>> what will work, what won't work given very difficult circumstances out there. >> it is, there are challenging circumstances there. regulations said i believe very high bar with respect to spill response. you have to pay attention to the particular challenges in the arctic when you evaluate the plan that is put forward. some of the issues that we are considering, for example, is the length of the drilling season to address that issue that you referred to. legitimate question, what are you doing if there is an accident late in the drilling season? those are the type of issues we're focused on. >> can you imagine a situation in which your department considers every possibility and

that shall cannot come up with a plan to do with the worst-case scenario, in which case you would not issue a permit? >> again, it will have to satisfy us that the plan is adequate to deal with the proposed operations that they put forward. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman from colorado is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and secretary salazar, thanks for being here. it's good to talk to a fellow coloradan it as i'm sure you know, increased regulation on an industry leader regulatory uncertainty which hinders that business able to extend passionate expand into great jobs because it's harder to plan the future. with oil shale in particular, a recent study indicates over 350 american jobs could be created by the development of the oil shale. however, your department plans to issue hydrofracking regulations which would undoubtedly hinder this development, but also in the

past, right after coming into office, the administration changed the terms of oil shale lisa's making them so limited that industry has little interest in these tracts of land. can you explain to this committee what economic analysis was used, if any, in making these decisions cracks and do you take job creation into effect when you issue regulations that had the effect of creating uncertainty and limiting business opportunities? >> congressman, i appreciate the question and the fact is oil shale and developer of the oil shale resources of colorado, utah and wyoming are different from the issue of tracking of tight gas is in other permissions around the country. with respect to the oil shale of western colorado, i think it's a portrait going to remember that there are some very significant questions, including the impact of water supplies of the colorado river and other places.

so we have moved forward with pilot projects, did all the research and development, a number of companies involved that have been developing tremendous research on the oil shale potential. with respect to your question on natural gas and fracking, our program that we've not yet put down on the table because were 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 oratory that we're seeing proposed in different states around the country. >> that your department use economic analysis 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, whether it is in the oil and gas arena or whether it is in the conservation world. we know the number of jobs that are created and we have economic

analysis reports that i have created the last couple of years that have been shared with members of congress, as well as with others that show the tremendous impacts that we do have on job creation in this country. >> you don't apply that to particular regulations? >> we look at that. the economic reality is something that we consider because of the fact that the president and the administration very much understand the main challenge we face here in the united states of america is job creation. we think about it everyday. >> i wish it was a link to the actual regulations when they were being formulated. changing the subject, knowing -- well, he said personal and your opening statement, in a written statement, oil production from the federal ocs increased by a third from 2008-2010. the clear implication there is this administration is responsible for that in some way. knowing that the lead time for bringing oil production to the

market from offshore can be five to 10 years, when you include the entire leasing and permitting process, how much of this one-third increase in that you claim on behalf of a president obama began under president obama? how much of it began under the previous administration? >> the policy of the united states, including presidents like president clinton, 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 domestically produced oil and gas now comes from the gulf of mexico. so we have moved forward with a program that i support the development of oil and gas and have weathered the major storm. of the deepwater horizon, where many people were calling for a shutdown of oil and gas production in the gulf. the fact we're able to have the rigs back to work in the gulf of mexico, given a national crisis we went through something i'm very proud. >> my specific question is, when you claim on behalf of the

president a one-third increase, how much of that easy really responsible for, if any? >> i would say we are all responsible for it. it is a shared accomplishment, because the oil and gas production that we're seeing in the gulf of mexico, which is increase over last couple of years, is in large part dependent on the discovery the oil and gas industry has made has moved into deeper waters. the discoveries are being made, efforts on both exploration and development. >> i like the fact you say this is shared, and should continue from administration to administration, from year to year. but when i see a claim being made that this president is responsible for this one-third increase, i do see where that comes from. >> well, the policy of the president is clear on energy, and that's to develop a secure energy future for the united states. as i said in my opening statement, it does include oil and gas as part of the energy

portfolio. were supportive of oil and gas development along with alternative energies and fuel efficiency. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. sector for being here. we appreciate it. some of the questions you have been asked are i think based on a faulty premise, which is that environmental regulations and caution in terms of how we proceed with respect to potential impact on the environment is sort of inherently inimical to economic development and jobs. when, in fact, there's a tremendous amount of economic benefit that comes from smart stewardship of our environment, i mean, i come from a state obviously the, chesapeake bay is a number one treasure and i've become more fully in recent months with a lot of the information about how viable the chesapeake bay is to the economy

of maryland and the states in the chesapeake bay. bay, watershed. i think the chesapeake bay watershed is cited as a trillion dollars in terms of what it generates for the economy. intransitive commercial seafood industry in maryland, virginia, you're talking about $2 billion in so, 41,000 local jobs. so if we don't do the right thing by these kinds of natural resources that we have we could also undermine tremendous economic opportunity going forward. i just wanted to put that on the record. i'm very concerned about the fact that we look carefully and smartly with respect to the development of this trend 10 process for extracting natural gas. and i understand it represents a real opportunity. as to you. and as does the administration. many regard natural gas as a

bridge from the traditional dependence on fossil fuels of a certain kind to more renewable energies. so there's great potential there, this 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, make sure this practice is done properly and safely. and if you look at the marcellus shale which is sort of the recent gold rush opportunity that is being viewed from the natural gas industry, the footprint is substantial, talking about new york, pennsylvania, west virginia, virginia, western maryland, parts of western maryland that are implicated by this potential. so, we've got to make sure that we are doing this in a smart and prudent way. and 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 insisted on more disclosure with respect to those chemicals. and i hope also monitoring the effect of that on public land. and that could set a good stand of how the industry ought to operate across the board, both on public lands and on non-public land. i do want to point out that the industry keeps asserting that, you know, there's all this evidence that hydraulic fracturing can't condemn a underground sources of drinking water. but very recently the epa has released some data based on some studies it's been doing in

wyoming that suggests there's an awkward for their that has been seem levels, that's a known carcinogen, there were 50 times higher than what is considered safe in terms of the threshold. and they also found two auxier then all evidence of their, another candidate causing chemical and drink your water. this is a real potential harm that we have to be on the look out for. and either send your testimony indicates the department is by waiting whether it would be beneficial to him in resist the requirements with respect to the management of water produce, sort of wastewater produced from hydrofracking. i was curious when the department is planning on making a decision on whether to amend the requirements with respect to wastewater. you could just be too that. >> congressman sarbanes, thank you for the question. let me first say i agree we can both protect the environment and develop oil and gas resources on

plants and other places in the country. with respect to fracking and the timeline for moving forward to have a timeline. we're still in the process of gathering information, putting together, that it will be a proposed rule. but we have taken advantage of the information we got from stakeholders, including hydraulic fracking report, hydraulic fracking in the department about a year ago. so the piece of are still coming together. there are three general subject areas, one is the well bore integrity, the second is disclosure, and the third would be dealing with what we call the fullback water issues. but no final decisions have been made and toby continued process to bring and input from stakeholders. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, thank you for joining us today.

for sauber to think of half of the citizens of the commonwealth. for your work in protecting and preserving historic work in virginia. that is a great example of a collaborative approach where folks get together, they see a need and a national monument designation now will be put in place will allow us to preserve very significant historical landmark there. and also shows how we come together and do what is best for our natural resources. i'm sure you agree that this is really a result of broad citizens support, and also a bipartisan approach from both federal, state and local officials. it's a great opportunity there and was highlighted i did will 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. if you 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 region off of virginia. we think that's extraordinarily important as we go forward, and it was disappointing when the announcement came out from 2012-2017, our leasing program that least was not included as part of that. and as you know by excluding that, that takes away i think an opportunity for us to responsibly develop our fossil fuels offshore there. we all know that is a significant economic impact upwards of $20 billion annually, increasing number of significant jobs, infrastructure there in order 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 under lease to 20, and mr. chairman, without objection i would like to to be entered into

the record? >> without objection. >> i want to ask this. as you look across the board without broad bipartisan support, you look at at the governor of virginia, the virginia legislature, local officials, state officials have all said let's go forward with the lease 220. without widespread support, i'm wondering why the department determined not to go forward with this, 2012, 2017 play, and i want to get some of the reasons behind that. also look, too, some the of the reasons given in the report as to what some of the others were opened up such as in the pacific, and it talked about broad support their with local and state governments as a reason that those errors are going to be opened up. and i'm wondering is the broad support there in virginia less of a factor in making determination and broad support elsewhere when he determines army. i would like to get your perspective on that.

