quality is deteriorate as a result of fire activity. increased organics have led to increased capital and operational costs at city water treatment plants. these treatment facilities have been upgraded to handle the increased levels at cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. we know from science and experience exactly what needs to be done to mitigate these impacts. we know that we need to act quickly to thin overcrowded and unhealthy forests. we know we need to establish a forest products industry to carry out treatments and create an economy around forest restoration. and we know we need public policy at all levels of government to facilitate and invest this forest restoration. srp is actively involved in efforts efforts in all of these areas through our engagement in public/private partnerships. for example, we have started a forest fund in partnership with the national forest foundation to raise funds and invest? forest restoration projects that

protect our watershed. we're also involved in a project with the forest service, bureau of reclamation city and national tore rest foundation to treat the 634,000 acre watershed that drains into the cc craigen reservoir. the projects we're currently involved with highlight the need to improve federal policy to more efficiently make progress in restoring our forests and protecting our watersheds. specifically there is a need to improve both fire suppression budgeting and the planning and compliance process for restoration proper skrektss. the cc craigen is a perfect example of why we need to address both issues at the same time. we appreciate the priority of the tore rest service and department of interior have praised on this project, however, despite the significance funding and staff dedicated, it is expected to take at least two if not three years before any thinning can be

done on the ground. this is too long to simply hope that a fire doesn't destroy the craigen watershed. we must find a way to move forward more quickly by utilizing the significance data and knowledge that already exists within the forest service. my written testimony includes some additional policy suggestions, but i wanted to highlight one issue related to fire borrowing. as the committee continues to address fire suppression budgets, it is also important that the provisions include a dedicated and secure funding stream for forest restoration in order to promote the certainty needed to encourage private sector investment. the greatest risk to our are forest is catastrophic wildfire and we need to rebalance the requirements placed on these types of projects to reflect that reality. the problems, the solutions and the consequences of inaction are clear, and i look forward to working together with this committee on our shared goals of protecting the forests and

watersheds our communities rely on and enjoy. thank you again and i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> thank you to all of our witnesses here this morning. as i mentioned after the chief's testimony, i think we would all agree we have to figure out how we stop this fire bore he rowing because when we're talking about how we deal with treatment how we work to mitigate the risk here, it takes dollars and when you've spent all of your dollars on the suppression it doesn't leave you much room for further opportunity there. the concern here is that the suppression costs are out of control. and, chief, i know you are very support difference of supportive of a wildfire cap adjustment, but from what would have heard

this morning, it's not necessarily the silver bullet to address the skyrocketing costs of wildfire suppression spending. so how we deal with that is something i'd like to focus on this morning. you have described the hazardous fuel reduction projects that are critical to protecting whether it's the watersheds that you've noted or just other areas there. the comment that you make, mr. hollin that we know what it is we need to and yet we can't get to that point two to 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 he hope that there will not be a lightning strike that is going

to bring about disaster here. so chief can you speak to this? are we in a situation where we're more worried about kind of checking the boxes here and making sure that we've gone through a critical process or are we acting with the level of urgency that i think you've heard from everybody here at this table with regards to these critical projects that will help us from the preventive perspective? because i think we would agree that if we can he prevent these in the first praiselace, we can get a better ham better handle on these suppression costs. what seems to be slowing the process up? >> one of the issues we've dealt with in the past is needing do a large enough project where it actually makes a give.

and that's where we've moved to taking a more landscape scale approach. in the past the healthy forest restoration act which you passed a few years ago which gave us a stream lined process was a very good tool. the problem with that is that it was limited to certain criteria. when we looked at larger landscapes, we could use that authority on a piece of the project, but it wouldn't apply to these tens of thousands of abers. now it gives us more flexibility to be able to use that approach looking at one action alternative and a no action. so we can streamline the process. >> let me ask you on that -- >> the key is larger landscapes. >> as we were requestinggoing to the vote, the senator azraised the issue that there were additional

provisions to do what you said. are these additional authorities being utilized at this points are they making a difference? >> we're beginning to utilize them. we have projects going forward with that. in fy 16 many of our projects will be using these new authorities. but we often take a year of planning and going through the nepa before being implemented. >> and i think this is the concern, that we have this process that we have to go through. is thereanyway anyany way to expedite that? >> one of the difficulties that we do have with the ny way to expedite that? >> one of the difficulties that we do have with the craigen watershed, we would prefer full scale restoration, but we decided to move forward with the

healthy recent tore restoration act. we have 25 years in understanding the types of fires, where the endangered species are located and the extent of the watershed itself on those areas that are highly susceptibility to wildfire risk. the problem is they have to go through an entire eis process that essential swli designed from what i gather and watching staff is designed to essentially avoid litigation. we know what the issue is. we know that these forests need to be thinned. we know that the greatest threat to those species that the eis is designed to protect is catastrophic wildfire, but unfortunately, we have to go through the same process another two years before we can ultimately get thisin there and thin those forests. >> we hear this so often, that what we're attempting to do is

avoid litigation and in the meantime lightning strikes and we're paying the cost. senator. >> thank you to the witnesses. thank you for your testimony and work in this area. it's very important. your key point about the fact that thinning and prescribed fire created the most long term resilient forests to future disturbances. so i want to drill down on that because i think that is a culmination of your conclusions which is very important in looking at all these options. and chief tidwell your testimony stated the tore rest service has identified 12 million acres that need hazardous fuel reduction, but the budget year after year only requests about $300 million for those treatments. so is that sufficient funding needed for those highest priority areas and so what do we need to do to get a more realistic number. and i also wanted to ask you about -- sorry to put all this out there, but that's the best

way to get all the answers we need. some you can give me in writing, too. but secondly, just this whole issue of do we have the best communication that we need for communities during these fires some? did to we need more coordination with fema, should fema be part of thee need more coordination with fema, should fema be part of the command team? it if the communication infrastructure doesn't exist anymore, how are we making sure that we don't have to wait two weeks to communicate about the ongoing crisis given the level of, you though huge fires increases that we're seeing. and does your agency have a permanent agreement with the faa on an application with them on

drones? i would like to see this not be an issue where every state that has a fire and then wants to know whether the drones can be deployed to get a better understanding or mapping or what have you, i'd like to be a natural course between the forest service so that we don't have delays. because i think they are providing us very vital information about these fires. >> i'll start with the last request. we are working very closely with the faa to be able to use the unmanned aircraft to be able to collect the information. and we have a team that has been put into place to be able to explore. the challenge for us is to be able to understand what information we need and when we need it so that because the potential there is there is so many data that is available, but we have to be able to prioritize it so we can quickly be able to use it. so we'll be moving forward this year, we'll be working with faa and also the states to be able to start to use the information,

probably simply mapping is one of the simple and looking for hot spots especially outside the line where we've had success in the past. >> but you'll do a permanent application so you won't have to keep going back and forth all the time? >> we'll be working in that direction so that it's automatic and that under these conditions we can use the aircraft. your question about what happened with the aftermath or even did have the carlton fire it really stresses how we need to do a better job with our pre-planning. and we do a good job working with communities so they're ready for the fire. but based on that experience, we need do a better job dealing with things like communications. we need to make sure communities have an emergency communication system in lays. so that whatever it takes so we

can maintain communications. homeowners didn't know what was going on. i can't imagine that level of stress that would come from that situation. so it's one of the things that we've learned we need to get that in place. we need to actually do a better job than we have been with utility companies. they're always great to step right in and ready to roll. but we need to include them also in our pre-planning meetings so that when the next karl top happens, yeah, we'll have the fire to deal with but he same time, we can provide a higher and better level of support to those communities to be able to eliminate some of the impact and get your services restored faster. >> so does fema need to be a permanent part? >> yes, definitely. and they are part of the solution. and we'll continue to work with them. >> i just want to point out for my colleagues but this is after 149,000 acres burned the

winthrop twist valley area was without communication and yet fires were still all around them. no one had any way to communicate with people other than as i said trying to go through the town. so it taught me -- communities need to be alble to get a mobile broadband unit to be able to be deployed instead of waiting two or three weeks. this is all about who is going to pay for this in the end and we're hesitating. our constituents are without vital communications in a disaster. and if this is what we're seeing because of the impacts of these drastic events because of weather, i just position we need to look at these events and say we need a better communication response in the aftermath and figuring out how do that for these communities. thank you.

