with facilities. what are your plans for education at the department? >> senator, i am committed to holding up the sacred trust of the department of interior and many of my conversations with senators, this is a very big issue. including our conversation together. i know that the issues are difficult and long serving and i hope that through collaboration with the department of education, we will be able to enhance the educational opportunities across this country. it is a difficult issue and a very important priority if we are to, in fact, help working on a nation to nation basis and improve the economic opportunity for young people. >> thank you. >> senator johnson, thank you.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. can i include the list of usc trojans and that exemption? >> last. >> welcome. welcome to your husband also. congratulations on your nomination. i would like to talk about this. it is very important to the state of nevada. $559 million were provided in taxable sales and 25,000 jobs, roughly 15% job growth rate. in the course of some research

and what you have given, he repeatedly referred to the idea that certain places are threatened and need to be protected from development. you have helped to fund some of these efforts through your personal careers, including leadership as mentioned by the senator from wyoming. in those efforts, he stopped some of these threads in alaska and arizona. so my question is do you believe that mining is a threat to public lands? >> senator, over the course of my career and as a banker, i have done business with a number of different companies, including gold and silver mining companies. i appreciate the importance of strategic materials and certainly the importance of coal to our economy and manufacturing processes and we all enjoy

products made from these materials. i also appreciate that the mining companies that have worked with over the course of my career are responsible. they are not looking to threaten the habitat for the environment, but to do things by rules and they have recognized the rules are important. so i certainly don't have anything against mining. i know it is important in the state of nevada and i look forward to the responsible development of the resources. >> thank you for the answer. everybody keeps raising the bar, but 87% of nevada is owned by the federal government. so when the interior sneezes, we feel an earthquake in nevada. that is why these issues are so important. i am assuming that my other colleagues will want to talk about this.

just last year in nevada we had 944 individuals and we burned over 613,000 acres. which is about 1000 square miles or roughly the size of rhode island. zone reference we have wildfires every year. we do agree that there is some unusual regulations. we have renters that have allotments on federal lands that are told that they can't put out a fire. so if they are there with cattle and sheep, and they see a lightning strike and a fire starts, they are told that you

cannot put that fire out. they have to sit there and watch it burn. i don't know if you're aware of that. but i certainly would like to work with you in trying to determine a better way of handling this. a majority of those were present at the time but restricted from putting those fires out. yet at the end of the day, we burned 1000 square miles. so i would hope that you and i could have that discussion to assure that not only are we avoiding these things, but saving things. >> i'm not only with the details around the wildfires and the rules. i do know that the fire is good sometimes and not other times, the fuel load, the temperature of the fire, i will certainly

look forward to working with you and others in your community to better understand these impacts and address them as necessary. >> okay, thank you. >> next in order of appearance, senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman, congratulations. thank you for coming to my office. we had a great discussion on issues that matter to me. he did talk about climate change for a little bit. and when we talk about the issue of wildfires, we have the director of the forest service here and i asked him if the size of these fires, the intensity of these wildfires, you talk about

invasive species and bark beetles that are living in higher altitudes. whether they felt that this was exacerbated by climate change and they said yes, without hesitation. so i know that a big part of what you're going to be working with is mitigation and the effects of climate change. we talked about that. thank you. >> i know that senator johnson brought up lewis and clarke, that is an issue that is important to us in southwestern minnesota. also northwestern iowa. the secretary said it was a

priority. just as places you know where all of the local governments have not just paid 100% of their share, but also paying on top of that to get water that isn't being delivered there. is there a different approach that you might consider taking? >> senator, i appreciate the importance of this issue and the challenge of federal funding in general. i am not steep enough in the techniques that have been tried yet and what might be available. as i said to senator johnson, i appreciate how important this is and i would look forward to working with you in moving forward on this important issue. >> well, thank you. it is an economic development

tool. an infrastructure that the president talks about that creates jobs. and we also talked about indian affairs. we talked about the importance of this to me and the problems that exist there and i am working with a deputy secretary, and we can work in terms of energy projects in indian country. a lot are isolated that could