>> thank you very much, congress than what they. let me just say that i appreciate the work that you do on the migratory work conversation. ya been a leader with congressman boehner and senator cochran as was with senator pryor. with respect to lease 220, let me say, two years ago we have developed additional information our the department of defense that shows that there significant conflicts between oil and gas development and the military needs within the triangle that was included into lease sale of 220. so rov is we need to continue to develop additional information to see if we can deconflict important mission of supporting the defense and military needs of our country, which is also so important not going to the country but to virginia. at the same time look at developing additional

information, but it's really at this point in time in large part the conflict issues that were raised by the department of defense with respect to lease sale 220. let me ask this them. as the discussion takes place not only but offshore, but also but when you don't offshore, the discussions have taken place on both about potential interference on both. it seems that there is an et cetera discussion on the when signed but not the same avatar on oil and gas development i. i would say both of them are issues that we need to address with the navy and other branches but they ought to both be pursued at the same time. i think both of the conflicts are very, very similar. and to me they ought to be taken up and those issues taken care of. in a fairly timely manner? and it seems like too many to spread this out over another five years is, welcome less than

what we're capable of. we are capable of sitting down and get those things done. i've spoken with the navy who said they want to pursue aggressively those discussions to make sure we get to appoint to make sure we developed all of the potential in that outer continental shelf. >> real briefly, mr. secretary, if you want to respond. >> i don't have a disagreement with respect to making sure that we are being, smart from the start including in the outer continental show pixar work with the department of defense and the navy will give us significant additional information with respect to not only lease 220 but also the seismic work we are moving forward with to give us additional information on the atlantic. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, the environment a protection agency has proposed and is in the process of enacting regulations targeting traditional and expensive sources of energy. utility mac,.

[booing] , among the more recent and well known examples which result not only an increase in energy cost of but result in more natural gas being used for power generation and and daschle manufacturing. are these rules a factor when considering access for natural gas production? and if not, why? >> i would refer those questions to administrator jackson in terms of the epa. our own view is that there will be a robust demand for natural gas speed is what i'm asking, i apologize for interrupting you, but please answer my question. are you and your department considering the epa rules as any communication between you and epa on the rules that they are trying to enact, regulations they're trying to enact, which is going to reduce production of inexpensive energy, as y'all

look at energy production, particularly for natural gas, or oil or anything else, are you having communications with the epa on considering their rules and regulations that they are enacting on energy producers as well as the resource development, are you considering or communicate with epa in any way on this? >> let me say that we've worked passionate look for ways we can work with epa to solve problems. on a major project in utah, the greater natural gas, natural bp gas project we put together a best practices program and include epa and anadarko, the developer in that arena as result of those best practice solutions we will be able to protect the environment and the company is going to be able to move forward with development in excess of 3000 wells. >> mr. secretary, you didn't answer my question.

do you consider those regulations, do you have any communication with epa as you look forward to developing energy resources that are under your jurisdiction? >> we have communication with epa, but we also recognize that epa has its own authority. and administrator jackson abiding by the law and moves forward in implementing our responsibilities at her department. >> with these into agencies, would you agree it is apparent policy of this administration to increase the cost of energy and to dramatically limit domestic access to those energy resources? >> congressman, i would disagree with that. i believe that when you look at what we've done in terms of moving forward with a robust energy for folder for the united states of america, i think the facts speak for themselves. >> well, i disagree with you on that regard. >> i am surprised. [laughter]

>> well, the thing is what appears to me is the policies of this administration, increasing the kosovo energy production. we are not having access do it all about energy policy that will allow us to develop natural gas, oil, clean coal technology, as well as alternative forms of energy. and i see very little communication between agencies, between your agency as was epa. i see the epa making rules without consideration to the economic cost, and even utilizing what appears to me to be junk science in forming the regulations. so what i see not only from epa but also your department politics and will drive up the

costs of all goods and services because energy costs are going to go up. and i think it's absolutely disasters and it's going to cost thousands if not millions of jobs. it's going to hurt our economy. and i highly recommend that you communicate with epa, you take into consideration the human elements of jobs and economy as a y'all go forward in developing speech will the gentleman just? >> certainly. >> it seems to me the line of questioning you are pursuing is very important, because both the response of the secretary was both agencies have their responsibility. the real collision course potentially is the issue of american job creation and american energy production as it relates to what epa's influence is. that seems to be a conflict. i think your line of questioning, 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 if there's any communication. >> mr. secretary, in atlanta question if you could respond back to us in writing on that, the committee would be very appreciative of that. >> i will do that. and to make a comment here in response to congressman brown, mr. chairman, we were close with epa on a number of different issues. they have their own legal authority but i will give you two examples where we have worked very closely. i mentioned one in utah where we are moving forward with natural gas developments in a place that had been stalled because of litigation because of best practices programs we have put together. with respect to many other issues including the issue of hydraulic fracturing, we have continued dialogue with epa.

we're doing what their doing pics of there's a tremendous amount of coordination that doesn't doctor kerr. >> the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, as you know i worked at louisiana northwest louisiana, the area, just to give you an idea of the impact that had on us, we've had an increase of close to 58,000 jobs just since 2009 alone, and from 2008-2009, exploration companies invested over $11.5 billion, and generated 642.3 million in state tax revenue. tremendous job impact, tremendous economic impact. we are talking about, of course natural gas, shale formations, hydrofracking which is necessary, the only way we can get it out economically.

hydrofracking has been around for 60 years. the epa took a look at it in 2005, found absolutely no problems with it. is regulated in my state by deq. we have 10 to 20 regulators moving about costly to make sure all the right things are done. if there's a need to find out what's in the hydrofracking fluid, no problem with having provided, if needed. are you aware of any deaths or serious injuries to humans as result of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of episodes, 60 years of hydrofracking that's been performed? >> no, i'm not. >> and do you know, can you tell me that what is the death of the typical aquifer? that is, the water supply that is in the ground. >> i think across the country

you would find greater variance and it will depend on the area that you are doing the drilling. i understand very much the zones that are the hydrocarbon zones that produce natural gas are generally below the water supply zones for domestic usage. so that's what issues like well bore integrity are so important. >> i'm glad you mentioned that. how many levels of casings around a typical drilling rig in order to protect the drill hole from the aqua for itself? >> let me differ on that question to director at the ncp knows the technical. >> i don't know the technical answer but i do know that the bureau of land management is quite -- >> let me interrupt. i have more questions but these are very simple questions. how deep is an aquifer? it's about a thousand feet, gentlemen. this is something you guys

should know. >> the aquifers are very from region to region. >> but they are approximate in that range. how deep do we dig, to we drill in the get down to the shell? how deep is that, typically? >> in some cases it says it has 4000 feet. >> two miles is actually more like it. so the point being that the aquifer, the water supply itself is way above the surface of the earth, and all the activity where the hydrofracking fluid is, which 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's very easy to understand why no one has serious him as result of the. we can talk about hypotheticals all time. but the point is it is a regulated industry. it's producing inexpensive energy and doing a great job. it is not harming people.

