Transcripts For CSPAN3 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20160309

In terms of favorable and unfavorable opinions same thing well see here in terms of the opinions of most hispanics tend to favor the democratic party, and you would think well game over. We dont need to discuss this any further. Well, not exactly. Because weve seen how different candidates have done very well in different races, and i have given just three, three hispanic republicans that have done well in their respective states. Actually Governor Martinez and sandoval are extremely popular in their respective states, and they were both reelected in resounding victories. In terms of issues, gop is seen antiimmigrant and thats clear and certainly recent Public Discourse doesnt help in that front. And weve seen, for example, how some hispanic groups specifically Puerto Ricans in the i4 corridor in Central Florida even though they voted in 2004 for george w. Bush reelection they voted overwhelmingly for president obama in his reelection just a few years later. And thats a reflection on the discussion of certain issues, including immigration even though thats not the number one issue among hispanics and especially puerto ricanamericans. We see other issues. Like, for example, School Choice and merit pay for teachers its support by hispanics across the board. So there are issues where traditionally republican proposals tend to resonate well amongst hispanics. And its important also to understand that hispanics tend to be entrepreneurial and one in ten hispanics own a Small Business, and thats also very important to note. In terms of these numbers are interesting, as well. If we go from this chart, we come along and at the beginning, how many people consider themselves to be republican, that number is pretty low. But then when we go down the list and we start discussing whether they consider themselves to be conservative the numbers start going up. Those that support limiting spending, lower taxes and reduced regulation these go up as well. Then whether government should promote opportunity instead of furnish look at those numbers and whether they are likely to consider voting for a republican you see that theres potential for growth in the Hispanic Community, of course, depending on who the nominees are and thats going very important. I want to be brief but just a few wild cards. Certainly, Donald Trumps candidacy and everything i thought i knew about politics has gone out the window with this candidacy. So again, i dont know why you invited me but i appreciate the invitation. But that is tapping into a sentiment thats real, its out there, and its not unique to the United States of america. You go to other western democracies and look at whats going on in europe. In spain, they had elections back in december. They still have not yet been able to put together a government. Look at united kingdom. Look at the National Front in france. Belgium. Its unbelievable. Antiimmigrant sentiment thats creeping up. Same thing with some of the former Eastern European countries. In germany, Angela Merkel who looked to be invincible is in trouble because of what has transpired, especially on new years eve with the new wave of immigrants. So in that sense this is not unique to america. And there is a sentiment out there, its not the topic of todays discussion but certainly you could argue that it may have something to do with the fact that after the 08, 09 fiscal meltdown, a large group of people were left behind and feel left behind and feel that their elected officials are not responding to their needs. That actually is a nice segue to the next one because its not just donald trump. Look at Bernie Sanders and what hes been able to accomplish. Regardless whether we were discussing this earlier, we think tomorrow perhaps secretary clinton can clinch the nomination, to be frank, if i asked anyone in this room if back in july anyone here thought that Bernie Sanders could be as competitive as he has been in these early primaries i bet you no one would have ventured to say that that would be the case. And again, he is tapping into a sentiment that is real. And true. Theres all this talk about a republican brokered convention. We dont know yet. But i read an analysis today as to what could happen if donald trump continues to garner 34 , of republican votes in every primary and if governor kasich carries ohio, senator cruz carries texas, even if senator rubio doesnt carry florida, donald trump would not have enough delegates come midjuly to win the nomination in the firstround of voting, and the Republican Party rules state that the delegates are bound to their candidate only in the firstround of voting. So after that firstround, its up for grabs and anything can happen, and if you dont think so, who could have vote Chris Christie would have endorsed donald trump this week . So again, anything is possible in the realm of politics. You would not have thought that. Okay. I will give you 20 bucks and you play the powerball for me this week. Anyhow. And then what will happen if Hillary Clinton is the nominee . And where will Bernie Sanders voters go . I will tell you something that will probably make you say, okay, now why did you invite this guy here at all. Many of those voters may end up voting for trump. And i know this sounds strange, but ive seen a lot of data pointing in that direction, and again, its a year of the wild cards and thats why were here so, again, thank you for the invitation. I look forward the discussion. Thank you. You mentioned would we invited you despite not having predicted some of these things. If having predicted the rise of donald trump was a prerequisite for speaking at American University our students in american politics wouldnt have any instructor. None of us saw this coming. [ laughter ] well, thank you. So when president obama and president raul castro made their surprise announcement last december 14, 2014, that they had agreed normalize u. S. Cuban relations that drew immediate fire from republican president ial hopefuls. Marco rubio said obama was the worst negotiator in his lifetime. Senator cruz accused obama of bailing out castro. And exgovernor bush accused obama of betraying freedom. Now as you might expect donald trump thought he could have gotten a better deal. [ laughter ] but notice that he didnt attack the idea of engaging with cuba. Now, the argument i want to make today is that the politics of the cuba issue are actually more complicated than most of these reflexive republican responses would indicate. So first, lets look at National Polling on obamas opening to cuba. As you can see, the president s opening is overwhelmingly popular with the general public. Above 70 favorable. And interestingly, its even supported by republicans. Its been getting more popular, as you can see, over time as we see how the process of normalization unfolds. And just recently, gallup did its normal thermometer poll. And for the very first time more people view cuba favorably than unfavorably. Now, of course, the real battleground on the cuba issue is florida where it has high salience for cubanamericans and where they are a large enough proportion of the electorate, about 5 , to make the difference in this swing state. And as we know, elections in florida can be really close sometimes. For republicans in florida, the cubanamerican community has historically been a very solid, consistent base since the 1980s. And the conventional wisdom among democrats, beginning really with bill clinton, was that the right strategy was to try to outflank the republican candidate on the right on the issue of cuba so that cubanamericans then might cast a vote based more on social and economic issues, democrats could pick up at least a reasonable minority of that vote, and that could be the difference. And its strategy that worked for bill clinton in 1996. Its a strategy that Hillary Clinton pursued in 2008. But barack obama took a different approach to the issue. He appealed to the growing moderate segment of the cubanamerican community by promising to repeal limits on Family Travel and remittances and to actually engage with cuba. And it worked. This is as you can see a longterm trends of republican and democratic votes among cubanamericans in south florida. Theres an exit poll analysis and a precinct analysis, and theyre a little bit different in terms of the outcome, but as you can see, the long term trend is clear. In every cycle since 2000, the cubanamerican vote has become less reliably republican. So whats going on here and what does it mean for 2016 . The realignment of the cubanamerican electorate is the result of changing attitudes that are rooted in changing demographics. The floyd International University has been polling in the Community Since 1991 and tracking these attitudes. And their polls show us that more recent arrivals and cubanamericans born in the United States have more moderate views about u. S. Policy than exiles who arrived in the 1960s and the 1970s. And it makes perfect sense. The early arrivals were political refugees who lost everything when they fled cuba. The later arrivals have really been more economically motivated. They still have family on the island. They travel back and forth. They send remittances. So for these recent arrivals, a more normal state to state relationship between cuba and the United States is a good thing because it makes it easier for them to maintain these family ties. And so, we see an evolution in the Florida International poll data on engagement with cuba. You can see a reasonably consistent trend upward. And over the years, a fairly dramatic shift from opposition to any kind of commerce with cuba to engagement to the point that in the most recent 2014 poll, 52 of cubanamericans in south florida favored lifting the embargo against cuba. So now if we look in more detail at that 2014 poll, one of the things we see is that so heres the breakdown on the embargo question. You can see that early arrivals and the generation you can see a generational difference in terms of age. You can see a difference in terms of when people arrived in the United States and then you can see that the older exiles are much more conservative than the younger. Now, not surprisingly, cuba is an issue very salient in this community. 64 of registered voters say its important in deciding who theyre going to vote for. Probably this is the only constituency in the United States where this is such a salient issue. And note that 53 of the Community Say theyre more likely to vote for a candidate thats in favor of engagement. So the moderates groups in the community have over time gradually become a majority. So this is arrivals. And as you can see, over time from these last three censuses, that exiles arriving before 1980, that is to say, the more politically oriented exiles, have fallen from 81 of the community to just 24 in 2010. And obviously, my best estimate is only about 20 of the community today. Now, its taken a long time for this change to actually manifest itself in votes. And thats because, of course, of naturalization. We have been talking about this issue. As you can see, people who came early are almost all u. S. Citizens now, and theyre registered at higher rates an they turn out to vote at fairly high rights. Whereas, people who are more recent arrivals, particularly those who came since the end of the cold war, most of them are still not yet naturalized citizens. One of the things this tells us is that over time this longterm trend in the cubanamerican community becoming more moderate is going to continue as these later arrivals, as more and more of them become naturalized. So and here, finally, you can see that among cubanamerican citizens in florida, the early arrivals are down from 65 in 1980 to just 30 in 2010. And the biggest block now are cubanamericans who are born in the United States. And so, finally, all of these factors together have eroded the traditional alignment of the community with the Republican Party, and you can see it here in the changing registration numbers. So, we can conclude from this that obamas strategy of appealing the moderates in the cubanamerican community has been largely successful and that the cuba issue is not any longer the way it used to be, sort of a third rail of politics in florida. So how have cubanamericans reacted specifically to obamas opening to cuba . And this is a National Poll of cubanamericans done on the anniversary of the announcement, that is to say, in december of 2014. And as you can see, the results favor very closely the florida International University polls. 56 of cubanamericans in favor of obamas opening. And more importantly, again, you can see that support has actually increased over time as weve seen what the normalization looks like in practice. Now, if we disaggregate these results a little bit, you can see that here again by age, the Younger Generation clearly in favor of this, whereas its the older generation that still doesnt like the idea of engaging with cuba. And by decade of arrival, same thing. Those who came early are in disagreement with what obama has done. But interestingly, not by huge numbers. Whereas those who came after 1980 are very much in favor of it. And perhaps most important, cubanamericans born in the United States are overwhelmingly in favor of what obama has done. And as i said earlier, this is now the largest segment of the community and the largest segment of the cubanamerican electorate. And the communities against the embargo. The embargo, of course, requires an act of congress to be removed. So thats going to be an issue in 2017. And the cubanamerican community now is fairly solidly in favor of moving ahead on removing it. So what about the Hispanic Community as a whole . How much difference does the cuba issue make among hispanic voters nationwide . Well, the answer is really not a lot. Generally speaking, hispanic voters are in favor of what the president has done, but its not really all that important an issue for him. Its not salient. Doesnt make much of a difference. But this is interesting. The democrats are more likely, of course, to favor this. But the republican hispanic voters are evenly split on this. So even among hispanic republicans, there is a modest amount of to people who it makes a difference to, theyre evenly split to people who like what obama has done with this opening and people who dont. And then this is for me the most interesting. Cubanamerican voters are actually more favorable and more likely to vote for a candidate in favor of opening to cuba than noncuban hispanic voters. So and if we reverse the question, if you reverse the question and say, are you likely to vote against somebody who opposes obamas opening to cuba, you get almost exactly the same numbers. So this is not a good result for marco rubio or ted cruz heading into the florida primary since they have staked out absolute opposition to obamas opening to cuba. And, of course, the president is going to be going to cuba on march 21st. So the week after the primary. So its likely, i think that cuba will emerge as an issue on the republican side going into the florida primary. It hasnt been an issue thus far. But its going its going to be tricky for cruz and rubio taking on this issue when the community now has moved in a different direction. So donald trump has consistently led in the florida polls. And his more moderate position on cuba and on obamas opening may actually give him an advantage among cubanamerican voters. Once again, denying the conventional wisdom. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, bill. And thanks to all of our panelists so theres quite a bit that one could follow up on in. I want to open it up soon to the audience, questions and perhaps comments. But just before i do that, im interested. The numbers, mark, that you came up, that you had regarding naturalization. And i was reminded of this when i looked at bills slide on the relatively small percentage of post90 or 2000 cubans who had naturalized. What do we know about who is naturalizing and where . Among hispanics . Yeah. Yeah. So when we take a look at the Hispanic Community and those who are in the country legally and eligible to naturalize, youll find that the naturalization rate among cubanamericans is on the order of about 75 or higher. So thats pulling together all of these different immigration groups that leo had up there. But i would also say if you compare it to Central Americans, only about 44 of those in the country legally ultimately naturalize. When you take a look at mexicans, you see only about 36 of those who are in the country legally actually choose to naturalize. So cubanamericans are overrepresented among this population of naturalizing hispanics because, keep in mind, the naturalization process amongst cubans is still going on. Theres a lot of people who have arrived, more recently, for example. Mexicans are somewhat underrepresented. And its an interesting question of why many mexicans choose not to naturalize. Some of them say theyre not interested. Some of them actually return home because they plan to return home at some point. Some also will say things like theyre worried about the cost of the process or theyre worried about taking the test, any test in english, because theyre worried about their english skills. But keep in mind, most of those mexicans who have not naturalized have been here for 20plus years. They were naturalized during the 1986 erca many of this. And they still have not chosen to naturalize. In terms of numbers, mexicans are still the biggest part of it but theyre underrepresented given what you would expect given the numbers who are here legally. Thank you. Governor, with regard to the migration of Puerto Ricans from the commonwealth to florida, what can you tell us about the demographics of that group, levels of education, what we might know about the likely electoral behavior given what past behavior was in puerto rico . Where the partisan alignment were and so on . What perspective can you give us where the on that . Sure. Well, actually, i should note that in the last two years the rate of migration from puerto rico to Central Florida has tripled. So again, this is a very recent phenomenon. You know, it has always been there for decades. But not at the rate that we are seeing it at this moment. Since Puerto Ricans are born citizens, the data is sketchy at best. However, i have seen some data that tends to indicate that most of them tend to be there are two groups. One, they are pretty young and well located, and they can find a job in florida immediately. And then you have those who are retired and are looking for the services under medicare are available at a better level than on island and in a warm location and that is florida and where they probably know people or what have you. In terms of politically, whether theyre active or not politically, it remains to be seen. The level of activism from those that have moved to florida in recent years is not as high. They continue to follow politics on island very closely. Actually, some of them remain registered in puerto rico and go back and vote in puerto rico which is quite interesting. However, i have seen, again, early numbers. It is sketchy. That tend to indicate that more of those supporting statehood which is a prevalent issue on island are moving that those that are not supporting statehood. The roots of the Statehood Movement in puerto rico, if you go back 80 years, take you to the old statehood Republican Party so their roots are republican, but then again, candidates will matter and the type of campaign that they run will matter tremendously. Some candidates might turn them off tremendously and others may be quite attractive. So it remains to be seen. Very, very interesting. I mean, one last thing before i turn it over to professor leogrande. I mean, you show that the cuba policy question was a driving factor behind cubanamerican electoral behavior for a long time. Do we have any and this may be for everyone on the panel. Do we have any evidence of whether policy toward mexico or policy toward Central America, say, or for that matter, policy toward puerto rico with regard to fiscal assistance and so on, might become the new cubanamerican phenomenon . That is to say, drive electoral behavior of latino sub groups in the United States not because of domestic politics so much as because of politics toward country of origin. Anybody have a sense of that . So, i mean, the one thing i can say is i know that there have been some efforts to try to mobilize Central Americans in particular around u. S. Foreign policy toward Central America, and it hasnt been all that successful. And i think the difference is that, you know, when the cuban american the first waves of cubanamerican exiles came to the United States, they came they selfidentified not as immigrants, but as exiles. That is to say, they had an expectation of going back. And so, the political motivation for them leaving, their sense that eventually they would go back, predisposed them to being very active around the issue of u. S. cuban relations in a way that i think wasnt true either for mexicans or Central Americans. In terms i have campaigned several times in florida and the two main issues are jobs and location, among Puerto Ricans residing there. So i dont know if thats a trend in other groups. I would say for the mexican population, its so diverse, so big. Youve got many people who have long roots say in texas, or recent arrivals in Southern California or in georgia. So im not sure how much of a connection many mexicanamericans feel to mexico. You really do feel when you go back to mexico, yes, may have family there, but it is a different country, and its something that im not as connected to as i am here. I think that might be true of many mexicanamericans, but i actually dont know. Thank you. So id like to open it up to yes. You. And in the front row. Hi. This question is for governor fortuno. Specifically, about the fiscal assistance, bankruptcy issue with puerto rico. The fact that marco rubio does not support it, even though jeb bush, a republican, does, and has caused a lot of controversy, and i wanted to see what you thought about his particular stance affecting the florida primary and Puerto Ricans in florida, you know, being against what hes saying about that. Sure. To be fair, and i know thats what came out of the debate the other day and also, do you agree or disagree with his comments . Sure. But to be fair, he has published columns on this issue. His is a comprehensive approach. And actually, most people, including myself, would agree that you need a comprehensive approach to this. That just implementing chapter 9 to be applicable to puerto rico will certainly not solve this problem. You need more than just a restructuring mechanism. You probably need something similar to what d. C. Had here back in the 90s in terms of a fiscal control board, to provide the island actually a level of certainty that has gone away. You probably want to think of one or two pro growth mechanisms to see the economy grow because thats the underlying issue. So in the columns that he has published, including in puerto rico newspapers, senator rubio has said i prefer a comprehensive approach with a little bit of everything and theres an order. And thats what he was trying to explain in the debate because i have read the columns. Thats why i knew that he said that should be a last resort, not a first resort, and more than just approving chapter 9 bankruptcy applicability will not suffice and most people that have studied this issue will tend to agree. When governor bush endorsed the chapter 9 applicability, it was a year ago. A year ago, many things had not happened. There had not been a default on any of the 18 different types of credits. The current budget had not been approved, and the budget did not try to slash expenses or deal with some other issues. So again, many things have occurred in the last year that have swayed people to move away from just granting the island this tool, to saying, yes but thats just part of a larger plan and that is other steps ought to be taken in order to address it properly. What about the effect on [ inaudible ] well, again, if hes able to explain i dont know if he will have the resources to do it or not, i really wouldnt know but if hes able to explain as he has done with those columns that have been published on his behalf that he favors a comprehensive approach to this, perhaps yes. The house of representatives here is likely to actually on march 15th, the state of the florida primary is likely to have a markup in the committee of primary jurisdiction on this issue, approving a comprehensive package. And in the following two weeks, it is likely to go to the floor for a vote. By then it will be too late because then it will move over to the senate. It will be late to impact the florida race, but i could envision the senator for example saying, i favor that bill that is being discussed on the 15th. Thank you. Yes . And could you please identify yourself, also . Certainly. Im abigail golden basket, im the director of the latino in Society Program at the aspen institute. I have two quick questions. One for governor fortuno. I would like to know your thoughts on the candidates positions on the puerto rican debt crisis and how that might impact turnout. And the other is for the professor leogrande or leogrande. Im not sure you you like that pronounced. On the popularity of obamas policies with, first, i guess refugees, arrivals in cuba, versus the second wave. How much does race play into that . And how much would that perhaps account for his popularity among the second wave of economic and, frankly, darker, browner refugees . Sure. Of the five remaining republican candidates, only one or two have expressed themselves on this issue as of right now. They have all expressed themselves on the status question but not on this. Again, as i expressed earlier, i believe that if others take the same position that senator rubio has taken that its a more nuanced approach to this, suggesting that a comprehensive approach is required, a more wholistic approach to this, i think it will be a wash. But we havent heard from the other four, to be frank. Of course, on island, which will hold its primary this sunday, this would be important. By the time we get to florida, we would know what the house bill entails and it may have an impact or not. Depending. Because it wouldnt have gone to the floor yet for a vote, but it may have an impact at that moment. Thats on the republican side. Have we seen anything from the Clinton Campaign as to how they may be trying to position themselves . The clinton approach, which came out almost a year ago, is pretty similar to governor bushs approach, but thats what was on the table at that moment, and whether you approve whether its chapter 9 or some sort of restructuring mechanism. We saw some tweets from secretary clinton after that debate that the republicans had late last week, again hitting senator rubio on that position. But again, in 140 characters, you are not explaining a comprehensive approach to such a complex situation. Even though i know we try to force people try to force us to do that. I think, again, if theres an indepth discussion of this issue, a comprehensive approach makes sense that will not be offensive to anyone, i would say. What moves voters is something that is extremely attractive or dramatically offensive. And it would be neither. Theres no question that later waves of cuban migration to the United States are a lot more racially diverse than the very early waves. They look a lot more like cuban society, whereas the exiles who came in the 60s and 70s were about 93 white based on the u. S. Census of that community. Whether or not that made a difference in terms of their support for president obama in 2008, 2012, possibly it did, at the margins. But i think the changes in opinion within the cubanamerican community on issues related to cuba is really a longstanding trend now. And it predates obama. And for the reasons i expressed, i think its going to continue after obama. So while it may have been a few Percentage Points attributable to that, i think the longer term is just that the basic interests of the community are changing. Thank you. Herbert francisco. As a mexican with resident alien status in the United States, im wondering if youve undertaken any research in mexico that might shed some light on the idiosyncratic behaviors of mexicans in our elections and how that might be affecting perceptions or behaviors here in the United States. Very interesting question. No, weve not taken a look at that. Over the years, we have, though, explored the attitudes of mexicans about the United States and about life in the United States. And as you know, some of the work we have done has shown that mexican migration to the u. S. Has really slowed substantially. In fact, there are now more mexicans returning home than coming. Theres still a flow but these things change over time. But when you ask mexicans about life in the United States, its quite interesting. Fewer of them today will say that life is better in the United States than in mexico. Or life in the United States is just as good as it is in mexico. The share that say things are better in mexico than the u. S. Is on the rise. About one third of mexican adults say that. You also find fewer mexican adults say that they know someone in the United States. Those numbers are falling, too. All in line with the outflow of undocumented immigration since the recession. And the mexican immigrant population in the United States has also fallen by about 1 million people. So it makes sense that mexicans in mexico have fewer connections, are not necessarily