probably use their own sources of energy to power themselves and i would encourage you to get to travel around to indian country and really get to know that world. >> senator, i appreciate very much the responsibility that the nation to nation relationship that we have, i think that energy development is an important source of revenue where they are blessed with those resources to try to go to. >> i had the opportunity to go to arizona last summer and i found that they had a lot of sun. [laughter] it was dry sun, but i would think that there is a wind on

those lands i had a delightful meeting, wonderful meeting, and i really look forward to working with you as the secretary. >> congratulations, by the way. >> thank you, senator franken. next we will have senator landrieu. >> thank you so much for taking time to meet with me. i have spent more time with you that i have with most nominees, including a couple of supreme court justices. obviously if you look here from our side, just about everybody here is owned by the federal government which makes dealing with the issues very difficult

which is somewhat unfortunate, one of the few opportunities to deal with the spirits i would like to talk about the one that you and i talked about for some time. and that is the sagebrush issue. what i feel is a real shortcoming and that is the conflict between agencies within the department and the secretary's inability to resolve the spirit i'm so glad to see a ceo come in and take over the agency having been a ceo, i know how to do that, but not when you have to dance to the tune of someone else and we all know that that happens with white house regardless of what you want to do. some person that is really not identified in the white house will call the shots and that is what we are having the problem

with right now. by the way, you have unsolicited statements about the collaborative process. that has how these complex will be resolved. there is no question about it. we have had a war for 40 years over this and both sides are saying if these things are going to get resolved, it will be through the collaborative process. in idaho, shortly became governor, taking it all the way through the ninth circuit we

have not had a good experience with interior on something that we were promised that the collaborative process would prevail and then did not. we are now facing the same thing with stagecraft. secretary salazar promised the western governors that if they got together in their states and teamed up with individual management plans, it would carve those states out of the national. as you know, i'm desperately saying that we want to do it ourselves. this may come as a shock, but we can do it.

by the way, i hope i don't endanger this guys job he likes the collaborative process, the planet we came up with. he said in a letter dated august august 1, a number of things that spoke well of what we have had, i am not going to revisit the record, but i would like to have this. >> my point is that the fish and wildlife service, which you were going to supervise, the dlm is in charge of soil and plants and the problem that we have is that it is attempting to exert influence over the species when the fish and wildlife service knows better than they do.

we are hung up badly. but it will be resolved. now, a we are glad to hear you talk about clarity for the businesses. i love the free enterprise system and the only way it can operate it with certain clarity. we have almost 2000 grazing permits that are operated in idaho and they need certain clarity. and this is within the hands of the secretary to resolve and i really hope this gets resolved. it needs to be resolved before this process goes forward.

i suspect i will be hearing for them is what we need to do and i have some really good ideas. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, and let me begin by thanking you for being willing to serve. i think you bring a particularly interesting and exciting set of skills to this job and i appreciate the meeting that we had for a long time. i would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member so much for their focus on revenue sharing is a possibility states and local communities that can address this on both sides here today i want to call your attention to offshore

production grade when it began in 1950, the coastal states had spent $211 billion to the federal government the offshore has contributed three times the amount of money to the general fund. the $30 billion, the difference is of those amounts, although it is three times more, 30 billion of the 61 has been maintained by the western states and the interior states. and only a few million dollars has come back to the coastal states. both of them are impacted. both receive benefits of the

job. but i want to show you that a picture is worth a thousand words. this is what the coast of always in a looks like. these are the pipelines connected to wells off the coast of texas and louisiana and mississippi and alabama. this is the mobile bay. you can see that it is concentrated under the state of texas and louisiana and this is rare that $2.11 billion for the federal treasury has come from, with a little bit coming off the coast of california, but not much. we have sat here since 1950, developing the technology, and cannot get a penny from the federal government to save the land but this production is coming from.

