this. we want to get it done this time. what other management reforms that you can support in those discussions echo --? -- mr. bonnie: they require collaboration and environmental safeguards. using that as a basis and looking for things to use your thinking, something we can get done. there is common ground that we can find for people in the conservation community, and elsewhere. wyden: can you get with us the desk get us the specifics of what management reforms the administration would support? in addition to the efforts to and the fire blurring.

that is gone to be a part of getting this done. >> can we have that within two weeks? >> we can try. we need to get that in two weeks . >> i appreciate you pushing for the specifics. i mentioned it is my intention to be moving this proposal in a relatively direct manner. we don't have a lot of legislative days before we can -- we conclude for mid july. i would reiterate the requests from senator wyden and ask that you be most expeditious with these next two weeks. let's turn to senator gardner. sen. gardner: thanks for holding this hearing and welcome to the committee. murkowski.o chairman

-- to address this issue. it is something i hear about from county commissioners every time i go back to colorado, the importance of addressing this issue. colorado as well as many western -- the impact of the significant loss that can happen from a forest fire. with over 14 million acres of ,ational forest and grasslands it is all affected by drastic impacts we have had from budget reductions and other things on how we currently fund wildfire suppression. i want to turn view mr. bonnie. -- i want to turn to you, mr. bonnie. we have got to find an end to this fire burning practice. we've seen a wildfire in northwestern colorado.

the beaver creek fire. it is not what made -- what many people think beaver creek. our office has been a tough with andcials and local offices am very thankful for the work you firefighters are doing at this time. there are two other fires burning in colorado as we speak. in the context of the fire suppression, the concern for the recreation program, the white river national forest. this forest has lost more than 40% of budget and staff while recreation use has increased. one of the most negative impacts of this trend is the agency is unable to be responsible partner .o deliver recreation the white river is home to ski resorts and generates benefits to the treasury, the state and local communities.

during the hearing in 2017, hearing on 2017 budget, i asked -- he agreed to meet with me in early july to further address this question. i very much appreciate that. are you where -- are you aware of any plans? mr. bonnie: we still have eight full-time staff members that work with daesh industry. week -- with the ski industry. there are about to now. -- two now. i have been in touch with the folks at the ski industry and am willing to engage as to how we can solve this problem. turning to the cup just to the railroad. -- to the railroad. because it is a coal fire old railroad, they are required to

have firefighting capabilities in place. these firefighting capabilities include water tanks, men trained to combat fires and a helicopter that is on standby. while the railroad is responsible for addressing fires , it is my understanding they are prohibited from fighting fires which, beyond the rights-of-way and must instead just report it instead of using their resources to help fight it. on november 2015, ask questions during a hearing on wildfires and we talked about certification issues and how they can be empowered to fight fires before they get out of control when they are spotted. section two of the draft would require a single system -- and provide intron acceptance. -- provide interim acceptance.

could you talk about the forced service policy toward partnerships with private industries in combating wildfires? >> we do a lot of work with contractors. i will raise on the certification issue has to do with air safety. we have had a number of accidents so the standards we set are very important. happy to work with your office on the issue. the flag i would raise is we want to make sure whatever we do we are being as safe as we can. sen. gardner: i look forward to ongoing conversation. thank you for your work. >> thank you, madam chair. take you for the work and senator cantwell have done. last year, chief tidwell committee onthis

the interaction of wildfire and climate change as the chief shared scientists at the forced service believe climate change is one of the major factors leading to recent trends of longer fire seasons with wildfires that are larger and more intense. in fact fire seasons are now on average nearly 80 days longer than they were in 1970. s burn twice as many acres today as they did 30 years ago. our climate is warming and we are experiencing unfamiliar and unprecedented conditions. drought maybe the new normal. insect outbreaks may be the new normal. larger than average fire seasons may be the new normal. undersecretary bonnie in your

what extent is climate change driven the increases in fire suppression costs that we have been seeing? had annie: it has significant impact. it is not the only thing, because we have taken financial fires out of the ecosystem, just because we have more development . -- because we have more developing, that drives cost of. clearly climate change has a cost and this causes having a serious impact on your agency. my colleagues across the aisle seem to be in denial about the real costs of climate change. for some of them, whether climate change really exists, do you expect the costs to rise as climate change continues to get worse? mr. bonnie: yes, scientists believe we will increase the acreage by midcentury.

more than double actually. sen. franken: in minnesota, non-native invasive species theaten -- unfortunately invasive emerald ash for has destroyed tens of millions of ash trees throughout the u.s. since it was first detected in 2002. undersecretary bonnie, i want to thank your agency for the work you are doing at the forced services northern branch station -- doing at the forced services northern branch station. at the growing cost of wildfire suppression is draining your budget and hindering some of the great work that the forced service is doing outside of fighting wildfires. 39% fewer service has staff the non-fire positions

it --that it last 20 is then it did in the last 20 years or so. to fight wildfires. we were discussing today addresses the borrowing issue, but it does not fix the fact that wildfires suppression costs continue to grow. the overall forest budget, isn't that right? >> that is right. sen. franken: thankfully minnesota does not experience thestrophic fires, but ever-expanding costs of wildfire suppression still impacts my state. i want to make sure that any wildfires legislation addresses needs of minnesota so that we most issues --

are most threatening issues like the emerald ash bore. a market for hazardous fuel and waste. -- they are at risk for economic damage from forest fires. we know that. removing hazardous fuel like underbrush and immature trees can also help reduce the severity of wildfires and mitigate economic damages, especially when this is done right around communities near or within our forest. i see an opportunity to help pay for the removal of hazardous fuel by using this waste as a source of electricity for nearby communities. this could reduce fire risks and bring economic benefit by heat and power and other facilities.

as my time runs out, undersecretary bonnie, once it is cut, what is done with hazardous fuel today echo mr. bonnie: we are paying people to remove them. we would actually be up to get more work done. forst services making investments here -- forest services making investments here. sen. franken: can i ask this one last half a question? ok. in your experience, what are the major roadblocks to using hazardous fuel for biomass power? it helped both mitigate fire risks and play a role in plan energy. mr. bonnie: one of the challenges is lack of market and cheap, natural gas. it is going to require

investment. sen. franken: thank you, madam chair. i am trying to figure out relationships here between fires and climate change and management of the forest. my impression is, and i think your chart indicates this, but i may be wrong, that part of preventing fires is more intensive management of the forest. isn't that correct? is to bonnie: yes. -- isn't that correct? mr. bonnie: yes. >> you don't have the money left to do the management which makes fires more likely. isn't that the dynamic? mr. bonnie: we cannot do the scale we need in on to confront -- >> we need to be talking about --ferent ways to fund the

secretary bosak this week, the fire budget is eating up everything else. mr. bonnie: we will spend more than half of our budget every year just on firefighting. -- if you in another add in other fire cause, it can go north of that. about a sixth of the budget in 1995. >> now it is over half? the point i am getting at, i think you confirmed this, that to the extent that that happens -- other force management, clearing the undergrowth, that in turn makes fires more likely. mr. bonnie: that is executive right. in states like maine where we do .ot have as much federal land we are working with forster's to provide help with them -- forrester's to provide help with them.

looks madam chair, this is all i have but i think this is a very important issue. are you recognize that we inadvertently making the problem worse by not providing sufficient funds for the management of these lands. thank you. >> i think discussion is important for recognizing when you borrow from other accounts to pay for suppression, that does not work. it is not sustainable. making sure that we get the fix right is very important. mr. bonnie, i have multiple questions that i would like you to answer for the record, including one that is specific issue of an updated projection for total suppression, resources needed, based on that 10 year average. you'll see that. if you can provide responses and

quickly as possible to the committee that will be greatly appreciated. i would like to do another round , but we have six more on second panel that we want to make sure we get to before the noon hour. we excuse both of you and thank you for appearing before the committee. >> thank you.

