the situation is not unique. we are working closely with the national water resources association and others who are facing similar threats to the headwaters.

catastrophic fires have severe long-term impacts to watersheds which are felt far beyond the area directly impacted by the fire. unlike the more employers the aftermath from the severe fires we are experiencing as a result of the unnatural force conditions increased sediment loads and debris the reduce the storage capacity and a reservoirs and affect the predictability of runoff. increased organics and sediment led to increase capitol. the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. we know from science and experience and we know we need to act quickly to then

overcrowding. the levels of government to facilitate and invest in forest restoration. actively involved in efforts to commit resources in all these areas through our engagement and public-private partnerships. we're starting the northern arizona forest fund in partnership with the national forest foundation to protect there watershed and are involved in a project the forest service bureau of reclamation, city of pace and in the national forest foundation to treat the 64000-acre watershed that drains into the reservoir. the projects we are currently involved with highlight the need to

improve federal policy to more efficiently make progress in restoring our forest and protecting our watershed. i need to improve fire suppression and the planning and compliance process. a perfect example of why we need to address both of these issues at the same time. we greatly appreciate the priority of the forest service and department of interior place in this project undertake the project expected to take at least two if not three years before anything can be done on the ground. this is too long to simply hope that of fire destroy their watershed. we must watershed. we must find a way to move forward more quickly and critical projects like this by utilizing the significant data and knowledge that already exists within the four service. i want to highlight one issue.

as the committee continues to address fire suppression budgets it is important that the provision include a dedicated and secure funding stream forest restoration in order to promote the certainty needed to encourage private sector investment. the greatest risk to our forces credit -- catastrophic wildfire. way to reflect that reality. the problems, solutions command consequences of inaction are clear, and i like forward to working together with this committee on our shared goals of protecting the forest and watershed of communities rely on and enjoy. thank you, enjoy. thank you, and i look forward to answering any questions you may ask. >> thank you to all of our witnesses this morning. i agree we i agree we have to figure out how we stop

this fire borrowing. we are. we're talking about how we deal with treatment, how we work to mitigate the risk it takes dollars. when you spend all of your dollars on the suppression it is lovely view much room for further opportunity. the suppression costs are out of control. i no you are supportive of our wildfire adjustment but what we have heard from just about everyone here this morning it is not necessarily the silver bullet to address the skyrocketing cost of wildfire suppression spending. how we deal how we deal with that is something i would like to focus on this morning. both you and mr. eisley to a

certain extent have described the hazardous fuel reduction projects that are critical to protecting the watersheds that you have noted or just other areas the comment that you make that we know what it is we need to do and it cannot get to that. to the possibly three years to implement we talk a lot about this analysis paralysis around here where we have endless process and again a policy of we hope that there is not going to be a lightning strike that is going to bring about disaster here. can you speak to this? are we in a situation where we are more worried about checking boxes and making sure we have gone through a critical process, or are we acting with a level of urgency that i think you have heard from everyone here at this table with

regards to these critical projects that will help us from the preventive perspective is a think we would agree that if we can prevent these in the 1st place we can get a hold or a better handle. what is what is our problem with the process that seems to be slowing things up? >> manager one of the issues we have dealt with in the past is needing to do a large enough project where it makes a difference. we have moved to taking a more landscape scale approach. the healthy forests restoration act was a very good tool. the problem is it

was limited to certain criteria. when we elect a larger landscapes we could do that authority on a peace of the project but it would not apply to these tens of thousands of acres. now with the farm bill authority it gives us more flexibility to be able to use that approach to look at one action alternative and another action so that we can streamline the process. >> let me ask you on that. as we were going to the vote sen. stamina out who is not able to return to committee raised just this issue with me saying that in the farm bill there was additional authority given to do just exactly as you have said. are these additional authorities being utilized at this time and are they making a difference? >> we are beginning to utilize the authority. we have projects going forward. you will see many of our projects will be implemented using new authorities and we often take a year of planning before we implement

you will see projects -- >> we have this process that we have got to go through what you are speaking to. any way to expedite that? you know what you have got to do. >> one of the difficulties we have had we appreciate the opportunity to utilize the healthy forests restoration act as an alternative and would prefer full-scale restoration restoration, but we decided to move forward with a healthy restoration act. this watershed for four service personnel have over 25 years in understanding the types of fires that have occurred, where the endangered species are located in the extent of the watershed itself on those areas that are highly susceptible. the problem is they must go through an entire eis process that essentially is

designed from what i gather and watching staff to essentially avoid litigation we know what the issue is that these forests need to defend, that the greatest threat to the species is catastrophic wildfire. unfortunately we have to go through the same process before we can ultimately get in. >> we hear the story so often. what we are attempting to do is avoid litigation. in the meantime then extracts. >> thank you. thank you for your testimony and work. it is important. your key.about the fact that planning and prescribed fire created the most long-term resilient force.

i want to drill down on that because it is a combination of her conclusion. your testimony stated the four service identified 12 acres. and so what do we need to do and i wanted to ask you about the answers we need. secondly this whole issue of do we have the best communication that we need for communities during fires do we need more coordination of fema? should fema be part of the

permanent part of the as command team. do we needed him ou memorandum of understanding between you and fema to make sure these emergency five you are busy fighting the fire trying to communicate. if the communication infrastructure is not exist in howard making sure we don't have to wait two weeks to communicate given the level of huge fires and does your agency have a permanent agreement with the faa on drums? i would like to see this not be an issue where every state that has a fire and wants to no whether the drugs can be deployed i would like it to be a natural course between the four service so that we don't have delays. they are providing a smile information. >> i will start with the

last question. we we are working closely to be able to use the unmanned aircraft. we have a team that has been put in place to be able to explore the challenge to be able to understand what information we need and when we need it. the potential there is there is so much data available that we have to be able to prioritize it so we can quickly use it. moving forward this year working out only with faa will with the states to be able to start to use this information and looking for hotspots. >> but you do a permit application. >> we will be working in that direction so that it is automatic. your question about what

happened with the aftermath agreement it really stresses how we need to do a better job without preplanning. we do a we do a good job working with communities so that they are ready for the fire. we need to do a better job to also deal with things like communication things that we need to make sure communities have an emergency communication system in place so that when that happens whatever it takes we will be able to maintain communications. what i was up there visiting with homeowners all one of the things they stresses that they did not know what was going on and had no way to contact anyone and i can't imagine the level of stress. it is one of the things that we learned. we need to we need to get that in place do a better job than we have been with

utility companies were always going to separated. we we need to include them in a pre- funding meeting so that when the next target happen while the fire to deal with that the same time >> is after hundred and 49,000 acres burned the valley area was without communication and fires were still all around and without any communication no one had any way to communicate other than trying to go through the town. i think this tommy that we need -- communities need to

be able to get a mobile broadband unit more easily deployed as opposed to waiting for two or three weeks for the state to apply this will pay for that. our constituents. we need a better communication. >> montana. the industry. i think. the breathing this year

before giving more i can to make that happen. over 7 million federal acres in montana are at high or very high risk for viral fire of wildfire most of which are managed by the forest service. approximately one in 4 acres i was further told that nearly 2,000,000 of these acres are most in need of treatment because they are near populated communities all watershed. unfortunately i. unfortunately i was informed that the four service that hazardous fuel treatment only about 52000 of those acres in the last fiscal year had a 2 million that are needed. i have no doubt the work was poor but the current pace of treatment is simply not acceptable certainly a communities a communities are watersheds are wildlife had it -- habitats or access to recreation.

these critical treasures are a real risk to wildfire. more than ten years ago congress provided enhanced authority to the four service to reduce hazardous fields. you mentioned that. these authorities are clearly not adequate and the hfr a clearly has shortfalls. what in your in your view are the barriers to getting more done? >> i share earlier the healthy forests restoration act continues to be a good authority for us but it is limited to certain areas based on the criteria required having community wildfire protection plans, hazardous feel are and we need to be looking at the entire landscape, the full restoration work though the hazardous feels but will we need to do in the entire watershed. that is a much better approach. so we look at the healthy

forests restoration act and the new farm bill authorities and address insect and disease. that will allow us to take a total landscape approach to be able to look at everything that needs to be done and to be able to look at not thousands of acres but tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of acres and time and to be able to have that in place so that we can get in there and do the work that needs to be done. as of the things that will make a difference. >> i truly appreciate your commitment to finding solutions that will improve forest health and increase response. we look forward to further discussions with you to achieve that goal. let me ask doctor hurt a

question. first 1st of all, welcome to our nation's capitol. great to have the perspective of someone who intimately knows the challenges facing our national forest in montana. your testimony focused largely on the role of fire and fire management of increasing resistance to the bark beetle. our embassy in this my was a kid. now we are seeing it again. now i no our research was primarily focused in the rocky mountain region. region. montana has millions of acres damaged by bill kill. i am pleased i am pleased that congress recently gave the four service knew authority to tackle issues challenge. based upon your research how could increase management including imprudently will moving and prudently removing dead timber be used to improve the health of forests in montana and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire?