>> thank you madame chair. chief tidwell, i share your support for a solution to the wildfire funding challenge. i've spent a lot of time traveling across montana hearing from groups. i think we have great broad spectrum agreement something has to change in the way wildfire feeting ing fighting is funded. and i'm hoping we resolve this year and i'll do everything i can to make that happen. your office provided me information indicating that over 7 million federal acres in montana are at high or very high risk of wildfire. most of which are managed by the forest service. that's approximately one in four federally controlled acres in montana. i was further told that nearly 2 million of these acres are most in need of treatment because they are near populated communities or the watersheds. unfortunately, i was informed that the forest service did it hazardous fuel treatment on only

about 52,000 of those acres in the last fiscal year. i've got no doubt that the work that was done there was important. but the current pace of treatment is simply not acceptable. certainly our communities, our watersheds our wild life habitat, access to recreation are at real risk to wildfire. more than 10 years ago, congress provided enhanced authorities to the forest service to reduce hazardous fuels through the healthy forest recreation act. you mentioned that. but as noted, these authorities are clearly not adequate and the hfra clearly has shortfalls. what in your way are the barriers to getting more done there? >> as i shared earlier, the healthy forest restoration act continues to be a good authority for us. but it is limited to certain areas based on the criteria that

is required. you need to have a hazardous fuel com poe thepts. and we really need to be looking at the the entire landscapes, the full restoration work. what we need to do in the entire watershed it's been pointed out from some of the witnesses, that is a much better approach. so we look at healthy forest restoration act and thousand with the new farm bill authorities that allow us to be able to use the similar type of nepa approach, but also address where we have insect and disease, by putting those together, it will allow us to take a more total landscape approach and to be able to look at not thousands of acres, we just have to be looking at tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of acres at a time and to be able to have the nepa in place for the next ten years we can be able to get in there and do the work that needs to be

done. those are the things that will make a difference. >> i truly appreciate your commitment to finding solutions that will improve forest health and also increase responsible timber harvest in honest tanmontana. we look forward to further discussions to achieve that goal. i want to ask dr. hood a question. first of all welcome to our nation's capital. good to have another montanann in the room and someone who intimately he intimately knows the challenges. your testimony focused largely on the role of fire.the room and someone who intimately knows the challenges. your testimony focused largely on the role of fire. i remember seeing this when i was a kid back in the 70s and now we're seeing it again. my children are seeing it as well. and notice he know your research was primarily focused in the rocky mountain region but montana has millions of acres that are damaged by beetle killing. i'm pleased that congress

recently gave the forest service new authorities to tackle this huge challenge in montana, but based on your research, how could increased management including thinning and prudently removing dead timber be used to improve the health of forests and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire? >> so in order to increase the health of our forest, thinning is definitely a -- should be a valid -- or a good management tool. my research also showed that having prescribed fires and low severity naturally occurring wildfires stimulates tree defenses. so having that combination of thiping and prescribed burning and then areas that we have

treated to allow naturally -- to consider allowing ignitions to to -- allow fires to burn further perpetuates a healthy forest that could be resistant to bark beetles. i think we'll always have some level of bark beetles. they're native insects to our forests. but doing treatments and promoting a patchy landscape can certainly hep reduce the severity of those outbreaks. >> thanks, stwrdoctor. >> chief tidwell, you and i have talked before about the role of climate change in all of this. and we've talked about removal of hazardous fuel as we've been talking about today in different

ways. and one of the ways that i think that we could possibly and i want to ask anybody about this to remove more hazardous fuel and be able to do it in a way that costs less is by monetizing that biohas. and by monetizing it, using it burning it and create electricity, combine heat and power, which is something that the chair and i have talked about. there is a lot of obviously areas in alaska where this hazardous fuel after all biomass you can argue zero carbon

footprint, we can solve a lot of things at the same time. there is obviously a lot of challenges to this in terms of remoteness and moving this stuff and using it. but we're talking about the wild land urban interface, so there is obviously areas where this is near a populated area. how can we -- what are some of the challenges standing in the way of more utilization of this tremendous resource? and this is for anyone. and what are your recommendations for overcoming these challenges or is there a there there is what i'm saying? >> well, i'll start senator. the challenge is to be able to demonstrate that it's economically viable. and so to be able to create these markets. and we need to continue to make

investments to help people to do the business case analysis before they make the investment, we need to continue to use our authorities like the b cap authority where we can subsidize transportation of this biomass material to a facility, and to be able to get more and more demonstration projects. at the same time we need to continue our research not only to increase the efficiency of these systems, but also for things like with pellet production, to be able to find a more efficient way to develop a pellet to increase the btus to increase the economics on it. i think we also need to just factorhe consequences if we don't. what is this cost avoidance. if we could ever capture a way to really consider that i think it would really help with the economics of this. if we think about by thinning out these forests the reduction of risk that's occurred and then by being able to use the material for either to use it into a wood product material or

for energy consumption, if we could factor in the cost avoidance benefit on that i think that the economics would sell itself on this. but we'll have to continue with our research, continue with demonstration projects and to be able to also have a guaranteed supply of biomass. if ear going toyou're going to make an investment, you'd need to have the bank loan money. so we need to show that there is a ten year contract. you can take that to the bank that without any question materials will be there. so those are some of the things we need to itt continue to work on. >> i agree with you and i think there is a cost to not doing this. so are we doing the pilot projects, are we exploring this enough? do we need do anything here in this committee and in congress

to facilitate overcoming this challenge so that we can do something that especially with energy storage and distributed energy, how we can make this a piece so that you will have the ability to do -- to remove hazardous fuel because it's monetized so we can do more of it and make it make sense? anybody? yes, mr. hollin. >> thank you for the question senator. at salt river project, there is a biomass plant that we actually buy half of the power at that facility. and one of the challenges as chief tidwell mentioned was the fact of to ensure that you have material at that plant. so we don't need any undue delays to ensure that there is material available at the biomass plant. i think secondly there is another added value benefit by going in and thinning these forests, there is essentially an

avoided release of car upon. when you have these catastrophic wildfires, there is a major release of car onebon into the air. >> release it as energy that we use for electricity rather than just go up into the atmosphere. >> yes. >> thank you madame chair. i really want to continue -- every time you testify, i bring this a little bit further. but i really want to keep exploring that especially with the chair. >> thank you for the testimony. nice to have a couple of arizonians here. bruce, good to see you. we've talked on a number of occasions. i appreciate the testimony from those who know so much on this. i appreciate the work of chief tidwell. i think it's important to acknowledge some of the positive

developments that we've seen recently related to forest management. last month i think all of us were encouraged to learn phase one the record of decision was signed that will allow as chief talked about large scale management rather than just a couple of thousand acres here or there. the paltry 3,000 husbandacres that have so far been treated is emblem hat tick that it is too slow. we have to do it on a much larger scale. you've noted 58 million acres at high or very high risk. we have to move on a larger scale. so we all recognize achieving reduction in hazardous fuels is critical. and we've got to find a way to solve this fire borrowing issue.