this is one of the great injustices in the lot today. i want some comments from you about the opportunity to fix this right now. right now we have a bill that gives us 37% that we will cap at 500 million. and the land and water conservation. so my question is are you aware of this, what can you do to advocate for its correction? >> thank you senator landrieu. i appreciate the conversation we had in your office on this topic as well. i know that we are all in a situation and it would take good collaboration to assess what an appropriate change might be. i have certainly heard from a number of senators about this

issue and i look forward to better understanding the issue by different states and hopefully ringing it to an appropriate resolution. >> i also want to call your attention, which this is the oil and gas well in louisiana as well as the contribution that our state is making. meanwhile, we also drain 40% of the continent, nurture 40% of the seafood for the entire country. the activity benefits everyone in the world and secondly, louisiana rate second in natural gas production behind texas. we are seeing a situation decompress and it is right here.

the industry is one of the largest producers of fertilizer looking to spend $1.2 billion. that is over $3.5 billion in one parish in this community that is happening because of the expansion of natural gas and drilling in the promised of the manufacturing renaissance, which will create other jobs. can you comment on the benefit of the environment and jobs for natural gas? >> senator, as the chairman said, natural gas is a very significant component of those resources. it is an important contribution to our future. >> thank you, senator landrieu.

>> something we talked about there, the navajo generating in the coal-fired plant, and it uses the share of this to satisfy water settlements with irrigation districts and residential water uses in tucson and phoenix. it also provides a huge part of the navajo budgets and given your responsibilities, it is extremely important. especially given the complex needs that have satisfied the

plant and the different interests involved. i wonder how you will compete with the interest. you have been on the national parks conversation -- conservation association board and in the past, it was argued that a study that was desired by the department of interior would interfere with the regulatory process. >> the study had a critical effort regarding the potential impacts on tribal economies and in light of this statement about the ngs, is this something that

would keep you from seeking information from other groups? that is my concern here. we have all the information about the massive costs to shut down but it seemed to not want some of that information out. that process or thinking, can you explain that? >> thank you, senator, i appreciate our discussion particularly on this. i have learned a lot from that, as i am learning from the department of the interior as well. it is a nonprofit organization founded in 1919 that supports this and to the extent that there is any engagement, my

first step would be to confer with the officials to determine by appropriate engagement on that issue, very complex, very important to the tribes, and clearly, a complicated issue that the debbie deputy secretary has been working on for some time. i will absolutely look forward to talking more about this the map. >> throughout arizona, these cold fire apache generating stations are one of those. it is unclear whether this high cost will improve visibility at all and have any noticeable benefits and here again is a

lawsuit and i just want to say that i hope that doesn't influence where you are at the interior. you have a lot of things competing. we keep that plant running to meet these obligations. is that how you see it? what is your response? >> i appreciate this is was submitted a moment ago. it would be to the appropriate officials to determine the role that could be played. >> this has been quite a routine now for outside groups and the so-called zoo and subtle.

and some of those are left completely out. what is your feeling on this? it is concerning to those who have an interest in our stakeholders and other power generation and an outside group will come in, sometimes the state of arizona has to file a suit just to get a seat at the table. to figure out what is going on. what are your general thoughts in that area? >> senator, without a background on the specifics, i have played no role in the lawsuits and i will say that in the case of that organization, it is in

support of the national parks understanding, bringing volunteers to advocate for funding and lawsuits are a small part of what that organization does. >> moving away, just in general, whether it is other outside groups, without involving other stakeholders. is it your feeling that we have to work to include these stakeholders rather than exclude them? just to get a place at the table when they are very much affected by the outcomes of some of these governments? >> as a businessperson, one of the things i have done throughout my career is bringing parties to the table and try to reach an agreement on difficult

issues so that it doesn't require measures like lawsuits in order to uphold the laws of this body has passed. certainly, it is confirmed in this position and i look forward to bringing the parties to the table to discuss the different points of view and see if we can find common ground. >> link you, and i know that state and local government would be appreciative of being involved in that process early on, being at that table, rather than presented with the settlement that they have to live with and have no role in bargaining for. >> thank you. senator, i share your view about the upfront preventive way and i was glad to see that we share those interests. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for dropping by the office since last week. >> it is my view that history will look back on this time and