>> so in order to increase the health of our forests thinning is definitely -- should be a valid good management tool. my research also shows that having prescribed fires and low severity of naturally occurring wildfires stimulates pre- defenses. having a combination of thinning and prescribed burning and then areas that we have treated to allow naturally, allowing, to consider allowing emissions to allow wildfires to burn has further perpetuated a healthy force that could be resistant.

i think your always going to have some level. they level. they are native insects to our forests, but doing treatments and promoting apache landscape can certainly help reduce. >> thank you, madam chair. you and i have talked before about the role of climate change in all this. and we have talked about removal of hazardous fuel as we have been talking about today in different ways. one of the ways that i think that we could possibly command i want to ask anybody about this to remove more hazardous fuel and be able to do it in no way that across -- it would cost left his but monetizing that biomass.

and by monetizing it by using it burning it to drain electricity combined heat and power which was something that sharon i have talked about. a lot of obviously areas of alaska where this hazardous fuel after all biomass is can argue a zero carbon footprint. we can solve we can solve a lot of things at the same time but we're talking about the interface.

what -- how can we emulating utilization of this tremendous resource. >> i will start. is economically viable. the business case analysis. we need to continue to use our authorities where we subsidize transportation and to do more and more demonstration projects. we need to continue research on the way to increase the

efficiency but also for things like pellet production to be able to find a more efficient way to develop appellate. and we need to factor in the consequences if we don't. if we can factor and a way to consider that it would help the economics of this. if we think about filling out these forests, the reduction of risk that has occurred and then by being able to use the material if we can factor in the cost avoidance benefit the economics would sell itself. we itself. we have to continue with our research, demonstration projects and to be able to also have a guaranteed supply a biomass.

we have to use more of our stewardship authority. you can you can take that to the bank. without any question materials will be there. >> i agree and think there is a costs and not doing this. are we doing pilot projects? are we exploring this enough? do we need to do anything in this committee and in congress to facilitate overcoming this challenge so that we can do something especially with energy storage and more use of distributed energy how we can make this a peace so that you will have the ability to do to remove hazardous fuel because it is

monetized the factor to ensure that you have material so that we don't mean any undue delay is to ensure that there is material available. another out -- you added benefit. essentially an aborted release of carbon. his his catastrophic wildfires a major release. other benefit associated. >> better to release it as energy that we use for electricity rather than just go up in the atmosphere. >> yes. >> thank you. i really want to continue.

i bring us further. i want to keep exploring that. >> it is nice to have a couple. good to see you. we have talked to a number of occasions. appreciate the work of chief tidwell. important to acknowledge the important developments we have seen recently. phase i. that will allow us large-scale management rather than just a couple of thousand acres sure there.

the paltry 3,000 acres that has so far been treated high or very high risk. we have got to move on a larger scale. we all recognize is critical. we have got to find a way to solve this issue. put forward some as well. by way of disrupting these activities in terms of suppression way of putting hazardous fuels reduction of old and putting communities and firefighters at risk. and as bruce talked about

today we are increasingly creating challenges for maintaining a healthy watershed. for that does to drinking water supplies. for all these reasons i am obviously supportive of efforts to restore or resolve the fire borrowing issue. for example when they exceed anticipated will wildfire suppression cost is no doubt that wildfires are disastrous.

anticipated in those years for the agencies of an appropriate. limited budget limited budget adjustments to allow

the agencies to fight fire would make sense. again, if they haven't fully budgeted for easily anticipated is a realistic cost of suppression that would apply. preventable symptoms as well has resulted disasters. i disagree with the notion that we should simply moved 30 percent of those anticipated costs. is convenient and creates additional flexibility for increase pending. our current fiscal disaster does not make sense and we need to be realistic about what we can do.

be realistic about what we can budget for what we cannot. there there is a solution to be found on the issue. only after hundred percent of those anticipated will suppression cost seven minutes depended. let's not confuse disasters with an anticipated cost. we need we need to plan for what is likely to occur to take steps necessary to prevent disasters from occurring and then use flexibility for rare years or we go over cost. i hope that my colleagues and the administration will come together and can find a long-term solution on this issue. i did not want to use all my time but i believe that i have. >> i think i think that this is a key part of what this committee will be grappling with an exactly how we deal with this i too i too hope

that we can find that agreement. we must be realistic. it must be a solution that is more lasting them what we are dealing with now which is enter on stopgap borrowing. we will be working with you. >> thank you. >> i think you apologized for bringing up fire borrowing. most most of us here would say do not apologize and keep bringing it up until we find a workable way forward because it is the element in the room. we have got to fix that peace to be able to really scale these projects up to the kind of landscape levels you were talking about. i wanted to ask you if you go into more detail about

the kind of projects you are doing in new mexico we started to look at this. a couple of different things going on the santa fe watershed and treat the watershed above santa fe. the rio grande water fund is now doing a similar water partnership's. so if you would tell us a little bit more about those partnerships and how we might be able to learn and scale them to other regions to get some of those benefits that we see what we are able to connect downstream water users effectively to the health of there watershed which may be hundreds and hundreds of

miles away. >> thank you for the question. we found quickly that there was a definite and then disconnect. what i am talking about the valley the phoenix metropolitan area disconnect to begin getting we decided to work together with some larger power customers had other customers that receive energy from srp. and many of those organizations angry initiatives that they are looking at spending money to improve not only a product

but their image. we sat down and realized that there are opportunities that are watershed to link these issues with end-users and established this northern arizona forest want. the national forest foundation is congressionally authorized to use private funds. we did not want end-users to think that there was something in this for the salt river project. it is something in it for the watershed. this essentially this essentially identified projects in partnership with the forest service that are outside of these large full-scale restoration projects but smaller projects that have a begin and end date so that when you invest your money you no specifically what you are investing in. >> that is key, connecting abusers you do not or have not in the past had an intuitive connection. they can actually see their watershed.

thbebe a long way away. but a quick question we heard a lot about the benefit of using treatment together. prescribed low intensity fire them are you able to do that as you scale up landscape level fuel treatments? able to plan but the prescribed a natural fire peace together in concert? >> a lot of places it is necessary. we will come in and do the fanning have followed up.

that is the right approach. once you have that done you can continue. often we need to do the mechanical treatment 1st to reduce down to a level of biomass. >> and probably a more historical level within the ponderosa pine. >> yes. >> i appreciate the adage. i am concerned. the administration seems intent on wanting more money

for refusing to engage in any serious land management fire prevention. the administration is set on maintaining the failed status quo policy in a culture of litigation surrounding forest management. as i said to undersecretary last month before secretary has lost his direction and purpose every the forest service has become a bureaucracy for bureaucratic agency emphasizing internal processes of a real results. in my you if we are going to reduce fire prevention activities congress is to direct and men the results and outcomes. either the administration proposal on s 235 the wildfire disaster funding act containing language guaranteeing that funds go to prevention activities such as hazardous fuel reduction our proposal containing a language for running legislative reforms aimed at streamlining active management and reducing medication.

>> it only eliminates the need to transfer and eliminate the stoppage of work in the fall. >> i look at i look at this and say we must permit the practice of fire borrowing and prioritize funding for treatment activities to reduce future while of suppression cost. the flame act amendment. we we also have streamline the way forest management activities are approved will make meaningful policy reforms including innovating ideas. we need to solve the challenges. is the as the forest service willing to work with this committee and sponsor the

different bills to find solutions? >> sen., we are very interested in working with the community to find a solution. as we discussed in the past, this concept of arbitration is something i am interested in trying. i would like to see us take on a pilot approach. part of that part of that is that i need to see that it is a better solution. it sounds getting concept, but i think that we need to move into that, that do some pilot approaches just to see where it can take us. >> those who oppose manage action, project timber productive or tentative activities. her testimony paints a different picture. in your view what are the primary roadblocks.