i like some of the proposals that have been put forward. myself and other senators have put forward, as well. by way of disrupting these activity, in terms of suppression, we're putting hazardous fuels reduction on hold, we're also putting communities and firefighters at risk as we know all too well in arizona. and as bruce talked about today we're also increasing challenges for maintaining a healthy watershed and for what that does to drinking water supplies. and for all these reasons i'm obviously supportive of efforts to restore or -- i'm sorry resolve the fire borrowing issue by allowing a limited adjustment to statutory budget caps under specific circumstances or scenarios. for example, when the forest service and doi exceed an

anticipatable or those that we can can forecast, they are not doubt impactful on water quality and wildlife, but we condition let the disastrous nature of wildfire make us lose sight of the dosss s costs of fighting fires. many of the costs both preventing and as well as fighting fires can be anticipated like municipal fire departments that budget for expected personnel and incident response costs. i believe that we can do of the same here. i would agree that on the significance of the problems that wildfires present, but where there is some disagreement is dealing with these so-called anticipatable costs. i would support efforts and

recognize that in some years there will be large fires that drive the wildfire suppression costs well above those that were anticipated in those years that the agencies have been appropriated 100% of the anticipated cost i think that limited budget cap adjustments to allow the agencies to fight fire without borrowing from other sources would make sense. but again, if they have been fully budgeted for what is easily anticipated as a realistic cost of suppression, then that would apply. frankly, i would like to see sufficient funds on the front end. i think we all would like to see that. to be put into suppression activities, as well. sound budgeting requires dealing with both prevent beable symptoms as well as resulting disasters. what i disagree with is the notion that we should simply

move 30% of those anticipated costs off the budget because it's convenient or because it creates additional flexibility for increased tending under the statutory budget caps, paying for one disaster while furthering our current fiscal disaster doesn't make sense. and we need to be realistic about what we can do, we need to deal with the house as well and be realistic about what we can budget for and what we can't. there is a solution to be found on the issue i believe that involves flexibility, but only after 100% of those anticipatable suppression costs have been expended. let's not confuse disasters with unanticipated costs. we need to plan for what is likely to occur to take steps necessary to prevent those disasters from occurring. and then use flexibility in those rare years where we go over those costs. i hope that high colleagues and

the administration will come together and find a solution, a long term solution, on this issue. i didn't want to use all my time speaking here, but i believe i have. so thank you, hadmadame chair. >> >> senator flake, i think this is a keep part that what this committee will be grapling with. i too hope we is k. find that agreement. we have to be realistic in terms of what we're facing and it has to be a solution that is more lasting than what year dealing with rights now, which is interim stopgap and again pr row borrowing that hurts everybody. we'll be working with you on this. >> chief, at the beginning i think you apologized for bringing up fire borrowing once again. i think most of us up here would say don't apologize and keep bringing it up until we find a

workable way forward on this. because it is sort of the elephant in the room here. and we have to fix that piece of all of this one way or the other to be able to really scale these projects up to the kind of landscape levels that you were talking about. mr. hollin, i wanted to ask you to go into more detail about the kinds of projects you're doing and the partnerships. i know in new mexico, we've started to look at this and we have a couple of different things going one in the santa fe watershed, the santa fe water fund which use as contributions from water uses to match up with forest service funding and treat the watershed above santa fe. in addition the rio grande water fund is now doing a similar partnership on a much larger geographic area south of colorado and north of new

mexico. so if you would, just tell us a little bit more about those partnerships and how we might be able to learn from those things scale them to other regions to get some of those benefits that we see when we're able to connect downstream water users effectively to the health of their watershed which may be hundreds and hundreds of miles away. >> thank you senator, for the question. we found very quickly that there was a definite disconnect with many of the businesses and water users in the valley. and when i'm talking about the valley, phoenix metropolitan area, disconnects between a healthy forest and healthy watershed. and to begin getting the subject matter to a broader base group of individuals, we decided to work together with some of our larger power customers and other customers that receive energy

there srp and many of those organizations have green initiatives and other initiatives that they're looking at spending money to improve not only their product that they're delivering but also their image. so we sat down and found there were opportunities to link it with end years so we established the fund. now, the national forest foundation is congressionally authorized to use private funds as a 501-c 3 organization. we didn't want end users to think there was something in this for the salt river project respect it's actually for the watershed. so this northern arizona forest fund essentially we identified projects in partnership with the tore rest service that are outside of these large full

scale restoration projects, but they're smaller projects that have a begin date and an end date so that when you invest your money, you know specifically what you're investing in. >> i think that's really key. connecting up these users who don't or haven't in the past had an intuitive connection to where their water comes from. in santa fe's case, they can actually see their watershed. but for someone say in albuquerque or phoenix that watershed may be a long way away and connecting those things together is a pretty powerful tool. chief, i want to just ask you a quick question with my remaining time. we heard from dr. hd about thehood about using these treatments together prescribed low intensity fire, but using them in combination having by far the best results. are you able to do that as you scale up these landscape level

fuel treatments are you able to plan both the prescribed and natural fire piece and the mechanical fitting piece together in concert? >> yes. a lot of places it's necessary for us to have at least two entries into these areas. so first year we'll come in and do the thinning to reduce the total biomass and then follow it up with prescribed fire. and that is the right approaches specially in our dry forest types. and then once you have that thinning done, then you can continue to run that fire through there. either prescribed fire or with our natural fire. but often we need to do that meg cal treatment first it reduce the stand down to a level of biomass that we can then handle when we do have a fire. >> and probably a more historical level, at least within the pen der rosaw ponderosa pine in the west. >> yes.

>> thank you, madame chair. >> thank you. chief tidwell, as a doctor, i appreciate the adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. i'm concerned with the ever increasing need to fire borrow money from fire preventioning a differents and the declining health will of our national fosh forests. the administration seems intent wanting more without engaging in land management reform. the administration is set on maintaining failed status quo policies and culture of litigation. and as i said last month forest service has i believe lost its direction and purpose. the forest service has become a bureaucracy emphasizing internal processes over real results and improvements on the ground. so in my view, if we're going to increase fire prevention activities, then congress needs to direct and mandate results and outcomes.

so does either the administration proposal of s-235 contain language garnuaranteeing that it goes towards activities and provide language providing legislative reforms aimed at streamlining active management and reducing litigation? >> no it only eliminates the they'd to transfer and eliminates the stoppage of work in the fall. >> so i look at this and say we must prevent the practice of fire borrowing and prioritize funding for treatment activities to reduce future wildlife suppression costs about than's i didn't co-sponsored s-508 of 2015. i think we also have to streamline the way forest management activities are approved, make meaningful policy

reforms. it also includes innovative ideas like arbitration. we need to solve the challenges facing us. is the tore rest serviceforest service willing to find ways to find slupgss? >> we're of course very interested in working with the committee. as we've discussed in the past, this concept of arbitration, it's something that i'm interested in trying. i'd like to see us take on a pilot approach on to that. and part of that is that i need to see that it's a better solution. it sounds good in concept, but i really think we need to move into that, do some pilot approaches. and just to see where that can take us. but i think it's one of the things we want to continue to work with you on. >> so often 240esthose who oppose

active management, hazardous fuel projects, thinninging a ing a activity, they will destroy wildlife habitat. your testimony paints a different picture. in your view, what are the primary road blocks to improving watershed health and wild life oig habitat? >> in our experience it's been partially the process associated with nepa. we can find opportunities to accelerate nepa, we see that as an opportunity to move more rapidly forward. i think secondly, too there is -- and we're seeing this begin to change when it comes to the attitude of the forest service that to be in the project management business, to manage those forests, and to refocus their efforts on the reason why many of those forest reserves were created essentially to protect the water supply. >> and thinking about your professional career, one of your responsibilities was to protect and improve watersheds.