ask how it could happen that the united states of america and the congress did not respond vigorously what the scientific community has. we have scientists who tell us that if we do not get our act together and cut back substantially on greenhouse gas emissions, it is also likely that the temperature will rise by 8 degrees fahrenheit by the end of the century for cataclysmic problems around the world. some of my colleagues believe that it is a hoax perpetrated by al gore, the united nations, and the hollywood elite. so is global warming a hoax

perpetrated by al gore and the united nations? that is a quote from the former ranking member of the environmental committee. >> there is no question in my mind that it is real and the scientific evidence is there to back it up. >> we need to move in a rapid secession away from fossil fuel into sustainable energy in getting other countries to move in that direction. do you believe that global warming is an issue of urgency which the united states government should act upon? >> senator, the department of

the interior with experiences, many of the impact that scientists have attributed to climate change, droughts and wildfires and floods, these are matters that certainly require both adaptation, as well as thoughtful and scientific-based needs. >> i am not quite clear about what that answers. >> let me just give you an example. when the secretary was before us some years ago, the potential was in terms of sustainable energy on public lands. there are people that refer to this as a huge potential. secretary salazar said that there were over 10,000 megawatts and renewable energy projects, including 18 utility and etc.

and generating enough power, to meet the demands of 29% of the nation's homes. are you going to be aggressive in pushing this with the public lands? >> senator, i think that renewable energy is an important resource. i am very proud that we were able to grow our business while reducing energy footprint. thereby creating utilities needed and i think that there is tremendous potential to do that kind of work. >> transforming our energy

system and energy efficiency and sustainable energy. >> senator sanders, we support the above energy strategy and that includes a kitten if it significant amount of her nobles. the president has stated that he wants to more than double the production by 2020 of renewable energy sources and i understand that the department of interior has 10 megawatts already and i certainly look forward to continuing that emphasis. >> on a smaller issue, one that i have been concerned about, i work with the smithsonian institute to transform products made in china, selling chinese products and they have done a pretty good job with that.

one is doing a good job and one is not. can you assure that american products are made in america? >> senator, i think we would all like to see american manufacturing create jobs in america. i also know that through my most recent work in the output will tell business that some products are available in america and others are not. the public and similar functionality. >> you make that effort.

the smithsonian has done a good job and there are products that are made in america, which are quite affordable if we have the will to go out and find those. will you make that effort to find that? >> senator, i will work with jon jarvis, who is the director of the national park service and i don't know how the relationship works with the contractors to ask them about this issue and see if we might be able to make some progress in that regard. i thank my colleague and i thank her for bringing up the issue of climate change because certainly this is something this committee is very much involved in addressing. the matters we are talking about, carbon sequestration, opportunity to promote a low carbon economy is clearly an important item for consideration in this committee and i would just like to tell my colleague as well that when the president talked about bipartisanship and

terms of climate change and joe lieberman and john mccain i was sitting next to senator murkowski, and we were paying a lot of attention to that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is good to see you again, thank you for coming by the office. and for your willingness to serve and for being here today, let me start off, you support all of the above approach and so indicating that you will support and all of the above approach on public lands and specifically, will you support fossil fuel development, coal and oil and gas as well? >> we are blessed with lots of resources and i appreciate that

technology is allowing us to tap them and that is reflected in all of the above and i am supportive of that. >> right now, for example, in my state, on private land it takes 10 to 14 days, it takes 290 days. will you work with us to expedite the process? >> senator, i appreciate as a business person that businesses need certainty. they don't mind playing by the rules, they need to know what the rules are. they are also committed to a process that is predictable and reasonable and i look forward to working with them on that. >> so you work to expedite the

process. this affects the tribal lands as well, also hydraulic fracturing, will you work with us on a first approach for hydraulic fracturing, which is vitally important to our native american friends on tribal lands as well as public lands. i know that you understand it very well, which i think offers opportunities for us to work together. but we need an approach that some of the members have talked about, so we have the flexibility to do things throughout the country because it is different in different places so you cannot have a one-size-fits-all. so will you work with this approach? >> i know that the jobs that i will have is the regulations

associated with this that are in support of the american people's ownership of the federal lands, which involve the state and local knowledge. it is different by different regions of you pointed out. it is very important it is important that we understand the local situations that they can develop this in a safe and responsible way. i think working alongside industries is the right approach to come up with a set of rules that are safe for the environment. and also supporting the industry. >> the chairman will tell you the same thing.