>> it has been partially the process associated with the. we can we can find opportunities to accelerate and see that as an opportunity to move more rapidly forward. we are seeing this change. to be in the project management business to manage those and to refocus their efforts on the reason they were created. >> i think you can think about your professional career to protect and improve watersheds. you prescribed the national environmental policy act as a weapon in the hands of a few. you talk about the amount of time it is taking to complete the santa ana watershed environmental impact statement. took over three years to undertake an action that has proven necessary for ecosystem health and the

protection of life and property is a misapplication of the intent of the law. how often do you see it uses a weapon or barrier to improving watershed health? >> i think it is common. a long a long process and the whole deal is to avoid litigation from people that are obstructionist in my view. >> if we do nothing one of the consequences of what is happening? >> do nothing is catastrophic fires and continuing catastrophic fires and having unhealthy force and all the other things we're talked about today. >> thank you, madam chairman >> sen. >> thank senator. >> thank you, madam chair and for testifying. i wanted to note for the record that hawaii has a fire problem also. also. estimated that .5 percent of the way burns each year. given that hawaii's native

ecosystems are not fired up to we're losing an alarming amount of native flora and forests of wildfires opted to be replaced by non-native and other innovative species that fuel fires. the non-native and show plans cover some 24 percent of boys land creating landscapes that are flammable and highly susceptible to wildfires. clearly this issue touches every single state. chief, you talked about healthy forests restoration act. it sounded as though you have thought about making some were asking for some amendments to this law that would enable the forest service to take a total landscape approach not just

looking at thousands of acres but to be able to look at tens of thousands of acres. do you have some suggestive language that would provide more flexibility for the forest service to deal with this problem? >> senator what the passage of the farm bill -- thank you for the 2014 farm bill it did expand the use of healthy forests restoration act to deal with these insect and disease. if you combine that authority possible we have with the original healthy forests restoration act it is really expand our ability to use that more efficient process a much larger now -- let larger landscapes more one thing that may be helpful easier for communities understand. the reason we are able to get more and more work to nature is the level of support through collaborative efforts and has been mentioned that the

panelists, we need to be looking at not just the hazardous fuel issue but the total restoration the work that needs to be done to restore the overall watershed. it is essential that we find the engagement with our communities being able to reduce the number of alternatives that we need to address definitely speeds up the process and keeps everybody able and allows us to your work done sooner. >> with the combination of the farm bill provisions and under the healthy forests restoration act that you have enough authority but that it would be clearer if we can put it all in one -- >> just to simplify it and make it easier for the public to understand. both of understand. both of these authorities and now we could use a larger landscape. one thing that we were thinking about.

if if that is something that would help us we had some discussion. >> you talk about the need for collaborating communities across the board do you have a state-by-state programmer plan that would enable communities are fire departments in the state and counties to work collaboratively with the four service to prevent the wildfires? something for hawaii. >> we have done it more committee by community. now with the cohesive strategy allows us to take more of a larger landscape approach recognizing the way that we need to have fire adapted natural communities so we have restored resilient force will we need fire adapted human communities so we take

action and work together to reduce threat. these two efforts along with the need to keep the suppression resources we have is really going to be very helpful for us to be able to move forward and address this problem that goes way beyond the federal land. >> am running out of time. you said you were committee by committee. are you working with any particular communities? >> i will have to get back to you. the.you raise about the invasive's, that is what we are dealing with for so many states. what comes in after these fires. i appreciate you bringing that forward. we will get back with you with a list of communities. >> we are basically the invasive species capitol of the country. thank you. thank you

massive chair. >> thank. >> thank you. thank you to the chief and other witnesses for being here today. a timely hearing we're having. hosting a fire summit. a number of other devastating events have occurred. two dozen experts will be joining us. i wanted to follow-up on some of the testimony you have made. you talk about progress in retrofitting. how how many aircraft will be ready to perform suppression missions this summer? >> one of those aircraft in the lower part of the fire season that we will be putting on mass tank in. and then by the end of the year we expect to receive the 2nd one. it will be 2019 before we have all seven of them with the tanks built in. >> the timeline.

>> all seven of them in operation. >> thank you. update on the forest service groundwater role? >> we have withdrawn our initial proposed rule to allow more time to continue to work with the states and the stakeholders to really address this issue our concern about making sure we're not impacting groundwater. i am also working with our regional forrester's to ensure that as we have to address issues especially from large mines and oil and gas leases of the lack of having a systematic consistent process does not become a a barrier from being able to move forward and address those projects. we have withdrawn it for the time and will continue to

work with the states. we do not want to become the barrier to implementing projects. >> one of the things you heard is a common theme to my continuing to talk about the litigation and the apparent paralysis that presents in terms of making sure we're managing forests appropriately so that we can avoid and prevent the catastrophic wildfires happening in the 1st place. if there was one particular have no litigation or legislation that you could draft yourself to avoid litigation that is stopping or polling some of the forest management activities that are so needed, what would it be? >> i would start looking at ways to incentivize collaboration. as i. as i look at the success we are having today versus earlier in my career that is the one thing that is making a difference. important to understand.

anyway we can continue to encourage that. i i also think this concept of arbitration is something that i am interested in exploring in a pilot fashion to see if that might be a better way. the other thing is what we talk about the authorities to be able to reduce the amount of analysis and allows us to be able to ensure we are addressing the issues around the alternatives that will help us to be more efficient and effective. those are the things i have been thinking of. >> talking about the disaster at declarations are you aware of the challenges we have when it comes to the

fema declarations themselves? weighed in on proposals and on proposals to change of disaster declarations? >> we work closely with the state to be able to make sure that they are getting -- send those as quickly as they possibly can and to be able to provide -- >> what after the fire is out we have the ongoing funding issues. fema can sometimes lead the field. as the four service weighed in so that we can avoid the regulatory hurdles? >> we have not engaged but recognize the problem. it is an area where we need to work together to recognize that.

often that is more detrimental were impact given the fire itself. we can look at taking a different approach so that we can do a a better job to work with communities to be able to have a timely response that goes way beyond what we're doing. >> on the western slope this past weekend talking to an individual who manages quell road. if there is a fire started by the railroad and create liability. as a result some conflict between four service regulations sometimes limited where he can send that firefighting fleet out to. some challenges.

i would love to work with you in terms of trying to find a way that we can partner with the forest service in this firefighting fleet. the same goal in mind. perhaps we can make sure we get to regulations in place where we are able to put the fire out without finger-pointing. >> we would be glad to work with you on that. especially especially working with the state forrester's that we have the authority to be able to do that. it may it may just be making sure that we have everything in place and then also we always have the concern of safety do it safely. >> senator. >> thank you. chief, you and i spoke before the hearing about correspondence that your officers received.

i am well familiar. may oversee the state forest holdings and other holdings. they are they are concerned as you and i have discussed and as if he had discussed they are focused on optimism that are going to give us the opportunity to do some of these treatment projects that we have wanted to do. i think i don't need to tell you that there is a lot of frustration that it is moving as fast as we'd like and maybe people had expectations raised beyond what is reality. i urge you to continue. i think that this is still untested. we are making progress, but i urge you to read continue

and put 1 foot in front of the other and try to mature this process as rapidly as possible. >> i agree and will be glad to provide. a a list of all the projects we had planned. we're taking some time to produce templates about how to use that. because i am taking that additional time play out to implement together. and because of that we made significant changes. they feel that will be a much better tool. >> outspoken with mr. scholz

he is very anxious to see this move forward. he is an agreement. real potential. >> surprised to hear you say that you were short on the ground overhead photography in the fire. allows governor we have a summary of those a lot of fire and every morning before a guy like i had hand to mouth of what the fire had gone from satellite imagery and other overhead imagery. i am surprised to hear you say that that is not available to you in san diego. i am assuming you have satellite imagery in san diego like we do in idaho.

what can you tell me? >> the process you are referring to is the four service airplane flying in infrared plane over the fire burning and basically the western united states and in the fire teams have that information before 6:00 o'clock in the morning and i do know where the fire is then the issue is the 1st change during the day. we know where the fire was last night and the night before. we don't have real-time information. the fire the fire service resources of an airplane with the firemen program that can fly above the altitude of the caretakers and all the helicopters and now can't continuously met the fire and send real-time data down, but it is a recent program. >> you are looking for hour by hour as opposed to what happened -- >> certainly come or release more than once every 24 hours. ..

>> >> that is the thing that i left with a different approach that could help to settle this issue. >> so to be knowledgeable into focus of the sirens with the credibility of the

ranchers so look closely particular day with the 3-1/2 the visual instruction in reading. that they feel is common sense and workable. he had is come up with a different approach for what has the capability and those discussions at your meeting and a follow-up discussion to be more optimistic than i have then in a while. led to answer that question but that will be the issue

to be able to understand which are capable and which are not. into come to an agreement dash off to the stick we can move forward. >> does that require legislation nor is that something you can do without legislation? >>. >> then let me switch to the fire peace and looks like we are drier. so address your approach to the grasslands for the steps tour taking to be prepared for fires this season. and the grasslands have

issues as well. >> when i talk about the national forest i always include the grassland. so what we do across the country is to work with of cooperators so we're ready to go the fire season that has already started a couple days before lahood they're already fires that people said they'd never see the behavior occurring so far in the -- so early in the air. if there is anything we need to address but it is a volunteer fire department and they are responsible to you get there quickly to

suppress so many fires. in for what they can just do >> with the project release sensitive issue we really want to you working with the people on the ground so to touch on the and controlled burn is that you staying away from it? but those conditions will only be doing prescribed burns with the agreement can be the support the association is very supportive of my eight blood

-- of fire. we don't have that agreement at this point so until we have the right conditions so everyone is together on the value. to make sure we factor in the risk from a couple of years ago still faqs senator. during the river fiery had on the peninsula. to determine for the hot spot was in the situation we didn't know what was happening.