sen. cantwell: as of this next panel is finding their seats, go ahead and please, i will introduce each of you to the committee. i will offer apologies on behalf of of other colleagues on the committee this morning. his tests senator rish whispered into my ear, i have three different committees that are meeting at the same time. please do not take this of an indication -- do not take this as an indication of lack of interest. would like to welcome the second panel. we will lead off with dr. peter goldmark was a commissioner of public lands in washington state department of natural resources. nice to have you here.

he will followed by miss julia ultimates who is the executive director of montana wood products association. all of by rebecca humphries. she is the chief, is it just chief conservation officer at the wildlife turkey federation. us.peter nelson is with he is the senior policy advisor for federal land for the defenders of wildlife. mr. eric nichols is a constituent from the state of alaska. he is a partner at elk and forth products. -- the director for cal fire. welcome to each of you. i would ask that you keep each of your comments to less than five minutes. your full statement will be included as a part of the record. we want to be of the to get through everyone's -- we want to be able to get through everyone's testimony. dr. goldmark, if you like to leave us off. -- lead us off.

dr. goldmark: senator cantwell, members of the committee. to begin with, i would like to cantwell, for their leadership and dedication to improving response and resources for quite -- resources for wildfires. i appreciate indication to -- the invitation to appear before you. i'm am a commissioner for public land for the state of washington, elected directly by the people of my state, i am charged with managing and protecting washington's national resources. -- natural resources. for 150 years, citizens have looked eastward for help and partnership from congress on critical issues. today, one of those critical issues is wildfire. i appreciate this opportunity. bearresponsibility that i includes leading our states firefight against wildfire and

overseeing forest hill across all jurisdictions and all ownerships. recently, it has been a heavy responsibility to bear. we have lost 3.5% of washington state wildfire over the past two catastrophic years. most terrible of all, the death of three young firefighters who died protecting homes during the twist river fire last august. the impact on our people and the landscape has been horrific to witness and a difficult to bring to the halls of olympia or the halls of washington, dc. the damage and danger and trauma to our people. in washington, our extreme climatic conditions have created a hotter, dryer landscape. and right forsick

wildfire. for too many years, investments in forest hill have not kept pace with the amount of risks on the landscape. we know what we need to do to allow washington to remain the evergreen state. we must progressively treat and manage our force using -- our reduction.ng fuel there is a broad community in scientific support for restoration. i encourage you to develop the pilot concept discussed in title three, subtitle e, to achieve the needed faster pace of restoration. we depend on our forest for clean water, wildlife habitat, jobs and storage. they are a resource to conserve and protect, not to squander.

office in 2009, i have secured almost $25 million in state investment to build resilient forest. sadly, federal investment has not kept up. this legislation under consideration would end the practice of fire borrowing that robs of -- however, it does not address the continued structural erosion of the forest service land management budget by rising fire costs. the different budget formulation that eliminates use of the 10 year average of suppression costs or at least freezes it in time is crucial to a budget policy. area to fix this problem -- more costly fires. others before me have acknowledged this. senator campbell knows full well of this problem and i'm speaking in support of this draft

proposal, including a particular concern for me is the credential for firefighters in aircraft -- and aircraft must be standardized. we must expand the use of drones and retardant aircraft to keep fires small. location tracking system will help keep fire crews safe. expanded use of fire rise for rams will give communities the knowledge and tools to prepare for wildfires and him prove telecommuting kaisha and will in fire prone areas to keep track of evacuations and road closures. i believe we are at a critical moment. these last two wildfire seasons are a brutal warning. we must now do the vital work as described in this discussion draft to prepare for and respond to wildfire. thank you.

sen. cantwell: thank you, dr. goldmark. appeared i hope i am pronouncing that right. executive director of the montana wood products association and eight member of the -- policy committee. i want to thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today. we appreciate the efforts of this community to? these tough issues facing the force service. where committing to finding solutions to the problems of the federal forest management and fire borrowing as then ready to work with the committee. -- montana wood works

roughly 4000 jobs as a direct result of litigation in declining federal timber sales. none of our remaining mills run at full capacity. according to forest inventory analysis data, montana grew 567 cubic feet -- 510 million cubic feet were established and 98.9% suffer annual mortality as a direct result of insect and disease. we'll harvest 4.5% of the annual growth and 5% of the mortality each year. leading to chronic buildup of fuels for future wildfire. the force service lacks authority to plan and implement needed management projects. badly needed restoration and vegetative treatments can take years only to meet opposition by

fringe groups, critical of timber harvest. some014 farm bill provide tools to adjust these issues. it is moving expeditiously as possible but to date, only one project is pending a decision. seven are under analysis and 19 on deck. with 82 million acres identified by the forest service as high priority, we fear the new tools are not enough to address challenges we face. we applaud the communities commitment of solving our toughest challenges, providing better partners to increase the pace and scale of resource management and restoration. a written statement makes recommendations that we offer the following -- the following thoughts. under title i, we prepare the -- would urge you to consider raising the -- raising the ten-year average and expand the

use of wildfire risk reduction. for the worktant in the northern rockies as these landscapes lack diversity. acres are175 of those in montana alone. under title iii, we are concerned about provisions letting the use of streamlined -- atlantic designated as critical habitat. acres, has designated much of which is susceptible to craft stuff it fire -- susceptible to catastrophic fire . the need to treat fuels is the same. communities surrounded by forest experience wildfire are the same for the loss of life and property. of the three things that fuel fire, the only driver we can modify is you'll. -- what isentioned

not addressed is how to to confront legal challenges affecting the projects implementation. montana has separate the effects of the timberwolf for decades. local people have gathered to find solutions to tough issues. over the years, 30 collaborative's have formed. ,estoring ecological function economic stability and honor social values. friends groups continue to challenge projects import. there are 220 million of timber and litigation. this will impact 51,000 acres. projects under litigation alone affect 44,000 truckloads of logs and thousands of jobs. montana wood -- suggest judicial reforms are needed. that for happy offer

further discussion. in closing we would do want to thank you for all of your efforts in bringing this discussion to us. we know the force service is working hard to help these problems. thank you sen. cantwell:. -- thank you. ms. humphries, welcome. ms. humphries: my name is becky humphries. in a prior life, i was the agency director in the state of michigan that oversaw the management of a 4 million acre estate force to system. the federation is a nationwide nonprofit. to its original habitat. we now have shifted to save the habitat save the hunt. through this initiative, we are a large partner of u.s. force service. we have state chapters in every

state of the nation. we have a team of biologists who work on the landscape. we have a formal partnership with the u.s. force service that was assigned in 1986 and continues today. we have delivered thousands of projects across the united states. have aough we do not mill or do anything with wood products, but through storage ship contracting, we are listed as one of the top 10 timber buyers. if using go, we were number five. we support the discussion draft we have before us. we appreciate the committee considering active management of the forest. we feel strongly that they go hand in glove. we strongly applaud active management. wildlife fires across this country know that diversity is the key.