>> we will take you to the private industry and investment that you need to develop and deploy the technology. the background creates an opportunity if you will engage with work with us on that. we have to cite windfarms and this to work with us that we can develop energy sources of alternative kind as well. >> it is an important part of this and i'm certainly supportive. i also appreciate that it is not necessarily a demand. and i look forward to balancing

that the various agencies are dealing with. and for filling their commitment under the laws that have been passed. and i look forward to doing so. >> we will need your help to develop this onshore and off. it's going to take that infrastructure and your agency is going to have to be creative in getting it done. >> the last question and i'm going to shift to, we have quite some time to the red river valley and fargo and some of the larger communities. and we still need to complete the record of decision.

will you help us work through the bureaucracy to complete that? it has been congressionally authorized, but we have to go through all of the bureaucratic statistics to get this decision. will you look into it and see if we can get this done. >> thank you. >> thank you for coming by my office, i appreciate you being here as well. >> i would just like to take note of the fact that i was particularly struck with questions from the senator of north dakota he is a renowned

person as you look at the dialog between people on the energy field, i really came away from that discussion with a sense that it is not a debate for the fainthearted. i think the senator from north dakota. >> as you can tell, there is enormous interest in these issues and if you will indulge us, the senators would like to file this. >> we are very involved in the climate with the department in trying to bring this back, hoping it is enormously

important to the state. i have been able to put back together an agreement from the industry and even before the bill has been inaccurate, it has been told me that litigation has gone down in the environmental community feels comfortable with the collaboration and that is a forest service effort. so that is part of the realm of this whole discussion about natural resources. >> and involves this land.

and things have really been impossible to move forward. so i am making that special priority. that is something that is in the department of interior. and that includes a dual track. and that can be consistent with the environmental laws. and certainly for the next year, we are going to need long-term approaches, particularly for the cure schools. so we would like to address the

issue of the timber cuts being up. the way to protest sales being protested, and this is failed to address them, to focus on planning an additional new sales. a lot of this process and the interior board of land bureau and the project in effect is no decision made. what happens is the worst of all worlds. we aren't getting the timber up in the appeals process. and it just seems to me that we ought to be able to do both. we ought to move forward with new sales.

reflecting well on the agency to deal with protests and this will be something into early on. and all of these communities and i think it is going to make people feel confident with the short-term, which is to pass this extension for at least a period of time. can you assure me that you will make this a priority early on? >> senator, i appreciate the importance of this, and our school funding and also in operating with a reliable source of timber. there is a great example on the eastern part of the state that

we can learn from and i look forward to working with my colleagues to do a good job of meeting the needs that you have expressed. >> just understand, and i appreciate that they are different. it is a checkerboard, so it is different. that is why we are artery seeing good results. we don't have that trust on the westside. so i appreciate your willingness to follow up on that early on. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the interior department is finishing up in one area. it has involved to land planning efforts and they just finished the national petroleum reserve with the plan and they are close

to finishing a revised plan. the plan replaces 52% of the largest petroleum reserve. it has major wilderness additions of the 17 million acres that are classified as wilderness. the conservation act contained within anoka is a provision that precludes the administration from declaring major new conservation areas in alaska and she refers to this that these effectively creates new wilderness without the requisite congressional approval. i ask you to respect the lands

act as it relates to this one it says that alaska has basically given more wilderness in the state of alaska than all the other states combined. keeping with the chairman's request that we limit this to one question, i would ask in view of your comment about activities in the gulf of mexico. what are your views of offshore development in the arctic? >> thank you, senator.