keen on saying life is better than it is in mexico. So many things are lining up together, but we havent taken a look at the Political Part of that, though. Another . Just maybe as a way of kind of drawing together some of the parts of the discussion weve been having wild cards in swing states, is there a way in which we can think about the various different kinds of wild cards that weve put on the table in this panel and earlier as well with the discussion of Voter Registration drives and other kinds of things that might allow us to think about how each of these wild cards would fit together in a broader trend, or whether theyre working . In other words, are these standalone wild cards that will be hard for us to understand in a bigger electoral picture, or do they add up to something collectively . I suppose the related question is whether you see additional factors that may weigh on latino participation and votes in this election that are peculiar in comparison to the standard, as well. Yeah . Sure, go ahead. Well, for example, if secretary clinton ends up being the nominee and she picks a latino candidate, castro, that would be significant, i would say. Same way, whomever is the republican nominee, its not as clear as on the democratic side. If governor susana martinez, Brian Sandoval are picked, or somebody else, that could also have an impact, i would say, as well. If for any reason actually marco rubio is the nominee, i would say that that would be significant, as well, more so in some states than others. Perhaps in the Eastern States more so than in the western states. Although there are ways to address that between now and november. So again, yes, there could be many moving parts. And then, if there is a candidate, any candidate, who is tremendously offensive during the race, i think that would be a reason to also no, a nominee. A nominee. We dont have a nominee. That would certainly be reason to move on that. And that probably would be a national movement, not just a regional movement, i think. Its a very good question. I do think a lot of these things, particularly for the latino vote, are intertwined together. Its partly about youth. We need to get out the vote. We need the outreach to latinos. Weve outreached to latinos, not just focused on young people, but focused on all latinos because the voter turnout rates still remain below others even among those who are College Educated or are adult. I think also theres a lot of potential wild cards. As mentioned here. So who might the candidates be . I think trump potentially if he becomes the republican nominee could become a motivator for getting many hispanics out to vote. Thats what a lot of polling seems the show. But if he isnt the nominee and its somebody else on the republican side, im not sure how much that might dissipate that motivation. I just dont know. And then we have a number of and then we have a number of things that other panels have talked about that might impact. For example, clarissas comment talked about that might impact. For example, clarissas comment about support that the latino foundations are getting to get out the vote. That to me strikes me as potentially a very big deal because its about getting out the vote. 2014 there was an effort to get out the latino vote, but it wasnt as big as it had been in the past. So that the low voter turnout rates of latinos, 27 , which has a record low for hispanics, a record low for a lot of people, too. Not just hispanics. But that, i think, is something thats potentially a big unknown and problem in terms of getting out the vote for latinos, irrespective of all the stuff we talked about. Let me add just one thing, in the case of florida, in addition to the shifts under way in the cubanamerican community, the noncubanamerican latino population of florida is growing. So the cubans are a minority in the community. And the noncuban latinos tend in terms of their Party Preferences tend to look a lot more like latinos in the rest of the country so its yet another challenge for the Republicans Holding on to florida. Very good. Hi, Mike Mccarthy ffrom the center for latin american and latino studies. Two questions. One for mark and one for professor leogrande. So, im intrigued by this participation gap, you know, weve seen a lot of articles written about it. Will the latino power vote be realized this election . Im wondering if you could place that in a broader context to talk about eligibility and participation rates throughout the United States. In other words, is it disproportionately largest gap in the Latino Community as compared to other new eligible communities in the United States . Youth, more broadly, regardless of ethnicity and then within other ethnic communities. It would be really interesting to hear about that because it would provide us some insight to think any what mobilization strategies could look like sort of cross cleavages. And then on this recent question about the florida vote, just to put it very frankly, if youre a republican strategist, would there be any value to continuing to try and mobilize cubanamericans for the gop party if the proportion of the population is just sort of dwindling, visavis other latino communities . In other words, like, what is there left to say about the cubanamerican vote on the right in florida . Is it just power brokers at the level of the former foundations like the cubanamerican National Foundation and so on and so forth, or is there something still that the party could gain at the sort of base level . Thanks a lot. Very good question. So, in terms of the hispanic vote, a couple of things. Hispanics register to vote at somewhat lower rates than other groups of americans. But once theyre registered, the voter turnout rates are much closer, the gap is much smaller. But the problem is oftentimes getting hispanics to register. Thats true of older hispanics and its true of younger hispanics. You think about, for example, the story of texas. Ive met a lot of adult texans who have a lot of opinions about candidates, issues, et cetera. And you ask them, are you registered to vote . Theyre hispanic, and they say no because i dont have the time. But they have a strong opinion about it. So i think that this is the challenge within the Latino Community which is getting people registered, to get them to vote. But, of course, the impact of youth is a big part of this. How does this compare to other groups of americans . Generally speaking, latinos are registering to vote at lower rates, but once registered, they tend to turn out similarly to other americans. Even though theres still a little bit of a gap. In terms of youth. In my previous job, i used to Fund Research to look at how to get young latinos out to vote. And one of the things that some researchers had found and this is randomized, they found, facetoface, hispanictohispanic outreach, was often most effective to get them to register and to the polls. Nonpartisan message. Just hey, its important. It is your civic duty. Get out the vote. That i think is very powerful, its also very expensive and hard to do. And so, shoe leather matters a lot. A lot of the research we also funded was to look at ways to shortcut that, what about an email campaign, a social media campaign, go to concerts and get people registered at a concert . All those things seem to work, but they dont seem to be as good as the facetoface, latinotolatino, get out the vote. It is time for you to vote today. You should do this. Can i help you get there . Those sorts of messages seem to be most effective, at least in the research that we did at the center. So in terms of the gop in florida and the cubanamericans, of course the older generation thats the most conservative and most rejectionist in terms of engaging with cuba, tends to be wealthier. It provides a lot of political money, and it was really critical in electing a number of the cubanamerican members of congress from florida. And so, now they are really the spokespeople for that segment of the community. And the rest of the party doesnt want to disavow them, obviously. Also, you know, cuban american registration even now is still about 21 republican. So its still an important constituency for republicans, even though its down from 41, what it was 20 some odd years ago. One interesting phenomenon is that now some cubanamerican republicans are saying, we ought to change this opendoor immigration policy and stop letting cuban immigrants into the United States under the cuban adjustment act and letting them adjust their status after a year and getting a fasttrack to citizenship. I think the hidden agenda there is that these people are voting democrat. You know . And so, it would really be better if we didnt have the community expanding in that particular way. A couple of things to add to the demographics of florida that are also interesting is, yes, cubanamericans are less than half of all hispanics in the state of florida. Puerto ricans are rivaling them in size now. And you have colombians and venezuelans who naturalized and who are also part of this process, as well. Even mexicans, as well. But when you take a look at florida and miamidade county, youve seen growth in the number of registered democrats and no party affiliation. You look at Orange County in the central part of the state. There republican Voter Registrations have been flat, and have been passed up by democratic ones, but particularly, no party affiliation. I think its reflecting the puerto rican population moving there and just not affiliating. Many of the cubanamericans i think are very energized. Theyre going to go out and vote and they tend to have a higher turnout a dinner with my sisters husbands family and talk about the cuban issue. Her fatherinlaw, when i asked him, what do you think about obamas opening up, blah, blah, blah, hes like 80 something years old. He stood up and started yelling, and got really engaged and he went from english to spanish. And his son whos a nurse grabbed his hand and said, dad, dad, calm down. He was measuring his he got so riled about it. So theyre very engaged. If you want to see it, i invite you to come and have dinner. [ laughter ] thank you. A number of us attend an annual event in havana thats devoted to u. S. cuban relations. And theres an audience of maybe 80 or 100 people. Largely specialists on u. S. cuba relations, but its a diverse group. And theres always a few moments in the meeting where some conciliatory suggestion is put forth with regard to the cubans make some concession to the americans and we see several people get up and you want also to just hang on to the pulse and make sure so its on both sides of the florida state. There was one last question. This gentleman. Another question over there. Okay. My question is, i wanted to point out that theres a lot of conversation about getting votes, outreach, figuring out whether latinos agree more with republicans or democrats, whether they agree with the stance of this candidate or that candidate. And theres not as much of a conversation on how do politicians actually reach out to voters and figure out what they think, especially among young people. And as we pointed out, young latino voters actually have disproportionately one of the lowest turnouts, even less than black and asian people of the same age cohort. And to that, i did want to point out the blueprint 2016 report from the roosevelt institute, which is the this is the latest edition of the report that highlights the opinions of millennials. What our policy priorities are going into the elections. The results basically break policy priorities along six different fields. I would be glad to share this and provide you information so you can know how millennials, what they care about, what their ideas are and what they want to see from their local electeds going forward. Thank you. Could you identify yourself . Francisco alvarez with the roosevelt institute. Got another story for you here. Its a great point. A few years ago, we did a look at young latinos. We did a series of focus groups. They were enlightening. After every one the same thing happened. Many of the young latinos said, thank you. Often with tears in their eyes. Thank you for asking me what i think because nobody asks me what i think. I think you are right that theres a lack of engagement on the part of candidates or politicians or even just folks understanding what young latinos, Young Millennials are most interested and concerned about. I would love to see that. Thank you. I am an m. A. Condition here. Before this, i was a Community Organizer in the state of idaho. We registered 3,000 latinos in the state in 2014. If you know and have done Voter Registration, it takes one hour to register two people, especially in the Latino Community its more difficult. Given that, we saw 2014 given it wasnt a president ial year, more difficult to turn out latinos. Even in the primaries, i wanted you to maybe touch upon the difficulty between latinos coming out in a primary and then in the general election, because at least what we have seen in idaho is that people are not bought into one party or the other, especially given the state is very red. But in general, latinos i guess the words that we had in our focus group is they dont want to give their vote to one particular party because they want to be kind of fight for that vote. Can you talk about maybe some predictions in the general election that were seeing . And then this anomaly of latinos in nevada going to donald trump, maybe talking about that and what happened there. Thank you. So we dont have a prediction on how many hispanics will register or turn out to vote. I think you will see records for both of those numbers. Thats the pattern we have seen for last few years. There was a prediction about 13 million. That seems about right given the patterns we have seen. We will see where things go. I dont know where we are going to be. Keep in mind from 2010 to 2014, many were predicting that there would be an additional million hispanic votes. But there were own about an additional 180,000. You can see these things can turn around real fast. About Donald Trumps winning of largest share of the hispanic Republican Caucus going vote, i think its important to put those qualifiers in there. It looks like he did. And there are some latinos who do support donald trump and they happen to be republican. The ones who showed up in nevada at the caucuses who were latino its a small group they did looks like give him more support than any other candidate. Thats perfectly fine. Because it reflects the diversity of the community to a large extent. A lot of people are like wondering why he said he won the latino vote. We need to qualify that as he won the latino vote among republican nevada caucus goers. Not among all latinos. I think theres a lot of spin that goes with this, all over the place, fyi. Its still there are republican latinos, or latinos who believe very much in the viewpoint of donald trump. In some of the surveys we have seen upwards of 15 to 18 of hispanic adults want to deport. Its not the case that every latino feels the same about the issues. It speaks to the diversity of the community which is partly what makes us strong but what makes us hard to outreach to. Thank you very much. I would like to thank all of our panelists for a very interesting discussion. I would also like to thank all of you for joining us over the course of the afternoon. A couple things by way of followup. I dont know whether my colleague jim wants to say any closing words from ccps. We will be circulating a report coming from this event. We will make it available on our websites. Im confident that we will both do so and that it will be good, because aaron bell who does a variety of work with the center who does a variety of projects with the center has agreed to write something up. That always turns out well. Within the coming weeks, we will post something on our respective sites and encourage you to look at that. We also expect to cover some of these issues of latinos in the 2016 election in a blog that we produce at the center for latin american and latino studies. In fact, we posted something this morning that may be of interest to some of you. Looking at what the ramifications of having an eightperson Supreme Court might be for the review of the decision of the fifth circuit with regard to president obamas executive actions. I think we didnt talk a lot about that particular intersection of the administrations introducing an ambitious executive action having counter suits trying to block them from doing so and now perhaps a stalemate in the Supreme Court about where this may go. And how that also may impact at least the debate around latinorelated issues. So my colleague who i see is seated out there and is kind of our Supreme Court and Legal Correspondent wrote a very interesting piece thats up on the site. If you go just to our home page, you can see on the lefthand side the blog. Click on that. If you wish to subscribe, thats easy to do as well. Again, very much appreciate your attendance. I appreciate all the thoughtful interventions by panelists over the course of the day. Its always a pleasure to work with ccps as well. You should also mention that we will put links to the cspan coverage of this. They plan to show all of it. They usually show it several times. But we also have a web cast that we will put links to that also if you want to see that. Eric, i want to thank you very much and your staff. It has been a great conference, great panelists. Who made a contribution today. Thank you. Thank you all. [ applause ] c spans washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. On wednesdays washington journal, our first guest is lori wallach. We will announce the winners of the 2016 student cam documentary contest. Then former representative j. C. Was it, a republican from oklahoma, he is joining us to discuss campaign 2016 and the impact this election is having on the Republican Party. Be sure to watch washington Journal Wednesday live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern. Join the discussion. This years cspan student cam competition was one of our biggest yet as students competed for over 100,000 in prizes. Students produced documentaries using our road to the white house theme answering the question, what issues they most want the candidates to discuss during the 2016 president ial campaign. The students told us that the economy, equality, education and immigration were all the top issues. Be sure to tune in this wednesday morning at 8 30 eastern during washington journal when we will announce the grand prize winner, our first place winners and the Fan Favorites selected by the public. Watch live on cspan and cspan. Org. U. S. Forest service chief todd tidwell talked about the Budget Proposal and a Committee Hearing today. Questioning focused on the increasing expenditures on fighting wildfires in western states. This is just over two hours. Good morning, chief. Good morning. We are here this morning to review the president s request for the Forest Service for fiscal year 2017. Chief tidwell, it is good to be able to welcome you back to the committee. I appreciate you being here to explain the president s proposal. Its probably not going to be a surprise to you, im not enamored with it. In fact, i am ive got some wis issues with several aspects of it. I will mention a couple of them this morning in my opening. We do have several proposals here within the budget, a number of mandatory spending proposals without providing offsets. I have mentioned this as other members of the cabinet have come before us that when we have mandatory spending proposals with no offsets that is problematic. The secure rural schools program, srs, is clearly an example of that. We reached a point where if we are not cutting trees on federal lands, and we hardly are, then they will cut budgets. Thats not acceptable. The Timber Industry can be sustainable. The funding required without offsets and in the absence of Timber Harvesting is not. We have many communities around the country that are dependent economically on the active management of our National Forests. As you know, Southeast Alaska is full of such communities. This is not a budget that they are going to find appealing. On the tongas, the secretary of agriculture has directed the Forest Service to expedite away from old growth Timber Harvesting towards a Timber Program focused on predominantly young growth. We know that this is a mandate. It will change the way the tongas is managed. But theres no mention of the transition in this budget to explain how it will be executed and how it will be funded. And yet, that doesnt stop the Forest Service from moving on a planned amendment to lock in the transition before this administration leaves office. I think the Forest Service need dozen whats right and what the tongas Advisory Committee called for. Address the uncertainties that exist in the amount, volume and timing of the availability of young growth to support a transition. A Successful Transition will only be possible if its grounded in strong science and backed by comprehensive data. As a starting point, as a matter of common sense, we need a complete inventory before we allow a planned amendment to move forward. In the meantime, its critical that the Forest Service provide enough timber to meet market demand because if you dont do that we have had this conversation so many times. If we dont do that, there isnt any industry left to transition to. Another issue that i know that we will hear a lot of discussion about this morning is how this budget proposed to address wildfire. Again, the Forest Service budget asked congress to fund just 70 of the tenyear average of suppression costs, a proposed cap adjustment would pay for the remaining 30 as well as any costs above the average. This idea has been rejected every year since it was first proposed in the fy2015 budget. There just isnt agreement here in congress on whether or how to address what this proposal is aimed at. As a percentage of the Forest Service annual budget. What we do agree on i think you will probably hear it echoed from all of us this morning. What we agree on is putting an end to the unsustainable practice of fire borrowing. We cannot continue to fight fires by diverting funds from other parts of the Forest Service budget. We agree with you there. Thats why last year we worked so hard to include wildfire provisions in the omnibus. And i think that they were proposals that were responsible and they were pragmatic. It included 1. 6 billion for fire compression, which is 600 million above the average cost of fighting wildfire over the past ten years. It included 545 million for hazardous fuel reduction and 306 million for the Timber Program which will help us begin to resume active management of our forests. Barring a truly record setting fire season this year, fire borrowing should not be an issue for the rest of the fiscal year. That gives us some time here to advance legislation that addresses wiel fiaddress s wildfire budgeting and how we manage our forests. We need to do both at once. Because we know the wildfire problem is not just a budgeting problem. Its also a management problem. High up front costs, long planning horizons and regulatory requirements including what seem like an unending Environmental Review process are impeding our ability to implement treatments at the pace and the scale that wildfires are occurring. We must also work with our state agencies, local communities and the public to increase Community Preparedness and install fire breaks to break up connectivity to keep fires small. As you know, we have a vested interest in my state to make sure that were doing this right. About half of the 10 million acres that burned in last years fire season were in alaska. We have already had our second wildfire this year in the state. This is march 8th and we have had our second. Know that im eager to work with you as well as the other members of the committee and other committees that have a role on this issue. I know that we all agree that we have real challenges here. It will grow worse if we fail to address them. Look forward to working with you to address the challenges and others. With that, i will turn to senator cantwell. Thank you. Thank you, chief for coming today to discuss the budget. As you know in 2014, washington experienced the largest and worst fire in our state fire. In 2015, as we were still recovering from that, washington was hit hard again. This time even harder and experienced the worst fire season in the history of our state. In one month, more than 1 million acres of washington burned. Thats an area larger than the size of the state of rhode island. According to Economic Loss and the loss of homes and businesses we experience were tragic, but on top of that, firefighters were killed and another was severely burned in an entrapment. A tribe lost 20 of its timber. That was a billion dollars worth of timber. I spent last summer traveling the state meeting with firefighters and residents and to talk about everything from the evacuation process to loss of their homes to numerous things that policy makers can do to help so that fewer homes burn down, so that we keep our firefighters safe and decrease the intensity of the fires so that we can be better managed. I appreciate that the committee and my colleague attended a field hearing in seattle to talk about these issues as well. All of this underscores the importance of addressing these issues and getting right solutions. We need to better protect our communities and our firefighters from the wildfires. Guided by science, we need to invest in and pursue policies that will make our forests more resilient. We need equipment and resources to have a more hasty response at the initial attack to the fires. Fortunately, as you can see from the chart behind me maybe we need to move that up further. My colleague mentioned the Forest Service had a 60 increase in firefighting funding for this year giving us a window to come up with more functional solutions. So we certainly appreciate the work of my colleagues in getting that 60 increase. I know that the chair womans state experienced one of its worst fire seasons in alaska. We have been working to try to get ahead of this problem. We have had hearings where we talked about solutions to get different results. In particular, we need better i believe preparedness strategy. Better fire preparedness will reduce the risk. And reduce the cost to our nation. Some of these estimates are we could spend between 2 and 4 billion a year for the next several years given the changes that we are seeing in conditions. So we need to start obviously once we get the energy bill done to focus on this issue and come up with legislation that will help all our xhup tcommunities. I believe it should set key priorities of preparedness. We must increase it through hazardous fuel reduction, fire wise programs, changing the time and function of prescribed burns, risk mapping. We also need to improve the efficiency of our operations by using aircraft when available and improving the safety of our firefighting conditions and for us in the northwest it even means getting a better doppler system to forecast weather conditions since we have a blind spot right in the central part of our state. We can invest in and prioritize fuel treatment that make a difference. I hope we will talk a lot about ideas to be very innovative on this. To me it makes no sense to talk about what you do after the fire as much as we should be talking about what we can do to minimize the risk to everyone. But to specifically the two to 4 billion cost we are looking at from the fires. The funding that was awarded last week to groups in washington through the joint chiefs landscape restoration project is a great example of this. Thank you. It will help at Risk Communities with fire preparedness in pla places. We can increase our use of technology, including unmanned vehicles so we can more accurately see the location of spot fires so firefighters can be sent out to help. I look forward to working out the remaining details with many of the members of this committee but certainly chair woman murkowski as we try to bring together solutions here. Turning to secure rural schools, if i could. I want to express my concern in the delay in the distribution of the 2015 secure rules payments. These payments still have not been distributed to communities. The fiscal years of counties in washington begin in a few months. I cant imagine some of the counties trying to plan their annual budget not knowing how much they are going to get from the Forest Service. The secure rules payments represent more than 15 of their budget. These payments and salaries of more than half of the countys 65 employees. For our rural and timber communities, these are very serious issues. I notice there was not a lot of detail in the proposal to reauthorize the program. I look forward to working with you and the chair woman and members of the committee, including senator widen, over the coming months to extend this crucial program. I want to thank you, chief tidwell, for last weeks announcement concerning recreational permits. I completely agree that we need to be finding ways to streamline the Forest Service process in order to make it easier for more young people to get outdoors. I know secretary jewel announced a similar proposal across all interior lands programs. It was right here in this room that last years budget when you and i talked about the problems with the ymca of greater seattle and the Forest Service and im delighted to hear you and second jewel are embarking on what i think is a significant process to make it easier for young people like the ymca to move through the current permit process and open the doors to hundreds of young people and organizations. So despite the good points, there are gaps in the budget request. We should work to address these so we can do more to Work Together on recreational access, Small Businesses in my state that rely on recreation in our economy are confused about some of the priorities in the budget. For example, the Forest Service is proposing to cut road maintenance and is exploring ways to close some of the major recreational routes in my state. This is were going to hear loudly from people on this. I hope we can ask a question and get some details on that. In the same budget the agency is proposing significant increases in new roads. So people are trying to understand the new roads versus maintenance. Without much of an explanation, we want to understand how we make sure that these priorities are met on both sides. I want to take a point of personal privilege if i could and conclude by recognizing the passing of my cousin, sheila cantwell. She was like many of the Forest Service employees dedicated to her career. She served 23 years in the Forest Service. Like many other people in the Forest Service, they do their work, they love their job. So i want to thank all the people of the Forest Service for their hard work and dedication. I turn that back to you, senator murkowski. Thank you, senator cantwell. Know that we, too, share the support for the good people who work for us and recognize your Family Member as well. Chief tidwell, welcome, to the committee. Thank you for being here. We look forward to your testimony. I dont know, mr. Dixon, if you will also be presenting comments this morning. If you are here in a supporting role, which we appreciate, as the director of Strategic Planning for budget and accountable there at the u. S. Forest service. Thank you for being here as well. With that, chief, if you would like to proceed. Madam chair, members of the committee, i do appreciate the chance to be up here to be able to discuss our 2017 budget request. Our request for 17 is similar to 16. Which requires us to make some tough decisions about with basically a flat budget. This request will allow us to continue to increase our pace and scale to restore the nations forests and grass lands by treating another 2. 