we are 32 in food insecurity. eating wrong, we have to face the actual question of hunger. children who are served by the w.i.c. program in texas are less likely to eat fast food in comparison to those who are not in this program. again, i want you to look at this picture, healthy children need to eat healthy, and i ask my colleague, why, in fact, would we not want to fully fund the program of women and infants and children? i would say the impact of not eating healthy is obesity and poor health. this healthy baby, healthy-looking baby has a future that is undetermined when you have an issue of lack of healthy food and access to such. so 650 million when we are in

essence funding research with $900 million, i believe you can share a little, because the w.i.c. program is beneficial in helping the most vulnerable in our country. i ask the country, who will speak for the children? it is important that the w.i.c. program, 9.2 million through 10,000 clinics, 9.4 children and one million women, have the ability to be served around the nation. it's a complimentary program having healthy mothers to give birth to healthy babies, not obese, nourished and ready to be leaders in this nation. who are we if we are are not going to speak for our children. and i ask my colleagues to consider waveg procedural issues to ensure that children are served. i believe that is an important issue.

and in my district, the 18th congressional district, with 1,000 census tracks with people who are poor, i'm arguing for the full funding of the w.i.c. program to help our women, infants and their children. who will speak for our children? what will their future be and how will they lead our country if we do not invest today? i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. . mr. kingston: i make the point of order. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: the amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2-f of rule 21 because the amendment proposes to increase the level of funding and outlays in the bill and the outlays and budget authority have to be equal. and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member

wish to be heard on the gentleman's point of order? ms. jackson lee: i would, madam speaker. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: outlays have to do with the evenhandedness of spending at the same time which section you take the moneys out and which section you put them in. again, the point that i want to make to this body is that my focus is on keeping our children in this country from being malnourished and pregnant mothers from not having the access to good, healthy food that they need to give birth to a healthy child. and i've asked the question before. in the instance of speaking for our children and saving our children, a procedural waiver is in order. this is a procedural question. i have actually taken money from a legitimate account and that is the research -- agricultural research service that my own friend and colleague has said is funded quite well. now we've added another $2 million to the research program.

$902 million. and i'm simply asking for a measure of that amount to help provide care and nourishment for our children. i believe it is appropriate to eliminate a procedural, if you will, flaw that only speaks to the timing of spending to be able to provide for the children of america. that's what agriculture is all about. our farmers, our families who need to eat good food, our undernourished and impoverished communities which are plenty. as i spoke earlier today, those communities that are experiencing disasters and those mothers now who are pregnant and who need access to good food, we need to be able to not cut off in the state of texas, in my district, 40,000 or so individuals that will not be able to be part of the w.i.c. program because we're talking about a procedural flaw. and so, madam chairperson, i am

suggesting that this amendment is in order and i'd ask my colleagues to consider a waiver but i'm also asking the chairwoman to rule in my favor. so that the people of america most vulnerable will have access to quality food and a healthy life. i yield back. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule on the gentleman from georgia's point of order. to be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2-f of rule 2 1, an amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority or outlays in the bill because the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas proposes a net increase in the level of outlays in the bill as argued by the chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations, it may not avail itself of clause 2-f to address portions of the bill not yet read. the amendment is not in order. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 10, line 8,

national institute of food and agriculture research and education activities, $6,800,000. native american institutions endowment fund, $11,880,000. extension activities, $411,200,000. integrated activities, $8 hello -- in -- $8 million. office of the undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs, $760,000. animal and plant health inspection service, salaries and expenses, $790 million. in fiscal year 2012 agencies authorized to collect fees to cover the costs of providing technical assistance or services requested by states, buildings and facilities, $3,200,000.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. clarke: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. clarke of michigan, page 17, line 20, insert after the dollar amount the following, reduced by $1 million. mr. clarke: madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. clarke: i ask for unanimous consent to waive the reading requirement. the chair: is there objection? the amendment's been read. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. mr. clarke: thank you, madam chair. this amendment would restore $1 million to the microbiologicalal

data program. this is a usda program that collects and tests fruits and vegetables, domestic and imported fruits and vegetables for bacteria that could cause illness and even death. recent tests have discovered salmonella and strains of eembings coaly similar to that -- eembings could he lie similar to that found in the german -- e. coli similar to that found in the german food supply that killed 22 people and infeckeded over 2,400. so this amendment is important in order to protect the public from food-borne pathogens that could make the public sick or that could put innocent lives at risk. i do urge your support. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. kingston: move to strike the

last word and oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. kingskidges thank you -- kicks kings -- mr. kingston: thank you, madam chair. i'm continuing to study this and unfortunately one of the great things about the open rule that we've had is we've had a lot of good debate tonight, had a lot of speakers, i think we broke the record tonight on the speech contest about w.i.c. i'm not sure who mr. farr will be awarding, giving that award to, but we had a lot of good contenders. mr. clarke, unfortunately i -- just within the last minute i have seen this and i'm not sure that it will do what you're saying or what your intention is. and so i'm going to oppose the amendment. i will promise to work with you. it's a million-dollar transfer and don't know that it accomplishes what you want, don't know that it doesn't accomplish bha you want and -- what you want and i don't necessarily think it causes a big disruption in the bill either but for right now i'm

going to have to oppose it. and let me continue to research it and maybe as the process goes through we can see what we can do to work with you and mr. farr on it. we're very concerned about food safety and the path generals and the situation -- pathogens and the situation in europe and we want to make sure we're studying this stuff closely ourselves. so i reluctantly oppose it for the time being and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming rise? mrs. lummis: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. lummis: i rise to oppose the amendment not because it is unworthy but because i believe that there are funds elsewhere in the bill that could be used to cover the services and research that the gentleman requests. i refer the gentleman to page

10, the national institute of food and agricultural research and education activities. those activities include for ag experiment station, $600 million , for grants payable to eligible institutions, $48 million, provided that each institution receives no less than $1 million . for special grants, $1.2 million. for competitive grants, for integrated pest management and biological control, $14 million. for competitive grants, $229.5 million. to remain available until expended. there's so much -- this is sloshing with research dollars. sloshing. i think there's plenty in this

bill to cover the worthy research that the gentleman has requested. so i urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question -- mr. clarke: madam chair. the chair: the question -- does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. clarke: i do, madam chair. the chair: is there objection to the gentleman speaking a second time? >> i strike the last word. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. farr: to strike the last word. the chair: is the gentleman objecting? mr. farr: no.

the chair: would the gentleman from michigan like to withdraw his request? clark i will. -- mr. clarke: i will. the chair: the gentleman withdraws his request. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: i yield as much time as the gentleman will consume. the chair: the gentleman has yielded time to the gentleman from michigan. mr. clarke: thank you. the funding source that i'm using to offset the cost of this amendment i believe won't undercut the vital mission of this agency, unlike the other sources that have been mentioned. however, i am willing to work with the majority on negotiating a proper funding source. all i care, the bottom line is that the public is safe and that we are diligent and do the best that we can to identify these

bacteria sources that could make the public sick. and i ask for the yeas and nays. mr. kingston: if the gentleman from california will yield. mr. farr: certainly. mr. kingston: i want to say, the concern that i have just again, not doing all the -- not having the advantage of being able to research things thoroughly, but we're taking $1 million out of a $3 million account and putting it into a $77 million account and it just seems disproportional at this point. i'm wondering if during the process there might be an opportunity to emphasize that we want the ag marketing service to really be sure that they're following the e. coli situation, that would be helpful, it certainly would be interested in

doing that, working with them, but i want to continue to oppose the amendment at this point. and yield back your time. mr. farr: i share your concerns but i'd like to see what we can do to accommodate my colleague. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. clarke: i ask for a recorded vote, madam chair. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: page 17, line 22, agricultural marketing service, marketing services.

broup broun i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 9, prisonned in the congressional record, offered by mr. broup of georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: i rise to offer my amendment, which is a 10% in agricultural marketing services. this year, the agricultural marketing service will be allocated 77.5 million for as they say in their own web site, quote, administering programs that facilitate the efficient of u.s. agricultural products including, food, fiber and specialty products, unquote. since i have been a member of congress, i have stated that the marketplace unencumbered is the best way to control quality, quantity and costs of all goods and services so we need to get

the federal government off the marketplace and this will take 10%. our nation's crops are no exceptions to this rule. i think the usda has not given american farmers enough credit. our farmers are intelligent and are knowing the best way to know how to market their products. when i was farming, i could market my products very well. i used to farm, wish i could get back to it. allow these farmers to market these products without the federal government to reduce spending. it's absolutely critical that we reduce the outrageous spending that both republican and democrats have put in place. as admiral mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff

said the greatest threet threat to security is our huge debt. we have to absolutely cut spending. and this simple amendment would cut 10% out of this program and put it in part of this bill. i urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan arise. >> i wish to speak in opposition to this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman move to strike the last word? mr. clarke: i owe so move. this amendment undercuts the whole purpose what i was offering in additional $1 million to protect the american people from food-borne bacteria.