and certainly i would say that the solyndra affair has harmed more people than hydrofracking has in 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, the rules have been promised to us and yet to come out, but everything that the interior department touches, and we will get on the ocs a little later, i have questions about that, causes delay and higher cost to production. so why is it that now, in view of all this i stand, why is it now where 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, i appreciate the question. i respectfully disagree with your conclusions. the fact is that we believe that 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 moratoria treated without the united states we have natural gas develop, well bore integrity is essential in order to be able to ensure we don't have water quality -- >> you don't even know how many layers of casings go around a typical drill. so if the very top level dozen of the very basics of the technology, why is it that you somehow feel you can't insinuate -- >> congressman, having dealt with a lot of oil and gas wells, including the macondo well, that was a huge question about well bore integrity on that particular well. it's a question that you face with every single well that is drill. and so the industry knows about well bore integrity, and we require well bore integrity. and having that being a part of what we do as a regular is something we are examining. we support natural gas development here in the united

states. >> i think, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. >> thank you, secretary salazar, for attending this hearing on the future of oil and gas develop and on federal lands. as a member of colorado i'm sure you understand how i often hear for my constituents. i think you were in my shoes once in a related role. the bible 8.4 million acres of land in colorado are controlled by the bureau of land management are subject to a litany of regulations that have gone well beyond the purpose of protecting lands that have become economically burdensome. every day i receive correspondence regarding the frustrations my constituents have with the oem.

and the land-use regulations that hamper or suspend otherwise viable mineral and energy development. under the obama administration, these restrictions have only inflamed an already tough situation, while hurting an economy with in state unemployment rate of 8.3%. this committee has developed several proposals that not only relieve restrictions on federal lands, to promote energy production, environmentally responsible energy production, but have also crafted policies that will aid in both our deficit crisis and bringing down our high unemployment rate. if this administration is serious about solving business problems in i would think it would be more proactive in working with the natural resources committee. however, the members of this committee and i are continuous turned back by the policies of

the department of interior and the president's administration that not only add to the regulatory burden, for domestic energy production, i'm sorry, that only add to the regulatory burden, burdens for domestic energy production, we can create jobs and move towards energy independence and increased 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 pipeline project. however, this is ill-advised and purely, this is really a purely political decision by the president who will do more, that we do more than just economic harm but it will have a great national security applications as well. i was saddened that president obama was persuaded in his

decision, in his decision not by the economic benefits of the project but by far less environmental, environmental interest groups. while the president waits until after the election in november of 2012, millions of americans are looking for work now. the pipeline decision is to very important impacts on americans, both our national security and the future viability of our economy the first at the marine corps combat veteran i believe it's imperative we take into consideration the natural security implications of applause. the united states currently imports roughly half, 50% of the petroleum we use in a natural resources community has been on the forefront of of trying to curb this danger depends on foreign oil by crafting large domestic energy policies during 112th congress. like many other proposals my colleagues and i have put forward in this committee, keystone pipeline project would

help our nation reduce our dependence and sometimes hostile foreign sources of energy. in 2010 of the united states imported over 1 trillion barrels of oil to the united states on opec countries. many of which have unstable governments. while i fully support greater american production, this pipeline is not only in our nation's 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, unstable 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%. 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 so, have been so obstructionist when it comes to domestic energy and mineral oil. instead of working with the committee, the department has been making this thing statements about your energy record. you continue to praise the amount of production and revenue that comes from oil and gas development on public lands, but the boem has not approved a major project on public lands in the west since 2010. in your opinion, mr. secretary, you mentioned that onshore oil production from public land has increased 5%. >> can you finish up real quickly if you would. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would enter my statement in the record, and mr. secretary, what plans come if you could submit this for the record

because i'm afraid i was too long, mr. secretary, well plan and and that's just for those plans come if any, does your department had to supplement the loss or production of jobs and revenues and safety, this delay will have? i would like for you, mr. secretary, to develop and send back to me and this committee a written response directly addressing these questions. >> if you do that, mr. secretary, it would be very appreciative since we did go over time on that. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. rivera. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. secretary, for being here. it was great seeing you down south, in my district in the everglades and thank you for all your efforts on everglades restoration. i'd like to ask you about an issue that they not only impacts, shouldn't impacts the eco-system in south florida across the southeast region in the states and that is truly off the coast of cuba. is my understanding in order for a foreign government owned

company to operate in the u.s., and leases in u.s. they must be incorporated into united states, is that correct? >> i don't know the answer to that question. >> okay. recently, my staff contacted the bureau of the ocean energy management and the bureau of land management to try to get a list of all foreign government owned company that leases in united states. they were surprised to learn that the department doesn't keep a database of what countries are foreign government owned. the foreign government owned companies are just mixed in with the regular privately owned companies. so i believe it would be useful to release be able able to track these companies and what government owns. would you help me get that information to? we will. let me ask abby on woodrow, anything on that question?

>> it is correct that in order to obtain a federal ocs lease, a company needs to be registered in the united states through the relevant state department. >> perfect. that's what they. i just want to make sure that i can get the information on the foreign government owned companies. if you could help me with that that would be helpful. thank you. a few months ago i believe in june you were in spain and spoke to officials regarding the proposed drilling plans in cuban waters, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and in that meeting or in any of the meeting you had with officials, did the topic, or reiterate u.s. policy on doing business with state sponsors of terrorism or have any discussions to discourage their actions in cuba? >> our focus, congressman rivera, has been to make sure we do everything within the legal boundaries that we can operate in to protect the environment

and the people of the united states. >> so, i would assume that to be more of a cooperative effort to make sure we're protecting the people of the united states, which is important, to make sure into every possible measure to do that. but you're telling me nothing was ever done by you to discourage their participation in collaborating with state sponsor of terrorism and those offshore oil drilling efforts? >> we do not have authority over other countries, what they do with respect -- >> i understand, you can't stop them but do we ever discourage? >> our program, congressman rivera, has been to make sure we do everything we can within our legal power. >> let's talk about the legal power. in terms of, also be allowed to inspect the rate to ensure the export administration act, and the export regulations, 10%

minimum use content rules were being respected, speaking of legal authority? has that issue ever? >> congressman rivera, this is an issue with 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 place. i don't have an answer to your question. >> well, recently colleagues of mine here, along with chairman, sent a letter to the president regarding this issue. i would like to ask that letter b. sub in for the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. i think it's of great concern by the lack of effort in this administration, administration wide web your agency, state department or anyone else, that no effort has been made to prevent a state sponsor of terrorism to drill approximately 60 or 70 miles off of florida's coast and providing economic aid and comfort to the dying castro dictatorship. and i hope in the future, the

administration will do everything to make sure that companies comply with sanctions that apply to businesses that do cooperate in with sponsors of state terrorism by perhaps, your agency withdrawing leases on federal lands and waters. that could be a start to certainly send a signal that this type of activity is certainly frowned upon, collaborate with terrorist regimes. finally, thank you i would like to draw attention to my colleagues, to legislation is introduced with ros-lehtinen and others, the foreign oil spill liability act that would apply the same oil pollution act responsibilities and liabilities of clean water act penalty that he domestic responsible party would face to wait responsible party for a spell that pollutes u.s. waters and beaches. depends and liabilities would triple. early the burden is much lower on foreign spillers forcing the american taxpayer to cover the

cleanup costs and members can contact my office if they wish more information on that legislation. that's all i have. >> i thank the gentleman and this time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. flor flores. >> i'm just going to yell. >> move to a microphone so we can pick this up to since we have -- >> you can always move to the side, congressman florez. [laughter] >> one of things to notice, there's lots of room over there. spent i would discourage that, however. >> don't worry, i won't do that.

secretary salazar, directors, thank you for joining us today. i have several questions but i will get to these as quickly as i can pick i would like to start out by asking the staff to put up a chart that has leadtimes were leasing and drilling and production. while we are waiting on that, let me read to you what it specifies in terms of leasing plans but it is a leasing plan is supposed, i quote, best 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 is to read diamonds and the green diamond, operable time points to look at. if you see up towards the left hand side of the chart, you will see the read diamonds as we sail. then if you drift down about four and adheres to the middle of the chart you see a green diamond that shows where discovery is made. then if you go down to the lower

right hand corner of georgia was a red diamond that shows when first production begins. the average time period from 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 is pale. but this is important because it leads into the next part of the question. mus..