9 million acres to restore forest health, forest resiliency and improve watershed conditions. It also allows us to decommission 2,000 miles of unneeded roads, restore over 3,400 miles of streams and improve the overall function on 22 different watersheds. And with one of the key outputs from this work, 3. 2 billion board feet of timber. It remains our cflr projects and allows us to work with the states to expand getting work done through the farm bill authorities and with the Good Neighbor authority. It also allows us to continue to reduce the threat to firefighters in communities by treating 1. 6 million acres of the highest Priority Areas of the wild land urban interface to reduce hazardous fuels but another 400,000 acres that are outside of that. Through our state and private programs, were focus on using a landscape scale restoration approach that allows our state forristers to be able to look at larger landscapes and accomplish multiple objectives on that by having a combination of funds. With our research and development, were going to continue do our work to be able to understand what we need to do to be able to restore forests, to address the invasives and insect and disease outbreak and continue our work to be able to find ways to expand current markets and develop new markets for wood to be able to make use of the biomass that just has to be removed from our landscapes for us to be able to restore a healthy forest. We provide for Fire Suppression to deal with fires and continue to suppress fires where we need to and be able to manage fires in the back country. We will have over 21 we will have 21 large air tankers, 300plus helicopters, over 1,000 engines and our hot shot crews. The thing i need to stress i appreciate the support from this committee on finding a solution to paying for the cost of Fire Suppression. I appreciate the additional money that was provided in fy16 into the flame account. But i think we all have seen what happens with the flame account. Where that will help us this one year, it is not a solution. We just have to find a way to be able to permanently stop the transfer, the disruption of our work every fall. We need to find an ill tur naive to the tenyear average. That just no longer is working. Its not a viable budget approach. We need to i think come to agreement, understanding that there is 1 or 2 of the fires that occur every year that really are a natural disaster. It should be funded as a natural disaster. So we are anxious to be able to work with this committee and work with the house to be able to find a solution so that once and for all we can actually stop this disruptive practice and allow us to focus on what the public needs, to be able to give the committees the appropriators some discretion so that they dont have to use all up all of their discretion to be able to pay for fires. One key note from fy15 to fy und fy17, the t fy1 fy17, it goes up. What drives the costs . Its homes in the wild land interface. That along with changing conditions, our fire seasons are now our Research Says 68 da s days longer. Its longer than ten years ago. Those things are not going to change. We can make a difference by reducing the hazardous fuels. We can reduce the severity of fires. We can make it safer for our firefighters for our communities. Its going to take a combination of fixing the budget and allowing us to be more proactive and get out in front of this. Its one of the best job creators we have to restore our forests. I appreciate the time you have given me this morning. I look forward to your questions. Thank you, chief. Know that senator cantwell and i had hoped that march would be the month that we would really be able to focus on spending a lot of time both in and out of committee on wildfire piece. We are pushed back a little bit because of trying to get this energy bill across the finish line. But know that i certainly remain committed to trying to figure this out and more than just on a year by year approach. I want to begin my questions with the tongas and the issue that i raised in my Opening Statement about this transition to young Growth Without first completing a stand level inventory of the young growth. Last year, Forest Service provided approximately 4 million from its budget for the transition framework, about 2 million has gone to start work on young groewth inventory studies. I understand 4 to 6 million more is likely needed for the studies and additional inventory work. And the interesting thing is, both the Timber Industry and the environmental groups agree that this work is needed to basically prove this out. So can you give me information this morning in terms of how much funding you are proposing to spend to support young growth transition, where the money is coming from . Because we dont see it listed in the Budget Proposal despite this being a mandated initiative. Madam chair, the budget fu funding we will be spending to continue the stand level inventory is part of the funding that we have allocated to the region. Do you take it from other other parts within Forest Service budget allocated for alaska . Its part of the funding that we receive from our Forest Products to be able to do forest stand inventory. So thats part of the budget that region ten is receiving to be able do that work. With an agreement with the state of alaska working with the state, to be able to do that inventory so that we are developing information for project implementation. Stand level inventory is not information thats needed to be able to man the forest plan. For us to move forward with the design to Design Projects into the future this transition is going to occur in the out years. Its not occurring today. We are moving forward with that. So were going to continue to not only do the stand level inventory, but were also doing a quality wood study from our research and Development Folks so we have a better understanding about where is the potential markets for the future for young growth wood. That type of wood. In addition to that, were continuing to do our study about how to better understand how to thin out the forests. We have been doing a lot of commercial thinning over the years in the second growth stands. We have had a study thats been going on for ten years. We want to continue to do that so we better understand how to manage these stands as we move forward. Let me ask then because i am concerned that if you havent specifically allocated within the budget funding for these inventory studies, you are taking it out of the regions accounts, again, where we see things short changed. We had a conversation just last year about how the recreation funding within alaska, within our region, had effectively been cut back dramatically when you put it side by side to what was going on within the rest of the country. We have asked that that be rectified. Thats another question, because i cant tell it has been. Again, it speaks to the issue, if you havent allocated more for this inventory and you have analysis at least three independent analysis that say that the current young growth stands are too small, they are too few to support a local manufacturing industry, how can you make a plausible determination that we can do this transition . Im looking at this recognizing how long it takes to do this study. The cost associated with it. Not seeing it specifically in your budget. So the question this morning is whether or not the Forest Service will consider postponing this transition until we have a complete young growth inventory and a Financial Analysis that are completed in order to determine whether or not a transition is even feasible. Senator, its essential that we move forward and complete the amendment to the forest plan. Dont we have to have the study and the money . Not for a forest plan amendment, no. It has been two you have an amendment that isnt based on a strong, sound analysis and the science aafter it attached to it. Two decades of controversy and litigation around old growth harvest. Thats gotten us nowhere. I understand that. You still have to know that it is possible to get to a second growth. Because we cant make those trees grow any faster. Thats our problem. Part of it is also to Development New markets for the second growth. Were working together with sea alaska. New markets are good. But you have to have trees that are mature enough to harvest. Im going to try to be more respectful of everybodys five minutes. Last hearing, i let i was very generous with folks. Im going to try to keep to five minutes so we can get to everyones questions. Im going to turn to senator cantwell because i will have another opportunity. Thank you. Chief, you mentioned a couple of things when you were talking about this getting at the front end of the problem and the costs. You are saying homes, in the urban interface and changing of conditions. Im assuming you are talking about weather. Yes. Do you think that an increase in preparedness strategy, prevention, prescribed burns, fuel reduction, would yield dividends in this process . Do you think that ten year stewardship contracts have been successful . Do we need to look at if we looked at scoring and cancellation ceilings, looked at making them more predictable than they are . You mentioned product value. What do you think of cross laminated as something in that mix of solutions . Senator, the work we have been doing over the years is making a difference. We have dozens to probably hundreds of examples now where we have thinned out our forests and it reduced the threat, made it easier to suppress the fires, safer for our firefighters. That combination of doing a mechanical thinning, timber harvests and using prescribed burns is making a difference to reduce the overall threat. In addition to the stewardship contracts, they have proven to be a very, very effective tool not only to build more trust, more support for the work, but to provide that certainty, especially the longer term seven to tenyear contracts, it provides a certainty for operators to make the investment. They can get loans. They know the work is there. Its making a difference. Do we need to look to find ways to make that easier for not only the operator but for the agency . Yes. Im interested in being able to do that. Our biggest challenge right now is to be able to accelerate the work, expand the work in a way. The problem that i have i need to go back to the chair madam chairs comment. I would love to be up here asking for more money. I would like to have more money. I can make a strong case to be asking for an increase in our Forest Products budget. A strong case for our recreation. But once again, any increase in the Forest Service in the budget, it goes into the cost of Fire Suppression. And that is a burden we just can no longer bear. If i can ask about that. I think what have i i have is 8 the treatments were effective at stopping wildfires that burned in fy15. What i would like is to get something from the Forest Service as an analysis of what you think a Robust Program on preparedness and fuel reduction would look like in reducing what are just, again, guesty mats, because we dont know. Were not weather predictors of everything that will happen. I think with the carlton to have 100,000 acres burn up in an afternoon, basically, because of high winds, we never know when Something Like that is going to happen. With 88 reductions, why cant we look at what an Aggressive Program would be and come up with estimates on how if we are predicts between 2 and 4 billion cost a year to the federal government for suppression, what percentage reduction might we see in that cost . Again, i know that theres a little bit of guess work here, because you dont know. But it seems to me that we need to get a better understanding of this. Do you think that more than tenyear contracts are needed . Yes. I think its one of the best products we have. The more we can get in place, the better off were all going to be. Its one of the things we would like to continue to expand. Were doing about 30 of our work now through stewardship contracting. I would definitely like to see more of these longterm contracts. Did you say about clt . Did you comment on that . On clt . Yes. Its another one of the efforts that we have from our Forest Products lab to develop new markets. Currently, we have four plants in the United States that are using clt. One of those plants is having to import their material. This is a great opportunity for us to be able to expand, to be able to use the small diameter material to be able to use it like for Tall Buildings is one of the things were trying to encourage engineers and architects to use wood in Tall Buildings. Its the clt is what allows us to be able to build the Tall Buildings. Were moving forward with a couple of examples of those to be able to show people that wood is a good Tall Building material. Thank you. Senator brasso. Thank you. Good to see you again. I have serious concerns about the way the Forest Service is prioritizing its management objectives. The budget makes it clear the Forest Service values expansion of programs more than maintenance and management of current assets. Increasing new road, land acquisition, funding for maintenance and Timber Products remains level or actually goes down a bit. It seems Forest Service should reevaluate its priorities. It would lower future maintenance backlog and help improve watershed health and help decrease the severity of the catastrophic wildfires were concerned about. I want you to explain how you justify adding this administrative staff, new land, new roads when the Forest Service has about a 5 billion maintenance backlog of projects and its unable at this point to address these. With our request for lwcf funding, which is i think its very close to what we have received for the last few years, once again, its targeted on acquiring the key properties. A lot of of it is to provide access to the public. Once again, the cases that i have personally dealt with, every time we have acquired the lands, it reduces our administrative costs. It allows us to do larger projects. We dont have to worry about boundary management. Its an investment. Its something that the public is very, very interested in us acquiring these key parcels. With our roads budget, the request is less than what we received last year. I wish we could ask for more. When we have to look at finding the additional funding in a constrained budget to put it into Fire Suppression, something has to give. I tell you, they are very difficult choices that we have to make. So thats one of the few areas that actually went down in our request between 16 and 17. You also see that were asking for additional money and the cost of Fire Suppression. Thats what were up against. I want to switch. Last september, the Forest Service department of interior announced federal landscape scale conservation plans in western states impacted. The plans are controversial. Given the successful conservation work undertaken in wyoming with our special Management Plans, five months have pass since the announcement. Yet to my knowledge, Agency Personnel on the ground in wyoming still dont have guidance documents about how or when the agency intends to implement the plans. It hasnt stopped the agency from stating that seasonal usage may change. How is it possible the agency staff can notify permittees that policy might change when they havent yet even received guidance documents . Senator, what were starting now is to actually have statewide meetings to be able to meet with folks throughout the state and to be able to talk about how to move forward with this. We have a two to threeyear period of time. So we want to focus on, what are the changes that we can make . Where can we apply the investments we want to make to improve habitat . At the same time to work with permittees about how they can modify their operations over the next three years to be able to mitigate some of the impacts. The Forest Service were going to put over 7 million into Habitat Improvement projects. Then with our fy17 budget request, we will increase that along with all the money that bureau of Land Management is spending. Our plan here is to be able to work with folks to be able to address these issues. Your state has done an excellent job to be able to put the information together. So were optimistic that give us a few years, we will be able to mitigate the impacts, improve habitat. But at the same time, ensure the ongoing uses are still there. Thats my concern in terms of wyoming the last couple of weekends hears about that asking that you communicate more comple clearly. Because you are right, wyoming has done an exceptional job. It is highlighted as a place that has done it right. We dont want to compromise the hard work being done in wyoming and other western states. Thank you. Senator heinrich. Thank you. Chief tidwell, welcome back. I want to start with the collaborative forest landscape restoration program. We have a couple of projects in new mexico have that done some great thinning work. Its a tool in the toolbox thats working for all the things we want to do in our forests. We are seven years into the program. Im starting to get questions from collaborators about how to continue the progress that we have been able to make in the forests. For mills in particular, as you know, three years is just not a lot of time or certainty. So i wanted to ask you, do you support an extension of cflrp or a second round of authorization of projects . How can communities that have successfully implemented these projects make sure that the work continues after the end of the authorized collaborative project . Senator, were in our 17 budget request we continue funding for the 23 projects we have ongoing. Then also, in our for out year, we want to expand that to be able to expand the program both financially but also to be able to add additional projects. Were to that point where you need to think about how to extend this beyond the original ten years. So its something that will take legislative action to be able to add additional projects, expand the funding thats available but also to be able to extend this. I look forward to working with the committee to find ways to do that. I look forward to working with you, chief, to make sure we do extend that program. Working with my colleagues, as i said. This is a program that is effectively thinning our forests, doing it right. With enormous community support. We need to use those tools that are working. On an issue more geographically specific to new mexico, in western new mexico, a trails partnership has been working for many years to build out a Mountain Bike and other trail system in the National Forest. After several years of delays, we were expecting a final ea on this project but it was delayed until the spring. Recreation is one of the growing sectors in this part of the state, particularly on this forest. The counties and other partners have committed to working to contribute funding to actually build trails. We just need the Forest Service to get a final decision in place so that this can move forward. Can you commit to me today that were going to see that final ea next month as was expected . Senator, its my understanding we will get it done this year. I will have to get back to you as to just how soon. Im not sure we will have it done next month. We will get back to you with a date. Im confident is that we will get it done this year. The time line on this has slipped and slipped and slipped. Its an example of where you have counties, you have businesses, you have the local forest all works together on something that has the potential to really build a lot of trust and be an example a successful example. So its quite frustrating when these time lines slip for, you know without the facts on ground changing. You know, this year is its a little disappointing. Because this is not the first time ive heard this time line slip multiple times now. Its certainly us from frustrating for the local community. We will follow up with you on that. I had certainly hoped that this would finally be done next month. Im aware of no reason it shouldnt be done next month. No new information, no major changes in direction. I look forward to following up with you and getting more specifics. I hope that this can happen a little sooner than that. I do, too. One last thing. There have been some ongoing efforts to address the permitting issue. Thats something ive got a lot of experience with as a former outfitter guide myself. That was covered by our Ranking Member. Can you talk a little bit about your efforts there . I think this is incredibly important to streamline this process and make it easier to get our constituents out in the forests whether with an outfitter guide or ymca or nonprofit. We have been going through our process that we currently use to authorize out fitting guide. To look at how we can do a bet are job to streamline that, make it easier on our out put fitter guides. We are looking at how we can change policies to allow the noncommercial groups to be able to go out without a permit. Its one of the things that were working on in conjunction with the department of interior to be able to make it a lot easier for the noncommercial groups, the church groups, city groups, the ys, and to be able to facilitate that to encourage more people to get out. Im really excited about the project thpr progress and we will implement that this year. Very glad to hear that. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you. Welcome to, chief tidwell. I have said before that the construction and maintenance of adequate pipeline we were talking about pipeline. Im talking about a different Pipeline Capacity in the state of west virginia. We have this shale gas boom. We want to maximize the obvious potential there. I want to ask you about the Forest Service involvement in the process. As you know, the Forest Service is a coordinating agency. Thanks to chairman murkowski, the base includes my provision on streamlining the natural gas permitting which would designate the lead agency to make it hopefully the process move more quickly and more smoothly. Currently i dont think the process is moving as it should. Im hearing there are delays in the process and that the Forest Service is part of the problem. Some of the problems are getting permission to survey get on ground, data to find a suitable route, getting the Forest Service staff to review data and provide feedback in a reasonable amount of time. Then to determine if an amendment is needed to the Land Management and resource plan. These are some of the major areas. My question is, does the Forest Service have the adequate resources to complete its part of the process in a timely manner . If not, what does the Forest Service need . We have adequate resources. If we had a larger staff, similar to what we had ten years ago, we would be able to be more responsive. We would be able to work a little bit faster. But when it comes to a pipeline, the issues come from the public. The publics concern about the placement, the maintenance of pipelines. They want to be assured that its going to be constructed in a way that doesnt cause unnecessary impacts to resources. Its also constructed in a way that its safe. So we work at with the companies. Ideally if the companies would come in and we would have the upfront discussions about where they propose to put that pipeline. So we can share the information that we have about the geology. So that we can quickly eliminate certain areas that are going to be potentially problematic, certain areas that are environmentally sensitive. Thats how the process works. Were making good progress. Ideally, i wish that we could just at the very start come together and put share all that information. Thats one of the things that were trying to do a bet ater j so when we hear a proposal is to sit down and share our information and to be able to find that right route for the pipeline so we can quickly go through the analysis and be able to make the decision so that they so they can go ahead. And i dont disagree with anything that you have said here. I think that you have said quickly three times. I think thats sort of the basis of my question. The timeliness of the decision. Its not disputing that there are problem or sensitive areas that you as foresters know and precisely would enumerate to the companies and the general pub c public. Thats not the dispute. Its trying to steam line the process. These are difficult issues in certain areas. Thats understandable. So i would just ask you if you know, we will follow up with you to see if theres a way to make the process actually move quickly in a time frame that works. I tried to get time lines in there but i couldnt get them all the way into the bill. My second question is as you know twothirds of the forests is in state and private forests. The Stewardship Program is providing assistance to our state foresters. 