over 2,400 people were infected in germany by a strain of e. coli. 24 of them died. we don't want this to happen here in this country. the gentleman from georgia and i agreed to work something out to better protect the public, maybe if you could give us a chance to work out something here. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. clarke: i yield my time back. the chair: for what purpose does -- mr. farr: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: madam chair, i oppose this amendment. look, this is a big cut out a very important program just indicated by congressman clarke by michigan, for all the reasons he was trying to increase the

program, this amendment goes just the opposite way, knocks 10% of the money that's in the program out. there will be no way he can increase with it and work out a deal and for all the reasons he indicated on food safety issues, we ought not to risk the ability to respond to those needs. so i think this amendment does harm. and does more harm than the good it is intended to do and i oppose it and ask for a no vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from jea rise? mr. kingston: i -- gentleman rise. mr. kingston: i oppose the amendment. i go back to an earlier thing that i brought out when we were discussing w.i.c. and chaffetz amendment, i think what dr. broun is doing, i think this 10% you could make that argument in

there, but what we have been trying to do is stack a card house. on the ryan budget that is the only budget that has passed one house. point now again, that the president of the united states' budget failed in the senate 93-0. information our budgets failed in the house, a budget that was offered that was further cut by the republican study committee and others that were less cut, and so one of the balancing act that this committee is trying to accomplish with this bill tonight is to reduce spending, but also get 218 votes to pass the bill so we can continue this with the u.s. senate who right now has not been able to pass

one single appropriations bill. very remiss in their duty, but i find myself having to balance some things if i was a free agent, i would be voting for, some things voting against. but as i tell mr. clarke from detroit, rejecting $1 million transfer of account because i didn't know what it did, i want to keep that balance there. so i oppose the 10% reduction offered by my friend, dr. broun. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming rise? mrs. lummis: i move to strike the last word for purposes of skgs a question. my question is this. it appears from the text of this

program, the ag marketing service, that the $77.5 million appropriated may be derived from fees that are collected for the cost of standardization activities as established by regulation, because if you look at page 18, line 9, it says not to exceed $61 million from fees collected shall be allocated. my question then is, is this a fee for service program rather than a generally funded, taxpayer funded program, and i yield back? the chair: the chair would expect the members to talk about the issues in the debate.

mr. kingston: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding? the chair: the gentlewoman reclaim her time? mr. kingston: and the ag marketing service actually gets that $77.5 million in appropriation and in addition has the ability to collect up to $61 million in fees. and if you think about that's not unusual in this account. the f.d.a. does the same thing. they get over $1 billion in fees. so some of these accounts do get an appropriation and then they on their own can get some fees -- not just supplemental, but match it. mrs. lummis: thank you, madam chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment

offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does gentleman rise. broup broun i request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman prefer a recorded vote? the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 18, line 8, limitation on administrative expenses $61 million. funds for strengthening markets, income and supplies, section 32, including transfer of funds, funds available shall be used for commodity program expenses as authorized. payments to states and possessions, $1,331,000 stock

yards administration, $37 million. limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses $47 ,500,000. office of the under secretary, food safety and inspection service, $972,028,00. office of the undersecretary for farm and agricultural services $760,000. farm service agencies, salary and expenses $1 billion. >> madam chair. the chair: forp the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. richardson: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: page 21, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert,

reduced by $10 million, page 46, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $10 million. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. richardson: it adds $10 million to the program by reducing by the same amount by the salaries and expenses by the farm agency which will additional funding for the supplemental food program which provides assistance to seniors who have incomes at or below $14,157. 97% of all commodities supplemental food program recipients are seniors who receive the only fresh food packages that might come to their home. many of these seniors have no means of transportation to obtain these products. these seniors have very limited resources in which to purchase

the food that they need. i don't understand why those in the majority would believe that our seniors have cause our budget problems or worst yet are able to fix our budget problems. the ryan budget proposes to make seniors pay an additional $6,000 out of pocket for the health care needs. they increase the prescription drug costs for our seniors by proposing to re-open the medicare prescription doughnut hole which democrats closed. these are heartless legislative proposals that could force 136,000 seniors in the los angeles area to pay an additional $1.3 billion for prescription drugs over the next decade. food for low-income seniors is under attack. our seniors deserve our support. they have earned it. many of our seniors have served in our country overseas during world war inch i, korea and vietnam.

their bravery has made america the great country that it is. they have worked hard to provide for their families and now our responsibility to help assist them. the commodities supplemental food program was cut by $37 million over fiscal year 2011 levels. low-income seniors will lose their food assistance. six million face the threat of hunger and with 12,000 baby boomers turning 60 every day by 2025, that number is expected to reach nearly 10 million mark. there are 52,000 senior citizens in my district in the 37th congressional district in california and between 10% and 20% of them depepped on these programs. the amendment restores $10 million in funding to the program that will help to ensure that more of our seniors will

continue to receive food. we're talking about something as basic as that, of food, that our seniors would be able to eat. i urge my colleagues to support the richardson amendment and support our seniors and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. mr. kingston: i oppose the amendment and move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: i thank the chair and wanted to point that the farm service agency is already $181 million below the president's request and $32 million below 2011. it has been trimmed a great deal, but also wanted to point out that we just accepted an amendment that increases the commodities supplemental food program by $5 million and the

gentlewoman may not be aware of that because i don't know if you were on the floor at the time and i know that that doesn't mean you wanted to offer your amendment either way, but we just did increase it. . i've been in a mode of rejecting a lot of amendments in the last couple of hours because this budget this bill is a reflection of the ryan budget which is the only budget that has passed either body in its entirety. there were budgets offered in the house that would have cut more, at least one, there were other budgets that would have cut less or cut in different directions and yet the ryan budget in the house or the senate is the only budget that has passed and i know as you

know that if we add to it we lose votes. if we take from it we lose votes. and for that reason i do oppose your amendment but i understand your concern here. i want to point out and i'm sure that the gentlewoman knows this, but a senior who is 65 years or older is actually eligible for six different federal food programs and it would certainly not be our intention to have anybody fall through the cracks. i think there's a lot to be said in combining commodity supplemental food programs and the snap program and maybe cut out some of the administrative costs in order to increase the amount -- yes, i would be happy to yield. ms. richardson: thank you, mr. chairman. might i point out that first of all we would not be able to legislate on the floor having to deal with this appropriation bill before us. and in regard to your --

mr. kingston: we know fair well on this committee because we have been chomping at the bit to do a little bit of authorizing but the authorizing committee keeps a pretty strong eye on it. let me yield back but i certainly 'dry -- agree with that point. ms. richardson: i'm watching and paying attention carefully, sir. the other point i wanted to point out is that as i stated in my comments, $37 million has been cut over the fiscal year 2011 and given the $5 million that you did earlier accept and i'm suggesting $10 million, we would sill be suggesting only less than 50% restoring from that level and i would just urge you, sir, in these tough times, i understand in future times but in these tough times not all other mechanisms that could help our seniors, again who are only making at or below $14,000, this would be in dire need and i would strongly urge your reconsideration.

mr. kingston: reclaiming my time. do i want to point out and i'm sure the gentlewoman knows that this bill actually does increase snap $5.6 billion and therefore i think sometimes we do need to, even though that is an authorized issue, i think as a practical issue that's something we need to explore and make sure that we're not underserving somebody because it's two programs that could be so close that i don't know why we don't combine them and again i realize that would be farm bill authority to do that. but snap did get that $5.6 billion because of the mandatory spending side of it. but i need to continue to oppose your amendment but i would not slam the door, i'm looking at it as the process continues in the months ahead and hopefully the senate might start doing their

job and passing an appropriation bill and then we can get to conference without it being part of an omnibus because i think in the conference we're going to do a lot better. so with that, madam chair, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. richardson: madam chair. the speaker pro tempore: curp -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. richardson: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. are there further amendments to the pending program? if not, the clerk will read. the clerk: page 21, line 21,

state mediation grants, $3,550,000. dairy indemnity program, for necessary expenses in making payments such sums as necessary, agricultural credit insurance fund program account including transfers of funds, $1,5 00,000,000,000. the congressional budget -- $1,500,000,000. in addition for administrative expenses to carry out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $2 68,634,000. funds appropriated to the agricultural credit insurance program account may be transferred, risk management agencies, $68,016,000. corporations, the following corporations are authorized to make expenditures within the

limits of funds and borrowing authority in accord with law. federal crop insurance corporation fund such sums as may be necessary. commodity credit corporation fund reimbursement for net realized losses including transfers of funds, such sums as may be necessary. hazardous waste management, limitation on expenses, $5 million. title 2, conservation programs, office of the undersecretary for natural resources and environment, $760,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. kingston: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion to rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 2112, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2112 and has come to nos remain title of the resolution thereon. -- to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. eshoo of california for the week of june 13, 2011, and mr. stivers of ohio from june 13 through june 24.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. the chair lays before the house a communication. cloipt honorable the speaker, house of representatives, -- the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, this is to notify you formally that i have been served with a subpoena issued by the superior court of california for testimony in documents. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena is not a proper exercise of jurisdiction by the court. the superior court itself has quashed the subpoena. see attached docket summary. signed, sincerely, brad sherman, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? the question is on the motion to

adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. that measure provides $125 billion, $7 billion less than president obama requested. work on amendments continues tomorrow when the chamber gabbles entered follow the house

live here on c-span. >> next on c-span, a senate hearing on wild fire management with testimony from forest service chief tom tidwell. 2011 is already one of the worst in the last decade. the wall of fire is the worst in the state's history. -- wallow fire is the worst in the state's history. then a look at the inspector general reports which criticizes management. then brent scowcroft on globalization in the middle east and north africa. he said that orders are eroding in the region and the political demonstrations complicate foreign policy. all of this next on c-span. >> it is just unconscionable. this is treasonable action.

it secured a a lot things. >> what kind of people would do such things? >> 40 years ago this week, the new york times published the first installments of the pentagon papers. today you could watch perspectives from historians and the people who made history. search, lodge, clip, and shared -- watch what you want when you want. now hearing lots at the federal government's efforts to fight the wild fires now burning in the number of western states. in arizona, more than seven of the 33 square miles have burned since memorial days. new mexico senator jeff bingaman is the chairman of the energy and national resources here -- committing. -- committee.