>> and the energy needs of the nation are one of those factors that we do take into account. we see robust production going on in the gulf of mexico today, that's production that has been coming on line and will continue to come on line, and our expectation is with 12 additional sales in the next five-year period in the gulf of mexico that we'll see robust production with the kind of discoveries that are being made. we're making additional lease sales in order to continue that development. >> do you have any production numbers, production estimates that you can share? >> let me ask the director. we probably do. tommy? >> yeah. the eia puts out production

estimates that speak for the administration is terms of prishes. and they -- i'm going to run out of time here. have they bake inside the last lease -- baked in the last lease sale plan? >> no. based on areas under current production -- >> okay. what we need to do is to the extent you can put this together, i'd like to see analysis that bakes in the current lease sale plan. because that's important. the rubber meets the road in terms of production, and lease sales -- you can see from this chart -- are the ultimate prerequisite to production from public lands and public waters. i want to go through sort of area by area on the approach that was taken in putting together this plan. in alaska it says that there are single sales that take into

account significant inventory of yet undeveloped leases in frontier areas. in a couple of words, why are those areas undeveloped today? >> frankly, because there is not the infrastructure to develop them, and the findings have not been able -- >> or it could be permits too, right? shell has been trying for years to get a permit and can't get it from the epa. that's why it's undeveloped. let's go to the next one. areas off the pacific coast are not included in the proposed program which seeks to accommodate the recommendations of governors of coastal states and state and local agencies, an important priority established by oskla, right? and off the pacific we paid attention to the governors and local interests that said we don't want you to drill here. so you said, okay, we're not going to drill here, right? >> that is one factor.

there are other factors involved as well. >> okay. now, let's move to the atlantic. a number of specific relations to not include these areas including lack of infrastructure, blah, blah, blah. now, virginia has specifically said we're ready to go, we'd like to drill. now, the reason that was given is -- and let me put this in sort of a real estate developer's terms. i'm going to go develop a new subdivision, and you're saying that because the developer hasn't put in the streets and sewer systems and so forth, we're not going to sell them the land. that doesn't make sense. that's backwards. you have of to have the leases as a prerequisite before any of the infrastructure's this. right? >> congressman flores, the reality of virginia is what i spoke to with congressman whitman in his questioning, and that is that you have very significant conflicts with the

military needs which are so important to the cup. we're not going to do anything that is going to step back on supporting the needs of the navy. >> okay. so we're -- >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> thank you for the minute ten grace. >> yeah. chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. landry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i want to commend you and thank you and your staff for getting involved and helping get a meeting down in the regional office in new orleans because i believe that it's important for congress, it's congress' role to regulate the regulator. and so i appreciate you getting involved and seeing that it's important to allow congressmen to go down there and visit the regional offices and so forth. so i thank you. um, i don't know if you had a chance to read "the wall street journal" today because there was an article that said that crude cruises just shy of $900.

and -- $100. and if you read through the article, you'll see the reason crude prices are escalating according to "the wall street journal" which is a periodical that was used in telling us that the gulf was back to work, said that the reason crude prices are up is because domestic supplies are on their way down. they're predicting that domestic production -- i'm sorry -- domestic production is on the decline. and, you see, last year i explained, i cement out a comment that i don't think -- sent out a comment that i don't think the administration understands. you can't turn on the oil and gas industry off and on like a light switch. and i think this is going to start prove that i'm right and prove that y'all guys are putting us in a precarious situation. if oil is at $100 today, okay,

when we're at the slow driving season, when gasoline prices start to decline, god help us in may and june and july which, of course, is the time when it's going to be running which i think he's very sensitive to. so i think this is an opportunity for us to recognize that we have to increase our production and open up some additional areas. now, the lease sales can create significant revenue for the federal government. we've heard that. what kind of impact would lease sale 222, if allowed to move forward, make on our economy and this country? >> lease sale 222 in virginia? >> yeah. 222, i think it is. >> are you 222 or 220? >> 222. >> is that one of our lease sales?

>> [inaudible] >> it's an upcoming lease sale in the eastern gulf that was opened up under the act of -- >> right. but it's not being conducted in 2012. >> it is part of our 2012 to 2017 plan. >> but the lease sale is not going to be conducted in 2012. it's not going to be -- >> let me ask the director. >> there'll be a western gulf lease sale on december 14th of this year. >> right. >> next year in may or june there'll be a consolidated central gulf sale which as reflected in the national assessment that ranking member markey displayed at the beginning of this hearing is actually the richest area in the gulf. that consolidated sale will take place in may or june -- >> so are you saying 222 actually will occur next year? i mean, it's just a yes or no because i don't have a lot of time. >> yeah. we're putting out, as a matter of fact, we'll be putting out a

notice on that sale. >> great. thank you. let me ask you this question, dead you consider addressing needs of those players indirectly affected by the oil spill and subsequent moratorium such as shallow water operators and lease extensions? that's kind of where i'm trying to go here. i know that y'all gave some extensions to about 99% of those stakeholders in deepwater, but we've got no answer as to those shallow water players, whether those -- because they were indirectly affected, if we would extend their leases as we did the deepwater players. >> let me, let me answer one of your questions, and that's on the dollars and the value of crude and "the wall street journal" article, and i'll have tommy respond directly to your last question. the price of oil is set on the global market, and the program we have put out both onshore as well as offshore is one that's going to bring additional energy production here in the united states. >> wait, i hate to stop you. that is partially true, but

brent crude, there's been a significant gap between brent crude and texas intermediate which is over at cummings. and so the price in this article you will see that the price that i'm talking about is the american crude that's being priced on the nymex. so they're saying that the reason it is going up is because of domestic supplies are going down. so that's, in effect, directly based upon domestic production. not a worldwide production, on domestic production. because when libya was taken off the market, the brent crude shot up. so, you see, you actually are able to see the differences between the twoment -- two. >> i would only say, congressman, that the facts speak for themselves, that we are moving forward with production of oil and gas, and we continue to produce more today than was being produced

even two years ago. >> time of the gentleman has expeered. -- expired. gentleman from nevada. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, will secretary. i've gone over your opening statement, and i've got a couple questions based on that. you indicated in the introduction that the president stressed the administration is commit today promoting safe and responsible oil and gas production as part of a broad energy strategy that will protect consumers. protect consumers from what? >> the, we need to make sure that we address the goal of the nation's energy security. that's the essence of the president's blue print on energy, and at the heart of it is national security, economic security and environmental security. and it's an issue that's been debated for a long time. the fact is that we in this administration are making real

progress on all aspects of gaining energy security. >> so it's kind of protecting from those three things, national defense, economic and environmental security, that's the -- those are my words, not yours -- >> but generally that's in the ballpark? >> i don't know what specific language you're referring to in the statement. maybe you can refresh my memory. >> with i don't want to spend a lot of time on it, i want to know what you're protecting consumers from as a result of what we're discussing here today. >> i think consumers are being protected in a variety of ways under our energy plan 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 that was with support of the auto industry as well as many others who were involved in those decisions. so the fact that we are becoming a nation that is actually producing cars that are being now sold through a healthy auto industry is one of those ways in which the consumers are being

protected. >> okay, thank you. if you have anything to follow up on that in terms of the economic things, if i could get that offline, i'd appreciate it in terms of jobs, whether it's energy production, auto production, whatever other protections. i know this is a limited time frame. if you want to elucidate on that in writing greater, i would appreciate that. i also know later on when we're talking about the fracking issue, i'm on page 4 of your statement, the third from the bottom paragraph. and maybe mr. abby understand my sensitivity to this. there's a line that says, in addition, we are evaluating whether it would be beneficial to amending management of water follow being development. everybody knows there's no coastlines on nevada, and mr. abbey can understand there is a little bit of energy production in the silver state. but when a guy whose state relies extensively on groundwater sees a central agency starting to talk about management of water that's produced from drilling, i would like you to elucidate on that.

is in the first step into getting into state water law wherever it may be? or just give me some sense of what management of water produced following development of what is drilling means because i'm interested in knowing where that's headed. >> thank you, congressman. it is not at all an effort to get into state water law. water law is in the sovereign nature of the state, but i wanted director abbey to talk about the fullback water for a minute. >> you know what? that hits what i want to hit as much as i look forward to talking to abbey. mr. chairman, with your permission, i'd like to yield back the rest of my time to the gentleman to texas, mr. flores. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentleman from texas is recognized. >> in the latest lease plan there is a proposal to change the form of the lease, and i'm concerned about what we've got here. if you look at -- let me ask you this, did you get any public or stakeholder feedback on your proposed changes?