and the technologies that are out there. king clearly help to make a difference as the battle ceasefires. adjusts the significance to know where you is where from a safety perspective to make sure those fighting the fires have tools that perhaps we have not had in the past. we haven't had much discussion this morning about the urban interface between 50 and 95% of forest service's fire suppression cost is to protect private property. we all know about the fire wise program in reseed the benefits when a homeowner

takes corrective steps to ensure a level of safety to clear around their area i remember flying i run the peninsula a few years ago after horrible fires and you would see nothing but charred blackness but then the little island of green where they had created defensive space. just the education with that program that we can reduce the cost of suppression if the of homeowners take an active role in management. can you speak to what we're doing to encourage that end of it? to use the sufficient resources for the

understanding and education for those who are making a difference. >> madam chair i think we're making even more progress each year especially with our cohesive strategy working closely with the state counties and burroughs and cities to come up with an understanding of what it will take an and the tools to create al level of awareness and then to set up projects to show the difference we're making and to prioritize the many so then it goes to the area is where the private landowner is doing the work on their land to make a more effective treatment area. that is what we continue to

do i think it encourages more people to do the right thing where they can see the difference that makes some folks think they have to clear the land and we don't need to do anything at that level. for those of demonstration projects help the private landowners that this is what i need to do some work closely with the state foresters and assistance programs to help provide funding to do this work not only on the national forests but the private lands of through this strategy i do believe if it will help us to move forward in a better way than we had in the past. i have never seen this level of support and understanding from the state's and county

is and burroughs. >> i suggest you put people in an airplane to fly over the serious you see the blue t.a.r.p. where you still have surviving structures. one quick question i was up in the territory for the arctic ministerial meeting with secretary kerry one of the things discussed was the effort to reduce plaque carded the viciousness.

the council's action is probably more focused on man-made black carbon but the reality is but that is though wildfire. then i would ask if the forest service will have eddied role at all is of the black urban initiative if you don't know you can get back to me or submit for the record of what that on your radar screen. but the issue of wildfire is rbc that. >> i do know we have research scientist working with that group. looking at the carbon

released we can make us a difference with us catastrophic size of the fires doing it through more above prescribed fire so those are the satanists looking at this problem we 82 factor all the benefits from having an approach that the save time to take suppression to protect our communities. >> with the fire potential outlook and it is mine understanding so going into

the interior slowed to retract that so we can identify the fire season would start in places like alaska even earlier than traditional? garett we tracked the changing conditions to make sure to bring a resources earlier. we have those available. >> that is what i was going to ask. you budget for this and have assets on a standby but if we see fires start earlier do we have them. located to be responsive for do we wait until the calendar says it begins?

>> we do not wait we put the resources where they are needed. >> chief of want to go back to the question that is the amount of funding that is available verses the enter bin interface rarity think we need to go to get these resources? what about the advent of the biomass program? >> with that increase of funding and a majority of the work will allow us to extend the program to treat

more acres for instance we have 2.5 billion acres and 2.1 of that has the highest priority areas. to find more use of the biomass whether through the integrated wood product that can expand markets over use it for energy conversion for other energy sources it is what we need to continue to work on. with that transportation of biomass to allow for new facilities to come on line for additional support. that is what we need to continue to work on. and to receive grants to do

the economic analysis so there is a much better place before they make that decision and it is also the uncertainty to provide some level of certainty for operations that is the one thing they don't have to worry about with x amount of biomass guaranteed to be available over a tenure period. >> why do i think of the set aside the issue for small businesses? >> those issues thank you again to make that permanent working with the sba to go through rulemaking to address that issue.

>> so if you say part of that is the flow of the biomass some of that 300 million what does that address? is there a number that is double or triple if you have the resources? >> i respond with what we had in the budget to maintain the increase that we've received last year to expand the work can get more funding for the forest restoration work and also additional funding to expand the work they are doing that is what we ask for in the budget. to recognize our 10 year

average of fire suppression went up $150 million this last year. when you total those numbers together the budget request for fire suppression it comes up but below over 300 million. >> with the culmination of your testimony it sounds more of of the right trajectory. then the report to the organization says something different because it is the forest service. >> research just identify is what we're focused on a and the chefs to recognize the eddied not only natural fire

in the back country but where we take active suppression to allow another portion into reduce fuels and of a good example is the couple years ago in california suppression to keep fire out of the communities at the same time to burn of yosemite national park where they we're doing prescribed burning. so when i looked at the research paper it describes were react. but we do need to expand we need to increase the prescribed fire and mechanical treatments in the places before we put fire

into the landscape. via their challenge that we have is pointed out is to understand what needs to occur if we're managing fire in the backcountry the communities are scared first is if they see the planes flying with the resources they need to do a better job to understand the actions to recognize the work and to build more support. we have to work together with the state to address spoke management. there are times we have to put up with more smoke with

that catastrophic a situation in people have to work together to have that flexibility is a there is less impact with a loss of tourism when we have these large fires and nobody goes to float the river or to go fishing when the fire was going on. that is another reason we need to increase with the incremental approach with the fy16 budget and i am over time but i have to mention the partnerships that are coming together from communities to recognize is day good

investment to change conditions and we see that sprang up across the country where they're willing to make that investment to change those conditions on the of landscapes. >> ac listening intently to every word. day you have any comments? >> no. by an admiring his mastery of his material. the only comment i would add to the observations is with the urban interface issue we define that as a wildlife problem that affects communities but this could be the urban fire problem

with landscaping looking at it that way we know how to keep houses from burning in the assault that before. so if they looked at these as a fragment of the city the mr. to apply that same solution to solve it technically. >> even in those extreme situations? >> yes. reno how to solve some of that with those extreme conditions. but think of it as a hurricane he vented reno how to prepare to take action. so i am struck how often with these aerial photos how the houses are reduced to a concrete slab but you still see so many trees

surrounding and this is the house whether bin landscaping so we need to do both and i would put more resources for the other half of the equations. >> so in a matter of minutes they burn to the foundation that why do you say there are trees? >> and not familiar a enough with the complex but i am thinking of commons from colorado like the black forest fire or others that is what you see in the forest situations. the fire goes from house to pass -- house to house. that is the urban fire problem not just wild land

fire problem. >> faqs. >> i will not go back to fairbanks and tell they have to suffer through some of more extraordinary severs with no soccer being played there is a health alert every morning. some mornings it is so dense use of lead need to have your headlights on in this summer and it is an issue that fairbanks has some of the poorest air quality during the winter because of conversion issues but during the summer it is because of the wildland fires. it is something that we struggle with. i listened to some of what

you said with the average we spent last year you said 150 million? i saw something that said almost 200 million more than average but there has been less than half the number of fires or acres burned or houses burned. it speaks to the issue where we are experiencing skyrocketing costs did we get to a point we cannot throw everything we have every fire whether it is effective or not. it cannot be that blank check approach. that is not sustainable it

is something we must look at and remote strategically address the accumulation problem to integrate the fuel management objective i don't say we could have five your management divorced from land rich man and i think we heard that from several witnesses today. there is a great deal we have to do. it sounds week but i hope from a budget perspective it will not be a bad fire season i hope those who have properties are concerns about their own safety i hope for the men and women

with the serious danger to battle these forest fires is not a bad season but that is not a good policy to hope that we get lucky. we see things set up with a drought in the west. there is a drought everywhere it seems except in the east but you have a real commitment to figure out with sapphire borrowing because we cannot get to those important aspects of what we can do on the preventive side if we don't have dollars, the budget

with this guy highs suppression cost. we have work to do and the commitment from the to find solutions. to those of you who travel to be with us this morning you may not have gotten the bulk of your questions by your testimony is greatly appreciated as tulip to resolve these issues at considerable impact to those of us in the west. with that we are richard. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning. maybe we can get started. good morning. imf a senior fellow at the aspen institute and welcome to everyone for our symposium entitled prospects for black america the moynihan report turin's 50. if you were here for white america your in the wrong room that is any of the room in the building. i will be very brief because as we have an excellent panel want to give them as much time as possible for discussion for crikey and speak later this afternoon i

hope you can stick around for quite have been working at the manhattan institute since february but the idea for this conference on race first occurred to me many years ago when i was on staff at "the wall street journal". i came upon a book called the fairmont papers that was the transcription of a conference that occurred in 1980 at the fairmont hotel in san francisco. it was organized and hosted and title black alternative is. ready the economic and social advancement is of great unfinished task those approaches to demand re-examination and growing evidence of counterproductive results

from noble intentions and of gold was to explore alternative approaches. that is why we're here. not to create its own orthodoxy for those you dare to think for themselves those who are invited to speak are those who and chat -- challenge conventional wisdom. summer democrats or republicans or conservatives. they're open to fundamentally to look at what is helping the of black underclass but america has been through a historic phase for civil-rights for

blacks that is necessary but not sufficient but it created new priorities and urgency's with economic realities and the selfie development in the schools that working and the community. he said that in 1980. i came across it in the late 90's now here we are 2015 those sentiments are not any less relevant. those who will be almost 85 with another book will be out in a few months i asked about that conference several times he said and went very well and had good

feedback he had every intention to post a second but it fell through and you never got around to it price said that is the type of conference that we need. after i joined the manhattan institute here we are i hope we can proceed in this same spirit to evaluate to open our minds to alternative approaches. >> to see the gap of education and incarceration and employment with conventional wisdom about residual racism it calls for more government resources and wealth redistribution.