>> it has been a dynamic year of severe weather. intense tornadoes, flooding throughout much of the united states, extreme drought and wildfire activity in the southwest, and in much of the south. the overall trend of increasing drought and wildfire in the west and southwest have been attributed by numerous scientific reports to climate change, including a recent report of our national academy of sciences. "america's climate choices." since climate change will continue into the future, we can expect the incidence of severe weather and further drying out of the already carried regions of the west to continue as well. -- arid regions of the west to

continue as well. drought's will be more frequent in the southwest, and it will last longer than they have in the past. in the news this past week, we have seen the kind of challenges that we face. federal land management agencies are currently battling severe wildfires in arizona, which are now coming into new mexico, in colorado, alaska, and elsewhere. we express our concerns for the families who lost their homes, for those whose property remains at risk. we also want to express our gratitude to the thousands of firefighters and a wild fire managers who are working tirelessly to protect lives, property and resources. the challenges posed by a larger and more intense drought and wild fires have called for a

variety of policy changes to adapt to these new realities. some of the policies that we have urged in this committee for the first time in years, i believe, the agencies are making progress on a range of critical wildfire management issues. he let me mention five of those. flame act established emergency budget in four suppression expenses that can avoid the enormous disruptions and inefficiencies that frequently have occurred when regular appropriations are insufficient to cover unanticipated emergency costs. second, in addition to the flame act, the agencies have bill dealt a strong framework for a cohesive wow fire management strategy, and they deserve credit for that. the agencies are successfully employing collaborative landscaped scale projects that

reduced costs and improve forest and watershed health. with the support of the economic stimulus package of a few years ago, the forest service reduced wildfire risk by conducting treatments across a record number of acres during the last two years. and finally the agencies are fighting fires in a more cost- effective manner, since adopting a more flexible management response protocol and utilizing state of the art predicted technologies. certainly there are significant challenges that remain. forest health and wildfire management are related areas where we need to be careful. this is an important effort to reduce spending. i fear that we may be heading toward an approach that turns out to be penny wise and pound foolish. if the agencies do not have adequate resourced to reduce

hazardous fuels and restorer land held, particularly against a background of growing climate- related vulnerabilities. the recent cuts to the forest service work force are accelerating the problem at the rapidly diminishing forests of available critical fire fighters for the result is likely to be significantly higher costs to taxpayers and the economy as a result of severe wildfires. another challenge that looms large is the fact that the nation's remaining fleet of aging caretaker's needs to be irplaced or rest -- a tankers needs to be replaced or restored. it can now be done within the existing budget. i hope our witnesses can help us understand how we can continue to make progress and wildfire management.

let me defer to senator murkowski for her comments. >> we appreciate that, at -- the hearing this morning. oftentimes we are brought together by things that are happening in our states. i know that you have been very anxious about the fires in arizona, and now coming into new mexico. in alaska, we have significant fires burning as well. i am watching this very carefully because you worry about these things. you worry about what is happening in any given fire season, but those who have lost property and have been threatened, we are very concerned. quiter kyl, you're anxious about was going on within your state. you have to wonder how many times do we have to have caught fire season like we are having now before we really collectively work to protect our

forests? about a decade ago, one fire consumed 468,000 acres on the apache national forest. a couple of days later, one fire burned 5,000 acres in southern oregon and northern california. 2002 was also the year that three heavy firefighting aircraft suffered structural failures was led to the grounding of more than half the available aircraft that had been fighting these fires. this reduce the number of companies that supplied these aircraft and the number aircraft available for duty was down by over 60% in 2004. we fast forward to today. we have burned over 4.1 million acres, and today the wfdss -- wallow fire is burning back

world was in 2002. -- where it was in 2002. we have authorized and funded an amount to the healthy restoration program but we're not seeing much as a consequence of that. our forests are no more able to withstand fires and insects than they were 10 years ago. even after every forestry supervisor signed a pledge to fully implement that help their restoration act, less than one- third of the authorized projects have been accomplished. i have to believe that this failure rest with the land management agencies. in 2003, we as the forest service what they needed to replace the aircraft that they granted in 2002. it took 10 years to develop the answer. when it came, it was with a $2 billion price tag during a time when congress is cutting the

federal budget by 20%, and and included no recommendations on how to pay for it. even more frustrating is that the agency is fixated on one aircraft type and refuses to consider alternatives. the forest service told me that they would work with a variety of sites and his staff continues to tell people that the agency will only accept an aircraft taking carry 3,000 gallons of slurry. i do not understand why the forest service continues to tell the aircraft manufacturers and others here in congress that whatever new aircraft it requires, it needs to carry 3,000 gallons. my message is this -- develop a plan to replace the aging aircraft, that looks set up a variety of types and sizes of aircraft, with the flexibility to drop slurry, jill, fung, and/or water. -- gel, foam, and/or water.

and do not forget about keeping the existing fleet blonder. i want to see more healthy forest restoration projects, more large-scale restoration projects, and within this decade, not 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 30 years from now. as i look back at the lost opportunities of the last 10 years, none pains me more than the failure of the agencies to use the authority that congress has provided. i hope that we get some updates, but perhaps a better understanding as to how we can use the land agencies -- how they can use these authority more effectively. >> before we hear from are scheduled witnesses, senator kyl

wished to address the committee and give us an update on the circumstances that his state has faced, which of course has been catastrophic with this current fires continues. so we welcome you, senator kyl. thank you for coming. please tell us whether you think the committee needs to know. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i appreciate your opening statement and ranking member murkowski's statement. they are right on target. i want to say that when this hearing is traditionally held going into the fire season, it starts in may in our states, and it is already well underway. i would like to ask each of the members of the committee who are here and the staff to please read the statement that will take 2.5 minutes. i would rather talk about what i know from firsthand observation. i want to begin by thanking all the personal fighting the fires

in arizona. if we have almost 800,000 acres burning for burt and just four fires so far in arizona. you mentioned the wallow fire which is the largest. it was just east of the fire of nine years ago. those fires destroyed at least -- in just a taste of those two alone, those are 1 million acres of ponderous upon, douglas fir, bruce burris, and a lot of meadowlands. and there is a booklet that has a few pictures that you can see. from the map here of the wallow bair, you can see that it colors, how rapidly than it, starting in the extreme

southwest part and moving up through the others. if i could just point out a few things that would help -- in line about 10,000 people had to be evacuated, and this is almost surrounded by the fire. [unintelligible] this was the worst. the fire started here. [unintelligible] but the winds were up to 40 m.p.h., and you cannot fight fires in those conditions. the big tankers were not usable because they could not drop the retardant on to the targets with any degree of precision. helicopters were the only options in many situations. we have a cabin in the community ingrier. we were having dinner with some

of our neighbors. that cavan there were sitting out on the deck and looking of the battle -- the beautiful landscape is now gone. is just half a mile from where are pluses. 22 homes along a half mile stretch of road were lost in the community of grier. the fire came down over a ridge in the firefighters had to evacuate quickly because of the speed with which the fire progressed. they could not stop it. we have evidence already that the areas that were then the performed much better than the areas that were not. i believe and we will leave it to achieve to wall and the others who will give us the after action report, but they will conclude that the communities were saved because of thinning in the vicinity of these communities. as senator murkowski pointed

out, we are treating a drop in the bucket when it comes to the amount of acreage that we have to treat. the area of the apache said graves had the biggest contract for forest service stewardship to trim 150,000 acres over 10 years of the last seven years. we have treated almost 49,000 acres. that is a cost of $2.5 million a year, which includes all planning and preparation cost. clearly we have a long way to go. the fires are rapidly outstripping our ability to do this on a larger scale. as a couple of you have alluded to, you do not want to be penny wise and pound foolish, and as the chairman said, the cost of fighting the fires in reconstructing afterward far exceed the prevention cost. it is like any other medical situation toward prevention will save money in the long run but it requires an upfront

commitment. managing forest makes them more help it treat you get better floor and fauna, the ecology is superior, less prone to disease, water runoff is better. in all respects, if you can do the treatment early, you're going to save money in the long run. wallow has already cost $65 million. think about how much land we could have treated if we had put it that money up front. there are photographs that show you what the area looks like. one interesting one shows near alpine, one of the villages say, on treated areas versus treated areas. what we have tried to create in arizona is a new program for a larger area treatment the area that we would be talking about is on a scale of 1 million or

more acres proposal on the table is a collaboration between all of the stakeholders, including the environmental community and all others. the whole concept is that we have to treat large areas or there will not any -- there will not be anything left to treat by the time we get around to it. i hope the committee can focus on why we are not doing what we need to do. i have some recommendations in my statement. one of them has to do with the costs for the forest service's associated with the potential cancellation of contracts in the need for front in bonding, which adds to the costard that is one thing we need to deal with. we also need obviously commit more resources to do the thinning in advance of the fires rather than pull the money together to fight the fires. there is so much more i would

like to say about this. if you could read the statement, we're beginning to the other indirect costs of the cleanup. it is impossible to measure the losses. the western forestry leadership coalition estimates the cost cart to to 30 times the reported suppression cost. the true total cost was estimated to be closer to $308 million. you look at what happened after the fire and the cost in every respect are just devastating. i urge the committee to work up recommendations for what we can do to prevent this kind of destruction.

i will pledge my best efforts not only to support that, but to come up with the resources necessary to accomplish it so that we do not continue to suffer the kind of devastation affecting my state right now. >> we obviously appreciate the great damage that is being done to your state. we sympathize with you and all the people in arizona ambac -- in arizona. i want to invite our to witnesses -- two witnesses. we appreciate about the view -- both of you being here.

take whatever time you need to make your main point. obviously, both of your statements will be included in our record. >> thank you. mr. chairman, ranking member, and members of the committee, i want to thank you for the opportunity to share before you today. the forest service, the federal agency, the tribal government and our local fire department, it together have the premier wild fire organization in the world. i think it is an example of government at its best. we continue to be prepared for the fire season. we have the same level of preparedness that was available last year, including more than