90 of the plans are successfully implemented. I guess as a byproduct of the plans, it provides almost 50 of the nations wood supply. My question is, why is the administration proposing to increase agency fuel management and Forest Management budgets for federal lands and decreasing the funding in the Stewardship Program . Senator, were not decreasing that funding. We have moved some of the funding thats been in that account into what we call our landscape scale restoration account. Which allows the state foresters to be able to use those funds for forest health, for stewardship, urban and Community Forest st forestry. They can look at larger scale projects and not be limited to just looking at one piece of the problem there. We actually feedback we are getting when we started this program is that they liked it. They have to compete for it. But the ones that are quick to be able to see how they compete, especially to work with the neighbors, they are able to compete well for these funds and get more work done. Our overall funding stayed the same. We are proposing to add additional funding into the l d landscape scale restoration. Its competitively build . Theres no minimum amountforest . They compete for that. Thank you, madam chair. Chief, this effort to end fire bore roaring seems like the longest running battle since trojan war. We have been at this since before i was chair of this committee. For colleagues this is about raiding the Prevention Fund to fight fire. I was pleased that our chair, senator murkowski, has talked about this. Senator cantwell talk about it. I think Everybody Knows in this room, getting to yes on forestry policy is a really heavy lift. Its a real challenge and youve got to have a bipartisan approach. And i think by way of trying to get this going this year, chief, how important is it to you to have the bipartisan leadership of this committee get with the bipartisan leadership in the house, start working with all of you, going through the regular order, were using the committees, the bipartisan leadership, bipartisan le leadership in the house. But were going to get out of the gate. We are at 20 cosponsors, 145 bipartisan members of the house, 260 groups. I just want to find a way, working with my colleagues, with the bipartisan leadership of both bodies to get this going. How important is it to you that that start quickly . Senator, its essential. Its not just for me. Essential. And its not just for me. This is essential for the american public. Almost every question that i get asked and they are all very good questions, i would have a different answer if we would have been able to fix this a few years ago. When i think about the additional funding we have had to keep putting into this tenyear average, and i think about what could we have done with another 237 million to be able to address the recreation needs, the roads needs, to be proactive with Forest Management, to address more hazardous fuels, i can understand how difficult this is, but its essential we find a solution. When i asked our folks last year, i said what happens if we dont if we just let if this keeps going, in 2025, 67 of our budget. Last year when i was up here we were talking 50 percent. Fy 16 its 56 . Theres got to be a solution. I really appreciate all the hard work thats gone into it. I understand its difficult because if it was easy it would have been done a long, long time ago. But its essential that we find a way and we are committed to work with the senate, work with the house, to be able to find a solution. Your bill definitely is one of those solutions. Theres other good ideas out there, too. We are committed to be able to work with that to find something thats actually durable. You know, you passed the flame act a few years ago. I was up here applauding that. It looked good. It didnt work for a lot of good reasons so i appreciate the Ranking Members excuse me, the chairs comment about this needs to be durable. We have been at it for a long time so lets find a way to be able to do it so that it isnt something we revisit in a couple years. I appreciate that answer. And you clearly indicated that you are open to a variety of approaches. As the chair noted and something i have long agreed with, we have got to have active management. Theres no question about that. We also have to find a way to get this done because this makes a mockery out of the Forest Service budget which is probably a little bit more colorful way to say what you have been saying and other people in the Forest Service have been saying it for years. We will do everything we can through the leadership on both sides of the capitol to work with you and to get this done. I know senator crapo has been with me on this and feels the same way. One last point, use up the rest of my time. I want to thank you for the good work that your folks have been doing in portland. They have done some exceptional work that as you know involves tree moss. We have had some really Serious Public Health questions. I live in southeast portland. Its not directly in my neighborhood but not that far away and people are really concerned about the risk of these toxic metals that relate to Industrial Work done in the community. It looks like there are some big gaps in epa clean air laws and they look to me like gaps the size of a lunar crater but none of it really would have come to light without the groundbreaking research that your people have done. So im almost out of time, but are you going to need additional funds in order to continue this research in the future . Well, senator, its just another example of how important our research and Development Branch is to be able to develop the science, to do the studies, to be able to not only identify problems but more important, to find those solutions. Its one of the things that i think its essential that we find ways to be able to maintain our research and development budget. When i look at where we were back in the mid 80s we had over 1100 scientists and we have much less than half of that today. And our scientists are doing a better job to be working with universities, et cetera, but it just shows you really the power, the benefit of science. So this is one example to identify a problem, but i can tell you its also it leads us to finding the solution, to be able to use vegetation, be able to use our forests to provide that clean air, that clean water. That is the solutions that come out of science. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, senator wyden. Know that there is a great deal of commitment for that bipartisan effort to find the enduring and durable solution. Senator finke . Thank you, chief tidwell. The question was asked earlier are stewardship contracts and other activities we have undergone making a difference. I can tell you in arizona, as you have seen and i have seen, they have. They have made a difference. We have towns that are still there that wouldnt be otherwise. But we obviously have a lot of forests to treat and i appreciate you coming to my office in january and detailing some of the plans that you have to expedite that. The new chief executive position, thats important. Budget increase for region three and more acreage dedicated to existing industry is all important. Can you talk a little more about the biggest of its kind in terms of projects, four Forest Restoration initiative, what plans do we have with the existing contracts we have there and those on the outside to expedite this Forest Restoration . Well, senator, as you mentioned, it was the first of its kind to be able to do the analysis of a million acres with one document. So now we have 540,000 acres, ready for work under the project. So we continue to work with the contractor to be able to expand their production. They did have their best month on record in december and they indicate they will be able to continue to expand. Thats good. But in addition to that, we also are moving forward to provide additional acres that need to be treated for other operators in that state so that we can build on not only the work thats being done by the good earth contractor, but also to be able to get additional work going and at the same time, weve got the rest of your state to worry about. That was a big project but it was just a piece of it. So thats the other challenge that we have. So when we look at some additional hazardous fuels funding and some changes we made in management, cost reductions we have made to be able to dedicate some additional funds, but its going to take multiple operators to be able to address the work that needs to be done in your state. The changes that were making to be able to move faster, to be able to use the farm bill authorities on other projects and also be working with the state potentially with Good Neighbor authority to be able to expand our current work. Thank you. Along those lines, if allocation budget priorities, the Eastern Arizona Counties Organization has discussed with you a detailed list possible next steps in terms of Forest Restoration on the east side. How do you plan to use the additional money for region three in that regard . Will that be dedicating some of it to priorities that they have outlined . Yes. It will also, we will look at using enterprise teams to get some work done. Its also to bring in additional people to be able to put the project package together and then also to be able to look at where are some areas that we can quickly get into so that we can continue to provide the wood that the east side operators need and at the same time, to also move forward on some larger scale projects so that they too can see multiple years of work in front of them versus what well be able to do in 16 and then have a question of well, whats happening in 17. Its just another need for these long term stewardship contracts and if we can get a few of those going on the east side, then i think you and i will be having a different discussion. Thanks. As you know, arizona has a long history of planning for water needs. We have the Colorado River that supplies a good percentage of the water that we utilize but one of the most important sources is the runoff, the watershed that we have in our northern forests. We asked the governor and others to put forward some of the priorities for the state. One is to make sure that we treat our watershed and are able to realize all the benefits that we can from that, all the water treating arizonas overly dense forest is a big part of that. As you know, a healthy forest yields up to 25 more water than an unhealthy forest. Given the Forest Service experience, with narrowly tailored solutions and streamlining authorities, how can we utilize that . We have hr 2657, the resilient federal forest acts which is intended to help in terms of streamlining. How important is that to you . Well, whats important to me is that the authorities we have are authorities that are supported across the board so we can actually successfully implement those. I look at the authorities that came out of the farm bill, the work that were doing with the insect and disease, the work were doing with neighbor authority. That is allowing us to be able to expand our work because theres support. Those authorities were put together in a way that provides some assurances to those that had some questions and concerns about Forest Management but at the same time, allowed us to be able to reduce some of the paperwork, some of the documentation of analysis so they were very effective. So as we look forward for any authorities, for me it has to be something that provides that level of trust. So that we can actually use it, because if you dont have that it at least creates more controversy and what youll find is that our employees will shy away from those versus to use different authorities. So thats i think our challenge as we go forward. Once again, i think with the work from the 2014 farm bill, the insect and disease designations, those authorities are proving to be very helpful and were implementing those now. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, madam chair. In recent years the Forest Service budget has been dominated by one thing, the cost of fighting wildfires. Two decades ago, the Forest Service spent about 17 of its budget on fighting fires. This year, firefighting will eat up nearly half of the agencys budget plus an additional 800 million thats been separately proposed for disaster funding. In large part the costs have increased because the number and intensity of fires has increased. Fire season now lasts about two and a half months longer than it did in 1970. Last year was one of the worst in decades with more than ten million acres burning across this country. The conditions that produce more wildfires are well known. Chief tidwell, human activities have been driving dramatic changes in our climate. Can you describe the impact that Climate Change has had on major wildfires . Senator, the first one is the length of the fire season. Its not just because the fire seasons longer. When you have a fire season thats another two and a half months longer, it first of all allows those fuels to dry out that much more because they have another 60 days under the sun so we not only see fires occurring earlier in the year but then towards the end of the fire season, our fuel moistures are much lower so the fires burn at higher intensity, cause more damage to watershed and are much, much more difficult to suppress. The other things were seeing is just hotter and drier weather. So you got drier fuels, longer fire season and then you have this hotter, drier weather and then the extensive droughts that were having. We have always had droughts in this country but what were seeing today that the droughts are lasting longer and they are much more intense and so they are causing even more problems. We saw that through the west and we are getting some favorable moisture this year, but it will take a lot more than one year to recover from those droughts. Those are the things that are contributing. Theres one other key factor and that is as we have this warmer environment with less of the really harsh cold winters, especially early in the year, the insect and diseases are spreading. Our invasives are spreading. Emerald ashbore is a good example in the east. Its been around here for awhile. It stayed pretty much in a few states and then as we started to really see the change in the climate its now been able to make it all the way to canada. Thats the other problem we are dealing with. The environmental changes, the Climate Changes were seeing, they are also creating very favorable environment for invasives. So this is very, very troubling, because the pace of Climate Change is now accelerating. So chief tidwell, if we cant make significant progress to address Climate Change, what can we expect about the cost of fires in the future . Well, the cost of fires are definitely going to increase but whats more problematic is if we cant get out and make more changes on the landscape to reduce the fuels, to be able to do a better job to build defensible space, we are going to continue to lose thousands of homes. Last year we talk about the number of acres burned. We lost 4500 homes. On average, for the last ten years, we lose 3,000 homes every year. In addition to that, the lives of our firefighters and the lives of our public. So we have the opportunity here to be proactive, be able to address changing the landscape so that when the fires do occur they are less severe, easier to control, safer for our firefighters, safer for our public. Those are the things that we have to work on. Our scientists do not see any foreseeable change in the climatic situations we are dealing with in the foreseeable future. Thank you. You pull it all together there when you talk about the acres that we lose, talk about the homes we lose and talk about the lives that we lose. Obviously, we need a real solution to fight wildfires. A solution that ensures sufficient funding, that keeps environmental protections in place and that provides certainty for all the other Forest Service programs, and i appreciate the hard work that others on this committee have done to try to come to that solution. But rising wildfire costs are just another example of the price we pay if we fail to take Decisive Action on Climate Change. Unless we take this problem seriously, unless we take meaningful steps to end reliance on fossil fuels and cut back on Greenhouse Gas emissions, these fires will get worse, we will spend more money, we will jeopardize more lives, we will damage more critical ecosystems and communities that depend on our nations forest. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, madam chair. Chief tidwell, good to see you again here today. I thank you for your testimony. I share your commitment as well as i know many members in this committee to solving the wildfire funding challenge and increasing active managements of our National Forests. I know across many of our National Forests, certainly in my home state of montana, habitual litigation from Fringe Groups who do not represent the majority of the people of montana have been one of the key barriers to moving forward with active management of our forests. I recently received updated information from your region one staff concerning litigation in montana. I was told there are 21 active timber lawsuits going on in my state. That to me is astonishing. Its unacceptable. I had some students from libby, montana in my office recently. They are called the libby loggers. We have a vibrant Timber Industry in northwest montana. The only folks winning today are the lawyers. I said perhaps they need to change the mascot from the libby loggers to the libby lawyers. The lawyers are winning. The loggers are losing. The communities are losing. The environment is losing. I appreciate the comments on insects and infestation certainly of the pine beetle. We cant even harvest dead trees oftentimes because we are getting challenged by these Fringe Groups. In fact, i just saw a study showed that the Forest Service completes more timeconsuming Environmental Impact statements than any other federal agency. Just look at the report here this morning. The Forest Service spends 365 million a year complying with federal laws and regulations. My question, chief tidwell, as we look at the solution to go forward here, as we need to certainly, an support changing the way that wildfires are funded as well as ensuring a move towards active Forest Management and i think a big part our big barrier of that is litigation, if congress provided litigation relief and regulatory relief in a way that maintains the public trust, is it fair to say the Forest Service would be able to get a lot more work accomplished on the ground and perhaps in a shorter time frame . Theres definitely projects that are litigated and you know, in the past we definitely had much more litigation than were seeing today. We also, our staff and attorneys are doing a good job to work through that backlog. Whats even more important is the trend. So like last year in region ten, excuse me, region one, we had seven lawsuits and three of those were for our veg management projects. We had no preliminary injunctions to have to deal with. So its a combination of our folks, you know, doing everything they need to to be able to wsork with people to be able to move forward with that but they have significantly reduced the amount of litigation when it comes to Forest Management and our vegetation projects. Now, the litigation in a lot of the other issues that were dealing with, its continuing actually, to stay the same or increase. So the solution as i look at this, and i have spent a lot of time dealing with it over my career, is that if we can find ways for folks to understand what were trying to get done and to be able to build that trust, because so much from my view, a lot of the litigation comes from the point that people believe that we are trying to do Something Else versus to take care of the land. To that point, i have been a supporter of the collaborative process. Its working. Its working back home in montana. However, of the 21 projects under litigation, 16, 16 of the 21 were collaboratives, where these folks show up who arent at the table working together across various stake holders, ngos, the Timber Industry, the community, county commissioners, and then these Fringe Groups show up and to litigate and challenge these harvests. I think we all agree collaboration should be encouraged but i strongly believe more needs to be done to protect the collaboratives from this handful of fringe obstructionists who repeatedly sue and upend the hard work and frankly demoralizing folks who are trying to find a solution as we watch the forests burn in the summertime. We see the declining revenues that support our schools and our teachers and just a vibrant economy. I just ask we continue to Work Together to find solutions to incentivize collaborations to find ways to deincentivize these Fringe Groups that are litigating a lot of these projects. Senator, i appreciate your support for a collaborative effort. They are making a difference and yes, its extremely frustrating when people have worked hard together, come to agreement on what work needs to occur and then you have somebody come in and file a lawsuit. It is frustrating. I do think the ways to be able to incentivize collaboration and i appreciate the work of congress over the last two years, they recognize that, we see things where they want to put night sit into statute. I really appreciate that level of support. It is making a difference and its really the answer. I think that as we build more and more support, you build stronger collaboratives, i do think it will also help more people to understand really what were after and to be able to build that trust. Because once you have that trust, thats what carries these collaboratives. That allows us to be able to get the work done. When i look at what the work thats going on in your state over the last few years, our employees are doing such an outstanding job working with the communities to be able to expand the work every year, be able to hit their targets even with litigation that theyre still dealing with and in your state, its one of the places we probably have as much as anyplace. But they are doing an outstanding job and appreciate once again your support for our collaborative efforts. Thank you, chief tidwell. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you very much, chief, for making the clear connection between Climate Change and the continuing challenges of fighting forest fires and also, i agree with senator daines that collaboration is what we want to pursue. Every state has Forest Resources and challenges that requires us to work very closely with the Forest Service and that we depend on the expertise and what the Forest Service brings to the table, and thats why so many of the questions from the committee are very specific to whats going on in our states and your activities in those states. So in that regard, i did want to take a moment to thank you for your commitment to protecting hawaiis precious landscapes in the president s 2017 budget and this includes prioritizing hawaiis island forests at risk, proposal for the land and Water Conservation fund as well as inclusion of both the wilderness areas in hawaii through the forest legacy program. As you know, our Natural Resources in hawaii are facing numerous external threats and your support in conserving these landscapes very much appreciated. I would like to of course invite you to visit hawaii some time to see all the challenges and opportunities and activities that you are very much engaged in in hawaii. Theres nothing like actually visiting a place to gain a fuller i think appreciation of whats going on. I wanted to turn to one of the biggest emergencies that hawaiis native forests are facing right now which is a fungal pathogen and thousands of our native trees have died. It is significant because this tree makes up 80 of our native forests. Its ecologically and culturally the most important native plant in hawaii. Of course, our forests have a lot to do with our watersheds. One of the ground personnel from the federal and state stake holders including the usfs personnel from the institute of Pacific Islands forestry in region five, the state and private grants are trying to answer several critical questions about this disease, including transmission and resistance and we still need the resources to do the proper investigations and research. What can the Forest Service recommend to hawaii as it relates to rapid ohia death based on Lessons Learned and best practices when you have been confronted with other tree diseases in other states and would an incident command structure be helpful to identify and direct resources to help hawaii and are there creative ways we can engage expertise across the Forest Service on this topic, and what other resources may be available for assistance . Well, senator, we are working very closely with the Agricultural Resource Service and the university of hawaii to be able to bring all our resources together to be able to first of all understand how this is being transmitted and to be able then to look at some ways to be able to reduce the spread of this and then also, we are doing work to look at genetic resistance to be able to find which trees are able to fight off this fungus. This fungus has been in hawaii for awhile but its just recently has gone into the trees. So we need to understand what is causing that to occur and it may be just another one of the indicators as we see the changing climate that we are seeing things, fungus thats been in our environment for many years, all of a sudden start creating a problem. We are seeing the same thing with bats, with white nose syndrome. So what we are looking at is to be able to bring all the resources together to quickly understand whats going on and be able to figure out how we can stop this. The other thing we need to probably look at is how to stop the spread. If there are things we can do to get out in front of this. I also know there are trials that are going on with some fungicides that may prove effective. The problem is that its such a large area and that may be very helpful in a specific area for a few trees around a persons home, et cetera, but to be able to stop this, we have to i think go beyond finding that solution. Those are the things we are continuing to work on. There is urgency to be able to quickly get out in front of this but at the same time, its just another example of why our research and Development Program is so important so that we do have the scientists, we have the capacity to be able to address these emerging issues. Do you have enough money in your fiscal year 17 Budget Proposal to do the kinds of things you are doing, because its not just happening in hawaii. These kinds of unusual occurrences are happening across the country, i would imagine, so you need to have a robust capacity for research, tests, whathave you. Is there enough money in the budget . Well, theres never enough. So i am pleased that we are able to ask for the amount of funding we do have. Yes. Once again, until we fix this wildFire Suppression funding situation, we are not going to be able to be in a position to be able to ask. I do feel that we have an adequate level in research and development but its one of the things we need to be aware of as theres going to be more and more invasives, more and more issues. Research and development is definitely an area that we need to increase our investment in. Thank you. I thank the chairwoman for her leadership in the wildfire issue. Look forward working with you. We will turn to senator cassidy, then senator lee. Minimum recommendations for Environmental Standards were published. Recommendation for lumber defines fsc, you will know that term, the Forest Stewardship Council certified and by including that but not including it, therefore excludes, if you will, the standard forestry initiative, sfi, and the atfs, american tree farm system. Now, first in louisiana, about 85 of all of our lumber is either sfi or atfs. But then i also am told that from the national Forest Service land theres about 42,000 jobs attributed to the Forest Products from nfs lands and that the Forest Service does not allow their harvested wood to be subjected to a third party standard. So not only are 85 of my foresters excluded, but the entirety of the national Forest Service is excluded by these epa standards and im also told that both the sfi and the atfs have the same sort of standards as the fsc, all these initials, im sorry, but that they are just not included. Thoughts on that . Why should we allow the national Forest Service products to be excluded based on their own rules and epa rules . Senator, im going to have to look into this. But theres no question we support the sfi, the tree farm, the sfc certifications. Its something thats in your state, the majority of the private land is certified and so we have always been supportive of that. So this is something im going to look into but it raises the question of potential problems. Because when we think about clean air, we think about clean water, we need to be thinking about healthy forests and maintaining our forests so today, our nations forests which is the majority of them are private land as in your state. They sequester from about 12 to 14 of the co2 thats emitted each year. If we lose those forests and if there isnt ways to be able to have viable markets for the wood, private landowners are going to develop their land for some other use so its essential that we make sure that we things we are considering, it actually helps us to be able to maintain forests on the landscape. So this is an issue that i will look into and i will get back to you on it. But it is problematic when we are looking at things especially when we are concerned about clean air and clean water, we got to make sure that it allows us to be able to maintain our forests. And part of that is to be able to have strong economic markets for the wood. So its essential that we have both. I will look into this and get back to you. Its interesting, you just kind of put a nice perspective that to which the federal government passes recommendations makes it unable for someone to have a forest. That forest would be put to its other economic uses and the federal government will actually be working against clean water, against having, if you will, a sump for co2 if thats the priority, and clean air. So the federal regulation that restricts the access of another federal agency to these products actually works against the stated goals of the agency. Is that a fair way to put it . Well, it could. Once again, im not familiar with this epa regulation so im going to have to get back to you on that. But my point was that we need to be very careful that we need to understand the benefit of our forests and yes, we have our public land forests that are going to stay forested. But the majority of our forests in this country are private. If we lose those private forested lands, we lose the potential to be able to not only store carbon but provide that clean water, the wildlife habitat, recreational settings. So its essential that we consider the impacts of any of our regulations so that what we want to be able to do is promote that and then at the same time, to be able to answer the question that yes, this is being managed in a Sustainable Way because some of our rnmarkets i europe, theres people that are questioning our Forest Management in this country because of the standards that they have in some of the European Countries require that their Wood Products are coming from sustainable managed forests. So its essential we be able to do that. But at the same time, be able to do it in a way that we can maintain these forests. If i think about if for no other reason just the amount of carbon thats being stored, if we lose that sink, we are going to have to find other ways to be able to deal with it. Its just another one of the benefit of forests that im not sure everyone recognizes. We will pose that as a question for the record and we look forward to your reply after you have had a chance to review. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you for being here with us today. Agriculture plays a pretty significant role in my home state of utah. Our states economy is quite dependent on agriculture, especially in many of the rural communities. Now, because of the fact that twothirds of utahs land is federally controlled, thousands of utah ranchers are dependent on federal land managers and the policies they set for their own livelihood, their own ability to feed their families and keep their farms and ranches operating. Unfortunately, for these ranchers and their families, federal policies have become increasingly hostile toward livestock grazing. In fact, since the 1950s, federal land managers have cut livestock grazing rights by 74 . This is quite significant, cutting those by 74 . This has created tremendous uncertainty for ranching families in utah and undercut rural economies throughout my state. So can you tell me, mr. Tidwell, why grazing permits have declined so dramatically since the 1950s . It would be a combination of things, but part of it would be the impact that was occurring from the grazing. Its also the change with the multiple use and that the publics interest in these lands for a variety of uses, whether its for recreation, whether its for wildlife, whether its for scenery, so when we look at how to manage these lands, we are going to continue to graze these lands and we can do it in a way so that we can maintain, be consistent, maintain the riparian areas. We have thousands of places where we can do this. So has there been reductions over the last 60, 70 years . Sure there has. But you also have to remember the reason the forests, National Forests exist in utah is that the communities petitioned congress to have them reserved from the Public Domain because of the lack of management that was occurring way back in the late 1800s. So over time, yes, theres been reductions, but its been to be able to address the publics needs to provide not only multiple use but also to have sustainable grazing. When we do that, then the permittees are in a place where they have that certainty. The other problem that we deal with is that we go through drought periods of time in utah like every place else, and when we go through those periods of time, there is just less forage and less capacity on the landscape. Now, the ideal situation would be the permittees would be able to reduce their numbers during that time and then when we do get the more favorable precip years, they could actually expand their operations. Thats the place we need to be. But its very difficult for many of our ranchers to have that flexibility. I understand there are a lot of considerations there. I wouldnt dispute, i dont think any utah ranchers would dispute the fact that it is necessary to restore rangelands, to allow rangelands a chance to catch up so that our grazing permitting processes remain sustainable. But what im hearing from a number of ranchers in utah is that even after rangeland has been restored, after being allowed to rest for awhile, that its still not opening up, that even once range conditions have improved substantially, that the grazing rights arent being restored. So why is that . Can you tell me why thats not happening . Is that the case, first of all, and to the extent its the case, how do you justify that . Well, each allotment has a Management Plan that basically lays out the rotation of the livestock, the duration and the intensity of grazing. Permittees follow that so if theres available forage, its available. A lot of it just depends on water. The more water distribution that we can have, then you can spread the livestock out. It also depends on the operations. So its been my experience that we work with the permittees and we put a good plan together and its their plan. They run the livestock. We said these are the conditions that the public wants and needs from the landscape so you have that opportunity to use that forage. So theres a variety of things that factor into it but if the forage is there, we are making use of it. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, madam chair, and thank you chief tidwell for being here today. About a year ago when we were having our Budget Hearing last year for the appropriations cycle, we had a conversation about the Forest Services work around water policies and the ski area water rule. I understand late 2015 that the service arrived at a ski area water closet, addressed the concerns of the ski industry, partners with the Forest Service, concerns that i shared with them and resulting in a resolution palatable to both. I just want to thank you for your work on that. I would like to briefly touch on the importance of healthy Forest Management practices. Coloradons living near Colorado Springs are closely watching an incident, a species infestation of the douglas fir tussock moth. I understand from a stake holder meeting with the Forest Service on friday in the area in Colorado Springs that the service is now looking into the possibility of utilizing a categorical exclusion provision within the farm bill to treat the affected areas. The douglas fir trees are incredibly beautiful and certainly local economic driver, and just was hoping to get your commitment to continue to work with my office and local stake holders to come to resolution that will treat the tussock moth on the infestation on public lands which will lead to a healthier forest and obviously greater prevention for wildfires in the area. Senator, you have our commitment to continue to work with the city and the county there to be able to address that and to make use of that farm bill authority. Its another example about the benefits of those authorities that were put together in a way that there is strong trust to be able to use those, so this is the perfect example of that. Thank you, chief. Madam chair, madam Ranking Member, i would like to submit to the record the memorandum of understanding among colorado stake holders for coordinated treatment of the tussock moth. Without objection. Recently the Forest Service prepared a supplemental Environmental Impact report on and reinstated the north fork exemption to the rule. I would like to thank you on your work on this and look forward to the final record of decision. Its important that we recognize the value of coal mining in the North Fork Valley and uphold the exception which is the result of years of negotiation and collaboration among the Forest Service, colorado and stake holders. Madam Ranking Member, i would like to submit two letters for the record. One from governor hickenlooper and another letter i joined advocating for the exemption to be uphold in the Forest Services analysis. If i can get those submitted. Thank you. And. Without objection. Recreation is a tremendous part of colorados economy. We are working on legislation that would focus on the economy to get a better understanding of its economic impact. Recent studies show the ski area, the state generates about 4. 8 billion annually. The vast majority of the 25 ski areas in colorado are located at least partially on National Forest land. In addition, i read that the ski areas generate over 20 million in fees that go directly into the u. S. Treasury. My concern is centered on reporting that the Forest Service is finding it increasingly challenging to keep up with the growing industry, excuse me, the growing recreational industry, including these ski areas. In fact, the most heavily used popular forest in the country is the white river National Forest, generating nearly 18 million of the fees paid to the treasury each year. But we have seen the white river National Forest staff steadily decline, the budget deroding over the past several years so they are struggling to uphold their end of the partnership. Since 2009, i think they have seen a 40 reduction in their budget, the white river National Forest. So as they take on new projects, as they take on improvements of expansion of Summer Recreation that has been such a Great Success over the past several years, how did we address this, the Forest Service level, the erosion of local capacity to serve recreation thats critical to colorado and so many other communities . Senator, we face that problem everywhere, not just in your state. The ski areas are great partners. They are often willing to help pay for additional analysis when they are looking at expanding, especially as we are now moving into the four season resorts to make full use of these facilities. We are doing what we can to be able to be a good partner, to be able to be responsive, but the problem you mentioned with the staffing, its just something thats occurred because of the cost of Fire Suppression. It occurred gradually over quite a few years, over ten plus years, to the point where we just have 33 fewer employees outside of fire than what we did just a few years ago. So its just another example. Now, that being said, what we are looking at is to find ways so that we can actually be more efficient with our processes so we can actually be even more responsive. Its one of the things we want to be able to sit down, especially with the ski areas, where they can bring capacity to help with the problem but we still have our role. But if we can find ways to be able to package different propopr proposals together, to be able to get the work done up front so theres strong support, the public understands whats being proposed, we will continue to be able to do a better job. But it probably isnt going to satisfy their needs. We are just going to have to find a way to stop the erosion of our staff. So specifically with the fire funding fix, how would that help on the staffing issue . How specifically can we make sure that that money then thats prevented from being drained away over here go into staffing issues . The first thing, it would stop the transfer so we wouldnt have to deal with that anymore. We wouldnt lose all that time and expense and funding. Then the second thing is that we would be able to at least maintain our current staffing or ideally build that over time because it would provide flexibility. Budget space within the constraints so that appropriators could add to our budget instead of constantly reducing it to be able to pay for fire. So the first thing is to stop the erosion. Then to be able to create the space so that we can be proactive not only on Forest Management but also to be able to deal with recreation so we can carry out our responsibilities to be a good partner with all of our recreation users and especially the ski areas. Chief tidwell, keeping in mind the drought maps, snow pack levels, as you are looking into the summer and spring, spring and the summer, what areas of the country are you concerned about from a forest fire perspective . Well, this year with our projections, we are looking at having a less active year than we had last year. But we are also seeing areas where we are getting a very warm spring and we are seeing the snow come off the low ground, low areas, so thats becoming a concern. So that in our lettower elevati, it looks to me that we may have an early fire season. Our higher countrys going to be much better shape than it was last year, at least out west, so we may not have those large fires in higher elevation. But come september, its going to dry out. One of the problems that we have is when im asked to predict the fire season and our scientist consist look at it and one of the things they do, they predict the cost. For fy 16 our predictions right now is that we are 90 confident that the cost of this fire season is going to be between somewhere around 700 million and 1. 72 billion. Thats today. Then we are talking about fy 17 budget. The idea that we can actually predict, we have great scientists, but it is just so difficult and so even for this year, i will be able to give you a good projection in may, but probably not until may can i really answer your question. Thanks. Thank you, senator gardner. Chief tidwell, let me go back again to the tsongas and the transition issue. I mentioned in my opening comments, my concern that this transition only works if you have those that are able to stay in the business. We have had this conversation before and i appreciate that the Forest Service has stuck with the big thorn sale. Thats going to hopefully keep enough timber out there to keep things alive into next year but i do remain concerned about the future. In 2015, you sold no old growth at all. So far this year in 16, you are planning to sell just 51 million boardfeet unless some kind of revised sale comes out of this. But looking out to 2017 and beyond, old growth sale planning is pretty much nonexistent with the focus entirely on preparing for young growth sale. So every year when we sit down in this public forum, i raise the question to you what do i say to people back home, what can i tell the folks at viking about how the Forest Service intends to keep them alive and other mills alive given that really the source of timber that they could count on and to pay for any investment, much less encouraging the people who are working, whether at viking or others, encourage them to stay there. What can you tell me that will be encouraging to the men and women in southeast that continue to depend on a supply of timber . Senator, i think our transition to young growth over time is the solution to be able to provide that certainty, to provide that bridge timber to Reach Agreement that yes, there will be bridge timber made available what do we do in the short term . You say over time and im saying okay, we can talk about over time but how do we keep them alive until then . The outline i have given you is we have got timber that we can look to this year, that keeps us alive through next, but how do you see their future after that . Well, we are continuing to move forward with our annual Timber Program while we are doing this. In fy 16 the target is 62 million boardfeet. Its my understanding they are committed to get that done. Are you aware, chief, though, that in order to keep this transition alive, we have got to rely not only on whats coming off of the Forest Service lands but also off of nonfederal and what i understand see alaska has told you as recently as just last week is they are going to have a difficult time continuing economic operations and that they are going to be seeking to supplement their timber supply with sales. They tell me that they are going to need to buy 20 million boardfeet annually for perhaps 30 years. So how did you make this all work . How do you make this all work not just for this year and not just for 17, but if see alaska is saying that they are going to need 30 years and youre suggesting that you are going to be able to have 62 million boardfeet, how does this all pencil out . Well, it starts by there is the folks in alaska are working together, the state see alaska, the folks on the tsongas and folks from the Mental Health trust to be able to look at how we can have really an all hands approach so that there is going to be x amount thats available for the industry and actually Work Together and this is something that you could say we should have been doing a better job in the past. However, we are looking at how we can do a better job as we move forward. Then based on that, to be able to have the coordination between the programs. But its essential that we are able to produce and i wouldnt be up here telling you that without any question, i believe this approach that over time to transition to the young growth is the solution to be able for us to continue to provide the integrated Wood Products industry in Southeast Alaska. Yes, we are going to have to continue to have the bridge timber. We are also going to have to be moving forward with some young growth to be able to start giving operators the chance to be able to explore markets with that young growth. So that is our course. That is our plan over time to be able to do this. I understand that it is a plan over time and again, i am trying to make something that works beyond the paper plan, because on paper, it might be possible but again, you cant push this young growth timber to grow any quicker. You cannot be a fantasy plan. It has to be based on accurate analysis and assessment and a reality on the ground. And i continue to have the same concerns that i have had. I will continue to express them and its not because im sitting back here in washington reading some talking points. Its because im talking to the people that are on the ground that are out in the communities, that are on prince of wales island who do not believe that they have the capacity to hang on much longer. And they hear the good plans and they believe its nothing but pie in the sky. And the effort again from these families that have worked it so hard for so many decades and are not asking for the Timber Industry that was around 20 years ago, 30 years ago. They are asking to just be working with the facts. Im going to ask one more quick question, then turn to my colleague here and this is regarding the new the proposed new forestwide standards and guidelines to address the Renewable Energy development within the tsongas and the transition plan. You know that i had pushed for this last year, continue to do so, but what we are seeing is guidelines that appear to be pretty simplistic looking, pretty vague, and therefore, it causes me to question how effective they can be. Does the Forest Service plan to utilize an approach that would give greater clarity, more consistent enforceable guidelines through an approach that has been considered to provide for Renewable Energy because the issue that im hearing is that what the Forest Service is proposing just doesnt provide enough clarity, that there is ambiguity that is not going to be helpful to folks. Are you referring to the alternatives in the forest plan amendment . Yes. One of the benefits for the comments that we received, i wanted to thank you for your letter, that very wellwritten letter it was a good letter. Thank you. Its part of the comments and as we go through those, those are the things we are going to be addressing. But those are the things that the feedback this at we need one plan. If theres things we need to change. That being said, i know that we have at least five projects that are proved or under construction. Theres another seven projects we are working to try to get through, plus another i think another dozen that we are still, you know, looking to start the analysis on. So we are moving forward. We are not waiting for the forest plan amendment. We are going to continue to be able to work with folks to be able to move forward to be able to implement those hydro projects. Well, i would ask you to look to making sure that the standards, these guidelines, really do do what we are hoping, which is to help facilitate the Renewable Energy Development Projects that we are talking about. Let me turn to senator cantwell. Thank you, madam chair. Chief tidwell, i wanted to ask you about the ascot mine. The Ascot Resources Canadian Mining Company is proposing to conduct an exploratory drilling adjacent to mount st. Helens, a National Volcanic development which could impact 900 acres. 165 of those acres of the proposed 900 Acre Development were purchased by the land and Water Conservation fund. So you can see where im going here. Why would the Forest Service allow for this proposal to move forward if you had already previously helped make purchase of the land and Water Conservation fund. I want to understand how those two things can coexist together. I shouldnt say that that way. I dont believe they can. So im interested in this process that you are moving through. Senator, i share your concern and im not certain on the timing of this, but i understand we acquired that property using lwcf a few years ago, then we have this mine proposal. So when we acquire properties, they then become part of that National Forest and the management is then covered under their forest plan. So it raises the question for us to be thinking about this as we move forward to, if there are areas depending on why this land was acquired, was it just to block up ownership, was it to provide Public Access, what was the key reason, that the forest plan should assure that the purpose for acquiring the land should still exist. But when we do have a mining proposal that comes in on top of that, it raises the question about do we need to do a better job to be thinking out on these key partials that are being acquired so that if its what the public is okay with, then we are okay with it. But if it raises those raises its something we need to be considering. This is somewhat unusual. Its happened at least once that im aware of before, but we acquired lands and then had someone come in and stake a mining claim on it. Im having a hard time understanding how we would use that and not think it was for public use. Its about protecting the publics access and interest. Its hard for me to believe a document would say theres no recreational impact when literally it is about preserving areas for recreational and Public Access for the future. Thats why were doing it because we dont want the development. Well, mining is also part of the use that occurs on National Forest too. So its one of the challenges that we have to be able to balance. I agree. Its one of the thicks i want to look at how to avoid these problems from having in the future, but once the lands are acquired and they are managed as part of the National Forest and open for mining and theres a mining claim, that proponent has the ability to propose an operation. Im sure youll hear from people who believe that it has recreational value and should be stated so in a document. But well leave for now. I want to ask you about road maintenance. The Forest Service is proposing to close a number of roads in the mount baker forest. I can understand closing roads that endangering water shed, but there are a number of roads proposed for lack of maintenance funding. I want to understand how to propose new roads when we have this backlog of maintenance. Senator, each year we build a very few number of roads. And often those to replace existing roads be able to move a road out of the longest stream to reduce Environmental Impacts and then theres a few places where we do build a few roads and some are in the state of alaska that for many years the number of new roads that were building is always in a small number of maybe 10 or 15 miles per year. It is an issue and we have a tremendous amount of backlog and deferred road maintenance that is contributing to not only the erosion but impacting the quality of our streams and fisheries and it continues to be an outstanding problem for us. As we look at which roads need to be closed, we go through a public involvement process to identify those roads so that we can reduce some of the backlog of our deferred maintenance, reduce the impact to streams and at the same time still provide for a level of Public Access. So i think you have Something Like a 13 decrease in the road maintenance funding, but have an existi existing 3 billion backlog. I dont know where you were talking about specifically building the new roads, but trying to understand the value because as recreation support so many jobs, we want to make sure that people are having access to the recreational businesses. What im saying is i am sure every day you have to make decisions about these issues backlog versus new roads, but im asking whether you consider the impact that that maintenance backlog has on recreational areas when its such a big part of an area in an economy. Its one of the reasons we sit down with the communities and local officials to be able to find solutions to this problem. So the majority of our budget goes to maintenance. And we are proposing to spend 6 million on some new roads and i will be glad to provide for the record where those roads will be located and the purpose of those roads to be able to reduce Environmental Impacts and provide needed access for the public. Thank you, i appreciate that. If we can dialogue, that would be so helpful, thank you. Thank you, senator. I just have a couple quick questions for you. First relates to Aviation Resources and coordination with the states. Back in december we received testimony from National Association of state foresters that during the 2015 fire season because of some new federal rules, you had u. S. Forest Service Dispatchers decline to call up state aircraft for fires on federal land even when it might have been closest to the fire start. We talked a lot about the issue of carting and different standards for aircraft used in Fire Suppression. Can you give me a quick update and progress on the coordination than between Forest Service department of interior and the states so we know we have one carting system out there that recognizes aviation standards as being equal and accepted by all. Madame chair, were working with the states to be able to come up with that one standard. We operate about 300 to maybe 400 helicopters and dozens of contracted aircraft. That means a standard that the Forest Service has. That being said, not all the states do. We want to get to a point where theres just one standard so that it makes it easier for us to be able to use resources and also ensures that level of safety that our pilots are looking for. Do you think you can do that relatively quickly or how long of a process is this because, again, as we heard in the committee here, theres nothing that frustrates people more than knowing youve got an immediate issue right there. You know exactly what has to happen and yet youre stuck because somebody doesnt have the proper authorization. Its going to take some time. Like years . It may. A lot of it will depend on our partners on the states and their willingness to come together on one standard. If theres anything we can do to help facilitate those conversations so we can make that happen more rapidly, i think there would clearly be interest in doing that. Let me go to an issue in southeastern alaska. This relates to the land deal. This is a situation where holdings for native corporation and what has been going on is theres been a long protracted situation, an effort for an appraisal of the lands. That was accomplished last october. It was accepted by Forest Service. That appraisal expires in october unless theres a Purchase Option agreement thats signed and locking in the appraisal price. What we have recently learned is theres new staff at Forest Service that think that an environmental Site Assessment that was conducted prior to the appraisal is no longer valid. So that would completely pull the rug out from under all the progress made and the effort to get this conclude. So i would ask you to look into this issue and determine whether it needs to be redone or whether it can be updalted. Wed like some assistance in just making sure theres a process smooth on this and if you can look into the issue of the split owner shship of the ls with regards to see alaska. Again, local issue, but its one thats been outstanding and it seems theres no reason we cant get this resolved. Senator, we are going to move forward. We need to update that environmental study assessment, which is regulartively quick and easy thing to do. Well be able to move forward and get a Purchase Option. Its my expectation that ill be asking for your help for us to be able to quickly complete that purchase that weve been working on this for many years. So we want to make sure we get it locked in this year so we can quickly move forward to be able to complete that purchase. And recognizing that appra e appraisal expires in october, we have a pretty tight time line. Thats why we have to gets the Purchase Option in place, get the study completed and move forward to start acquiring the lands with the money that we currently have. Plus were requesting. Lets work closely with you on that. Two very quick ones here. What are the Forest Service plans for offering new opportunities for tourism firms and wildlife bids to gain new or additional days for services in region 10 . We have received so many complaints in my office about the lack of new opportunities, no solicitation open periods and so youve got new operators that would love to come in and gain some use days. Can you tell me whether or not theres going to be new solicitation in either 16 or 17 . Ul have to get back to you. I know were going to move forward with some, but your point is well take than this is the sort of thing we need to find ways to make it easier and to be able to expand those operations so many people can get out there and it greats more jobs. If you can look into that and goes back to a point i made earlier with regards to our request to Forest Service last year. On the recreational dollars that come from Forest Service, alaska has taken disproportionate reductions in funding over the years. You were directed to correct and address that. We havent seen where thats been remedied and id like an update on that as well. My final question for you this morning is secure rural schools. We were told that the payment through the extension that we did last year was supposed to go out for distribution and im hearing now that the payments may be delayed. Can you give me any update as to when communities might expect to see their payments . The payments should go out no later than next week. Okay, okay. And it will be as advertised . If you will . Yes, we did have some discussion on whether this payment would be subject to sequestration and the determination was that they are not. That will be welcome news. Took awhile to get there, but that did delay a few weeks. Now were ready to move forward. Q. Senator and i have looked to . Deal with srs and making sure these communities that are so reliant on these dollars are able to provide for some planning. Thats so important to these communities. Im sure they will be very anxious to hear that news this morning in getting this revenue out to them. Theres many counties so dependent on that. Im also eagerly awaiting your outcome on the rule making. Im not asking you to make comment other than were looking forward to seeing your comments on that. Your colleagues asked about why the permit skpros youre in the stages of finalizing. That will be important to us. I appreciate how much you have worked with them in the interim time since we first brought this up in the committee. Look forward to the details of how that process works. Thank you for bringing up that last point. You and i had worked that letter some time ago. Were still weight on that. Its not just a response to that letter. It was back in 13 that we had assurances that we would see something to correct the problem. Congress urged the Forest Service to address this in a probe spill. In 15 we directed Forest Service to act within our interior approach. So i would hope we would have some form of communication back from you. Well provide the committee on progress were working through with Small Business administration on that. Thank you. And chief, thank you for being here this morning. Thank you for your responses to the questions from all of us. And thank you for your work. We appreciate it. Budget season continues on capitol hill this month. Wednesday we take you to two hearings in the senate. First attorney general Loretta Lynch takes questions on the Justice Department budget. Thats live at 10 00 a. M. Eastern. Then tom vilsack talks about the president s request for the usda. Thats at 2 00 p. M. Eastern. The most important thing in this election is education. Im looking at the candidates closely for their programs in education. Im not happy in the last 15 years or so with all the core standards thats been happening. Id like to see that change around so im going to vote for Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. Im happy with both of those choices. Im interested to see what their education plans would turn out to be if elected. Ive decided im voting for ted cruz for the candidacy because he is a constitutional scholar. Hes eloquent and hes principled. Secretary of state for management and resources was on capitol hill today to talk about u. S. Diplomatic efforts. Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee questioned her on Sexual Exploitation during Peace Keeping missions and concerns over the departments allocation of 500 million to the u. N. Green climate fund. This is an hour and a half. Our Relations Committee will come to order. I want to thank you for your testimony today. As chairman one of our priorities as the state Department Reauthorization process. I want to thank senator menendez for beginning that. I think its critical oversight tool and a healthy exercise to take an annual look at the authorities that need updating. We passed an authorization bill out of Committee Last year for the first time in five years. We hope to build upon that progress with another bipartisan bill for 2017. Like last year, our bill will focus on diplomacy programs and the nuts and bolts operations of the state department. I know our staff has been having a very productive discussion with you and i thank you for creating that kind of tone about these programs. I want to thank you for your help in the process as i know your written testimony as u read will allude to. One area we have been studying is how the u. S. Can use its influence to affect change at the u. N. , particularly in the areas of Sexual Exploitation and abuse by u. N. Peace keepers and with regard to the Peace Keeping budget in general. Reports keep rolling in of u. N. Peace keepers and personnel abuse iing the very people theye charged with protecting, which is truly horrifying. And a blight on the good were trying to do for those countries. These bad apple operate with um munty because there are no mechanisms to bring them to justice. We need to use our influence to fight this impunity to insist on courtmartials for each of the operations. Refusal that do nod take charges of abuse seriously. Whatever else it takes to root out this abuse. The u. S. Now pays close to 30 of the u. N. Peace keeping budget which is more than other members of the Security Council combined. I would not call that burden sharing. I think theres consensus wed like to look at that. I know the state department doesnt enjoy being saddle d wih this bill either. Bill from the u. N. But i would like to know what youre doing actively to create change. We talk about these things, but we concern ourselves sometimes that theres really not an active engagement to change the assessment formula such that it captures the ability to contribute and eliminate Bonus Discount that relieves of paying their fair share. Im also concerned about the systemic issues with improper handling of classified information that has come to light recently. If some of your employees are struggling with proper handling of classified information, which appears to be the case, we view it as our duty to set up training and accountability systems necessary to fix this problem. Im also interested in how you incentivize Foreign Service officers to serve at less desirable posts. Extra pays Foreign Service officers receive are determined by bureaucrats in washington and do not reflect officers actual pref sis about where they serve. Seems to me it would be much more effective and transparent to combine the various extra pays into one rate for each post that takes into account the popularity of that post. And finally, i hope you will address the fee structure, which essentially bets on continued growth of demand for u. S. Visas to fund our other services. I know you didnt design it this way, but were looking to make it more efficient and transparent and i hope you will work with us on that also. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Im a bill part of an authorization bill and its something to else that you have some priorities you would like to see put in place. We look forward to hearing about those. Thank you for your testimony and will turn to our Ranking Member senator carter. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me thank the secretary for her attendance here today and her service to our kocountry. We appreciate the work that youre doing on behalf of america. I want to thank our chairman for not just this hearing but his commitment for our committee and the United States senate and for the congress to carry out our responsibilities on the reauthorization of the state department. I dont think theres a member of this committee that was in this senate the last time we passed an authorization bill. Unless she was serve iing wi abe lincoln. Its been awhile. Its even been a longer time you have to go back to the 1980s when we reauthorized the aied program. We are hamstring the state department by our failure to pass an authorization bill. You mentioned outdated laws and thats certainly true with the fee service issues. That was developed a long time ago when the services were different than they are today. It requires an update of that authorization or we could talk about the current concerns on overseas comparability pay. Thats an Issue Congress needs to speak to. There are many areas where Congress Need to act on Diplomatic Security issues. We did have a bill that we worked on. We didnt get it done, but it should be included in the authorization bill. We have Workforce Diversity issues and i hope the secretary will talk about that. Theres still far from where i would like to see opportunity in america reflected within the Foreign Service. There are important areas that the chairman has already mentioned. The United Nations reform issues, its controversial, but we need to deal with these issues. Im not placing blame as to why we havent been able to get this done. And im very much working with the chairman to see whether we cant find a path where we can reach the finish line and start a process that every congress there will be a state Department Authorization bill considered by the congress and acted on by the congress, recommended by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Chairman, we spend a lot of time in this committee. I dont know if any other committee has more hearings, more knowledge of whats going on globally than this committee. We know each of the regions. We spent a lot of time on each of the regions. We know the state department. We know whats being done in the state department. We are the committee that should be recommending to the United States senate the policies for the state department. It shouldnt be the appropriators, it shouldnt be the Armed Service or the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This hearing is a good first opportunity for us to explore how we can carry out that responsibility. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. If i could, i dont normally do this, but we have two outstanding senators from georgia. Senator purdue has been taken lead on the bill, but also taking the lead on our side on the budget process. Just for what its worth, i hope he wont be offended, but has made comments like what youre saying. It really is ridiculous the way appropriators that i respect grateful and they meet for five hours and determine the budget on all these programs where in essence we spend the entire time were here looking at whats happening. I think the authorization process is one thats very important and yet way underutilized. So thank you for saying that. I want to thank the deputy secretary of state for management and resources. Thank you for being here and sharing your thoughts. We appreciate your service to our country. I think you have done this before and understand that you can summarize in five minutes if you wish and your written testimony without opposition will be entered into the record in full. So thank you for being here and cooperating with us on this matter. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding authorization. As secretary kerry has said, American Leadership is not just a button that we push in a time of emergency. We must be backed by resources and authorities. So were committed to working with the committee on a bill that provides a Strong Foundation for the state department and enhances our efforts to be more effective and efficient. Today i will highlight a few of the authorities that we believe are critically important and i want to thank members for your partnership on several of these issues. They include Permanent Authority to contract local guards with the best firms to better protect our people and infrastructure, Administrative Subpoena Authority for the bureau of Diplomatic Security to enhance their efforts to counter passport and visa fraud, authorities to provide greater flexibility to set fees for border crossing, Fraud Prevention and detention and surcharges, which would support our execution of services, authorities to pay our contribution as well as to pay our ewe United Nations Peace Keeping dues to help us avoid accruing. To better support and remain our workforce by leveling the Playing Field for overseas pay. The committee is also indicated its interest in hearing from the department on other issues, which i will briefly address now and look forward to discussing further. First, the International Community relies on United Nations Peace Keeping missions to advance our collective global security. The state department is committed to u. N. Reform and we are working to ensure other countries pay their fair share of u. N. Budgets, especially developing countries like china, which is the second largest Peace Keeping cost contributor. We recognize the value of missions but we are appalled by continuing allegations of Sexual Exploitation and abuse by peace keepers. The United States has been a driving force behind the u. N. s zero tolerance policy and will continue to push the u. N. To bring an end to abuses and hold perpetrators accountable. We are directly pressing troop and contributing countries named for the first time in last weeks United Nations report to promptly and credibly investigate allegations of Sexual Exploitation and abuse and where appropriate to prosecute offenders. Second the United States faces not only risks to our physical security but risks to the security of our information. Since the breach of our unclassified email system, we have aggressively worked to enhance our Cyber Security. We have strengthened the way our users access the systems, the security testing of our networks and applications and the training of our staff on the threats we face. Third, responding to freedom to information act requests is an important element of our transparency efforts and while the volume of requests to the department has increased by 300 since 2008 our resources to address them have not kept pace. Thats why we have requested a 77 increase in this years budget. And in addition, secretary kerry has appointed a transparency coordinator who is spear heading efforts to improve its systems and processes. And finally, our work to advance American Leadership and diplomacy around the world is only as strong as our people. To ensure we have the right people and the right places at the right taime, we are adoptin tools to support our workforce and expand innovation. Mr. Chairman, as discussed in it more detail in my written testimony, a strong state Department Authorization bill will put the department on robust footing as we pursue security and prosperity for the American People. I look forward to working with you on this important endeavor. Thank you and im happy to answer questions. Thank you very much for being he here. All of us read the stories and heard testimony about whats happening with peace keepers, which is abhorrent and hard to believe were participating and trying to help people and yet they are being taken advantage of. Its a terrible report regarding the drc. What is it that we can actually do . I fear sometimes that we have other priorities at the u. N. And dont want to rock the boat. It doesnt appear to me that were really laying Railroad Tracks on this issue, and i wonder if you would tell me that im wrong and what what were doing to cause changes to occur. First, we share your outrage. This is appalling behavior. We have been very active in the u. N. To try to address it. In the report that the secretary general issued on friday for the first time, they have named the countries of alleged violators, which is a policy we have been pressing them to do. As a result of that, we have already directed our ambassador in those countries to go in and demand a rapid investigation and prosecution where appropriate. So we have been pushing that for awhile. We are pleased they have finally done it. We are pressing the u. N. To us spend reimbursements for personnel alleged to have committed these abuses as well as to repateuate contingents of peace keepers, where theres a trend of abuse. The ub has taken that action once already with the drc contingent. Were also pressed the u. N. And moving forward on establishing Sexual Exploitation withins Peace Keeping mission to ensure that the leadership is focused, that theres training and engagement on this. We have taken several steps and will continue to make more. This is a very top priority. Where are we on the on site courtmartial so we know justice is being served and they are not going back to home countries and never being seen again. This is why the countries that are involved, not some outside group. Where are we on that . Thats correct. We are pressing them to rapidly convene those. We have to assess what capabilities and capacity they have and work with them to develop it. Thats a priority for us and something were working with the contributing police and nations on. The lower u. S. Assessment, i know you spoke to earlier and i did this is another area we let it pass because we have other priority, but we have a period of time to lower the assessment. What are we doing actively to get things in the right place. We have members of the u. N. Security council not paying their fair share. Theres some bogus formulas put together because of what they are as a country and what their status is that keeps that from being the case. What are we doing to prevent that in the future . Mr. Chairman, two pieces. We have been working with the u. N. And over a period of years to reduce the costs of the Peace Keeping missions. We have been able to reduce the cost per peace keeper by 17 . The overall amount has been reduced by 200 million. Were continuing to push on the overcall costs. Were working very hard if i could. Many troops make money off of it. And they are paying far above what it cost them and countries selfreport their costs, which is ridiculous. But what are we doing to have some accountability there . We have been pressing the budget as well as in if the Peace Keeping sphere to improve accountability and will continue that work. To your previous comment about the contributions of other countries, we have pressed hard to deal with the credit issue and will continue that work. Were please ed d to see china russia and other countries significantly increasing the amount they are paying toward the Peace Keeping mission. We need to engage and work with you to figure out the best ways to do that. I notice when all of us travel extensively, people in in this committee spend a lot of time overseas. On pay i think our people should be well paid. Our Foreign Service officers are doing the lords work around the country and around the world trying to make sure we pursue u. S. Interests. I want to get that on the front end. At the same time, i hear them say i saying we have lots of private conversations that coming back to washington is a pay cut. So we have this foreign pay issue and yet most of them believe that higher cost of living here in washington, the fact that their housing is not paid for is a pay cut. So are we really deal iing with the issue of Foreign Service and what they are paid in the countries with the appropriate way with the understanding that most of them would prefer to be overseas than here as it relates to what they are paid. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Its customary to want to be deployed overseas where they most enjoy doing their work. With respect to the allowances and the cost of living, those are based on exceptional cost, hardship, living in a dangerous place, living in a place with a lot of crime and health risks. That category of hardship is an incentive payment to encourage people to take those more complicated assignments. The cost of living adjustments are intended to ensure people can obtain goods and services to the way they would. We think they are appropriate and important to provide compensation as well as incentive to get to our areas. Is there a more rational way of arriving at what that is . It seems we have a small group of people back here in washington that set these various differentials and may not be based on the realities that exist on the ground. We would be pleased to talk about ways to approach this. Its done with input from post. So whether its assessing the conditions on the ground with respect to danger, public health, some of the other conditions, thats with input from post and comes from washington. The coast of living adjustment, we have a server that goes out every couple years to look at the specific costs of goods and services in those countries. It really benefits from all a lot of input at post. Lastly, the Ranking Member and myself have had a number of conversations to get a sense of what has been occurring at the state department relative to emails. We have gone out of our way to make sure that this committee doesnt politicize an issue at a time when that shouldnt be done. Would you agree that some type of training and some type of systemic checks needs to occur within the department to make sure classified information is being handled in an appropriate way. The Department Takes its responsibility to protect Sensitive Information very seriously. And we do a lot of training. As part of the most recent process we concluded just a week ago in the release of secretary clintons emails, were going to conduct a Lessons Learned process and some of the emails and issues that arose. We have robust training both when someone enters the department so they understand the type of information they will see and why that might be of interest to an adversary or someone with an interest thats not in the United States interest. But also as you get security clearance, as youre allowed to review and handle classified information, we do a lot but certainly look at whats working. Is that new . Its not new. I get locked out of my computer as does every other employee if i dont take an annual awareness course. I cant get on. It takes a few hours. Were adapting as we see different threats and provide Different Levels of training. I like to pursue that further with you in another setting. Thank you. Senator . On that last point, i thank you because we do share the same responsibility of this committee to oversight of the handling of information the transfer of electronic requires a different way of handling material. And i look forward to working with the chairman. This is not a problem with one administration. This is several administrations and theres no information that theres been state secrets that have been disclosed, but we do need a more efficient way to handle Sensitive Information. So i look forward to working with the chairman carrying out the responsibility of our committee. Theres been an incredible change in attitude from americans and support of our diplomacy assistance programs. When i first came to congress, it would be difficult to pass a foreign operations appropriation bill. Now that bill becomes in some republicans the driver for other issues getting done. The American People understand g we the modest investmentv8ykyy make is very important forl÷aa how you intend to make sure the legacy of your leadership provides the resources necessary to carry out this important function of government. Thank you very much, senator. We share the concern that increasing percentage of our resources are funded through n Contingency Operations. The budget passed lags year and set the parameters for both the 16 appropriations process and the 17 including the budget that would be funded as oko. That reduces our base funding and its skewed to a certain extent whats funded where. While we have agreed to the deal that the president signed and adhering to it, we have concerns about what that means going forward. Our base costs and Ongoing Operations funded in a base at a high level to enable us to conduct our missions. And to preserve the Contingency Operations for shortterm exceptional events. I think that its necessary to have contingency funding for state and aid going forward, but it should be rationalized from where we are today. I hope that will be a process that we can engage in with Congress Going forward. It sounds rational, but when you have base core programs funded it makes it difficult to see how thats going to be transitioned off when you know how difficult it is to get other funds. Its something well have to deal with. I urge you to look at the longterm stainability of your missions as Core Functions and funded as Core Functions. I agree with senator corker in that as u travel and meet the people in Foreign Service, they are incredible. They deserve the full support and thanks of the American People in our political system. So i strongly support their compensation. I support their having the resources necessary. But when i look at the leadership in our Foreign Service, and i look at the pipelines for how we are developing future leaders, it does not represent to me the demographic changes of america. I want to know what youre doing to make sure that we carry out our commitment to have the face of america representative of the people of america. The diversity is an important process. We included it in the diplomacy and Development Review that we issued last year shortly after i was here elevating it as a priority for Senior Leadership in the department. We have increased in our Budget Resources devoted for a workforce by 50 . One of the core elements a pelkts of that is increasing by 50 the fellows, which have been an effective way to ensure we have a more diverse workforce. One of the key priorities from my perspective is i look at the data and do the analysis is ensuring as we bring it in, we have support to retain and put on a path to Senior Leadership positions that more diverse workforces. So were expanding to career programming. We have contracted with the Cox Foundation to do a review of the mentoring programs chrks we hear from our personnel are critically important and want to e know were using resources effectively in targeting them in the right way. Its very important this be done in a transparent way. Im going to ask with the chairmans help that you keep our staffs actively informed as to the process that youre using, how transparent it is, how youre reaching out in order for recruitment, so that were fully engaged with you in this effort on diversity. I hope we would have your cooperation. We would welcome that opportunity. Secretary kerry has asked all of his assistant secretary level or above officials to do a domestic recruiting trip coordinated with our diplomats and residents so were targeting the right institutions and right parts of the country and using what tools we have in addition to additional budget requests to do that kind of outreach. Thank you. Lastly, let me mention an area where resources are not adequate to meet the challenges we have. And that is Democracy Funding and any corruption efforts. Every place i travel in countries that are either in transition or have challenges, they tell me give me more money for democracy and more focus on anticorruption issues. Every dollar we get produces incredible results for americas mission. They just dont have enough of it. So what effort cans you suggest to us working with you where we can get funds allocated in those parts of those regions that are desperate need of democracy assistance throughout the world on anticorruption issues. Thank you, senator. We agree we have not been able to allocate the cross resources the way wed like to. We have a the lot of crises around the world and have to make trade offs dealing with directives. Thats why we have increased funding in 17 for democracy programming. We have heard from congress they want to see through the appropriations process greater focus. So im hopefulful. Its a bottom up process. And this issue is particularly acute in many places. Your point through the appropriation process underscores the senator corker have made. Give us the tools that we can give you the Statutory Authority to make to be able to allocate those resources rather than depending on a process that doesnt always work smoothly in this institution. We look forward to working with you. If i can make one point. I know this may be just out of bounds by some Foreign Service offices, but to address diversity and to address bringing professionals in it, we have a lot of folks ageing out. Does it make sense to allow people who have been competent in Civil Society to be able to transfer in at a level thats not stamping visas and those kind of things . Is that something that would be rational and help on the front that senator was just asking about . Thank you, mr. Chairman. That is an idea that has been tested at various points. I think we can continue to talk about and try to figure out a way to handle that. We have wrestled with how to best take advantage of the contributions we could get while also having a system that we sign people up and spend their careers at the state department and work through a series of different steps. Were trying to balance the culture and requirements of the Foreign Service with the great benefits we could get from others. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for mentioning our foreign diplomats overseas. They really are the face of the United States. We always brag about them, but never have a chance to point one out. We have one here today. Julie fisher l you stand up . This is my neighbor. Her parents still live down the street. She grew up down the street from me. She served america overseas in ukraine. Shes pretty dog gone good because i read your brief and i had all these questions on internet security, Information Security and you covered every one of them in your Opening Statement. So you have an awfully good person. Were proud youre here today. Do we have any marylanders out there. The chairman and i got to go to the second and third senators to go to darfur and got to see firsthand the environment in which many of these refugees and people abused sexually and traumatized reside. And we learned that sexual trauma and Sexual Violence is a military tactic in many african countries and other countries around the world. I want to underscore the chairmans comments about the Sexual Violence and the predators that are in some of these Peace Keeping units and we need to make sure it takes place so thats abolished and america never looks the other way when that goes on. Thank you for your comments. We agree and both in the Peace Keeping context as well as in our engagements with several african countries as were doing training and trying to support Good Governance and democracy. Being very clear on whats acceptable and whats not is critically important. We see it as you point out in many contexts. Its appalling and we have to make it a top priority wherever we see it. One last point on the reauthorization. We waited 13 years to finally reauthorize the secondary education act and we did that last year. Public education in america suffered by the inaction of the United States congress. I want to underscore your comments of those of the Ranking Member on the need for us to reauthorize the state department and modernize those rules and regulations and empower them to do the job. I would ask you a question, but i know youre going to have the right answers. Im going to excuse myself. Thank you, senator. Thank you, thank you so much. Thanks for your major contributions. Were glad we violated the rules to allow you both to be on the committee, two senators from georgia. Thank you, mr. Chair. I want to ask a little bit about latin ask a little bit about latin america, an interest of mine and senator menendez is focused on this. The president announced a new investment in the budget he proposed to take to a second chapter, peace colombia. Talk a little bit about, from the state departments view, from a resource view, the kind of return on investment that we had on the first 15 years of this investment over three administrations and how we would propose to assist colombia in this new chapter god willing, post ceasefire. I had the chance to travel and meet with gulf of mexico officials to talk about the future, and understand how our resources can best be directed, assuming theres a peace deal, and we hope soon, one that we can continue to support, to help that country go into areas governed by the farc, deal with the narko trafficking, with the coca production and some severe the other issu some of the other issues there. What i heard again, the capacities that the United States brings to the table, that they need to do that. There were plans, but implementing them and understanding what capacities we bring, whether its on the military training side, support for Civil Society side, and the alternative development. And of course some of the narko trafficking. My take away from some of that experience and its reflected in the administrations policy, a continuation of our engagement where we provide truly leveraging capabilities and working with a common vision of what success looks like. So im hopeful and came away from that trip convinced that theres a lot of work to do, but that were on the right path and we have good partners in colombia. And the story of colombia is not just the u. S. Has helped them transform, but colombia has become a Security Partner with assistance in the northern triangle. They have peacekeepers in the sinai. Theyre really becoming a global force for positive security in a way that is a Great Alliance for us, but a real tribute also to their commitment to peace and prosperity outside their own borders. I agree. When i was in Central America at the end of last year, in honduras and el salvador, every visit that we made, there was a Colombian Police officer participating in the training and it was incredibly valuable to those countries. When you look at the progress that colombia has made over the past many years and you look at the path the northern triangle countries have to traverse, theres a lot of good examples we can draw on from there. In the twoyear budget deal and the appropriations deal we struck at year end and because of the senate, the senate had this, and the house did not. The compromise followed the senate version, 750 Million Investment in the northern triangle with plan colombia as an indication that we can have hope this will work, if were consistent with it, the president has proposed an additional billion dollars for the northern tribal countries. We had testimony previously about the kind of pillars into which the investments will fall, but what will our metrics be for sort of measuring whether the progress is what we would hope . Thank you, senator. The first metric we have and need to keep focused on are the commitments that the president s of those three countries have made and ensuring they live up to those commitments. One of the critical elements of our strategy for Central America is ensuring that we learn from the things weve done before, but were also doing things differently and it requires transparency and Good Governance. So that these governments are putting their own resources against our commonly shared vision of what needs to happen. We are working very carefully across our government within different agencies to ensure we have developed tools to measure success, to know whats working and whats not. One of the areas that i spent a lot of time visiting when i was in the region was on the partnership between the state departments inl, bureau and ussid, bringing Law Enforcement and community together. And were scaling that up across the region, but in large part based on the independent evaluation that showed this strategy would be successful. So were going to do different monitoring and evaluation projects, were going to hold ourselves accountable and put the resources against what we know works. And staying in the region, obviously theres huge concern about stwrezika. This is not a health hearing, but im curious, particularly with respect to state Department Personnel in the americas, what steps are you taking from a management personnel to protect our people . Thank you, senator. First of all, obviously the greatest risk population is women who are pregnant or want to become pregnant. Just as the pentagon has gone, under personnel have the opportunity to curtail their assignments early, return to the United States, be medevacked and weve had some employees avail themselves of that. Well continue to message that so they understand what opportunities they have. Weve also been very clear about individuals in affected areas can protect themselves. This is, as im sure you know, a different vector to control, but there are measures that individuals can take to protect themselves. And were ensuring they have sufficient insect repellant and information, so well continue to do that. One last issue. The senator and i look a trip about a year ago to mexico, honduras and colombia. Didnt have anything to do with cuba. But every head of state we met with said, you have no idea how your path to normalization with cuba is going to open up other opportunities for you. They described it as a fight between uncle sam and cuba. And we had to be on cubas side. So the u. S. Ankle weight was slowing them down. I just really think the path with cuba and well continue to challenge cuba on human rights issues, just like other countries that we have diplomatic human rights issues with, well continue to focus on that. But the americas for our purpose, were all americans, north, south, and central, if there is that ceasefire in colombia, it will be the end of war in these two hem spheres, which is probably the first time in recorded history you could say that. And theres just enormous cultural similarities that we share. Recent electoral activities, especially in south america, ive had promising signs about pro democracy, pro human rights. A lot of upside opportunities. I would hope we dont spend all our time worrying about our headaches and short shrift the upside opportunities that we have in our own region and i would really encourage the state department and my colleagues on that. Thank you. Thank you very much, senator. Appreciate your comments about zika and i assume the state department will send out notifications to travelers. The olympics are taking place in august, notifying them of concerns is that correct . The centers for Disease Control issued guidance of this kind and we disseminate it broadly across our platforms. So if anyone is interested to come to our website to gather information about brazil, theyll find that information, providing the cdcs guidance. We want to be a little more proactive on that, but well talk about that. Senator perdue. I think thats at the center of one of our problems, we have to coordinate how we fund these departments and the people who really understand these departments and have the right or responsibility of oversight need to be involved in that process. I could not agree more and were working to see how we can change that. Madam secretary, thank you for being here. Thank you for your courtesies last week. I just have three quick questions. One is, just to put a little Historical Perspective on this, and the way i look at it, with the last seven years, and this is not a partisan comment, its just a reality. We borrow over a third of what we spend as a federal government. 2 3 of our spending is mandatory. If those dollars that we get in, go to mandatory first, that means every dollar on defense and state and aid is fundamentally borrowed. So theres a crisis here, that we need to look at what were doing with what were spending. And the perspective is, between 92 and 2000, state and all of its endeavors, averaged about 20 billion a year over that eightyear period. Then it went from 20 to 40. And a lot of that was iraq, afghanistan, and other things. Since then, weve fallen into this level of about 50. And i had to call out that youre asking for less money this year than you asked for last year. So i have to call out and thank you for that. So i have that observation and the second observation is while that level stayed at about 50, the enduring dropped from 50 to 40 over that period of time and was filled with oako. The second piece of that is help me understand the responsibilities and what were doing around the world. I recognize were the most philanthropic country in the world, and we need to maintain that position as long as we can afford it. But im just not sure right now that we shouldnt ask the question, can we afford all this . And so its incumbent on you as the budget process comes about, to justify how weve gone from 20 to 40 or 30 and now to 50. Explain that to me just a little bit in terms of your i know you didnt take it from 20 to 50. Youve been given a challenge to use 50 and youve kept it flat, pretty much. But help me with that Historical Perspective on how were spending that much. So, senator, i think youve touched on a few elements of it, which are iraq and afghanistan, that have that required increases in our budget and require increases to sustain our engagement there. I would point to a couple of other factors as being those that we need to fund, and that is, that we are dealing with an increasingly complex world. Just take the humanitarian side for a moment. We have four level three humanitarian disasters. I cant say its unprecedented, but its highly unusual. And were a generous contributor to those crisis. We also have the rise of violent extremism during that time. We did as a regular course, rely on and utilize supplementals to address the emerging crises. Wed be pleased to go through in more detail yeah, i think it would be instructive. Because its something that every department will have to go through, in terms of what we really can afford to do. Its a question we dont ask much up here. I have a second question on the i. G. Last year, we talked privately and you testified about this, and i know youve been very vocal about this. But as i look at it, i dont see a lot of progress, honestly. So can you address the progress that youre making with that. With regard to specifically the request of the i. G. And i think there was no disagreement last year, about having the i. G. Be aware of all investigations. There are evidently three path ways investigations go inside state. Can you speak to that just a minute. Sure, id be pleased to. Weve been working with the i. G. , to identify which cases theyre most interested to have the information about. They can investigate anything, but where we narrow their focus, so that the processes of an administrative nature, if someone wants to bring a civil rights case to our office of civil rights, its clear the i. G. Isnt necessarily interested in that. Is the i. G. Aware now of all the potential investigations . The conversation were having with them right now is to look across all of the different avenues people have to bring, even approaching the ombudsman and saying, what cases are you interested in, defining that, and working through a process. And i wont speak for him, because that wouldnt be appropriate. But i do meet regularly with and i think hes pleased with the process. I think soon well have a process that we can explain and make available to our employees. I think thats important. I know as we travel the world as the chairman mentioned, its one of the great benefits of this responsibility, you do see great americans out there in the field and i have to echo what everybody said, i just marvel at the quality of people and their dedication around the world. I know we have to make them secure. And i know post benghazi theres been an uptick in that. There are some four major embassies construction. Can you talk about that and the overruns on those, for islamabad, london, singapore, i know these are billiondollar plus installations now. We have to have stronger buffer zones or offsets. Can you speak to that just a minute, please. Sure. Senator, you touched on one of the issues thats most important when we think about embassy construction. Thats building facilities that are safe and secure for our personnel. And post the bombings in the 90s, we continually review and look at what our requirements are. In places where its more dangerous to operate, those costs can be more expensive. Islamabad would be an example. And where we have posts that house a lot of different agencies, we have different requirements to meet that. Thats another question id like to dial into at some point. I think in singapore, there are 19 different Government Agencies with offices and personnel over there. Id love to know the purpose of those. That may not be your purview, but at some point over the next few months, id loof to see what those areas of responsibilities are. Wed be pleased to do that for you, senator, at any of our posts. When you travel to our posts and sit with the country team, you get a flavor for which of the different opportunities having our agencies there makes sense, but it is expensive are you experiencing serious overruns . Thats what i was going for. I think it depends on a case by case basis. I wouldnt say in general. Sometimes we go out, bid, come under budget. In other cases, the costs are in excess of what we projected. So it depends. But we could provide you with our most recent set of construction plans and budgets and provide some additional i dont need to see the plans. I trust you on that, but the numbers i meant budget plans. Thank you. Senator murphy . Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here, once again. I appreciate senator perdues conversation about what we can afford to do within the limited resources we have to spend. Listen, i would pose the opposite question. I think we have to ask our question, how we can afford not to make these investments, especially when you put u. S. Foreign aid, International Development funding in the context of what our competitor nations are spending themselves. Over the last ten years alone, the chinese have increased their foreign aid by a factor of seven at a time when our foreign aid has been largely flat. We are looking at a budget that is frankly 2 billion less than fy10 enacted numbers. The chinese have increased their spending by a factor of seven. In egypt, a lot of commotion about turning on 2. 3 billion in u. S. Military aid. The saudis announced 8 billion play with money both from their public funds and their sovereign funds, a 20 billion Oil Investment in egypt, and we sit here and wonder why we dont have as much influence there as other countries. Its in part because other nations in and around that region are spending numbers that dwarf ours. Were an apple in a world full of oranges. The rest of the world that the blunt inflexible power of group military strength isnt as effective as the flexible and nimble nature of economic aid, energy aid, political aid. And we are chasing our tail around the world in part because china, the russians, the saudis, are lapping us when it comes to that kind of smart money. We should remember, that as much money as we spend, were still in the bottom of oecd nations, when it comes to the amount of money we spend on International Aid as a percentage of our gdp. Its a big number, but were a big country. And when you compare it to other nations, were still, at least within our sub set of firstworld nations, in the bottom fourth. So with that being said, let me ask about one particular line item thats significantly lower in this proposed budget, and you can probably explain to me why. In fy16 omnibus appropriations bill, we had a significant increase for humanitarian assistance, and this is International Disaster assistance, migration and refugee assistance and food aid. This budget propose says about a 17 cut. I know humanitarian aid doesnt matter any less to the administration than it did in the last year. So explain to me, why that cut and where that money is going to be made up. Thank you, senator. We were pleased in the fy 16 bill, we did receive a generous increase in humanitarian assistance. As we looked to build this fy17 budget, cognizant of the bipartisan budget act that set parameters for discretionary spending, we looked across our needs over a period of two years and determined that with the Additional Resources that were provided and with the request we made for 17, well be able to meet our expected and anticipated expenditures. I would note, though, that we did we are operating under the discretionary restraint and over two years, to your earlier point, there are tradeoffs weve made that arent exactly what wed want to do absent those constraints. So we do feel confident about the funding level for humanitarian assistance across 16 and 17, but certainly had to make tradeoffs for. As an example, one of those tradeoffs is that the World Food Program in and around syria is cutting off aid to Refugee Families that dont live in the actual refugee camp. So if youre living out in the streets of jordan or lebanon, you are at risk of having your emergency Food Assistance cut off. Its one of the choices that weve all made, we dont have enough money to fully fund that program. That has dire consequences for those families. Pushes many of them into the arms of the very groups that were trying to fight. So i understand the difficult tradeoffs you have to make, but we should all be cognizant of the consequences to u. S. National security. I want to drill down on one very specific issue and that is the issue of procurement between the state department. You are subject to the buy america law as well as other agencies, but just in preparation for this hearing, i was just going through the list of waivers that have been requested, and its a pretty substantial list. And i understand, this has sort of been a crusade of mine for years, to put the teeth back into your buy america requirements. I understand that youve got sort of two strings pulling on you here. One, you want to be a good guest in country, and do business in country. But you also do have a law that requires you to buy equipment, if you can, from u. S. Companies. But youve submitted waiver requests for some pretty easy equipment to get from u. S. Companies. Vehicles, for instance, which are regularly being shipped to the countries in which youre operating, but youre often buying from incountry sources rather than from american sources. Can you talk a little bit about your commitment to the buy america law and efforts that you may be able to take to reduce the number of waivers that are being granted to the state department . We have a lot of great u. S. Companies that would like to supply the state department and often dont seem to be getting the chance. Thank you, senator. We take those responsibilities that we have seriously, and it gets back to a certain extent to the previous part of our conversation about resources. And any waivers that we would request, wed want to do so very judiciously and look forward to following up with you or your staff to talk about how we think about this, and how we would approach it. But we want to do things in a way that abides by the requirements, but also takes into account our costs and how we do business overseas. So we arent looking for anything of a blanket nature up, want to do it selectively and want to follow up so the request is understand. I appreciate that. Its often going to make sense to buy from a cheaper, nonamerican source. But the damage to the overall federal treasury in the lost jobs, increased medicaid costs, increased unemployment cost, pretty quickly wipes out the savings to the agency. So i look to following up with you on this issue. Certainly senator, thank you. Senator brasso . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Madam secretary, thank you for being with us. President obama pledged 3 billion for the u. N. Green climate fund. Congress hasnt authorized any funding for the new international Climate Change slush fund. The most recent appropriation prohibited the transfer of funds to create new programs. Media is reporting this morning the administration deposited 500 million into the u. N. Green climate fund, appears to be the latest example of the administration going around congress. So if the media reports are true, this is a blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars. So, first, did the administration deposit 500 million in the United Nations Green Climate fund . Thank you, senator. We have reviewed our authorities and made a determination that we can make this payment to the Green Climate fund. The question is, did the administration today, as announced, deposit 500 million into the Green Climate fund . We signed an agreement with the u. N. To do that, yes excuse me, for the world bank. When was that done . Yesterday. Tell me how the administration is able to divert and reprogram funds in order to meet the president s unilateral promise . We reviewed the opportunities available to us to do that and believe were fully compliant with that. Be happy to follow up with you and your staff. The United Nations Green Program is a new program. The question is, what Legal Authority that you at the state department believe you have to make this transfer . And given the prohibition, do you agree it violates the act and it comes with criminal and civil penalties. I think youre going to have to deal with that. Thank you, senator. We do not believe that were in violation of the act. And our lawyers have looked at this and were happy to follow up with you. With regard to the u. N. Green climate fund, members of congress are expected to be good stewards of taxpayer funds, not provide funding to agencies thats not needed. Well, it raises serious concerns then that the u. S. Department of state has at least 500 million sitting around in funding thats no longer needed for the purposes for which it was approved. Whether you have the Legal Authority or not to move it, you have chosen to move 500 million from programs for which it was approved. So funding is no longer needed for the original purpose, then the money should be returned to the u. S. Treasury. Its clear this committee must look at the entire budget and resource allocation if millions, 500 million of funds intended for specific programs are suddenly available to be spent on other authorities. What specific accounts were so overfunded, allowing you at the state department to divert these fuppedz to the United Nations Green Climate fund . You mentioned president obamas pledge. We included in our budget a request for the green funding. So as we do our budgeting process, we didnt look around and say, where are excess funds we can put into this . We built it into our budget request. As we received the 16 bill and made allocations, we have the authority and the ability to fund that requirement. What exact accounts were overfunded to be able to move the money out . Nothing is overfunded. We looked across the Appropriations Bills and made allocations based on what resources were provided to us. I firmly oppose what the president is doing here and the misuse of taxpayer dollars, completely in violation of the law, and this will come to additional concerns raise said raised to you and those who work at the state department. We have 19 trillion in debt, we have struggling communities in need of help. There was a debate in flint the other night. Its hard to explain to taxpayers in struggling communities, places like flint, that this president and this administration is willing to give 500 million as a handout to foreign bureaucrats instead of addressing real problems here at home. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have no additional questions. Thank you. I know that this is an issue that theres highly divergent views on the committee. There could equally be something that people on this side of the aisle thought was semi controversial. I do think the questions asked about how money is transferred like that. It would be good to know regardless of how we feel about this particular issue, and i do hope that something more forth coming than what you just said will be forth coming so that we can understand that. But it really sort of breaks down trust in the process when monies like this can be transferred out and yet theyre not appropriated and theres no program. So i look forward to working with you i agree with you on that. We should absolutely know that. But my understanding came out of the appropriated account. So im not sure theres a problem here. So we had appropriations for a Green Climate . We have authorities to make the payment that we did to the Green Climate fund. And mr. Chairman, to your point, wed be pleased to engage with the members of the committee and talk further about that. Okay, thank you. Senator menendez. Thank you, mr. Chairman. That last line of questioning is probably one of the many reasons why a state Department Authorization is so important. Let me just thank you and senator cardin for focusing on this. Its something i wanted to do when i was chairman and we worked together to try to get there. I think its one of the most important things the committee can do, which is basically, in the absence of it, we basically allow the state department, with all their good intentions, to decide what is the course without congressional direction and oversight. And i think about the world since 2002, which is the last time this body successfully acted on reauthorizing legislation for the department of the state, and we think about the 9 11 attacks that claimed the lives of so Many Americans on american soil. We think about afghanistan and iraq. But when youre a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And the reality is that there is a lot more to our challenges globally than looking at everything with a hammer. From migration crises, to global epidemics, to, regardless of your views, global warming, to attacks on u. S. Facilities and deaths of Foreign Service officers, theres an incredible array of issues. And at least we should be equipping the state department to deal with these challenges, even better to prevent them. But theyre not equipped, and thats one of the reason weve witnessed the growing militarization of Foreign Policy, because dod is equipped and authorized to do so much. So we saw so much of what should be the Foreign Policy elements move from the state department to the department of defense. And thats just the department of defense is great to defense the nation, but not to promote our Foreign Policy. I think we should credit our diplomats and Development Professionals for their work, which continues whether or not the Congress Authorizes the budget. Despite the risk of life abroad, out of patriotism and devotion and concern for future generations that characterizes the best in american values. I want to thank all the women of the state department and usaid in particular, and i think our entire body should recognize those services. What better way to provide the resources, guidance and direction to make this nation speak with one voice, albeit in the many different languages in which our diplomats converse. I support the state departments budget. Id like to have this committee create some structure for it. Im one of those who believe that this is an importantly powerful use of American Resources in a way that can generate far more successes than even the power of our bombs. But i also think that the state Department Needs to represent the diversity of the nation. And i am deeply disappointed. Ive been working at this for 24 years, from the house of representatives, where i sat on the House Foreign Affairs committee and in the ten years ive been on this committee in the senate. And we just havent really made progress. We really havent. And this is expanded over multiple administrations, republican and democrat alike. And one of the most diverse countries in the world, our potential is unlimited, and unfortunately, minority communities have been historically underrepresented in both the state department and usaid. Now, last year, i authored language that chairman corker included in the state authorization bill, that congress unfortunately failed to enact. Those provisions expanded pickering, randal and fellowship and minority recruitment. It expanded mid and senior career recruitment programs and initiatives. It strengthened oversight to additional reporting requirements to employment, promotion and attrition rates. All things i think are necessary to institutionalize in order to have the diversity of america thats so important. And just by way of example, its not diversity for diversitys sake, mr. Chairman. When i was in china, it was incredibly powerful to see a one of our diplomatic corps, an african american, who had gone through the struggles of the civil rights movement, talking to human rights activists and political dissidents in china. That was a powerful opportunity to have those who try to create change in china, change wed all like to see. But that might not have come through the same experience of someone else. So at the same hearing last year, madam secretary, you presented a picture of the state department that was innovating new programs for recruitment, retention, and advancement for minority populations. When we dug in, however, it was difficult to identify new initiatives as opposed to expansion of existing initiatives. So if i could dig in, in my final minute, are there any new really new not expansion, and i applaud you included in your budget request some of what i tried to do last year, i want to acknowledge that. But after insisting a lot, i got the state departments latest diversity statistic for fulltime employment as of december 31st, 2015. Senior Foreign Service hispanic officers, 4. 