the people asked to participate today praying something new and not afraid to look outside the box. they're open to new approaches and to evaluate what has been tried already. we mark the 50th year anniversary of moynihan's support of the black family. of was the controversial document initially under president johnson. and remains controversial today. the fundamental problem is that family structure, that evidence is persuasive that the negro family has tumbled

and for his troubles he was denounced to undermine the civil rights movement. his findings were ignored including the great society architects to experience programs to formulate new ones. marriage was penalized and subsidized. history has proved that he was onto something when the report was released 25 percent of black and 5% of white were headed by a household of a single mother over the next 20 years it would double and the gap would widen. today it is twice the weight percentage. for decades research has shown the likelihood of teen pregnancy and drug abuse

those that grew dramatically when the fathers wraps and. to one of the most critical of faction -- factors ever dash and to see if the father was in the home. unfortunately them when the report had been honest conversation about family breakdown one that still refuse to join. that get no outcome is taboo the op-ed in "the new york times" a few days ago about the baltimore writing carried the headline black culture is not the problem. what is? is white racism.

it originates in a political culture that has bodies to questions of property and i am referring to slavery. i hope the discussions today are little more honest the rates are lower than they are today. because that level of black crime vesta's have skipped a couple of generations. it was to better define a problem that was no big deal the skepticism was warranted. before we get started i went to thank the panel who have signed off on the eve event.

everyone who handled everything from contacting the panelist to secure the venue and thank you for your hard work. i will invite the first panel up. the former governor of the state of maryland the first republican in the governor in 36 years when he was elected in 2002. also serving the congress and legislature invade record investments in public schools as governor which is important for our discussion today and authored the first public charter school lot. which should table more than

7,000 students to attend 30 new public charter schools and double funding to help college enrollment reached the all-time high on his watch. heather is a fellow at the manhattan institute and a contributing editor to city journal for her work garner range of topics including homeland security, immigration, homel essness and education policy. her books include our cops resist? the analogy looking at the workings of the place apart and of the controversy of racial profiling. a nonpracticing lawyer who clerked for the u.s. court of appeals ninth circuit also the recipient of the 2005 brad the prize for

outstanding intellectual achievement. john is a contributing editor at city journal who comments extensively on race and issues. the author of all about the beach and author of losing the race as well as a follow-up book called winning the race. here's a link west that teaches the comparative literature department the panel would be moderated from the judge serving on u.s. district court and the was previously a commercial litigator in private

practice since since 1987 has served as commissioner of the complaint review board with hundreds of investigations into allegations of abuse from the new york city police department. the title is reducing crime rates in the black community. [inaudible conversations] before we begin please join me in a moment of silence for the police officer who died yesterday and was 25 years old he was patrolling

in my parents' old neighborhood in new york. thank you. we have a curious tradition in public forums people who have established themselves themselves, people who are well-known or well spoken and who needed no introduction receive an introduction from someone who was not known at all and you wonder what the hell is he doing up there? [laughter] that would be made. i was raised in harlem my father and mother who have passed on a raised me to

live-in queens village as a teenager and i wanted you -- wanted to tell you how important the pitiless personally and professionally. today we're going to consider the fact to have a preliminary discussion with our panel west as the murder of a police officer demonstrated yesterday there is no such saying as the routine police encounter. not for the police officer or for the citizens. over 23 years i served in the review board reviewing police misconduct in each and every one of those was unique. each of those encounters add

the potential for deadly force or for some of the most exhilarating and counters between citizens and law enforcement. each had the potential for heroism. i hope when you leave this discussion today you exercise from your vocabulary the phrase routine police encounter. there is no such thing. my throwback position i turn this over to our true the distinguished panel our knowledgeable experts who will begin with the former governor of maryland. >> one week ago sunday i was

driving my 811 and 15 year-old. driving down the expressway i 8823 would catch north avenue to cut over with the streets very familiar tune the and we pulled up to a light there is an african-american girl waving to less than we drove back all happy and less than 18 hours later that intersection was the center of the universe with race and write its and -- police and more bad press for the city that i grew up.

talk about personal for those who worked that intersection i know that cbs very well and friends of the neighborhood is very personal. as a result all the tv folks are asking me on their shows and what do you think? i have to say my initial thoughts were probably the same thoughts everyone in this room had. the first was on the first day when some of those kids gathered together to do their thing the first

thought was where are their fathers? more fathers, less riots. no ring the academic achievement of the area's schools i fought against unions and others to protect negligent monopolies. my second thought was more degrees, less riots. someone who authored "national review" online in october, 50 years since moynihan, my thought was more sentencing statutes that makes sense, of less riots more drug laws that make sense, less riots.

after these initial thoughts with this interview process lasso began to do think about what was true the at issue because phase were the consequences so how does a result from this transport? who should be held responsible? it is police practices what happened and with regard to this particular prisoner that night. we don't know.

but we will find out. my concluding comment is this. as someone who is the governor and in the legislature i will book get the idea of healing. we have to heal. if it is healing on familiar terms the same paradigm we need more money. 22 trillion since the great society. if that is the premise than there are folks in neighborhoods policy makers should not play and we

should not indulge because it did is just that, nobody should be surprised if in three months or nine months or 10 years. i would not be surprised if it is the same paradigm. so something good can come up with less nothing has yet to but maybe this conversation or these values can become a part if that is the case. >> faq. after opening statements we

will talk among the panel then we will have questions from the audience as well. >> if i have valued it is as a responder i am much better to respond to the things other should go. >> will take that as a friendly amendment. [laughter] i would not let him get away with this in my courtroom. do your homework. [laughter] heather? >> and ross of translating his remark i will have a post script. to the last nine months to be known as black lives matter that was triggered by the fatal police -- police shooting in ferguson, missouri that triggered

riots and a movement to the grand jury proceedings with an officer using is lethal force and a task force on policing but the premise of the black flies matter movement that the police are the biggest threat facing young black man today. there is no oh government agency more dedicated than black lives matter. every unjustified police shooting is the unmitigated tragedy to define the tactics and the police also

have the obligation to treat everybody with courtesy and respect that the police develop a very rough attitudes because of the behavior that they receive but that it is no excuse to treat people rudely. nevertheless in the york city alone 10,000 minority lives at homicide rates if remained its yearly levels. was saved those lives is what has continued through

those essential aspects is the obsession with the crime data analyzing to figure out the accountability for the precinct commanders used to me they assumed they could control crime but now they're ruthless to impose responsibility if they do not save black lives the carrier is in in jeopardy things to this revolution is to liberate the law abiding inner-city neighborhoods to go into the public to shop

or go to the store. . .

quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i am glad i had a chance to come to the floor and listen to the distinguished ranking member and the distinguished senior senator on the budget committee and the senior senator from california talk about this budget, but i feel like it's two ships passing in the night. you know, when i see this remarkable accomplishment under the leadership of chairman enzi on the budget committee and the entire budget committee, this is a congressional budget that balances within ten years. it doesn't raise taxes.

it re-prioritizes our nation's defense. it protects our most vulnerable citizens. it improves economic growth, which is literally the rising tide that lifts all boats in a growing economy, something our economy has not been doing very well lately. and it stops the federal government's out-of-control federal spending. so this is really a remarkable accomplishment. as a matter of fact, this is the first joint ten-year balanced budget resolution since 2001. and i think what drives our friends across the aisle crazy is the fact they haven't passed a budget since 2009, and now with the new leadership here in the yaws senate in thetheunited states senate the 114th congress, we have done the basic work of governing, which is we

have proposed and this afternoon we will pass a budget. so i know there are differences across the aisle. clearly, there's reasons people choose to be a democratic senator and a republican senator, but to me the differences are pretty stark. our friends across the aisle don't think the government should have to live within its means, that we should continue to borrow money that we don't have by overspending and hand the bill to our kids and grandkids. i personally think that's a moral hazard. that's really unconscionable, to keep spending money and then to send the bill to our kids and grandkids and say "you pay it. we had a good time. good luck." our friends across the aisle think the federal government is not big enough because they want to continue to feed the beast with more of your hard-earned tax dollars so it can get

bigger so it can intrude further into your individual freedoms and choices that should be left to you and your family. and then it sounds to me like the ranking member of the budget committee, the senator from vermont, thinks that the government ought to take more of the money you earned and to give it to somebody else who didn't earn it. and then i can only conclude that our friends across the aisle think that an $18 trillion debt is not a problem and it is. when interest rates start creeping back up, as they eventually will, more and more of our tax dollars are going to be spent sending interest payments to the chinese and other holders of our sovereign debt to service that debt, and i.t. going toit's going to crowd out