16,000 federal firefighters with about 70% from the forest service. so far, the 2011 fire season has been relatively severe. as of today, more than 4 million acres have burned across the country, which is more than twice the year to date 10-year average. parts of the south and southwest are in a prolonged drought. more large fires have burned and the south east, texas, oklahoma, arizona, and mexico. we also have some large fires in alaska. however, in the sierras, the cascades, and the northern rockies, they are having a record snowmelt spread it remains to be seen how -- based on the projections, the funding should be sufficient. appropriations are the same as last year.

that should be enough to prevent any transfer of funds. i want to thank you for securing the flan account for us. the flame act required federal fire managers to develop a management strategy. we wanted to do this in a more collaborative effort than we have done in the past. we brought together the federal partners, the state, the tribes, local and municipal governments to develop a shared national framework. this cohesive strategy has three main goals. the first is to restore and maintain healthy resilience landscape. by managing vegetation to restore the national process of function, we can minimize the adverse impact of fires. the second goal is to create fire adapted human communities by reducing fuel and by helping

to amenities adapt to planning and building practices that make homes and communities safer. we are making progress. last year, our field and forest restoration treatment reduced house this field in almost 3 million acres. that is more than twice the area we treated 10 years ago. what we are having success with those treatments. the total on the left shows severe fire effects in an untreated area just outside of the community of alpine. the photo on the right shows an area that was treated under the 10-year white mountain contract. when the fire hit the treated area, and it hit the area that was treated, it lost that continuous fuel and dropped down on to the ground. it allows our firefighters to be able to get in there and control

its. the third goal is to make it safe, effective, risk based wildfire management decisions. we will continue to develop 98% of the fires. we have developed our fire decision support system to help our fire managers make strategic and tactical decisions. public safety, fire fighters safety will always be our core agency value. i want to touch on the issue of large air tankers. large air tankers are an accepted part of suppression. there are current fleets averaging more than 50 years old. in the next 10 years, more than half of our air tankers will need to be replaced and we are studying the options and will be making a recommendation by the end of this summer. thank you and i look forward to answering your questions.

>> thank you very much great -- thank you very much. >> thank you, its chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the department of the interiors readiness for the 2011 fire season. i in the deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement security and management. i provide the leadership and oversight to the department's bair program. i would like to submit my full testimony for the record. the 2011 fire season began in earnest in late april and early may. fire sit in move to the southern area of the united states. the drought is worse across the southern half of the nation.

more than 20% of the united states is managed by the department. we respond to thousands of wild fires across the country each year. we have achieved a high success rates in suppressing fires. morgan 31,000 fires have burned over 4 million acres. -- more than 31,000 fires have burned over 4 million acres. the department is working to prevent and reduce the effects of large fires. for the 2011 fire season, the department continues to be prepared.

we will deploy it 3500 firefighters, 135 smoke jumpers, 750 engines, more than 200 other pieces of heavy equipment. we -- the department will emphasize the hiring of returning veterans. aviation assets are comparable to prior years as well. nearly 60 single engine air tankers are expected to be available. the department commitments are in line with the recently completed phase one of the management strategy. under the direction of the leadership council, they develop a blueprint to collaborate on achieving a shared vision, to safely and effectively extinguished fire when needed.

the blueprint called for restoring and maintaining landscape. we will continue to work with our partners during phase two. in phase three, we will bring forth a regional strategies into a national strategy. this national collaborative effort represents a new strategy, and a new path forward, and a new way of thinking. it may pave the way for national, not just federal, fire management policy. it is not just comprehensive in its scope. it is complementary across all jurisdictions. the department has made significant improvements in the hazardous fuels allocation system.

we developed policies that outlined the hazardous fuels allocation process. the department will continue to pursue wrote -- pursue efficiencies and ensure the greatest value. all while strengthening the accountability and transparency of the way in which taxpayer dollars are being spent. the department of the interior is prepared to meet the challenges of today, tomorrow, and beyond. we will continue to improve our integrated approach to fire within the department. this concludes my statement. >> thank you very much. i think you answered this in your opening statement.

us will look in this situation in my state, we have more and more fire starting up, we have a fire reported today that started yesterday at the national monument. we have a fire up around -- it has caused the closing of i-25 going between albuquerque and denver. the wall of fire at of arizona is now coming albert and threatening the town of luna, new mexico. you believe you have the necessary resources necessary to respond to these fires on the other is going on around the country. is that an accurate understanding of your view? >> yes. with the resources that all the

partners bring to the wild land fire fighting mission, we believe that we have adequate resources to deal with the fires that we have on the landscape today with an anticipation of new starts every day. i want to stress that we always hold resources in reserve to deal with initial attack so that we always have resources to stop these defiers from becoming large. -- these new fires from becoming large. we believe we have adequate resources. >> thank you. last year, the inspector general issued a report regarding the firefighting work force. it is shrinking at the same time

as its need for qualified firefighters is increasing. the inspectors general said that insufficient planning could both increase the forest service is already significant expenditures to the higher cost of using non forest service employees and jeopardize the response capability of both the forest service and the assisting agencies. could you give this a little bit of an explanation as to how you are responding to that reports from the inspector general? >> we share the concerns from the inspector general that we need to ensure that we have a fire fighting force in the future. not only the firefighters, but also the overhead positions, commanders. i am tossed my team to be

looking at some of the things that we can do differently. -- tasked my team to be looking at some of the things that we cannot do differently. many of our commanders, they take over 20 years to be able to acquire the level of experience in training they need to be a commander. one of the things that we wanted to look at our training requirements. see how we can accelerate that. maybe with additional training assignments. make sure they have the expertise and make sure that we have that command system in place. >> a large fires that we are seeing remind us of why a landscaped scale approach to fuel reduction and forest restoration is important.

could you tell us how do think this new collaborative forest landscape restoration program is going and whether you think that is going to be an effective approach in reducing the risk and the costs of the severe wildfires. >> i want to think you for your leadership to provide us with that authority. that is the model for the future. we can bring people together from all interest to look at these much larger areas. in the case with these projects, there are over 50,000 acres. to provide a commitment for long-term funding. be able to treat another acres

where it makes a difference. in arizona, we have been able to treat over 40,000 acres. those projects made the difference in those communities. it is the difference from losing a few bombs to looking all of those -- losing all of those sums. that is the type of work that we need to do. we need to do it on a much larger scale. the projects are definitely the model as we move forward. it is something that we want to continue to expand on. we did ask for full funding in 2011 and 2012. we appreciate the support from congress for the funding we received. i would really encourage full funding for those projects next year. >> thank you very much. >> the center -- the senator

talked about the costs associated with it. we all recognize that the dollars that are out there are quite considerable. it is my understanding that the fire has surpassed that $5 million range. i think he mentioned over 40 million fort the -- for wallow and the toerhs. -- others. a team of scientists said that to the total short-term and long-term cost attributed to wildfire typically obtained announce that our intent to 50 times or more reported suppression expenses. do you agree with that? when you're talking about the cost of these fires, are we

being comprehensive and inclusive and understanding it? have really been able to identify what the costs associated with this? >> we have not reviewed those exact figures. without any question, the true cost, the total cost goes way beyond the suppression cost. the emergency rehab that we will need to do, it could easily match the total suppression caused by itself. when you factor in the loss of the resources, the impact to the livestock operators, plus the damages to offenses, there is no question that those total cost go way beyond this depression costs. >> does your agency do that calculation? we can identified those.

do you complete a total cost ?tudy of the season's >> we have not done that in the past. >> can you do that? >> i would like to see if some of the information we already have, i would like to visit that would be. >> let me ask you about to the alaska fire recruitment. the issues that are associated -- we have had this conversation before we have teams of alaskans that are standing by ready to go out and work on the fires. part of the reason we do not use the local teams if they lack the

qualifications needed to preserve on the federal fires break this is something that my constituents are bringing up with me repeatedly. if we do not have the training, why doesn't the training have been so that you do not have that expense of bringing folks up on the lower 48? on my trip back, this weekend and the weekend before, i sat next to a firefighter from oregon, a firefighter from california who were on their way. we need the help, but i want to know what is it that we can do to ensure that the alaska native crews actually get out on the job? >> they are handled the department of the interior. i will state that ideally, we would like to have those crews that are trade locally.

it is more cost-effective to be able to help the folks there. we often bring those cruise down into the lower 48. they will spend another month or two before they go back,. it takes a combination of both. it is one of the -- why we are so successful in the way that we all work together and these firefighting resources um -- are mobile. we always try to reach out and train local crews that are there and they are available so we do not have to wait. >> it takes a lot to move these men and women sit back and forth. we had some great hotshot crews out there. that is one way we can be looking at the cost side of it.

i hope we will have an opportunity for a second round, mr. chairman. i've a lot more questions. >> all the senators are saying that to our forests are taking a beating because of insufficient spending. it is obvious that the overstock are magnets for disease and in sacks -- and insects. every time you come here, you talked u.s. -- you talk to us, we've got to have more money. we've got to have more money. we went and looked at your fy 2012 budget justification. on page 11-14 of the budget

justification, you propose more reduction in the hazardous fuels budget. i am trying to reconcile these two statements, the one that you need more money, and what is in the budget. why don't you tell me how those two are consistent? >> with our 2011 cost for hazardous fuels, it is the same as we had in 2012. in 2012, -- in 2010. in 2012, there is a slight reduction. this concept of having an integrated resources restoration budget line item. we want to focus our hazardous fuels binding on the urban interface. then we want to take some of that funding and put it into the integrated resources restoration

said that in the landscape forest that are outside the urban interface, we can take this much more integrated approach to be able to not only address the need to reduce hazardous fuels, but also accomplished a watershed improvement work. by putting those funds together, we feel that we will increase our effectiveness and not ask for more funding. i have to tell you, i think this is still kind of funny money. you will talk to us about integrated resources. you talk to us about collaborative forestry program. every year, the problem just grows and grows. if you do not deal with these reductions, this problem is

going to continue to grow. we will continue to bring it up. when it is dry, we will see these infernos. that is what these fires are. in dry areas. they are not natural fires, they are infernos. let me ask you about the wild land fire aviation program. this has been under the microscope for what seems like eons. it is a fleet that is aging rapidly. somehow getting an adequate plan for the future just is not coming together. this has been the longest running battle since the trojan war. to get you all to update this week. why is it taking so long to get an adequate replacement fleet?

