on the part of the 12 members of that supercommittee to fail and i still think they may pull something out. it doesn't go away if they fail. >> jack, thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] ..

>> he could have continued to rally the reform movement that now breaks out all over literally the world because of its frustration with the current way that the democracy doesn't function. >> hair regard law professor on money and its influence on washington sunday night on c-span's q&a. [inaudible conversations] >> at this house natural resources committee hearing, interior secretary, ken salazar, talks about oil and gas development on federal lands. he also discussed interior department policy on hydraulic manufacturing, and the administration's five year plan for offshore energy development. this is two hours and 40

minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. the chairman notes the presence of a quorum which under committee rule 3e is two member, and we have two members, greatly exceeded that. the committee on natural resources is meeting today to hear testimony today on an oversight hearing of the future of natural oil and gas development on federal lands and waters. under committee rule, 4a, opening statements are limited to the ranking member and the member of the committee, but i ask unanimous concept any members wishing to have an opening statement inserted into the record do so by the close of day. i now recognize myself five five minutes. i appreciate very much, mr. secretary, your being here to talk about the future of oil

and natural gas production on federal lands and federal waters. as this committee regularly pointed out, u.s. energy production is vital to creating jobs, strengthening our national security, and generating new federal revenue. that's why it's important to not only remove government hurdles that's standing in the way of increased energy production, but to explore new opportunities and new areas for energy production. there are two specific topics that i hope to focus on today. the interior department's potential regulation of hydraulic manufacturing on federal lands and the administration's new draft five-year offshore leasing plan unvailed last week. for the record, i ask the secretary to testify before the committee prior to interior department issuing new tionregulaor requirements involving fracturing, and i'm pleased, again, that the secretary is here at my request. i understand according to the news reports that those new regulations and requirements

come out at any time and we'll pursue that later. it's a responsibility of the committee to carefully examine this and ensure any action taken by the administration is within the law and takes into consideration the impacts on jobs, local community, states, revenue, and, of course, our economy. hydraulic fracturing is necessary to get it from resources, and it's been regulated by states for over 60 years, and the process today is responsible for 30% of our domestic oil and natural gas production. given that, president obama identified natural gas usage as an area he wants to seek bipartisan cooperation concerning the erroneous operations could curtail that cooperation and impede its development, but that's why we have the hearing today to

explore that. another proposal to examine is the administration's descraft five year -- draft five year leasing plan for the ocs. let me remind everything that in 2008, both congress and president lifted a decade's long ban on new offshore drilling creating new opportunities off the atlantic and pacific coast for energy production for job creation and, of course, new revenues to the federal government. unfortunately, these opportunities have been missed, i believe, by this administration. we have ignored the bipartisan will of congress and the american people to allow for new drilling off our coasts. the administration's draft plan only allows lease sales to occur in areas that were previously open, and indefinitely delays the virginia lease sale scheduled to take place next year. i'm sure wail hear about that in the hearing. the president put the moratorium back in place that left in 2008. it should be noted, also, that this plan is approximately two

years late. the plan was supposed to be for the 2010-2015 time frame with new sales starting in 2011. the administration's plan for six months and eventually delayed it for a couple years. despite that two year delay, there are no new areas offered in the draft plan. the administration took an extra two years to then offer less than what was originally proposed. in contrast, the house has passed three bipartisan bills to create over a million new jobs by providing access to our own u.s. energy and opening up new offshore areas for drilling that contain the most oil and natural gas resources. we'll hear today that the u.s. oil and natural gas production is at an all-time high, yet, that is true only because of the actions and policies of past administrations, both republican

and democratic administrations. they allowed for the leasing of production of the energy resources on public lands, and, of course, we cannot ignore the significant oil boom on private and state lands in south north dakota. we will not be able to meet our country's economic needs if restrictive policies are imposed that lock up our resources and keep us at the mercy of foreign sources with ore energy needs. once again, that is one of the reasons we want to explore for this hearing is look at what we can do on our prick lands. with that, i yield back my time and recognize the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. mr. secretary, it's a pleasure to welcome you back to the natural resources committee. last week, you released a five year plan for domestic offshore oil and gas drilling, and i was very pleased that the plan protects the east coast and

especially new england from offshore drilling for at least the next five years. the bp oil spill in the gulf that has many on the east coast renewing their opposition to drilling; however, i'm concerned that the plan does include new lease sales off of alaska even though the oil industry has not effectively proven that they can respond to a spill in the icy harsh conditions offshore in the arctic. as one example of the threats faced in alaskan waters, just last weekend, much of alaska was thrashed with a super storm that produced 40-foot waves and 100 miles per hour winds. now, while the administration has delayed those arctic lease sales until 2015, i will continue to monitor the progress the industry makes in developing its response capabilities and ensure that the interior

department is holding the industry to the highest safety standards in this sensitive area. all in all, this plan means that more than 75% of all offshore oil, gas, resources in the united states will be made available to oil and gas companies. yet, the republican majority continues to claim that the administration is locking up our resources. in reality, domestic oil production is at its highest level in nearly a decade. offshore oil production is higher than it was in the final years of the bush administration, and natural gas production is at an all-time high. the great irony is the majority is blocking access to the real resources americans need right now, additional revenue to reduce our budget deficit. it is the republican majority

that is protecting the billions of dollars we could retrieve from making oil and gas companies pay their fair share for drilling on our public lands. it is the republican majority that opposed democratic efforts to close free drilling loopholes and unnecessary tax breaks, and it is the republican majority that has consistently voted against reforming the 1872 mining law to require mining companies to pay a royalty to mine for gold and uranium or other minerals on the public lands of the american people. by protecting oil companies and preventing the government by collecting revenue, it's rightfully owed for the exploitation of the resources. the republicans are making our debt negotiations look a lot worse than the nba lockout.

later this week, the energy and minerals subcommittee holding a hearing on several republican bills that give away more public lands including the arctic national wildlife refuge to pay for a transportation bill. those bills will not come close to paying for the maintenance of the roads and bridges, but greeces the oil companies to continue making profits. this scheme is short on funds, and it is a bridge too far. that is not stopping them from trying to use funding for -- to use funding for our transportation prompts for an excuse to railroad give aways to those interested in congress. enough is enough. rather than balancing our budget on the backs of seenons and millions of americans struggling, we should be ensuring that oil companies are paying their fair share, and that is why i am introducing

legislation today that will end the free ride for oil and gas and miening companies on public lands. the legislation would reduce the deficit by nearly 19 billion over the next ten years just by ending taxpayer funded give aways for those companies. rather than complaining about a five year drilling plan that opens up more areas than oil companies could ever drill in that time, we believe that the majority should join with the democrats in creating the ten year plan we need to reduce the deficit and pay down our debt. i look forward to hearing from you, mr. secretary, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman for his opening statement, and once again, i thank the secretary of interior ken salazar for being here. you know the rules. we talk a little bit, and you divide your time with your opening statement, and we certainly want to do that, so, mr. secretary, we recognize you

for your opening statement and for mr. abbey and mr. tommy beaudreau are recognized. >> thank you very much, chairman, and ranking member, and members of the committee. i'm honored to appear before you today to engage in a dialogue about the nation's energy future. i'm joined here at the table by bob abbey, director of the bureau of land management overseeing 700 mineral lakes and surface acres, and bob abbey who oversees america's oceans and energy protection in the oceans. the president's plan with respect to energy has been in place for some time, and we have a simple goal as articulated. it's to secure the future of the united states of america. his goal and our goal of the administration is to power the u.s. economy and to reduce our

expense on foreign oil. the policy under pinnings of our goal and have been debated for a long time, but frankly, the goals have eluded the american country, the nation for a long time to come. those policy underpinnings are the economic security of the country. the national security of the united states, and the environmental security of this nation. what are we doing to get us to achieve those goals and those policy imperatives? we believe in a broad energy portfolio, one that does include oil and gas production. it includes alternative energy such as renewable energy, solar, wind, geothermal, and it includes the new chapter on nuclear energy. we also believe we cannot just produce our way to energy independence in our country, but we also have to use less, and as a consequence of that, the fuel first efficiency programs in place are delivering record

breaking programs with respect to transportation fuels. oil and gas has been a key part of the obama administration from the beginning. we are walking the dock, and the statistics prove it. we have produced, in 2010, the highest production since 2003 on oil, on public lands. the outer continental shelf increased in production one-third from 2008 to 2010, and offshore oil, there's been a 5% increase on public lands over the last two years. the future of production on public lands is something which we support. we have moved forward with on shore leasing across the country. in 2010, 33 lease sales and 2.2 million acres. 201, 32 lease sales, and 2012, 33 sales scheduled as well. we have more areas to be put on the market under the current

plan between now and the spring, and then the 2012-2017 plan has 15 lease sales also in that plan. the results are that we are producing more, and we are using less, and we have gotten to the point where for the first time in recent history, we are importing less than 50% of the oil from foreign countries. tommy beaudreau will speak to the offshore ocs plan for a couple minute, and bob abbey will speak to natural gas and frabbing for just a -- fraking for a couple minutes. >> the plan we put forward last week focuses on the thoan reserves and resources in america's oceans and looks to frontier areas like the areas in alaska. on the natural gas effort, it is as you said to chairman hastings, an area where there is work because the goal is to support usage and the issue is

the heal for the industry unless we move forward with a program that does disclose the chemicals that are injeghted into the underground. i'd like to turn it to director abbey for a few comments on what we've been doing. >> directer abbey, go ahead. >> thank you, chairman hastings, secretary, and members of the committee. i'm proud of the work the department is doing to diversify the portfolio by making great use of the public lands. solar, wind, hydropower, and gee mother mall will be great sources of energy. we are not -- given the reality,

the department of interior under taken much needed reforms in the program that makes available appropriate public lands for development, while providing greater certainty to industry that the lands are made available for leasing can be developed in a more timely manner. our reforms have been successful in reducing conflict, litigation, and protests that had adversely affected the development of oil and gas from public lands for years. today, we have an orderly process for leasing and developing oil and gas. parcels leased today have the greatest chance of being developed the quickest. while natural gas is part of the portfolio for years to come, the increased use of hydraulic fracturing on public and private lands understandably generated concerns among the public about possible impacts to water quality and availability. this was the primary concern that we heard from local

government officials and the public in community forums we hosted last spring in north dakota, colorado, and arkansas. over 90% of all the wells being drilled on public lands today are using this technology. it's, therefore, important we remain diligent in confirming the integrity of the well bore prior to hydraulic fracturing operation as well as monitoring the well bore in the process to ensure that underground water resources remain isolated and protected. the department of interior, as secretary eluded to, is committed to ensuring that development activities occurring on public lands are conducted in a safe and responsible matter that protecting human health and safety while bringing in a fair return to the american taxpayer for the development of their mineral assets. >> members of the committee, i

thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee today to discuss our proposed outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing program for 2012 to 2017. this is my first appearance before the committee, and so i'll start by introducing myself and new agency. i'm the directer of offshore energy management, boem, responsible for managing the environmentally sound development of conventional and renewable offshore energy ensuring the american public gets fair value of the use of the shared resources. in june 2010, while the response to the deepwater horizon spill was ongoing, i left my law practice to join the interior department. for the past 17 months i worked with secretary and director bromwich to implement the sweeping reform agenda making oil and gas development safer

and effective. i grew up in alaska where my father worked on the north slope. i was raised to appreciate the outdoors, hiking, hunting, and fishing in the last frontier. i was saddened by the exxon-valdez spill. i know about the critical role of energy development plays in the economy as well as the imperative this activity be conducted safely and with the appropriate protections for the environment. this same balance is the core mission and responsibility of the agency and it is fundamental to the 2017 leasing program we published last week. under this five year plan, we have scheduled 12 lease sales in the gulf of mexico where the oil and gas resources are abundant and well understood and the infrastructure to support responsible development is mature.