certainly arctic development, i appreciated it at that time we talked about this and so i think what is most important as we explore these resources, and i think it is appropriate to explore them, is to do so in a safe and responsible way. to work with the industry partners, as i believe is the case so those industry partners can explore these resources in a way. we can assure that we are not putting the ecological system at risk and we have a desire to

keep the alaska pipeline full. >> it is a new area up there, although not unexplored. i would hope that you would continue that commitment to work with alaska and those within the industry that are trying to make the efforts to really explore and produce. certainly to those folks that i live and work with. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, sir. i want to thank you for your articulation because it showed a real understanding of what is all too rare.

i understand that there is the highest and best use may be solar energy and oil and gas development, it could be mining, and i am not going to get to use those places to hike were camp with my family for the rest of my life. that you can't do everything on every single acre, and i think that that understanding really gives me a great deal of confidence in your ability to balance these competing interests. i want to ask you one last question and you're going to have no shortage of the next two years with energy production, transmission, even when policy

is driven by politics. that is why i was very pleased to hear the characterization earlier by one of the senators from washington he said something to the effect that science is the guiding star. as secretary, will you commit to making land and wildlife management decisions based on the best available science? >> yes, sir, i will. >> the senator from wyoming. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have quite a few written answers. i would like to discuss your business experience because i agree with your opening statement, you said that the

president touted the rei is a model company that provides health care benefits to part-time employees and yet, two years later, after the president's health care law was passed, it was secured as a special waiver, exempting employees from the annual benefit limits and the in the president's health care law. the spokesman at the time said that the waivers allowed us allowed us to cover this. if you like your health care plan, you'll be you will be able to keep your health care plan. it seems that it under your leadership, that those 1100 low-wage, seasonal part-time workers to which you were at the white house, many of those you have today.

the administration granted over 1200 waivers to companies so that they could avoid the negative impacts of the law. i would assume you made that decision is a smart business decision because he knew the impacts would be dramatic. other laws negatively affect businesses just like rei made the decision that said we cannot live under this health care law. one of those laws is a policy act, which accesses federal public lands. but rather than expanding the waivers underneath for what is known as categorical exclusions, the administration has actually restricted the use of this, particularly for onshore oil and advanced production.

so you know firsthand how what you can do in terms of helping us get waivers for the categorical exclusions because clearly i think many people think that rei made a smart business decision by asking for waivers and is just as important for jobs here. ..

we have a lot of employees, 1100 chose to sign up for a parttime plan because they had no possibility of coverage under any other plan that was affordable to them. they're parttime, working perhaps multiple jobs and that plan has a $10,000 annual cap. we are coming up on 2014. we'll be working to replace that plan with the exchange program so that these parttime employees have an opportunity to have health care. so, as they come into hospitals and work with your colleagues from the medical community, you'll get paid for what is done and that's what rei decide with its plan. so the waiver was strictly for the parttime plan -- >> the with aer was for the people you were praised at the white house for covering and

weren't able to be covering under the healthcare law which is why you applied the waiver. >> the waiver was because we had a $10,000 annual cap on the parttime plan, which is the only way we could make it affordable. it was optional for us. >> but you received praise from the white house for doing something, and then had policy that made it difficult for you to do what you had been doing and received praise. >> senator, i'm dish know nepa is a law passed by to the body. i'm not aware of how that might impact businesses but i submit the facts are provided are what i'm familiar with.

>> you're familiar with the need for certainty, which people looking for certainly in so many areas but so much uncertainty that it's very difficult to make decisions, and i think i'm just asking you take a look at these as opportunities to allow people to keep people working in this country and not forcing people out of work. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i had a number of questions which, in deference to you and our witness, i'll submit most of those in writing. in deference to your request we limit to one question. there's a consistent thread in many of the concerns expressed today, and between the concerns just express by senator barrasso and many of those which i have, which relate to fact that when the federal government creates a lot of laws, laws create burdens, burdens overlap and conflict. people don't have certainty and to some extent they're dependent upon those who administer

executive branch agencies for leave to depart from the standards, or for acquiescence to do what they think needs to be done. sometimes that can create difficulties with individuals trying to operate within that framework. in part for that reason, congress, when it passed flpma, built in section 1024 which says it's the policy of the united states to, quote, congress exercise its constitutional authority to a draw or dedicate federal lands for specified purposes, and then congress delanities the extent to which the executive can withdraw land without legislative action. we have recently seen policy initiatives by the department of the interior, including wildlands and national blue ways for example, that appear to address some issues that appear more properly within congress'