>> director boudreaux? >> yes. we specifically engaged industry including api on the lease form prior to publication of the lease form. we received a letter from api laying out questions and concerns they had about the amendments, and then i invited api in to sit down, go over the issues with, with me and with my staff, and we did that before making any final decisions about the lease form. >> okay. i've read the same letter, and it doesn't look like many of the proposals, many of the concerns that they had were addressed. and in particular one of the areas i'm concerned ant is the propose -- about is the proposed changes to section one to have lease form look like they're totally unlawful with respect to section 5a of oskla. how are we going to implement a lease form that has an unlawful provision? >> the amendment is not

unlawful. in fact, it essentially states a 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 do not specifically conflict with the terms of that lease. that is an inarguable position, in my view, and yet it is a position that in litigation companies have pursued. and so this is to make completely clear that in addition to the compliance to have lease, operators are complying with our regulations. most companies don't -- >> time of the gentleman has expired. i want everybody to have an opportunity. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, from -- mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, you're probably aware that i introduced

legislation called the world war ii memorial prayer act of 2011 that would direct you or a future secretary of the interior to place a plaque or an inscription of the prayer that president roosevelt pray with the 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. 2070, this piece of legislation, and in the department's testimony director abbey testified, and i quote, that placing the president's prayer, d-day prayer on the world world war ii memorl will necessarily dilute this elegant memorial's central message and it's ability to clearly convey that message to move, educate and inspire its many visitor. mr. secretary, do you agree with your department's assessment that by adding president roosevelt's d-day prayer to the world war ii memorial that it

would dilute the message of the memorial? yes or no? because i've got a lot of other questions. >> let me just give you an answer to your question -- >> it's a simple question. do you agree with your department's position as expressed by congressman -- mr. abbey? >> congressman, we have to follow the law. >> we know what the law is. the law is what congress gives you -- [inaudible conversations] >> as happened with -- >> no, i want you to -- i don't want you to quote me the law, i want you to answer the question. do you agree with your department's testimony that it will dilute the central them of the world war ii memorial? is. >> i agree with the -- >> yes or no, do you agree with your department's testimony that it will dilute the central message of the memorial? >> i have not seen the testimony. i'm certain that they are abiding by the law -- >> i'm not interesting in the law. we know what the law is because we give you the law. what i want to know is, do you

agree with your department's position and the administration's position that putting the world war ii -- putting on the world war ii memorial franklin roosevelt's d-day prayer will necessarily dilute the central message of the world war ii memorial. >> i have not seen the testimony, congressman. >> i'm telling you what the testimony is. mr. abbey's sitting right there. mr. abbey, can you acknowledge that's what you said? >> congressman johnson -- >> yes or no, mr. secretary. >> this is within the province of the national parks -- [inaudible] >> you're not going to answer that question. you're going to filibuster just like you've done so many other times -- >> i'd be happy to work with you to find a congressional resolution to your issue. >> all i want is an answer from you. your department has said putting that prayer on the memorial will necessarily dilute the central message of the memorial. is it your position and do you concur with that position? will putting the president's --

>> gentleman would suspend. i know that this is important to him, and i want to know that answer also. there appears to be a conflict, but i do want to at least be respectful because the topic of this hearing was energy development and not that. but i think, but i do think, mr. secretary, there needs to be a response to that because this clearly is a conflict here. and so i just wanted to bring things back. i know the passion that the gentleman from ohio has on this. mr. johnson, you may proceed. >> if i may, let me answer more specifically. the first thing is, in my own personal view, it does not. >> okay, that's all i need to know. >> number two, in order 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. so 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? >> you know, i had many conversations with the solicitor, and i -- >> have you got a written opinion from them? >> what we are doing is lawful. >> have you got a written -- i, we will determine whether it's lawful or the courts will, i guess, somebody will. i submit to you that it's not. but have you asked for and received a written opinion by the solicitor? >> i've had many legal -- >> have you asked for and received a written opinion by the so lis to have? because the last time this subject came up of a merger, there was a written analysis which basically said you don't have the authority or to merge departments like this. so have you received a written -- >> i will tell you what my legal conclusion is. >> no, i don't want your legal conclusion, i want to know if you've gotten one from the solicitor. >> i have gotten legal opinions -- >> have you got a written

opinion, yes or no? >> congressman johnson, i am absolutely -- >> i'm saying in your opinion right now, i'm not interesting in your -- interested in your opinion because we already know what that is. >> and i'm, frankly, not interested in your -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] from the solicitor. yes or no. >> i am very comfortable in the legal position we're taking. >> mr. chairman, it's clear we're not going to get any answers here today. maybe you can get one. thank you. i yield back. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson. >> thank you, chairman. mr. ec secretary, today natural gas is, i believe, somewhere $3. 32 a cubic foot. a few years ago it was probably, it was definitely over $12, $13 a cubic foot, not that long ago. today we have access to clean,

reliable, affordable, american-produced energy. and as i look at what made that difference, you know, what, what made that possible, it really comes down to private lands and private citizens. and, frankly, shot public lands and -- not public lands and government employees i don't think has contributed to this in any way. so my first question that i have is, if marcellus sale and other domestic production that provided these affordable, clean energy for our citizens were on federal lands instead of private lands, would natural gas prices be at a low of $3.32 today? >> think if there'd been a combination of production, and there is significant production of natural gas, and as director abbey stated in his opening statement, 90% of the wealth -- >> but my question was -- >> the ones that have been drilled on public lands are, in

fact, using hydraulic -- >> and i understand that. but when you look at the private lands today because of what the private lands have been doing under the jurisdictions of the states, doing safely, that transitions to my next question, mr. abbey. many abbey, in your verbal testimony you talked about hydrofracking and, quote, understandably raised concerns. so just real quick i just want to just delve into that a little bit. how many years have we been high cofracking? -- hydrofracking? >> several decades. >> 60. that qualifies. how many wells have been hydrofracked since the advent? >> i don't know the answer as far as worldwide. >> let me help you, two million. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. how many wells have been hydrofracked in the united states of america out of that two million? >> i don't know. >> let me help you there. half of those, one million wells. >> thank you. >> you're welcome.

what is the scientific data -- met me back -- i skipped one. what is the number of incidents specifically that have created problems from hydrofracking itself? the actual process of hydrofracking? >> i can speak to federal wells. we are not, we are not aware of any incident as a result of hydrologic fracturing on public lands. >> okay, great, thank you. next one, what is the scientific data validating this concern that you referenced in your testimony? >> it's the number of wells that are being drilled today using hydrologic fracturing. >> but the scientific data's showing, demonstrating actual incidents and problems. you said that there were zero incidents on federal -- >> on federal wells. >> on federal lands. and so my last question for you with this is coming back to your statement -- >> yes. >> -- how do you define "understandably"? >> by listening to the public.