you described national environmental policy act as a weapon in hands of a few. in your testimony, you talk about the amount of time it's taking to complete the santa ana watershed environmental impact statement, i think you said over three years to undertake an action that is prudent and a misapplication of the intent of the law. how often to you see nepa being used as a weapon or barrier to actually improving watershed health? >> i think it's common. it's a long process and the whole deal is to avoid litigation from people that are obstructionists in my view. >> so if we do nothing, what are the consequences of what is happening with fires? >> well, do nothing is catastrophic fires, continuing catastrophic fires and having unhealthy forests and all the other things we've talked about

today. >> thank you. >> thank you, madame chair and thank you all for testifying. i wanted to note for the record that hawaii has a fire problem, also. and it is estimated that 0.5% of land in hawaii burns each year a percentage that is equal to or hire than what is experienced in western states. given that hawaii's native ecosystems are not fired a dapted, we are losing an alarming amount of native floor to wildfires. the nonnative glasses cover some 24% of hawaii's land creating landscapes that are flammable and highly susceptible to wildfire. so clearly this issue touches every single state. chief tidwell, you talked about healthy forest restoration act.

it sounded as though you have thought about making some -- or asking for some amendments to this law that would enable the forest service to as you put it take a total landscape approach not just looking at thousands of acres, but to be able to look at tens of thousands 6 acres. so do you have some suggested language that would provide more flexibility for the forest service to 6 acres. so do you have some suggested language that would provide more flexibility for the forest service toof 6 acres. so do you have some suggested language that would provide more flexibility for the forest service to6 acres. so do you have some suggested language that would provide more flexibility for the forest service to acres. so do you have some suggested language that would provide more flexibility for the forest service to deal with willthis problem? >> with the pass allegeage of the farm bill, and thank you again, it did expand the use of the healthy forest recent toration act. so if you combine that authority and the original, if does really expand on the ability to use in a information efficient nepa process on much larger landscapes. bon thing that may be helpful is

if we just had one authority instead of the two so that it would be a little easier for folks, our communities to understand. the reason we're able to get more and more work done each year is the level of support we have through these collaborative efforts. and it's been mentioned by the panelists here we need to be looking at not just the hazardous fuel issue, but also the total restoration projects, work that needs to be done to restore the overall watershed, reduce the hazardous fuels and create this resilient system. so it's essential that we always recognize that needs to be able to have the engagement with our communities, but being able to really reduce the number of alternatives that we need to address definitely speeds up the process and it keeps everybody at the table and allows us to get the work done sooner. >> so are you saying that with the com about an nationbination of the farm bill

provisions and the healthy forest restoration act, that you have enough authority but it would be clearer if we could put it all in one -- >> one way just to simplify it and make it easier for the public to understand and that now we can use it on a larger landscape. so it's one thing that we're thinking about if that's something that would really help us, but we've had some discussion on it. >> you talked about the need for collaborateing with communities across the board. so to you have a state by state program or plan that would enable communities and fire departmentsyou have a state by state program or plan that would enable communities and fire departments and state and counties to work collaboratively with the forest service to prevent the wildfires? do you have something for hawaii? >> in the past, we've done it more community by community, with communities that developed a community wildfire protection

plan. and now with the cohesive strategy that we just put out, it allows us to take more of a much larger landscape approach. so it recognizes not only to we need to have fired a ad dapt difference communities, but we also need have fire ad dapted human communities. so we're taking the action so that we're working together to reduce this threat. and these two efforts then along with the immediate to keep the suppression resources we have is really going to be i think very helpful for us to be able to move forward and address this problem that goes way beyond just the federal land. >> i'm sorry i'm running out of time. but you said you work community by community. are you working with any particular communities in hawaii? you -- >> i'll have to get back to you. the point you you raised about the invasives dealing with in hawaii, that's what we're doing

in so many stail statete. so i appreciate you bringing that forward that your state also deals with that issue. we'll get back to you with the list of the communityiescommunities. sfwr >> thank you madame chair. thank you to the witnesses for being here. it's a timely hearing we're having. on saturday, sthor bennett and i are hosting a summit. over two dozen wildfire experts, community experts, mitigation experts will be joining us. so i'll ask you about that. but i wanted to follow up on some of the testimony that you've made in your testimony you talked about progress in retrofitting the hc-138 share craft that the service acquired from the u.s. coast guard. how many of these will be ready to perform suppression missions

this summer? >> we'll have one of those aircraft in the latter part of the fire season that we're going to be putting a mass tank in to be able to start it use that this year. and then by the end of the year, we expect to see the second one. and then by it will be 2019 before we'll have probably all seven of them with the tanks built into the planes. >> and the time line for completing the work required to bring them into service 2019? >> yes, we'll have all acceptzheimer'sl seven in operation by them. >> what is the status of the forest ground water rule? >> we've withdrawn our initial proposed rule to allow us more time to continue to work with the states and the stakeholders to it really address this issue. our concern about making sure that we're not impacting you know, ground water. we're also -- i'm working with

our regional foresters to ensure that as we have to address these issues especially on large mines and oil and gas leases, that the lack of having a systemic consistent process doesn't become a barrier for being able to move forward and address those projects. but we're -- we've withdrawn for this time and going to continue to work with the states to be able to sometime in the future to have a solution to this issue so that we do not become the barrier to implementing these projects. >> one of the things you heard is a common theme, the committee is continuing to talk about the litigation and the parl sis that presents in terms of making sure we're managing our forest appropriately to avoid and prevent the catastrophic wildfire from happening in the first place. if there's one particular avenue of litigation or perhaps legislation that you could draft

yourself to avoid litigation that is stopping or upholding some forest management activities so needed. what would it be? >> i would look at ways to incentivize collaboration, i look at success we're having today versus earlier in my career, that is the one thing that's making the difference the level of support and understanding that we have to be able to do these projects so any way we can continue to encourage that, i also think this concept of arbitration is something that i'm interested in exploring and that might be a better way. the other thing is also, when we talk about to be able to reduce the amount of analysis we have to do instead of looking at five or six alternatives we look at two, that also allows us to be able to ensure we're addressing

issues around those alternatives versus having to look at the much broader piece of work. i think that will help us be more efficient and effective but those are things i've been thinking of. >> so the fema and disaster declarations, are you aware of the challenges we have after a fire and when it comes to the fema declarations have they weighed in on the proposal to change disaster declarations? >> we work very closely with the states during the fire on those to be able to make sure they are getting -- to be able to provide -- >> i'm talking about after the fire, long after the fire is out, we have the ongoing flooding issues and soil conditions and fema can sometimes leave the scene and then they have to receive their own designation. has the forest service wayed in

on changing the national declaration process that we can avoid the hurdles that are naturally occurring after a fire? >> we definitely recognize the problem. it's another area we need to work together and recognize that there's the fire and there's recovery afterwards and often that's more detrimental and impacting than the fire itself. as you've seen in your state, i think it's an opportunity where we can look at taking a different approach so that we can do a better job and work with our communities to have a timely response to go way beyond what we're doing. >> one question on the western slope this past weekend, talking to an individual who manages a gauge of railroad. he has the own fire fighting

fleet because there's a fire that started by the railroad that creates obviously liability and substantial damage to his community. as a result of some conflict between forest regulations he is sometimes limited in where he can send the fire fight fleet out to before it becomes a major fire and i would love to work with you in terms of trying to find out a way to partner with the service and this fire fighting fleet, both of the forest service and this individual have the same goal in mind, to prevent a forest fire from happening in the first place and perhaps make sure that we get regulations in the place where we're able to put the fire out without fingerpointing. >> we'd be glad to work with you and the individual on that. that's the sort of thing working through the state foresters that we have the authorities to be able to do that and may be making sure we got everything in

place. then also we have the concern of safety, to make sure whoever is responding has the equipment and knowledge and skills to do it safely. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chairman. you and i spoke briefly before the hearing about correspondence that your offices received in the state land board. and having lived in idaho you're familiar with the state land board and they oversee the state forest holdings. their concern as you and i have discussed and you discussed with many members of congress they are focused on some optimism around provisions of the farm bill that give us the opportunity to do these treatment projects we wanted to do. i think -- i don't need to tell you that there's a lot of frustration out there that it isn't moving as fast as we'd

