Transcripts For CSPAN2 Capital News Today 20120228

>> i am prepared to state and answer. >> okay. let me ask you this -- >> i've got to be on -- >> thank you for asking. >> de want us to ask a few questions now and then have you go or -- >> i think that we would like to get there so i appreciate that. >> okay. i'm going to yield two center collins and if there's anything left to ask when she is done. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first secretary ridge, as you know, i have the greatest respect and affection for you personally and the greatest respect for the chamber of commerce, which is why i'm disappointed that we don't see this issue exactly in the same way. i would also note a certain irony since the chamber itself was under cyberattack by a group of sophisticated chinese hackers for some six months at least during which time they have access to apparently everything in the chamber system and the chamber was not even aware of the attack until the fbi alerted the chamber in may of 2010, so there is a little bit of irony but i will assure you that the chamber is not considered critical infrastructure. [laughter] >> you raise a very interesting point. i guess the question i have if it isn't critical infrastructure, a significant organization representing the critical economic infrastructure america, why in the world did the fbi delay in forming the organization that represents the economic infrastructure of america? somebody ought to ask that question there are some cases people in the private sector have reported the potential -- haven't verified the incidents in the federal government and they say we knew. what do you mean you knew? >> i was just going to point to that even if we have very robust information sharing provisions in our bill that will cure that very problem. but the fact is in drafting this bill we have taken to heart many of the concerns raised by the chamber, and just to clarify exactly where the chamber is on these issues, i do want to ask you your opinion on some of the changes we've made direct response to the chamber's concerns. for example, we now have a provision and says entities that are already regulated by existing regulations would be eligible for waivers and entities able to prove that they are sufficiently secure would be be exempted from the requirements under this bill the bill would require the use of existing labor security requirements in the current regulators. does the chamber support those changes that were incorporated in response to the chamber concerns? >> i think that you've incorporated several, senator collins coming and i do believe i can speak directly but i believe it's one of them, and i think it also goes to the point of whether that some of that oversight is being done within the existing process and pravachol and with the dramatic interchanges and information sharing it is a system that will work. one of the questions i had when i listened to the course of people who support the bill i just wondered if the secretary of defense believes that the defense industrial base likes the seibu model of information sharing and is announced by the department of defense in june of 2011 where they would prefer to be regulated. i think there are some unanswered questions but the point is i would be very strong about, senator collins, is that some of the concerns and we are grateful. >> that's my point as we frankly been over backwards to try to listen to the legitimate concerns without weakening the bill to the point where it can no longer accomplish the goal. another important provision of the bill, the owners of critical infrastructure, not the government, not dhs would select and implement the cybersecurity measures that they determine are best suited to satisfy risk-based performance requirements, does the chamber support having the owners of the infrastructure decide rather than government mandating specific measures? >> as i recall in the legislation the chamber lacks the notion that the selector select agencies with respect to the departments and agencies coordinating council's have been working on identifying the critical infrastructure and sharing a kind of information that we think is necessary to not immunize as completely because the technology in the procedure is going to change to dramatically reduce the risk and the senator does interest particularly the owner to move as quickly as possible the logic that has been applied to really venegas cisco and microsoft and others can move jointly and respond to the risk and it seems to me would be decent logic to apply to everybody else as well who don't want to be burdened by the series of regulations are the prescriptive requirements. >> since the private sector under our bill specifically involved in creating the standards, i don't see how that produces bourbon some standards since the secretary has to choose from the standards that the private sector developed. again, another change that we have strengthened in our bill. another question that i would have for you, assume that the chamber supports the liability protections that are included in this bill so that if a company abides by the performance standards and if there is an attack any way the company is immune from punitive damages. >> a young woman is not in favor. >> i presume they do if i were in the chamber i would certainly encourage them to embrace wholeheartedly. >> welcome my point, and my time is expired, but my point is there are many provisions in this bill that we change in a direct response to input from the chamber and i would like the chamber to acknowledge that there's one final point i want to make when you were talking about ceos are invested in cybersecurity because of the impact on their customers and their clients, and so it's in their own self-interest i cannot tell you how many chief information officers with whom i've talked who have told me if only i could get the attention of the ceo on cybersecurity were not investing them or not protecting our systems enough and it's just not a priority for the ceo. i would suggest to you to talk to some cios because you have a totally different picture. >> senator collins, i'm familiar with quite a few major companies in america and what they're doing with regard to cyber and my expert from yours i realize that there are probably some people out there don't imagine to many organizations and any with a little bit more money to enhance their capability to safeguard or management risk but i take your word there may be some who feel very strongly and reflect that in their statements to you. even a valuable contribution and in the chamber we applaud those things. you are going down the path very similar we are concerned about the prescriptive regimen some of the of literature talks about a light touch. the light touch can turn into a stranglehold if it goes too far down the process and we take a look at the chemical facilities in those terms and standards and it becomes very restrictive because once the legislation is passed there are members of congress who called and said that's not enough, and we may need technology and regulations in order to better the people that work, so it is a slippery slope, and i think that i very much appreciate you getting the chance to articulate before the committee. >> thank you mr. chairman hispanics before, senator collins. i have no further questions. thanks for being here. we are glad to liberate you to get you to the next plane. >> like i said before, i look forward to future opportunities and for what it's worth the department to share my thoughts with this committee to get i think my friends. >> we do, too peery this mix before. stewart baker is the next witness in the law firm of stepphtoe and johnson, and the assistant secretary at the dhs from 2005 to 2009 during which time we have benefited greatly from your counsel and service. thanks for being here and we would welcome your testimony now. >> it's a great pleasure. thank you chairman lieberman, ranking member collins, senator akaka. it is a nostalgic moment to come back here and i want to congratulate you on your achievement in moving this bill in a comprehensive form as far as it has gone. it is a very valuable contribution to our security. i just have to points but before i do that i thought i would address the stock online privacy act and now become the idea that this is like sopa and the internet will rise up to strike it down. i'm proud to say if i can challenge senator bentsen for a minute i knew sopa and fought sopa and mr. chairman, this bill is no sopa. it's for the same reason that i support this bill. as a nation, as a new legislature, our first obligation is to protect the security of this country. sopa would have made us less secure to serve the interest of hollywood. this bill will make us more secure and that's why i support it. just two points on why i believe that. we know today the most sophisticated security companies in the country have been unable to protect their most important secrets. this shows us how deep the security problem runs. we also know from the direct experience some things i saw when i was at dhs and emerged since that wants to penetrate and networking can break it in ways that leave behind permanent damage. you can bring industrial control systems on which refineries, pipelines, the power grid, water, sewage all depends and we've had a lot of analogies today about like september 10th and september 11th if you want to know what it would be like to live through an event where someone launches an attack like this, the best analogy is no orleans the day after katrina hit. he would have no power, no communications, but you also wouldn't have had a warning and the e evacuation of most population of the city and you wouldn't have the national guard in some safe place ready to relieve the suffering. it could indeed be a real disaster coming and we have to do something to protect against that possibility. that's not something the private sector can do on its own. they are not built to stand up in the military that has happened in other countries, and that's why it's important for there to be a government role. i do think that this bill in contrast to the views of the chamber think he may have gone a little far in accommodating them and i will just address one point that i think is particularly of concern i fully support the idea that there should be a set of performance requirements driven by the private sector implemented by the private sector with private sector flexibility to meet them as they wish. the process of getting through that and then getting enforcement is time consuming. it could take eight years, if there is resistance from industry or a particular sector and it may be worth it to take that time to get standards that are something that the private sector buyers into and is willing to live with but i think we have to recognize and the next eight to ten years we could have an attack, we get evidence and, get some very serious trouble or a threat there requires that we moved faster than that statutory framework would suggest and i would suggest if there's one change i would make to this bill is to put in a provision that says in an emergency where there really is an immediate threat to the life and limb, the secretary has the ability to compress all the time frames and to move quickly from stage to stage so that if we only have a week to get the grid protected he's in a position to tell the power companies will be your on tuesday and bring your best practices because by friday he will have to start implementing them because we know there is an attack coming this week. that is something that we need to be able to do and have the flexibility to do. thank you. >> very helpful. thank you very much. we will talk more about that. dr. jim lewis, thanks for being here. director, looking for the exact title. director and senior fellow of technology and public policy program at the center strategic and international studies and dr. lewis was also the director of the csis commission on site or security which began its work in 2008. thanks so much. >> thank you, senator, for giving me the opportunity to testify, and when we hear that getting incentives right and letting the private sector lead or share information will secure the nation remember that we've spent the last 15 years repeatedly proving that this doesn't work, and from an attacker as perspective, america is a big slow target. some people say the threat is exaggerated. this is unfortunate. you talked about the parallels with september 11th but in some ways we are on have to repeat the september 11th error if we don't take action in the very near term. the threat is real and growing. maw intelligence services with cyber capabilities can penetrate any corporate network with ease. cyber criminals and government sponsored hackers routinely penetrate the corporate networks. the new attacker's ranging from iran and north korea to a host of anti-government groups are steadily increasing their skills. the intersection of the greatest risk and the weakest authority is critical infrastructure. national security requires holding critical infrastructure to a higher standard than the market will produce. this bill has many useful sections on education research, securing the government networks and international cooperation and they all deserve support the main event is regulating the critical infrastructure for better cybersecurity. without this everything else is an ornament in america will remain vulnerable. low hanging fruit will not make us safer and one might to think about this is a fee to the section on a critical and for stricter regulation on the bill it would be like the car without an engine so i look forward to what we see next week. they're all all results are the objections to moving ahead. we hear that innovation could be damaged but well-designed regulation would actually increase innovation. companies will innovate making safer progress. we have seen is that federal regulation of cars, airplanes, even as far back as steamboats. regulation can incentivize innovation. everyone agrees that we want to avoid burdensome regulation and focus new authorities on the truly critical systems. the bill as drafted and takes a innovative approach based on commercial practices so i appreciate the effort that has gone into that. many in congress recognized the need for legislation, and this committee, the kucinich and others in the house desert task. the battle has shifted. people try to dilute legislation and try to put forward slogans instead of solutions and the right in the loophole. the goal should be to strengthen, not to dilute and so the two problems need attention. the first is a threshold for designating the controlled critical infrastructure. cyberattack in the next few years are most likely to be targeted and precise. they probably will not cause mass casualties or catastrophic disruptions if we set the threshold too high, it is simply telling our attackers what they should hit, so many to very carefully limit the scope of this regulation, but i fear that we may have gone a bit too far read the second is to carve out for the commercial and information technology and others have raised this. it makes sense an industry doesn't want the government telling them how to make their product. that is perfectly reasonable. but a blanket exemption on the services and maintenance installation would first undo the eisel work started by the bush administration and second, leave america opened for an attack. so these parts of the bill should really be removed, and in particular i would call your attention to paragraph a and b of section 104. an important legislation there is a delicate balance between protecting the nation and minimizing the low burden on our economy. this bill with some strengthening i think can achieve that balance and best serve the national interest. the alternative is to wait for the inevitable attack. my model for 2012 and cybersecurity is a race for impact, so i think the committee and would be happy to take any questions. >> thank you, dr. louis. your voice is an important one to listen to come and we do. the last witness today, corporate vice president, trust for the competing group. it's a good job and the microsoft corporation. thanks for being here. >> thank you. german lieberman, senator akaka, then keefer the opportunity to appear it is important hearing on cybersecurity. in addition to my role as the corporate vice president of trustworthy computing i serve on as the president's national security telecommunications advisory committee as the co-chair of the csis on cybersecurity for the 44 presidency. microsoft has a long history of focusing on cybersecurity. in 2002 bill gates launched a trustworthy initiative as we celebrate the tenth anniversary of that effort we have our progress and are conscious of how much work remains to be done. while the i.t. companies are providing better cybersecurity, the world is increasingly reliant on cyber based systems and those attacking the systems have increased them in both number and sophistication. cyber attacks represent one of the more significant and complex threats facing the nation to be with that in mind i commend the chairman of the ranking member from his committee and members of the senate for its continuing commitment to address cybersecurity. we appreciate your leadership and developing the legislation that was introduced earlier this week. over the past few years, we've