the first of the sales ump the new program is scheduled for next fall. we also have scheduled three potential lease sales in the alaskan ocs including one each in the boford sea and other areas. we designed the programs so that these sales will be dlitly tailored to the unique arctic environment where there's significant resource potential, but also where careful consideration must be begin to protecting those sensitive ecosystems and to respecting native alaskan's cultural and subsistence reliance on the ocean. we're embarking on an outreach campaign to engage with the public on the proposalled five year program. in december, we'll hold 13 public hearings in gulf states, alaska, and here in washington, d.c.. i will personally attend the hearings in new orleans, washington, and several alaskan villages so i hear firsthand the comments and concerns of members of the communities most directly

involved with and connected to offshore oil and gas leasing. goaf shore energy is and will continue to be a critical component of the united states domestic energy strategy. i join the secretary in expressing appreciation for your attention to the five year program and the opportunity to discuss it with you today. >> thank you very much, all three of you, for your opening statements. we begin the questioning. i recognize myself for five minutes. mr. secretary, there's been, obviously, a lot of institution on economic re-- discussion on economic recovery. as you know, we trieded the idea of stimulating the economy. i think the proof is in the pudding that that simply has not worked. there needs to be a new way to do it. the approach that we look at, at least from my perspective, i think a lot of members on probably most members of my side of the aisle is an effort to gamp start the economy, so one

way to jump start the economy is to recognize how important energy is to our economy. energy jobs are good paying jobs as you all know, and there's an aspect to having american-made energy. the reason i say this in context of what we talk about today, and if you put up the first slide that i have, the first slide here shows the united states -- that's -- put the slide up. as you recall for decades, there was a presidential and a congressional moratorium on the oc, cs. both those moratoriums went away at the start of the administration. these were the opportunities that i eluded to in my opening statements for production, and is essentially, everything you can see there is in the green,

in the eastern gulf was closed off until, i think, 2012 or 2021, whatever the figure is. that was the only one. everything else was an opportunity. the draft plan, put up the second slide now, your draft plan essentially takes away all of the outer continental shelf on the atlantic, and part of what was potentially open in alaska, and it puts restrictions, more restrictions while it is open. my quo to you when -- my question to you in your opening statement, you said that natural gas, the president has said that natural gas is part of the broad energy portfolio. when you contrast the two together, the third slide, you see them side by side. i, in all honestly,

mr. secretary, think that the plan compared to where the opportunities were going into this administration are, you know, maybe a kind word is " overwhelming," and i just want your comments on that. >> thank you very much, mr. hassics. two points, it's important for the congress and the united states not to have am amnesia about the deepwater horizon and the macondo well. it was, in fact, a national crisis that gripped the united states congress, the president's leadership, and the involvement of the administration and this industry brought the run away well under control, but what it showed it is there were significant issues that raised the conclusion, which i hope you agree with, that the oil and gas industry was not prepared to deal with that kind of a blowout. we've taken major steps with the major overhaul of the department of interior, formallerly mms

agency to ensure we have the appropriate oversight, and we'll work closely with industry to develop the strategies to be able to move forward to stand up production in the gulf of mexico once again. as we look at the maps put up there, congressman -- chairman hastings, we have tried to move forward in the way that's thoughtful given the lessons learned from the well, and the targeting of the gulf of mexico, a place where we have the best known available information and the best infrastructure is the best place in gas, oil development, and that's why there's 12 sales there. in the arctic, there's places we don't believe we should drill. bristol bay is off limits for five years because of the fact it's the place we belief should not move forward right now with oil and gas production. on the other hand, when you look at the bullford, we have to develop additional information,

and so we're doing that in a thoughtful way. >> thank you. i have one other question dealing with the organic legislation as we talked about. tomorrow, we'll be marking up that regulation, and because you were here today, on different issues, how do you feel about the importance of codifying or structuring that law as we have talked about real briefly? >> chairman hastings, long before the deepwater horizon, i sat at the same table suggesting to the committee that organic legislation was needed for the then mms. i continue to believe that to be the case today. >> good, thank you very much, mr. secretary, and thank you for your responses. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. over the past ten years, in the leasing of the last ten leases in the gulf of mexico dating

back to august of 2005, there's more than 39,000 tracks to oil companies to drill. of these, and that means oil companies are not bidding on 90% of the public lands offshore offered to them, and so, mr. secretary, if they are not drilling and bidding for the leases, what's going on out there? you identified those as areas that have oil under them, and yet 90 president of the areas -- 90% of the areas have no bid from the oil industry. >> the thing is there's vast acreages underleased and on shore as well under leased, but those places are not yet being developed, and so we put in place incentives in the new five

year plan to incentivize companies not to sit on acreage and not develop it. >> in the gulf of mexico lease sale in march of 2010, more than 75% of the tracks that received bids had only a single bid. that industry competition is typical unfortunately of most goaf shore lease sales. these are leases offered in areas in the gulf of mexico where there are nearly 80 million barrels of oil and gas reserves, but oil companies are not bidding for the leases. if the oil companies are not bidding on the vast majority of tracks offered in the gulf, should we be rushing to offer them new areas off the beaches in the east and west coast? >> congressman, our view on the implementation of ox, a lot to execute with respect to offshore energy is we have to take into consideration a number of

factors under the law. on the pacific, one of the requirements of the law is that we take into consideration the position of the states, and the states in washington and oregon and california are in strong opposition to development in those areas. on the atlantic, there is a mix of opinion and our decision has been to move forward with developing additional information on the atlantic before there's any decision made with leasing with respect to the mid and south atlantic. >> when the department released its five year plan, the "new york times" reported that, quote, "acknowledged the infrastructure did not now exist to prevent or respond to a major spill in the arctic." a response could be compromised by inclement weather, lack of -- shortage of vessels and oil transportation resources. the department was addressing those concerns, he said, and as a result, had scheduled any

possible lease sales in alaska for the end of the five year lease program. that's the "new york times" reporting. mr. secretary, if the oil spill response infrastructure that mr. hayes outlined is not in place in 2015, will the department move forward with those lease sales in arctic waters? >> you can always pull those lease sales if the infrastructure is not in place. we do have concerns about the coast guard capability in the north slope and in the north seas, and those are issues which we are involved in discussion with stake holders including the oil and gas industry. >> did the department's pressure releasing the plan say, quote q "the sales are expected in the five year period to further scientific study and data collection and longer term planning for infrastructure. the commission also concluded

scientific understanding of sensitive environments like the arctic is inadequate." what additional scientific study and data collection is needed in the arctic, and if it is not been completed by 2015, will the department move forward with the lease sales? >> good point. we need additional science to be developed, and i'll have directer beadreau answer that question. >> yeah. my agency, the bureau of ocean energy management is responsible for overseeing an environmental studies program that devotes millions of dollars to fund arctic research in particular. that research is being conducted with respect to issues such as climate change, issues such as marine mammal migration patterns and populations as well as ocean currents. all of this information is

necessary to inform decision making as development in the arctic proceeds, and as the scale of development may knacks over time depending on -- depending on the lease sales and depending on our evaluation of the preparedness. we will make those decisions at the appropriate time in the leasing schedule, and we'll evaluate the science as it stands at that time. >> the time expired. recognize the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, secretary, for being here. you mentioned with regard to hydraulic fraking that's the heal in the drilling of natural gas. when i came to congress in january of 2005, we didn't know the full extent of the shell,

the -- all these shells that produced tremendous amounts of natural gas. it is a way we can become independent from energy, from people that don't like us, and so we keep hearing ultimately what appears to be scare tactics. we had people say, gee, after hydraulics, we can smell natural gas in our drinking water. the epa overreacts, and we found out their actions were not born out by the scientific studies, and it would have certainly been news to the people in new london, texas, in my district, back in the 1930s that natural gas in its natural state had smell at all, because they didn't know it had a smell, and that's why the basement filled with natural gas, and a spark set it off, and it created the worse school disaster in american history, and it was because of that, legislation was

put in place, as you're surely aware, that began to require an injection of smell so that people could smell natural gas once it was brought out into production, so i'm just curious, i know there's a commission because people are not happy with the ones who said there's no relationship between hydraulic fracturing and hydraulic gas and drinking water. are you aware of any current, true scientific study that says otherwise? >> i'm aware there's been contamination from oil and natural gas wells into surface water supplies. >> talking about natural gas. >> that as well. >> it was not born out. >> let me answer, okay? we are talking with members of the industry as well as others about moving forward with a thoughtful rule. the policy objective we have in place is to be sportive --

>> so you're not answering the question. now, my question was very district. are you aware of any scientific studies? my time is limited. i don't have time -- >> let me give you the response. number one, we support the development -- >> that's not the answer, secretary. let's move on because you have no scientific studies that show it does that. that was the question. whether or not you support it was not the question. you can -- you can talk about that later on your time. >> i'm just going -- i have to respond to you. the ear banging that you are engaging in is not helpful. >> sir, now you're using up my time to filibuster, and you wouldn't answer the question. do you know of any scientific studies that support your position, yes or no? >> there ha been contamination of wells -- >> so the answer is you don't know of any scientific studies that document what you're alleges. thank you. let's move on to the deepwater

horizon. we know there was about 800 egregious violations by bp on deepwater horizon while exxon and shell and others had one or two. why was it that bp was allowed to keep drilling in such a hazardous situation with so many violations? >> congressman, the fact of the matter is that it happened to bp -- could have happened to other companies as well. >> there is no other companies, secretary, that had that many egregious violations, and, again, you're not answering my question. why were they allowed to do that? there was no other company that had that many violations. >> our goal is to stand up the oil and gas industry in the gulf of mexico. we succeeded in doing that. the rigs are back to work >> you sure have, you stood it up. >> the program is develop a robust natural gas portfolio

here in the country. we are supportive -- >> speaking of standing up oil and gas, the first thing you did as secretary, you came in and declared leases, 77 of them in utah that had been the result of a seven year process, were leased at the midnight hour, and therefore you breached the agreement, you canceled them, and you said you were not going to allow that to happen at the midnight hour. sir, were you aware of the seven year process that took place leading up, beginning in 2001, and leading up to the lease of those federal lands in utah? >> congressman, we believe that we had to drill in the right places with the right protections, and we ought not to be drilling in the vicinity or scenery -- >> i'm sorry, sir, did you not hear the question? were you aware of the seven year process leading up to what you called the midnight hour lease of the lands in utah? >> it was a midnight hour lease,

and i'm aware of the seven year process that had faults in it and it ended up in litigation. >> thank you for answering that question. >> the time expired. gentle lady from massachusetts is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, secretary ken salazar for being here with us today. i remember at our last meeting, you committed to coming to massachusetts, and i'm going to follow-up with you at some point begin our great national park there. i was pleased to see your announcement earlier this week names james watson as the new director of the bureau of safety and vieferltal en-- environmental enforcement, and i know he previously served as a deputy commander of the coast guard atlantic area command and was designated as a federal on-scene coordinator for the all of government response to the deepwater horizon disaster. i trust that he has the experience and leadership to ensure that offshore drilling is done in a safe and secure way. i also want to commend the

didn't's commitment to thorough and comprehensive oil spill response plan reviews and enforcement. i know this administration shares my view that we cannot allow risky drilling to take place in our public waterways. without oil companies, clearly demonstrating their ability to prevent, mitigate, or clean up any type of accident. it was a harsh lesson we learned with deepwater horizon. that's why i've introduced the safer drilling act requiring oil companies to have worst case scenario response plans and the financial and technical means to clean up any spill before they drill for oil out of ore coasts; however, as conman was discussing, your department granted shell oil additional approval of the plan to begin drilling exploratory wells in the sea off the north slope of alaska. i'm concerned that shell's oil response plan does not have an

acceptable worst case scenario plan in place, and specifically concerned that the company's worst case plan is based on conditions in august when storms are rare, and there's not sustained periods of darkness, and sea ice cover is limited. given this region is one of the harshest areas in the world to drill for oil and the proposed well sites are subject to fierce winds and high seas in the fall as well as severe storms like the record storm that recently battered the coast of alaska, what will your agency do to closely review and monitor shell's proposed activities to make sure the company has an adequate and comprehensive worse case scenario plan in place. >> thank you very much, congresswoman. i will come to massachusetts, and we'll visit the national park together. i thank you for the comments on admiral watson, a rare person to

be able to take on this responsibility we have for the world's ocean development. i'll have tommy beaudreau answer your question. >> yeah, thank you for the question. as you noted, the plan was conditional, and included among conditions, is shell demonstrates the ability to contain any spill or blowout related to their operation, and they'll have to prove that to us before they get a permit to drill. they also have to demonstrate before getting a permit to drill that they have adequate spill response, and that we're satisfied with their spill response plan. deputy secretary is overseeing a high level upper agency -- inner agency working group that is focused on shell's plan. involved in the working group, of course, is interior, my agency, as well as bessie, noaa, the epa, and we've been engaged

with specific concerns we have with respect to the plan, and they have to satisfy us that they adequately address those concerns before they get a drilling permit under that exploration plan. >> it's a very unique environment, so how do you develop your standards as to around what is appropriate or -- yeah, what works and what doesn't work given just the very difficult circumstances up there? >> it is -- there are challenges circumstances there. our regulations set, i believe, a very high bar with respect to spill response, and you have to pay attention to the particular challenges in the arctic when you evaluate the plan put forward. the -- some of the issues we're considering, for example, is the length of the drilling season to address that issue that you referred to. the legitimate question, what are you doing if there is an accident late in the drilling season. those are the typing of issues

we're focused on with shell right now. >> can you imagine a situation, your department considers every possibility and that shell can want come up with a plan to deal with the worst case scenario in which case you would not issue the permit? >> again, they have to satisfy us that their plan is adequate to deal with the proposed operations that they put forward. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the time expired. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and secretary, ken salazar, thank you for being here. it's good to talk to a fellow coloradoian. increased regulations lead to uncertainty that hinders the business to be able to expand and create jobs because it's harder to plan the future. with oil shell in particular, a recent study indicates that over 350 american jobs could be created by the development of the oil shell.