wildlife takes food, shelter, water and space in order to live. an active management creates that diversity. lack of proper management is a result of species decline. decades -- wetwo have species that is now a candidate for the endangered species act. wild turkey populations have declined. the gopher tortoise which is a keystone species and is found -- is really represents 360 other wildlife species needed by that habitat. in the western u.s., we see similar situations. we may benefit only 14 species. while there is old debts over 70

species depending on this young force, we need to do more for this species. the u.s. force service allocates funding and guidance to provide young habitat. the pace needs to greatly increase if we are going to be successful. we appreciate the proposed fire borrowing fix. as we look at the fire system on budgets, you have heard today over 50% of it is going into fire suppression efforts. there are real consequences. when i look at some of the fire occurred,at have we've seen over 60% on some of our fire areas that are most fire prone. severely -- those have hampered our efforts. to -- so that we

do not continue to erode the money that is available to do active management. we request the committee to consider using a benchmark, the ten-year. we acknowledge the jurisdiction of the budget committee and ask you to move forward and work with them on finding a resolution. we strongly support collaboratives we think that could affect state agencies and wildlife. national wild turkey federation partners with every state wildlife agency across the state and that cooperation is really important. we support collaborative's that qualified for expedited review. restricting alternatives reduces the overhead and helps break some of the gridlock and paralysis we see in our system. management needs to be returned to the professionals. moving forward, a couple of

items, we strongly support the pine forests and the sites and what we can do to help move that forward, we think that is good. we don't want to slow down that process. we do think maintaining our markets in the local economies is very important. overall, we strongly applaud your efforts to move this forward. thank you. sen. cantwell: thank you, ms. humphries. mr. nelson. mr. nelson: think you to the chair and senator daines. my name is peter nelson. i'm a senior policy advisor where i managed our kforce policy program. -- managed our forest policy program. i have been involved for nearly 20 years. i'm a member of the federal advisory committee overseeing a limitation of the forest we are inanagement --

a new era of wildfire. warming climate is drying up question forest. california and new mexico today. however, existing policies and approaches are not adapted to this new reality. wildfire budget is a prime example. the current budget structure is not capable of responding to today's wildfires. it is caused spiral out of control. the wildfire budget consumes the very program that is essential to maintaining forest over a long-term. anything else we try will be futile. a failure to do so this losing all of the values they provide. while we appreciate improved planning forever's communities, wildfire risk mapping,

prioritization within the interface, and other management provisions in the discussion draft do not work. they do more harm than good. you cannot solve today's problems with yesterday's thinking. proposals to bypasso forest restoration. it requires a smarter, not less analysis. we cannot legislate our way to good decisions. they are not likely to yield better outputs on the ground. to -- while increasing the likelihood of making uninformed decisions, we cannot afford taking that risk in places like community water test committee drinking water sheds. -- community drinking water sheds.

nature of someal of the forest management and provisions. such shortcuts can undermine ongoing collaborative restoration activities. i'm concerned that if we raise the levels of controversy over forest restoration, we make the lands management system more resilient -- less resilient. we need to build an approach to forest registration that is adaptable to the context challenges. as someone who has been involved with forest collaboratives, i see a capacity and restoration planning problem. we need the resources to implement forest restoration at a scale that can improve conditions and achieve project level efficiencies. the success of the projects in arizona demonstrates restoration programs can be accomplished

under existing authorities. other examples include the blue mountains project in oregon. the proposed ponderosa line pilot program reflects this new resiliency. it makes sense to prioritize restoration where we have a good restoration that's a good -- it makes sense to reduce risk reduction in places. the pilot program goes down the wrong road. the proposal authorizes the designation of reactive emergency treatment zones where the normal rules don't apply. this may be unworkable. first, we don't think this scheme could be effectively applied because we do not have the scientific ability to predict where when the next wildfire will occur for the purposes of declaring an emergency situation. in addition, while we agree the grave risks warned emergency

response, not imminent threats to other values do not justify jettisoning normal decision-making. we also oppose the inclusion of the unrelated transition provision and the wildfire policy bill. it blocks a needed transition -- and toward a more diverse regional economy. thanks. thank you mr. nelson. mr. nichols, welcome. esther nichols: i have spent -- mr. nichols: i spent the last 40 years -- the last 14 years, the owner of timber companies in alaska. the industry today is on the

verge of going away due to lack of consistent timber -- all federal and state timber sales are being delayed with litigation by environment of groups opposed to all timber harvest. he was forest service, the communities of southeast alaska and even some conservation groups all say they want timber registry. you cannot have a viable timber industry without the land base. prior to 1976, 5 million acres was managed for timber. by 1980, this was reduced to 3 million acres. the 2008 planet reduced it. now the new plan will take down to 2050 1000 acres of young growth forest it i was told by conservation person, we do not have the camera bill today because we cut it all. there are 60.8 million actors --

acres -- 16.8 million acres. 420,000 acres have been previously harvested. i think my math is pretty correct and we have 3.2 million acres of timber remaining in the tongass. volume for net markets. this is 7% of the commercial timber acres and a little over 1% of the national forest. the forest service in the state of alaska has done a good job in protecting our tourism. we have over one million people coming each year on cruise ships . our salmon runs are strong with the fishing industry doing well. we have a ember industry with one small mill. -- our rural communities are doing well from

2000 to 2014, 32 communities itself is--amenities in alaska has lost population. once it is in place, it never gets better for the industry. only more restrictions as times go forward -- as time goes forward cannot be undone. so to have a viable industry, we have to have a consistent supply of economic viably sales. best -- it is a simple. -- the only a market commodity product to sell. my issues with the forest service is they don't know how many of the acres of young growth we can harvest economically or legally. we look at the tongass, we look at the acres, with a 250,000 acres, we have changing

regulations. we lose lands to visual constraints. overly a steep slope cannot be cut a second time. additional protection for wildlife. -- i also going to get will do the economic viability. timber -- high road costs. my fear is we'll see as number of acres lost especially -- harvested with very few predictions. the timber industry cannot be feasible -- how much sustainable economic timber will be available. i would like to finish with the words of from president theodore roosevelt who shied the legislation creating the tongass national forest. you can never afford to forget

for a moment what is the object of a forest policy. that is not to preserve the forest because they are beautiful, so that is good in they areor because refuge for wild creatures of the wilderness. the primary objective is a land policy of the united states is to make prosperous homes. government legislation rulemaking and administration no longer resembles what these national forests were crated for -- were created for. our land management is broken and not serving the people well. it has to be fixed by sound forest management and not politics. thank you for your time. sen. cantwell: appreciate you traveling a long way. >> good morning. ranking member can dwell and senator days or thank you for the opportunity to testify. not only on behalf but my peers around the country through the

national association of state foresters. firelifornia's chief cal and state forrester, where possible for the detection of 31 million acres within the state. that is one third of the land base in california. as a -- as we know, currently going on is fire challenges. , 2014ased may differ statistics -- fell within the jurisdiction of state and private lands. the states around the country play a significant and key role in dealing with fires and for street issues. -- and forestry issues. managementource faces challenges in the country that indicated this morning -- it will emphasize that in california the fire problem and

forest management problem is real. we have five major fires burning in the state. 4600 firefighters on the fire line. just in the last week, we responded to over 2050 fires and that is 2000 fires since january 1. we're still within a significant drought which is gone on for the last five years. like we talked about earlier, record kinds of fires. we talked about that in washington state. we have seen that in colorado. colorado -- california just last year had two of the top 10 most damaging fires in the states history. the fire challenge is only getting worse. not just dropped, changing climate, unmanaged or under managed forests throughout the state both on federal and private lands are contributing to the challenges that we are facing. when fires burn, 20,000 acres in

just five hours, those are the conditions we are facing and will continue to face as we go into another potentially disastrous fire season. in california, this is exemplified by significant tree mortality. secretary bosak announced that over 66 million trees have succumbed to epidemic levels of insect mortality. we have seen this throughout the west in a number of western states, and now california has taken that challenge exponentially with multiple disasters.claring in october of last year, governor brown declared statewide emergency proclamations to deal with this disaster. throughooking at this multiple means, trying to adjust immediate life safety threats when it is evolving landscape level projects and activities

with partners at all levels of government, using tools such as the good neighbor authority to allow us to reach across boundaries to collaborate and get the biggest bang for the buck and leverage every thing we have to get the most work done, and to make the biggest difference we can. fixing wildfire funding is key to all of this. undersecretary bonnie indicated tos morning that we continue borrow money from other program areas that are critical to getting ahead of the problem. we must maintain a robust response capability across this country, we cannot underfund our federal agencies on the front and. response.sure strong on the backend, we have to continue to take money, we are only going to continue to perpetuate lack of good forest management, lack of reducing fuels and continued fire like we are seeing right now.