helped focus national attention on this urgent problem offered constructive proposals and conducted an open and transparent progress to solicit the views of the private sector stakeholders. microsoft believes the current legislative proposal provides an appropriate framework to improve the security of government and critical infrastructure systems and is doubles as inappropriate security baseline to address current threats. furthermore the free markets flexible enough to permit future improvements to security and an important point since the security threats evolves over time. while the internet has created unprecedented opportunities for social and commercial law interaction, it has also created unprecedented opportunities for those bent on attacking the i.t. systems. securing i.t. systems remains challenging and it is important that legislative efforts designed to improve the computer security meets three important requirements. first, legislation must embrace sound risk management principles and recognize that the private sector is best position to protect private sector assets to be the second, the legislation must enable effect of inflation sharing among the government and industry members. third, any legislation must take into account the realities of today's globalized environment. i will discuss each of these important issues in the term. first sound risk management principles require the security effort to be directed where the risk is greatest and that those responsible for protecting systems have the flexibility to respond to ever-changing threats to ensure that this happens it is important that the definition of critical infrastructure be scope appropriately and that the owner of an i.t. system ultimately be a responsible for developing and implementing security measures. we believe the current legislation, which allows the government to define outcomes, but allows the private sector owner of a critical system and assets to select and implement particular measures is the right framework. second, successful risk-management depends on effective information sharing. for too long people have cited information sharing as a goal when in fact it is a tool. if the goal shouldn't be to share all information with all parties but rather the right information with the right parties, that is parties are positioned to take meaningful action. we appreciate that this legislation and to remove barriers come information sharing that specifically authorizes certain disclosures and protecting the information sharing. finally, as a global business, we are very cognizant of the fact that countries around the world are grappling with similar cybersecurity challenges and implementing their own cybersecurity strategies. we believe that actions taken by the united states government may have ramifications beyond our borders and it is important that the united states lead by example adopting policies that are technology neutral and do not stifle innovation. it must also promote cyber norms through international discussions and the government. unlike some traditional international efforts where the government to government discussions may suffice to achieve the desired outcomes it must be remembered that the private sector is designing, deploying and maintaining most of our critical infrastructures. as such the u.s. needs to ensure that the owners, operators, inventors that make cyberspace possible or part of any international discussions. i would note in closing that security remains a journey, not a destination. in leading our trustworthy competing effort over the last ten years i've witnessed the continual evolution of microsoft's security strategies. technologies advanced, the rights change, hacker's car stronger but they grow wiser and more agile. the committee's legislation which focuses on outcomes and incurs meaningful input by the private sector represents and importance that forward. microsoft is committing to working with congress and the administration to help ensure the legislation meets these important objectives that minimize the unintended consequences. thank you for the leaders of that you've shown and developing the legislation under the consideration today and for the opportunity to testify. i look forward to your questions. thanks very much to you mr. chairman. let me ask a question no pun intended as you can hear from some of the testimony and some of the questions from committee members there is a question still about whether regulation is necessary and in using a pejorative term from the government involvement here is necessary and at its purest, this argument is obviously the private sector that owns and operates the sadr infrastructure has its own set of incentives to protect itself. why do we need the government to be involved? >> stewart, d1 to start? >> fundamentally the private sector in each private company has an incentive to spend about as much on security as is necessary to protect their revenue stream to prevent the crime from stealing things from them and the like. it is much less likely that they are going to spend money to protect against disasters that might fall on someone else come on their customers down the road that are unpredictable, and so there are certain kinds of harms, especially if you are in a business where it is hard for people to steal money from you but it's easier for them to change your code in a way that could later be disastrous for consumers to view that as something that you will never get a higher payment for when you sell your product and therefore not something that you want to spend a lot of money on it so it does seem to me there are a lot of externalities year that require the government to be involved in addition to the problem that if you are a baltimore gas and electric you really don't know how to deal with an attack launched by the russian intelligence. >> dr. lewis? stat sometimes i call them mandatory standards and that is my user than regulation but i wanted to say regulation because we've got to put it on the table. we got the incentives wrong in 1998 when the first time we felt that the protected critical infrastructure tell about the threats, share the information and they will do the right thing. and as you have heard, the return on investment was all the companies will spend a certain level it's not even clear they will do that by the way, but they won't spend enough to protect the nation. so we are stuck with a classic case of the public good, national defence regulation is essential and if we don't regulate, we will fail. >> let me just follow up, you made a statement in your opening remarks and in going to paraphrase which is a hostile party nation state, whatever, intelligence agency could penetrate any company, any entity of cyberspace in this country if they wanted to the year you write? >> the full answer is complicated, so i will be happy to provide it in writing, but when you think of the high end opponents who can use a multitude of tactics including tapping your phone lines including hiring agents or corrupting employees these are very hard people to stop and the assumption that is safest to make from this point of view is all the networks have been compromised. >> mr. turney? >> i would say two things. first on what stewart meter said is the market forces are doing a good job of providing security. the challenges market forces are not designed to respond to the national security threats. you can't begin market case for the cold war. so you have to think about what will the market give us? what is national security required come and how do you fill the gaps? the second thing i would say about looking at regulating the critical infrastructure in my years at microsoft i found as we have struggled with cybersecurity strategies we live in one of three states of play. sometimes we don't know what to do to figure out a strategy. we know what to do but you are not executing very well come at which case you need to go execute that. sometimes we know what to do when we execute well, but we don't execute at scale. i think there are some companies that do a very good job of protecting critical infrastructure today. the question is are we giving get enough scale to manage the risk that the country faces? i don't think we are today and that is why in the report at the csis testimony we are supportive of the framework that has been articulated in the legislation. >> i appreciate that. assuming the statistics are accurate or close to accurate about the frequency of exploitation intrusion on the cyber space in the private sector and that makes it self-evident that there's not enough being done to protect. dr. stewart let me ask you something, you offered a friendly criticism of the bill just before, which is our definition of the covered critical infrastructure is too narrow and high and we are limiting it to much. give me an idea how you might broaden it if you are addressing the legislation. >> we were talking about relatively simple amendments to the language mr. chairman. we will get some of the threshold that you put in a mass casualties. as a mass casualty for those of us coming out of the cold war, that was a very high threshold. economic disruption on the scale it isn't clear katrina for example would be caught by that definition so it is more an issue of clarifying and more an issue of making sure that the smaller tax we are more likely >> senator, thank you for being here. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding this hearing. i applaud you for your tenacity and that of senator collins, rockefeller and feinstein. in pursuing the comprehensive cybersecurity legislation would considering today. i also want to thank you and the administration for incorporating my suggestions to the seibu provisions of the bill. employees of the department of homeland security are on the front lines of concord in the cyber threat, and we must make sure the department has the appropriate tools to attract and retain the work force it needs to make these complex challenges stakeholders have raised concerns that the privacy and the civil liberties applications of certain provisions of this bill. i want to commend the bill's office for making progress in addressing these concerns. it is important for the final product to adequately protect americans reasonable expectation of privacy, and i will continue to closely monitor this. fbi director robert mueller's recent statement on the cyber attacks would equal or even surpass the danger of terrorism in the foreseeable future is a stark reminder that strengthening cybersecurity must be a key priority for this congress could decide for criminals are the critical infrastructure including the electricity grids, final markets and transportation networks, and this has been mentioned by the panelists. american businesses face a constant cyberattack stakes to seal the trade secrets. however, cybersecurity policy has been slow to attest to these ever increasing sophisticated cyber threats. the cybersecurity act of 2012 would give the federal government and private sector the tools necessary to respond to these troubling threats. finalizing the important legislation has a pressing priority for this congress and look forward to working with you on this. my question is to the panel as you know the bill contains new hiring authorities to bolster the sires security work force. it also has provisions to train the next generation of federal cybersecurity professionals. i would like to hear your views on the challenges of recruiting and retaining cybersecurity professionals. the provisions in this bill and any other recommendations you may have to address these growing workforce challenges. mr. baker? >> [inaudible] >> it is very challenging to find well-trained cybersecurity professionals even in the private sector. this technology has just proliferated for faster than educational institutions could educate people to manage the i.t. security and manage the security. as a result microsoft is actually committed the considerable resources supporting programs like this them education or a lead america where we provided over a million vouchers for the entry level and more advanced computer basic skills but it is a big challenge and if it's a big challenge for the private sector you can imagine it would also be a large challenge for the public sector since they do not have the same pay scale that i have available to make. so is her book education and and proficiency of the work force and the mission issued a report on the challenges of getting an educated cyber educated work force. >> i would add to that that indeed the dhs has had particular difficulty in attracting people working through their personal hiring procedures. anything that makes that smoother and more responsive to the market is useful. but finally, most importantly for every student was watching this wondering what he's going to do when he graduates from college, these jobs are waiting for you. you would to your country and to yourself to pursue these opportunities. >> thank you. senator, two years ago at the end of july, we had and even here on the hill, csis on education for cyber secure the and i was kicking myself because i thought no one is going to be here like on july 29. it's just stupid and so i told them cut back on the food. we the standing-room-only the had to put chairs in the hall. people of this topic but there is a couple of issues to think about. on the government side we need to have a clear career path for people to get promoted. on the private sector side, the education we get now needs to be refined and focused. the degree in computer science may not give you the skills in fact it probably won't give you the skills for cybersecurity and some of the provisions in the bill such as thus fiber challenge and other programs tap into this real enthusiasm among teenagers, college students to get into this new field and again during the education peace is important but it will not protect us in the next few years which is why we need the other parts of the bill as well. >> thank you very much. my time is expired. 64, senator, thanks very much for the contribution that you've made to the bill as the questioning on the cyber work force was important. senator collins? >> thank you, mr. trance. the hour is late but i just want to thank our witnesses for their excellent testimony. during some of the witnesses on the panel raised legitimate questions about whether we've gone too far from trying to accommodate concerns raised by the chamber and other groups makes me think that maybe we've got and it just right. since the chamber is still not happy and you believe we have gone too far. but in all seriousness of your expertise has been extremely helpful as the input we cut from microsoft from the chamber from the tech industry and the experts, academics we really have and it has been very helpful to us as we try to strike the right balance. this is an enormously important but complicated complex issue for us to tackle, but tackle that we must and that is something that unites all of the witnesses from whom we've heard today. i just don't want whether we consider this to be a response to a 9/11 eda or katrina i do not want us to be here after a major cyber incident saying if only, and how could we have ignored all of these warnings come all of these commissions, all of these studies, all of these experts? i can't think of another area in homeland security where the threat is greater, and we've done less. there is a huge gap whether we got it exactly right on the chemical plant security or port security order fema reform at least we acted and we have made a difference in each of those areas. the are not perfect, but we have acted and we have made a difference. in an intelligence reform i think that we have made a big difference. but here, we have a vulnerability, a threat that is a theoretical, but it is happening each and every day, and yet we have seen today live the comments of some of our colleagues this is going to be a very difficult job to get this bill through. i am confident that we can do it, however, and that in the end we will succeed. and finally, i do want to say to our colleagues and to those who are listening and those in the audience we need your help if you have other good ideas for us, by all means, bring them forward, help us get the best possible bill. but for anyone come for anyone to stand in the way and cause us to fail to act at all to pass legislation this year i think would just be a travesty, it would be a disaster waiting to happen for our country. so mr. chairman, i just encourage you to press forward, and i will be at your side, your partners all along the way. we've done it before. >> thank you. that was just express's characteristic of your independence of spirit and your commitment to do what is right for the national security, so we are going to press forward and the majority leader, senator reid, i'm confident is going to press forward. as i mentioned earlier, he got a couple of briefings on this problem of cybersecurity last year and it really troubled me. he feels that there's a clear and present danger to our national security and economic prosperity from cyber attacks to try to get us to this point we've preached this week to have a at least the additional consensus bill and i'm confident he's going to push this and bring this to the floor with the authority that he has as the majority leader and i'm optimistic that the committee will be in the next work period which