>> we will be bringing our planned up here by the end of the summer. we wanted to make sure that we had the information that we needed. the department of defense just- completed a study that you requested for us to be able to take a look at looking -- at using military aircraft for firefighting. they have completed their report. we're still waiting for the report that the corporation has promised us in july that would look at what is the right mix between large air tankers and small air tankers we have been gathering information. we will continue to work with our contractors, who have done a very good job, to be able to maintain the existing fleet so

that we can still respond. >> can you give me your sense of the target date? give us a ballpark windy could expect that lead to be available. -- give us a ballpark when it you expect that to be available. >> we will be looking at every option that is available today and be able to lay out a strategy that will continue to maintain an adequate fleet. we want to make sure that we have that 10 years from now, 20 years from now. our recommendation will include a strategy that will allow us to work for and work with the contractors to find ways to ensure that we will be able to have that adequate fleet into the future. >> my time is up. everybody remembers those to air tanker crashes.

i do not share your view that -- the government has to do a lot better. >> i understand that new fire management policies are in place and that sometimes when implemented, these polyps -- these policies result in longer burning fires. it can adversely affect neighboring jurisdictions. what are you doing to work with local officials to resolve any conflicts that might develop? >> when a fire starts, we'll look at the opportunity to be able to manage those fires. if we have the right conditions and we have done the pre planning. the first part of that is to be

able to sit down with local jurisdictions and be able to talk through the strategy so that they have an understanding of what they are proposing. we have to be able to work together to take those opportunities to use fire to reduce some of the fuel loading and restore the system. it is essential that we do that together. that is one of the first things that is done. the start of the season, we want to sit down with our local communities to be able to explain what we would like to do. be able to talk about it with them and answer their concerns. >> thank you. on the issue of making our forests left vulnerable to fires, is there anything that can be done by way of allowing more selective harnessing -- harvesting of lumber it? -- of lumber? >> that is the key to our

restoration work. it is the key to our urban interface work. to be able to -- as he saw in this one foul. arizona is not the first place where we have seen it. it changes the fire behavior dramatically. to the point where fire will get out of the tops of trees, get on the ground, our efforts have been effective. bill level of spending is dependent upon the conditions we have. -- the level of thinning is dependent upon the conditions that we have. >> how much of a problem do think it plays in your efforts toward fire prevention and making fires worse when they break out? >> did is part of the issue that we are facing when it comes to

fire activity in the west. one of the things that we have got to help us in that arena is are hazardous fuel system, which will help us identify in areas that are higher priority areas and targets. many of those are in the -- we have those to about our bureaus that allow us to address a little bit of what the chief said. we have some things that we are working on within the department to address the issue you're talking about. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the chairman mentioned earlier that climate change is one factor contributing to the fires that we are seeing. can you comments on that?

and on the impact you think climate change will have on forest fires in the future? >> yes. what we are seeing today in arizona and other parts of the south is an example of what our scientists say are the effects of climate change. the well that country, we are seeing wallenberg fire seasons. we are seeing snowpacks that does appear a little earlier every spring. we have a log fire season and would this change in climate, we are seeing an increased frequency of disturbing events. not only are the adults more frequent, they are also longer. -- not only are the drops more frequent, they are also laundered and blank. we have seen our fire seasons

increase more than 30 days. our scientists believe this is contributing to the change in climate. these large fires that we are seeing today, when i was out in arizona last weekend, i stopped to talk to our crews. i have seen a lot of large fires in my career. when i flew all along the west side of that fire and saw about a 30-mile front of active fire on just one side, it topped anything that i have seen before. this is a product of the prolonged drought. the winds that center call referred to. we need to do treatment on the land to be able to ensure our communities are saved. we need to do treatment to

restore the resiliency. we are going to continue to have large fires and a changing climate is one of the factors that will contribute to that. >> i would like to underscore that. four members of our body to, when we had discussions about the impact of climate change, and we are talking about the cost of this, that is a lot of what we're talking about here today. sometimes we talk about energy and we talk about the amount of carbon dioxide that goes into our atmosphere, and we talk about cost, i think it would be really good for members to take into account this kind of cost. we're talking about real dollars here. a lot of the focus is the cost

of this. it will be well and good for members to understand that this is related to climate change. and how important it is for us to address this and to take national action to reduce our target emissions. to that end, i would like to ask you about -- we are talking a lot about treating forests. i would like to ask about enhancing both forest health and in providing a renewable resource for heating and cooling, war for power production.

-- or for power production. how were you incorporating a sustainable harvesting of biomass and the forest service fire prevention plans, and using it to do the kind of stuff we do in minnesota? which is used biomass to do a heating and cooling and using that to provide energy. >> one of the things we need to continue to do in this country is to maintain our integrated wood products industry. the bottom half need to be removed from this landscape. we can put it to beneficial is spread -- we can put it to beneficial use.

we need to make sure that we are finding ways to build that infrastructure. especially with a smaller diameter materials. we have the option to either pilot up and burnet's in the woods -- pile it up and buirn it in the woods. we will continue to ask for funding in our biomass grant so we can encourage this type of the infrastructure development of around the country. it is not the best solution, but it is part of a solution. it makes better sense then piling this stuff up and burning it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for holding this hero -- this hearing.

i apologize for my tardiness. this is an important issued to most of us. i am a son who attends the university of southern california and he is an engineering student. he is currently in arizona fighting these fires and has been there for almost two weeks. after two weeks, they pull them out. he has been there more than 10 days. mom makes them call home every night to make sure that the 21- year-old boy is safe. >> tel and to keep that fire out in new mexico. >> -- tell him to keep that fire out in new mexico. >> i have seen few treatments in the lake tahoe basin and cytosine this picture. it is exactly the occurrence. -- and i have seen this picture.

it is very expensive. we spent hundreds of millions of dollars with these deal treatments just in one basin. i cannot imagine how expensive that has to be to try to do that on a much larger scale. clearly, the actions and the efforts to work. one of the problems we have the nevada is that 85% of the state is owned by the federal government. i have had the opposite today to look at some of the reports. the outlook on fire season and the funding. my concern is if you of sufficient funding, maybe you've already covered this question, your physical readiness. if the funding is there, is the

physical deeper feel prepared for this wildfire season? >> yes. we continue to be prepared this year. we have the adequate resources. i want to just assure you that i will speak for all of the agency's that we would not allow your son or any other firefighter to go out, as they had the equipment, and they had the training, and they had passed our physical requirements to ensure that not only can they accomplished their mission to help spread the fire, but they come slightly. >> --, home sat -- safely. >> the threat of these

endangered species act lifting the routes. when you have a wild fire, the competition that you have between wildlife -- if you have these fires, i think it will have devastating impact. when you try to balance between the act itself, the wildfires, and the competition between these animals. do you have any plans to invest more heavily into pretreatment in these areas when you have this kind of competition going on? between the act itself and between the animals competing

for those specific grounds. is there anything that you are doing that would give any priority to treatment in those threatened areas? >> yes. they are working very hard in trying to keep -- through hazardous fuels treatment and their programs. it is a high priority for them. they have other things that they need to balance, but it is absolutely on the list of their high priorities. >> ok. thank you. >> thank you. >> good to see you. thank you for what you do. we in idaho are happy that you are where you are. you have been very help -- helpful to us. i cannot this a little bit different. -- i come at this a little bit

different. when you do that, you get a different perspective than the theoretical approach to fire management. as far as climate change, we had a change in idaho this year. we are probably not going to have much of a fire season. thank goodness. i have watersheds that have a 1000 times -- a thousand% of average. it is stunning. our concerns are going to be fired. i appreciate the fine line that you guys walk. it amazes me when i hear people talk about climate change.

the people do talk about climate change are the exact same people who try to remove fuel from a watershed are the first was to follow suit. as we all know, over the years, the original policy to do fire control is what we are paying the price for now. the objective was to fight fires. all fires. suppressed them at all times of employment. that went on for a lot of years. we never had a big burn again. over the years, the federal government has also had a policy not for the government, but the courts to stop taking the fiber

out of the forest. the result of that is what we got today, catastrophic fires. in idaho, we have really suffered over the last decade. i appreciate the fine line that you bought and the difficulties that you have. when i started in the state legislature, we had 42 operating mills. today, we have to be zero. one of them was built would stimulus money. since we are down to these two males, it is very difficult to remove fiber. -- two mills. i appreciate the fine line that you have to walk. i hope he will continue to educate people about how important it is to remove fuel. it is so important and it comes to fire control and forests that

are struck -- that are thriving. it is a difficult task. a most able did not have the understanding, the technical understanding of how acre is very, from acre to acre. it is a great picture that you provided. you and i have probably seen examples of this all over. when you are out on a fire, you hope that it hits one that has burned and the last five or 10 years. that changes the dynamics of the fire entirely. the unfortunate thing about justice field treatment is how economically inefficient it is. it was turned over to the private sector to be able to remove it and use it. it would certainly help us at the federal level as far as the dollars that we spent.