discussions through this legislation and others we are going to need. now, california has over 125 thousand acres -- 125,000 acres -- we need the ability to leverage additional funding to get more work done in those areas. we will like to go forward and look at opportunities working through the process to see if we can do more work and work through it to get more work done. and have the capacity to do just that. looking at pine pilot, it is critical, much of the area being impacted. significant component of those forests are ponderosa pine. we welcome the opportunities to look at a private project. fire risk mapping is also critical. we work with state and using that information to develop

hazard maps and identified land use planning. look at the opportunity to work together on that. i will close with the recognizing that fires know no boundaries. we as organizations and first responders, state, federal or local should know no boundaries. california learned that when we had separate communication's request is, separate terminologies. very true. looking forward to a joint process to look at processes and criteria that are agreed to by all agencies when we are sharing resources across boundaries. thank you. sen. cantwell: take you to each of you. i will yield to senator daines. sen. daines: thank you for having this hearing. julia and peter thank you. it is good to have you both here

. julia, i want to add to your how -- my earlier comments on devastating news coming from the warehouse here really and is just really illustrates was going on here in montana. we are harvesting only 5% of of theees and 4.5% annual growth is a startling. considering that nearly 7 million federally controlled acres in montana are high a risk for wildfires. could you elaborate on how increasing active management is critical to both protecting the product jobs and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires in montana and across many parts of the west. ms. altemus: thank you for that russian. -- for that question. increasing management in region one specifically in montana, so

the economic analysis is usually 11 jobs are created for every one million that is harvested. by can't just multiply that the inventory sitting on landscapes because a lot of those loggers are going to do their work. it would impact hundreds of jobs. year.using 60 to 80 a we would raise the capacity of the remaining mills to one or 2%. 100%.ls to it is not a lot that we need, but it is critical that that raises critical. economicssses the could is far as getting at the 7 million acres, it will continue to grow and burn. we will continue to eat up a majority of the -- if we do not address those issues. sen. daines: what provisions do

you believe would be most helpful in creating the jobs that go we work with a lot of -- jobs? we work with a lot who are pushing for these kind of revisions. what you think is most helpful? ms. altemus: think you, senator. impediments to success are the capacity of the forest service. fire borrowing goes, if there were additional moneys of unspent fire moneys that we could put back into fuel reduction projects, that would be helpful. that is number one under title iii. some of the provisions, i believe it is important. it works with the collaborative context as well. adduld suggest to

provisions as far as -- that has been proven in court. i would encourage you to look at that and added. i am not sure about the pilot. , butntana we have dry pine honestly we have a lot of -- that is where a lot of our issues are. butforests are at risk high-intensity fires are also a risk. we would encourage you to think about changing those as well. sen. daines: things for the input on that. i want to talk about litigation release -- about litigation relief. loggers had faster access to that type of volume, roughly how many montana jobs ms. altemus:ained? as i said, just under litigation

alone, we've got about 44,000 truckloads they could be impacted. not all of that is under test some of them could move forward. if we could at least acknowledge that we have a problem. it has been difficult for some folks in congress that we have a problem. work together to find a path forward to resolving debt that does not require opening up access to equal justice. again, youhe jobs, cannot just do that multiplier. it would be in the neighborhood of 300 or 400 jobs. we lost 500 last year. we are going to lose 200 the sheer. sen. daines: peter, thank you for coming from montana. i have been a proponent of collaborative efforts. as a noted, 21 active lawsuits going on in montana.

13 on projects that were developed to the collaborative process. involvell of them fringe groups that come in here after the fact, notwithstanding your concerns, i respect them. do you acknowledge that litigation is a problem in montana? it has undermined the work with collaboratives. >> we have challenges in montana could we have challenges nationally. -- in montana. we have challenges nationally. many of them are capacity related. teams limited in our id to go out and i now was -- and analyze. we have seen capacity resource challenges. people are frustrated. i worked with members of your

of the woodrs products association, people are frustrated. >> you work in the collaborative process. lawsuits, do to 21 you think litigation encumbers this? >> it can lead to more durable decisions. will the litigation slowest down? mr. nelson: litigation plays a role in the system. sen. daines: will he say it doesn't slowest down? -- will you say it doesn't slowest down -- does not slow us down? mr. nelson: i suppose you can say it does slow us down. montanans care about their public lands. we need to keep these processes open. this is a challenge.

people are frustrated. i hear that from you. we want to get the work done. we are working with the farm bill authorities. done. trying to get work people are rolling up their sleeves. this is not easy and we are committed to doing this work. my fear is if we come into strong -- if we come in to strong, we are going to see more conflict. i have to urge caution. disruptive.ry sen. daines: the collaborative process, the disruption moved through long processes. friends groups come in at the end and to file suits. and stop all progress we have made. mr. nelson: clever tips have to develop desk collaborative's have to develop winning solutions.

that is the strength of the collaborative process that allows us to do that. i allow forl: additional time. litigation delays. sometimes litigation is intended to do nothing more than delay. friend and colleague from montana sees that. you expressed frustration. senator cantwell? mr. nelsono thank about his comments about the book. understandertainly this senator from montana's frustration. we have a lot of collaborative that has worked in our state. we want to give you something before you leave but i will leave it right here. you can grab it right now. thank you. thisssue for me is

research that has been done on the pine pilot. i don't know if mr. pym lot or mr. nelson -- not that i am excluding anyone else, the university released some findings on how much of the fire risk would be reduced by reducing some of that fuel. their number was so large that i don't even know how to get my head around it. it's pretty hard when you think about what happened in the carlton complex, at just some fuel reduction might have prevented 100 million acres in one afternoon from being destroyed. but nonetheless we now have some research that does show this is making an impact. a lot of the talk about those real-life examples that you know , on carpenter fire road where we made improvements, any of

these areas where they have seen the fuel reduction work, and when they are trying to capitalize on this science released by the university. done strategically, you are reducing the size of the fire. , knowinghat i think that the conditions are so explosive, that is that we have to aim for. i don't know if you want to give real-life examples of that. >> so take you for that question, senator cantwell. we've had several large fires in the state of washington, and both the fire season of 2014 in 2015 have set new records. i have recently toured the tripod fire, which occurred in acre fire.0 others, where there has been active management before the fire, it has a

demonstrable impact on the severity of the fire and in many cases this fire doesn't even penetrate those areas that have been managed. isis not a guarantee that the single best thing we can do in advance of the fire, to do fuel reduction work and the firework to keep away the fuel the fire would need to pass through the forest. i am wholly supportive of the project. i think restoration is one of the critical steps that we must take to help make the forest more resilient. >> do you have an idea of what some of those restoration projects might have done? it's hard to categorize, but they are coming up with a pretty big number. they are saying it's, you know, you could have as big as a 50% reduction by doing the right kinds of treatment. is that something you think is -- >> i think it is certainly a possibility, and i think the language in discussion draft is an opportunity for us to test