is when we come back at the end of february into march. the three of you have added immensely to the work. i do want to continue to work. i don't want to ask you a question senator collins has put this to such a wonderful ending point, but i do want to over time as we take the bill to the floor invite you who expressed concerns about the so-called car velte people in the administration still think with the authority that we have left the language will allow the government to develop performance standards that will require owners of systems to protect those systems even if they might include some commercial products. but i'm not resting on what we've got, so i invite you to submit -- we hear your concerns and we would like you to submit how to do this better and we promise we will consider those concerns. any last words from any of the three of you? thanks very much for what he contributed and thanks, senator collins, and it's true, we get very stubborn the two of us when we think something is right and necessary, so we are going to go forward. the record of this hearing will be held open for ten days for any additional questions or statements for the record and i think you again very much for that. the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] now a debate on the state voter i.d. law. we will hear from hans who served on the bush communication. the washington legislative director for the aclu. from the national press club, this is one hour. >> [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody. hello. good morning everybody. welcome to the national press club. we are a global body of more than 3,000 members come and if you are not familiar, much familiar, please do visit our web site, press.org and become a member and if you are in d.c., you have amazing benefits. and with that, i will shift to the subject today, and that's the new voter i.d. laws which are coming up in all the state's one by one coming and we have two experts, we have laura murphy of the office of the american civil liberties union, and we have hans von spakovsky. i hope i pronounced it right who doesn't need much introduction because he's now with the heritage foundation but has been in the field for quite some time. and without resting much time on my blah blah blah, i will ask mn spakovsky to introduce his opening remarks. >> that's not that tough of a name for somebody that was born in alabama is unusual. laura and i are here today opposing each other on voter i.d. although i should say we are not always on opposite sides. in fact we were on the same side and citizens united where i filed a brief along with other commissioners in the aclu filed on the same side. on voter i.d. i think the aclu is wrong, and let me tell you why. one of the key principles of any fare collection is making sure the person is legally eligible to do so and the fairest way to do that is by making sure that individuals authenticate their citizenship when they register to vote and authenticate their identity when they appear at the polling place to vote. those kind of requirement also include public confidence in our election process. lincoln chafee who was an independent governor of rhode island when he signed rhode island, the new voter i.d. law which was sponsored by democratic legislators in a state where the democrats controlled the state for-1 in the state legislature said that requiring i.d. of the polling place is a reasonable request to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the election. now, unlike what opponents say which is that this only can prevent impersonation fraud in that sometimes they will admit, they will say it rarely happens, others like "the new york times" say it doesn't happen, that is incorrect. it can also prevent people from voting under fictitious voter registration names or voting names of other individuals like people who are dead we know because of last week in the voter registration rolls and can prevent a double voting by people who were registered in more than one state a good example of that was deterred by the voter i.d. law and also frankly if you prevent illegal aliens from registering the also occur around the country. when justice john paul stevens, who isn't exactly conservative justice or a stalwart of the court wrote the majority opinion that upheld indiana's's abu i.t. law, he made the point that examples of such fraud have been documented throughout the nation's history by the respected historians and journalists and the voter fraud but it could affect the outcome of a close election. the idea that this would prevent individuals from voting the claim of of is intended to the minorities, democrats and the elderly has been disproven in the courtroom and this program in the polling place. the aclu fallujah title a lawsuit against the state in 2005 when georgia passed its photo id law. there were two years of litigation. the same claims made today by the aclu the there are literally hundreds of the lessons of people who will be unable to vote because they don't have a photo id and won't be able to obtain the free photo i.d. that every state has provided as a part of the law. it turned out the reason that it was dismissed by the federal judge was because -- i don't want to give you a lot of quotes that this is worth giving to you. this is from gove college of federal district court that dismissed the lawsuit. although they claim to know people who claim they lack of a lady, they failed to identify those individuals. the failure to identify those individuals is particularly acute in the light of the contention that a large number of georgia voters lack acceptable for the lady. the fact the plaintiffs in spite of their efforts have failed to uncover any one to the test of the fact that he or she will be prevented from voting from significant support from the conclusion that total i.t. requirement does not unduly burden the right to vote. now the interesting thing about this is that the -- you can find almost the exact same quote from the federal district court judge in the indiana case because the lawsuit was also filed against the indiana's fogle id and there when the case was dismissed the judge said despite apocalyptic assertions of the wholesale voter disenfranchised plaintiffs who produced not a single piece of evidence of any identifiable registered voter to be prevented from voting. now what happened in the polling places indiana and georgia since paul went into effect they've been in effect now for five or six years in each state we have had to federal elections, we've had numerous local elections, and contrary to the assertions, this would depress the turnout, particularly of the minority voters the exact opposite happened. in 2008, when the turnout went up generally across the country we had one of the highest turnout in the presidential election in decades the turnout of the democratic voters increased by over six percentage points over 2,004 when there was no fly the law in georgia. in fact they had the largest turnout in any election in georgia in history and the was the fifth largest increase in voter turnout of any state in the country including many states that it will have total i.t.. same thing happened in indiana. they had an increase in their turn out of over eight percentage points. there was actually the largest increase in the country. now, for those who say that well, you know, 2008 was a special election, it doesn't work. if you look at the turnout in the 2010 election, you also have a big increase in the trough for example of african-american voters. 12 by seven percentage points from 2,006 the last midterm election when there was no photo id law in effect and in indiana in 2010 the black share of the vote in the midterm election was larger than the boating in 2008 essentials election. much is made of the idea of the voter fraud in the united states or the death in cases prosecuted across the country for many different problems of the election crimes and there is a case going on right now and naturally new york were at least 46 voters have testified that they did not vote in the election and yet ballots were cast in their name. that case involves absentee ballot fraud. but in fact, fogle idf combined the changes can help reduce that kind of fraud also. in october, arthur davis, former congressman from alabama, a former member of the black congressional caucus wrote a commentary of the montgomery advertiser, and in that article he said i changed my mind on voter write the law. i think alabama did the right thing in passing, and i wish i had gotten a right when i was elected office. when i was a, i took the path of least resistance on the subject for an african-american politician without any evidence to back it up. i lapsed into the rhetoric of the various partisans and activists. he goes on to say for those that say there is no voter fraud, he saw in his election in alabama he was approached by voters brokers who for the right amount of money would manufacture about what's needed in the polling place or to absentee ballots, and in fact he said some of the worst victims of the voter fraud were in fact in the african-american community tbi certainly salles but in a case that i wrote about of a federal prosecution in the mid-1990s in alabama where unfortunately the local commissioners and city councilmen were stealing votes and winning the elections by doing that and the people they were stealing votes from four other democratic challengers, people who frankly wanted to clean up the local government. the right to work in the united states is just as fundamental of a right as the right to vote. under federal law, if you want to get a job, you have to authenticate your identity and authenticate your citizenship your work visa to be able to work as a non-citizen. that is no different than what the states want to do in the voting context, and i would end with a quote from ryland democrat state representative john bryan who said voting is one of the most important rights and duties that we have as americans, and should be treated accordingly, and i certainly agree with that. thanks. has been analyzed and it shows that it doesn't control for certain other fact there's. for example, there's been a huge migration of african-americans to the south. it is documented in a "washington post" series and says there is an -- he wants to say that voter i.d. hasn't caused a lower turnout. we don't know the relationship to the top of the ticket in 2008 and we don't know whether or not turnout when in fact have been greater into that in the, but for voter photo i.d. requirement but i just want to get back to some of the fundamentals. the supreme court has described a right to vote as the rate that is preservative of fulbright. hunt talks about the right to work, but the voting if they match my cherished right in a much more upheld rights and icons to teach and in any of the rate. it is protected by the first and 14th, 15th, 19th and 24,102,026th amendment to the comp dictation. unfortunately, there is a tragic case three of the american political parties using fraud allegations to restrict the electorate for partisan advantage. after the 15th man that was passed in 1870, newly freed slaves were allowed to vote and were able to elect several african-american republican to the house and the senate. and the democratic party at that time became enraged and energize the cells to allege fraud to black voters. then pull taxes on luxury tax where to circumvent the 14th of 15th amendment to fundamental constitutional rights that ushered in nearly a century of jim crow lives. and those laws were not addressed again and so 1965 with the passage of the voting rights act. the people had to be beaten, fire has come and bitten by police dogs and sometimes killed in order to bring the right to vote. so finally, lyndon johnson and others said that we need to stir a more elaborate measures and that's how the voting rights act of 1965 came about. now fast-forward to this era. honda is quick to point out that some democrats have supported photo i.d. legislation, but the vast majority of state legislatures that are and not teen photo i.d. laws in other areas to vote in the republican controlled legislators who may fear that low income people, students, the elderly, disabled and racial minorities are taking aim at their political power. so as to regain our strength and the electoral advantage, largely republican and some cases, democrats are foisting up how nice the latter sleep tasteless and abstract allegations of voter fraud as the rationale for a whole series of voter suppression lies. in the 2011 legislative session, regressive and for the senators who recently introduced in with an aries date with 16 states that fancy new or expanded barriers to voting. the most common barrier was the voter i.d. law. the others include requiring proof of citizenship when writers vote and shortening the time allowed for early voting, eliminating same-day voter registration, making it more difficult for third-party organizations like the league of women voters took out voter registration and one that criminal franchise that lies. all the tactics are different, impact is the seem to to push more people out of the electorate by making it more and more difficult to vote. so with respect to voter i.d. in particular, 31 states have laws requiring voters to present some form of identification to vote in federal, state and local elections. some oscar ballot initiatives passed in 2011 have not yet gone into effect. some also must be pre-cleared and the justice department under section five of the voting rights act. in 16 of those 31 states, voters must or will soon be required to present a photo i.d. that in many states must be government issued an order to cast a ballot. photo i.d. laws denied the right to thousands of citizen voters who do not have or cannot team limited forms of identification that states except for voting. many of these americans cannot afford to pay for the required documents needed to secure a government issued photo i.d. so while in some states the photo i.d. is provided free of charge, the supporting documents, per certificates, marriage certificates, passports cannot have two significant cost especially for low-income people. more than 21 million american of voting age lacked documentation that would satisfy these photo i.d. laws and these americans are disproportionately though income ratio not make minorities, the elderly and disabled voters. to put this in if, as many as 25% of african-american of voting age lacked a government issued photo i.d. compared to only 8% of their white counterparts and nearly one in five americans over these of 65 do not have a government issue photo lady. in texas, for instance, the pending new photo i.d. law permits individuals to show a license to carry a concealed firearm, but will not accept a college student i.d. as sufficient to cast a ballot. furthermore, no eligible citizen should have to pay to go. the aclu believes requiring voters to obtain a government issued photo i.d. in order to vote is tantamount to a poll tax. although some states issue ids for free, the supporting documents, or certificates, passports and other things i said earlier required to obtain a government issued i.d. costs money and many americans simply cannot afford to pay for them. moreover, states incur sizable cost. millions of dollars from providing ids to voters who do not have them. given the financial strain many states already are experienced team, this is truly an unnecessary allocation of taxpayer dollars. also, what about the additional time and resources that would take to check ids at the polling places? aren't the alliance already long enough? and people say okay, if you don't have a photo i.d., what do you do? well, states should allow people to sign an affidavit attesting to their citizenship and identity and face prosecution for perjury or other criminal offenses if they turn out not to be who they say they are. stopping voter fraud is the positive rationale for this class. in fact, there is no credible evidence that in-person voter fraud, the only type of photo ids could prevent is even a minor problem. empire, this is because in-person fraud by individual voters in session and affect the way to influence an election. at most covet yields one additional vote in the federal and state criminal penalties for election fraud in all 50 states, there are severe and effective mechanisms for deterring and prosecuting the rare cases of actual individual voter fraud. there is much more evidence, however, the citizens are disenfranchised by these measures then there is a vested in voter fraud. these fraud laws are the real threat to the constitutional rights. they will be expanding the franchise and we will and practices which actually threaten the integrity such as improper purges of voters, voter estimate the distribution of false information about when and where to go. none of these issues are addressed or can be resolved with the photo i.d. requirement. indeed by raising the unsubstantiated spec there proponents of these measures and the election process of unjustified fear. it is nothing short of a crass power grab by certain groups of lawmakers and interest rates to shot people from voting and the ideas they support. the effect of these effect of these do less is broader than diminishing the voting power of african-americans and other racial minority groups, even the racial minority groups will be affected disproportionately. these