thank you for what you do. we have the the national fire center in boise. the guys will be doing most of their work outside of idaho this year, which is a good game. thank you for what you do. >> thank you. let me ask another question. the flame hyped -- act passed in the last congress, requires the agency's to periodic segments predicted estimates for wild fire suppression caused so that congress is adequately informed all the fiscal situation. the agency, neither of the submitted thosee reports within the requirements -- within the timeframe required

by the act. it is a waste of the effort and resources to develop the reports that they're going to be obsolete by the time we get to see them. getting these reports cleared and submitted in a timely manner will be critical if we are a guide to be able to help avoid a borrowing situation we used to find ourselves in. i would urge both of you to take a message back to your respective departments. we need to come up with some way to get that information to the congress in a timely way. i do not know what either of you have any comments. i am not asking you to respond. as i understand it, the problem is getting -- not getting the reports done, but getting them cleared. is that an accurate understanding? >> first of all, i apologize.

it is information that we used. we share that and you can factor that into your decision making. you have my assurance that in the future, we will make sure that we have those up here. i am of the we will have them appeared this week. >> that would be very helpful. >> the department of interior did submit a report dated april 27. we will get you a copy of that. our may report is in process. i will be sure to get back to you at some point. >> i am sure that you read the article that was in ""washington post" on sunday.

i read all of my newspapers last night, but this is the one. u.s. said a couple of times this morning that you believe that -- you have said a couple of times this morning that the resources are accurate. whether it is equipment for other sputtered out fighting or the air assets. the article makes a couple of statements that i want to ask you about. a large tanker plane released by the agency and flying average about 50 years. they are becoming unsafe to deploy. a statement back in the 2009 reports, the fire service replacement plan, the remaining air tankers should fly for only one more year. after 2012, they will be too expensive to maintain.

the first question is whether or not you agree with that statement. next year is next year, we are working on the budget now. we all know how long it takes to get anything done around here. are we going to be in a situation more next year, we will not have air assets that you would consider adequate and save. it that is the case, i would hope that we would not put the lives on the safety of those clarified in for at risk. i know you have seen you will be getting this plan to us by the end of the summer. but aren't we putting this kind of close when it comes to preparing this? >> we have been continuing to work with our contractors to look at newer aircraft. they have been pursuing that to be able to bring on some newer aircraft grade at the same

time, we do hold them to very strict safety standards on the maintenance of these planes. to insure that they are not being flown unless they are safe. when i say we have adequate resources, if some planes did to be granted for the maintenance, we have the ability to bring on additional helicopters to replace those assets, or weekend make a request to our units in the national guard to be able to offset that for a period of time. we know that we need to lay out the strategy that will ensure that we have large air tankers as part of our resources into the future. that is what our strategy will be. it will have an interim approach so we continue to work with our existing contractors or other contractors to be able to bring

on aircraft that will continue to provide a period of time that we do not have to wait five or six or 10 years to actually happen. i remain confident that we have the adequate resources. it is time for us to move forward and that is why we will be bringing that report recommendation of to congress later this summer so that we can begin a discussion on what is the best way to move forward with a recommendation. >> when we have the discussion several months ago at interior, you assured me at that time there was going to be a variety of aircraft types and sizes within the fire fighting force. i take that to mean bad it will be different brands, it will be including the size of have the

-- have the aircraft. this'll be part of that mix, is that a correct assumption? >> we need to look at every option that we have available. that is to look at a full range of the aircraft currently available and some that are being developed. our strategy is going to look at using every option that is available. for us to be able to continue to always have the resources that the large air tankers provide. >> since that hearing, there has been some feedback from some who have suggested that perhaps a heavy aircraft would not be employed. what i'm hearing you say is that

you will be looking to all options, including the heavy aircraft. that will be included as part of the consideration. >> yes. >> ok. but me ask one final question. for a good part of the last decade, the forest service has refused to allow the d.c.10 to fly on the fires of the national forest lands. i see that this tape, the forest service used it in the fire. has something changed, are we going to be seeing more of these? what is the situation? dc10 under athe contract and we have used them in the past. we did use it on the wall of fire. one of the things we have asked the team to do as far as they're

after action is to look at the effectiveness of that a very large aircraft to help us learn the effectiveness. it is part of the mix and we will continue to have it available. when our instant commanders need that tool, they will order it. >> if you look to rolling out this report at the end of this season, discussion of how all -- dc10 performed to be part of that review? >> we will be looking at these very large air tankers. we will look at their effectiveness, what type of terrain they can be effective in. >> thank you. >> thank you.

i bring a great deal of humility to the subjects. i am new to this committee. on forest management, i certainly yield to my friend who has a degree in forest management. i certainly do not. let me ask you about the scientists that you cited, referring to the effects of climate change. they have degrees, right? >> yes. >> those degrees are in what? what would their degrees be n? >> they are in a variety of disciplines.

primarily with a focus on vegetation and understanding the effects of climate change on vegetation. we have the largest research and development operation, organization in the world when it comes to understanding natural resources. where our focus is on understanding the effects of climate change, we rely on other entities to do studies of whether. our scientists are mostly focused on extending these the facts. that is what we have been doing research for the a facts. when our scientists have seen how the vegetation has changed, across the country. we see where a tree lines are moving higher up on the slopes. the change in the visitation -- that is what we are focused on.

understanding those changes so that we can adapt our management to deal with these changes. >> ok. in adapting management, it is fair to say that we have made some mistakes in the past in terms of how we approached sustainable for a. is that fair to say? >> we should do more than we have done in the past. there has been time when we have not been able to implement our project because of lawsuits. that is true. what has changed today is that there is more and more agreement across the country, especially when our collaborative efforts when people come together and understand the type of work that needs to be done.

we have a big forestry industry. we have a paper company, which i have gone to, and they do sustainable forestry with the forest that they own. part of that is actually harvesting certain fuel that does become fuel and becomes fuel for the kind of -- this is used as biomass. do you think across the federal

forests that we're using the adequate use of the debris from the forest floor and also the thinning of the trees to use for this purpose? >> we are starting to make use of this. we have made a considerable investment in additional facilities so that we can make more use of this material. in the future, there will be a need to treat more acres. the more that we can work with communities, private industry to find ways that they can make the investment in these facility, it will not only reduce the costs of removing the material but it

will put it to beneficial use and create real energy. >> the senator has arrived and he does not have a chance to answer questions. can he ask these questions? >> this would have dovetailed nicely with our legislation on the beatles. >> i look forward to a complete report. i don't think there was a disagreement that was the cause of the problem.

"we will continue to endeavor to convince us of the point of view. the date you for your patience. i know the of visited about aviation services. i had been discussing this and drawn attention to it for a number of years. i hope there is a solution in front of us. i will turn to a specific colorado event that relates to aviation. the canyon fire is the most devastating in our history. the best majority was not a federal land. there was reports said took more than 24 hours for the first

aircraft to respond and it came from across the state when local resources were passed over. i have to urge you to look dish -- into the issue. we have a post mortem report which is very viable. i think the question arises whether the federal government is using its resources in the most efficient way. can you comment on this? >> with that, it is my understanding which is the case when we loose a fire, we had strong wind. the air tankers do not fly. they're not only not effective, this is not safe.

it has been my experience that the fire was a state fire and working with the county. they have the resources that you need. it has been my experience that if they need a large air tanker, they will put the order in. if that the basket there in to the next day, unless i have other information, i would assume it was because of the weather but they would not have been effective but we welcome the review. this is one of the things that we would like to do after the action review so that we can continue to learn what we need to do. if there is a question about the resources that were not available, that is what we need to do. it has been our experience that the commanders deploy the

resources they need when they can be effective. when we get the wind that we have normally around fires they are not effective than not able to fly. larch helicopters can fly in high wind this is 35 miles an hour at the very most and we cannot fly the aircraft. >> the issue was in regards to helicopter and helicopter availability. if you could respond briefly so i can get a second question, i would appreciated. >> i reviewed the chief. i don't have any specifics on what happened in the fire but we will take what comes out of the review and make sure that we have the processes in place. the ordering is very consistent and our folks do it all the time. there are the idiosyncrasies

that keep them from doing that. >> this is been a part of the conversation. everyone who has been here has had a combination of war and regret on their face. what are you doing about mitigation? what more can we do? i just met with a company that developed a technique where they don't bring the trees to them, they bring this to the tree. >> what you just mentioned is one of the examples that we need to work with private industry to find ways to increase our wood products to make use of all of

this material, whether it is the logs or the smaller diameter material. that has been our focus to use the restoration act project, which allows us to look at a much larger landscapes, 50,000 acres. the work we're doing in arizona with one of the projects there, we are going to do one environmental impact statement to deal with 157,000 acres. we should treat much larger areas and will allow investment to occur. you can realize that there is a certain amount of work that can be done for the next 10 years so they can go ahead and make the

investment in the equipment. that is a tool that we need to continue to pursue. we're working to be able to pursue some pilot approaches to taking on these large scale in burma to analysis so that we have their support and their assistants. >> this is the time frame that is longer. there is an idea of circulating. you actually value the trees that 0 and you would have more potential to giving the private sector involved. >> i agree. those are things that we should

have a look at. the idea of a zero value tree at all think is totally off the wall. the forest service has done that. when we were in the road building business, frequently the cost of the roads exceeded the value of the timber, am i right on that? >> yes. we are currently readjusting our prices so that the average price of the material being removed was back nearly 70's. we are constantly focused on this. when need to ensure that the public is receiving compensation with that. not only does this ensure that

we take a collaborative approach so that there is agreement on the type of work that needs to be done but there are any other revenues that are produced, that can actually be put into that project to be able to do more watershed improvement, more fisheries work. >> i appreciate your review of the fire and arizona. were you on the biscuit fire over in oregon? and that was another one that was a real catastrophe. it got a lot of cold-old growth industry. there was a lot talk about it at the time. we learned a lot of lessons. it does not -- that was such a

catastrophe. i thought it would promote some changes particularly in fuel loading and doing the kind of management that you do to put strips in in order to stop the future fires. it does not seem like it resulted in anything. it came off of the front page and it is a contagion and never heard about it again. >> these large fires have helped to inform and encourage our communities. to learn about the importance and forestry, the importance of preserving the resilience of these systems. i think that they are a product of what they have come up with.