scope of authority. congress' scope of authority to withdraw lands from multiple use, for example. as evidenced by laws like flpma, the wilderness act and the wild and scenic rivers act. so i'm just hoping you can give me in assurance that, if confirmed, you will recognize congress' role in designating and withdrawing federal land from multiple use. >> senator, i appreciate congress' role. i also will commit to you that with anything we do around these issues, we'll get multiple stakeholders to the table to discuss them, to make sure we understand the issues, and you have my commitment to do that. >> i appreciate the commitment you made in that regard to the national monument designation. thank you. >> i certainly don't want to cut my friend from utah off. is there another question you feel particularly important to you and your constituents?

>> the monument designation question is important simply because of the fact that, as you were discussing that, it brought to mind dish appreciated your commitment to work with local stakeholders whenever they're dealing with something like a monument designation. we had about two million acres designated as a month independent my state. it was not only not done with extensive consultation and input and buyin from local for its and residents. it was done completely by prize. it was brought upon us completely by stealth. it was announced from a neighboring state, and we would like to have had input, and so i would really appreciate it if you would commit to me you would advise the president it's best to work with locals affected by broad decisions like that in advance of making such a decision. >> no certainly -- senator,

certainly consistent with what i believe in and the white house believes in as well. >> thank you. >> thank my colleague. a number of organizations have sent letters in support of ms. jewel jewell's appointment. they'll be included in the hearing record. miss jewell you have had a long morning and as you can tell these topics generate spirited discussion and energy and natural resources country. so, i just want you to know that you certainly proved to me this morning that a nominee who is a petroleum engineer and a corporate ceo and a conservist, your background is handy in this realm. so i thank you and look forward to continuing this discussions.

will keep the record over for additional questions colleagues may have. and with that the committee ills at reassess. >> thank -- at recess. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] the senate today confirmed john brennan to be cia director. this comes a day after kentucky senator rand paul filibustered the knock nation been senators john mccain and lindsey graham were critical of the filibuster. their remarks are next.

>> now senators john mccain and lindsay gram on the senate floor talking about wednesday's nearly 13-hour filibuster. senator rand paul questioned the hypothetical of a drone strike of a u.s. citizen on american soil. this hays minutes. >> mr. president, i'd like to quote from this morning's editorial in "the wall street journal." entitled: "rand paul's drone rant." i'd like to read phenomenon the edification of my colleagues the editorial that was in the "wall street journal" this morning. a credible media outlet.

the "wall street journal" reads, quote: give rand paul credit for theatrical timing. as a snowstorm descended on washington, the kentucky kentucky republicans old fashioned filibuster wednesday filled the attention void on twitter and cable tv. if only his reasoning matched the showmanship. shortly before noon, senator paul began talking filibuster against john brennan's nomination to lead the cia. in a tactic last seen in 2010. senator paul said, quote, alarm had to be sounded bet the threat to americans from their own government. he promised to speak, quote, until the president says, no, he will not kill you at a cafe. he meant by a military drone. he is apparently serious, though his argument isn't. senator paul had written the white house to inquire about the

possibility of a drone strike against a u.s. citizen on american soil. attorney general eric holder replied that the u.s., quote, has no intention to bomb any specific territory. drones-limited to the remotest area of conflict zones like pakistani yemen and. mr. holder acknowledged the president can authorize use of lethal military force within u.s. territory. this shocked senator paul, who invokedded the constitution and miranda rights under current u.s. policy mr. paul used on the floor jane fonda could have legally been killed bay hellfire missile during her tour of communist hanoi in 1972. a group of noncombatants sitting