burden constitutional rights. for example local registrars in college towns have pressured students not to vote and young people don't have the resources to fight back. citizens in rural areas who cannot get an i.d. because they do not have a car to get to the dmv and public transportation is not acceptable. people who cannot afford to leave their hourly wage jobs to get to the appropriate state offices during normal business hours. for those with disabilities, boating party challenging interfere with their constitutional rights as well. should these issues interfere with such a fundamental right of said chip wipe the state photo i.d. at bills have been keeping the three prongs of the fill. the aclu lobbies against about a month and state legislators that we find suppress it. we pursue litigation in court and we educate and mobilize members and others pretend briefings and provided testimony capitol hill. we were challenging the last encore. for example in wisconsin, the national aclu and it affiliate and the national law center on homeless men in the poverty that a federal lawsuit charging that was constant voter idea was constitutional. under the 14th amendment in the 24th amendment on behalf of 17 eligible voters who they not be able to vote under the law. they include retail franc 84 who has been an elected official and her village board since 1996. she cannot produce server certificate to get the state require photo i.d. because she was born at home in 1927. it also includes karl allis 52 who is an army veteran and his veteran's i.d. card is not accessible in wisconsin. it also includes anthony sharp is 19 was a young african-american man who does not have this per certificates and cannot afford the $20 to get a certified coffee of his birth certificate. i look forward to your questions, but i want to end by saying our country has come a long way since the passage of the voter rights act and voter i.d. requirements are a major step backward in her ongoing quest for a more democratic society. elected officials should be seeking ways to encourage more voters, not inventing excuses to deny voters to the ability to cast their ballot. right now, there's the looming possibility that many voters will not deny their most fundamental and most ultimate expression of their anticipation and democracy that setting. so i look forward to your questions and i look forward to a vigorous debate. >> thank you very much. that was quite a bit of information. and i would like to have now that when you ask a question, please state your name, organization and please do not start a political discourse. just keep your questions to the point. his very first question? >> kim fassler with npr. one question for each of you. first, laura, so many people don't have ids. we do keep hearing of cases and elections were as not seem to be a problem. which is that the wisconsin primary this week at all reports all accounts. there were few if any problems with the new i.d. requirements. that's a question for you. and holland, they cases that we have seen of voter fraud often have been very organized. they are often by one party or another or by election officials. if somebody is intent on committing voter fraud, why don't they just use fake i.d. these election officials are not going to be able to determine what is or isn't a fake i.d. so my question to you is how is i.t. going to really -- that requirements going to stop disasters? >> the wisconsin vote only demonstrated those people who are able to get photo ids and cannot do without. it didn't demonstrate to people who did not have the resources to purchase a photo i.d. or the resources to get one. so i don't tank you can judge the outcome of the effect of the wisconsin photo i.d. of the amnesty look at the cases and the individuals we are ringing forward and see the barriers that were erected in their participation in that election. >> just a quick comment on that. the plans have been made now for five, six years. and after election, none of these have been materialized. on your question -- but, no one says photo i.d. is a perfect solution to this kind of a security problem. i am actually an election official in virginia and i can say there's a little series of steps you have to take to provide security in the election process. yes, if somebody gets a fake i.d., then perhaps they'll be able to vote. but that makes it much tougher to do that. and a great example of this is a new york city, brooklyn, kings county, in the 1980s they state grand jury report was released there in the state grand jury report detail the 14 year low organized voter fraud conspiracy to cast a sense of fraudulent vote and democratic primaries and one of the ways they did it as they had crews of old who went from polling place to polling place voting in the names of people who were dead, but still on the list, putting the names of individuals who had moved out of the jurisdiction and they could have perhaps gotten fake ids for lots of people to start doing that, but i would have been much tougher for them to do. it's not a perfect solution, but no security is perfect including anything he do in the voting process. >> i just want to add one thing about evidence where we have -- we do have the ideologues have interfered with voting. three years after indiana passed its 2005 voter i.d. love about a dozen people showed up at the polls without identification and most of the ballots were not counted. and that is not a huge number compared to 2.8 million indiana voters devoted in that election, but it also doesn't include an unknown number of people who did not vote, knowing they lacked a d. so i guess the question is, what is their default position? our default position should be if you're a team coming u.s. citizen, you should be allowed to go. and we do have a problem in this country with failures to purge and cleanup voting rolls. no one is contesting the fact that there are problems in the world system. but the problem is not individuals by a large misrepresenting themselves. the problem is we don't have laws in compliance at the national voter registration act, with the help america vote act. what the rules are cleaned up so people can not appear and show up and vote in the name of a dead person. >> , to respond to the 1000 voters in indiana who showed up without i.d. and were not allowed to vote. >> there's no indication that they take the trouble of trying to get the free photo i.d. that they could have easily gotten. in fact in the eighth eou case in georgia, this very same claim was made and i've actually got copies of the depositions in that case. and in each deposition of the witness that was brought forward by the aclu, it turned out in the questioning each of these individuals could have easily gotten a photo i.d. they just didn't bother to do it before the election. you know, that is not a problem -- well, that's certainly what the judge said. you know, people can read the opinion themselves and see how the case was dismissed at the case was dismissed in the blood is now in effect since the dismissal for five years and the entire timepiece eou has not come back to court and come up with any individuals who will be unable to vote because of the photo i.d. law. by the way, at least half a dozen of the plaintiffs named plaintiffs in the aclu bus system in 10 are people who have photo driver's licenses other state and they are complaining that they don't want to have to trade in their cheapest license from another state and get a wisconsin driver's license. normally you only get a drivers license where you are a resident. if their drivers licenses from other states, the apparently could hsb attempting to vote twice and perhaps the aclu wants them to be able to vote twice because they have photo ids to mother stays with his supposedly not president. >> just to clarify one thing that both of you are mentioning about the photo ids. can you put in to defend this a fine day, and photo i.d. that is applicable everywhere? >> that's the problem. there is not a photo i.d. applicable everywhere. some states there are degrees of photo ids. some states will not allow you to use the next higher photo i.d. some states will not allow you to use a photo i.d. from out of state. some states will allow you to show if you have a drivers license or not mistaken he recently moved there that you can produce a utility bill or something else to show that you are effective as it may come as some. there are a whole range of photo i.d. laws. but what we are seeing is state legislatures are adopting much more restrictive voter i.d. laws. i took a mother to the polls. she sat driving at the age of 70. she ran for elected office three times in baltimore. she died at the age of 84. she did not have to use an app dated photo i.d. to fly, to enter a government office building or to vote. and she was a very act of member of society. i don't understand citizenship should be burdened by costs. any congressional districts hundreds of places, but you're not likely to find hundreds of department of motor vehicle offices. in rural areas you have it go great distances. a lot of people don't have photo i.d. in new york city because they don't own cars. so you know, the idea of this is not burdensome and this does not impede people's access to the polls is ridiculous. and if you don't believe the aclu, i would like you and to any reporters in the ground, i'd be happy to send you 2005 letter from kathy khan, secretary of the state of the state of georgia who was making an governor sonny perdue not to sign the photo i.d. bill until a period and she said it was unnecessary, create significant obstacles in voting. it was unlikely to receive preclearance at the voting rights act by the justice department did not get to that in a minute. and it violates the constitution of georgia. in response pinkowski who made sure that voter i.d. law in georgia got cleared over the ejection of six career employees who wrote to congress after he was appointed to the federal elections commission and was successfully got him to withdraw his application to be confirmed by the sec because they said he used so much political influence in the department to uphold the church of photo i.d. love. so haunts is deeply invested in voter i.d. laws. and you know, he has the right to his beliefs. but it's not just the aclu who is concerned about this. very many secretary of states who are concerned about the burdens of these photo i.d. last place in the electoral process. >> i didn't realize this is going to devolve into personal attacks. but i believe i have the ability to respond to that. the justice department precleared the georgia voter i.d. that because all of the data submitted by the state showed it would not be discriminatory. the chief of the voting section, a 30 year veteran of the department of career lawyer testified before congress that his opinion was and was not discriminatory. who was? will come in the aclu lawsuit was filed the georgia voter i.d. love after preclearance, a claim is made that the law was discriminatory under the voting rights act. the court found it was not discriminatory. and the proof in the pudding is in fact as i said intellection sent him and all of the election data on turned out i got from american university, which has election center bloggers acted and has turnout data and from the secretary of state's own voting day. showed that in fact turn out when that then they've not had any problems with a lot there. i might mention the fact that kathy cox at the time is planning to run for governor, which she then lost. >> thank you very much. i would like to again remind this discussion is about the actual and potential effects of the ideologues. so if the questions and answers can stick to these, please. [inaudible] [inaudible] too often use the word to get democrats to vote. and we met that immigrants are adjusted. so how do you -- how did the aclu feel that citizenship should be verified? because that's a drivers license or utility bill is not in the very spied citizenship? >> your questions? >> i think you sent some work on not just in voters. smacker salkind says data showing citizens, people who are noncitizens voting. anyone who wants to see the story about it, just google local nbc station in florida, collier county. last week did a story in which they found at least 100 individuals in just one county in florida. who were registered them about and multiple elections that are not u.s. citizens. the only way to do this is to do at arizona, georgia and kansas have done, which is require proof of citizenship when you register to vote. and for those who are interested , georgia because it is a section five state had to submit its proof of citizenship requirement to the justice department for preclearance. the justice department, the obama administration precleared the welcome is that it was not discriminatory under section five and that is why the law is now in effect been in place in georgia. >> i would only ask that you look at the numbers of people who have attempted to those who are noncitizens. and you'll see they are an incontestable part of the elect jerry. many times, people who are in naturalization proceeding to make the mistake of assigning that they are able to vote. so it doesn't necessarily show because some people have tried to the that their intent -- it doesn't hurt that was their intent to defraud the system. sometimes they are under the impression they're eligible to vote but they are not eligible to vote. the same thing has happened to people who have served their debt to society to criminal penalties. some of them believe they're eligible to vote when they are not. and so i think it is really important to look at the perp portion people who engage in this behavior compared to the number of people who vote and/or voting while fully and you will find that the percentage of simpson testable. and so we have to ask ourselves whether the burden to go after this tiny group will is worth the burdens placed on legitimate , eligible voters. >> adenine, states that relate to people in charge of people eligible to vote and has qualified to vote in a particular state. so if a student to clear his presidency and town, the question becomes, you know, do they have to transfer their drivers license from the home state? do they have to pay bills? see now, what is it? i think of a student declares resident in their college town and they are otherwise qualified to vote, the question i have is why shouldn't they be able to vote if they declared and their duly registered? why shouldn't they be eligible to vote? >> a moment of agreement i certainly agree with that. [inaudible] >> what impact if any do you expect from doj if they consider similar laws are not. >> welcome the south carolina attorney general has filed a lost due to overturn the justice department's decision. and i think they are going to win because the data, the south carolina submitted after they had adjusted it showed their better registration list, can you get to last and once they had taken up people who are dead, tens of thousands of individuals who died, there are also tens of thousands of individuals could devastate there is still on the voter registration this. once they take the data out, it showed the four they've done anything to try to get people free ideas that don't have one of these little over 1% of individuals who are already registered to vote in this date don't already have a turner's place in. the idea that it is going to have a discriminatory impact i don't think the justice justice department is going to prove that in court and i think they are going to lose in south carolina law will be upheld at the federal district court. >> i think that's very small concert by night. difference between the two, particularly since not only does south carolina provide a free photo i.d. who doesn't have one, they also put in another profession that says if you show up at a point place without an i.d. and sign affidavit in which you say you had a reasonable impediment, the land which in the law, a reasonable impediment to prevent you from getting a photo i.d. to be given a provisional ballot and the ballot will be counted unless local election officials have evidence that in fact you are not the person you say you are. >> well, you know, the supreme court in the crawford decision challenging the photo i.d. law in indiana said that they would not strike down the law on a challenge, but they left open the door for an as applied challenge. and so, what we now have the burden of doing in the states passing photo i.d. laws is the very expensive task of finding out who was the fact that, who is not affect it and bringing forth their stories and we think we are gathering very compelling stories in missouri, then, arizona. so we intend to litigate this one as we are around because we think this is an egregious an unnecessary barrier to voting under the guise of attempting to do something about fraud. we all should look at the pew study that just came out because it did talk about the flaws in the voting system. but they set the flaws would do more to poor record-keeping and not to fraud. and so we have to clean up our voter rolls and if we could get more states to comply with the national voter registration act and help america vote act, we would not have so many poorly made change voting records at the state level. so i think the problem is with the way the states operate the election was coming up at the numbers of individuals