it. having been a forrester for 30 years now, preaching active engagement and forest management, we have several examples where reducing the forest has kept the fire lower intensity and protected communities. earlier, i failed to show a slide -- a picture tells a thousand words. this is the central sierra. is low tree seeing mortality is a mixed conifer ponderosa pine almost completely decimated, not by fire but by insect mortality. forest management can have a start looking at -- it's not just reducing fire intense but active forest management that reduces the impact and impact for the done it and set outbreaks. absolutely engaging in forest

management, including a fire project -- we would love to see that. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator cantwell. we've gone over the time that i have promised we would be adjourning, but i do have a question for mr. nichols. this relates to the tax recommendations relating to the inventory. you served on the advisory committee, so i'm going to rely on you for a little background on how the transition and the inventory really came together. questioning, i made clear the statement about the inventory being the number one priority, and he seemed to suggest -- actually he did state -- that the forest service will

have all the data that any to guarantee the success, apparently, of a young growth transition by the end of the summer's survey. indicated that there can be this parallel track if you will, that the inventory has begun -- we appreciate that -- and it can go alongside the forest plan amendment process. can you please a speak to why it was important that there was a recommendation for a comprehensive inventory? point, has to the anything changed since january 21 when that statement was conclusively made, that it remains the number one priority? possible that the forest service really has all that it inds in terms of --

inventory, when it completes the ?eview this summer >> there were two pieces to that, the first was that we would knew -- when you look at the growth, they lose 60% when they tried to put it together. andnew we would have some we spent time in the field with the fish biologist who showed us streams that came through that will have to be protected. we know we will get fall down. we knew that we could not give an answer, so in our model, we did no fall down. we use it before service. the second point was that the conservation community was pushing hard for absolute dates, and we couldn't give it to them.

we did not have the information because one of the things we agree to was that for every acre of young growth we would stop harvesting old-growth. but for every acre of young growth we did not get, we had to do more old. for the first time there was a leverage on both sides. they knew that we had to have better inventory -- it just wasn't there. i attended a meeting here last week, 50,000 acres of information, willing it -- the land is variable and it will tell you that. they do not have enough information. the position was that we needed it because we had to make final on when to stop the harvest and we just couldn't do that. we didn't have enough information.

the other thing is the acres left in this plan amendment are so low that if we lose part of those acres to the economic ability, there will not be a timber industry. there will not be enough acres left to be able to maintain any kind of industry. >> so that is the reason why we have to get this inventory correct. >> you only have one time. we can't undo it. all this federal legislation, it never gets undone. if we make a mistake now there will be no timber industry. the communities will suffer greatly because of it. >> attack continues -- and the tack continues to recommend a standard level inventory. that has not changed. >> not a bit. >> and as far as this parallel track, that we can move forward with the forest plan amendment process while at the same time

conducting an inventory -- does that work or not work? side, when industry i see out there today is that the tack made some strong recommendation. they didn't take them all. the timber sales they are working on today do not follow recommendations. there will be a downfall and was available as they don't intensively harvest these fans. what we have seen is that the forest service is still not implemented on the ground the recommendations we have made, and those are difficult recommendations, and that is global determine whether it will work or not. right now we do not see if there is a will to get the recommendations in place. >> we are going to continue to push, to make sure that we have a firm understanding. it has been suggested that somehow or other, my motivation

is to delay the forest plan amendment, delay it indefinitely. my intention is not to delay the plan; my intention is to make sure that the plan is based on the true facts on the ground, a true, honest understanding as to what our inventory is that will allow us to base the decisions on good, ground science that will allow us to get it right. as you have suggested, we have got one opportunity to get it right. i appreciate the work that you and others have done. i know that it's not easy. i know that it has been difficult, but i appreciate the good work, and appreciate you recognizing that all the recommendations were not put into play. again, thank you for what you advancee in helping to

these very important issues. with that, ladies and gentlemen, i appreciate the extra time you have given us, and the committee as well. as we continue to work to refine this draft proposal, we would encouragewelcome and your continued input of members have questions for the records. we will make sure we get them to you quickly. thank you for being here. the committee stands adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]

>> coming up, a hearing on military efforts to combat isis online. then remarks by sheryl sandberg, facebook coo. after that, house minority leader nancy pelosi talks to reporters following the democrats 25+ hours sitting over gun registration. later, house speaker paul ryan on the city in and the supreme court decision on immigration. >> c-span's "washington

journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. david up this morning, hawking's will discuss this week's sit in by house democrats, calling for a vote on new gun legislation. court correspondent examines the high-profile decisions from the supreme court. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal," beginning life at sign clock am eastern. join the discussion. >> president obama is in california today to deliver remarks and to participate in a panel discussion with facebook's mark zuckerberg. that's part of the global entrepreneurship summit, and you can see it live starting at 1:45 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> today, we hear from jake sullivan, foreign-policy advisor for democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton. he's speaking at the treatment

center's annual conference, looking at terrorism financing, conflict sounds, refugee migration, and africa. live coverage begins at 54 15 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some programs coming up this weekend. saturday at 1:00 p.m. eastern, the annual roosevelt reading festival takes place at the fdr presidential library and museum in hyde park, new york. the festival includes author discussions about the 32nd president, roosevelt politics, and histories of the oval office. featured authors include call brandus, david borneman,

tman,sma arlene andan,r alonzo hanby. then at 10:00 p.m. eastern, "afterwards." pamela hage traces the history of guns and examines when and how they became part of american culture in her book "the gunning of america: business in the making of american gun culture." she also looks at the business end of manufacturing and selling arms. she is interviewed by william doyle, author of "american hunter: the legendary hunters shaped america." >> i think there's a strange credulously, that those who

have the most to gain by selling and promoting and celebrating their product is the very most invisible, when we think about guns. instead, much of the political talk today is exclusively about interpreting the second amendment. the gun industry has become almost invisible. >> on sunday at 10:30 p.m. eastern, the lead prosecutor in the o.j. simpson trial weighs in on the legal system and discusses her second career as a novelist. she's the author of the book "blood defense." we spoke with her at the publishing industry's annual trade show, book expo america. go to booktv.org for the complete schedule. >> next, a look at military actions to counter the online presence of isis and the need for cyber command to be established as a combatant command.

armed services committee heard from the deputy commander of the u.s. cyber command and other defense officials. this is just over 90 minutes. >> committee will come to order. i would like to welcome our witnesses today as the committee examines military cyber operations. i note that just about exactly two months ago, president obama confirmed for the first time that the u.s. is conducting cyber operations against isis. and as the leadership of the department of defense was discussing this, they said it was the first time that cyber command has been given the guidance to go after isis.

