the president has command and control. since there's also an exception there's something called dual status which you may read about in connection with disaster. and that essentially is the president was given statutory authority to allow a member of the national guard to be placed on active duty without losing his or her state status and vice versa, conversely, can detail a member of the active component to duty with the national guard who can accept a commission in the national guard without losing his or her regular appointment. but that is something that takes secretary of defense approval. the president delegated that authority to the secretary of defense. it happens. and we have a whole process set up for when that happens. but normally speaking those are individuals who are commanding

in a unity of effort mode for a disaster response or for some other event like a national security event. so what we have is the command and control scheme currently is on this side you have the state, command and control, under title 32. which is the governor is in command through the adjutant general to the army national guard, the arg and the ang. these dotted lines here are just coordination lines. then you have the president through the secretary of defense and it's in this federal line, a coordination element, joint activity of d.o.d. then ngb over here. and then i didn't have room on that slide but for the combatant forces, for example, they are also under the president's command and control. so these are separate and distinct change of command. so that, for example, the

president or the combatant commander or whoever, cannot exert command and control over nonfederalized forces. and vice versa, any nonfederalized office esh cannot exert command and control over federalized forces. when an individual is in dual status -- i'll show you how that works in a second here. if you're in dual status, what happens is you still have your separate and distinct change of command but you've got -- they centralize in one individual who has his place on active dute, been detailed to the guard, who has also a commission in the state. and we'll call this state b. so that as a function of the commission in that state has authority over the national guard forces from that state. no other state. because at the present time there's no mechanism to become a member of more than one state

national guard at a time. so we don't have regional command and control authority. we have command and control authority down to one state and then from the president we have command and control authority through the dual status in his title 10 hat to federal forces. and then if there are other states involved, like a multistate operation, for example, and other -- for example in hurricane sandy, states sent their forces into other states to assist. the command and control over those forces still rests with the originating state. when i'm talking about command and control, i'm talking about court-martial, relieve and promote all that kind of stuff. but the agreement the force that is are sent from state a to state b agree to cooperate with state b and do what they want. for example, the dual status commander can tell forces from outside the state, look, i want you to go to the west side of town and set up a water

distribution point. and it's all a unity of effort type operation. so that -- and so some of the legal issues that arise is, for example, i mentioned earlier posse come tat tussduss not apply to the national guard but does apply to federalized guards meb. so if there is a civil disturbance and some kind of law enforcement action taken by the troops, then you have to make sure that the authority is originating out of this chain of command and not this chain of command. so for lawyers there are a number of issues that this raises just as far as separating the concepts and making sure that all of these are applied in the right manner. so now what i would like to do is talk about the level of fort that is presently being

applied. each one of those stars is three naurds facilities. so it's highly decentralized. rooted in just about every community in the u.s. so it is physically proximate to almost any incident that could occur. and as a result of that, every year the national guard bureau keeps track of statistics. this is 2013 because we're not done with 2014 -- i'm sorrifment let me preface this by saying the chart -- the numbers that i'm going to show you have been rolled out because the national guard can provide assistance to state authorities in a couple of different ways. you've got in title 32 as a primary purpose of the operation -- in other words, the guard with the order to do duty, to provide response, for example, to the oil spill, the deepwater horizon. or hurricane. that would be the primary purpose of that operation. that's either through a statute, a preexisting stat

tuse such as that that authorizes the civil support teams or by the secretary of defense authority. in title 32, the secretary of defense has to approve the use of the national guard in title 32. the second category is as an incidental benefit to training or military operations. for example, if we have a truck company that needs training on how to drive trucks, it is -- it makes more sense if they're driving trucks that they can also, for example, haul goods and water or whatever to benefit perhaps a relief effort than to just take their empty trucks and drive around on circles on a military base and benefit nobody but themselves. so a lot of assistance is provided as an incident to training or operations. and the distinction there is that it has to be a training operation. the primary purpose is training and the incidental purpose is the assistance.