>> okay. well, okay. all right. um, i'm not even going to go there. let's move on to number two. i'd like to submit, mr. chairman, an article for unanimous consent on shale leases in the wayne national forest. recently, the united states forest, and i know we're talking to the interior d., bear with me. -- department, bear with me. hour so manial drilling for the george washington national forest in virginia, and this article talks about shell leases in wayne national forest, and i just want to clarify based on our past hearings i believe that when it's public lands, subsurface oil, gas, minerals falls under the jurisdiction of the blm, is that correct? >> that is correct. yes. expwhrl so given that clarification, given the situation with the forest service proposing a total ban on horizontal on public subsurface owned by the taxpayers, george

washington national forest and now we've got the wean national forest -- wayne national forest in ohio, has the bhm or the d. of interior consulted with the united states forest service or the department of agriculture on yes, addressing the concerns through regulation rather than through another moratorium on drilling on public lands which costs jobs and government revenue? and, frankly, my specific question is, hasn't this forest supervisor stepped way outside the grounds of his or her responsibility and jurisdiction of -- >> well, i'll let the forest service answer that question, but let me share with you the fact that the bureau of land management serves as a cooperating agency to the analysis performed by the u.s. forest 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 on those federal menials.

we do -- minerals. we do defer back to the surface managing agency to make the final determination, but our analysis indicates that hour so manial drilling -- horizontal drilling would be appropriate. >> and i appreciate that. that was affirming what was share inside the -- >> the gentleman asked unanimous content -- concept to insert an article in the record. so ordered. >> mr. secretary, you've been in office now for nearly three years as has this administration. i look at the overall approaches you've taken to energy production. you've delayed the keystone xl pipeline now indeft, you've imposed an economically devastating drilling moratorium in the gulf, you've obstructed oil development in the arctic, you've just issued a highly restrict i offshore plan. i'm just wondering, how do these

actions help the economy? how do they help americans find jobs that they so desperate hi need? -- desperately need? >> congressman mcclintock, i would disagree with your conclusions and your assertions. the fact of the matter is that we have moved forward with a robust energy program that has a very diverse energy portfolio. >> this is what you describe as a robust energy program? >> we are moving forward development -- >> let me ask you this, how do these actions reduce our dependency on foreign oil? >> the facts, i think, speak for themselves if one observes the truth of the facts. we are importing less oil than we were several years ago, first time in this a long time that we go to an import level that's less than 50%. >> yes, but you and i know that's the result of a ten-year time frame that began ten years ago, and what we are now watching is the administration systematically shutting off our future oil development by these actions. let me go on. >> i respectfully disagree. >> understand. according to what mckenzie,

opening up the additional areas included in the original offshore leasing plan and 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, if you look at the overall energy situation returning to pro-development policies would produce $800 billion in revenue, 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? >> congressman mcclintock, we are committed to job creation in this country. it is the number one issue that the president focuses on every day. we in the department of interior are proud of the record that we have in job creation both with respect to oil and gas --

>> well, we've got 9% unemployment in the country, we began this administration with 7.8%. i'm not sure that's a record i would be proud of, with all due respect. let me ask you one final question here. jack gerard, president of the american petroleum institute, wrote to the speaker and the senate majority leader two days ago in critiquing the plan you've released. he writes: potentially very large oil and natural gas resources in the atlantic, pacific and eastern gulf of mexico are left out of the department's plan. comments from the department suggests this was at least in part because accurate, updated estimates of the resource potential in those areas are not available. that argument, however, presents a catch 22. information on the resource potential in these areas is old and incomplete. yet without the possibility of a lease sale, companies will not invest in the costly exploratory work needed to get more accurate and come predata.

what's your response to that? >> i respect mr. gerard very much, but he obviously is voicing the point of view of the trade association. the fact is we do need additional information in many places including in the atlantic, and we're moving forward to develop that additional information. >> finally i'd just like to say that your assurances that all of these anti-energy policies present a robust energy plan for america, that you are very concerned about job creation except when it comes to the one and a half million jobs that we could create if you would simply get out of the way, i'm reminded of something leo tolstoy wrote about the czar's government. he said, i sit on a man's back choking him and making him carry me, and all the while i assure he and anyone who will listen that i am have sympathetic of his plight, and i am willing to do everything i can to help, except by getting off his back. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back his

time. chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, directors, i appreciate you being here as well. mr. secretary and perhaps this might apply to you, director abbey, i'd like to ask you about an issue that's important in our part of the world in western colorado in particular. as you know, mr. secretary, right now the bureau of land management is in the 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, also, be a very economically-challenged area right now. we have grand just, and it was just reported in the new york time that is this regional economic hub in western colorado leads the nation in job losses. these are tough economic times, and folks are trying to get

their arms around the plan that the blm is asking for comment on. the expiration of the comment period is, has been a 90-day comment period. it's going to expire around the end of the holidays here, and i know the blm frequently extends comment period when requested, and a number of stakeholders out in western colorado in particular have or soon will make a request that the blm with respect to the colorado river valley plan extend that comment period. is this something that you would support, and if so, when do you think we might be able to have a definitive answer on expending that period? director abbey? >> congressman, if you would, if you'd send me a written request, i would certainly entertain it, and the likelihood of approving that would be -- >> thank you. i'd hike to go back to a couple of questions and revisit them.

secretary salazar, you talked in your testimony and in terms of answering a few questions about well bore integrity and the importance of being able to protect that. you also commented that we do not have one instance of the fracking process getting in to our water reserves, into the water table. do we have any examples to where well bore integrity has been breached when it comes to protecting water in terms of the fracking process in in the united states? >> there, congressman tipton, there are examples of well bore integrity and contamination of wells with respect to hydraulic fracking and the contamination of wells. >> right. >> there is a possibility water could be contaminated if a well does not have well bore integrity, is ask so that's -- >> congressman thompson just mentioned we've 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 we could do in a bipartisan way is to move forward in a manner that supports the natural gas industry and allows us abundantly available domestic resource to be used. in my view, some of these issues will have to be addressed in order for us to move forward with a robust natural gas domestic energy supply intr. right. 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. but -- and i agree with the bipartisan end of it as well because we all want clean air and water and 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 that the states are fully support inside those regulatory efforts. why do you think the department of interior is going to be able to do a better job than our states in terms of regulating it? a lot of us believe that, you know, nobody cares more than the people at home when it comes to being able to protect those issues. we have those regulatory processes 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's important that we assure that oil and gas drilling and production is done in a safe and responsible american. >> and as it applies to fracking, apparently that job's been done m -- done. >> well, i would say that you have an open question with respect to several of these issue, and that's why we have

been involved in a long process that began with a forum that i 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 web site and the frack focus program that they put together is a part of that. we've seen states from if wisconsin to texas move forward with disclosure programs, so we have not landed yet on what kind of disclosure we might require. that's part of the process we have ongoing under consideration. >> if i could have the chair's indulgence -- >> time of the gentleman has expired. >> okay, thank you. >> gentle lady from california. >> thank you, mr. chair, and i'm glad to see you, mr. secretary. it's been a while. and hope we can't forgotten us in california. and -- >> i'd never forget california. [laughter] i don't even forget washington. >> well, i'll be calling you.

one of the things that's brought to my attention is "the washington post" today indicated there was another, this 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 regular. and what -- do you have information on that, number one. what can you tell us about it. and if transcon, transocean was, is the one that had another oil spill offshore resulting from drilling operations, should we be looking at another, um, 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 that we're moving forward with safe and responsible oil and gas development, and that's why we've led the largest overhaul in the nation's programs on offshore energy development. >> thank you. the it's a real serious possible way of doing business by transocean that we should possibly continue to look at their operation. but earlier the gentleman from texas showed a chart that i wasn't here to see, but i understand it was shown, the steps that must be taken in order to move a lease from first production in the average time of the company to bring after

being awarded the lease to the first production shown to be 9.5 years. but the steps outlined acquire and interpret 3-d and other data and find partners to share cost and drill an exploratory well, and in contrast almost all of these steps are actions to be taken by the company, not the government, is that right? >> director boudreaux? >> a lot of those steps do require alaskas by the company -- actions by the companies. seismic surveys, however, go through a permitting process that my agency and ther into department's -- interior department's involved 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, um, 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 be looking at incentives then to shorten these lease times and to move the production forward quickly? >> congresswoman napolitano, the answer to that is, yes, and, in fact, those are some of the reforms that have been made by the bureau of ocean energy management as we move forward. it is our view we ought not to have idle acreage, and we ought to do everything we can to move forward with encouraging oil and gas production in the right places and in the right ways. >> thank you very much. i just came in late because i was at the transportation hearing on hydrofracking, well,

