done to make sure that new methods and tactics are developed for fighting fires in green buildings. >> i think that was my statement that you're reacting to, congresswoman. thank you. there is an active project at nfpa that is in cooperation with the fire administration and with other key entities to try to develop best practices. how should you adjust your way of fighting a fire in order to identify that this particular hazzard is there when you show up, and how you avoid shock hazards and other things in the course of fighting the fire. it's not only going really well in terms of producing results, but it's something of a role model project for how new hazard disease be incorporated into the best practices of the fire service in general. >> thank you very much. and i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i now recognize the gentleman

from illinois, mr. lipinski for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank all the witnesses for their testimony. obviously very critical issue here we're talking about fire safety. in the written testimony of most mr. o'connor and mr. mitchell, you both highlight one area in which you think the usfa can do more is in training. and mr. o'connor, you specifically mentioned that usfa has been slow to implement congress's implementations, that the usfa partner organizations have established fire training programs. so i want to ask mr. o'connor, can you tell me -- tell us more about iaff training programs and how they can help the u.s. fire academy expand the reach of its classes. >> well, i think that in all fairness to the academy, part of the issue is resources that we have talked previously. but in our view, the national fire academy is a wonderful resource for people that are

actually able to be in residence there and actually traveled to emmitsburg, it's wonderful training. and the outreach of the training academies has been magnificent. but i think this committee in congress in a previous authorization recognized that there is other opportunities. and while we're very proud of the ia a ff, i wouldn't limit it there are lot of folks that have very vibrant training programs. for example, the one i know best obviously is the iaff. we have several grant programs funded through the department of energy, department of homeland security, and department that are predicated on training. we have programs certified to meet the standards and the approval of the fire academy and other sources through the fire service, but they're delivered very economically on a local level. meaning if there is a need for a training course and hypothetically a town in oregon, we would find instructors who are already trained and certified in portland.

their day job may be being a firefighter in portland or medford or somewhere else, but they would be dispatched to this area that needs training, and basically, only be compensated for the period that they're actually training. they're spread geographically across the nation. so it's a very efficient and economical way of delivering the training. that cadre of instructors currently exists. and if we were contracted or through some mechanism be allowed that opportunity to put these programs in the field, and again, i don't limit this simply to the iaff, but it is certainly a very good model of training. it's especially effective because it's not just an academic setting, it is an actual firefighter who may be an expert in hazmat response, training other firefighters in that discipline. so there is that natural respect and camaraderie. and it's just a very good way of expanding training profiles and getting a curriculum in the field that you avoid travel costs and residency and things of that nature. >> thank you. i want to turn the rest of my

time over to the issue of fire grants. in 2009, again in 2011, i helped introduce legislation to reauthorize the fire grant program. unfortunately, neither of these initiatives have been passed in the law. the reauthorization legislation would make these grants more accessible to fire departments across the country and bring stability to the crucial source of funds for local fire authorities. dr. hall, in your testimony you speak to the importance of these grant programs and the effects they have had in our communities. can you comment on the importance of authorizing these programs and your thoughts on the proposed changes and the reauthorizing language. >> thank you, congressman. yes. we have considerable analysis which was done in association with our needs assessment surveys to demonstrate the good targeting and the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of

the grants programs in all kinds of different resource areas. we have made the results of those studies available to every member of congress and their staff, and we'd be happy to discuss these things in detail at your discretion. i do not honestly have any suggestions or thoughts on the reauthorizing language. i know our washington, d.c. office would be more than happy to discuss that kind of detail with any of you and your staffs as you go forward. >> all right, thank you. i appreciate that, and hopefully we'll continue to take advantage of that opportunity. i hope my colleagues do also. and with that i will yield back the remainder of my time. >> thank you, mr. lipinski. now i'm going to open it up to a second round for those who would like to ask additional questions. i recognize myself for five minutes. there has been a lot of discussion about resources.

and i understand that over the course of a number of different years that the authorization level has been up to $70 million for the usfa. and then the appropriations actually came in much lower than that. and i think in the 2013 house funding bill, base it provides $42.46 million, which is right about the same level of the request from the president and his budget. i know that's not the level you would like, but i do think that this hearing has been very informative to see what the priorities of the usfa and how we can support your endeavors in very tough budgetary times. i think that providing an authorization level that is much higher than when really we can afford i think is a little bit irresponsible, but i do want to continue to go down and see what priorities and what we can do to make sure that we are giving the support that is necessary, even though we may not be getting to