even though to the recipients of that assistance that may be everything in the world to them. but again for lawyers you have to carefully make sure that it's couched in the right terms because otherwise you run into fiscal issues when you're using training money for nontraining purposes. then finally you have state active duty. that's per state law. and each state law is a little different. normally speaking the troops are using federal equipment, they're wearing their uniforms, u.s. army, u.s. air force, but they are not federal actors and they have no federal status and there's complete control by the state chain of command. so that the federal -- for example, the regulations that would govern them if they were in title 32 do not apply in state active duty. so with that in mind, i want to show you some numbers which may

astonish you. >> mike, i apologize but we are at the end of our time. if we put a cap on it there. >> absolutely. >> and then certainly be available for questions. your moderator's time management skills state we are literally at the end of our class. but our final speaker is colonel dawn zoldy. i would ask you to afford her at least five minutes of your time. i will remain and ask panel members to remain at the conclusion for questions. dawn is the staff judge advocate. she has been a judge advocate for 21 yeerings. she is an associate professor at the u.s. air force academy nd is also an adjunct at the

judge advocate general's school. dawn is going to speak to you about the emerging controversial and important policies and potential statutory authorities as they relate to the domestic operational employment of drones. dawn. >> thanks so much. and thanks for your patience. here i thought i would have ten minutes of fame but i've got five. i'll speak quickly. to tie this together we heard about the concept of the interagency contribution to disaster operations and then we heard about the d.o.d. role. we heard about one component of the d.o.d., the national guard. and what i'm going to focus on in particular is one particular sset that as mr. mchale said is controversial. uav's. or what we call rpa's remotely piloted aircraft. now why am i calling them that? you're probably sitting there,

is she talking about drones? i don't use that word because in the air force that's hairsy to use that word. we call them rpa's. in 2010 the air force actually formalized rpa training and made rpa pilots rated pilots just like the ones that fly manned aircraft. and words matter and that makes a big difference. they're actually piloted by certified pilots so that's important. so what can rpa's bring to the fight for lack of a better term in a disaster response? i can tell you that they weren't used in sandy but i can also tell you because i was parted of that effort as was cornl noyes that they were used during the california rim wildfires and it was one of the first events it's pretty exciting because for that particular effort the fires were so persistent so wide spread that putting a

helicopter, a manned aircraft up over those fires was extremely dangerous. not only that but the loiter time for those manned aircrafts as very minimal whereas an rpa can provide consistent coverage. this was incredible. actually changed the entire battle rhythm of the firefighters in california. they could actually work through the night and through the day for the first time and it really helped put that fire for lack of a better term in a box. so rpa's are one of those assets that really have a unique role and also a great future i think in this particular area. now, i'm going to talk for a second about privacy and security because i think when we talk rpa's that's the thing that jumps out at people. that's the biggest concern. ok, you're looking at the wildfire. what else are you looking at?

what else are are you videotaping up there? so let's talk about that for a second. because what we need to understand about rpa's is that there are very high level approval authority. first to be the attest to this. so unless you're training on a military base, if you're out there doing something with an rpa it's going to be sec deaf approval. that's how high the approval level is to utilize one of these assets. the other thing is not only do they have to be authorized by the proper approval authority, they also have to comply with the law. and when i talk about the law here, i'm talking about in particular intelligence oversight, policies and procedures. and those derive out of executive order 12333 and the d.o.d. has implemented that through a directive. intelligence oversight is basically what protects american sitsdzsns from

essentially being spied on? protects privacy. there's four pillars as part of this. collection, retention, disemination, and oversight. and so the intelligence oversight policies that apply to all these operations even for something like california rim wildfires would apply the intelligence oversight policies. how are you collecting, where are you collecting, who is getting to see it, how long are you keeping it, where is it going, and if you don't do any of that right, there is an oversight regime that goes all the way up to congress and of course to the the president. so that's the kind of protections that are in place when we utilize these plash assets. i don't know if i've got one i te left or what but -- can take five more? great. so that's my pitch on rpa's and

the great benefit they can actually add to these kind of responses. but since i have five minutes i will take those and talk very briefly about the emerging legislation and i think how it could actually impact the ability to perform these perform these operations with our pas. there are 86 bills on the floor last year in various states. 42 states have introduced 86 different bills. more than a couple of bills per state. to lawly, these apply enforcement. what they tell you is they prohibit the collection of information or evidence with the use of and rpa. -- an rpa. another one that would be highly in cases of

imminent threat to life or imminent danger to property, that is the big one. the reason i mention this, i know some of you have heard my talk at the fundamentals of theterterrorism symposium, reason it is important is passed, itthese are could have an effect on dod thening and certainly, national guard, unless there is an exception, the guard has a number of these assets. it is an interesting development in the law and how it will ultimately affect a myriad of operations, including operations is up in the air. it is something i think that is worth noting and continuing to explore, which i plan to do.