who were trying to commit to because again, if you go to the polls and represent that you are not the person you say you are, you are only successful in changing one vote. and that is just not an intelligent way to go about fraud. the real fraud comes in giving false information, telling people moving polling places at the last minute, not purging the rolls of dead people. that is where you get into the real numbers. but these cases of individuals going to the polls in representing and they are not someone who they are are rare. we have to take into account the people have the same names. so therefore william h. murphy's and my family. when it ceased and three are alive. and they have the same name. two of them have the same card that looks just alike. and it's very easy to transpose the social security number and address. and some people will look at that is for. when that is really poor record-keeping that leads people to that conclusion that people are trying to double vote. >> hi, i'm jennifer bishan. you both kind of answered this, but i'm assuming you can sum up what she think these laws on this outcome than the ones coming for the man now, what effect the house on the presidential election. >> i think the only effect they will have is they will prevent people who are not eligible to vote from voting. and where will that make a difference? don't make a difference in any state where there is a close election, which you don't get that often in national elections, but you certainly get it a lot in local elections, which are often decided by a very small number of those. a good example of this is a state senate race in tennessee, were they just passed a photo i.d. law, state senate race that was only 13 for in 2005, 2007 and the race and election was overturned by the state legislature. why? because when they investigated, not only were their local election officials, but they discovered derek of votes by individuals whose registered address was a vacant lot and people who lived not in the district where this is going on. that shows how this product can affect a close election. i agree with laura. we have a problem with sloppy voter registration records. in the pew center report shows that. something that has gone unmentioned here is the year and half ago i was wearing testimony of civil rights by two former career lawyers in the voting selection of civil rights division, including the former chief of the voting section come a long time career who said that he recommended at least eight states for investigation for not complying with the provisions of mvr rate that requires cleaning up voter rolls and not only was that they never done about it, but he was specifically told by political appointees at the mitigation that the administration had no interest whatsoever in enforcing this particular provision of the law. >> well, that a state may not put the attorney general and officials at the justice department have told us. they've told us they are interested in enforcing the voter rights act, national voter registration act and how america vote act. so i don't know who these officials are. but the impact, going back to your question, the impact on the 2012 elections. what we do know is it is very unlike a bit these flaws will be adjudicated before the election. the supreme court is not likely to hear any cases before the november 2012 election or issue any verdicts. and so, we are figuring out ways to educate people. we believe that there will be many eligible voters who will not turn out because they believe that they don't have the proper identification to vote. and we believe that these fraud allegations have the potential to scare people away from the polls and we are concerned about that. so it is incumbent upon the media and interest groups who want a robust and participatory society to educate people about what state law requires and to seek assistance of organizations like ours and trying to turn out and vote. so i think it will have been act on the elections, but we just don't know how it will impact the elections. >> hi, i'm tom carper then b.c. politics.com. just follow them with laura feature set. if in wisconsin at the federal court enjoined the voter i.d. law, you said you don't take the supreme court would resolve these cases before november. but it a lot is enjoined in wisconsin and they're not allowed to use it, >> as possible, but not likely. >> do you think the supreme court has the loudest are deep and used in tuesday's election that the supreme court would see a need to resolve this before november? >> it's hard to predict. >> bother question. can either be relayed in its filing with the federal court in washington, texas seven, the court must give preclearance to her photo i.d. law in order to avoid grave constitutional questions as section five of the voting rights act to another as they say if you don't let us use this file, can you relate this to the ongoing litigation over section five of the voting rights act quick >> is the number of pending cases as they went section five was renewed in 2006 is unconstitutional and the basic claim is a 1965 in his past as a temporary five-year emergency provision, that band it was considered constitutional because at the time very systematic widespread, official discrimination to go against afro-american voters in the south. but the claim being made and the lawsuits now can testing constitution is when it was renewed in 2006, there is simply no evidence of that kind of systematic widespread discrimination that justified it in 1965 and there's no evidence to show that states like virginia, for example, which is so covered are today so different from neighboring states like maryland and pennsylvania, which are not covered by the federal government should have approval rights over laws that are passed to the states, which is a very extraordinary intrusion in two derisively soldered state. the cases -- two of them offend shelby county and kinston, north carolina are actually at the court of appeals and the federal district of columbia said the texas case a little behind that. they have a good claim that if the photo i.d. law, which there is no evidence that it's discriminatory to justice department objects to it, that that is further evidence of section five really is not constitutional anymore. >> the congress went to great pains to establish a record for the extension of the voting rights act in 2006 than it was signed into law by a republican president. and i do not know who is in control of the congress the times in the past. it was split control, when house democratic and one house republican. republicans have used the voting rights act and redistrict team and relied upon it ever since it passed in 1965. so i seriously doubt that any split congress with the republican president is very biased a record that was absent, that did not demonstrate ongoing discrimination based on race, i seriously doubt the law would've been extended the way it was in 2006. so there is a chance to make a case that we are no longer a nation with racial discrimination, but the opposite case was made. the case was made that there is discrimination based on english language proficiency, that there is discrimination based on race and that these are still entrenched problems in the united states. so i just don't take it would've been extended in 2006 had there not been a very strong record. >> any other questions in the back? >> was wondering if there's any other measures other than photo i.d. which you think would he adequate to prevent the fraud issue. it seems to me there's a few other measures that possibly prevent without say stopping anyone who is allowed to vote from voting. i guess, would you support the measure is being tacked onto many of these photo i.d. laws? or perhaps some sort of other? has there been examples of ways in which people approach the station with which we say some other form of identification that it's not the photo i.d., a water bill or they were impersonating someone else? >> at all about that, but a couple weeks ago i'm sure you saw the undercover video by james o'keefe in new hampshire, the gop primary in new hampshire has no photo i.d. the end they simply found the names of people still registered and dad and who were on the list and women in afterthoughts and got them in every case. there is a case in 2007 hoboken, new jersey where this happened in a real election, were a poll watcher who happen to be the former president at the zoning board noted state group of individuals on a street corner being handed index cards. he went past them and went on into his polling place. they violated one of the police came in, gave the name of the voter and try to go to the person saying. new jersey has no photo i.d. requirement. when the gentleman challenged him, he ran out of the polling place. this gentleman chased him down, call police on his cell phone or the rest can. and when the redskins had he admitted he and this other group or from a homeless shelter and these two gentlemen had come to them and were paying him $10 each to go vote in the name of another voter and handed them an index card that had the name of the voters they should go vote in. this was documented in newspaper articles and the zoning board president wrote a letter to the senate rules committee documenting what happened. so that is a recent example of this thing happening. other measures should be taken. photo i.d., proof of citizenship and something else that states should do is they should require all county court clerks and the federal government should require all federal court clerks to notify election officials and individuals who have been called for jury duty are excused because they swear under oath that they are not u.s. citizens. most jury lists are taken from voter registration rolls. there was a gao report in 2005 the reported instances of this all over the country but they surveyed federal courts and there'd be another way to get people who are not u.s. citizens off the voter rolls. >> you know, i just think it's really important that we not legislate yannick dote. and hans is full of these wonderful, compelling and does. but that is a very different in that having people come to the state house says and put information in the record that can be reviewed and analyzed by both parties, all the citizens and it's a permanent part of the record. i will give you an example. in the 30 year history of the main same day voter registration that, there were only two examples of voter fraud in maine's history. and so, there was not even a hearing that demonstrated fraud with the problem before made legislators attempted to get rid of same-day voter registration. also in indiana, there was no legislative record made and even the supreme court noted that there is no legislative record made that demonstrated any widespread fraud in indiana. so what we are seeing are states that are passing these laws based on these kinds of yannick dose rather than hard evidence that there are widespread issues. and so, we have got to pushback on that. we have got to demand more of our state legislators. they should not able to just prevent copycat pills and spew them out and allege fraud. what we are asking is that legislators do their job and that the people on the press insist on more data that can be reviewed and impartial entities before these burdens are placed on burdens and interfere with their right to vote. >> thank you very much for your time and in this election year, this is a major subject of debate and we look forward to more debates on the subject. thank you very much for your attendance. and thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]÷ >> bobby jindal scheduled to review its proposal for balance in the state budget for the next fiscal year to date. $900 million in the bed. industry for closer now mostly cloudy and 37 acres at the airport, 38 to watch jill and 13 amended or is listening to shreveport closures is a weather station newsradio. >> governors at a much this weekend. pamphlets to change about the national guard and fema and we'll hear from the head of fema. this firm is moderated by governor martin o'malley of ireland and governor not meat of wyoming. [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen comic thank you for being here today. this is a meet at the national governors association special committee on homeland security and public safety call to order. to my left is governor matthew mead of wyoming and handbag coach or is that the committee. the briefing books for this meeting were passed out in advance to all the governors here is part of the national governors association meeting. many of those committee hearings are going on simultaneously. so governors are rallying and joining us here. seated to my right is heather heather hogsett, national association special committee on public safety. police he had heard shooting a copies of materials and other assistance. assuming that this committee were up into the press them on the dean attendees and they really want to thank all of the nations agitates general for being with us here in a circle. i've never felt quite so well protected as i am at this hearing, including man adjunct general, jim adkins. today's session, changing out the national guard comes at a very important time. we've heard all about proposed force reductions and in fact there is a letter circulated to secretary pineda. so far he thinks i'm a 30 or 40 of us, expressing similar concerns about making sure that our card is properly resourced so often equipment is overseas and never comes back and rarely gets replaced in a timely fashion. men and women of the national guard have played a pivotal role in protecting our national interests. they keep it secure. since the attacks of september 11, national guard has seen its will expand as every fire and police department and other emergency personnel in the homeland have seen their roles expand. this past year or two very important and long overdue steps that were taken to finally recognize the important contributions of the national guard. first of the work of the council of governors, which governor train of thought and from washington for a fleet of lead, department of defense and recent historic agreement regarding coordination of state and federal military forces during an emergency response. this agreement was enacted in december when the president signed the national defense authorization act. now when disaster strikes whether it is they lurch hurricane, earthquake or whatever it might be, a governor has the ability to appoint a member of his or her national guard will be granted authority to direct all military forces operating within the borders of his or her stay. this remarkable accomplishment pre-presents negotiations to remedy an initiative this challenging a concerning us ever since the failures and the response to hurricane katrina, namely the need for federal government and governors to work together with her national guard were best equipped to meet emergency response within their communities. thanks to the work for the council of governors and leadership to several key federal officials in partnership between state and federal government is cleared with a stronger and better prepared in the event of large-scale emergencies. i also want to thank governor sandoval who is here from nevada as well as my neighbor and colleague on the governor make donald from the commonwealth of virginia. the second accomplishment was long overdue representation of the national guard on the joint chiefs of staff. now for the first time ever, general kate mckinley joins us here in the national guard here is a direct report to the president of the united states providing him the ice and counsel on matters relating to state and guard union said no doubt ringing back home to letter that 40 or 50 of us are going to say before this weekend is over. so, these are two important accomplishments. heather is going to touch on another important one, which was the d block issue, the fact that we now have dedicated bands so that emergency personnel can finally achieve interoperable communications. were also joined by governor jane accent who stepped away every governor proud when the town of joplin was hit so hard and tragically by that tornado. the matrix mcauley, it governor matt support of the ngo special committee for his opening remarks. governor. >> thank you, governor o'malley. it's been a pleasure to cibecue and appreciate your leadership very much. let me think the adjutant generals here today and a shared governor o'malley's confidence that we are well protected here today and it's an impressive career. i wish we could figure out how to do a photograph without these generals. it would be a great tree. you may also recognize christine gregoire. governor branstad, thank you for being with us. governor nixon, sandoval, thank you very much. i'd also like to acknowledge general luke winer who is here with us today. we had a busy year last year with flooding and other issues. it's a pleasure to have him here. governor o'malley, former governor of wyoming with us today. thank you very much for being with us. governor jerry jerry was to governors to go when they did a great job for the state of wyoming. as you know, the national governors represents governors all over the country and we not surprisingly don't agree on every issue. i don't think i'm letting the secret out of the bag there. that is just the way it is. but i have noted that when it comes to adjunct generals, when it comes to the national guard, we can find common ground very quickly. so again, thank you governor o'malley. i want to thank you for your work on the special committee, homeland security and public safety. we also had some good accomplishment. i want to look for today's committee session as we focus on change and expanding out the national guard. the soldiers of our national guard survey unique dual mission and their service to their state enter this country. last year in my home state of wyoming, we had a record amount of moisture and we were tracking mess and we knew that the floods were coming. .. 