the levels that you would like. so i do pralt everybody's testimony. and i want to go to chief critchley. talking about how wildfires are becoming a significant threat. as you know, arizona is now battling four wildfires in the central and eastern state. and we had the wildfire last year, and we continue to see this. can you see this, kind of give me some insight on why are wildfires becoming a more significant threat? is it forced management policies, insure that we're keeping fuel loads low and trees thinned to a healthy level, or patterns of development because people are moving closer to forests, or is it a combination of both? >> thank you. i would say it's a combination of both. i'm not as well versed on the fuels management program that they have, but i can promise you that as we grow as a community, we're reaching out into areas that were never designed for

fire trucks to get in to take care of. so as we expand the size of our cities or the movement out into the urban interface area, we just increased the number of buildings that are going to be hurt during a wildland fire. so i believe it's both, but primarily it's the way that we're managing our growth. >> okay, thanks. and chief mitchell, do you have any thoughts on why they are becoming more significant? >> again, i'm not as familiar with the fuel management part of it. although there is -- we are engaged with other agencies now, and studying fuel management and how fuel management versus fire response and prevention all interact. but coming up in the fire service in the southern california, i know a large part of the problem was based upon more building and living in the interphase zones.

the lack of fire resistive construction in those areas, and some of the other preventative and mitigation measures that could and should be enacted to prevent loss. >> okay. thank you. and dr. hall, it's been described that one of usfa's training challenges is reaching out to all firefighters across the country and increasing online classes and distance trains. has the nfpa performed any research to try to quantify the impact of training programs? and has the nfpa specifically measured the effectiveness of remote training? >> thank you, mr. chairman. the analysis that we have conducted is not at that level of detail. we have results that indicate that the training situation for the fire service has improved to a limited degree. between the first of our needs assessment surveys and the more

recent survey, but we have not been in a position to look at specific data about people reached or the efficiency of particular methods of delivery. >> okay. thank you very much. and i recognize the ranking member, ms. edwards. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for this second round of questions. i want to go back to the issue of credentialing, because i recognize that, you know, we have a lot of local fire departments. firefighting is essentially a local activity. but we also have a number of circumstances, particularly in major disasters where we're calling on one jurisdiction to support another jurisdiction. and for me, this is where the question of credential comes forward, because i think it's really important for us to make sure that whomever is responding in whatever jurisdiction has the same capacities so that they kind of fit right into the program and are able to respond appropriately. so mr. o'connor, can you elaborate on the recommendation

for credentialing and explain why you think it's important and then if chief mitchell could comment on the status, because i think mr. o'connor, in your testimony you indicated that there is some, you know, lagging because it's been in the hopper since 2006. >> yes. this was something that was brought forth after 9/11 and certainly katrina. and you've actually articulated it very well. i don't think anyone on a federal level or even the fire service wants to suggest to local communities what their level of fire train shotgun be or ought to be. that is up to a local community. we recognize that. we don't want to try to intervene with that. however, on those larger scale instances, whether it's flooding in the plains, a hurricane coming ashore, wildfire, whatever the instance, you need a trained and appropriately skilled responder to actually handle that type of a crisis. throughout very many fire departments, as you know, i was

a structural firefighter in baltimore county, i don't have the training in wildland firefighting. so it would be useless to have me dispatched to that type of an incident. so the point of this is to make sure that instinct commanders, and there are some type if you will clearing house or databasing, that firefighters and departments are actually type cast so you know what training -- to what level of responders are trained. it just makes common sense. and i think everyone recognizes that. i also recognize that this was not specifically tasked to the u.s. fire administration. it was in the agency, but it's something that frankly is a responsibility of the incident commander and the people responding. and it's why it is so important that it is followed through. >> administrator mitchell, then, if you could comment about what the status is and sort of where we're moving on that. if this is something we've been considering since 2006, and my

recollection is that on -- in the 9/11 disaster, where you had people who understandably departments that wanted to respond, but in a very unique fire situation, you could see how making sure that you've got the right people responding could be -- could be life-saving. >> yes. i've worked in a very active mutual aid system myself for many years. and we do recognize how important it is that people are able to work together at the essential levels for their own safety, and in order to be effective. i've been advised that the fire administration and the fire academy did a credentialing review and took input from the fire service and made a recommendation internal to fema to the nick. i would have to in about 2005 or '06, i would have to get back to you on what that status is since our recommendation went forward. >> that would be extremely

helpful. because it's 2012, and, you know, it would it seems to me that if a recommendation has been made from the experts, then there should be some way that that gets expedited for consideration. six years is a good way to expedite things. thank you. and then lastly, chief mitchell, in the authorizing bill, there is a requirement for the secretary of homeland security in consultation with the fire administration to establish a fire service position at the national operations center. and i've been given to understand that that is not a full-time position with full-time status. can you update us on that requirement and how it's being fulfilled by the fire administration? >> that is correct. it was not approved as 24/7 in terms of full-time. but as a full-time position for a person to deal with the transfer of data and information.