hydrofracking. and some of the questions that are being put back and forth is that epa's being too heavy-handed in some cares and states -- areas and states should have the right to implement their own standards. and my concern, and i voiced this, was that some of the pools left behind by the water that is used contains the 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's, these are at a lower level than the underwater streams and rivers. but isn't there an issue that we should -- not standardized 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 the 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 and at the same time moving forward with a program that will 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 lands are all using hydrologic fracking. >> time has expired. >> thank you, mr. secretary, for being here. the the facts speak for themselves, you also said this

your testimony that we've had higher production. i just wallet to make sure the facts do speak for themselves. do you agree or disagree with congressman flores who said that it takes about 9.5 years to get from lease to production. to 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 from the point of time when the acreage is made available, it is a multiple-year program. >> and you would agree that it's more than two years or three years, correct? >> from the point of making the lease sale to the point of production, yes. >> correct. regardless of whether it's because a company delayed or because of, you know, you have all these procedures that are required by law, it's more than two or three years to get from, from a lease to production, correct? >> that is correct. >> so every time i've been here, and i don't want come from an oil-producing state, but every time i've been here in this

natural resources committee and i've had somebody from the administration come here, their trying to -- 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 the get to the facts, isn't it true that this is based on actions from the previous administration? not from the current administration? is that true? >> congressman labrador, what i would say is i love the potatoes from your state, but they're not as good as the ones from colorado or hawaii. [laughter] having said that, let me say we have moved forward with an oil and gas program -- >> i understand that you're moving forward, yes. >> let me just give you an example to support the facts as i've 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 kid not do that, -- we did nt

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 we have the kind of program within the department of interior that can allow safe oil and gas drilling and production to move forward. 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 that whatever oil production we have today is because of alaskas that happened -- 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 where we were seeing the number of lease

going up higher and higher and higher, wouldn't it be also true if number of leases is going down that we would have less oil production five to ten 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 on shore that we've made available. much of that will be coming into production because the greatest knit, frankly, for oil and gas companies is the price of oil. >> okay. 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 the proposed reorganizations of the bureau of land management. i only have a minute here. explain to me how the structure will be reorganized. will you be creating a position that directly reports to you,

the secretary of the interior, and adding another bureaucratic layer of reporting? >> we are looking at the reorganization right now, and no decision have been 345ed. we need to make sure that our employees are involved as well as stakeholders at osm. we will stay within the law. smack rah requires we have an independent agency to carry out the duties, that is what osm will do. so director abbey is putting together plan, and we will not have that plan until february, and i'd appreciate any comment that this committee may have in terms of how we look at this reorganization because no final decisions have been made. >> when director abbey presented to some of the staff here in congress, he talked about how one of the reasons provided for the merger was the 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, reclaiming hard rock mineses?

>> you know, i don't know whether i have seen that, but i have seen similar types of documents. >> i ask unanimous concept for this to be included in the record. i think blm knows quite a bit about how to handle abandoned mines, and i don't think they need to learn anything from osm -- >> without objection, that'll be part of the record. the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognize it is gentleman from alaska, mr. young. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, welcome here. as you see, my hat that i'm wearing, i'm in support of the obama energy program. it's called a propeller. because there is no energy program. you're not as guilty though as other agencies within this administration. i do think you've made some steps forward. but i will tell you, you're not the only player in town. you've got epa and lisa jackson, an organization that's trying to subvert your authority, and they will probably do it because they've got more clout in the white house. so the energy program, the obama administration has is nothing m

as far as producing energy. i know you don't agree with me. but i keep saying we've been importing, and it's 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 of -- 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 forgot and i think you can understand this, the gentleman said when we turn to foreign lands to supply our energy needs, then i can't help but feeling that somewhere along the way we've surrendered something of our freedom. and that was a quote aa congressman -- by a congressman on this committee. and that's what we've done. i hope that as a secretary of one of the large land holdings in the world, that we need really cooperative working with states and with the industry to make sure we're not losing our freedoms overseas.

that's a little speech. but having said that, um, though inadequate,ly take, and we appreciate your schedule of additional oil and gas leases in the arctic. but what steps are you taking to assure timely review of permit applications within interior and other agencies concerning leases? in this regard, i understand the obama administration has understood taken an effort considering alaskan energy, can you provide us with some concrete time frames? >> congressman young, first of all, i appreciate your leadership on alaska on so many differentish -- different issues, and we are moving forward with a robust energy program. with respect to alaska and the arctic, the president has designated the department of interior and my ten deputy secretary, david hayes, to insure there is coordination in the permitting process with respect to alaska. >> can you do me a favor?

again, i go back outside your agency and outside the state. the epa, the corps of engineers and recently the live deal. when they get get involved and stop the process that you putting forward, let me know where i can be of help to you. >> i appreciate that, and i will just reiterate one thing on that, congressman young. the position that the deputy secretary is occupying today essentially allows interior through the deputy secretary to bring those agencies together. >> okay, now, regarding the comprehensive conservation plan for anwr, why hasn't the united states fish and wildlife service listed oil and gas development in the coastal plain as an alternative decision to be considered whether just including additional wilderness designations? >> our position has been and is today that drilling in the arctic national wildlife refuge is not appropriate. >> be ah, now, my point is, now,

remember, the no more clause. i actually think your fish and wildlife agency is stepping over their lines, and we will eventually find out in court. it's not going to go with through this congress anyway. kid yourself, you're wasting money. but what bothers me, i understand certain international environmental groups have garnered a million signatures on the coastal plain. most of these have a standard form s how will the 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 a million signatures, are you going to listen to that, or are you going to listen to the alaskans? >> it is very important for us to make sure we are listening to the local commitments. so alaska is a world unto itself in terms of it beauty and it 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. [laughter] what are you doing to coordinate the blm's december 7th lease sale with the state's onshore and offshore sale at the same time? you working together? >> director abbey? >> we're working very close together, congressman. in fact, i received a statement the other day from the state complementing the alaskas to end the coordination that we're doing with them. >> time of the gentleman has expired. >> can i take my propeller off? i want you to know, i'm supporting mr. markey. >> okay. i'm sure he is thrilled with that. [laughter] mr. secretary, i. >> i thought he was taking it off because i had convinced him about the correctness of our robust energy program. >> [laughter] >> listen, you can interpret that any way. [laughter] mr. secretary, we had as close a

hard time as 12:30, but we have mr. holt came in, and mr.-- [inaudible] has been sitting very patiently. with your indulgence, those will be the last two questions, we should get you out of here as close to that time if that's okay. well, it's going to be okay because we have to do it that way. mr. holt's recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. secretary, good to see you. it was good to see you at the, in patterson, new jersey, at our new national park in the new jersey. thank you for coming. several different questions. first of all, wanted to really hook at this question of -- 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 over the last half dozen years earning hundreds of billions, between five and six hundred billion in profits, over that same period their work force 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, you're all on record and in practice promoting production. in fact, production is up along with these profits. but it also seems to go along with 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? >> i -- >> right here.

>> i would like to get an answer to the question first and then, thank you. >> thank you very much, congressman holt. and the an honor to be with you in patterson falls, new jersey. let me just say that 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 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 are supportive of that policy, it's part of the energy portfolio that president obama has announced in the 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, um, 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? >> congressman holt, are critical areas within the lease sale 220 area in this 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. um, on a, on another matter involving the atlantic, the legislation that was before this committee, h.r. 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 h.r. 1233. i will say this, that 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, that i wonder why in the world we should ask the most profitable cubs in the -- 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

heads of the oil companies -- bp, halliburton, transocean and cameron, so forth -- to testify before this committee about the deepwater horizon disaster. do you believe the ceos there the these oil companies should testify? would that help the public get useful information about this? >> you know, congressman holt, i don't have an opinion on that. i do believe that there have been significant investigations that have been conducted including the most recent investigation by the joint investigative team that included the coast guard and the department of interior, and those results are comprehensive, and they tell the sequence of what happened and the regulatory specific regulations that we believe were violated in the macondo well blow outlast year. >> time of the gentleman has expired. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> gentleman from florida, mr. sutherland.