however, your department plans to issue hydrofracturing regulations that undoubtedly hinder this development, but also in the past, after coming into office, the administration changed the terms of oil shell leases making them so limited that industry has limit interest in these tracks of land. can you explain to the committee what economic analysis was used, if any, in making these decisions, and do you take job creation into effect when you issue regulations that have the effect of creating uncertainty and limiting business opportunities? >> congressman lamborn, i appreciate the question, and the fact is that oil shell and development of the oil shell resources in utah and wyoming are different than cracking tight gases and other formations in the country. with respect to the oil shale of western colorado, i think it's

important for everyone to remember there are some very significant questions that have not been answered including the impact of water supplies on the colorado river and other places, and so we've moved forward with pilot projects to develop the research and development, and there's a number of companies involved in at least colorado and utah developing tremendous research on the potential. with respect to your question on natural gas and fracturing, our program we have not yet put out on the table because we're still in the process of developing is not meant to impede the development of natural gas. it's meant to support the development of natural gas so that we don't end up in a circumstance where we end up seeing the kinds of moratoriums we are seeing proposed in different states around the country. >> does your department use economic seasonal sis like jobs created or jobs lost? >> we see the work we do in the department to be very connected to job creation and job security

in america and whether it's in the oil and gas arena or in the conservation world, we know the number of jobs created, and we have economic analysis and reports that i created over the last several years shared with members of congress as well as with others that show the tremendous impact that we do have on job creation in this country. >> but that's more in general terms. you don't apply that to particular regulations? >> you know, we look at that. i mean, the economic reality is something that we consider because of the fact that the president and the administration very much understand that the main challenge that we face here in the united states of america is job creation so we think about it every day. >> okay. well, i wish it was linked to the actual regulations when they were being formulated. changing the subject, knowing that the lead -- well, you said first of all in your opening state, in your written statement, oil production from the federal ocs increased by a third from 2008 to 2010, and the clear implication there is that

this administration is responsible for that in some way. knowing that the lead time for bringing oil protection to the market from offshore can be five to ten years, when you include the entire leasing and permitting process, how much of this one-third increase that you claim on behalf of president obama began under president obama, and how much of it began under the previous administration? >> you know, the policy of the united states including presidents like president clinton and president bush and president obama has been to move forward and develop the oil and gas resources of the gulf of mexico and about a third of the domestically produced oil and gas now comes from the gulf of mexico, so we have moved forward with a program that supported the development of oil and gas and weathered the major storm of the deepwater horizon where many people were calling for a shut down of oil and gas production in the gulf, and so the fact we were able to now have the rigs

back to work in the gulf of mexico, given the national crisis we went through, is something i'm very proud to accomplish. >> the specific question is when you claim on behalf of the president a one-third increase, how much of that is he really responsible for, if any? >> i would say we are all responsible for it. it's a shared accomplishment because the oil and gas production that we are seeing in the gulf of mexico, which has increased significantly over the last several years, is in large part dependent on the discovery that the oil and gas industry has made to move into deeper waters, so the discoveries made are good ones and there's efforts on exploration and development that we support. >> i like the fact you say this is shared and should continue from administration to administration and year to year, but when i see a claim being made that this president is responsible for this one-third increase, i don't see where that comes from. >> well, you know, the policy of the president is clear on

energy, and that's to develop a secure energy future for the united states, and as i said in the opening statement, it does include oil and gas as part of the energy portfolio, responsible for oil and gas development as well as alternative energy and fuel first efficiencies. >> the time expiredded. gentleman from maryland. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary, for being here. we appreciate it. the -- some of the questions you have been asked are, i think, based on a faulty premise, which is that environmental regulation and caution in terms of how we proceed with respect to potential impact on the environment is up -- inherent to economic development and jobs when, in fact, there's the tremendous amount of economic benefit that comes from smart stewardship of the environment. i come from a state that places the chez peek bay --

chesapeake bay as the number one treasure, and i have a lot of information about how valuable the chesapeake bay is to the economy of maryland and the states of the chesapeake bay water shed. i think it's valued at a trillion dollars in terms of what it generates for the economy. there is -- in terms of just the commercial seafood industry in mirs and vir, there's $2 million in sales, a million in income, and 41,000 in local jobs. if we don't do the right things by these natural resources we have, we could also undermind tremendous economic opportunity going forward, and i just wanted to put that on the record. i'm very concerned about the fact that we move carefully and smartly with respect to the development of the this hydraulic fracturing process for

extracting natural gas, and i understand that it represents a real opportunity as do you, and as does the administration. many regard natural gas as sort of the bridge from traditional dependence on fossil fuels of the certain kind to more renewable energies so there's great potential there. there's great promise, but if that promise is as tremendous as it appears to be, we need to move, i think, in a deliberate and careful way and make sure this practice is done properly and safely, and if you look at the shale, the sort of the recent gold rush opportunity that's being viewed from the natural gas industry, the -- the foot print it has over the chesapeake bay watershed is substantial. you're talking about new york, pennsylvania, west virginia, virginia, western maryland, imp kateed by this potential --

implicated by this posh, and so we have to -- potential, and so we have to ensure we're doing this in a smart and prudent way, and so i commend you for wanting to get more information about the process and for starters, just what's in this composition of chemicals that goes into the process, and as i understand it, the agency is going to be insisting on more disclosure with respect to the keep chemicals, and i hope also monitoring the effect of that on public lands, and that can set a good standard for how the industry ought to operate across the board, both on public lands and on non-public lands. i do want to point out that the industry keeps asserting that hydraulic -- there's all this evidence that hydraulic fracturing can't contaminate underground sources of drinking

water, but recently, the epa released data based on some study that it's been doing in wyoming, pavilion, wyoming, suggesting there's an aquifer there that has benzine levels, a known cars jen, 50 times higher that's considered safe in terms of the threshold, and they also found two ethanol evidence there and other cancer-causing chemicals in the drinking water, so this is a real potential harm that we have to be on the look out for, and i understand your testimony indicates the department is evaluating whether it would be beneficial to amend existing requirements with respect to the management of water produce, the sort of waste water produced from hydroprakturing, and when is the department planning on amending the requirements with respect to waste water, if you could just

speak to that. >> congressman, thank you for the questions, and first, i'll say, i agree we can both protect the environment and develop oil and gas resources on public lands and other places in the country. with respect to fracturing and the time line for us moving forward, we don't have a time line. we're still in the process of gathering information and putting together what will be a proposed rule, but we have taken advantage of the information that we've gotten from stakeholders including a summit on hydraulic prakturing or a form i had on hydraulic fracturing a year ago, and so the pieces are still coming together. there's three general subject areas. win is the well bore integrity. the second is the disclosure. the third would be dealing with what we call the full back water issues, but no final decisions have been made, and there will be continued processes to bring in the input from the

stakeholders. >> the time of the gentleman expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for joining us today. i thank you on behalf of the citizens of the commonwealth. thank you for your work and preserving the road this hampton, virginia. that's a great example of collaborative approach where folks get together, see a need, and the national monument destination now put in place allows us to preserve a very significant historic landmark there and it shows how we can come together and do what's best for the natural resources, and i'm sure you agree that this is really a result of broad citizen support and also a bipartisan approach from both federal, state, and local officials, and so it's a great opportunity there, and as was highlighted, i think it's going to create jobs for the region, and really, it's a win-win situation. if you look at that as an example, i think it sets the tone for what we can do with

offshore gas and oil development. look in virginia, you see the same situation. you see broad citizen support. you see bipartisan support for development of oil and gas in the offshore reason there in virginia. we think that's extraordinarily important as we go forward, and it was disappointing when the announcement came out on the 2012-2017 outer continental shelf leasing program that lease 220 in virginia was not a part of that. by excluding that, that takes away an opportunity for us to develop our fossil fuels offshore there, and that has a significant economic impact upwards of $20 billion annually and creates jobs and infrastructure there in order to be able to support that. i want to bring to your attention a letter from myself and other colleagues from the virginia congressional delegation to ask you to reconsider that determination

made on lease 220 and, mr. chairman, without objection, i'd like that to be entered into the record. >> without objection. it will be part of the record. >> i want to ask this -- as you look across the broad bipartisan support, you look at virginia, virginia legislature, local and state officials all said let's go forward with the lease 220, and we've seen citizens in the area, too. with that widespread support, i'm wondering why the department determined not to go forward with this in the 2012-2017 plan, and i want to get some of your reasons behind that. also, look too, and reasons given in the report as to why other areas were opened up like in the pacific, and it talked about the broad support there with local and state governments as a reason that those areas were going to be opened up, and i'm wondering is the broad support there in virginia less of a factor in making a

determination than broad support elsewhere when these determines were made? i'd like to get your perspective on that. >> thank you very much, congressman, and let me say i appreciate the work you do on the bird conservation. you're a leader with that as well as with senator pryor, and i appreciate the time you spend advancing the conservation agenda for hunters in the united states of america. ..

which is also so important not only for the country but virginia and at the same time look at additional information on the atlantic with respect to oil and gas retention. at this point in time in large part the conflict issues raised by the department of defense. >> let me ask this then. as the discussion takes place now we have offshore gas and development the discussions are taking place on the potential interference. it seems that there is an accelerated discussion on the windy side but not the same effort on the oil and gas development side are guarded say that both of them obviously are issues we need to address within may be other branches but they ought to both the pursuit at the same time. i think over the conflicts are very similar and to me there ought to be able to be taken up and those issues taken care of

in a fairly timely manner. it seems like to me, to spread this out over another five years is well, less than what we are capable of. we are capable of sitting down and getting those things done and i've. >> spoke with an leadership of the navy and they have said they want to pursue aggressively those discussions to make sure we get to a point to make sure we develop all of the potential on the continental shelf. >> the time of the -- real briefly mr. secretary if you want to respond to that. >> i don't have a disagreement with respect to making sure that we are being smart from the start including the continental shelf and so are working with the department defense and navy to give a significant information with respect not only -- but the seismic report that we are moving forward with those additional information on the planet. >> the gentleman from georgia you are recognized. >> mr. secretary the environmental protection agency

has proposed and is in the process of announcing regulations targeting traditional, and expensive sources of energy. the utility ball burr thd and see sap are among the more recent and well-known examples which will result not only in an increase in energy costs but results and natural gas being used for power generation and industrial manufacturing. are these rules a factor when considering access to natural gas production and if not, why? >> i would referred those questions to administrator jackson in terms of the epa. our own view is that there will be a robust demand for natural gas. >> what i'm asking and i apologize for interrupting you but please answer my question. are you and your department considering the epa rules and is

there any indication between you and epa on the rules they are trying to enact the regulations they are trying to enact which is going to reduce production of annie energy? as you all look at energy production particularly natural gas or anything else are you having communications with the epa on considering their rules and regulations that they are and acting on energy producers as well as the resource development? are you considering or communicating with the epa in any way on this? >> let me say that we have looked for ways in which we can work with epa to solve problems so for example on a major project in utah, the greater natural gas, natural gas project, we put together a best practices program that included epa and anadarko the developer and the result of those best

practices solutions were going to be a will to protect the environment in the company is going to be a will to move forward with development in excess of 3000 wells. >> mr. secretary you didn't answer my question. do you consider those regulations and do you have any communication with epa as you look forward to developing energy version resources under your jurisdiction? >> we have communications with epa but we also recognize that epa has authority and administrator jackson abides by the law and is moving forward in implementing her responsibility of her department. >> these interagency committee patients do indeed take place to you agreed is an apparent policy of this to increase the cost of energy and to dramatically limit domestic access to this energy resources? >> congressman, i would disagree with that. i believe that when you look at what we have done in terms of the robust energy portfolio for

the united states of america i think the facts speak for themselves. >> secretary i disagree with you in that regard. >> i am surprised. [laughter] >> well, the thing is, what appears to me is that the policies of this administration and increasing the cost of all of the energy production. we are we are not having access to and all of the above energy policy that will allow us to develop natural gas or clean coal technology as well as alternative forms of energy, and i see very little communication between agencies, between your agency as well as epa. the epa is making rules without consideration to the economic cost and even utilizing what appears to me to be junk science in forming their regulations.