that position has been approved and is presently being advertised for. so we are in the process of filling that position. >> and is it important that there be, you know, sort of a concerted person designated from the fire administration representing the fire services at the national operations center? >> yes. we believe that would be extremely helpful as far as when you say full-time, if we're talking about around the clock, given the resource demands. that's probably not our most efficient way. if the threat level were raised to a point, we would handle it as we do other positions at that time, and then staff up around the clock based on conditions. but on a day-to-day basis, it would be a full-time equivalent position. >> thank you very much. and thanks to all the witnesses. >> thank you, senators. i would like to thank the witnesses for their valuable questions. may have additional questions for the witnesses and will ask you to respond to those in

writing. the record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments from witnesses and members. the witnesses are excused. thank you all for coming. this meeting is adjourned. next on c-span 3, the daily pentagon briefing covered a meeting between defense secretary leon panetta and the israeli defense minister. we'll look at facebook's ipo and

the company's lobbying efforts on capitol hill. and later, the british levinsohn inquiry investigates the relationship between tony blair's government and rupert murdoch's news corp. >> when immigrants start to show up in significant numbers, which is somewhat the case in the 1820s and 1830s, but really very much the case in the 1840s and afterwards, they're showing up into a political environment in which they're already qualified to vote as soon as they become citizens. just to give you a sense of the kind of politics we're talking about, this is an image from harper's weekly in 1858 around election time, or just after election time. and it shows a saloon and a polling place. if you wanted to vote, if you see the doorway all the way in the back, you had to go in there to vote. >> this weekend on lectures in history, from muncie, indiana, ball state university professor jame connelly examines immigration, voting, and the roots of pluralism in the united

states, part of american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. at today's pentagon briefing, acting assistant secretary of defense george little discussed thursday's meeting between defense secretary leon panetta and his his israeli counterpart. following the meeting, secretary panetta announced plans to give israel an extra $70 million for a short range missile defense program called iron dome. this is a half hour. >> good afternoon. before taking your questions, let me preview the next few days. this weekend, as you know, secretary panetta travels to chicago for the nato summit. at the summit, secretary panetta will participate in discussions with heads of state and will attend three north atlantic council sessions. the first on 21st century century nato capabilities, the

second with isaf nations on long-term commitment to afghanistan, and the third on nato partnerships involving partners in the libya operation and discussing how nato can work with these and other nations in the future. in addition to these sessions, the secretary will have the opportunity to convene a working dinner of his fellow defense ministers. this summit comes at an important and historic time for the alliance. nato nations have come a long way together in recent years, and allies and partners can take stock of that and look for ways to strengthen cooperation in the future. on afghanistan, which as you know is a major focus of the summit, the secretary confident that the alliance will demonstrate its commitment in finishing the job in that country. that means implementing the framework in accordance with the framework in together, out together. last year was a turning point for that effort in afghanistan, and progress has continued this year. the taliban have been weakened.

al qaeda's organization has been decimated, and violence levels are down across the country, including in helmand and kandahar provinces in the south. the third tranche of transition will bring three-quarters of the afghan people under afghan security lead. all of that has sent a clear signal that the campaign is on track, and that the international community remains committed to helping afghanistan secure and govern itself. secretary panetta looks forward to discussing with fellow ministers how to continue the transition to afghan lead, to support sustainment of the naff and to determine the long-term relationship nato will have with afghanistan. all of these steps will help define how we can responsibly conclude the war in afghanistan while achieving our objectives and building a long-term partnership with the afghan people. also while in chicago, the secretary will join secretary shinseki for a visit to the james a. level federal health care center, which is a first of the kind joint dod/v.a.

hospital. the systems continue to expand and integrate their services. this visit provides an opportunity for both secretaries to meet health care professionals and continue their dialogue about how to deliver the best possible treatment and care for our service members and veterans. following a visit there, there will be a joint press conference with the secretaries, and we will send out a media advisory with additional details as well. with that, let me open it up to your questions. lita? >> george, two things. one, can you talk anything anymore about the discussions the secretary had with minister barak, specifically about iran. nuclear talks are going to start next week. and there has been a couple i guess estimates of how much the new pakistan ground roots are going to cost, from like 1500 to 5,000 a day. can you provide any reality into some of these numbers and talk

about when you think this may be a little bit more enlightening. >> sure. on the first question, lita, the secretary and minister barak had a very positive meeting today. you saw the statement that came out of that meeting on iron dome. i think the secretary has met with minister barak more than any other defense minister since he became secretary of defense. they met here at the pentagon. they met of course in israel last fall, and they have met in canada. so they have a very good working relationship. and the clear message that these meetings send is that we have an unwavering commitment to the security of israel. that's reflected across the range of challenges that we both confront, and of course you saw the announcement on iron dome today which signals our continued commitment to israeli missile defense capabilities. while i can't get into the specifics of their discussion, i can say that they over the course of their dialogue over