just like we have an air campaign, we want to have a cyber campaign. and some of the press went on to discuss that secretary carter was pushing for u.s. cyber command to have greater freedom to launch attacks and to address tactical cyber threats against isis. >> the department defense capabilities to fight and win the country's wars and be prepared and ready to execute those missions remain on solid footing regardless of which domain we are talking about, including the cyber domain. the department has been developing organizations capabilities and personnel needed to operate in cyber since at least 2010. billions of dollars have been spent. and yet the perception -- and

y'all can disagree with this if you think i'm wrong. the perception is that the threat is still multiplying faster and growing faster than at least our laws and regulations, policies, rules of engagement are developing. still a fundamental question. what is the role of the military to protect civilian infrastructure in the united states against cyber attack? i do not suggest we're going to get the definitive answer to all of those questions today. but i think that it is important that we discuss not only those, but the tactical use of power. i yield to the distinguish ranking member for any comments he would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman i agree with your comments about

the complexity and importance of cyber. and the most interesting thing i would like to get out of this hear something how is the organization coming together? i think that's the major challenge. it's been quite a few years since we recognized cyber. so we have a lot of people working on it. how coordinated are they? that's the great challenge, making sure we're getting the most out of the resources we're putting into this it is a constantly evolving threat and it threatens everything, every aspect. the least little device can be an entry point to a cyber attack. so, how do you get a comprehensive look at making sure that you control -- control

is a bit of an optimistic statement. have some measure of understanding of where the threats are and how best to address them. so how the various branches of the military and our broader cyber vulnerabilities, as the chairman mentioned a lot of those vulnerabilities exist in the private sector and we've had defense contractors who have been hacked before that have created problems. so, how do you we comprehensively address this incredibly complex and ever-evolving problem? i think that's the great challenge. i will say that i very much approved of what secretary carter did, where he had the -- i forget what he called it, but basically invited hackers to try to find their way in. you'll learn from that. i think that was one of the best, most cost-effective ways to do it. instead of sending some contract out to somebody, take those

people out there who are really good at this and say come at us. show us our vulnerabilities. that was a very wise way to learn a lot in a cost effective manner. a cost effect approach to an ever evolving and changing problem. as the chairman mentioned, the legalities of it in terms of are our laws and regulations keeping up with it, to make sure that you and the executive branch have the authorities you need to best protect us and, in some cases shall use cyber as an offensive weapon where necessary. with that i'll yield back and look forward to the testimony. >> gentlemen, i also want to mention that, of course, on the front lines for oversight of this issue, i very much appreciate the emerging threats and capabilities, sub committee wilson who work in this area day-to-day. i think it is also important, though, for all members to look at these larger cyber issues, which is why we're doing this hearing with the full committee today. let me welcome our witnesses,

mr. thomas atkin assistant secretary department of defense, thank you all again for being here. mr. atkin, the floor is yours. >> i am pleased to testify today, along with my colleagues, lieutenant general kevin mclaughlin and brigadier general moore. in how we are improving. the closed hearing will go into greater detail on some of the challenges we face in cyber space and the department's efforts to address those challenges. i wanted to highlight a few

thengs here this morning. first, the threat. today, we face a diverse and persistent threat in cyber space from state and nonstate actors that cannot be defeated through the efforts of any single organization. our increasingly wired and interconnected world has brought prosperity and economic gain to the united states. however, our dependence on these systems also leaves us vulnerable and cyber threats are increasing and evolving. posing greater risk to the networking systems of the department of defense and other departments and agencies. our national critical infrastructure and other u.s. companies in interest. dod maintains and uses robust and unique cyber capabilities to defend our networks and the nation, that alone is not sufficient. securing our systems and networks is everyone's responsibility.

from the commander down to the individual. and this requires a culture of cyber security. more broadly, preventing cyber attacks of significant consequence against the u.s. homeland requires a whole of government and whole of nation approach. to that end, dod works in close collaboration with other federal departments, our allies and the private sector to improve our nation's cyber security posture and ebber ensure that dod has the ability to operate in any environment at any time. since cyber strategy was signed by secretary carter, the department has devoted considerable resources to implementing the goals and objectives outlined within the document. when secretary signed the document, he directed the department to focus its efforts on three primary missions in cyber space. one, defend the department of information, department of defense information networks to assure our dod missions. two, defend the united states against cyber attacks of significant consequence and,

three, provide full spectrum cyber options to support contingency plans and military operations. another key part of our strategy is deterrence. dod is supporting a comprehensive cyber strategy to deter attacks on the u.s. and our interests. this strategy depends on the totality of u.s. actions, to include declaratory policy, overall defensive posture, effective response procedures, indications and warning capabilities and the resiliency of u.s. networks and systems. i am proud to say that the department has made important strides in implementing dod strategy since it was signed in 2015. my colleagues and i look forward to going into greater detail on our strategy as the hearing proceeds, as well as to discuss how our thinking and incorporation of cyber operations is evolving. the department is committed to defending our u.s. homeland and interests from attacks of

significant consequence that may occur in cyber space. i look forward to working with this committee and congress to ensure that the department has the necessary capabilities to keep our country safe and our forces strong. i thank you for your support in these efforts and i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> general mclaughlin? >> chairman thornberry, ranking member smith, distinguished members of the committee, i'm honored to appear before you today representing the men and women of u.s. cyber command. it's my pleasure to do so alongside assistant secretary brigadier general moore and thomas atkin, two men who keenly recognize the challenges the department faces in the cyber

domain. i would like to focus my opening remarks on the ongoing efforts to build capability and capacity in the cyber mission force. the cyber mission force, with unique teams designed to defend dod information networks, support combat missions give u.s. cyber command and the department a means to apply military capability at scale in cyber space. we recognize that success in accomplishing our missions is dependent on three factors, quality of our people, the effectiveness of their capabilities and proficiency that our people bring to bear in employing these capabilities. encompassing a robust, active component along with both national guard and reserve force s being fully integrated. out of a target total of 143 teams that will be part of the cyber mission force we have 46 teams at fully operational capable status and 59 that are initial operating capability status.

we will eventually build to 6,187 when we finish. it is important to note that teams that are not fully operational are already contributing to cyber space efforts as the command operates on a full-time and global basis. nation and every combatant commander can call on cyber mission force teams to bring cyber space effects and support of their operations. in support of u.s. central command's ongoing efforts to degrade, dismantle and ultimately defeat isil. training them to be prepared is imperative. cyber guard exercise, which concluded last friday provides realistic training in which federal, state industry and international partners can use their skills against a determined opposition force. the response to cyber guard from our public and private partners has been tremendous. dozens of critical infrastructure countries have expressed interest in it. allowing policy makers to observe the types of issues we see in real cyber attacks and helps us generate a playbook

that should save the federal government precious time and stress in responding. u.s. cyber command to teams to ensure they have training skills to make an immediate impact in today's fight. our command prides itself in being a learning organization, exercises like cyber guard and other premiere exercise, cyber flag, which is ongoing at this moment, are key lessons learned, opportunities for us. we also look at everything we're learning and the growing set of real-world operations and collaboration from the private sector, academia to provide valuable insights to the command and allow our teams to develop and implement new tactics, techniques and procedures.

although our people are undoubtedly our most important aspect i would be remiss not to highlight the tools, infrastructure and capabilities that the force needs to execute its missions. ongoing efforts to develop tools such as the persistent training department, cyber situational awareness and the joint environment must continue to be resourced. these capabilities are critical in ensuring that they're equipped to counter. adversaries' changing tactics in cyber space require well trained, well resourced and agile force. with that, thank you again mr. chairman and members of the committee for inviting me to appear before you today. u.s. cyber command is committed to the mission of ensuring the department of defense mission assurance, deterring or defeating threats to our infrastructure and achieving objectives. cyber mission force is adding to

our ability to perform this mission. u.s. cyber command team appreciates the support of this committee that it has shown and looks forward to our continuing partnership with congress to address the challenges and opportunities in cyber space. i'm happy to take your questions. thank you. >> general moore? >> thank you, chairman thornberry, members of the committee thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of the joint staff. the inherent global nature of cyber space threats causes and creates numerous challenges for the department of defense. additionally, our war-fighting capabilities are increase inging high-tech weapons,

communications systems to our ability to rapidly deploy forces around the globe. trying to keep up at the rate in which technology is advancing in this rapidly changing environment is extremely challenging. potential adversaries continue to increase their capabilities they also sha irthese challenges. all of that said, we have made progress, challenging our adversaries' ability to operate in sieber space and more effectively our networks information, weapons systems from malicious cyber space actors. in regards to building our cyber capabilities, u.s. cyber come continue to make great strides in standing up for cyber mission forces, arranged in teams with the objectives to support and combat command requirements, to