i know i am standing between you and lunch and that is a dangerous place to be. thank you for your time and attention. terrific grace under pressure. a five been granted minute reprieve. for those of you who must leave, feel free to do so. file to the outside so you do not block the camera coverage. for those who have questions, we can stay five more minutes and would welcome the questions. please come to the microphone, ask your question, and to directed to a specific panel member. we will bring it to conclusion at 12:40. questions? >> thank you for your presentations. michael dougherty from raytheon. bringing communications to first

responders, state and locals, i do not know if you have tracked that as part of your jobs, but if you have, what is the biggest challenge for bringing interoperable communications that can withstand distractions -- disasters to state and local networks. that to bob and then mike. bob has the overall responsibility and mike because -- you may or not be familiar with the subject that the national guard has. completely familiar with the issue. it has been at work for a long time. has ational guard tremendous capability for interoperability. you are talking beyond what dod does. into other federal agencies that may be communicating at that level, law enforcement, fbi, or

other organizations. that i am not familiar with and i apologize for that. >> the national guard has an interest in being able to communicate with all of -- the whole spectrum of first responders. have ail support teams hardware and software package that allows anybody to talk to anybody because whatever , a cancy or modulation be translated and shot out on a different channel, for example, so that the different first responders and the different agencies -- it is transparent to them. all i know about the system. interoperable communications has been -- i know there has been a lot of work done on that because

of the various incompatible systems that have been in use. >> within the first few days of the response of hurricane katrina, one of the top five unmet requirements was a lack of interoperable communications and as a result, the national guard went forward and bought 80-something packages where you eld motorolaandh and a radio that might be used by the national guard, you plug them in and that allows interoperable and indications from a civilian first responder to a national guardsman -- interoperable communications from a civilian first responder to a national guardsman. any radioug in almost to that system that will convert that communication in a way that is compatible with all other communications platforms, even

though they might be dissimilar. that was a lawyer's answer. after hurricane katrina, they bought about 80 packages from this company. there are others out there. it is remarkable. a handheld motorola that a police officer might have. andplug it into this system you can communicate with all other systems that are plugged into that patch, even though they are on different frequencies and different hardware. >> good morning. my name is james. i noticed that the mariana islands and american samoa have not joined the emergency assistance compact.

aside from legislation and those two territories are there any other hurdles that would prevent them from joining that? i i am sure -- there are attorneys who can answer better, i believe it is a legislative impediment. twoe's nothing to prevent territories from establishing mutual aid agreements. betweenre of a compact states is what requires congressional approval in order to avoid unintended consequences. i do not think anything would prevent territories from establishing arrangements or agreements with others to do it. four states, it is one thing because they are contiguous. is one thing, it because they are contiguous. where territories are concerned,

it is a different logistical challenge that makes those agreements potentially less useful. >> this will have to be the last question. how is the recent economic struggles impacted how states use federal support? is a lot of downward pressure economically at all levels of government. states and their subdivisions, we have seen an increase in request for federal assistance inside and outside disaster declarations to help offset the impact on budgets. when it snows, there is a need to remove snow and ice from the roads. one would expect most states

would plan and budget for that. as a policy matter, we do not provide assistance forward treatment unless there has been a record or near record snowfall. it is meeting with resistance because local governments are struggling to handle snow removal and ice removal budgets. to take the point about climate change, we are beginning to cia's storms -- we are beginning we havece storms where not before. there is always a degree of unexpected, but to the extent that they become reoccurring -- not reoccurring enough that you do an annual budget, but reoccurring enough that you have to confront it periodically, that will drive requests. fundingeking additional for the federal government, the federal government's budget is contracting as well. side they arewhat

on, appropriators look at emergency funds that sit unused and waiting as a contingency and say that is not the best place to invest. that continues to be a challenge and it will continue to be for the foreseeable future. of checks and balances works well, but in a situation of crisis, there are problems. what we try to do during the course of this panel is present to you a better understanding of how these various agencies within our system of government and within the interagency interagency -- a life-saving response to a domestic event. a key for your time. -- thank you for your time. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> president obama will speak to

members of the american legion. we will bring that event to you live at noon. coming up, a discussion on the future of the european union. be live from the wilson center starting at 3:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend, special programming on the c-span networks. friday night, native american history. on saturday, a debate on scottish independence. robert q and a with katzmann. friday, at 8:00 p.m., in depth with ron paul. on saturday at 10:00 p.m.,

words with william burroughs. on american history tv, friday, a nasa documentary about the apollo 11 moon landing. on saturday, lyndon b. johnson's acceptance speech from the 1964 democratic convention. sunday night, a look at election laws and bush versus gore. find our schedule at c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us. hashtager, use the c123, or e-mail us at comments@c span.org. at the implementation