i think that that has all helped. i will stay optimistic that these things have occurred in the past. we need more work on the ground today than we have had in the past. i think 3 million acres, i think that is the product. the byproduct from some of these things >> i have to agree. it did not get control until december. kind of like the big bird.

people are becoming more sensitive, as you know. they're still defending one more step. before, it was not one tree. and some of these areas that we would have had real trouble with there was a lot of small towns we have out there. >> do you have additional questions? >> you cut me off if necessary. we have been talking about

sawmills. i don't know about the situation in idaho or mexico, but our sawmills have been in real trouble. the significant reason behind that is the legacy timber sales which are no longer financially viable and they become a liability. secretary sherman has been working on this. the clock is running. >> i think that this is the case in many parts of the country that to be able to maintain this wood products industry companies to be some certainty that would will be available. we definitely have the need on the landscape.

there is to approach and a process that we use that helps people to come together and reach agreement on a type of work. you can continue to have that authority. that will continue to be one of the tools that we need to use. >> this is an opportunity that we could miss and it will be hard to rebuild the sawmill sector. the power mill lines, a big deal in colorado. we have one of the most populous western states. utilities have a point of view,

you have a point of view. this is hard to believe. we have to get these negotiations included so that we can do the work to insure these power line corridors will be subject to this because a tree falls a line that then triggers a fire. that is a big concern and arizona. i urge you to do everything possible to get an agreement on the ground. i know the lawyers are important. senator bingaman is a lawyer. i don't want to be a lawyer. let's bring some common sense to bear and get a deal said that we can -- a lot of these power lines, you cannot come in in the wintertime

and do that work. >> thank you for the letter you sent. >> we have a couple of different options to address that concern and satisfy the liability issue. there is another opportunity by working gather not only will we insurer that the lines are protected but at the same time there could be some additional restoration work. >> did you have additional questions? >> no, thank you. >> we wish you good luck the remainder of this fire season.

>> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> coming up in a moment, a house energy subcommittee examines the nuclear regulatory commission's handling of the shutdown of yucca mountain. then, more about the management of the wild fires in the west. tomorrow morning, a congressional oversight panel is looking at a federal gun smuggling sting operation run by the atf. they passed weapons to suspected gun smugglers to try to trace

them to the higher echelons to the drug cartels. live coverage begins at 10:00 eastern on c-span 3. then, a look at the health of the british and financial health sector. there will be comments from the chancellor of the exchequer. >> this is a treasonous action. >> it revolves -- it involves secure information. who would do such a thing? >> 40 years ago, "the new york times," published the first installment of the pentagon papers. you can watch perspectives from historians and the people who made history.

search, watch, share. watch what you want, when you want. the nuclear regulatory commission's inspector general issue a report that suggested that the chairmen withheld information from a regular -- from other commissioners and are to stop work on the yucca mountain repository. next, the house energy subcommittee will look at the at the issue and the management.

>> the chair recognizes himself for five minutes. today, we take another step in understanding the management breakdown. i welcome our witness and i thank him for his professionalism. he started this review last october at the request of chairmen often. his work is thorough and timely. having read the entire report, i'm struck by three problems. first, the inefficiency. this is unbelievable that one week after the new policy act says that the nrc must either approve or deny the license application or formally notify congress as to why it needs more time, the commission cannot even reach the question of whether the application is even alive. one year ago, the atomic safety and licensing board ruled that the department of energy has no authority to withdraw the

application and must continue to review it. less than two months later, the question was put to a vote of the full commission. on august 10th, one commissioner abstained. on august 25th and 26, the commissioners voted. then, the chairmen retracted his vote. then, another commissioner voted. somehow, 10 months after all of that, the voting is still not over. you don't need internal commission to -- procedures to see that this is horribly inefficient. we have no one to blame except chairman. there are internal commissioner proceedings. commissioners are to vote within 10 business days once a quorum has voted come up mission to

vote late might be that -- granted by a majority of the commissioners. a delay might only be given by a majority of the commissioners. none of that has been followed. it is the chairmen's duty to make sure it is followed. parties to the action rely on the commission to follow their own rules and keep the trains running on time for the chairmen past neglect of duty is shocking as it denies to the partisan interest a full timely determination. if it becomes clear that the promise are worse than just in efficiency and worst the neglect of duty. there is outright malfeasance. the report is replete with instances of the chairmen deliberately misleading both his fellow commissioners and senior staff. he knowingly withheld crucial information from his fellow commissioners even though the federal statute requires that all commissioners have a front

information. -- have access to all information. in some cases, the commissioner manipulated the situation. when confronted by one commissioner about this, the chairman merely insulted his colleague by sarcastically recording, you should have asked. i hope all members study the report carefully and take time to seek any clarification. the situation warrants our attention and best judgment.

>> thank you for addressing this issue. there has been a lot of discussion by the administration not to proceed with yet the mountain. this produced 806 kilowatt hours making this the biggest producer of nuclear power in the world. now, $25 billion later, we're closing our only long-term solution for nuclear waste. the president has said he supports investment in alternative forms of energy. the secretary has testified that we would be unable to meet the president's goals if we cannot continue to invest in nuclear- powered. as we look forward and focus on investing more, we still have radioactive waste. today, will be inspecting the report to terminate the review

object mountain. many allegations have been made on the legality of the decision to terminate the review. this evaluated two allegations, one was that the chairmen and properly closed at the review of the application while the government still operating under continuing resolution. then, the chair is preventing the commission from ruling on the licensing board decision to deny d d zero e motion to deny the application. the inspector john report found that the chairman had not been forthcoming. -- inspector general report found that the chairman was not forthcoming. the report does not review whether or not the actual decision to close yucca was appropriate. there is some internal issues that should be evaluated and addressed. it is frustrated -- frustrating

that our country is the largest emitter of nuclear waste in the world and this is eclipsed by those that don't have as much nuclear power as we do. this is frustrating after all of these years. i would like to thank mr. belfort appearing before the committee. i yield back my time. >> the chairman recognizes that the chairman of the full committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is essential to energy security as well as national security and that should not be treated as a partisan issue. there are concerns about the apparent breakdown in the operations, a departure for non- partisan tradition and billions of dollars invested. if justice delayed is justice denied and has been a year since

states and other parties went to court seeking a ruling on the licensing application. the atomic safety and licensing board ruled that the nrc must consider and vote on the application. the commission is not >> it appears that a he devised a complex calculated strategy to kill the license application without consideration by the commission. consumers have been paying into the fund since 1983 with the promise of something in return. a permanent place to send the spent fuel away from the reactor. when the application was filed three years ago, it grew more common. the nrc would grant the license or explain to congress why they needed more time. instead they will not give a straight answer about whether the application is still alive.

it is not just nuclear power consumers who are cheated. it is taxpayers'. nevada pays because the doe is late. the taxpayers on the hook for an additional $15 billion on top of the nearly $15 billion already spent. that is a liability. if not, it rises by another half billion dollars every year. the circumstances surrounding this rush to pull the plug on yucca mountain are as alarming as they are disappointing. we have a administration that wants to raise the effect launched by reagan casting aside three decades of scientific research. they want to start from scratch the matter what the cost. despite this moment of dysfunction, the nrc's intrinsic

body lies in the dedication and expertise of its professional staff including our witnesses today. we will do what we can to rescue the agency from the ditch some have driven it into. we will get the nrc to focus once again on a statutory mission to serve all the people instead of the political patrons. i yield to mr. whitfield. >> in january 2009, president obama made the statement. transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstone of this presidency. yet when you read the inspector general's report, you see words like "misleading," "false statements." that is not the type of

transparency that we need in america today. i would like to reiterate what the chairman has said. this is more than just about the chairman. this is about the american people and the american taxpayer who have spent over $10 billion preparing their come mountain who have now been sued by utilities an additional $15 billion. that is increasing every year because the government cannot meet its obligations because of one person at the nrc whose personal objective is to close this project at yucca mountain. i think it is an abuse of his authority. i look forward to the testimonies today. >> chair recognizes the chairman emeritus for five minutes.

>> thank you. this is the third hearing this subcommittee has held on the closure of the yucca mountain waste repository. today will hear from the nuclear regulatory commission inspector general who has issued a report on allegations of the nrc chairman relating to the closure. the primary finding of the report was that the chairman's ambitions have been a stat -- consistent with law and his authorities as chairman. this finding is different from what the chairman has been saying for months in the press and in this hearing. he has repeatedly stated that the chairman has been acting illegally. this is the problem with pre- judging the outcome of an investigational before it has started. despite the rhetoric, today we

will not be presented with evidence of lawbreaking. instead we will hear about internal procedures. we will examine the consultation requirements and functions of the nrc curses the functions of the other commissioners. some commissioners felt misled by the chairman. they did not like his style. they expressed concern about the unilateral action these are legitimate issues to examine. we should be exercising our oversight to ensure that it operates as smoothly and fairly as possible. the chairman of the commission has an obligation to conduct proceedings fairly and impartially. chairman shimkus' concern that the chairman jaczko held

information is legitimate and one we should examine today. ironically, we should look at how this committee has operated. over our objections, the staff of the subcommittee -- the chairman says that the report " reveals a calculating chairman who has abused his authority and withheld information from fellow commissioners." that is how some of us fill when we are being treated in this investigation by denying us access to interviews. let's make sure that our committee operates as a model to not criticizing as we hope they would. i look forward to hearing from

you today. i support a thorough investigation into the yucca mountain and the actions of the nrc. any such investigation should be fair and nonpartisan. i would hope our committee would meet this standard. >> the chair now calls for the witness. he is accompanied by joseph macmillan, assistant inspector general at the nrc. and the senior level assistant for investigative operations in the office of inspector general. the testimony you're about to give is subject to title 18 section 1001 of the united states code. when holding an investigative hearing, this committee has the practice of taking testimony under oath. the have any objection to

testifying under oath? both shake their head no. under the rules of the house and the committee, you are entitled to be advised by counsel. tubes desire to be advised? all shake their head, no. if you would please rise and raise your right hand. i will swear you win. -- in. do you swear the testimony about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you very much. you may give your 5 and the summary of your written statement. welcome.