>> is thank you, mr. chair. mr. secretary, thank you for being here and thank you for the delay of going over a little bit. i know time's precious. um, i'd like to read a statement. there has been extremely negative reaction to the decision regarding keystone in the united states because this pipeline and this prompt is, obviously, what's in the best interests not just to have canadian economy, but also the american economy. therefore, based on the decision by this administration canada will seek to join the new asian trade bloc as it tries to increase energy exports to the region following the u.s. decision to delay the approval of transcontinue innocental corporation's $7 billion keystone xl pipeline. with that statement my question to you is, how does the american worker benefit if this canadian sands oil goes to china and ore parts of -- other parts of asia? >> congressman sutherland, let me just 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 by law a process which has been led by the state department. they have listened to the input from many places, including the governor of nebraska and senator johanns who have legitimate concerns about -- >> no, i understand, but just -- and i know time is precious for me and you. how does this decision help or harm the american worker? >> well, i don't think it does because no decision has yet been made. the fact is -- >> but the time value of money. and unlike some people that question here, you know, i come from a business background, and i understand time is money and speed is profit. so if that's the case and business owners understand that, job creators understand that, how does this decision delay, okay, hurt profits, hurt the ability of the american worker to be able to put food on their table?

>> you know, i will refer the question to the state department because it is the department of the government that is in charge of -- >> let me say this. i've learned in your testifying, you're an incredibly bright man. you have an opinion. you even shared your opinion on the prayer that the other member questioned earlier. you certainly have to have an opinion, a perp in your -- how this affects the american worker. >> my factual conclusion, congressman sutherland, is that no decision has yet been made, and there are -- >> the decision to delay. >> there are strong arguments as to why thispipeline should go forward, there are legitimate concerns as to why it should not go forward, but that decision will be forthcoming. >> is it good for the american worker that a decision is not made farther down the road? is it better for a worker to have a job today, or is it better for a worker to have a job maybe two years there thousand? >> i think it's important to get it right? >> yeah, but for the person that's unemployed, for the person that's trying to feed his

family, provide food, provide shelter. if that person does not have a job and this person could, perhaps, have a job with that project, is that person benefiting if we wait two years down the road? that's the common sense. you don't need to be a secretary of an agency to figure that one out. do you agree with that? >> i think it's important that it be the right decision and with the right level of input and the right level of -- >> right. i'm sure the american worker really appreciates the answer to that question. and bringing that close to home, we have in panama city, florida, we have bird pipe and in tallahassee we have exp which is an engineering firm that has worked very hard on this project. last week bird pipe let go 100 workers in the panama city, and with this delay there's a better than average chance that exp will let go 100 worker, so that's over 200 in my district. i guess what would you say to them? because these workers are going

to be -- 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, congressman sutherland, is the pipeline industry is something which is a robust industry here in this country. we have thousands and thousands of miles including many that have traversed our public lands that we have authorized, and no one has yet made a judgment on whether or not the keystone xl pipeline is moving forward. the fact is there are arguments on both sides, and the state department is moving forward with a process to make sure that they get a right decision. >> and i'm sure you understand why there's this massive disconnect between the 200 people that you just gave that answer to and their aggravation with inside the beltway. because what you just did is you just gave them a political speech, and they don't know where their next paycheck's going to come from.

that falls on deaf ears. and i tell you, what director abbey stated earlier, that he listens to public sentiment to validate his decisions f the public supports keystone, then isn't the president's decision a total disregard to the american people and its workers? i state, absolutely, and i wish the administration and the president of the united states would use your same standard of will being to the sentiment of the -- of listening to the sentiments of the american worker. obviously, they have not, and it aggravates the fire out of me that all we've got is your statement to those 200 workers and, unfortunately, it doesn't put food on the table. thank you, i yield back. >> time of the gentleman has expired. i have learned through the magic of instant communications, mr. secretary, that you are breathlessly awaiting some questioning from mr. bishop of utah, so i'll recognize mr. bishop for five minutes. >> that's great. i always enjoy my conversations with congressman bishop. i've been to utah more times than i've been to washington,

i'll have you now. >> that's why i couched it exactly that way. >> i think you were psychic in asking and accepting my question. this pains me in some way, but when somebody does something correctly, i think kudos need to be given. i have not seen -- i have seen your wilderness proposals. i have not viewed all of them, but i have viewed the ones in utah. i still need to talk to the people in those particular areas, but on the surface it seems that you and director abbey have done a proper job of trying to identify wilderness areas in my state, so i want to thank you -- don't answer, because you'll just screw it up. [laughter] >> on that note, i was going to ask the chair if he could adjourn the hearing so we could make some history here today. [laughter] >> however -- >> i knew there was a however coming. >> now turning into my don young mode. the interior department did send out a news release back a week ago talking about the amount of revenue that was coming from energy production on public lands, and you stated, or the

department stated, the revenues will also support much-needed prompts 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 77 leases which was one of your first decisions in office. we've talked about oil shale demonstration projects that have been slow walked by the department. the fact of the matter is schools in the united states, 13 of the 15 slowest gulf area, states with the slowest growth in their public education tupped funding are found in the west which are so-called public land states, and it's not even close. states east of denver have grown their education funding at a 90% plus rate, those of us in the west it's a 40% plus rate. it's almost two to one. because we have the benefit of, basically, a land czar that deals with our particular areas. bottom line is unless the resources in if our states are developed in the west, our kids are hurt. they are put at a decided

disadvantage. you recognize this in the press release when you said this money goes to funding education. there are some actions that have decreased. that 77 leases not only destroyed an area which by redistricting i will get the chance to represent, but it also hurt the overall funding of the education in the state of utah unnecessarily. if west is going to develop an adequate funding basis for their needs, they must have resource development that takes place on the lands in the west. we can't have it both ways. so i'm assuming you'll support that in view of the newsletter and also support the apple bill that deals directly with the ability of helping western states fund their ability when they actually became states in the organic enabling acts. now, this is the one i think i can ask you a direct question and answer it very briefly. i have read in a news report that the department is planning

to do restrictions on hunting opportunities on public lands specifically forest service and blm lands. is the department currently planning or working on any types of restrictions on hunting on public lands? >> congressman bishop, not to my knowledge. we have a program where we work with and support hunting and fishing and boating and all the use of our public lands because of the importance of the job creation that comes, six and a half million plus jobs just from outdoor recreation as well. your state is, i think, exhibit a in terms of some of those economic developments. >> can i throw that to director abbey? do you know of anything in your agency that's working on those kinds of restrictions that were in the press? in we're not working on any restrictions in hunting and fishing on public lands. >> i hope -- i appreciate that. i hope we can actually fund egg for kids, and i have the

opportunity of, again, thanking you and complimenting you for a correct decision. >> thank you very much. >> i just noted that he yielded back his time with a compliment. thank you. two of them, yes. that, that concludes our hearing. i want to thank you, secretary salazar, for coming and director abbey and director boudreaux for coming and, as you can see, there are a number of different opinions here, but that's what these hearings are designed for, is to get that out and come to some conclusions. i will ask this, there were several members just because of time constraints that have questions. mr. brown had a line of questioning that i intervened with vis-a-vis the relationship between epa and interior, and if you could respond back with that one, i know mr. landry may have some further questions, mr. flores, mr. tiptop, i think, referenced those -- tipton, i think, referenced those. as those come in to you f you

could respond in a timely manner so we could make that part of this record, i would appreciate it. >> i will direct christopher mansour to provide the responses. >> if i run into him, i'll tell him you said that and expect that. and finally, i ask man now concept to enter a copy of an all 2001 draft analysis which includes an opinion of a much smaller consolidation proposal between osm and mms that was referenced by mr. johnson in his comments to be included in the record. and without objection, that'll be included with the record. nothing to come before the committee again, the committee stands adjourned, and thank you again for being here. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our web site, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> and live now to the u.s. senate. yesterday senators started working on the 2012 defense programs bill, and they'll contin w