of the affordable care act. this was hosted by the state university of new york's rockefeller institute. >> good afternoon. today's forum examines implementation of the affordable care act in the south. first, we're going to hear an overview of state responses to the a.c.a. and then from individual states. finally we're going to have a wide ranging discussion on what these state experiences mean to national health reform. the reports and the forum come out of a 35 state study. the a.c.a. implementation

network. this network is coordinated by three institutions. i'd like to thank staff for their help in organizing this forum. i'd also like to thank the governing institute and west virginia university for their assist innocence organizing this -- assistance in organizing this event. and finally, i'd like to thank c-span for broadcasting today's forum and all those in washington who are not making news so that c-span stays with us. we have a lot to cover today. to save time i'm going to skip trying to summarize the biographies of our speakers. biographies of our speakers. they are all impressive people. but if you want more information about it -- about any one of them, we put a nice summary in the materials you have you got

outside of the room. also they are -- biographies are . our website you will be able to find that there as well. you will find on our website, d.o.t. rock ins.org. >> when you do want to ask a question raise your hand and wait for the microphone to come to you. also and most importantly this is a great time to power down your cell phones. finally for media representatives each of our presenters will be available for interviews at the end of the program. enough for the housekeeping stuff. let's get into the discussion of

the a.c.a. as many of you know the affordable care act created a complicated sharing of functioning between the states and federal government. while the federal government enforces the mandate and establishes foors for benefits, the law also assigns many functions to the states such as creating health insurance exchanges, regulating insurance plans and operating medicaid. what happens in the state is essential to the performance of the a.c.a. and the region we're focusing on today is especially important. depending on how you define the south between 41 and 46% of the people without health insurance in the united states live in the southern states. if the a.c.a. is to achieve its purpose of expanding access to quality healthcare it has to work in the south. to she had light on what is happening in the southern states, we are issuing reports

from a network of sclars across the country. a couple of months ago we released reports out of the western states. today we are releetsing reports on alabama , florida, south carolina, kentucky, mayor and west virginia plus an overview report on the region. next month we're going to publish reports on the north and midwestern states. the researchers who produced these reports come from a ariety of disciplines. all of them have a deep understanding of the states they are studying typically because they flive these states and have studied these states for many years. they also share a deep understanding in documenting the changes produced by the a.c.a. manner. ective

we've organized research networks that have studied jobs programs, welfare reform, medicaid and many other national incentives. these studies vary a lot but a few basic elements are found in all of them. first they focus on implementation. second, they recognize the importance of federalism on how federal and state governments cooperate or fail to cooperate with each other. third, they tend to be inductive. the reports cover a lot of ground and draw from many sources in part because we want to be open minded about how the new law looks from the new perspective of each state. finally the studies rely on a network to really understand whether and how a federal initiative produced real change. it's critical to draw on a

network of sclars located in the states they are studying and can monitor developments as they unfold sometimes over several years. this tradition of field work studies began when my predecessor came to lead the institute in 1989. dick nathan invented the field network approach in the 1970's. dick has been the driving force in putting together this study on the affordable care act. i'd like to thank dick for all the hard work he's done in building the study and this impressive network. i'd like to thank the people who have contributed much to this effort, especially alice and lane and john. today's report looks like only an early stage in what will be a long-term research process. this network is here for the long hall. the next step after we release all the state reports in september will be a conference

to plan analysis of key cross studying issues. enough background about the study. let's turn to the researchers and their findings. first call on christopher who can be distinguished by having been working with the institute for almost two decades now eginning back in 1996 with our welfare reform network. chris of west virginia university wrote the overview report and he will summarize it over the next short period of time. thank you. go ahead chris. > thank you very much. good afternoon. like so many federal laws and programs that have gone before, the states are shaping the form and the function of the affordable care act.

as tom pointed out, our research network is focusing on state experiences and the implementation of a.c.a. and as is true to form in american politics implementation provide another staple for shaping public policy. our baseline reports are helping to illustrate how this is happening and sets the stage for future research. the research network is looking at the individual states but as tom eluded to, we're also interested in the regional dimension. today we're focusing on the south. the united states census bureau defines the south as 16 states as well as the district of columbia. it's a broader definition than what some might use. it includes kentucky, oklahoma, maryland, delaware and west virginia. to date much of the attention on state responses has focused on the south. why? because many of these states

policy actions have been taken that have been interpreted to be in opposition to the a.c.a. framed through the optics of politics, the prevailing characterization is that position is resolute, dritch bipartisanship and often shortsighted. given that most of a.c.a. provisions are beneficial to states, limited access to health services and high levels of chronic disease essentially a profile of much of the south, it would seem these states would embrace the new law. instead they have not done so or done so with reservations. opposition can be characterized running a spectrum of hands off proaches to tactics aimed at avoiding success. an example of the latter might be a state that takes actions to

thwart the role of navigators helping folks get connected to insurance. there is more to the story. southern states have on thed to expand med -- opted to expand medicaid. others are going through the private option. a few have established their own exchanges. decisions by other states to expand medicaid expansion may be the product of more than just politics. past policy history and current issues relating to capacity in need should be take -- taken into account. so too should be market and demographic factors. there are counter currents of support in opposition to the a.c.a. where opposition is present some of the resistance is absolute.