not only national security spending, it is going to crowd out the safety net spending. so there are real differences. but this budget, i'm proud to say, which we will pass this afternoon, thanks to the heroic work of our budget committee is i think a real accomplishment. i guess what would be the real embarrassment is if we didn't pass a budget. but we will pass a budget. people listening at home may say, well, why are you so -- patting yourselves on the back for passing a budget? we have a budget in our business. we have a budget at home. so why is it such a big deal for the new congress to actually pass a budget? well i guess it shouldn't be a big deal. it should be something we do routinely because it is really the most basic demonstration of the ability to govern. but i guess what makes it

remarkable is the fact that it hasn't happened in a long time. and so for that, i'm glad we actually have seen under the new leadership in had the is in the 114th congress some progress. that is something that i think the american people appreciate and that all members of the senate i think have come to enjoy. the mood has changed. the ability of senators to participate in the process and actually come up with solutions has gotten so much better in just the first 100 days of the 114th congress that i think we're slowly starting to develop some momentum. we passed a bill that lets medicare beneficiaries see the doctors that they need. that's a good thing. we've also passed an important piece of legislation that provides aid to victims of human

trafficking. and through the end of this week we'll continue to work our way through another important piece of legislation the iran nuclear agreement review act, which was unanimously voted out of out of committee a few weeks ago. this is really important be, not only to the region in the middle east, but also to us and the world. this bill would guarantee that congress has an opportunity to review and potentially block any final deal with iran that president obama reaches during the so-called p-5 plus 1 negotiations. after we conclude that important consideration of that legislation, we're then going to move on to consider something else that i think will help grow the economy and help actually end up bringing more revenue into the federal treasury, help us with some of our deficits and debt and that is to pass trade promotion authority and then to take up the trans-pacific partnership trade agreement.

now, my state happens to export more than any other state in the nation and our economy shows it because it creates -- just our binational trade with mexico creates about 6 million jobs, and it is a good thing to have more markets to sell the things that our farmers grow or to sell the livestock that our ranchers raise or the manufactured goods that americans make. it's a good thing. so this bill would make sure the united states gets the best deal in pending trade agreements with countries from arab asia to south america to europe. and it would help make sure that texas products and more generally american products and industries find new markets which will in turn raise wages for hardworking families, something that we all support. but with all these other signs of progress, i think that writing and passing a budget is one of the most fundamental responsibilities we have.

and while that should be pretty obvious, families across the country sit around the table each month and they do the same thing, but it is a fact that has been lost on om of many of our democratic colleagues when they controlled the chamber. i was reminded once again when i listened to the senator from california. you know what a cut in washington d.c., is? that's not a cut in the amount of +spepbdzing spending on the current program. it is a reduction in the current increase. it begins to cut the rate of increase on spending that helps us control the deficits and hopefully take the first important step toward dealing with our long-term debt. well when we vote on this budget today it'll be the first time that both chambers have actually voted for an agreed-upon spending bill since 2009. as i said earlier the first

balanced ten-year budget since 2001. that's despite four consecutive years of trillion-dollar deficits under president obama trillion-dollar deficits. those deficits, as the chairman has appropriately pointed out add up to debt, the deficit being the dips difference between what the government brings it and what it spends. we've got a downgrade in america's credit rating by standard & poor's. so you know, it would be one thing if the president and our friends across the aisle had a good record when it comes to their budgets and their proposals, but they don't. just look at what the president has proposed. president obama has missed statutory deadlines so often that it became more notable when

he actually did fulfill that responsibilitien this-- didfulfill that responsibility than when he did not. when the president's budget was voted on in 2011 it was unanimously rejected by democrats and republicans. it didn't receive a single vote. the same was true in 2012. do you think if the president had proposed a responsible budget don't you think members of his own party would have at least voted pour for it? but in 2011 and 2012 no democratic voted for the president's budget. last year in the house of representatives, all but two members voted against the president's budget when given the chance. it went down by a resounding 413-2. that's the president's budget proposal. whatwell we saw history repeat itself in march as well.

one by one nearly every member of this body came to the floor and gave a thumbs down to president obama's budget proposal. it went down 98-1. so whether it is offering a completely irresponsible budget that's rejected by both parties or the failure to offer any budget at all our friends across the aisle are living in a glass house. and when they -- when you live in a glass house you really shouldn't throw stones. but the most important point mr. president, is the american people deserve better. we had an important election in november and it changed the majority of the united states senate. it established new management and in that last election cycle we made promises that we intend to keep, and we were elected on

our promise to be different and to govern responsibly. that promise includes passing a budget that protects taxpayers and sets the nation on a path toward sound fiscal footing. well fortunately for the american people, we are keeping our campaign pledges and this budget does reflect their confidence in the new leadership of the united states congress. this budget leaves our country with a surplus after ten years. it puts us on a path to begin to pay down our national debt. and and it does not raise taxes. by balancing the budget without tax hikes like we do in texas with our budget, we can protect taxpayers and foster an economic environment that allows jobs and opportunity to blossom. but protecting our taxpayers is not our only priority.

i believe our number-one priority in the federal government is national security. and i believe congress needs to make sure that that's unmistakably clear and we do so in this budget. the budget does also provide the military with the necessary flexibility to react to changing threats and to make additional investments as necessary in a way that does not add to overspending. not only does this send a message to our troops that they will have the support they need in order to do the job they volunteered to do but also to our families, our military families who serve as well in our all-value tier military system. -- all volunteer military system. this national security sends a message to our nation's adversaries. we know that weakness is a provocation to the bullies and

the tyrants around the world. and when people like vladimir putin say the united states retreating and pulling back and not prioritizing our national security and not maintaining our role in the world as the preeminent power, it's a provocation, it's an encouragement. we see that happening around the world as we see now a greater security threat environment than perhaps we've seen in many many years. but this budget sends a message to our adversaries around the world that america will not shrink and will not retreat from our leadership role. so mr. president, the budget under consideration was passed just a few days ago in the house of representatives because it serves the american people by providing for our national defense, balancing the budget within ten years and doesn't raise taxes something congress

hasn't done for almost 15 years. and this afternoon the united states senate will keep its part of the bargain. we will keep -- follow through on our promise and we'll make clear to the american people that we're committed to getting our fiscal house in order with this important first step. mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president a budget is far more than a series of numbers on a piece of paper. a budget really is a statement of values and priorities, a statement of the kind of nation we are and the kind of nation we want to be. for many of us, these values and priorities are clear. we believe that a budget should help us move towards an economy that is built from the middle out, not from the top down. and a government that works for all of our families, not just

the wealthiest few. but, mr. president the republican budget that we are here debating today would move us in the opposite direction. instead of working with us to build on the bipartisan budget deal that we struck last congress, republicans have introduced a budget that would lock in sequestration it would hollow out defense and not defense investments and use gimmicks and games to paper over the problems. instead of putting jobs and wages and economic security first by prioritizing policies like paid sick leave that shouldn't be partisan issues, the republican budget would cut taxes for the rich and leave working families behind. instead of building on the work we've done to make health care more affordable and accessible, the republican budget would take us back to the bad old days when insurance companies called all the shots and when fewer

americans had access to the care that they need. mr. president, i want to take a few minutes today to talk about each of those issues and to urge my republican friends to take a different approach, put politics aside come back to the table and work with us on a responsible budget that puts the middle class first and will actually work for families and communities that we all represent. mr. president, the first issue i want to talk about is the automatic cuts from sequestration and the failure of this budget to address an issue democrats and republicans agree needs to be solved. i'm proud that coming out of the terrible government shutdown at the end of 2013 we were finally able to break through the gridlock and dysfunction to reach a bipartisan budget deal that prevented another government shutdown, restored investments in education in research and defense jobs, and really laid down a foundation for continued

bipartisan work. that deal wasn't the budget that i would have written on my own it wasn't the one republicans would have written on their own, but it did end the lurching from crisis to crisis, it helped workers and our economy and made it clear that there is bipartisan support for rolling back sequestration in a balanced way. our bipartisan deal was a strong step in the right direction and i was hopeful that we could work together to build on it because we know there's bipartisan support to replace sequestration in a balanced and fair way. not only did we prove that with our bipartisan budget deal, but democrats and republicans across the country have continued to come out against the senseless cuts to defense and nondefense investments. but, mr. president republicans went the opposite way with their budget this year. they were able to cut trillions of dollars on programs that support families and fight

poverty, nearly a trillion dollars cut from medicare and medicaid and more than $5 trillion overall but they refused to dedicate a single penny of that rollback, the automatic cuts to education research or defense investments. to put that in perspective, we were able to roll back sequestration for two years in the bipartisan budget act with $85 billion in savings but the republican budget won't fix the problem even for this coming year with more than 50 times that amount of savings. mr. president, instead of using just a tiny fraction of the enormous cuts this budget has in it to pay for investments that both republicans and democrats agree must be made, this budget uses a gimmick by increasing funding to appear to patch over the funding on the defense side without raising the cap on defense funding and doing nothing at all or nondefense