like and maybe people had expectations raised beyond what is reality when you're dealing with the federal government. unfortunately. but i would urge to continue. i think this is -- it's still untested and i would urge that we continue to put one foot in front of the other and try to mature this process as rapidly as we can. >> senator, i agree with that and i'm glad to provide the land board in idaho and also to you and your staff just the list of all of the projects we have planned in idaho using the farm bill and then later this summer we'll finish the paperwork reduction act requirements so we can move forward with the good neighbor authority. we have taken additional time to work with the state foresters to produce tellplates how to use that. because of taking that additional time and doing

scenarios with them, where you'd actually go through a process to see how would this actually play out to be able to work together in a different project? because of that we made significant changes to that template that the feed back i'm getting from the state foresters that they feel that's going to be a much better tool. so taking more time will help us in the long run. >> i've spoken with mr. shultz who i think you know heads our state and he's interested to see this move forward and this has real potential if it's moved expeditiously and appropriately. i appreciate your efforts in that regard. i was surprised to hear you say that you were short on the ground of overhead photography in a fire. when i was governor we had a summer that there was a lot of fire and every morning before it got light i had in hand a map of

what the fire had done from satellite imagery other overhead imagery of what the fire had done the day before. i'm surprised to hear that this isn't available to you in san diego. i'm assuming you have satellite imagery in san diego like we do in idaho. what can you tell me about that? >> the process you're referring to the program where the forest service airplane flies an infrared plane over all of the fires burning and basically the western united states and fire teams have that information before 6:00 in the morning. do know where their fire is then. the issue is fires change during the day. we know where the fire was last night and where the fire was the night before. we don't have real time information. the forest service research does have an airplane with a fire mapper program that can fly above the altitude of the air

tankers and helicopters and now can continuously map that fire and send real time data down. but it's a research -- >> you're looking for hour by hour as opposed to what happened -- >> certainly or at least more than once every 24 hours. >> that makes sense and in today's world with the technology, it would seem that would not be that difficult to do. >> sometimes it is relatively predictable and sometimes not. thank you very much appreciate it. >> thank you, senator. >> i'd like to follow up on that, the first question goes to the environmental assessment and the allotment plan for the grazers in both cases they wanted changes made proactively. can you give me a status report

on how you're coming with that? >> senator, a follow-up with that meeting our staff going to continue to work with the grayson association members to be able to address their concerns. i think i want to thank you for hosting that meeting because i think it helped to clarify a few issues to help us move forward and address their concerns. >> you'll work with your state director and make adjustments that should work for ranchers? >> i was optimistic after listening to -- as one that will work and address the ranchers and other needs. a little different approach it would be and propose there that could help, i think really once

and for all kind of settle this one issue we've had there. >> i appreciate that. the other thing i would like to emphasize, working with scientist s scientists -- i think not only are they knowledgeable and focus on the science but they also have a lot of credibility with the ranchers in the area. i would emphasize you work closely with the issue in the range of scientists and particularly on the three and a half inch visual obstruction reading. i think they can help you to a solution that ranchers feel is common sense and workable. >> that's -- that's the issue that university and doctor he has come up with a different approach to determine which areas actually have the capability to produce that stubble pipe. and from the discussions we had at your meeting and follow-up discussion, i left there being

more optimistic that this is a better approach the university is coming up with us to be able to answer that question which areas are capable or not. we just need to be able to understand which areas are actually capable and which ones are not. once we can come to an agreement on that, i'm optimistic that we can put this issue behind us and move forward. >> in order to continue the demonstration project does that require legislation or is that something you can do without legislation? >> we can continue to work under that and we don't need additional legislation. >> that's important. let me switch to the fire piece, you're getting question on fires. it looks like we're drier this

year and certainly are drier this year starting out than we have been the last several. so i address your approach to the grass lands in terms of steps you're taking to be prepared for fires this season. you're focused on the forest but grass lantd as well. >> they are part of the national forest. when i talk about the national forest, i'm always including the grass lands. what we're doing in the state is what we're doing across the country, be working with our cooperators and volunteer fire departments so we're ready to go when the fire season -- which in your case already started. the day i was up there a couple days before we had several fires in your state that people were explaining to me they never see this level of fire behavior occurring so early in the year those are things to make sure we have resources we need and

people are ready and that if there's anything we need to adregs, we can take care of it ahead of time. in your state like many states, it's the volunteer fire departments that are big part of our initial attack resources. they are responsible for being able to get there quickly and address so many fires. it's like in your state and rest of the country, it takes all of us working together federal government, the state, counties and local fire to be able to deal with this. >> to address the controlled burn issue, particularly because it's dry, we really want you working with the people on the ground not just the landowners and obviously volunteer fire departments and everyone else, so touch on controlled burn for a minute. you're staying away from it this year because it's drier? what's your plan? >> definitely, when we have those conditions that we have up there, we often are not going to

get in -- to begin with. we're doing prescribed burns where we have the agreement and support and associations where -- part of your state that's a little bit wetter, that association is very supportive of more fire other parts that are drier, we don't have that -- at least that agreement at this point. so we're not going to be using a lot of prescribed fire in those areas until we have the right conditions and the level of agreement so that everyone is together on what's the value of this. and make sure that we're factoring in the risk to avoid the situation we had a couple of years ago. >> thanks again, chief appreciate it.

>> during the funny river we had last year on the peninsula, the state was able to use drones to determine where the hot spot was and found it very effective because it was one of those situations where the smoke was so thick you didn't know what was happening and there was no real way to pinpoint it at that time. the technologies that are out there, i think can clearly help to make a difference as we try to battle these fires. and you mentioned just the significance of having an app where people know of who is where from a safety perspective making sure those fighting our fires have some tools that perhaps we haven't had in the past. we haven't had much discussion this morning about the urban interface and the fact that 50

to 95% of forest services fire suppression costs are incurred protecting -- we know about the firewise program and we see the benefits of when a homeowner takes pro active steps to ensure a level of safety through clearing around their areas. i remember flying over the peninsula some years ago after horrible fires and you would see nothing but charred blackness and there would be a little island of green where you had to create a defensible space. just the education that goes on with the firewise program i think we recognize that we can reduce the cost of suppression

if the homeowners as well take an active role in management. chief, can you speak to what we're doing to encourage that end of it? again, it's preventive but are we using sufficient resources to allow for an understanding and training and education for folks so that those two are making a difference? >> madam chair, we're making even more and more progress with our cohesive strategy that we put together working closely with the states and counties and boroughs and cities, to come up with an understanding of really what it's going to take and then tools to be able to create that level of awareness especially with the private landowners and then to be able to set up information projects around the

country, to show -- so that it's going to those areas where the state and private landowner is doing the work on their land. so that we can make a more effective treatment area. so those are things that we're continuing to do and i think that it's nothing -- it encourages more people to maybe do the right thing with their private land than have those demonstration projects where they can see the difference that it makes and what it takes. some folks think they have to completely clear all of their land of all trees and brush. we don't need to do anything to that level. those demonstration projects really helping the private landowners available to see this is really what i need to do. working cloegsly with our state foresters and state fire assistance program to be able to do this work, not only on the

national forest but also the private land together. so through this cohesive strategy i do believe that it's going to really help us to move forward in a bigger way than we have in the past. i've never seen this level of support and understanding from our partners from the states and counties and boroughs and cities than i have from this cohesive city. >> i would suggest you put people in an airplane and fly over some of these areas where you see the blue tarps that mark where you still have surviving structures again amidst pretty tough devastation here.