>> good morning. mr. chairman, it is my pleasure to appear before you today. senior level assistant for investigative operations. by insuring integrity, efficiency, accountability in our programs. we carry out this mission by conducting and supervising an investigation related to the programs and operations of the nrc. my operating budget is $10 billion. with 58 full-time employees. lastly, my office issued a report on the dangers that the nrc chairman improperly closed out the department of energy's

operation -- application while we were working on -- and was preventing the commission from concluding its ruling to deny its motion to withdraw the license application from nrc. we also looked into concerns raised about the management style and with his prevention of making other commissioners of killing their responsibilities. the nuclear waste policy act of 1982 named yucca mountain as a single candidate for a waste repository. they would consider application for a repository within three years of the application. nrc accepted this application in september 2008 and planned to

issue a a safety evaluation report containing its findings. in february 2010, the energy secretary said the administration would suspend licensing for the repository because it was not a workable option. in march 2010, we submitted a motion to withdraw the license application which was denied. the commission chose to review the decision ended august 2010 began consideration of this matter. on september 30, they decided to spend money at 2010 levels to continue 2010 projects and activities. on october 4, 2010, senior officials issued a memorandum to suspend activities on the licensing.

document -- that document, soon after they were directed to stop working and proceed to closing the program. the staff was directed to follow budget guides about how -- based on the chairman's office. the chairman used a memorandum to close up the license application although the budget had not been passed. the decision was quoted by the chairman council within the authority on the reorganization plan of 1980. the administration opposed the decision to determine the --

stop the project. we also found that wily chairman had the authority to direct staff to follow the budget guides, he was not forthcoming with the intention to stop work as part of implementing close down activities. [unintelligible] a majority agree with the outcome of the memorandum which was directed to stop work. they did not think the conditions to proceed had been met. on october 6, two commissioners elected not to vote on the matter. they could not move the matter to policy space within the commission's per view. oig found it difficult to fulfil

its obligation to review the a come out and license application -- yucca mountain license application. the decrease in the preparations for the high-level waste program. oig found its voting procedures are not consistently enforced. they do not provide details on the process between completion of a vote and an affirmation vote. the lack of enforcement and specificity coupled with the decision not to move to affirmation into law commissioners agree, allows matters to sit in abeyance. oig found that the information provided to others on his

interpretation of staff to the authority -- because he controls the information available, they are uncertain as to whether they are adequately informed. ultimately, any issue they perceived as a policy matter before the commission and give the majority commissioners. we would be pleased now to answer questions. >> thank you very much. i recognize -- i ask consent that the contents of the document be introduced into the record. without objection, the document will be entered into the record with any reactions as staff determines are appropriate. i now recognize myself for the

first five minutes. mr. bell, thank you. how many interviews did you conduct for this investigation? >> 39 total, sir. >> they were transcribed interviews under oath. >> the majority were. what are to were not transcribed. all under oath. >> did you review documents as well? >> yes, we did. >> your report is based on documented evidence in sworn testimony both in the narrative and in the findings. >> correct. >> this evaluation was conducted independently without any direction or interference from outside of the office of inspector general. >> that is correct. >> you investigated the decision to close down the safety evaluation of the yucca license last october. you determined that the senior

staff expressed concern that the whole commission needed to be on board with guidance. and the chairman told senior staff he would inform the commission and later said the commissioners were in agreement with the direction. is that the case? >> yes. >> the chairman did not and sure they understood the implication of this guidance. >> the inference that the chairman had told the commission was that before he issued any memorandum, that the commissioners would be informed. this would be done with himself having a conversation or the chief of staff talking to the

commission offices that he and not spoken with personally. >> on your report, chairman jaczko did not insure that each understood the implication of the guidance. according to your investigation, he was not forthcoming with the commissioners. he did not even talk to one of them. he did not explicitly explain his plans to direct the shutdown of the yucca review. is that which you found? >> that is correct. >> is the reorganization plan of 1980 under which the nrc operates? >> yes. >> according to the requirement in this plan, the chairman, "shall be responsible for ensuring the commission is fully informed about matters within its functions." >> that is what it states.

>> that is an essential responsibility for the chairman as laid out in the law. according to your investigation, the chairman strategically provided three of the four commissioners with varying amounts of information about his intention to not complete the safety evaluation report. that is what to determined. -- you determined. it is withholding information from different commissioners consistent with "insuring that the commission is fully informed?" >> no, sir. >> it became clear that many staff including senior staff and the majority of the commissioners considered the

guidance imposed by the chairman to be a policy matter. >> a policy matter, correct. >> you write to that the chairman himself "knew the commission did not support the guidance for the high-level waste program and that he wanted to be prepared for battle." even the chairman recognize this would be a policy fight. would you agree that the decision surrounding the yucca mountain application had a profound implications? you agree? >> it is a policy matter. >> what we see here was a matter of national policy which the chairman tried to manipulate into a mere administrative matter within his control. is this consistent with the obligations for how to formulate policy? >> no, sir.

>> i yield five minutes to the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you had to allegations that chairman jaczko improperly closed out the nrc review of the application while the government was operating under a resolution in fiscal year 2011. and that the chair is preventing people from ruling on the licensing decision to deny the motion to withdraw. you found that the chairman had not been forthcoming and acted within his own authority. did you evaluate whether was appropriate to close the yucca mountain generally? >> no. >> the report said it was wrong? >> no, sir. >> this is the second time i have noticed that and administration takes leave under

continuing resolution. did your investigation discuss anything about the administration using liberal interpretations of the continuing resolution? >> no, sir. >> some of my colleagues has said it decided to close up the process for some nefarious purpose. this was done at the behest of the president for political purposes. did you find indication that the president reached out to the chairman and personally asked him to stop reviewing the yucca mountain application? >> no, sir. >> i think we need to take the allegations seriously. the report does not find a legal conduct nor does that make assertions about whether the administration opposed the decision was proper. i do think our committee needs

to look at the nrc and general government. there have been some cases, like with nasa, some decisions were made based on the budget but it did not pass the house of representatives. yet they made these decisions to change programs. i think that might be the problem we have. i think whether it be another agency, they need to come back to congress where they make these decisions, particularly after $15 billion has been put into it and after 25 years of work. that all of the sudden we say, we're not winter except that. that is our problem. congress needs to take away that authority. >> would you yield for one second? >> i would be glad to. >> if there was a policy decision that should be made, it should be made by commissioners

collectively. isn't that correct? >> it should be a commission. >> this is a commission. we should all have a say when there is a change in policy. it is our intention to report that they were made by the chairman. >> i agree. something this major, we ought to have the opportunity as elected officials to make the decision. the appropriations for $15,000,000,000.25 years. i yelled back my time. >> the chair recognizes the full committee for five minutes. >> thank you. i want to thank you, mr. bell, for the report. president reagan signed the policy waste back to 1982. in reading the commercial nuclear waste report from this

last april, i want to read to you one long paragraph. "prolonging on-site storage would add to the burden by increasing the liabilities that have barred been incurred due to on-site storage at commercial nuclear reactors. for them to open yucca as planned, it would still have taken decades to take custody of the inventory." assuming the opening -- the total liabilities for the backlog as of 2020 would be about $15.4 billion. it would increase each year thereafter. it is important to recognize these liabilities are outside of the $15 billion already spent. the estimated $41 billion still to be spent if yucca mountain were to be considered and become

operational. for nearly $100 billion at the end of the day. in reading the report, i want to read a couple of comments on three commissioners. the first is commissioner magwood. "he told the chairman he would not support a precipitous termination of the high level waste program. the chairman assured him this was not the expectation. the chairman became very agitated and said he would never have taken these actions had both commissioners not agreed to support the guidance." he objected to the statement strongly. the chairman never told him his plan had been to shut down the high-level waste program and with the publication of the scr

volume. on page 18, on october 21, 2010, chairman jaczko told him that the memo would have the staff commence the license application. he told the chairman that he disagreed with his direction. the direction was wrong and he should not issue it. as relates to the third commissioner, shimkus mr., her staff informed the chairman jaczko's office that he objected to the guidance. she stated she did not have any communication with the review regarding the matter before the budget guideline memo was issued on october 4, 2010. can one come to a different

conclusion that there least three votes in opposition of where they ultimately were? it is a pretty damning report does a relates to his control of these three commissioners who they didtyhhe record, not agree. can one come to a different conclusion? >> he thought the memorandum that was being circulated would not stop the scr from progressing. why the commission my be moving toward the closure of the program, in each of those cases, it was their oppression that it would be continued. >> was a not the fact that the staff review plan was going to

be expedited? it was chairman jaczko that said the slowdown? >> there was a time frame when the staff went to the chairman and indicated a desire to advance to numbers one and three. the chairman indicated to the staff that he wanted to maintain the publish schedule that was in the record at that time. that was their understanding. they would maintain the public schedule of timing. >> what the commissioners filled when they learn that the decision had been withheld from them? >> sting of the in the context of the report, -- staying within the context