so, what i see coming from not only from the epa but also your department, policies that are going to drive up the cost of all goods and services the cost of energy is going to go up and i think it is absolutely disastrous and it is going to cost thousands if not millions of jobs and it is going to hurt our economy and i highly recommend that you communicate with epa, you take into consideration these human elements of jobs and an economy as you all go forward. >> would the gentleman yield? be certainly. >> it seems to me the line of russian you are pursuing is very important because both the response of the secretary and i was at both agencies have the responsibility. the real course potentially is the issue of american job creation and american energy production as it relates to what

the epa influences and that seems to be a complex and i they think your line of questioning and correct me if i'm wrong was very simply how is the interaction between interior and epa and for lack of a better word, what is supposed to be the trump card as to what the policy is? is that a fair way to characterize what your statement was? >> absolutely mr. chairman and the answer i got from the secretary does not give me any confidence that there is any communication. >> mr. secretary in that line of questioning if you could respond that's was in writing on that the committee would be very appreciative of that. >> i will do that just to make a comment here in response to congressman brown mr. chairman. we work closely with epa on the number of initiatives. they have their own legal authority but i will give you two examples where we have worked very closely. you mention the one in utah where we are moving forward with natural gas development in a place that had been stalled because of litigation because of

the best practices program to put together and with respect to many other issues including the issue of hydraulic fracturing, we have continued dialogue with epa. so there's a tremendous amount of coordination that does in fact occur. >> the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary, as you know i represent louisiana, northwest louisiana, the area of the haynesville shale and to give you an idea of the impact that has had on oz, we have had an increase of close to 58,000 jobs just in 2009 a loan and from 2008 to 2009, exploration companies invested over $11.5 billion generated $642.3 million in state tax revenue, tremendous jim -- job mpac, tremendous economic

impact. we are talking about of course natural gas, shale formations, hydrofracking which is necessary and is the only way we get it out economically. hydrofracking has been around for 60 years. the epa took a look at it in 2005 and found absolutely no problems with it. it isn't a regulation in my state i.d. equal. we have 10 to 20 regulators moving about constantly to make sure all the right things are done or could there is a need to find out what is in the hydrofracking fluid, no problem with that being provided if needed. are you sir, aware of any deaths or serious injuries to humans as a result of the hundreds of thousands if not billions of episodes 60 years of hydrofracking that has been performed? >> no, i have not.

>> and, do you sir, can you tell me what is the depth of the typical aqua far, that is the water supply that is in the ground? v-8 inc. across the country would find variants. it would depend on the area that you are doing the drilling and i understand very much that the zones that are the hydrocarbon producing zones have produced natural gas are generally below the water supply zones for domestic usage. said that is why issues like well for integrity are so important as we move forward. >> i'm glad you mentioned that. how many levels of casing is rounded typical drilling rig in order to protect the drill hole from the aquifer it self? >> let me differ on that question to director abbey to see if he knows. >> i don't know the technical answer but i do know the bureau of land management is quite --

>> let me interrupt as i have more questions. these are very simple questions. how deep is an aquifer? isn't about 1000 the gentleman. this is something i should know. not. >> the aquifer aquifers vary from region to region. >> yeah that they are approximately in that range. how deep do we drill drilling me get down to the shale? how deep is that typically? >> in some cases it is 4000 feet. >> okay, two miles is actually more like it. so the point being that the aquifer, the water supply itself is way up at the surface of the earth and all the activity where the hydrofracking fluid is twitch by the way is 99.5% water and sand, is below the surface by about two miles, protected by rock formation. so, i think it is very easy to understand why no one has had serious harm as a result of it. we can speculate, we can talk about hypotheticals all the time

but the point here is it is a regulated industry. it is producing inexpensive energy. if you are doing a great job and it it is not harming people and certainly i would say the solyndra affair has harmed more people than hydrofracking hasn't 60 years, so i'm really at a loss to understand why now the interior department has got to jump in and begin regulating this and by the way served, the rules have been promised to us and yet to come out. everything the interior department touches located on on the ocs a little late are, have questions about that, causes delay in higher cost of production. so why is it that now in view of office that i have stated, wide now do we have to go out and add more red tape, more regulations when this country is in desperate need of jobs, good paying jobs and lower energy costs?

>> congressman fleming i appreciate the -- and respectfully disagree with their conclusions. the fact is we believe the natural gas is a very important part of our energy portfolio for the future. we also believe that disclosure is something that needs to be looked at so that we don't end up creating a circumstance where we see a moratoria created with natural gas development. well for integrity is essential to be able to ensure we don't have water quality -- >> sir you don't even know how layers of casing go around the trip -- typical drill so if the very top level doesn't know the basics of the technology, why's it that you somehow feel you can insinuate -- >> congressman fleming, having dealt with a lot of oil and gas wells including the macondo well there was a huge question about well for integrity on that particular well and it is a question that the face with every single well that is drilled. so the industry knows about well

for integrity and we inquired well for integrity and having that being a part of what we do as a regulator is regulators something we are examining. we have not yet reached a conclusion that we support natural gas development here in the united states. >> thank you mr. chairman and i yield back. >> the time the gentleman has expired. >> thank you secretary salazar for attending this hearing on the future of oil and gas development on lance. is a member of colorado i'm sure you understand by here for my constituents and i think you were in my shoes once in a related role. the valuable 8.4 million acres of land in colorado controlled by the bureau of land management are subject to a litany of federal regulations that have gone well beyond their purpose

of protecting lands that have become economically burdened. everyday i receive correspondence regarding the frustrations my constituents have with dom and the land-use regulations that hamper or suspend otherwise viable mineral and energy development. under the obama restriction, these restrictions have only inflamed an already tough situation while burdening an economy with an unemployment rate of 8.2%. this committee has developed several proposals and restrictions on promoting energy production. but have also crafted policies that will aid in both our deficit crisis and bringing down our high unemployment rate. is this administration serious about solving his problems and i

think it would be more proactive in working with the natural resources committee. however, the members of this committee and i are continuously turned back by the policies of the department of the interior and the presidents administration that not only add to the regulatory burden for domestic energy production -- i'm sorry that only add to the regulatory burdens for domestic energy production. we could create jobs, move towards energy independence and decrease federal revenues if we allow development to take place. this is no more apparent than in the recent decision by president obama and the state department to delay the keystone xl pipelined project. however this is ill-advised and this is really a purely political decision by the president who will do more --

that will do more than just economic harm but it will have a grave national security implications as well. president obama was persuaded in his decision not by the economic benefits of the project but by environmental interest groups. while the president waits until after the election in november of 2012, americans are looking for work now. the pipeline decision has to very important impact on americans both unnatural security and the future of viability of our economy. first as marine corps combat veteran i believe it's imperative we take into consideration the national security applications of our energy policy. the n currently imports roughly half, 50% of the petroleum we use in the natural resources committee has been at the forefront of trying to curb this dangerous dependence on foreign oil by crafting logical domestic

energy policies during the 112th congress. like many of the proposals my colleague and i have put forth, in this committee, the keystone pipeline project would help our nation reduce our dependency on sometimes hostile foreign sources of energy. and 2010 alone the united states imported comported over 1 trillion barrels of oil to the united states from opec countries. many of which have unstable governments. while i fully support greater american production, this pipelined is not only international best interest for national security, but economically beneficial to us as well. by increasing oil imports from canada, a secure, stable and long-standing friendly neighbor, the united states will have less to import from volatile, stable regimes overseas. secondly, many of my constituents and some of your former ones are looking to

congress for leadership. the national unemployment rate is 9.1% and there is very little proof this number will improve in the coming months. that is why it is so discouraging to see that president obama and the department of the interior have been so obstructionist when it comes to domestic energy development. instead of working with the natural resources committee your department has been making misleading statements about your energy reference. you continue to praise the amount of production and revenue that comes from oil and gas development on public lands with with the a bom has not approved a major oil and gas projects on public lands in the weston's 2010. your opinion piece in political on monday mr. secretary, you mentioned that onshore oil production from public land has increased 5%.

>> and you finish up for a briefly if you could? >> i would like to enter my statement in the record and mr. secretary, what plans, if you could submit this for the record since apparently it was too long, mr. secretary what plans in the analysis used for those plans if any does your apartment have to supplement the loss of production jobs and revenue that this delay will have? i would like for you mr. secretary to develop and send back to me in this committee a written response directly addressing these questions. >> if you will do that mr. secretary, it would be very appreciative since we did go over time on that one. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you mr. secretary for being here. was great seeing you down south in her district in the everglades and thank you for all your efforts on the everglades restoration. i would like to ask you about an issue that i think not only impacts, certainly impacts the

ecosystem in the southeast region of the united states and that is oil drilling off the coast of cuba. is my understanding that in order for -- on leases in the u.s. they must first be incorporated in the united states. is that correct? >> i don't know the answer to that question. >> recently, my staff contacted the bureau of ocean energy management in the bureau of land management to try to get a list of all foreign government owned companies that have leases in the united states. they were surprised to learn that the department doesn't keep a database of what companies are foreign government owned. the foreign government owned companies are just mixed in with the regular privately owned companies so i believe it will be useful to at least track these companies and could you

help me get that information? >> we willen let me ask for director abbey or beaudreau have any information? >> it is correct that in order to obtain a federal ops lease the company needs to be registered in the united states through the relevant state department. steve that's okay. it is want to make sure i can get the information on the foreign government owned companies if you could help me with that. teddy back. a few months ago i believe in june you are in spain's and spoke to officials regarding their proposed drilling plans in cuban waters, is that correct? steve mr. secretary that is correct. >> in that meeting or any other meeting to the topic come up to reiterate u.s. policy in doing business with state sponsors of terrorism or have any discussion to discourage their actions in

cuba? >> in our focus congressman rivera has been to make sure that we do everything within the legal boundaries that we can operate in to protect the environment and the people of the united states are ghosts be so, i would assume that to mean more of a cooperative effort to make sure -- which is important to make sure to do everything possible to ensure that you are telling me nothing was ever done by you to you to discourage their participation in collaborating with the state department in those offshore drilling efforts? >> we do not did not have authority over other countries in what they do with respect -- goes go. >> understand you can't stop them but did you ever try to discourage? >> or program congressman rivera has been to do everything with we can within our legal power. >> let's talk above the legal power. in terms of come and teach you

ever bring up having to prove industry and security also be allowed to inspect the rigs to be sure the export administration act and the export administration regulations 10% de minimis content rule were being respected speaking of legal authority? has that issue ever come up? >> congressman rivera this is an issue where the state department and other agencies have the lead and we are participating because of our expertise but i do not know whether those conversations took ways. i don't have an answer to your question. >> recently, recently a colleague of mine here along with chairman ileana ros-lehtinen, i would like to ask that letter be submitted for the record. >> without objection will be part of the record. >> is a great concern administration lied whether the urgency the state department or anyone else that no effort has been made to% a state sponsor of

terrorism to drill approximately 60 or 70 miles off of florida's coast and provide an economic aid and comfort to the dying castro dictatorship and i hope that in the future the administration will do everything to make sure that companies comply with sanctions that apply to distances that do cooperate with the sponsors of state terrorism. perhaps in your agency was drawing leases on federal lands and waters, that could be a start that certainly would send a signal that this type of activity is certainly frowned upon cooperating with terrorist regimes. finally mr. chairman i would like to draw attention and my college to legislation i've introduced with congresswoman ros-lehtinen and diaz-balart the foreign oil spill liability act that would apply the same responsibilities and liabilities and clean water act penalties, a responsible party would face to a foreign responsible party for

a his buildup of its u.s. waters and beaches. the penalties and liabilities would be triple currently the burden is much lower forcing the american taxpayer to cover the cleanup costs and members will contact my office if they wish for more information on that legislation. >> i thank the gentleman and the time is expired in the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. flores. [inaudible conversations] >> mr. flores move to another microphones we can pick this up since we have -- you can always move to the side

congressman flores. [laughter] >> one of the things to notice, there's lots of room over there. i would discourage that however. >> don't worry, i won't do that. secretary salazar, director abby and beaudreau thank you for joining us. i will get to these as quickly as they can. it like to start out by asking the staff to put up a chart that has lead times for leasing and drilling and production and while we are waiting on that, let me read to you what it specifies in terms of leasing plans. says a leasing plan is supposed to and i quote, meet national energy needs for the five-year period following its approval or disapproval, unquote. now if we look at this chart up here, there were two red diamonds in the green diamond and they are purple time point to look at. as you see up towards the of the chart you will see lease sale.