defend the nation against cyber attack and to protect our department of defense information networks. information and weapons systems. while significant process in all of these areas in the last year, significant challenges do remain to include equiping the force, recruiting and retaining a professional cyber source and cyber mission force command and structure. from an operational perspective, cyber com continues to make great progress. cyber com has not only challenged isil as the president and seblingt of defense has publicly stated but built on our lessons learned to date, upon which to expand the scale and effectiveness of our operations. from a broader, strategic view or adversaries, who are always looking for something that can provide them an asymmetric advantage, find cyber space appealing due to low barriers of entry and perceived difficulty of tricks. because of these threats from state and nonstate actors we work vigorously to harden our systems while educating the total force to create a climate of constant vigilance. to strengthen the whole of government, particularly u.s. critical infrastructure, the department of defense routinely

engages and works with our department partners and international partners, and there's interest to expand those cyber relationships. finally as our capabilities continue to grow, we continually engage all the combatant commands to make sure cyber effects are being considered in corporation to their planning process and benefit all current and future operations. while it is well known we are actively engaged in cyber space against isil, we also recognize that there are other threats in cyber space that must be planned for and addressed. joint staff is working closely with u.s. cyber com to continue to bring cyber-related options to the table to support all our global operations. as i mentioned, cyber domain is constantly changing and we see malicious cyber actors rapidly developing new capabilities at a very high rate. working closely with cyber com, osd, international partners to secure our networks, our

information, weapons systems and to support combat and command objectives while we protect the nation against malicious cyber space activities. thank you for the opportunity to appear today. i look forward to answering any questions you might have. >> thank you. let me take a second and remind members that we will have our quarterly cyber update this afternoon the 2:00. classifieded, of course, and we will be able to get into greater detail on classified items then. >> in october 2010, we're nearly six years down the road. isn't it time for cyber com to stand on its own as a combat and command?

>> i think the short answer to that is yes. we are continuing to look at that within the department. the secretary is -- has been evaluating whether to stand up or recommend to the president to stand up cyber com as its own unified command. we're continuing to look at it. we are getting close to a decision. and we will be getting something to the president here in the near future. >> well, we're trying to help you along because section 911 of the defense authorization bill requires that be done. i note admiral rogers has testified become a combat and command would allow cyber com to become faster which would generate better mission outcomes. i have yet to hear a reason not to do it. and so it seems to me that we shouldn't stew around about this too long because the goal is better outcomes.

and if that's what the result is, we ought to be able to agree and get that done without a lot of delay. general mclaughlin, let me ask you. we talked about the tactical use of cyber that's been publicly talked about by the president, secretary, deputy secretary. we obviously cannot get into the details of that in this forum. but are there -- what would you say are kind of the broader challenges that have been encountered so far? general moore mentioned lessons learned. at an upper policy level, what have we learned so far with what we've been doing against isis? >> i think what we've learned is as we've described to you the cyber mission force that is being built right now, we've learned that the fundamental building blocks of the forces that are actually supporting

combat and commands, as we stated in our mission, one major focus is bringing cyber effects to support our combat and commanders and war on isil is the first at scale opportunity to do that. >> first thing we learned, reinforced that the way we're creating our teams, expertise of our teams and how they plug in to the command and control is working. broader challenges we have, this team is still a young force. as we mentioned, we have quite a few of them at initial operating capability. in many cases, this is the first actual live opportunity for these forces to conduct that type of mission. so, the types of lessons we've learned have been a number of just practical lessons about improving the ability for us to do that routinely at scale. the reason the persistent training environment is so

important is to give teams like those that are supporting the war on isil more realistic opportunities to do their work and train in realistic environments prior to actually doing it in combat. so we sort of knew that intuitively and the operations have born out how important that capability would be. we've learned how quickly that the department in general needs to operate from -- in terms of if there are any policy or anything that needs to be done to support sharing, for example, with partners. and that has happened routinely. so, the osd staff, for example, sits in our twice a week update that we do in this area specifically to want to know is there anything at all needed to make these operations more effective? we've learned how important that broader team is. some people pay not realize how closely coupled we are from that perspective.

i think, really, the last is maturity. we've learned more in the last several months since it's been announced publicly that we're supporting this. it's given us the opportunity to learn, mature, plow back in. lessons learned in a real circumstance that it may have taken us several years to learn the things we're learning but it's the nature of military operations. in summary, i would just say i believe we're on course, fundamentals of what we're doing are sound and our job is to continue to expand capability and capacity against this enemy. we will talk with you about it, give you practice examples about that in the closed session later this afternoon. >> general, do you have anything to add on lessons learned or what you see from a joint staff perspective? >> no, sir. i think most of those that i would add to were touched on by general mclaughlin. i would piggyback on and say the speed of operations and how we can especially at tactical level, something we're very much focused on, overall combat operations.

we've also applied the lessons we've learned from attacks on infrastructure. and how to better protect ourselves and how better to train our people to defend against them. >> okay. mr. smith? >> what do you need to do to get ready for that point to make that move? >> resources, making sure that cyber com has the right resources as they build out their cyber mission force. as we continue to build out the pte that general mclaughlin has already mentioned, unified platform, et cetera, to make sure that they can stand alone and operate as a military force and support the combat and commanders. that's going to be the key. not that we can't do it but make sure we're doing it in a way that we don't hamper anything we have going. and that we continue to gain advantages and do better when we're conducting these operations. so i don't think there's any one specific thing that was stopping

us. it's more about how we make sure sequenced to get to the right mission. >> what are the coordination challenges there? now there is, obviously -- we've already coordinated into a central. as you look throughout dod a lot of people working on cyber. who you do you round all that have up and get it under one unified combat and command? what are the challenges going to be into pulling in those pieces and working with them? >> well, i think part of the challenge is going to be how we just work within -- internally within the department. i think we have a good way ahead on the principle cyber adviser, which i am. as well as my role as acting assistant secretary for policy. we work it from both those

angles within the department internally. under the joint staff and as a commander, they work very closely with the other combat and commands to make sure that all the operations are integrated and coordinated. and then we, in policy, also work across the interagency and across the intelligence community to make sure the operations are coordinated and the sequence of activities, whether it's the application resources or training or other operations are coordinating. >> and what, if any, role does the nsc play in your cyber operations? this is a subject that's come up in our hearings, the increasing role of the nsc over the top of, in some cases, the department of defense. how are they involved in that?

if they're involved, how much do you integrate them? >> it's an integral part of the whole solution for any of our activities. and so we keep them advised of the operations that we have ongoing through the interagency process. we also, when necessary, coordinate and get permission to run operations when his permission is required. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we may want to pursue that further. >> thank you, i'm very grateful to the chairman of the committee with extraordinary staff that have worked with everyone here. kevin gates, katie sutton, lindsay cavanaugh. it's been a remarkable exercise

bipartisanship. and i'm particularly grateful subcommittee members here who have been so important. a superstar, coming to every meeting. i'm so grateful for our other members here, doug lamburn, vice chairman trent franks, duncan hunter. but it's just been terrific to work with each of you. it's been so meaningful on cyber operations. what can be done. but the dangers to the american people. in fact, general mclaughlin, what are we doing to make better use of coalition force ss and capabilities in the planning and execution of our cyber space operations? how are we aligning our capabilities with our nato allies? >> mr. wilson, thank you.