58 . Senior executive service, 2. 6 . Foreign service generalists, 5. 49 . 5. 44 african american. Board service specialists, 8. 89 , but thats a smaller universe. And 8. 9 of african americans. That isnt progress. The Hispanic Community in this country is growing and represents 13 of the overall american population. So can you speak to me about what we are doing, this is something i raised with you when you were up with your nomination and have raised since, to change this reality. Senator, first, thank you for the words that you had for our department and the Foreign Service officers. It means a lot to them to hear people like you compliment their work. Second, on the issue weve discussed before and that youve raised on the diversity of our workforce, youre right, were expanding some of the things that were doing, because weve identified things that we think enhance the diversity of our workforce. So like you, we are trying to expand the pickering and wrangle fellowships, because we see that as a way to bring in more diverse officers. The trends are moving in the right direction, but we can only hire to attrition in the Foreign Service. Were only bringing in a couple hundred officers a year. So its going to take us a while to see the impact of really bringing in a more diverse workforce. I feel confident that were moving in the right direction. I dont look at the numbers and say weve accomplished our mission. Were increasing our budget request to do some is of those things. Were expanding the paid Internship Program that brings in underrepresented groups for two summers of service in the state department. Secretary kerry has asked all his assistant secretary level and above officers to do domestic recruiting trips, coordinating with our diplomats and residents, so were hitting the right places and were using the tools that we have to make the progress that we need. But we know we have a big challenge. And thats bringing in more people, but then ensuring that they stay and that theyre in the Senior Leadership positions. We just began a partnership with the Cox Foundation to evaluate our programs, we want to use our resources in the most effective way. Im encouraged theres progress. Im not satisfied with the result. As always, senators, want to take your good recommendations and advice because we share the objective and some of the frustration as well. I appreciate your answer, but after 24 years, ive heard much of the same. Thats two and a half decades, almost. This starts at the top. Like any organization, if at the top, you say to those below you, i will judge you in part by how you create diversity within your bureaus and departments, believe me, people will follow. And we just havent had that commitment. So i look forward to working with you and the committee to make it happen. Not for the diversity sake alone, but for what it brings to our foreign diplomacy. If i could, lets face it. When you come in as secretary of state, you want to be known for the diplomatic breakthroughs that you have. And its rare that we end up having a secretary of state that actually focuses on building an apartment and the care and feeding of the troops. Weve had one or two over short periods of time. But thats why i think having a state Department Authorization that stresses those things, and by law, forces those kind of things to be happening and then oversight here, matters a great deal. And i thank you again for leading that effort with Diplomatic Security on the front end and senator cardin and the rest of the committee, caring about us seeing this through. Senator gardner . Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you for being here to testify today. I just want to followup on a little bit of what senator brasso was talking about. Did congress approve the Green Climate fund . Senator, as i said previously, we reviewed with our lawyers, the authorities we had and had provided resources in occurrence with those authorities to meet right. But the fund itself. It went into an account. Did congress approve that account . We have the authorities but did congress approve it . They passed an appropriations bill that we reviewed the authorities of that we have used to make this payment. If i understand, money came out of somewhere, where did it come from . Its from the Economic Support Fund accounts. Which specific line items . Theres the fund the way the account works the Economic Support Fund does what . It supports programming in lots of Different Countries to address a lot of different issues related to Economic Growth and opportunity. So we took 500 million out of there all that money came from that . Correct. Its a very large account. Some of which is directed toward countries and programs and others that the department has the authority to allocate as it sees fit. So the department sees that allocation, sees fit to put it into a green fund that congress did not approve . Congress Congress Never approved a Green Climate fund, correct . We proposed a budget that included support for the Green Climate fund. Has that budget been approved . In fy has the president s we received an appropriations bill for fy 16 and from those resources, determined we could make this contribution, which we have done. But the Green Climate fund itself, yes or no, was it approved by congress . The congress authorized the Green Climate fund, no. Its not a so you did not authorize so how then, if congress did not authorize the Green Climate fund, as you just said, how can 500 million go to it . Did you notify congress of this . The payment that we made did not require a congressional notification from the traditional way that you notify funds through an appropriations process. Notifications have been made why would it not require . Authority didnt require it. Senator, wed be pleased to provide to you and other members of this committee the legal rationale for how we did this. Can all of that money be just repr reprogrammed by lawyers . No, it cant 54. 59 is the actual according to the documents. So, no, no. There are certain accounts and provisions that have to be notified to congress. Okay, so the Green Climate fund was not authorized by congress. No notification was given to congress of this. When were you planning on notifying congress of this . Senator, as i said, weve reviewed the authority and the process under which we can do it. And our lawyers and we have determined that we had the ability to do. And i pledge to you and other members, well be happy to provide that legal analysis and the additional details. So nothing is overfunded. You stated in your answer to senator brasso. But now you would then testify, with 500 million gone, is the account that you just mentioned now underfunded . Senator, i wouldnt say its underfunded. We proposed a budget that reflected contribution to the Green Climate fund, so as we submitted a budget that we received an appropriation above, so no, were not nothings overfunded. So nothings overfunded, nothings underfunded now . Of course we have to make tradeoffs in the budget all the time let me ask you this. Because i think this is the heart of the distrust between the executive branch and the legislative branch and id say this no matter who is in the administration. I dont care what party theyre in. We have a constitution that says appropriations are carried out by the legislative branch, and when you sit before the American People and say that the Green Climate fund was never approved by congress and 500 million just went to it, i dont think that lawyers can replace the constitution outside of lawyers dont they dont replace the constitutional requirements that congress approve these funds and this appropriation. That money could have been if theres money available, weve had arguments on the floor of the senate for the past several weeks, that, yes, this would take additional language, but that 500 million could have been put towards flint, michigan, with the appropriate language. If this is money that was a tradeoff, that would have gone to other nations, what about putting that toward flint, michigan . Sure it would require appropriate language. But what putting that money into an opiate bill that we talked about on the floor . Yes, it would take language by congress to make that law happen. But here we are, writing a 500 million check from an account in the state department to create a Green Climate fund that congress didnt approve, when weve been having arguments about where well spend this money. And we wonder why the American People dont trust congress, why they dont trust the administration, theres a perfect example of why. Couple of the other questions for you. I think in your testimony you stated that there was a breach of and ill quote, as the breach of our unclassified email system in 2014 demonstrated our adversaries see information habled by the government and other Government Departments and agencies as a desirable target. Protecting our information as we face Cyber Attacks is one of the departments top priorities. How much money is the state department requesting for Cyber Security efforts . Ill have to follow up and provide the exact amount, but we did ask for an increase and were undertaking several different lines of effort to improve the security and safety of our systems. Weve already implemented several measures and are working with a team of experts to both rearchitect some of the aspects of our system to make our information more secure and also ensure were learning across the federal government, the best tactics to provide security. So we asked for Additional Resources in our central i. T. Fund to make some upgrades that we were planning. Weve also looked across all of our systems, our consular systems, to identify those vulnerabilities and i wont speak in more detail about them, but its very comprehensive. How long did it take to root out the 2014 beach . Im sorry . How long did it take to figure out the 2014 breach . I dont have the exact amount of time but we can follow up with you and it may be appropriate to do it in a different setting. Thank you. Mr. Chairman . Thank you, sir. Senator shaheen. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you for being here, secretary higginbottom. I look forward, with the rest of the committee, for hearing the explanation for the transfer of funds to the Green Climate fund. Im very glad that the United States is taking action to address Climate Change. Im pleased we joined 180 nations in paris to come to an agreement in address climate. In my home state of new hampshire, were experiencing one of the warmest winters with the least no snow weve ever seen. Its impacting our ski industry, its impacting our wildlife, its having an impact on our energy use, and for those people who dont think we should be taking action to address Climate Change, i hope they would look at the science and recognize that this is a very important issue and its very important for us, and the administration, and in congress, to address it. So, thank you very much. I want to ask about the strategy behind the new Global Engagement center, which is replaced the counterterrorisms Strategic Communications center. Because one of i sit on both the Armed Services committee and this committee. One of the things thats come up repeatedly has been the ability of our enemies, whether it be isis, or other foreign powers, to use propaganda to promote their goals. And when i ask questions about what were doing in response to that, its very hard to get an answer that acknowledges the coordination that needs to go on, and how various departments and agencies are working together to address this concern. So can you talk about that, and can you also talk about how this Engagement Center is going to work with the department of homeland security, how youre going to work with efforts in the department of defense, to respond to both countering violent extremism and the other propaganda efforts that are under way . Yes. Thank you very much, senator. We took a hard look at the work that we were doing to counter violent extremist messaging and propaganda, and in partnership with the private sector and others, determined that we didnt have the right approach. And so the Global Engagement center, which is being led by a former assistant secretary from the department of defense, is really about Building Partnerships with both the private sector and countries around the world, because we recognize that while we have an Important Role to play in developing some content and working with our partners, were not always the best deliverer of those messages and we need to bring other people into this effort, and thats a big part of the approach. As you point out, this is a governmentwide effort, both countering violent extremism, but also in the messaging. So ensuring that this model is really about building the communication and getting the appropriate messages out, delivered by the right people, the more effective messengers. So weve changed how were doing this work, and in making this shift, consulted with some of the experts who in Silicon Valley and other places, who are very engaged in how you reach people over social media and have brought those Lessons Learned into this as well. And so do we have any recent Success Stories that we can speak to or specifics about how this is actually getting done . Senator, i hope we will soon. We have a lot of Success Stories about the hub and spokes that were establishing in different parts of the world, Southeast Asia and the middle east, to be our partners. But were just now standing up with assistant secretary lumpkin and his team, the real work. But weve laid a lot of the ground work. I hope we can update you soon with more specific examples of the success were having and why this approach is the right one to take. And i know that the broadcasting board of governors is designated as an independent agency, but clearly they are doing work thats very important to this effort, and the more coordinated we can be, the more successful we will be. So can you talk about how how what this new center will be doing, will be working with bbg on their efforts . Thank you, senator. The undersecretary for public diplomacy, rick stengel is on the bbg board and very engaged with their efforts, and also leading our effort with Michael Lumpkin on the Global Engagement center. So we have good coordination and means of communication there, but certainly we should understand all of the tools at our disposal. So theres a good way for us to communicate and do it in a way thats appropriate, given their independent nature. I want to go back and pick up on the issue that chris murphy raised or senator murphy raised about the refugee situation, because as we look at the increasing numbers of refugees, the threat that that poses to europe, to the eu, as we look at the challenges that our allies jordan and lebanon and turkey are having with their refugee camps, i would urge that we should be increasing those budgets, rather than decreasing them. Because if one of our allies in the middle east, who has significant numbers of refugees falls apart because of the numbers of refugees in that country, its gonna be a whole lot more expensive than increasing the funding that we have, can make in the humanitarian assistance they need. So can you speak to what more we ought to be doing to address that . Thank you, senator. The United States is largest contributor of humanitarian aid in the world. We dont see any scenario in which thats likely to change in the shortterm. But what we have recognized is that to really deal with the scale of the crises were facing now, we need more people more countries to be supporting the u. N. System, the humanitarian system, as well as to accept refugees. Even those countries that are doing a lot already. And certainly some of those that you mentioned, jordan, lebanon, others, are really on the front lines. But a lot of countries are doing a lot, and we need them to step up and do more. And the president will be working with the secretary to engage their colleagues around the world to get those commitments. And we see that as really the important step of making the system more efficient, aligning ourselves so that the u. N. System can be more effective but also trying to get additional countries into this space in whatever way they can. Whether its providing education or accepting refugees and humanitarian aid as well. And i certainly support that effort, but its hard to have conversations with some of the countries that were calling upon who come back and say, well, you know, the United States is accepting a very small number of refugees, the United States has not been willing to support lebanon, 25 of his population, for example, are refugees. So to say to a country like that, you need to be doing more, i think, given our size, given our budget, its hard to make that argument in a way that really is heard as being serious. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much. Senator cardin, ive had some additional comments and questions. Some comments, mr. Chairman. Thank you again for this hearing. The bottom line, we need to pass an authorization bill. In regards to the climate fund, i just really want to make a couple statements. First, i agree with transparenye with our committee, we need to be kept totally apprised. Climate change is a huge issue for the security of america. What happened in paris with 190 nations coming together was a major milestone. As we move forward, we need to find a bipartisan path where we support these efforts and many of us who strongly support what the administration is doing, have reached out and will continue to reach out so that we can have a bipartisan support for americas leadership on this issue. Its important to our National Security as our military suggests, its also important for our environmental legacy and our economic future. Having said that, the Legal Authority in regards to supporting the climate fund was never in doubt. I just remind the committee in the discussions on the omnibus appropriation bill, that was an issue, the president s authority. It was clear his authority would not be limited. And this is not a u. S. Fund, this is an international fund. This is not something that we created. It was an international effort. Weve contributed to International Refugee efforts that have been named and we have not authorized specifically appropriations to those funds. And the administration uses its authority that it has. I dont think this is that unusual, except it is controversial. I would agree with the chairman and i would urge the chairmans advice on transparency be adhered to because i agree with the chairman on that point. Well, thank you very much. Senator cardin, i appreciate that, and i appreciate you being here today. I know theres a lot of work we have to do together to craft something that we can actually put into law. Your testimony today has been helpful towards that end, we appreciate it and we look forward to you continually working with us until we get something across the finish line. I know there will be numbers of questions by other members, and if you could, first of all, without objection, the record will be open through the close of business thursday. If you could get back fairly quickly with responses, wed appreciate it. And again, we thank you and the people who are with you, for your service to our country, and with that, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Join us this thursday for live coverage of the white house state dinner for canadian Prime Minister justin trudeau, beginning at 6 15 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Former first Lady Nancy Reagan will lie in repose at the reagan library, wednesday and thursday. Funeral services will be held on friday. Well have live coverage starting at 2 00 p. M. Eastern. Every election cycle, were reminded how important it is for citizens to be informed. To me, cspan is a home for political junkies and a way to track the government as it happens. I think its a great way for us to stay informed. There are a lot of cspan fans on the hill. My colleagues, theyll say, i saw you on cspan. Theres so much more that cspan does to make sure that people outside the belt way know whats going on inside it. The Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in williams v. Pennsylvania. The case could set new standards for when judges must recuse themselves. Appealing his death sentence, Terrence Williams took his case of prosecutorial misconduct to the pennsylvania Supreme Court led by chief Justice Ronald castillo, the original District Attorney in his case. Justice castillo refused to step down. Arguments are about an hour. Well hear argument next in case 155040, williams versus pennsylvania. Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court, due process does not allow a District Attorney to make the decision to seek the Death Penalty against the defendant and then in the same case, become a judge of the conduct of the prosecutor who carried out that decision and obtained that result. In this case, when he was District Attorney, chief Justice Castille made a discretionary, individualized decision, based upon a review of the facts, that in his view, death was the appropriate sentence to seek. Does that make a difference, the nature of his decision . Lets say he had a policy, i think every case in which a defendant is convicted of firstdegree murder that we ought to seek the Death Penalty and leave it to the jury, but ill seek the Death Penalty in every case where theres a conviction of firstdegree murder. Would you have the same recusal problem . I think there would be, yes. Because that policy itself would be a decision that he makes. Pennsylvania law gives the District Attorney no, no. I know that. Its a categorical decision. In other words, he doesnt look at the particulars of that case. He has a policy that hes adopted, whether you think its a good policy or not, that doesnt depend upon the particular facts. Simply on the facts of what the conviction is. That would still raise due process concerns. Because that policy would have led to a major decision within the adversary process. What if the case was simply in the office and he had supervisory responsibility over everything that occurs in the office, but its a big office. If a question arose, somebody could bring it to him, but there isnt any indication of personal involvement, would that be enough . Supervisory authority might be enough, depending upon the issue. When the issue goes directly towards the conduct of the prosecutions in his office, it implicates the integrity of the office and the reputation of the leadership you see the problem in that narrow circumstance. The problem that is presented by this case is not is where this constitutional line is going to be drawn. You want us to get into get pretty deeply into the issue of a constitutional recusal policy for judges. So its really not enough to just say what happened here was bad. Lets assume that that is the case. Assume for the sake of argument. Im not saying one way or the other, but how far does this go . Thats what im interested in. So Supervisory Authority would be enough, but it depends on the issue. Why would it depend on the issue . Because the issue is directly related to that Supervisory Authority. What is the rule then that youre formulating so that we can answer Justice Alitos question and similar questions . Recusal is required when and then fill in the blank. When the prosecutor has direct substantial involvement in the decision before the court and the i thought that your particular position was that a judge cannot sit on any case, whereas the District Attorney he signed on to the Death Penalty. That would be, your honor, an appropriate decision for this court to reach, but its not a [ inaudible ] he was the District Attorney. He signed off on the Death Penalty. 20odd years later hes a judge, he cannot sit on that case. I thought that was your position. Our case takes that, but also looks at the other circumstances of the case. That includes the nature of the issue. But thats the linedrawing problem. Why does it matter that its the Death Penalty . What if it was not a capital case, but he signs the indictment . I think the Death Penalty only matters for eighth amendment purposes, if it was not a capital case, if he had direct, personal, participation in the case and faced an issue that was related to that level of participation, that involvement that he had, that would still be well, what if he signed the indictment . Im sorry . He signs the indictment. Lets say the former the then prosecutor signs the indictment and there are thousands of indictments in a county like philadelphia. So that would be enough . No. The signing of the indictment would not be enough. But if his assistants came to him and said, we dont know if we have enough evidence to charge this person with this crime, what do you think, and he said, ive reviewed the facts and theres enough to charge, go ahead. That would be the direct personal involvement as opposed to youre saying the signature would not be enough because that could be pro forma, is that what youre saying . Yes. What if you had a situation where he was directly involved in a matter that had nothing to do with the issue that came up later . If the assistant comes in and says, weve got a real question here. He wants a third extension of the trial date, and should we oppose it or not, and he thinks about it, and says, yeah, lets oppose it. 29 years later theres an issue about a brady violation. Is he recused from sitting on that brady violation case . If the decision he made was only about a procedural matter that had no substantive relationship to the crime, then that would be a much weaker court. In the absence of any much weaker. Can you give me a yes or no on my i would say no in the absence of any other circumstance, that would not be a due process under that answer, then why doesnt the brady violation problem drop out of the case . And thats not an argument an extra argument for recusal. Because i think, in this case, the brady violation goes directly to his role in making the decision, this is a brady violation about sentencing, and it relates to the decision he made to seek the Death Penalty, and in addition, it goes to his essential role as the chief prosecutor. Well, he didnt know about the brady violation. The brady violation basically occurred in the course of trial. Thats correct. The record doesnt show that he had any personal knowledge of the brady violation at the time, but a substantial brady violation certainly calls into question the integrity of the office as a whole, and not just the individual. Well, that doesnt follow with the rule that you gave me at the outset. You should recuse yourself when and now youre adding, if it involves a substantial question of the integrity of the office. In that case thats an added factor in your analysis . No. I think that in my analysis, its an issue that relates directly to the decision thats being made by the prosecutor. Their personal involvement. I guess im a little unclear as to what youre arguing. One rule could be, did the judge have some significant involvement in a critical trial decision as a lawyer. Is that your rule . Or are you adding something to that rule . That would be, i think, a rule consistent with this courts ruling in merchson, that a free society doesnt allow the prosecutor to become the judge of that, but i dont think thats a role you necessarily have to reach in this case. Caperton tells us to look at all, circumstan all circumst case. Thats what im suggesting here. I still dont see how the brady violation fits into the formula you want us to adopt. Unless youre amending it to say anything that involves the integrity of the office while you were head of the office. I think more importantly justice kennedy, that the brady violation fits in, because that is how the trial prosecutor carried out the decision that chief Justice Castille had made. And so her conduct in carrying out that decision has a direct relationship to the issue itself. We dont have a brady issue before us. The only issue is the recusal, right . Thats correct. All right. So we dont have the narrative of brady, if you are not in the case, but even the question that youre raising, do you have prior opportunities to do that . You didnt raise it when there were prior post conviction applications. So why arent you that we didnt raise the recusal issue, is that what youre asking me, your honor . Right. In the prior post conviction litigation, we didnt have the information that we have at this time, and thats the two critical pieces of evidence, information here. One is the memorandum that authorized the death sentence that showed the kinds of factors District Attorney castille looked at in making that decision, and show that it was he who made that decision