the past several months have discussed global and regional security challenges. and i think that reflects their discussion today. on the issue of pakistan and the discussions we're having with the pakastanis on the ground lines of communication, those discussions continue. and i don't want to get into the specifics at this stage, but we remain hopeful that the ground supply routes will remain open. and of course that's very important we believe to our effort in afghanistan. our supplies are sound, and the country around that right now, but it would be helpful to have those routes reopened. >> following iron dome, is the department looking for any applications that iron dome might have for the united states for either protecting site installations, for perhaps navy ships, et cetera. >> the focus of our iron dome is of course on israel at this

stage. if there are applications elsewhere, i can't rule out the possibility that we would be looking to transfer that knowledge elsewhere. but this really is about israel and our commitment to that system. as you know, in march, that system was responsible for taking down -- excuse me, 80% of several hundred rockets directed toward israel. so it's a proven system that works. and that's why you saw today's announcement. it's a proven system. missile defense is important to israel, and we're committed to supporting the israelis. tony? >> a little bit more on. this because $70 million in fiscal 12. is that what you're providing? >> that's what we're proposing as a reprograming effort. >> and yet congress and for the fiscal 13 budget has budgeted $680 million versus $70 million. it does seem like a bit of a

david and goliath mismatch financially. why so little money and are you going to be supportive of the $680 million? >> well, we're supportive of is a very structured approach with the israelis. and they agree with us. as you saw from mr. barak's statement today. 70 million this year. and then at the end of the year, we'll assess where we are. this is about assessing new technical challenges that may come our way, threats in the future. so we need to make adjustments going forward. but i think it's safe to say that we have an enduring commitment to israeli missile defense. what the number will be in the out years, i don't know. for the moment, but we expect to have a continued commitment to missile defense in the future. so this is about -- this is about preserving a structured approach. it's prudent and measured. >> last week secretary panetta complained about the ads from congress that they'll take from

other needed programs. $680 million was not requested by the pentagon. are you going to oppose that money to israel, or is that pretty much off the table in terms of opposition because it's israel? >> we're talking about proposed reprograming, tony, here, and that's $70 million is not a small sum, but it's certainly not as large as $680 million. this is, again, about a prudent, measured approach toward supporting israeli missile defense. and i don't see this having a major impact on our budget proposals. this is perfectly consistent with our defense strategy, and our commitment to the alliance with israel. >> i'm talking about the $680 million. >> that never happens. >> in the '13 budget, it has nothing to do with your budget proposal. i'm asking, it's well above anything you have requested for iron dome in '13, which was zero. >> what we've been authorized to support this year is $70 million. we're going to preserve

flexibility to possess outyear funding levels, and our outyear support for iron dome. okay? joe? >> the united states envoy to israel has said yesterday that the u.s. military plan to attack iran is ready. do you have any comment on that, and do you see any changes in the united states' position in regards to how to deal with irani nuclear program, and mainly in the negotiations with iran? >> our policy has not changed, joe, at all. i think the ambassador's comments are perfectly in line with what we've been saying for a while with respect to iran. our focus in the united states is on using diplomatic and economic instruments, not just national power, but international power to bring pressure to bear on the iranians to do the right thing.

and on the diplomatic front, of course, we're looking to the 5-5 plus 1 talks to move the iranians in the right direction. the ambassador was absolutely correct in saying that no options are off the table. but those options are not something that are being contemplated at this point in terms of the military option. so we continue to pretty on the diplomatic and economic runs. as you've heard the secretary say, it's critical that we maintain international consensus and international pressure on iran. and we look forward to the f-5 plus one hopefully achieving results. >> you not confirm that the u.s. military plan to attack iran is ready? that's what he said. >> well, the pentagon, as i've said from this podium in other forums, this building is a professional planning organization. we're prepared for a variety of

contingencies around the world, to including contingencies in the middle east. yes? >> hi, george. can i get something that is taken from you regarding the journals story, yesterday? >> obviously aware of "the wall street journal" story, and what i can say about the story is that -- while i won't comment on intelligence sharing with our turkish allies, we have enduring and very strong military to military relationship with turkey. well work with turkey across a wide range of national security challenges, and we are of course an important nato partner. the importance of counter ppk efforts is critical, as the secretary indicated during his trip to turkey last year. and we will continue to work with turkey on counter pkk efforts and on other challenges. >> i'm sorry, is this a