then if you drift down about four and half years to the middle of the chart you will see a green diamond that shows where discovery is made. if any of you go down to the lower right hand corner he will see a red diamond that shows when first production begins. the average time period for the lease sale to the first production is nine and a half years, so for this administration to take credit for a 30% increase in oil production i think it is beyond the pale. this is important because it leads into the next question. bonus revenues are the direct indicator of lease sale activity. in 2008 our bonus revenues for the federal government were $9.7 billion. last year it was about $1.2 billion this year is less than $100 million. now, in light of that and this chart, what does the department of the interior project that oil

production is going to be from the offshore in light of your new lease sale and then we will drill into that a little further what is going to be in terms of employment activity, oil and gas prices, gdp impacted things like that? what economic analysis to you have that backs up your proposal -- proposed leasing plan particularly with respect to production? ..

in order to continue the development. >> you have any production numbers, estimates that you can share? >> let me ask director tommy beaudreau. we probably do. >> the gia puts up production estimates that speak for the administration in terms of production. >> and have they -- on going to run out of time, have they baked in the last? >> no. they're not baked in the last resell plan immobile with a do red flag is projections both offshore and onshore based on areas under current production. >> what we need to do, to the extent you can put this together, i would like to see analysis that makes in the current plan because that is important. the rubber meets the road in terms of production. the lease sales, you can see from this chart, the ultimate prerequisite to production from public land and waters. i want to go through area by area on the approach that was

taken. in alaska it says that there a single sales take into account significant inventory of yet undeveloped leases. now, in a couple of words wire those areas undeveloped today? >> they're undeveloped because there is not the infrastructure to develop them. the findings have not been made to move forward. >> permits. >> for instance, shell has been trying for years and can i get one from the epa. so federal government is causing the problem. so that is why it is undeveloped let's go to the next and. in the pacific, areas of the pacific coast including the proposed program which it ships to accommodate the recommendations of governors of coastal state and state and local agencies and an important priority established. right?

so we paid attention to the governor's and local interests this so we don't you to drill here. and so you said, okay. i can drill here, right? >> that is one factor. there are others involved as well. >> now let's move to the atlantic. in the atlantic it says the numbers of specific considerations supported the secretary's decision to not include these areas, including lack of infrastructure, block, block, block. now, virginia has specifically said we're ready to go. we would like to drill. now, the reason that was given is -- and let me put this in a real estate developers terms. i'm going to develop a new subdivision. you are saying that because the developer has not put in the streets and sewer systems we will not sell and the land. that does not make sense. that is backwards. you have to have the leases as a prerequisite before any of the

infrastructure is there break? >> the reality of virginia, spoke to congressman woodman and his questioning. that is, you have very significant conflicts with the military needs that are so important to the country. we will do anything that is going to step back on supporting the needs. >> okay. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the salomon from louisiana. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. secretary. i want to commend you and thank you and your staff for getting involved. a meeting down in a regional office in new orleans because i believe it is important for congress. it is congress's role to regulate the regulators. i appreciate you being involved in seeing that it is important to allow congressman to visit

the regional offices can so forth, so i think you. i don't know if you had a chance to read the wall street journal today, but there was an article that said that cruises just shy of $100. if you read through the article you will see that the reason that crude prices are escalating , according to the wall street journal, which is a periodical that they like to use about a month ago, telling us that there were back to work. they said that the reason that crude prices are up is that domestic supplies are on their way down. they are predicting that the best domestic production, domestic production is on the decline. in d.c., last year i explained -- i sent to my comment. i don't think the administration keeps turn with the oil and gas industry on and off like a light switch. and i think that this article is one of many that starts to

improve that i am right and prove that you are putting us in a precarious situation because if oil is at $100 per barrel today, okay, when we are at this low drive, when gasoline prices start to decline, god help us in may, june, july, which, of course, is at the time when you bought. i think he's very sensitive. so i think that this is an opportunity for us to recognize that we have to increase our production and open up some additional areas. now, these sales can generate significant revenue for the federal government. we have heard that. what kind of impact would lease sale to 22 if allowed to move forward make our economy and our demands for energy in this country? >> to 20 in virginia?

>> yes. 222, i think it is. >> to 22 were to 20? >> 222. >> 222. it is an upcoming lease-sale in the gulf that was opened up under an act -- >> right, but it is not being conducted in 2012. >> it is part of our 2012-2017 plan. >> but the lease sale is not going to be conducted in 2012. it will not be. >> of me ask the director. >> there will be a western gulf lease sale on december 14th of this year. next year in may or june there will be a consolidated central sale which, as reflected in the national assessment that ranking member markey displayed at the beginning of this hearing is actually the richest area of the gulf. that is a consolidated sales

will take place. >> as you say, it actually will occur this year. it is yes or no because i don't have a lot of time. >> yes. we are putting out, as a matter of fact, something based on that >> great. thank you. let me ask you this question, did you consider in your five-year plan addressing the needs of those players and directly affected by the subsequent moratorium? such as shallow water operators and lease extensions? that this kind of where i am trying to go. i know you gave some instances to 99 percent of the stakeholders in deep water, but we have gotten no answer as to the shallow water players, whether those, because they were indirectly affected, if we would extend their leases as we did the deepwater players. >> let me answer one of your questions. why dollars and the value of crude and the "wall street journal" article, and i will respond directly to your last question. the price of oil is set on the

global market, and the programs we put out is one that is going to bring additional energy production here to the united states. >> i hate to stop you. i mean, that is partially true, but crude has actually been -- there has been a significant gap between crude and the intermediate which is over at cummings'. and so the price in this article you will see that the price i am talking about is american crude that is being priced. so they are saying that the reason is going up is because of domestic supply going down. so that is in effect directly based upon domestic production. when libya was taken off the market the brent crude shut up.

the differences between the two. >> i would only say, congressman, but the facts speak for themselves. we are moving forward with production of oil and gas and continue to produce more today than we produced even two years ago. >> the gentleman has expired. it's a woman from nevada. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, mr. secretary. i have gone over your opening statement. i have a couple of questions based upon that. you indicated in the introductions dead the president stressed the administration is committed to promoting safe reductions as part of a broad energy strategy that will protect consumers from what? >> we need to make sure that we address the goal of the nation's energy security. that is the essence of the president's and come.

at the heart of it is national security economic security and environmental security, and it is an issue that has been debated for a long time. the fact is that we are making real progress on all aspects of getting this energy security. >> it is kind of protective from those three things, national, economic, environmental, national defense, economic and environmental security. my words, not yours, but generally the ballpark? >> i don't know specifically with that we are referring to in the statement. maybe you can refresh. >> i don't want to spend a lot of time on it, but your statement said one of the objectives is to protect consumers, saw want to know what you're protecting consumers from as a result of what we are discussing here today. >> i think consumers have been protected in a variety of ways, including the fact that this president has been able to achieve the highest fuel efficiency efforts in the history of the united states of america, and the support of the auto industry as well as many

others who were involved in those decisions. the fact that we are becoming a nation that is producing cars that are being now sold to a health the automotive industry is one of those ways in which consumers are being protected. >> thank you. >> if you have anything to follow up in terms of economics, if i could get that offline i would appreciate it in terms of jobs, whether it is energy production, the production, whatever other protections. i know this is a limited time frame. i would appreciate that. i also know later on and we're talking about the fraction, the epic team issues, page four of your statement, maybe you will understand my sensitivity to this a line that says in addition we are evaluating whether it would be beneficial to amend the existing requirements that cover management of water that is produced following developments. everyone knows there is no coastline on nevada. mr. abbey can understand their is a little bit of energy

production and thus overstate, but when a guy whose state relies extensively on ground water, a federal agency started to talk about management of water that is produced from drilling, would like you to, wherever it may be, just give me some sense of what management of water produced following development of what is joined because i am interested in knowing whether said it. >> thank you, congressman. it is not at all a member to be given to state water. the sovereign nature, but i want to recommend that. >> that hits as much as the wanted it. with your permission i would like to yield back the rest of my time to read salman from texas. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> and the latest lease plan,

there is a proposal to change the form of lease. i am concerned about what we have here. let me ask you this. did you get any public or six holder feedback on your proposed changes? >> director. >> yes. the specifically in days including api on the release form prior to publication. we received a letter from api and laying out questions and concerns that they had about the amendment, and then i invited a pin to sit down and go over the issues with me and with my staff , and we did that before making any final decisions. >> okay. i have read the same letter, and it does not look like any of the proposals, many of the concerns that they have are just. in particular, one of the areas i am concerned about is the proposed changes to section one of the lease form. it looks like they're totally on

lawful with effect to section 5a . i am concerned. i mean, how are we going to implement release form that has an awful provision? >> the amendment to section one of the lease form is not unlawful. in fact, it essentially speaks to the truism, which is that an operator who acquires a lease is subject to regulation and any changes in regulation that may occur in the future that did not specifically conflict with the terms of the lease, that is an in arguable position in my view, and, yet, it is a position in litigation companies, so this is to make completely clear that in addition to the requirements of the lease operators are required to comply with regulations. most responsible companies would not have an objection. >> the time for the cinema has expired and no one ever wants to have an opportunity.

this element from ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary, for being here today. mr. secretary, you're probably aware that i introduced legislation called a world war ii memorial prayer act of 2011 that would direct you were future secretaries of the interior to place a plaque for an inscription of the prayer that president roosevelt prayed with the nation on the morning of d-day on november 3rd director abbey testified before one of our subcommittees' on behalf of your department regarding h.r. 27, this piece of legislation. in the department's testimony its ability to clearly can play

that messes to move, educate, and inspired many visitors. mr. secretary, do you agree with your department's assessment that by adding president roosevelt's prayer to the world war ii memorial that it would dilute the message of the memorial? yes or no because i have a lot of other questions. >> let me just give you an answer to your question. >> a simple question, do you agree with your department's decision? >> we have to fall law. >> the law has been amended twice. we know what the law is. the law is what congress gives you. >> change the law as it has done. >> i don't want you to "a long. of one to answer my question. do you agree with your departments testimony that will dilute the central message of the world war two memorial? >> i agree the plot -- >> yes or no, do you agree with your department testimony that it will dilute the central message of the moral?

>> i have not seen the testimony. i am certain that they are abiding by the law. >> i'm not interested in the law. we know what the law is because we give you the law. what of want to know is, do you agree with your department's position in the administration's position that putting on mobile courts immemorial franklin roosevelt's dj premier the central message of the world war ii memorial. >> i have not seen the testimony >> and telling you what the testimony is. mr. abbey is sitting right there. can you a acknowledged that is what you said? >> this is a matter that is within the province. >> your not points answer my question. you're going to filibuster, just like you have done so many other times today. >> i would be happy to work with you to find a congressional resolution to your issue. >> zero one is an answer.

your department has said that putting that prayer will necessarily dilutes the central message of the memorial. is it your position, and do you concur with that position? putting the president's -- >> suspend. i know that this is important to him, and i want to know that answer also appears to be in conflict, but i do want to at least be respectful because the topic of this hearing was energy development. but i think, mr. secretary, there needs to be a response to that because clearly it is a conflict here. so i just want to bring this back. i know i certainly share that passion. >> if i may, let me answer that more specifically. the first thing is, in my own personal view it does not. >> that's all i need to know. in order to be able to move forward with what you have

suggested it would take an act of congress. >> and that's what we're going to give you. that's what we're trying to give you here. mr. secretary, did you have the solicitor's office prepare a written opinion regarding the legality of merging the office of surface mining with the bureau of land management? >> i had many conversations with the solicitor. >> do you have a written opinion from them? >> what we are doing is lawful. >> have you gotten a written -- we will determine whether it is lawful. the courts will, i guess somebody will. i submit to you that it is not, but have you asked for and received a written opinion by the solicitor? >> i have had many legal -- >> of u.s. for and received a written opinion by the solicitor? because a lesson on this subject came up with a merger there was a written analysis which basically said you don't have the authority to merge departments like this. have you received a written --

>> i will tell you my legal conclusion. >> i don't want a legal conclusion. want to know if you have gotten one from the solicitor. >> i have read legal opinions. >> have you gotten a written opinion, yes or no? >> congressman johnson, i have absolutely -- >> in your opinion right now, not interested in your opinion because we already know what that is. >> and i, frankly, am not interested in your your bank. >> yes or no? >> i am very comfortable in the legal position. >> it's clear we're not going to give any answers. maybe you can get one. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson. >> thank you. mr. secretary, today, natural gases, believe, $3.22.

available to citizens of this country. a few years ago, the overthrow with $13, though long ago. today we have access to clean, reliable, american produced energy. as a look at what made that difference camino, which made that possible, it really comes down to private land and private citizens. frankly, the public lands and government employees. i don't think it best and treated in any way, so my question, first question that i have, if then other domestic production some that provided the use of portable, clean energy for our citizens for a federal land is that a private plans, with natural gas prices below $03.32 a day? >> a combination of production from both private land and public, and there is significant

reduction of natural-gas. as the director stated, 90 percent of the wealth -- >> but my question, -- >> the ones that have been drilled on public lands. >> and i understand that, but when you look at the private plans today because of what the private plans have been doing and the jurisdiction of the state's, the transition, my next question, your verbal testimony, you talk about hydro fretting and understandably raised concerns. so real quick, to delve into that a little bit. how many years have we been fracking? >> several decades. >> how many wells worldwide since the advent? >> i don't know the answers as far as worldwide. >> let me help you, 2 million. >> are welcome.