the meeting with secretary kerry, one of the frameworks that was discussed there at the arctic council was focus on an effort to reduce black carbon emissions in the arctic. council's action is probably more focused on man made black carbon but the reality is that the largest contributor to black carbon is really the wildfire i would ask if they would have any role at all in the black carbon initiative with the council. if you don't know, you can get back to me or just submit for the record that i do want to put that on the radar screen because it is something that we vntd talked about. we're talking about the manmade

and again the issue of wildfire is where we see the best -- vast majority of that black carbon. i do know we have a couple of scientists working with that group, and the point you bring up about carbon's release from the fires we can make a difference if we can the level of severity and catastrophic size of these fires as far as the total release versus doing it through more of a prescribed fire in a much lower severity. those are things that as we really look at this problem, you need to be factoring in all of the benefits that come in from having an approach that restore these for us and at the same time take suppression to protect our communities. >> one last question very quickly, in the -- in the fire potential outlook, alaska's

highest risk of significant wildfire potential is in the may time period it's my understanding that we'll see fire season earlier and earlier. i mentioned to you my own personal view into the interior this weekend, are we -- do we track that so that we can actually identify that the fire season started in places like alaska even earlier than traditionally seen? >> yes we track the changing conditions to make sure that we need to bring on resources earlier than what we normally do and we have those resources available. >> that was specifically what i was going to ask.

you basically budget for this and you have your assets on stand by so if in fact we're seeing our fire start earlier, do we have them co-located in areas that we can be responsive or do we wait until the calendar said fire season begins in alas da? >> we do not wait. >> i didn't think we got a chance to get to that and that was the amount of funding available versus the amount of need that we have on -- in the urban inter -- urban interface, sorry. so what -- where do you think we need to go in getting resources? what do you think the advent of a biomass program might be able

to do to help? >> first with the increase in funding we received this year for hazardous fields and where the majority of our work, that is going to allow us to expand that program and be able to treat more acres for instance having 2.5 million acres is our target for this year and out of that 2.1 will occur in these highest priority areas. the second part of it is with more use for the biomass and whether it's through an integrateive wood product or use it for energy conversion and substitute that for other energy sources, i think where we've been able to use the cap authorities that subsidize the transportation of biomass it's

allowed for new facilities to be -- to come online and provide additional support for those new businesses. so those are things we just need to continue to be able to work on and then the program that we have to help folks be able to receive grants to do the economic analysis, to put a business case together so that they are in a much better place before they make the decision to make that investment. and then the last point has been brought up a couple of times is the certainty. it's essential that we provide some level of certainty of these new operations so that's the one thing they don't have to worry about that there's going to be x amount of biomass available for a ten-year period. >> why do i think of the set aside issue when you say that, the notion that the forest

service needs to adhere to the set aside for small businesses? >> well, it's one of the things we're our stew ardship contract, it's one of the issues thank you again for making that permanent but we're working with small business administration and rule making to address that issue. >> definitely want to see us make progress if you're saying part of this is getting a flow of the biomass to create these businesses -- but how much -- you say 300 million, what do you think that represents as far as addressing need? do you think there's a number that is double, triple that that you can easily do if you have the resources? >> to maintain the -- to be able to expand the collaborative

force landscape restoration act and get more funding for our basic forest restoration work and then also some additional funding to work with the states to be able to expand the work that they are doing. those are the things we ask for in our budget along with recognizing that our 10-year average for fire suppression went up $115 million this last year. i think it comes up over 300 million. >> when you say what you've said today in the culmination of your testimony and questions it sounds to me more -- i'm not saying status quo but more on the right trajectory. then when i see this research report from your organization, it says something different. so where are you on that

research report? it is within the forest service. >> just was reading that at the start of the hearing. the research identifies really what we focused on and the shift to recognize the need for us to manage fire, not only via the natural fire in the back country but we'll have our fires we're taking very active suppression on part of that fire and then at the same time allowing another portion of that fire to be able to burn be able to reduce fuels. good example of this was the rim fire a couple of years ago in california. aggressive suppression to keep the fire out of the communities so you allow the fire to burn up yosemite where the park had been doing prescribed burning. those are things we need to continue to do. when i look at that research paper, for me it describes

really where we're at. but we do need to expand to manage more natural fire and increase oir prescribed fire and also increase our mechanical treatments especially in places where we need to do the work before we can put fire into the landscape. the other opportunity -- challenge we have and it's pointed out in this paper, is for our communities to really understand what needs to occur. when we're managing fire in the back country, there's still a lot of concern and at times i think some of our communities, they are scared. worried about where that fire is going to go versus if they know they see the planes flying and resources and stuff, so we need to do ate better job to work with our community so they understand the actions we're going to take and they recognize the work we've done to reduce threat to communities and build

more support for it. the other thing that hasn't been mentioned yet that we're hearing, we going to have to work together with the states to be able to address the smoke management. there are times when we're going to have to i think put up with more smoke from a managed fire low severity fire to reduce those catastrophic situations. it's something i think we'll have to work together to provide that flexibility so that there's less impact not only to our communities but i think about the loss of tourism, the loss of economic opportunity when we have the large fires in our own state with the carl ton, those communities, there was nobody going up there to go fishing or float the rivers except when that fire was going on. that's another reason why we need to increase our pace and scale with this work. i think an incremental approach

like what we're taking with our fy 16 budget is the right way to continue to ramp this up. i know i'm way over time but i have to mention like the salt river, the partnerships that are coming together some communities or water companies and recognize that it's a good investment to change the position so they don't have to deal with the aftermath of a more catastrophic fire. we're seeing that spring up across the country where people are willing communities and water companies and boards are willing to make that investment to be able to change the conditions of the landscape. >> thank you. i see you listening intently to every word that -- do you have any comments about that? >> no i'm partly amiring his mastery of the venue and his material. i think the only comment i would

add to some of the observations you made in the urban interface issue, we attempted to define that as a wild land problem that affects community but you can pick up the other end of that stick. isn't this an urban fire problem with funny landscaping. if you think of it that way, we know how to keep houses from burning, we've solved that problem before. if we start thinking of these as little fragments of cities we start applying the same solutions we've had and we can solve it technically. >> even in these extreme situations like carl ton because it was such a blow up weather and wind and everything? >> i think you can. we know how to harden those communities and know how to solve under that. under extreme conditions you're going to have damage and note going to stop everything but think of it as kind of hurricane

event. we know how to prepare and take action. in some ways i think we're misdefining it and i'm struck how often with aerial photos, the houses are reduced to the concrete slab but you still see so many trees around it surviving and you're struck by this is a house and urban fire problem with funny landscaping not just a wild land fire problem. i would put more resources thinking about the other half of that equation. >> you're definitely describing pateros, in a matter of minutes burned down to the foundation. why are you saying there were trees? >> i'm not familiar enough with the carl ton complex. i know there was a lot of disbursed stuff but i'm thinking of we had comments from colorado the black forest fire waldo

canyon looking at overviews and repeatedly that's what you see in forest situations communities, the fire is going house to house going along the ground of these -- and i'm wondering, why are some of these communities burning? that's a house problem. that's an urban fire problem or exurban fire problem not just a wildlife fire problem. >> you know, chief i'm not going to go back to fair banks and tell them that they've got to suffer through more smoke as you know some extraordinary summers where there's no soccer being played and there's health alert every morning and some mornings it's so dense you literally need to have your headlights on during the summertime. it is an issue that we deal with, fairbank has some of the

poorest air quality during the winter because of inversion issues but during the summer it's because of the wildland fires all around. it is something that we struggle with most certainly. i -- i listened to some of what you said in terms of the average we spent 150 million more than what was spent over the past years. i've seen something that said almost 200 million more than spent on average but what we've seen is that there have been less than half number of fires and less half number of acres burned and houses burned. so again, it just -- it speaks to the issue that we have here where we are experiencing skyrocketing suppression costs.

we get to a point where we can't continue to throw everything that we have at every fire whether it's effective or not. you just can't be kind of a blank check approach to fighting the fires it's not sustainable. economically or perhaps ecologically. it's something we must look at. we need to strategically address the fuel accumulation problem in our forest and integrate our fuels management objectives in the wildfire management operations. i don't think we can have fire management divorced from land management and i think we heard that from several of our witnesses here today. clear we have a great deal we have to do it sounds weak to say it, but i -- i hope for our sake from a budget perspective that

it is -- it's not going to be a bad fire season. i hope that for the sake of those who have properties or perhaps concerns about their own safety that it is not a bad fire season. i certainly hope for the men and women who in the face of pretty serious danger are willing to go out and battle forest fires. i hope for them it is not a bad fire season but that's not -- that's not a good policy to hope that we get lucky that we don't have a bad fire season. i think we're seeing things set up for a tough year this year with the drought in the west. low snow pack everywhere it seems, except for here in the east. we have reach issues to deal with. again, you've got a real commitment to figure out how we

can deal with this fire borrowing because we can't get to the fuel's treatment, the important aspects of what we can do on the preventive side if we don't have dollars in the budget. they've been spent on these sky high suppression costs. so we've got work to do and i think you've got the commitment for many around here to work with you to find solutions to those of you who traveled far to be here with us this morning well, you may not have gotten the bulk of the questions, know that your testimony and your input is greatly appreciated as we look to resolve these issues that have considerable impact particularly to those of us in the west. with that, we stand adjourned. thank you.