150 national guard personnel have been deployed around the world surfing in iraq, afghanistan, kosovo and guantanamo bay. last year i had the privilege of going to guantanamo bay and was proud to visit troops there and this year i am planning to go to kosovo. i attended the deployments and homecoming sells well to recognize the need to the state of wyoming and to the country. the fact is hundreds of national guard members continue to serve in overseas missions alongside active duty soldiers. at the same time, it's my example but the flooding in wyoming illustrates these brave men and women serve our community is responding to disasters and emergencies and are also protecting us from threats and attacks. this dual mission serving both governors and the federal government shows increasing levels of the importance of today's national guard. during the flooding last year, it was a remarkable thing to me of how many after the flooding had how many folks from around the state expressed their heartfelt appreciation for the guard in ways i cannot adequately give credit to buy my articulation but it is such things as please think the guard, they saved my home. please think the guard, the suit my business companies think the bar, one said they saved my entire town and we had wonderful stories of grandmothers and grandfathers going out of their homes making sure that the guard had opportunities to eat chocolate chip cookies but i say that because it illustrates that there is a unique nature to the relationship the guard has to the states and it's important. in recent weeks we have seen however the department of land a new military strategy proposing steep reductions to its entire structure especially to the air and national guard. with the national guard being our only military force, the governors can call upon such cuts could significantly curtailed the state's capabilities to respond and recover from acts of terrorism, natural disasters and other emergencies. we are often told that the next big disaster is not a question of if, but when. we may have no notice, no advance warning of the next tornado or when the next earthquake will strike but as governors it is our response a levee to respond and provide the safety and security of our citizens. the national guard is one of the most effective and cost effective response capabilities we can utilize in a time of crisis and we are fully cooked and properly trained national guard force we are better able to protect the public, respond to emergencies and return to our normal routines. no country has ever been better served or made more proud by the military than america so we think the guard and all service members for what they do. the guard is strong and capable and they must remain so. i look forward to hearing from both our panelists today and am particularly interested to hear more about how the guard continues to change and how we can best maintain the important military and emergency response capability to serve our citizens. >> governor, thank you very much. but the exercise a little progress with the governor, governor gregoire and branstad of anything to add from the opening thoughts of the council of governors? >> the only thing i would say thank you mr. chair and vice chair as it really is a time to celebrate. it took a long time to create the council of governors after federalizing the national guard legislation to do that. we went to the table and i have to say in record time formed a partnership with the department of defense and were able to achieve what i think is right for the country and right for the guard. we have tremendous respect for the guard in every one of our states, so you we and others here were helpful in making that happen. michael chair, governor branstad to read also if i can add i'm very pleased we now have as a part of the joint chiefs of staff the head of the national guard, general mckinley and it's something that we have fought for years and we are appreciative you are there to represent the art of the joint chiefs of staff so it has been a year of success but we have no work cut out for us to do more to this mix before, governor. governor branstad? >> i would just add i'm really honored and proud to be part of a group of governors that has had a chance to play a role here in this very important deutsch will force mission, and we -- i think the comment has already been made about the importance of the national guard to our states, and especially important to the air national guard, and i am really pleased to see the governors and the generals all coming together with a statement about how critically important it is that we not diminish the very important role that the air national guard place not just as part of our national events the could defense but the plaintiff state level as well so we think you for that and i am pleased to be here. >> thank you very much. we are also joined by governor been lee from alabama and abercrombie from hawaii. let me introduce general craig mckinley, who is the chief of the national guard bureau and in that role as chief and member of the joint chiefs of staff general mckinley serve as a military adviser to the president and the secretary of defense and provides direct communications between the upper end of defense and governors and their generals assembled here in the national council. he first received his commission in 1974 upon graduating from the reserve officer training program rotc at southern memphis university a combat pilot with the 4,000 hours he served as the assistant deputy chief of staff for plans and programs in washington and director of the mobilization reserve affairs director of the u.s. european command and prior to the current post general mckinley served as the director of the air national guard. he is joined and supported by the general billing from of the national guard who joined him today as well as the lieutenant general of the air national guard. general mckinley on behalf of all of my colleagues think you for joining us and i'm interested in hearing from you. [applause] >> do you want to do that right now? okay. >> excuse me, general. that is what the script says and i am just don't buy that. excuse me. it's my pleasure to introduce the second panelist the afternoon the honorable krepp fugate administrator of the federal emergency management agency. he began his emergency management career as a volunteer firefighter, emergency paramedic and finally as lieutenant with flecha. prior to the current position the at administrator served in several key emergency management positions in the state of florida. he was appointed the chief of prepared this response for the florida department of emergency management in 1997. in 2001 he was appointed the director of the department of emergency management where he court made the disaster response recovery prepare best mitigation efforts with each of the state's 67 counties and local governments. may 13th, 2009 his appointed by president obama and confirmed by the senate to serve as the administrator not fema. we welcome you both. general mckinley, we will open it you. thank you. >> thanks, governor. governor mali, members of the committee, it's a pleasure to be here today. i saw many of you on tv when the talk show ground so i appreciate all of your leadership in washington and it's great for the midwinter meeting of the governors for the general who are with you today to be here, too. they start their conference, they started it today and will run through wednesday, so it is a great opportunity and i am grateful, governor, to be here today. it's kind of scary, too got to have the floridians. i mean for the guardsmen. he believes orange and blue for the dever range it's great to be here and thanks again for the invite. i would like to begin by thanking you, the members of this committee and of the governors for your advocacy and support for the national guard over the years. we talked about the representation in the room today. the leadership of the national guard, all 54 of them are the designated reps on here and it is comforting to know that general white, general eink rahm and i can get the support of your military leadership and state territories in the district of columbia for defeat and the tough issues we deal with in washington. i had the pleasure of traveling with you to the afghanistan and iraq and i hope we can continue to have the type of rotation where governors can visit the soldiers and airmen in theater. it's a historic time for the national guard as probably many of our foreign chiefs have said that. i'm the 26th chief of the national guard and during a watched the attack on the nation on september 11, 2001 and the subsequent war rest the national guard to the frontline of the nation's defense. over 667,000 national guardsmen have been mobilized and deploy it in support of operations in during freedom, iraqi freedom and new dawn. at its highest point in may of 2005, the army national guard accounted for 51% of the total ground combat force in iraq. operation which has an air man general life and i and the other who are air force officers will tell you is the component that protect sky over the united states of america and have been flying in record numbers all in a volunteer status so we can be grateful for the airline and the soldiers in the national guard. as a result of the most experienced battle tested and disciplined national guard in the history of the nation. don't need to tell this audience that. you know it firsthand. although united states military and its mission in iraq and is transitioning the mission in afghanistan, the national guard is not anticipating the reduced role in the nation's defense. we face threats at home and abroad in the national fiscal challenges that call for continued and perhaps even greater reliance on the national guard. the global security environment has grown far more complex. we continue to face a a senator and complicated threats and although the size of our overall military forces will decrease, we need to remain capable carrying out the missions across the full spectrum and fully prepared to regenerate and defeat and forseen aggression as it occurs. this is one of the stated principles of the new strategic guidance laid out by president obama last month. i believe that this strategy positions the department of defense in the right place coming in by thank president obama and secretary panetta for their leadership and guidance in this area. i'd also like to thank the president for his leadership standing of the council of governors. the council played an invaluable role in strengthening the partnership between federal and state governments on matters pertaining to homeland defense and support to civil authorities we will meet in the pentagon with secretary napolitano and other key figures in the government in washington and i can't think governor gregoire and branstad and all of you for your input to make that council so effective. these important missionaries will remain a priority for the department of defense in the months and the years ahead. our enemies have openly declare they are seeking weapons of mass destruction. its vital we continue to improve our kunkel biological, radiological and a clear response capability to ensure a quick and effective response god forbid that all occurs. the key in success of combating the destruction on the homeland is preparation and early planning with you our state partners. the same holds true for responding to natural disasters which many of you found yourself dealing with last year. in 2011 the nation encountered 14 natural disasters that caused at least a billion dollars each in damage. that's very significant. it was a tumultuous year as many of you know first hand. we saw wild fires in the southwest, a blizzard in chicago, floods along the red river, mississippi and missouri river and tornadoes across the country. based on recent weather patterns we should expect as many severe defense in 2012. complex catastrophes are something we need to pay very serious attention to and the assistant secretary defense for homeland defense in america's security affairs dr. paul stockton recently traveled to texas and met with of the congressman on the number of southwest border initiatives and we know those are said that can challenge is also. with the severity of the natural disasters becoming likely more responses will include the national guard members from multiple states. when hurricane irene retek along the east coast last year the guardsmen from the 27 states responded. these multistate responses have highlighted in area where members of the national governors' association working with the respective state legislators can help me difference for national guard men and women. that area is stayed active duty allowances. today many of our states have standards that mirror the federal payments and legal protections but many do not. the differences are highlight during the multistate emergency action, that response when the guard members working side-by-side in state status with active-duty members performing the state work have not only different pay the different levels of protection should they become injured. i encourage governors to work with one another and with your state legislatures to find a way to greater pair with respect to these issues. the national guard of the future will be fully engaged in many of the emerging missions, areas identified in the new strategic military guidance. these missionaries include special operations, regular warfare, operating effectively in cyberspace and conducting stability and counterinsurgency operations. we will also maintain capabilities such as unmanned aerial systems, intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance programs. and partnership building to our very effective state partnership program. we are looking forward to taking on these missions and doing our part to meet the evolving challenges of the global security environment. as the national guard evolves, it's imperative that we do so with input from all of the governors. so much of the national guard does revolves around partnerships, and our partnerships with you, the commanders in chief of our 54 states and territories and georgia nabors of the most vital that we have to read the national guard bureau will some establish a working group to determine what the guard should look like and they look like in the future. i will make sure that this is done with your input and transparency. let's work together to figure out how the national guard of the future will look and respond and be prepared to handle all the emergencies both home and abroad. the national guard stands ready to serve you. we are partners with a common mission. for 375 years the national guard's mission has been to protect our communities and the people and property in them. the national guard and the national governors association have a great history of working together to accomplish that mission. let's keep it up. i'd like to think you with your help on the issue that concerns us all the care of our service members be free to ensure you are aware there are high numbers of returning service members with reintegration, post-traumatic stress and unemployment issues. many of you have taken steps to address these issues in your states, and i would like to thank you personally for all you've done and continue to do on behalf of our returning service members. these men and women have been fighting all battles for us, and we can't leave them to fight the battles on their own when they return. again, thank you for your advocacy and continued support to the point of privilege if i could, one of our has announced his retirement in the summer. he has been a stalwart supporter of not only this committee but will listen the national guard. where is tim? i would like you to stand up and be recognized. [applause] >> now with that mr. chairman i look forward to your questions after administrator fugate makes his remarks. >> general, things. let me introduce the of the fema administrator craig fugate and as i do so mr. fugate i can tell you while there are several things we disagree about as governors from different parties, the one thing i think all of us do every about is the responsiveness of fugate because the 20 come forward leaning of fema, the change, the positive change we have seen in all of us, thank you so much for the improvement that you've made their and to your staff. so much for the recognized for the good things they do i can tell you these governors are very grateful for the committed work, the fast work, the professional work of fema. thank you. >> thank you, governor. it's always great when we say yes but sometimes know. i appreciate the partnership we have with states. fema has an interesting role in that we are not a very big agency coming and we don't have a lot of