investments like education and research and jobs or infrastructure. mr. president, we know the automatic cuts are terrible policy and we know the president has said he would veto spending bills at sequester levels. i also know there are republicans who have seen the impact of sequestration in their states the way i've seen it in my home state of washington and i know there are republicans who look at this budget and wonder why it couldn't use some of the trillions of dollars in cuts to reinvest in american innovation or in our defense investments. so i'm hopeful that instead of continuing to kick the can down the road or relying on gimmicks that don't actually solve this problem, republicans will come back to the table and work with us to build on a bipartisan budget deal in a balanced and responsible way allow the appropriations committees to actually do their work and not wait for another crisis before they push the tea party aside and work with us to get this done. because, mr. president, instead of rehashing old ways debates

and lurches toward another completely avoidable crisis, we should be working together to put in place policies that boost the economy and help working families. policies like allowing workers to earn paid sick days. no worker should have to sacrifice a day's pay or their job altogether just to take care of themselves or their sick child. but today in this country 43 million americans do not have access to paid sick days. making sure some workers have this basic worker protection will give more families much-needed economic stability and, by the way it's pro-business. access to paid sick days boosts productivity and reduces turnover two huge benefits for employers, and businesses that want to help their workers stay healthy should have a level playing field so they aren't at a disadvantage when they do the right thing. a strong bipartisan majority of senators affirmed their support for allowing workers to earn

paid sick days during the budget amendment process and i was hopeful we could build on that momentum and keep working together to increase the economic security for millions of workers and families. so mr. president, i was very disappointed that the conference report does not reflect that provision. instead of keeping our bipartisan amendment and providing paid sick days to help workers and families, this conference report instead allows for tax credits for employers that would not guarantee access to paid leave. mr. president, that is a step in the wrong direction but it doesn't have to be the last step this congress takes so i urge our colleagues to work with me to pass the healthy families act, the legislation that would move this debate beyond budget amendments and make paid sick days a reality for millions of americans. because allowing workers to earn paid sick days is one way we can ensure our workplaces are working for our families, all

of our families, not just the wealthiest few. mr. president, i also want to talk about one more way this budget would be devastating for families across the country. the affordable care act was a critical step forward in our effort to build a health care system that puts patients first, and it allows every family to get the affordable high-quality health care that they need. but the work didn't end when this law passed. far from it. families across the country are expecting us to keep working to build on this progress and continue making health care more affordable and more accessible and higher quality and that's what democrats are focused on. but, unfortunately mr. president, this republican budget would do the exact opposite. it would roll back all the progress we've made, take us back to the bad old days when insurance companies called all the shots when being a woman was a preexisting condition when far fewer families could

afford to get the health care they need and, in fact, this republican approach could even mean an average tax hike of $3,200 a year on working families who would have to pay more for their care. mr. president, families are tired of republicans playing games with their health care, so i hope my republican colleagues will listen to the millions of people across the country who have more affordable quality health care and to the vast majority of our constituents who want us to work together to solve problems, not rehash old fights. and finally drop the political games and work with us to move our health care system forward not backward for the communities that we serve. mr. president, republicans control congress, it is their job to write and pass a budget, but our constituents actually sent us here to work together, not simply to argue with each other. people across the country are expecting us to break through the gridlock once again like we were able to do last congress

and deliver results for their families and the communities we represent. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this budget that would be devastating for middle-class families seniors investments in our future and the economy and i recipe hope republicans decide to come back to the table and work with us on policies that grow the economy from the middle out not from the top down and that move us towards a government that works for all families not just the wealthiest few. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i want to thank senator enzi and members of the budget committee and the 2016 budget conference agreement we are currently considering in the senate. included in the budget conference family are policy provisions i believe begin to

move this country in the right fiscal direction including balancing the budget within ten years without the need to raise taxes on the hardworking american taxpayer, something that the administration's budget fails to do. in addition the budget agreement provides a pathway to repeal the failed policies of obamacare. i'm pleased the resolution does provide some relief from sequestration's devastating cuts to our national defense and the good news is that there is some relief. providing additional resources for defense through the overseas contingency operations account known at oco is a good one but it's temporary and it's a band-aid. and, again i want to thank senator enzi for the great job that he has done. but the fact is, this body and this congress is guilty, is guilty of not repealing

sequestration, which is devastating our military and destroying our ability to defend this nation in these most perilous and difficult times. before the senate armed services committee on january 29, former secretary of state henry kissinger testified -- and i quote -- "as we look around the world we encounter upheaval and conflict. the united states has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the second world war." and what are we doing? we are slashing defense year after year after year through a thing called sequestration which was never intended to happen. that is a devastating indictment of the congress of the united states and our first priority, which is protecting this nation. general mark welch stated "we're now the smallest air force we've ever been. when we deployed operation desert storm the air force had

198 fighter squadrons fade we have 54. we're headed to 49 in the next couple of years. in 190, there were 5119 active airmen. we currently have 12 fleets of airplanes that qualify for antique license plated in the state of virginia." in the last three years the army's active component end strength has reduced by 80,000. we have 13 less active component brigade combat teams. we have eliminated three active aviation brigades. we've slashed investments in modernization by 25%. he went ton say "the number-one thing that keeps me up at night is that if we're asked to respond to an unknown contingency i will send soldiers to that contingency not properly trained and ready. we simply are not used to doing that." admiral greemer the chief of

naval operations, "due to scwefertion of 2013, our contin jncy response force that's what's on call for the united states is one-third of what it should be and what it needs to be. general joseph dunford nominated to be chairman of the joint chiefs of staff testified "we're investing in modernization at an historically low level. we know that we must maintain at least 10% to 12% of our resources on modernization to field a ready force for tomorrow to pay for today's bills we are currently investing 7% to 8%." i asked every single one of our service chiefs and our area commanders the same question. if we don't repeal scwefertion will it put the lives of our men and women who are serving in the military in greater danger? the answer, by every single one

of these uniformed leaders not the civilian leaders the uniformed leaders said, yes, we will put the lives of the men and women who are serving in the military in greater danger unless we repeal sequestration on defense. i say to my colleagues, i say to my colleagues in the united states senate, this is not acceptable. this is not acceptable for us to ask the young men and women who are serving in our military in uniform to put -- to have their lives put in greater danger because we copped out we failed to address the issue of increasing an unsustainable deficits. we're making them pay the price. 13% of the budget is aloe caughted to defense. defense is taking 50% of the cuts. the ryan-murray agreement was

something that was welcomed. we need nor ryan-mor rhode island we need the men and women who are serving as members of congress to understand that we have no greater responsibility thank the defense of this nation. i can assure my colleagues that working with my friend, senator reed of rhode island, the ranking member of the senate armed services committee, we will reduce the waste and mismanagement, we will address acquisition, we will reform acquisition and the terrible cost overruns that plague our ability to do business in the defense business. we will be cutting the size of these huge staffs that have grown and grown and grown. we will be making significant reforms in the way that the military does business. but these reforms will not have the impact that's necessary in the short term, and that is that

we are putting the lives of american soldiers, sailors marines, and airmen in greater dapping. so i come to the -- in greater danger. so i come to the floor to thank my colleague from wyoming senator enzi for the great job he has done on the budget. but i will tell my colleagues, that we must work together in a bipartisan fashion to fix the damage that sequestration is doing. i only have one other point here that's very important. some of us have forgotten that in the days after the vietnam war the military was in terrible disaray. ronald reagan came to presidency on the slogan designee peace through strength. " we put the military back into the great condition of being the greatest force in the world. we won the cold war. right now if you look at the map of the world in 2011, and look at a map of the world

today, in 2011 when we enacted sequestration, you will find that henry kissinger and george schultz and madeleine albright and brent scowcroft and every person respected on national security in this country will tell you that we are in grave danger whether it be from isis, from iran, from aggressive behavior by the chinese. no matter what it is, there are severe crises -- no matter where it is in the world, we are in the midst of serious challenges to our national security, and that is the last place the last place we should continue to cut is on our defense and our capability to defend this nation. mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you mr. president. i first want to thank the distinguished senator from arizona for his leadership and echo his words that we need a bipartisan solution on this

issue and hopefully we're going to be able to address it, not only supporting our men and women when they are actively in harm's way but supporting them when they come home as veterans, which i know he cares deeply about as well. which is why we need a bipartisan balanced solution that we had before. so i thank you for your leadership. and, mr. president the reality is that this budget, any budget for the united states is about our values and our priorities. that's what it's all about as a country. and i have to say as a senior member of the budget committee i am deeply concerned about the values portrayed in this budget. i greatly respect the chairman and ranking member and thank them for their service. but when you look at this budget in total this goes opposite fangly to what the majority of the members talk about every day, because this particular budget keeps the system rigged

in favor of the wealthy and the well-connected against the interests of hardworking middle-class americans. now, picture this: in this budget, if you are a family with assets of $10 million or more, you hit the jackpot. you get at least a $3 million bonus tax cut in this bill, in terms of the policies laid out in this bill. well how is it paid for? well it's paid for by everybody else 16 million hardworking americans will see a tax increase of at least $900 based on these policies. and we will see critical investments and services cut. nothing done to address jobs going overseas.