>> go to c-span.org and check the video library. we have another live hearing on c-span3 tomorrow. this one on global health issues. musician elton john, founder of the elton john aids foundation and rick warren will be testifying before a senate subcommittee. coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. news from the hill about hillary clinton. they write she is set to announcer endorsement when she makes a campaign swing in nevada. reuters reports that she'll say a true solution must include nothing less than full and equal path to citizenship, according to a campaign aide. the aide added she'll say

failing a pathway amounts to a second class status. c-span will be live with her remarks at 5:45 p.m. eastern. on saturday potential republican candidates will be at the freedom summit. ted cruz and marco rubio will join ben carson and carly fiorina. saturday on c-span. >> presidential candidates often release books to introduce themselves to voters. here's a look at recent books written by declared and potential candidates for president. hard choices, in american dreams florida senator marco rubio outlines his plan to

restore economic accountability and culture in god, guns grits and gravy. rick santorum argues the republican party must focus on the working class in order to retake the white house. massachusetts senator elizabeth warren recounts the events in her life that shaped her career as an educator and politician. wisconsin governor scott walker argues republicans must offer bold solutions to fix the country and have the courage to implement them in unintimidated. and kentucky senator rand paul who recently declared his candidacy, calls for smaller government and more bipartisanship in taking a stand. more potential candidates with recent books include governor jeb bush in immigration wars. he along with clint argue for new immigration policies. in stand for something, ohio governor john kasich calls for a

return to traditional american values. former virginia senator james webb looks back on his time serving in the military and in the senate in, i heard my country calling. independent vermont senator bernie sanders recently announced his intention to seek the democratic nomination for president. his book "the speech" is a printing of his eight-hour long filibuster against tax cuts. in promises to keep, vice president joe biden looks back on his career in politics and explains his guiding principles. ben carson calls for greater individual responsibility to preserve america's future in with the one nation." in fed up, former texas governor rick perry explains government has become too instrusive and must get out of the way. another politician who expressed interest is former rhode island governor lincoln chaffey, he

recounts his time as senate. difficults and triumphs in "rising to the challenge." bobby jindal criticizes the obama administration and explains why conservative solutions are needed in washington. and finely in "a time for truth", another candidate, ted cruz, recounts his adjournmy from a cuban immigrant son to the u.s. senate. look for his book in june. >> remarkable partnerships, iconic women, their stories in first ladies, the book. >> she did save the portrait of washington which was one of the things that endeared her to the entire nation. >> whoever could find out where francis was staying, what she was wearing and what she was doing and what she looked like and who she was seeing that was going to help sell papers. >> she takes over a radio

station and starts running it. how do you do that? and she did it. >> she exerted enormous influence because she would move a mountain to make sure her husband was protected. >> first latddyes now a book published by public affairs, looking inside the life of every first lady, based on original interviews from the first lady series and learn about lives and ambitions and families and unique partnerships with spouses. filled with lively stories of fascinating women who describe the scrutiny of the white house, sometimes at the great personal cost, often changing history. c-span's first latddyes is an entertaining and inspiring read now available as hard cover or ebook through your favorite brook store or online book seller.

>> defense and state department officials discuss improvements in capabilityies and the funding of these efforts and other policy issues. this panel looks at missile defense policy and global threats and some of the latest systems being developed by the pentagon. the center for strategic and international studies is the host of this event. >> i want to say thanks to friends making it possible for us to hold this conversation on next steps missile defense. when i first started in think tank lands. i think every month held a conference on missile test. it was everybody was focused on it. over the last ten years, our focus has really shifted to other things it's become so focused on things like insurgency and warfare et cetera.

there hasn't been this national perspective to look at the role of missile defense going to have to play you look at all of the troubling events in the world and they come around to this point. we need to respond and have confidence that we can still operate successfully in this country when we could very well be attacked by missiles. that's just a reality, it's not happy but it's real and part of what we're doing today to learn where we are where are we in this work together. i want to say thanks to tom for you for heading up our efforts. tom just joined us and been with us as a senior fellow and we twisted his arm and asked him to stay with us permanently to help with us. i want to say thank you to him. he's going to really launch this effort for real. but it's obviously we've got

excellent panelists with us but the quality they'll give us will adversely related to your engagement. you have to be active and pull out of them all of the insight we know they have for us today. thank you very much and tom let me turn it to you. thanks, everybody. >> thank you i think we've got a great lineup of three panels. he was alluding to some of what i was going to say about how the character and tenor of the discussion has changed from the past couple of decades. over ten years has passed since missile defense became operational and i think during that time missile defense has gone from infancy to adole less sense. you have a lot more bipartisan and much more widespread support, no longer as divisive it's a question of how much we can afford and what kinds and priority and what balance to put into it.

this is an exciting time. there's a lot going on in the missile defense world. you're going to hear over the next several hours with the next three panels about homeland and regional missile defense and tech no logical and other steps we can be taking along those lines. our first panel will be on policy and operations. our second is on international dimensions and third on futd you're directions i'll be directing traffic and first up we have deputy assistant secretary of defense duane bund followed by missile defense agency director. so elaine, would you like to kick us off? >> thanks tom and john. thanks for having this forum. i do find that csis continues to be in the forefront of civil discourse on defense issues and security issues and i find that to be the case whether it's

their engagement with international partners, whether it's the project on nuclear issue near and dear to my heart or events like this one. i've been asked to focus on the policy aspects of missile defense to set a framework for the discussions throughout the afternoon. part of that means speaking of basics so we know we're speaking of it in the same terms. for those deep, deep into missile defense, please forgive the basics here. the u.s., i think it's clear that the united states as well as our allies and partners face a number of threats around the world from literally thousands of ballistic missiles. those missiles can be short range, medium range

intermediate range or long range. keep that in mind as we talk about the policy. what that means is that we're pursuing a variety of missile defense capabilities for two missions first the highest priority is for defending the united states against limited attacks by countries such north korea and iran. the second is defending against regional missile defense to u.s. forces and allies and partners and also enabling our allies and partners to defend themselves against those threats. so keep those two different missions in mind if you would. for both the homeland and the regional defense missions our policy and strategy have to take into account uncertainties. uncertainties in the development

of the threat capabilities and uncertainty with regard to tech no logical and fiscal constraints as we develop missile defenses. a lot of uncertainties in both categories. the policy goal ss are different. sometimes you hear discussions that mix and mingle the two. let me layout very clearly what they are. for homeland missile defense we are trying to defend against the whole range all of the long range ballistic missiles that threaten the united states from north korea and potentially from iran. we are not designing our homeland defense to defend against russia and china and

their much larger and much more sophisticated ballistic missile arsenals. in the regional context where there are thousands of at verse sarry short medium range missiles, more of the short range and fewer more at the medium and collectively thousands of ballistic missiles. what we are trying to do is to defend against some of those. we know we won't be able to defend against all of them. we can't buy enough intercepters for that. what can regional missile defenses do if you're not going to say i'm going to be able to shoot down every one of those short medium intermediate range missiles? what does it do if he can't do that. regional missile defense can