>> how many have been in the united states of america? >> i don't know. >> let me help you there, half. 1 million. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. what is the scientific data? we will be back up one. what is the number of incidents, specifically that have created problems from high-growth writing itself? the actual process? >> i can speak to a federal. we are not aware of any incident as a result of hydrological. >> okay. great. >> what is the scientific data validating this concern that you referenced in your testimony? >> and underwhelm. >> demonstrating actual incidence of the problems. you said that there were zero

incidents. >> federal. >> a mile last question for you, coming back your statement, however you define, understandably? >> by listening to the public. >> okay. all right. on not even going to go there. number two. >> i'm going to submit, mr. chairman, an article on the leases in the national forest. recently the united states forest, i know we're talking here. bear with me. the u.s. forest service proposed a total ban on horizontal drilling for the georgian national forest of virginia, and this article talks about leases delayed. i just want to clarify, based on our past, believe that when it is public land, subsurface oil, gas, under the jurisdiction of

blm. >> that's correct. >> in that clarification given the situation with the four service proposing the total ban on horizontal on public subsurface owned by the taxpayer's george washington national forest and now we have the way national force in ohio. it sits atop significant gas reserves. the blm and consult with the united states for a service of the department of order culture, regulation rather than through another moratorium on drilling on public lands which causes of jobs in government revenue and frankly my specific question is, as in this poor supervisors to play outside the grounds of his or her responsibility and jurisdiction? >> i will let the forest service answer that question. let me share with you that the bureau of land management is a corporate and agency to the analysis performed by the u.s.

for service as it relates to oil and gas drilling and leasing. it is our finding in both situations that horizontal drilling is an appropriate action under federal minerals. we do refer back or defer back to the managing agents attacked a final determination, but i know say that horizontal drilling would be appropriate. >> i appreciate that. the agricultural subcommittee. the third article. without objection so ordered. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, you have been in office now for nearly three years. i look at the overall approach the you have taken to energy production. he delayed the keystone xl pipeline now in definitely. you impose an economically devastating drilling moratorium in the gulf.

you obstructed oil development in the arctic. you just issued a highly restrictive offshore leasing plan. you are attempting to destroy a major hydroelectric dams and enormous costs. i am wondering how these actions helped the u.s. economy, how did they help americans find jobs that they so desperately need? >> congressman, i would disagree with your conclusions and assertions. the fact of the matter is we move forward with a robust energy program that has a very diverse energy portfolio. >> this is what you describe as a robust energy program. >> moving forward. >> let me ask you this, how do these actions reduce our dependency on foreign oil? >> the facts speak for themselves. if one preserves the truths of the facts, we are importing less loyal than we were several years ago. the first time a long time that we go to an import level. >> with you and i both know that a result of efficiency.

>> it began ten years ago. and what we are now watching is the administration systematically shutting off our future will development by these actions. let me go on. >> i respectfully disagree. >> i understand. >> according to opening up these additional areas including the original offshore leasing plans exempted from your announced plan could result in the addition of approximately 30 billion barrels of oil equivalent, $24 billion in government revenues per year and 550,000 jobs for the american people. in fact, you looked at the overall energy situation, returning to pro development policies. produced $800 billion in government revenue, 35 billion barrels of oil equivalent. nearly one and a half million u.s. jobs. what is needed to convince this administration that our people desperately need jobs, permanent, tax paying jobs? ..

>> mr. secretary and perhaps this might apply to you as well, director abbey. i like to ask you a issue important in our part. world and western colorado in particular. as you know, mr. secretary, right now the bureau of land management is the in process of taking public comment on draft resource management plan for the planning area overseen by the colorado river valley office. and again, as you know, most of that planning area covers more than 500,000 acres of public lands in an energy rich area of western colorado. this happens to be obviously a very economically challenged area right now. we have grand junction. it was just reported in "the

new york times", that this regional economic hub in western colorado leads the nation in job losses. these are tough economic times. folks are trying to get their arms around the plan that the blm is asking for comment on. the expiration of the comment period has been a 90-day comment period. it will expire around the end of the holidays here. note the blm frequently extend comment period when asked and a number of stakeholders out in western colorado in particular, have or will soon make a request the blm with respect to the colorado river valley plan extend that comment period. is this something you would support and if, when do you think we might be able to have a definitive answer extending that comment period? >> director abbey? >> congressman, if you would, send me a written request i would certainly entertain it in likelihood approving that

request would be granted. >> likelihood approving it. >> yes. >> thank you, director abbey. appreciate that. i like to go back to a couple questions and revisit them. secretary salazar in your testimony in terms of answering a few questions about well bore integrity. and importance of being able to protect that. you also commented we do not have one instance of the fracking process getting into our water reserves, into the water table. do we have any examples to where well bore integrity has been breached when it comes to protect water in terms of fracking process in the united states? >> congressman tipton, there are examples of well bore integrity and contamination of wells with respect to hydraulic fracking and the contamination of wells, there is a possibility that water could be contaminated if a well does not have well bore integrity.

so that is why it is important --. >> you just heard, i think congressman thompson mentioned we had well over a million wells drilled with fracking. >> in the united states. >> in the united states. have any of those shown any well bore lacking integrity when it comes to the fracking process? >> congressman tipton, i think that the most important thing that we could do in a bipartisan way is to move forward in a man they're supports the natural gas industry that allows a bupt dantly available domestic resource to be used. in my view some of these issues will have to be addressed in order for us to be able to move forward with a robust natural gas domestic energy supply. >> i respect your statement on that. and the answer effectively was no. we haven't had any problem with the integrity when it comes to the fracking process. i agree with bipartisan end of it. we all want clean air. we all want clean water. to be able to protect that

as well but all of our states have decades of experience when it comes to dealing with well construction and fracking. in fact the interstate oil and gas compact, commissioner, has a program called stronger. are you familiar with that? to help insure that state regulations are up-to-date and the states are fully supportive in those regulatory efforts. why do you think the department of interior is going to be able to do a better jobs than our states in terms of regulating it? a lot of us believe nobody cares more than the people at home when it comes to be able to protect those issues. we have those regulatory process in state. why are you pushing for the department of interior? >> we have a responsibility, congressman tipton, to make sure that we are protecting the lands on behalf of the american people and in so doing, it is important that we assure that oil and gas drilling and production is done in a safe and responsible manner. >> as it applies to fracking

apparently that job has been done. >> i would say that you have an open question with respect to several of these issues and that's why we have been involved in a long process that began with a forum that hosted at the department of interior to take a look at this issue. i will also say that the industry in many ways has decided that disclosure is also important. so part of the website and frac focus program they put together is a part of that. we've seen states from wyoming to texas move forward with disclosure programs. we have not landed yet on what kind of disclosure we might require. that is part of the ongoing process we have under consideration. >> great. if i could have the chair's indulgence. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. gentlelady from california. miss napolitano. >> thank you, mr. chair. glad to see you, mr. secretary. it has been a while.

hope we haven't forgotten us in california. >> i never forget california. i don't forget washington. >> well, i'll be calling you. one of the things that brought to my attention is the "washington post" today indicated that there was another, that, chevron has halted drilling off the coast of brazil because of an underwater oil leak. the operator is transcon. the same company operating the deepwater horizon rig. do you have any information on that, number one? what can you tell us about it and if transcon, transocean was the one that had another oil spill offshore resulting from well drilling operations, should we be looking at another, taking another look at their operations? >> congresswoman napolitano,

i'm not familiar with this most recent story that you, that you allude to. i will say this. that at the end of the day we know that developing oil and gas in the oceans of the world is not a risk-free activity. and it, therefore requires us, both in the executive branch as well as in congress to make sure we're moving forward with safe and responsible oil and gas development and that's why we have led the largest overhaul in the nation's programs on offshore energy development. >> thank you. it is real serious, possible way of, of doing business by transocean that we should possibly continue to look at their, their operation. but earlier the gentleman from texas showed a chart that i wasn't here to say but you i understand it was

shown detailing steps must be taken in order to move a lease from first production and average time of the company to bring, after being awarded a lease to the first production shown to be 9.5 years but the steps outlined, acquire and interpret three deand other data and find partners to share cost and drill exploratory well and contract the drill rig, almost all steps are actions to be taken by the company, not the government, is that right? >> director? >> a lot of those steps require actions by the companies. even seismic surveys go through a permitting process that my agency and the interior department's involve with but the big picture and the big answer is that we have initiated a number of pro-development initiatives to encourage early operation of these

leases, early exploration, early development of the leases. that's reflected in the lease terms that we've applied and will apply in the upcoming gulf of mexico sales. >> thank you. and then, but, in response to my question wouldn't it be, the oil companies to their benefit to speed up their completion of these steps if they wanted to begin producing more quickly? >> yes. and we're implementing policies to encourage them to do that. >> mr. secretary, should we not look at incentives to shorten lease time and move production forward quickly? >> congresswoman napolitano, the answer to that is yes and in fact those are some of the reforms made by the bureau of ocean energy management as we move forward. it is our view we ought not to have idle acreage sitting out there and we ought to do everything we can to move forward with encouraging oil and gas production and in right places and right ways.

>> thank you very much. i've just, came in, late because i was at the transportation hearing on hydro fracking, hydro, well, hydrofracking. some of the questions being put back and forth that epa is took heavy-handed in some areas and states should have the rights to be able to implement their own standards. my concern and i voiced this was that some of the pools left behind by the water that is used contains carcinogens and some other nonbeneficial by-products. and they inserted back into the earth supposedly. they state that it does not hurt the aquifers because it is, these are at a lower level than the underwater streams and rivers, but isn't there an issue that we

should, not standardize, because one size doesn't fit all but allow epa to work with all the states to be able to implement things that are, rules that are going to protect the environment, protect the drinking water quality of folks and still be good for business? >> real quickly, mr. secretary. >> the answer is that we need to move forward in a way that protects the health of people and the environment and we are doing that in, at the same time, moving forward with programs that will impact support natural gas development and we support hydraulic fracking because frankly that is the answer to what kind of domestic production we are getting today from natural gas and as director abbey testified earlier, 90% of all of our natural gas wells being drilled and producing in the federal land are all using hydraulic fracturing. >> time for the gentlelady has expired. gentleman from idaho,

mr. labrador. >> thank you, mr. secretary for being here. you made couple statements. we continue to produce today more than two years ago. the facts speak for themselves. you also said in your testimony we've had higher production. i just want to make sure the facts do speak for themselves. do you agree or disagree with congressman flores who said that it takes about 9.5ers years to get from lease to production? do you agree with that statement? >> i agree that it takes time. i don't know the specifics of his chart and i hadn't seen it until today but the point in time where the acreage is made available and going through the exploration phase, it is a multiple year program. >> you would agree it is more than two years or three years, correct? >> from the point of making the lease sale to the point of production, yes. >> correct. regardless whether it is because the company delayed or because of, you know, you have all these procedures that are required by law, it is more than two or three years to get from, from a

lease to production, correct? >> that is correct. >> so every time i have been here, and i don't come from an oil-producing state but every time i've been here in the natural resources committee and had somebody from the administration here they're trying to take credit for the high production of oil. that just doesn't make any sense to me. if it takes more than two or three years to get from lease to production, and we have the highest production right now, isn't it true, because we want to get to the facts, isn't it true this is based on actions from the previous administration? not from the current administration? is that true? >> congressman labrador i would say, i love the potatoes from your state but they're not as good as the ones from colorado. [laughter] having said that, let me say that we have moved forward with an oil and gas -- >> i understand that. >> program that we're developing oil and gas. let me give you an example to support the facts as

stated them. there was a huge outcry from many people that we should have shut down even the production side during the national crisis of the deepwater horizon. we did not do that and we have worked very hard. some people on my staff have worked 18 hours a day, six, seven days a week to make sure that we had the kind of program within the department of interior that can allow safe oil and gas drilling and production to move forward and we are at that stage and the acreage we're making available this year and next year under the new plan will continue that program forward. >> but let's just talk about the facts because you said we want the facts. the facts are whatever oil production we have today is because of actions that happened before this administration, is that not true? >> the facts are that it included the contributions not only of this administration under president obama's leadership but also president clinton and president bush, and president reagan and