but the opposition is often contingent and conditional and likely to be accommodated with policy change and adjustments that come through experience. but the opposition is often contingent and conditional. we want to look at some of the key factors involved. first, let's consider the partisan dimension. the most convenient explanation for the south's opposition to a.c.a. is found in electoral partisanship. s the dominated by red states as reflected in voting patterns, elected state offices and majorities in state legislatures. the riege season a hot bed of tea party activism. in some states where the tide is running from blue to red, it can be difficult to differentiate republican from democratic candidates. s the complex. and we find opposition various in degree as well as rationale

and motive. the south is not as solid as it might seem in its opposition. as the state reports illustrate, differences in opinion are present within the states themselves. not only between proponents and opponents of a.c.a. but amongst those who have reservations about a.c.a. our field reports provide excellent examples of this network. both florida and texas have gained significant attention as a result of actions taken by key elected officials. as the reports discuss in rich detail opponents to a.c.a. in these states have not always seen eye to eye in responding to the new law. they have also had differing iews on how to move forward. for example, conservative governors and legislators may have different views on how to move forward with medicaid expansion options. analysis suggest that key

economic interest representing the business community as well as healthcare providers may have a moderating influence which tamps down partisan passions. for example, hospital associations and insurance companies were key forces in mobilizing from medicaid expansion in the state of west virginia. in the state of kept kent they were important allies in medicaid expansion and establishing a state exchange. those who study politics know well that policy logic can be trumped bipartisan passion. over time extreme positions be they on the left or the right will likely be tempered by the moderating influence of prevailing private interest. ideological position are rarely persistent when they are exposed to the practical real tiss of a pluralistic society and market economy. the a.c.a. involves the interest of many well established

players. we may expect more turbulence in the months to come as economics are more actively considered and accommodated. let's look at another dimension and that is the dimension of state government capacity and history. we believe that one of the most important attributes of our study is our ability to look closely at the landscape of past and current policy and administrative arrangements in each of the states. in the study of federal policy implementation it is inadvisable to assume that all states start from the same relative position when implementing new law. apart from political considerations past and contemporary policy experiences shape the terrain of implementation. while there are various aspects of the a.c.a. which bear this out, the clearest illustrations can be found in state responses to medicaid expansion opportunities. on the surface it would appear expanding medicaid would be a no

brainer and state refuseles to expand medicaid are acts of truck lance. while not discounting the partisan dimension there is more to the story. for some it is seen as a big step while in other states it's a smaller step. in state capitols medicaid is known as a budget buster even with it's generous federal matches. medicaid is a prom that vexes state planning and obligations. most states can point to times of crisis herb associated with the program. for some it's an incrementle step that further expands gonch to low income populations. states like maryland and delaware have had per misive guidelines reaching much of the target population from medicaid expansion. in sort it's a smaller step for those who have liberalized eligibility in the past.

the same cannot be said for southern states where eligibility for adults has been more restrictive. concerns about long term physical and program obligations even with generous federal funding appear to be genuine. in short it's seen as a big step in these states. now what is quite interesting is that in some of the conservative southern states the big steps are being made nonetheless. this includes west virginia and kentucky which have expanded their medicaid programs. it includes arkansas which has developed a private option that allows the newly eligible to enter the insurance market to use medicaid dollars to cover premium cost. states within and without the south are trying to find a third way to address some of the likets involved in medicaid expansion. approaches modeled along the arkansas model provide political cover but they also provide some

reassurance that states will not overextended creating new systems or in scrambling to find providers accepting payments that might be lower. beyond partisanship and politics, state opposition or reluctens to embrace the a.c.a. may be rooted in preexisting circumstances related to past policy practices and experiences. this is evident in the case of medicaid expansion. to be risk averse is not tantamount to be an obstruction nist. states with restricted medicaid in the past may be cautious about expanding the program. with time we are seeing oppositional stances modified as state leaders search for alternative mechanisms such as a private options