resources. contrary to what a lot of times i ran into a national media, who somehow think that our smaller agencies on behalf of secretary napolitano has all these resources that we bring to bear, and it's pretty bad when i come here and i know a lot of you now on a firstname basis because we were a lot this year, this past year in 2001, and what struck me was no matter where i went, no matter what the disaster was, the guard was there and that is a pretty powerful statement. it wasn't about the budgets, it wasn't about a lot of things people felt were going to be detrimental to the response to the the fact is wherever i went, the guard was there. you call them out, and these are citizen soldiers. i don't think people get it. they don't sit in the army winning for the disaster. they have jobs, families, they are in school, the have professions, they serve their country, and the serve the state's. many times to the detriment in consequence of their own personal lives, but i never heard from many guardsmen the matter with their rank was, not their stature or what their mission was, they were not glad to be helping their neighbors. they didn't see this as one of the most important functions they provided in the community. with the opportunity to serve their neighbors when they needed them. and as i look at that, i'm reminded that we have a duty at my level as a general point out on things need to address this essential service the soldiers have when they do come in to help out their neighbors. our job at fema again is to coordinate on behalf of your request and the president declares a disaster on the resource of the government and we have had a challenge in speeding up and work closer and faster with your teams and i'm hoping that what the governor said is something that we are actually doing to that i know we are not there yet. we have a lot of work to get where i need to be. but i look at disasters not from the process that we go through that from the outcomes that need to occur. i'm focused on how we get faster and what's the best resource and not necessarily always looking at how we did before. and in many cases i continue to come back and more full of the fact that throughout all of the deployments, throughout all of the call-up, no matter when the disaster occurred those that we saw coming with the floods where you work pro-active that getting folks out early, those that we may have known whether we had no idea, governor bentley, that we were looking at one of the worst tornado outbreaks in our state with lives lost and damages in the communities literally destroyed across northern alabama and then the images that can out of joplin and people saying how could that happen and printing nature is powerful and we have to be prepared for those things that can occur. so as i sit here today, i know we have a lot to discuss but i just want to emphasize that i think the governors of this country have been able to work effectively in the administration and with the tip of defense to accomplish milestones that in my reading of the history of the formation of the evolution of the guard going back from the general who is in for the likes to point out his predecessors the first knowledge of that mustered in the country was actually st. augustine. three and 75 years ago. the first response to the hurricane was that militia dealing with a french invasion when the hurricane struck. so our roots in florida and the guard and very deep. but i continue to look at again how did we take history and not repeatprevious detrimental actions that occurred to date we have seen the rise and fall of the department of defense and the funding and emphasis some of the strategy of the war and somehow it seems the guard got the least amount caught in the process. but in the recent decade, without regard, we wouldn't have been able to defend ourselves. and i think as we look at the of strategies we have to capitalize upon the fact we no longer deal with the issue of who's in charge in the disaster, we have the unity of the command and effort to the status commanders that we know of or drive past the school equipment and have asked to answer the question why are those folks not helping and we explain because they are the reason of and we didn't have the authority to request them to support the response. we no longer a and face the issue of what role the guard has with the representation on the joint chiefs of staff. but the question remains how do we assure the guard will be there when you need them because your citizens needed them in the next disaster strikes and balance that across all the competing interests that are occurring as we are dealing with the budget challenges that you have been facing for years how to get the job done with the resources we have come and i think my experience and approach to this is it takes a total effort. previously the family had a total effort when we went to the war and now we have the ability to build upon the same building blocks the total support of all of your capabilities to support you in disaster strikes not stopping at the guard, not stopping at the active duty but the reserves. but as we go forward, how do we continue to build upon that, and recognize that by funding certain resources of the card level we benefit both of the missions? la mention to support their citizens in their time of need and also to contribute to the nation's defense. and i think that is the lesson learned we have to continue to go back and go many times before we made the wrong decision that cost us in the long run for short-term gains which worked on savings, i think the guard is a long-term player in the defense and there are appropriate rolls the card needs to be engaged in the national defense but also the card needs to be as your toole to respond to the disaster and ready to go so with that, governor, i turned back to you. [applause] >> we're joined also by jim brewer from arizona who very ably as the culture of this committee and helped us do a lot of good work as the nba. opening up for questions. no abercrombie, governor of hawaii. >> thank you, governor o'malley. general mckinley wonderful to see. a general mckinley, part of your statement was i believe the phrase was showed -- what the national guard should or might look like in the future, an administrator fugate come you indicated somehow pulling that were built that the funding fell short or would come up short on the funding at the risk of those of you who know me well on this committee repeating myself. but i've discovered it's the obvious that has to be repeated over and over because you tend to take it must for granted and first in this instance the national guard fits that description i'm sorry all too well. we had to struggle to get that star there in the congress of the united states we had to struggle in the armed services committee again and again to get the question before us of what does it mean now and in the future for the national guard when it becomes an operational force and starting back this is not a partisan situation, this goes back in a deep clinton administration, and even the first bush administration with regard to whether it was iraq, whether it was kosovo, the whole panoply of the plants that have taken place at the guard. this discussion never took place in the general public as to the transition of the national guard being by default and operational force. some of us in the congress at that time said we now have a new draft by default and what we're doing is drafting the national guard and during the national guard's i should say across the country. i make that editorial preamble because we are still believed still not dealing with it now accept the same sequence is taking place and this new budget -- and we need to deal with it today. i believe there is a letter coming forward and it's maybe already been mentioned. i assume it is and be signed by every governor if it hasn't been signed already. we need to take this up with the secretary of defense panetta with our congressional delegations, and my point is whether it is current funding with regard to the air national guard and this particular instance or the after effect of the dependent terms of stress disorders and the effect again by default for the veterans administration and the various offices that exist in every state here. we have not come to grips -- the congress has not come to grips with the question of the bye default operational nature of the national guard to plan and now. this funding question that's before us with regard to this particular budget section is indicative of something that is going to happen over and over again until we come to a conclusion with regard to how the guard is going to be treated by the congress and by the pentagon budget. we are constantly having as governors to come to the contras of the united states and say will you please take into account what you are doing when you use the national guard as a operational force by default. so i would ask before we leave here today that we try to take that question up in the future. i think we are on target right now for the immediate questions that have to be faced, but the governor's council i think house to take up i would suggest rather that we take up the question then of just what is going to be the expectation of the national guard across the nation with regard to the national defence and general mckinley and his successors and to the joint chiefs. if we don't come to grips with that question and we are going to face situations as we are facing today in one form or another over and over again. >> response? >> first of all, governor abercrombie and i have had some very formative discussions of a formal role of the member of congress and fall i think he brings a big pie that is directly over time after conflict had subsided, this one certainly hasn't let the car yet we are wishful but it will, it is on a path to pay the national guard has and that somewhat on the short end of the stick and the last ten years -- i will let a bill in room speak the army has a good, the national army guard has yclept which i think most of you could back this up that equipment on hand for overseas commitments and even response here at home is in the mid percentage range which is fantasticks. i give general casey and general odierno credit for that. on the air force side and this is where governor abercrombie and i have a really substantive discussions, the accounts that reek with our air force that recapitalize our air force have created situations where the entire air force is short of equipment. it is a national issue that our air force is the smallest it's ever been in history, and is in need of some of the newest equipment that's out there on the books but which has enabled to produce quantities which allow the national guard to participate in that. so, governor abercrombie, i do believe that the look of the governors in forming members of congress and the department of defense to look at what are the requirements the governors will meet from the guard and repaid eight called 20/20 because that is the president said in the new strategy would be the military for 2020. but we still at times are living with the national guard quite frankly in the 20th century. so, i commend the question, i commend you and your leadership for putting those issues in front of us, and i would work very closely with you and members of the committee to see that we have the right people on it. thank you paris to the letter that is being circulated from those that heard from governor abercrombie reach an important part. they are guard provides 35% of the united states air force capability for 6% of the budget. as commanders in chief, we must oppose the proposal with the air national guard's or about 59% of total aircraft budget reductions and approximately six times the per-capita personnel reductions and this letter is being signed on to in a very bipartisan way here, 35 signatures and counting. maybe we will get enough before the end of the meeting. governor gregoire. >> thank you, mr. chair. first let me say thank you general mckinley for giving a shot out to play obviously consider one of the finest had some in the history of the united states and he has been pivotal with the council of governors to our success with regard to the dual status command and with regard frankly to your presence on the joint chiefs of staff so thank you for the show built and to the leadership and to all of the tags present here for your tremendous leadership at home and your and administrator fugate is an amazing pressure that we have formed and we can close to a real disaster here recently and you were there immediately on the phone with what can we do, the emergency operations and that is an example of how we get together immediately. don't wait. again i am to thinking on behalf of the governors in the country for what you brought to your role on the leadership that he played. i don't want to put either of you in an uncomfortable position. but the letter that the chair has just acknowledged i would like to cut to please describe for all the fuss the practical impact of that level of cuts to our air guard on the ground for emergency purposes at home as well as a called for the national defence. could you please, both of you if you could please address that. >> i will take a stab at that one. governor, operating without a safety net or scrip will defend more people and i will get phone calls about this on but here's the bottom line. it's not just the air guard it's the national aviation as well. we look a disasters be as critical, and i will give you one example and the department of defense not just the guard. when we did the exercise last year for the earthquake it became readily apparent that one of our concerns would be the isolation of the population areas due to failures of infrastructure by the event of the earthquake. you face very similar threats to some of your basis. traditionally we have been looking at transport aircraft that can operate limited capability short takeoff and ability to fly adverse conditions. when the guard has had these capabilities organic to them, you are able to call the resources up or get them from the emergency management contact rapidly to move those resources. if that capability isn't there it will then be turning to active duty and potentially reserve units. fewer resources spread out upon more participants. we will still be able to mobilize the response. the question is what have the speed and the capacity that is currently present in the guard. my concern is that this is one area that there is not a lot of people with the outside of the military to go after. some people suggest the firms, contracts and yes, we have looked at those. but the bottom line has always come back to the guard's ability for the fixed wing support to move your people and resources in the areas cut off today in a way that leverage is not only the state's resources but your neighboring states and across the country to the emergency management contact as well as what is in the active duty and reserves. if the numbers come down that will slow down that response and it will increase the number of units that will have to be activated to support the response as well. >> may i suggest for the very first time we do have some people listening have heard reference to the council of governors. the council of governors is a group that was appointed for the first time three years ago, two years ago, so we are having our meeting tomorrow with the council of governors. president obama's pressed president of this tree in the united states to create such a forum so the governors can be at the table with the secretary of defense and others to address these issues and i would ask that could be -- it's probably the best forum to address this and work it out and many of us would have to agree a lot of the cuts that are coming and people are preparing for the sequestered and the like and a lot of that will play out in congress, people have to decide what's more important, airplanes for the national guard or tax cuts for millionaires. >> i vote for airplanes for the national guard. >> perhaps of the council of governors, i don't know, governor, is this on our agenda to talk about on monday? >> i'm trying to get these to to our muskett practical information we can articulate of the council of governor meetings. that is what my question is. could you address it? >> you know, it is a difficult question. it's not arbiter that the cuts have had to be made. chairman mike mahlon said our greatest national security challenges are deficit in our budget and so when the budget control act this past summer asked the department of defense to come up with about $487 billion over ten years, we went back in with our services with the air force and the army and we did our budget submission after that directive to us. the air force had to make some very tough choices. every time you make a tough choice and you sacrifice a capability, it increases your risk. but all of the service chiefs told president obama that we could manage the rest. i'm always concerned as a lone voice in the pentagon of how do i express the risk you face as governors? there isn't a combat and command that articulates the requirement for the governor's needs in times of disaster. there isn't a combatant command that can translate that request into some type of purchase of an item that will equip the national guard to be able to perform in your states or