before i answer your question, we also appreciate the great support from the subcommittee and agree that your staff -- the staff supporting that has been outstanding. they're very knowledgeable and helpful as we work together. the ability to integrate our coalition partners into our operations at u.s. cyber command is critical. we have broad latitude and authorities that have been granted to us for that partnership. they are actually primarily today with our partners, we are working and do communicate with nato. right now our focus has been our partners as well as there are some other partners that are really interested in how they actually create the capacity to have their versions of cyber command and to do, you know, military cyber operations in countries that are still, i think, at the verge of trying to

decide whether they're going to take the same steps that we've taken. types of practical areas we work today with our coalition partners. one -- some members of the committee congressman lansoven were down last week. we have coalition partners in those sessions, training with our people, learning lessons, creating tactics, techniques and procedures jointly and also practically identifying and overcoming any challenges that limit our ability to work together. there are key areas where we are doing development of capability together instead of each of us spending the same money to accomplish a certain task. for our close partners there might be times we share a burden or do work like that together. and then when directed and when authorized, if we have operations where we can actually -- we have a partner that can bring a capability or capacity, we are operating with those partners with shared objectives operationally and conducting

operations in a way that each of our, you know, national capabilities are coming -- are being used to accomplish objectives that we share. i think it's a robust environment right now. it's growing. i think you'll see more and more countries want to be part of this partnership. we will embrace them as they show interest. and as they have the capability to partner. >> and we have a long-term allies of nato. it's exciting new members such as slovakia, visited different i.t. centers there. very talented people who will be very helpful. additionally, general, how good is the current training exercise and certification process in re approximate. licating the real world challenges using tactical operations, cyber command has recently completed a cyber guard 16 exercise. are there any lessons or highlights from that exercise that can be applied to our ability to effectively apply

cyber capabilities to tactical operations? >> sir, that's also a great question. so, i would answer you in two ways. we have the ability. cyber guard is a great example to do high fidelity, highly realistic training where our teams, our tactical forces can be immersed in a simulated environment that looks real to them. and have to perform their duties with an actual opposing force. another group of people that are acting as if they're the enemy. and they have to demonstrate that they have the ability to do their job in that realistic environment. so, we can do that. we're doing it down in the suffolk area right now. the issue we have, we cannot do that at scale. we have the program. we mentioned in my opening comments the persistent training environment. that is a focused effort in the department of defense to allow us to actually do that type of training routinely. every week, every day so that the men and women on our teams have the abilities to do the

level of training we're doing down in suffolk right now. we only do that a few times a year. our job is to do that consistently in every other domain. >> my time is up. >> mr. langechlt vin. >> appreciate the work you're doing, full committee level, mr. smith, ranking member and i agree with my chairman of the sub committee now, mr. wilson, that it's been an exercise in bipartisanship and deeply appreciate the work of the staff. secretary atkin, thank you for your testimony today. along with you, general mclaughlin and general moore. thank you for what you're doing on cyber and, again, being here today. general mclaughlin and general moore, as we have discussed this morning, the cyber guard home

defense training exercise just concluded. i was very pleased to be able to attend that exercise. i very much enjoyed being able to witness the exercise take place in person. i was very impressed with what i saw. i wanted to thank you all for being such great hosts for that exercise. chairman wilson had asked, not surprisingly, we're on the same page. i wanted to know what your takeaways were from the exercise at the highest level. so, anything else you want to elaborate on lessons learned from the exercise, feel free. but i also would like to know beyond that what lessons have been learned with respect to the cyber mission forces executing operations in a geographic combat and commanders area of responsibility as they pertain to each mission.

and our roles and responsibilities of involved entities being refined and solidified as well as command and control of cmf. >> congressman, let me just take both of your questions. i think we, on the first question about high-level leons learned that we have seen coming out of this year's cyber guard, while the full report will be written in the next few weeks, we do have some initial broad insights that come from it. one is an increasing understanding of how many of the other partners -- so, as you mentioned, that is a whole government and international exercise that simulates some attack of significant consequence that occurred outside of the dod networks. what's really been interesting in our lesson is how many players, both within our government, within industry and within -- and i mean broadly beyond dod, within our

government and coalition partners are coming to this exercise. it continues to grow because it's an opportunity to tease out not only practical technical ways for our teams to defend and respond but those complex challenges about how different parts of the federal government coordinate in response and how does that work. how do we work with industry. you know better than most the complex issues associated with government forces actually connecting with industry, cyber terrain and how we should do that most appropriately and most effectively. and how we do that at scale with our partners. so, that continues to be a key lesson for us, the scale of people that want to participate. and every time we think we've reached the outer limits of who ought to be there, we realize there are more players that can or ought to come. and then the last thing, really, just to reinforce the question from mr. wilson, the need to be able to train at the level, the men and women that are down at cyber guard are asking us, you know, we would really like to

have this capability routinely. this is great training. most of them say it's the best they've ever had. our goal is to let them do the best all the time. >> thank you. >> i think your question regarding what have we learned in terms of how and our mission of supporting combat and commanders, broad lessons that we learned and are we adapting to being innovative? we really just started with what we thought would work. and what's been very interesting, and i think a positive step was the department, often led by general moore's team down in the joint staff, has continued to lead and ask how do we refine, change and adapt our command and control processes? we have made a number of adjustments in the last 18 months. we'll talk this afternoon. we've made chang changes in how

we command and control our forces in the counter isil operations. so, we really are learning and changing a lot. there's no one saying that's the way we've always done it, because the way we've always done it has only been two or three years. we are changing as we need to. one thing i think is a key tenent that all of us need to understand, and we're seeing this play out in the support. cyber capabilities aren't just there to solve cyber problems. there are adversaries that present themselves in a variety of ways that we could hold at risk. they might have a cyber capable that i will use some other tool or capability to counter. that is one thing that i think

the whole department department is learning. we bring what's unique that we can offer to our mission as opposed to defining problems as cyber only. that's been a key lesson for everybody and a powerful one or the department. >> thank you, general. thank you and your team for the work you're doing. and i was very impressed, as i said, the cyber guard exercise. training, training, training, i agree, has to be a key part of us doing this, going forward and seeing that persistent training environment be maximized and supported in a very robust way. so, thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. lamborn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all to your service to our country in various capacities. i'm going to build off what representative langevin was asking. general yenstoltenberg said a cyber attack could trigger a response by nato using conventional weapons. that's nato, not the

homeland. in this fast-evolving field, what can you tell us? what are you in a position to state publicly are the evolving rules of engagement where omething would trigger a cyber response from us or a kinetic esponse from us? >> as i've said before, it's a whole government response. cyber response or cyber attack would not necessarily mean we have to have a cyber response back to that. and each of those actions would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the entire interagency and the government. we would look at any cyber attack by a combat and command overseas or here in the homeland on a case-by-case basis and determine the significance of it was and use a whole government approach,

whether diplomatic means, economic means, law enforcement or military action to respond to that. >> anything to add to that, generals? >> for our mission, as the general mentioned, job one is defending the dod information network. that's ongoing 24 hours a day, seven days a week. we have all the authorities that we need today and are growing the forces. so, any threat that manifests itself. these are short of attacks, formal attacks or wars. but they occur all the time. and so the authorities we need within that domain, which is our main defensive mission set, we have those authorities and we spend a great deal of our time, day-to-day managing and responding to a breath of those activities. in our closed session later today we'll give you insights into the scale of just the daily size and scope of what that looks like.

and then a specific example of the operation we conducted recently against a very specific threat so you can see that, you know, a little bit more. >> that's reassuring to me. i'm sure it's reassuring to everyone who might be listening. changing gears, before my time is up, in israel, they are doing more with collaborating with the private sector and consolidating everything that they're doing into one location for synergy. what do you see as the future of collaborating with the private sector here in the u.s. with places like silicon valley, seattle, et cetera, to harness the public sector, creativity, expertise in this area? what do you see as the future of that? >> in that regard, the future