president carter and it goes back a long ways. >> okay. so then, if we have certain actions that happened before this administration, what we were seeing the number of leases going up higher and higher and higher, wouldn't it be also true, if the number of leases is going down, that we would have less oil production five to 10 years from now? >> in our view is that given the price of oil, over 90, almost at $100, that you are going to see a significant increase in oil and gas production. there is huge amounts of public lands in america's oceans and onshore that we have made available. much of that will be coming into production because the greatest incentive for frankly for oil and gas companies is the price of oil. >> i'm going to change topics here. i'm a firm believer that we should shrink the size of our federal government. i think you and i agree with that and we should consolidate programs but my questions relate to proposed

reorganization of office of surface management and bureau of land management. i have only a minute here. explain to me you who the structure will be reorganized? will you create a position that directly reports to you the secretary of interior and adding another bureaucratic layer of reporting? >> we are looking at the reorganization right now. no decisions have been made. we need to make sure that our employees are involved as well tas stakeholders at osm we will stay in the law of smcra. require that we have independent confirmed duties to carry out the operation. that is what osm will do. director abbey will put together the plan and we won't have the plan until february and i appreciate any comments we have when we look at the organization. no final decisions have been made. >> when director abbey presented to some of the staff here in congress one of the reasons for the merger was great things

about abandoned mine land reclamation that osm could offer to blm. have you ever seen this document, abandoned mine lands, a decade of progress, hard rock mines? >> i don't know whether i have seen that but i have seen similar types of documents. >> i ask unanimous consent for this to be included in the record. i think blm knows quite a bit how to ban handle abandoned mines and they don't need to learn anything from osm. >> without objection, that will be part of the record. the gentleman's time has expired and the chair recognizes gentleman from alaska. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, welcome. the hat that i'm wearing, i'm supporting the obama energy program. this is propeller. there is no energy program. you're not as guilty though as other agencies within this administration. i do think you have made some steps forward. but, i will tell you that you're not the only player in town. you got epa and lisa jackson

an organization trying to subvert your authority. and they will probably do it because they have more clout in the white house. so the energy program, the bam administration has is nothing as far as producing energy. i know you don't agree with me but i keep saying and we have been importing not just this administration, for the last 20 years, about between 300 and 400, up to $500 billion a year we import that much oil. that money goes abroad. so every barrel of gas, every barrel, every cubic foot of natural gas and every barrel of oil makes us less dependent. and i have to say that one of the things that i never forgotten, and i think you can understand, the gentleman said when we turn to foreign lands to supply our energy needs, then i can't help but feeling somewhere along the way we have surrendered something of our freedom. that was a quote by emanuel luan, jr., congressman on this committee and secretary of the interior. that's what we've done. i hope you understand as a secretary of one of the

largest land holdings in the world that we need really cooperative working with states and industry to make sure we're not losing our freedoms overseas. that is a little speech. having said that though inadequate i will take and we appreciate your asked you will adding additional oil and gas leases in the arc trick. what steps are you taking to insure timely review and submit applications with interior and other agencies concerning leases? and this regard understand obama administration undertaken cooperation effort concerning alaskan energy. where does that stand and can you provide us with some concrete time lines? >> congressman young, first of all i appreciate your leadership on alaska, on so many different issues. let me say that we are moving forward with a robust energy program that does include oil and gas and renewables and other things that very much affect your state. with respect to the alaska and the arctic, the president has designated the department of interior and my deputy secretary david

haze to insure there is coordination with permitting process with respect to alaska. >> do me a favor. i go back outside your agency and outside the state. one epa or core of engineers and the colvo river deal. when they get involved and stop the process which you're putting forth, let me know where i can be of help to you. is that good. >> i appreciate that. i reiterate one thing on that congressman young. the position that the deputy secretary david j. hayes is occupying today allows interior you through the deputy secretary to bring together all the agencies so we have effective and efficient permitting process. >> regarding the draft eis and comprehensive compensation plan for anwr why has the not the united states fish and wildlife service listed coastal plain rather than considering existing wilderness

designation? >> our position today drilling in the arctic national wildlife refuge is not appropriate. >> ah, now, my point is, now, that is, remember, the no more clause. i actually think your fish and wildlife agency is stepping over their lines and we'll eventually find out in court. to more clause is clear. will not go through this congress. don't kid yourself you're wasting money. what bothers me certain national environmental groups garner ad million signatures recommending wilderness status on coastal plain. those of these are communication standard form and how will public comments be evaluated especially since so many of them appear to be virtually identical in nature? do you follow what i'm saying? this is million signatures. are you going to listen to that or listen to alaskans? >> it is very important for us on our entire conservation agenda, congressman young, to make sure that we are listening to the local communities. and so alaska is a world on to itself in terms of its

beauty and its potential and as you may have noted in the wilderness and national conservation report that we sent to congress i did not include anything in there on alaska because alaska has its own unique set of circumstances that need to be considered. >> thank you. when i become emperor i might consider you as secretary of interior but that probably won't happen for a while you have to understand that what are you doing to coordinate the blm september 7th lease sale with the onshore and offshore sale at the same time? are you working together? >> director abbey? >> we're working very close together, congressman. in fact i received a statement the other day from the state complimenting the action of bureau of land management and coordination we're doing with them. >> time of the gentleman has expired. >> can i take my propeller hat. this is obama energy plan. i'm supporting mr. markey. i will tell you right now now. this is the obama energy program. >> i'm sure he is thrilled with that. mr. secretary i know -- >> i think thought he was

taking off the propeller i convinced him of the correctness of our robust energy program. >> you can interpret that any way. mr. secretary, we had, as close a hard time 12:30 but we have mr. holt came in and mr. sutherland has been sitting very patiently. with your indulgence those will be last two questioners. we should get you out of here close to that time. it will be okay because we have to do it that way. mr. holt is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. secretary, good to see you. it was good to see you at the, at in paterson, new jersey at our new national park in new jersey. thank you for coming. several different questions. first of all, wanted to really look at this question of whether the energy

extraction industry is our best place to look for jobs? you know with exxonmobil and chevron and shell and bp and so forth having a, over the last half dozen years earning hundreds of billions between, 5 and 600 billions dollars in profits over that same period their workforce shed 11,000 workers. the bureau of labor statistics and the department of labor says, quote, employment in oil and gas extraction is expected to decline by 16% through 2018. now, your all on record and in practice promoting production. in fact production is up along with these profits but it also seems to go alongwith a loss of jobs. are we looking in the wrong

place or are some people here looking in the wrong place? >> will the gentleman yield? will the gentleman yield? >> i -- >> right here. >> i would like to get an answer to the question first and then, thank you. >> thank you very much, congressman holt. it was an honor to be with you in patter ton -- patterson falls, new jersey. let me say there is significant profits that are obvious to everybody that oil and gas companies are making and, you know, the fact is that we have record prices in oil. we have major discoveries that are being made and and we also know that the future of the united states for the foreseeable future will depend on developing additional oil and gas resources and so we have supportive of that policy. it is part of the energy portfolio that president obama has announced in his energy blueprint. >> well, thank you. secretary, with regard to the oil and gas leasing off

of virginia, which of course we in new jersey think of as leasing off of new jersey because it is a few days oil slick drift from our productive beaches, isn't it true that the footprint of the lease overlaps significantly, in fact, almost entirely with critical military training areas and with shipping, shipping lanes and overflight areas? >> congressman holt, there are critical areas within the lease sale 220 area of virginia, the triangle, which is something which is very important to our country and it is a significant part of the reason why lease sale 220 was not placed on the 2012-2017 plan. >> thanks. on a, on another matter involving the atlantic, the

legislation that was before this committee, hr-1231, talked about subsidizing seismic surveys in the atlantic. do you think it's a good idea to ask taxpayers to provide subsidies for oil companies to conduct seismic surveys? >> congressman holt, i'm not familiar with hr-1231. i will say this we believe developing additional information will allow us to make more informed decisions in places like the atlantic where we have such a dearth of information. >> let me just add my editorial comment. and i wonder why, why in the world we should ask the most profitable countrys -- companies in the history of the world to go to the taxpayers for assistance in this.

we have asked and director bromwich testified that he supported our idea of asking the, the heads of the oil companies, bp, halliburton, transocean and cameron and so forth to testify before this committee about the deepwater horizon disaster. do you believe the ceos from these oil companies should testify? would that help the public get useful information about this? . .

thank you for being here, and thank you for the delay in going over a little bit. i know that time is precious. would like to read a statement. there has been a stream negative reaction to the decision regarding keystone in the united states because this pipeline in this project is obviously what is in the best interest, not just of the canadian economy, but also the american economy. therefore, based on the decision by this ministration, canada will seek to join a new asian trade bloc as it tries to increase energy exports to the region among the u.s. decision to delay the approval of trans canada corporations $7 billion keystone expel pipeline. with that statement, my question to you is, how does the american

worker benefit if this canadian trends will goes to china and other parts of asia? >> congressman sutherland, let me first say that canada is one of our best trading partners and we have a great relationship with canada on a variety of issues. with respect to the keystone xl pipeline, it is a process which has been led to the listed department. they have listened to the input from many places, including the governor of nebraska who has legitimate concerns. >> understand. and i know that time is precious for me and you. how does this decision help or harm the american worker? >> i don't think that it does because no decision has yet been made here. >> but unlike some people that question here, you know, i come from a business background, and i understand that time is money, and speed is profit.

so if that is the case, business owners understand that to my job creators understand that. how does this decision delayed, hurt profits, hurt the ability of the american worker to put food on the table? >> i will refer the question to the state department because it is the department of the government that is in charge -- >> let me say this. i have learned, and you are testifying, you are an incredibly bright man. you have an opinion. you have shared your opinion on the bread of the other member question earlier. you certainly have to have an opinion on how this affects the american worker. >> my factual conclusion, congressman sutherland, is that no decision has yet been made. >> the decision to delay. >> there are strong arguments why this should go forward. legitimate concerns why it should not go forward, but a processor and the decision will be forthcoming. >> good for the american worker that the decision is not made farther down the road?

is a better for worker to have a job today or better for of order to have a job maybe two years from now? >> a think it is important to get it right. >> but for that person is unemployed and the trying to impede his family, provide food and shelter, if that person does not have a job and this person could, perhaps to have a job with this project, that person does not have a job, is that person benefiting if we wait two years down the road? that is common sense. you don't need to be the secretary of an agency to figure that one out. do you agree with that? >> it think it is important that it be the right decision in with the right level of input. >> assure the american worker really appreciates the answer to that question. bringing that close to home, we have in panama city florida burt pipe and in tallahassee we have bhp, which is in engineering firm that has worked very hard on this project. last week they let go of 100 workers in panama city.

with this delay there is a better than average chance that they will let go of 100 workers. that is over 200 in my district, and i guess what would you say to them? these workers are being let go as a result of this delay. what would you, if you were the one giving them the pink slip and sending them out the door, what would you say to them? >> what i would say is that the pipeline industry is something that is a robust industry. we have thousands and thousands of miles, including many that have traversed our public lands. no one has yet made a judgment upon whether the pipeline is moving forward. that is their argument on both sides, and the state department is moving forward to make sure they get the right decision. >> and ensure you understand why there is this massive disconnect between the 200 people that you just gave that answer to, and their aggravations with inside

the beltway. you just give them a political speech, and they don't know where their next paycheck is going to come from. that falls on deaf ears, and i tell you, what the director stated earlier, he listens to public sentiment to validate his decision. if the public supports keystone, then isn't the president's decision a total disregard to the american people and its workers? i say absolutely, and i wish the administration and the president of the united states, which -- would use your same standard of listening to this sentiment. obviously they have not, and it aggravates me that all we have is your statement to those 200 workers and unfortunately it does not put food on the table. thank you and i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i have learned to the magic of is the communication, mr. secretary, the questioning of mr. bishop of utah.