territories. as we have to turn to the analysis of the services to to make sure that the army and air force which budget about 98% of the budget take into account as they look at parts and takes a large budget like we have in the department of defense. that being said, i advocate and i hope that we can continue to put states issues on the table, the requirements that administrator fugate articulated that he would need to rapidly lead to weaker respond to the request from the president and the governors to respond to a natural disaster or man-made disaster so that we can be the first military responder as we've done for 375 years to support your local fire and local police who will be the first ones on the scene to handle these emergencies. so those are types of things that we can substantively ask the department to say can you build in the requirements of domestic operations and to the budgets that will resource the national guard at levels that don't take undue risk. >> mr. chair i'm wondering if you can to get a bit of an invitation which is for us to define our needs through the guard, all branches of the guard as we look to 2020 and what is the role of the guard i think it might be appropriate for us as a committee to address it and put out a report as to how we view the guard and what our needs are as the commander in chief of the respective states. >> that is a good idea, another good reason to keep this committee dillinger. governor macdonald followed by governor nixon. >> thank you. first of all i think this is just turn affect the guard has exceeded the table with the other joint chiefs and the report with the president so that we have a direct blease and the commander in chief and will be a great representative for us and given the fact that so many of the medical and communications of the nation are finding capacities in the guard i think this is tremendous for the nation and i am appreciative of your good service. i had a question for administrator fugate. first we'll have a rash of national disasters last year both in the april trade allowed break and then what we call the earth wind and fire when we had an earthquake, hurricane and slump on fire all on the same week. i want to commend the communications on the phone with you with the secretary and people on the ground before, after those events particularly the hurricane was outstanding. the question i had was in the response afterwards, the public assistance decisions or prompt and great for the damage done to public buildings and for expenses by the minister polities. the challenge we have is as governor nixon had he and governor bentley tremendous devastation and the state's and virginia we are a little bit more on the above will according to the rules and in some of those cases we were denied and i know there's only so many resources to go around and so much that you can do but i'm just wondering if maybe is that solely driven by money or can you perhaps look again at those categories in terms of when is it appropriate to determine the state has its own capacity to handle the impact of a disaster or when it would be appropriate for the federal government to weigh in because we depend heavily on the disaster recovery and in our state it was great. but we were denied a couple of those. we would like to see if it is time for the administrator to take another look at that to see if there is something more that can be done for those individual citizens. we have to make emergency appropriations in the fall and budget we have to raise a lot of private money. people have done that very well but i'm just wondering if there might be some ability to look at those. >> governor, every case is unique, and as i said, part of my job is to respectfully say it did don't meet the threshold and when we make a recommendation to the president when it's the individuals on the other and i don't think that responsibility is taken lightly. we do look at these and the factors beyond just the numbers. we look at the trauma, loss of life and the overall impact, but as we've pointed out, you know, we will look at all of the factors the ultimately it is a judgment call for the capabilities of the state and it's based upon the state itself, not the neighboring states and with their declaration of status is for. but again we will continue to work with your staff, but i do not lightly turned down. i know the river and that there is a survivor that didn't have insurance and without these programs they are going to have a much more difficult time to recover so when we make those it isn't because it is an easy decision it is because it is the responsibility that we have. >> we're also joined by the governor from puerto rico as well as from colorado. governor nixon? >> thank you, administrator fugate, appreciate your service to the country and the tremendous relationships over the years and you're a great service. two areas i think our worth looking at when we look forward, the first would be the involvement of the corps of engineers and the process in both of your commands and assets. we see the court as not only having challenges in the management of the rivers and what not and the decisions were made there but also the rebuilding of those networks where there are significant challenges and big decisions made about not only the management of the reverse in the middle of the country but the rebuilding of the levees and i would just ask if you've got the extra start of the table that he would continue to press with the army how important it is and also we have worked together on a number of construction projects and would not afterwards with the core, but i just -- it is a -- it requires common sense and significant attention by both of you all to make sure that that is managed as the other forces of emergency management or both on the reconstruction side as well last the flood management on the internal waterways. the second piece is more specific for administrator fugate is wherever you have a day the weather is good looking at the formula's for mitigation dollars after the national disaster some of those have involved over the years. they are there appropriately for things like the sirens to warn people for upcoming hurricanes, for safe rooms, for communities and what not. but looking at how we can get a little more flexibility in that area especially when some have multiple national disasters, but looking for ways i would be interested in your comments whether or not you felt constricted by that and whether you think that there are some ways we can be helpful as governors to not spend more money but sprint that in a broad level of things that can make a significant difference mitigation wise to talk about the places that we can help our airports. there's a lot of things we can do in those guidelines if they are broad. >> governor, to be frank, the block grant system, the more the congress says why are we finding it. i think the challenge is to make sure that we are accountable that the dollars are used to buy down and reduce the risk from the future disasters. and as long as we can maintain that and show that we are doing that, i'm all in favor of ensuring that we have flexibility but there's a point at which it gets to be a question to me that it the flexibility of the grants, are we finding new ways to fund things differently? and i have to be very careful not to cross over and beat too broad that we would see this dennis' no longer facing the primary purpose which is reduced the loss in the future. and again, that program, as it continues to be implemented in your state as well as alabama, one of the areas i want to put a lot more premium on is the life safety and the cost-benefit analysis oftentimes looks heavily at the structural mitigation, and i want to make sure we were not missing opportunities and shelters and safe rooms that we were not focused on the safety as well. so, we will continue to work but i think there is again a line that we began to cross and losing is the votes of devotee and litigation, and i am afraid that in some cases when we say know that that is my concern is that flexibility may be beyond the intent of what we were funded for. >> governor branstad? >> first of all i want to say how much i appreciate how the national guard is always responded whenever we have had a disaster. i had the honor of serving a long time as the governor before come and they never, never disappointed me come and i have the honor of working with our general now so when i found out about the council of governors, and i asked i'm really pleased and honored now to be a part of the council of governors and the elevation of the national guard to be part of the national security decision makers i think is extremely important. i think there is a disappointment among us that basically the procedures were not allowed to consult with the governor in putting this but in the impact it is going to have especially on the air guard and that is one thing we hope to speak strongly with in the unified voice among the governors and generals and we have this new council of governors and we have a voice and we have you met tehrik-e position with the joint chiefs of staff. i do also want to say to administrator fugate how much we appreciate those of us on the river that went through a very long drawn-out flooding experience last summer fema was very responsive and in the and i feel that you made some really good decisions and we are appreciative of the responsiveness in the hope that we have received, so i want to express my sincere appreciation on the part of the people. we were not quite as happy with the corps of engineers, but we think that's getting better. >> governor, thank you. administrator fugate, one of the issues that we were all to be resolved is the issue of the 700 megahertz retial ban for first responders so that ten years after 9/11 we can move forward with some assurance that the bandwidth will be there just for the interoperable communications. i'm wondering to what degree if you know well fema and homeland security be involved in the distribution of what they understand what we roughly $7 billion when some of the other bands are auctioned off and what if anything to me to be doing as governors to make sure that when those dollars are dispersed they actually go to improve the first responder communications and all the states? >> as far as department of homeland security there are pieces of getting this to the implementation of the one thing that i would say right now is probably more in britain to get ready is in your state emergency communications plans. that is one of the los fema as is the disaster conditions were the working with states and communication plans that's been driving a lot of the investment strategy. you've been using our state grants for already. and there will be that mechanism that we will want to build upon the 700 megahertz as it becomes available and you start making decisions about how to bail out that capability. so i would start first the store state committee have the right representation come to you have the right locals, right local officials, how was that working, and are they looking at what the next steps will be as they get access to the frequency and the technology that comes with that to be allowed your broadband systems? >> if we were hasty that have not made a lot of progress on this because some states decided it wasn't a pretty or they couldn't afford it and there would be the time to start getting people around the table and making sure that we actually have a plan so that we can apply for these dollars. yes, sir. other questions for either general mckinley or an administrator fugate? alright i lost another one. administrator fugate, understanding the administration is seeking to consolidate about 16 different brands that had been homeland security grants. the tiffin cut in recent years and is there a guiding criteria in this new formula, and what sort of principle should we be taking, as we advise our first responders and homeland security networks to prepare to maximize partnerships year the federal government? >> thank you. going through my notes it's mainly about the guard. this is important because they are still in trouble to this. in funding for the homeland security dollars, there is a reduction. the administration and the fy 13 will actually be 500 million-dollar increase on what was appropriate in 12 but will result in fewer dollars the many jurisdictions have seen a also means there are significant pressure on how we are going to utilize those funds. part of president obama asked us and has issued us new guidance on the national preparedness goal which is shaping how the grant programs are going to move and evolves from what do we need to do by jurisdiction and threat to looking at how do we build capabilities as a nation against the threats of national significance? there is a little bit of a different play than looking at jurisdiction by jurisdiction, city by city, state by state how we build up enough to build a response to the large steel complex disasters? the reality is we can't do it ourselves. we see even with tornadoes and other events we need to leverage mutual aid from neighbors yet it's never reflected that. one of the few things we are trying to change in this process the local and state level how does it contribute to the national capability? are we finding the things that are deployable? it can be used in these complex disasters that are very infrequent and can be impossible for anyone stay or jurisdiction to prepare for and leverage the ability that have as the governors under your compact the emergency management compact to the capabilities we're building is nestle deployable assets, not just jurisdiction by jurisdiction. we realize some of the things we find are deployable such as fusion centers and a lot of other things that are a part of being more secure but there are quite a few capabilities that we saw in the tornadoes across the southeast, across missouri, the multiple floods, the challenge is to respond to hurricane ike reena are both from the national guard and each of your state guards of the lead to a mutual aid with the ability to reach out and talk touch all of those teams will build on a national homeland security dollars gave us a much more effective response to those survivors so as the funding stream is collapsed down, it isn't that the eligibility for these various projects goes away. it merely eliminates the individual satisfied for each category. it says as governors and with your security areas, are you prioritizing those issues to your jurisdictions in the context of how does that better prepare us for the nation to respond to catastrophic sometimes unthinkable even squawks it may be play on words but instead of asking what am i doing for my major city, what are we doing in that city that contributes to the national preparedness, how does that play into shortfalls we may see among the states? previously we talk about a regional approach, but the grants never drove that because you get the grant funding state by state by state your didn't necessarily go what are my neighbors demand there are four of us touching on one spot. do we need to have the same team or can we leverage and build a better team by leveraging the prioritized founding? so the grand guidance is designed to drive towards those capabilities which contribute to the national preparedness bringing a more competitive environment and basing it on the threats hazard analysis that looks at what is this in reference to national preparedness in addition to the state and local challenges that face? this is one reason i think some people have been concerned as use all the categories going away that we were not going to fund those activities. we said they are eligible but he will have to prioritize that with fewer dollars which ones are contributing to the national preparedness and the grants would require a lot of coordination across a lot of different disciplines to hopefully build upon the work that many of you have already done where your funding is an collectively in the states and decisions about where things go are made by the responders. many of you have engaged in the process because they are in the state homeland security adviser with your the key component of the state. and to build upon that the change

Related Keywords

Alabama ,United States ,Nevada ,Collier County ,Florida ,Brooklyn ,New York ,Hoboken ,New Jersey ,China ,Turner Place ,South Carolina ,Kosovo ,Russia ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Arizona ,Netherlands ,Wyoming ,Hollywood ,California ,Ireland ,Chicago ,Illinois ,Baltimore ,Maryland ,American University ,New Hampshire ,Crawford ,Indiana ,Missouri ,Texas ,Iran ,Afghanistan ,Rhode Island ,Kinston ,Virginia ,Georgia ,Wisconsin ,Shelby County ,Mississippi ,United Kingdom ,Puerto Rico ,Maine ,Iraq ,Tennessee ,Mali ,Colorado ,Pennsylvania ,North Korea ,Kansas ,Capitol Hill ,France ,Paris ,Rhôalpes ,Hawaii ,Americans ,America ,Holland ,Floridians ,Chinese ,Russian ,Britain ,French ,Iraqi ,American ,Craig Fugate ,Jerry ,Craig Mckinley ,Ike Reena ,Sonny Perdue ,Mike Mahlon ,Bobby Jindal ,Lyndon Johnson ,Paul Stockton ,Heather Hogsett ,Jim Adkins ,Tom Carper ,Collins Rockefeller ,Robert Mueller ,Krepp Fugate ,Matthew Mead ,Laura Murphy ,Kathy Khan ,Arthur Davis ,Karl Allis ,John Paul Stevens ,Fogle Idf ,Stewart Baker ,Jennifer Bishan ,Lincoln Chafee ,Luke Winer ,Venegas Cisco ,John Bryan ,Kate Mckinley ,Christine Gregoire ,William H Murphy ,