help defang, the coercive value of ballistic missiles. it can provide some protection and defend against cheap shots it can defend against some number of those regional ballistic missiles and make sure that adversaries don't get a free ride thinking that if they shoot it it will get through. regional drk i have to emphasize this, we had a discussion of it around lunch earlier today. regional defense is only a part of a broader mix of capabilities. it has come into in the forefront again and you'll hear about it this afternoon, but missile defense is not the silver bullet, it's part of a mix of capabilities for dealing with ballistic missiles. on the regional side, we are

focused on developing capabilities that are mobile, relocatable that you can search where they are needed and as crises build. in other words, you're not going to have enough everywhere all the time, right? regional combatant commanders want -- they want more and more and more. and there will always be -- these will always be low density high demand assets. let me go back to homeland defense and talk a bit about the threats and what do we see out there? the threats to the u.s. -- to u.s. territory from north korea and potentially iran what we're trying -- i we're trying to stay ahead of that threat to be early to made and stay out of it. north korea has conducted three nuclear tests is seeking to develop longer range ballistic

missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons to the united states. they continue their effort to bring the road mobile kno 8 icb m to operational capacity. they paraded it several times in parades up to six missiles in those parades. operational operational. again, the reliability is likely to be very low. if we were going to deploy a missile we would want to have tested it. north korea hasn't yet tested a kn kn08 and have used their -- a launch vehicle they've used to put satellites into orbit and some of those technologies that are applicable to long range missiles but they have not tested that kn08.

while the reliability of their long range missile is likely low, the issue is how much risk is the u.s. willing to accept when it comes to defending the u.s. against a country like north korea where our confidence -- maybe i should say our lack of confidence and our understanding much north korea's leadership and what their decision-making calkculus is. turning to iran, iran is not yet deployed an intercontinental missile but does have space launch vehicles, a number of folks speculate that they have the motivation and desire to be able to deter the u.s. and allies and that that provides them along with their space

capabilities means and motivational to bring to fruition an icbm. if the negotiations that will be concluded by the end of june are fruitful and we come to agreement on the just agreed nuclear framework then it's ballistic missiles would not be nuclear armed. that's a good thing. your homeland today it has defenses to protect us against icbm attacks from north korea and from iran if they can make it to an icbm capability. to ensure we can stay ahead of the threat -- and again, that's the policy of homeland defense. to stay ahead don't want to take chances on those two actors.

to be sure we can stay ahead of that threat, we're continuing to strengthen our homeland defense posture and invest in technologies that better able us to address so this is over a longer term. that means continued improvement to the ground-based mid course defense system, the gmd system, including enhancing performance of the ground-based interceptors, the gbis and deployment of new sensors. we're on track, if you look at some of the changes that have been made in that gmd system, we're on track to deploy an additional 14 interceptors. this was the announcement that secretary hagel made in march of 2013, that we would deploy an additional 14 interceptors in alaska and those along with the 30 that are already deployed in

alaska and in california would improve the protection against both north korea and iranian threats as they emerge. late last year we also deployed a second forward-based discriminating radar in japan and that's operating today thanks in large part to the amazing work of the japanese government as well as to mda. that radar is important for homeland defense, but it's also important for regional defense. talk about regional defense in a moment. this year's president's budget request i think reflects that highest priority on homeland missile defense. it reflects the commitment to modernizing the gmd system, moving toward more reliable, more effective, you will hear for about this from general ed to todorov in a moment. but the development of the new radar when it is deployed in

alaska will have persistent sensor coverage against -- and improved discrimination capabilities against north korea. it also -- this year's budget also continues the redesign, the funding for the redesign of the kill vehicle for the ground based interceptors. there had been some problems in the past, kind of those are identified, the test in june of last year showed that the changes made for the gbis would make that system more successful. so it's back fitting those onto existing interceptors but also the redesigned kill vehicle that not only gives you better performance and discrimination capability but also will be easier to build, easier to

maintain, easier to upgrade than the previous versions were. let me turn now to regional missile defense and what is it that we see as the threats there. north korea, besides the threats to the homeland, also poses a substantial regional ballistic missile threat. it's conducted a number of short-range ballistic missile launches in the recent past and also has medium-range missiles, the scud c and the nodong that can threaten further -- further allies and u.s. forces in the region. they also -- their efforts to produce -- not only produce, but to market their ballistic

missiles raises broader concerns about ballistic missile technology proliferation. regional threats from the middle east, iran and syria, have regional ballistic missiles today. in fact, iran has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the region and is capable of striking targets throughout -- not only throughout their region but also into the eastern part of europe. the assad regime in syria also possesses several hundred short-range ballistic missiles, and they've shown themselves willing to use them. in the regional ballistic missile context i would also note that china's development of advanced ballistic missiles in the -- in the conventionally armed medium and intermediate-range ballistic missile area improves their ability to strike regional targets at greater ranges, as well as the concern about their

anti-ship ballistic missiles. so when it comes to regional missile defense i think what you will see in the president's fy16 budget request continues to implement the deployment of defenses tailored to the specific circumstances of europe, the middle east and asia pacific, three big areas. we are also -- spend a lot of time, energy and effort encouraging our allies and partners to acquire missile defenses of their own and to strengthen the kind of operational defense cooperation whether through exercises or sensor sharing. in europe we are continuing to implement the european face adaptive approach, we're doing that in close collaboration with

nato. they are -- nato is developing an advanced network of sensors and interceptors on land and sea. since 2011 the u.s. has operated the forward-based radar in turkey, and maintained sea-based missile defense presence in europe. we're on track to deploy aegis assure in romania at the end of this year and to send two additional aegis bmd destroyers to join the donald cook and the "uss ross" that are already in rhoda, spain. so we'll have four aegis destroyers that are deployed in spain. they're multi-mission ships, i think you all know that bmd is not the only mission of aegis ships, their amazing capabilities and so they are in great demand, whether it's in europe or elsewhere.

president's budget also supports the aegis assure that is to be deployed in poland in the 2018 time frame and the development of the sm 32 a interceptor that will be deployed both on land and at sea. when we have that capability and the other aegis destroyers in europe, we will have the u.s. -- the u.s. donation to european missile defense will indeed extend bmd coverage to all european territory. that's not to say that the u.s. is doing it all with regard to nato missile defense, our allies are also making significant contributions. romania, spain and turkey are -- obviously are hosting missile defense systems and providing security for external parts of those facilities. poland, beyond just hosting the second aegis ashore site in the 2018 time frame has announced its intention to buy about $10

billion worth of advanced air and missile defense capabilities. the u.s. patriot system is a finalist in that competition for poland's acquisitions and several other allies are also in the process of considering the purchase of air and missile defense capabilities. some have combatant ships that they can -- with sensors that can be upgraded, the netherlands and denmark are in that category. the netherlands and germany have committed pac 3s, patriot pac 3s as part of nato's deployment in turkey and spain will be replacing the netherlands later this year in that mission. if you look at the asia pacific region, our force posture there, what we do on missile defense in these regions and what allies do

on missile defense in those regions. our posture in asia pacific includes patriot batteries in japan and south korea. we also have a thaad battery in guam. where does that fall? is that homeland or regional missile defense? it's both. because guam is indeed u.s. territory those are u.s. citizens. we have a thaad battery there that we deployed during the 2013 cycle of north korean provocations and it remains there. the strong bilateral alliances that we have in this region with

japan, south korea and australia also play a role in the effective missile defense capabilities there. japan very far along on its own missile defense capability. they also their own aegis bmd ships and the standard missile 3 interceptors, pac 3 batteries, early warning radars, sophisticated command and control systems, they're upgrading two of our atogo class aegis destroyers to bmd certification schedule for 2018 or 2019, i believe, and they also host two of our missile