the recognize mr. bishop for five minutes. >> that is great. i always enjoy my conversation with the congressman. move utah more times and i have been to washington. i will have you know. >> exactly that way. >> i think you were psychic in asking me to accept my question. this pains me in some way, but when somebody does something correctly i think kudos' needs to be given. i have not seen -- i have seen the proposals. i have not viewed all of them, but i viewed the ones in utah. i need to talk to the people in those particular areas, but on the surface it seems a un director at the have done a proper job in translating the areas in my state to muscle of want to thank -- on that note, i was great to ask, he turns the hearing so that we could make some history here today. however, i knew there was a

however coming. the interior department sent out a news release a week ago talking about the amount of revenue that was coming from energy production on public land you stated or the department stated that revenues will also support much-needed projects that create jobs, critical infrastructure improvements, and funding for education. and here is where i want to go off as a former teacher. some of my colleagues, i understand, have already talked to you about the leases, which was one of your first decisions in office. we talked about oil shale demonstration projects. the fact of the matter is, schools in the united states, 13 abcafifteen, the states with the slowest growth in public education funding are found in the west, which are so-called public land states. not even close. states east of denver have grown their education funding of the 90% plus rate. those of us in the west, almost to the one. we have the benefit of basically

the lands are. it deals with our particular area. bottom line is, alas the resources of developed in the west our kids are hurt, put at eight decided disadvantage. you recognize this in the press release any said that this money guest funding education. there are some actions that have decreased. that has not only destroyed an area which by redistricting would get a chance to represent so you will be talking to any more, i'm afraid, but it also hurt the overall education funding of the state of utah unnecessarily, so the west is going to develop an adequate funding base for their education needs. they must have the resource development that takes place on public land. we can have it both ways, so i am assuming that you will support that in view of the newsletter and the apple bill, which i have, which deals directly with the ability of helping western states fund their education by doing those things that were promised most western states where they actually became states and their

organic enabling acts. >> ask a direct question. i have read in the news report that the department is planning to do restrictions on hunting and opportunities on public land specifically forest service and blm land. is the department currently planning on working on any types of restrictions on hunting on public land? >> congressman bishop, not to my knowledge. we have a program where we work with and support something to the hunting and fishing and boating and all of the uses of our public lands because of the importance of job creation, six and a half million plus jobs. your state is, i think, as exhibit a in terms of some of those economic benefits. to my knowledge there is not that kind. >> the you know of anything in your agency is working on those kinds of restrictions that were

in the press? >> your now working and in the tens of restrictions. >> a appreciate that, and i hope that if you support our energy development in the west's the brick and actually fund education i have the opportunity of again thanking you and for implementing you for a quick decision. >> thank you very much. >> i just noted then he yelled back in time. that is very complementary. thank you. two of them. yes. well, that concludes. i wanted thank you, as secretary cells are, for coming. director at the end bouguereau for coming and, as you can see, there are a number of differences of opinions, but that is what these hearings are designed for, to get that out and come to some conclusions. i will ask this. several members, just because of time constraints that have questions. mr. brown had a line of questioning that i intervened with visa the the relationship between the epa and the

interior. if you could respond back with that one, i know that mr. landry may have some further questions. referencing that. as those come into you, if you could respond in a very timely manner so that we can have that and make it part of this record, would appreciate. >> you will do our very best. our congressional affairs. providing a response. >> as you said that. we can expect that. and finally, i asked in his consent to enter a copy of the august 2001 draft analysis which includes the draft solicitor's opinion of a much smaller consolidation proposal between ellis as referenced by mr. johnson and his comments to be included in the record without objection that will be included with the record. come before the committee again. thank you, again.

>> great. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> on c-span2 tonight, a hearing on the restructuring of the securities and exchange commission. then, we talk about the national

review cover story titled what is constitutional conservatism. that is followed by today's pentagon briefing. on tomorrow's washington journal, senator john hogan discusses the federal deficit and the keystone pipeline project. also, senate budget committee member bernie sanders and david and shire of the center for the study of the presidency and congress are now presidency executive orders. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> for those to save my friends for those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, i say to them, we are 172 years late to. [applause] for those who say -- for those who say that the civil rights program is an infringement on

states' rights, i say this, that time has arrived in america for the democratic party to get out of the shadows of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights. [applause] >> hubert humphrey spoke those words nearly 20 years before championing the 1964 civil rights bill into law. the 2-term mayor of minneapolis and long-term u.s. senator was vice-president under lyndon johnson and later ran for president in 1968 and lost. we will look at his influence on american politics this week on the c-span series, the contenders from the minnesota historical society in st. paul line friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> last year's dodd-frank act granted new regulatory authority to the securities and exchange commission. the senate hearing lexus of the sec needs to reorganize side to five new reorganized analyst responsibilities. the hearing also looked into the

sec handling of the bernie madoff investor fraud case. senator jack reed chairs the senate banking subcommittee on securities, insurance come and investments. this is two hours. >> call a hearing to order. i wanted thank remembers for joining us today. as certainly want to thank the witnesses for taking time out of their very hectic and demanding and important schedules to be with us this morning. the hearing is entitled management and structural reforms at the sec, in progress report. this is a very critical hearing because we understand the important role of the sec in the regulations of our securities markets. we have had local concerns about regulation, overregulation, but it appears, indeed, the revenues and the securities industries,

the last two years have been greater than any year in the previous ten. so the industry is, in fact, growing at a time when many other sectors in the american economy are in very serious distress. and i believe that those who want to starve the market watchdog or repeal recent legislation return to the days when costs and financial products were negotiated and traded. wall street bankers are leaving taxpayers on the hook to clean up the mess later. congress asked -- act to stabilize the market with the dodd-frank and consumer protection act to bring tens currency uncertainty into the marketplace. there is no question that the regulations and those who enforce the regulations will benefit. those on wall street so that they can make more money at the hefty price. i think that is the lesson of 2008 and nine and continuing. the security exchange commission has a daunting job, a charge of

protecting investors and securing our securities markets are operating and not good manner. no small task giving the growing complexity of markets and products. for example, at the end of october the total market value of the united states equity market was estimated at $13 trillion. roughly 45 percent of all u.s. households, 92 million investors make investments in the markets, principally to mutual funds. so this is of interest to every american, not just those in the financial markets. there is about the changes in both technology and trading practices are affecting exchanges, trading venue is increasingly fragmented with no single change holding more than one-fifth of the market share. more trading is being done of these changes and so-called broker-dealers executing trades internally. over the past year-and-a-half this step of trading has increased by more than 30%, presenting new and challenging problems regulators.

high-frequency traders using computers trade in less than the blink of an nine. such trades may contribute to market volume and good times, they also may contribute to shrinking liquidity in times of market stress. while the securities markets explode with novel product and increase. acknowledgments, many have been left behind. the financial crisis, trouble areas. the sec has set responsibilities from the oversight and invest the banks. the growing risk of. the right steps. the same path that we saw in the nato ponzi scheme case. bernard nato's long-running investment fraud. they fail to ask the right questions and take the right steps. in addition, the agency respected this serious missteps on how they have handled information, conducted operation and execute missions. criticizing the agency for a trading capital formation,

decreasing competitiveness, and taking a light touch against greatness. my sense is that the sec appears to be committed to reform. the chairman has installed new across the sec divisions and offices. beginning in 2009 the sec began restructuring its largest operating units. enforcement an office of compliance, inspections, and examinations. the commission has also created a division of this strategy and innovation to watch closely with new products and trading practices a risk. congress's tried to focus on improving the sec as well. the wall street reform and consumer protection act was mandated that the sec in dazed and independent consultants to examine internal operations, structure, and need for reform which identify several opportunities including reed prioritizing activities, reshaping the agency to maximize efficiency, and effectiveness investing to improve infrastructure and engagement

with self-regulatory organizations. the report also notes the considerable additional responsibility placed on the sec after the financial crisis and a gap in funding that cannot be overcome by improving efficiency . congress must fully fund the sec if it is to effectively discharge and mandate and police the markets and protect investors. the sec has been validly criticized for suspicions in the past. today's hearing will focus on how the sec management has responded to this criticism and the need for reform. the securities markets need to invest in companies to come the other and allocate capital officially and productively. new products and technologies and jobs. they need to work with americans to save for a new cause or homes or retirement. what is done and needs to be done to improve the ability to protect investors, maintain fear or markets, facilitate capital formation, and to reinvigorate

staff is at the forefront of the hearing today. this senior most management of all of the divisions and the largest program office. it is critical that congress understand what is being done to move this issue forward and ensure the missteps of the past are not repeated. with that of would now like to recognize the ranking member for his opening comments. >> thank you, very large. i agree with and appreciate the number of your comments and concerns in your opening statement. i am one as you know that things that we are having a little bit of difficulty giving it right and terms of a regulatory approach right now. appreciate these upper ginny's for oversight hearings. as i indicated to you, because of my infamous gang of six, i'm going to have to leave and a half an hour for another meeting that the can't avoid. and so i will be missing a lot of that testimony. i will try to identify a few

areas of concern so that i can submit questions as well following the hearing for the responses. i do believe that the issues we're dealing with today are critical. we must continue to do things strategic the above which areas of the market pose the greatest risk and which areas of potential improvement of the greatest benefit for investors. the objective should be to apply the taxpayer resources in a way that provides the biggest investor protection bang for the buck. in addition to these important issues other 40 hearing from our division directors. the sec on dodd-frank implementation questions on ways to promote capital formation. with regard to capital formation, today the sec is holding two panel discussions on the issue. one focuses on current capital formation issues for private companies, and another on initial public offerings of securities regulations involving small public companies. there are several, in my opinion, unnecessary

restrictions on capital formation in both categories should be removed. the house recently passed some targeted by partisan capital formation legislation that makes it easier for private companies to raise capital. also recently to reports that make recommendations on how to reverse the initial public offerings declined. to stimulate the ipo market and spur more job creation the reason president council on jobs and competitiveness in from report recommends that congress amends to allow shareholders of public companies with market valuations below $1 billion to opt out of at least section 404 compliance, if not all of the requirements or alternatively exemption to companies from stocks and plans for five years after they go public. the ipo task force recommends providing an on ramp for emerging growth companies using existing principles of skilled regulation. the ipo taskforce expects scale of regulation and exposure to

reduce internal and external compliance for such companies by 30% to 50%. both of these recommendations could result in a larger supply of emerging growth conscious -- companies going public and increased job creation of a long-term. with regard to dodd-frank, in addition to removing unnecessary restrictions -- excuse me, unnecessary restrictions on capital formation, we have to be careful that new rules being implemented give sufficient consideration to how they're going to impact main streets and the economy as a whole. how they interact with each other, and how they impact our global competitiveness. i am interested in what steps you're taking to ensure that the rules that the agency adopts under dodd-frank are supported by rigorous economic analysis. how you will resolve inconsistencies in the approaches taken by different regulators. yesterday the house subcommittee on capital markets approved for targeted bills to modify dodd-frank. one of the measures that passed

by a voice vote would prohibit the sec from requiring that swapped execution facilities have a minimum number of participants are mandating display or delay of bids or offers for any time. this is in line with the sec approach, which is more principles based and is in general far less prescriptive than that of the cftc. in june this subcommittee held a hearing on slauson execution facilities. one of the results of the hearing was that there was bipartisan agreement that the sec and cftc need to provide greater coordination and harmonization to get the rules right. as many of you probably know, i am one of those two things that we should merge the sec and cftc, but until we can get into that discussion i will encourage that they at least for now and harmonize their regulatory activities. the cftc should know that congress is going to closely monitor how they proceed as well as the sec and that we expect this kind of harmonization and a change in course and the

agencies began to divert so that we can have the kind of seamless regulatory system that does protect investors and achieve the objectives that the chairman pointed out, as he described the hope that all of us have as to how you and other regulatory agencies will operate. the other issues are would like to raise -- excuse me, mr. chairman -- in my questions. again, at this point i will wait and we can get to the witnesses. i'm going to have to step down. i apologize. pantages to not only your opening statements, but your responses to the questions we provide, and thank you for being here. >> thank you very much. let me introduce the witnesses. we are extraordinarily fortunate today to have the key leaders of the securities and exchange commission staff. first, let me introduce mr. robert -- robert khuzami, the director of the division of enforcement of the u.s. security exchange commission. as director is responsible for

this award enforcement efforts of sec personnel located at 12 different locations across the country. his tenure, general counsel for the americas, deutsche bank, ag, and before that, the global head of litigation and regulatory investigation. 1990-2002, the federal prosecutor with the united states attorney's office for the southern district of new york where a prosecutor wide range of crimes including narcotics, bank robbery, firearms, and tax, bank, and immigration fraud. during his service, he also held the position of chief of securities and commodities foreign taskforce. thank you. eileen rominger is the director of the division of investment management. she was sworn in by -- on february 16 and is impossible for developing regulatory policy in administering the federal securities laws applicable to investment advice and funds.

private investment, the goldman sacks asset management, with goldman sacks asset management as the chief investment officer responsible for managing the company's core portfolio teams including fixed incomes, equity and quantitative strategy. eight years on the capital. the managing director. the director of the division of corporate finance. washington d.c. where she advised clients on corporate security managers involved in a full range of issues by public and private companies in capital leasing and financial reporting which also works in the division of corporate finance required to join serving in various capacities, including chief counsel and deputy director. the director of the divisions of trading and market of the u