not one loophole proposed to be closed. they're sending our jobs overseas. we want to create an economy and really balance the budget? let's bring those jobs home. nothing in this budget about that. you have wealth of over $10 million, it's your lucky day. $3 million in your pocket, or more. it's christmas in this budget for very wealthy multimillionaires. but if you're everybody else, you're in trouble. no focus on creating jobs. and god help you if your family has a mom or dad or grandpa or grandma that has alzheimer's disease and is in a nursing home because this budget guts nursing home care for millions of americans a lot of folks who desperately need that care. one out of five medicare dollars

today goes to treat alzheimer's. this is an area that i have been deeply involved in and partnering with senator susan collins on, important pork that -- important work that needs to be done. but if you have someone that has alzheimer's, you are out of luck in this budget. this morning i talked to a group of women who are in town for breast research -- this is the month to focus on breast research. if you care about breast cancer ruche in this budget, you are out of luck. if you want to make sure is that we are investing in cures and treatments -- we are so close and in so many areas now where american innovation and research and the best minds of the world are working on opportunities for us to solve alzheimer's and parkinson's disease and cancers and all kinds of other areas of concern.

but the budget is cut for n.i.h. national institutes of health. what kind of priorities does this reflect? and on top of that, for 16.4 million people who now have affordable insurance, it is gone. now, what's interesting about the budget, it's very creative, because all the revenue all the fees to pay for health care stays to help balance the budget. it's just the health care that goes away. so for those breast cancer patients that i talked to this morning who are now so grateful that if they need to go out and get new insurance they won't be called someone with a preexisting condition that goes away in this budget. if you have a child that's 22, 23 just graduated -- i spoke at graduation ceremonies this last weekend -- and they're on your insurance right now while they're trying to get themselves

together and get at that first job, that goes away. so this budget attacks health care which by the way is not a frill. we don't control when and how we get sick or if our children get is being or our parents or grandparents into he had agrandparents need a nursing home or what may happen in terms of medical issues in our families. but health care is directly attacked. the affordable care act gone. gutting inpatient care in nursing homes for alzheimer's patients and others. research gone. so we're hearing from our republican friends that they're making government work, but i'll tell you what. it's not working for middle-class families. it's working for you if you're mawing over $10 million a -- making over $10 million a year or have over $10 million in assets. but it's not working for you if

you're holding together two or three jobs and just trying to make it for your family. now, we believe as democrats that this ought to be a middle-class budget because everybody deserves a fair shot to get ahead and have a chance to have a better future. and so for us, that means this budget should have a major focus on creating millions of jobs by rebuilding our roads rebuilding our bridges our infrastructure, and, by the way the funding for that the authorization for the highway trust fund runs out the end of may. there's nothing in here to address that. no funding in here to address that. we're going to see all kinds of jobs that are eliminated all across the country if that fund something eliminated. so we believe in rebuilding our roads and bridges and creating millions of jobs. we stand up for social security and medicare. this budget has $430 billion in cuts in medicare, and is it

doesn't say where they come from and it is proposing a structure that would actually eliminate medicare as we know it turn it into some kind of a voucher system or some other kind of system that is not guaranteed care under medicare. we believe in protecting medicare and social security. we believe that everybody ought to have a fair chance to work hard and make it and go to college. this does nothing but increase costs for students going to college, and we believe they ought to go down so that when you leave college, you don't end up with enough debt to go out where you could have bought a house, but then you can't buy a house, as realtors in michigan have told me, because people have so much debt they can't qualify to get a loan for a house or start a new business. we as democrats want to make sure everybody has got a chance to go to college and that it's affordable. and that we're protecting social security and comir and medicare and rebuilding our roads and

highways and the opportunity to invest in america. finally, we want to bring jobs home. it is insane that we still have a tax code that read wards rewards those sometimes only on country that leave this country. they still drive on the roads and breathe the air. they don't have to pay their fair share of tax deduction because they live somewhere else. that's not fair to every taxpayer across this country every business that we have that's really an american business. and there's nothing in this budget that is done to address that. so i conclude by saying that we should resoundingly object and vote no on the priorities and the values set out in this budget. they do not reflect what is good to create a middle class and

grow a middle class and create opportunity in this country. if you're one of the privileged few, hallelujah, break out the champagne after this passes but if you're the majority of americans, hold on to your seats, put on your seatbelt because if this is in fact put into place it's going to be a rough ride for america. and our side is going to do everything humanly possible to make sure that does not happen. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i thank my great colleague from michigan for her outstanding words and leadership. she's a senior member of the budget committee she knows just what's wrong with this budget and she knows how to reach the american people in terms of revealing just that, showing just that. so i thank her. i want to thank my dear friend, senatorrer sanders fellow graduate of james madison high school in brooklyn, for his leadership on the budget committee as well.

and look, in a certain sense this republican budget is a gift. to us and to the american people. because it shows their real priorities. and their priorities are so far away from what average americans want that this budget will resound from one end of the country to the other between now and november of 2016. the budget that the house and senate republicans have put together helps the very wealthy and powerful in our country who frankly, don't need any help. this idea, cut taxes on the very wealthy and that's how it will make america a better place, how many americans actually believe that? we understand that a lot of our colleagues do. they hang out with these people i guess. but that's not what most americans think. that's for sure. the budget should reflect the economic reality right now.

middle-class incomes are declining. it's harder to stay in the middle class. it's harder to reach the middle class. and a budget should help those folks who are in the middle class stay there who are trying to get to the middle class, create ladders so they can get there. and, again, this budget seems to focus all of its attention and all its goodies on the very wealthy. the economy is getting stronger but mainly at the very high end. so we need to cut their taxes? they're hutting? and at the same time we need to raise taxes on 16 million americans who are working and making $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 a year, raise their taxes $900? how many americans would say we should cut taxes on the 4,000 wealthiest people, an average of $3 million, a cost of $260 billion over ten years and

raise taxes on people making $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 a year by $900? is it 1% of america who thinks that way? maybe. but it seems our colleagues on the other side of the aisle follow that pied piper that 1% in putting together their budget. it makes no sense. the republican budget is a document of willful ignorance. it was constructed in an ideological house of mirrors. where no one sees reality no one who put together this budget seems relet. they don't see middle-class people struggling, making it harder to pay for college? what the heck is going on here in this great america. we're trying to pass a budget, our colleagues, that says we should make it harder to pay for college.

that veterans should lose food stamps. veterans. people who served us. people, i'm sure, the vast majority are looking for jobs and income. that's who veterans are. they don't want a handout. but when they're down on their luck maybe they had injuries, maybe it was rough adjusting to family life back home again and you cut their food stamps? wow. what kind of budget is this? as i said, it's a budget in an ideological house of mirrors. cap student loan payments? 30-year-olds 40-year-olds, huge burdens of debt, they can't even buy a home. maybe they put off having kids. and this budget, our republican friends are saying eliminate programs cut programs that at least reduce some of that debt burden. wow, what world are you folks

living in? it sure isn't the world of reality. it's an ideological house of mirrors. a document, a budget document of willful ignorance. you can go on and on and on with this budget. how many families have elderly parents in nursing homes who have alzheimer's? we know that tragedy. this budget makes it harder for those people to stay in those nursing homes by kitting medicaid which many of them are on. and then these young families are going to have the burden of taking their beer parents their loved ones, back into their homes. we want that? well you say well, we got to cut somewhere. how about not giving the 4,000 richest families $260 billion over ten years and put some of the money into cancer research, put some of the money into

helping veterans feed themselves put some of the money into making it easier to pay for college put some of the money into making sure we continue cancer research? republicans are going to have to figure out a way to convince the american people that they are doing something anything, to help the middle class. so far they're striking out. now, we know there's only one bit of good news. our colleagues when they're forced to actually put real numbers to these budget numbers in the appropriations process won't be able to do it. they won't dare do it. and i hope -- this will be up 0 to our ranking member mikulski and members of the appropriation bills committee, i hope they take this budget and put it out there and let's see how many of our colleagues actually vote for it. how many of our colleagues are going to make it harder to pay for college, how many colleagues will make it harder

for veterans to feed themselves when they're out of luck, how many of our colleagues are going to vote to raise the taxes on people making $30,000 $40,000, $900 a year. i doubt many. so it's a fun day for our republican colleagues. they get to beat their ideological breast, show the hard right that they really mean it and then maybe we can