in public view in houston may soon be pulverized. he declared. calm down, senator. mr. holder is right. even if he doesn't explain the law very well. u.s. government cannot randomly target american citizens on u.s. soil or anywhere else. i repeat that. the u.s. government cannot randomly target american citizens on u.s. soil or anywhere else. what it can do, under the laws of war, is target an enemy combatant. anywhere at any time, including on u.s. soil. this includes a u.s. citizen who was also an enemy combatant. the president can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity, a government, say, or a terrorist network like al qaeda, that has taken up arms

against the united states as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict. that does not include hanoi jane. such a conflict exists between the u.s. and al qaeda. so, mr. holder is right, if the u.s. could have -- could have targeted, say, u.s. citizen anwar awlaki, had he continue ted live in virginia. the u.s. killed him in yemen before he could kill more americans. but under the law, awlaki was no different than the nazis who came ashore on long island in world war ii and were captured and executed. the country needs more senators who care about liberty. but if mr. paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than, quote, pull political stunts that fire up impressional libertarian kids in their

college dorms. he needs to know what he is talking about. well, mr. president, i've watched some of that, quote, debate, unquote, yesterday. i saw colleagues of mine who know better, come to the floor and voice this same concern, which is totally unfounded. i must say that the use of jane fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me, and i must say that she is not my favorite american. but i also believe that as odious also it was, ms. fonda had constitutional rights, and to somehow say that someone who disagrees with american policy and even may demonstrate against it, is somehow a member of an organization which makes that

individual an enemy combatant, its simply false. it is simply false. now, mr. president, i believe that we need to visit this whole issue of the use of drones, who uses them, whether the cia should become their own air force, what the oversight is, what the legal and political foundations for this kind of conflict needs to be reviewed. and the foundation rests mostly on laws designed for another task. the government lawyers internal pretted without scrutiny to meet new challenges outside the surveillance context. congress as a body has not debated or approved the means or ends of secret warfare because secret surveillance and targeted strikes, rather than u.s. military detention, are central to the new warfare.

we need -- there are no viable plaintiffs to test the government's authority in court in short, the executive branch decision since 2001 have led the nation to a new type of war against new enemies on a new battlefield without enough focused national debate. deliberated congressional approval or judiciary review. we probably need a new framework statute akin to the national security act of 1947. or the series of intelligence reforms made after watergate, or even the 2001 authorization of force, to describe the -- to define the scope of the new war, to the authorities and limitations on presidential power, and forms of review of the president's actions. i'm quoting from an article by jack goldsmith in the washington post, u.s. needs a rule book for

secret warfare. i don't think we should have any doubt there are people, both within the united states of america and outside of it, who are members of terrorist organizations that want to repeat 9/11. all of us thank god there's not been a repeat of 9/11. most of the experts i know will say that there's been a certain element of luck, but a small amount, but still an element of luck such as the underwear bomber and others that have prevented a devastating attack on the united states. but to somehow allege or infer that the president of the united states is going to kill somebody like jane phon -- fonda, someone who disagree with policies, is the stretch of the imagine which is, frankly, ridiculous. ridiculous. so i don't disagree that we need

more debate, more discussion, and, frankly, probably more legislation. to make sure that america does protect the rights of all of our citizens. so make sure at the same time that, if someone is an enemy combatant. that enemy combatant has nowhere to hide. not in a cafe. not anywhere. but to say that somehow that even though we were were would try to take that person -- to say we would hit them in a cafe with a hellfire missile, first of all there are no drone with hellfire missiles anywhere anymore. they're over in places like yemen and afghanistan and other places in the world. so, we've done a, i think, disservice to a lot of americans by making them believe that somehow they're in danger from their government. they're not.

but we are in danger, we are in danger, from a dedicated, long-standing, easily replaceable leadership enemy that is hell bent on our destruction. and this leads us to having to do things that perhaps we haven't had to do in other more conventional wars. and i don't believe that anwar awlaki should have been protected anywhere in the world. but that doesn't mean they're going to take him out with a hellfire missile. it means we're going to use our best intelligence to apprehend and to debrief these people so that we can gain the necessary intelligence to bring them all to justice. so, mr. president, all i can say is that i don't think that what happened yesterday is helpful to

the american people. we need a discussion, as i said, about exactly how we are going to address this new form of almost interm minimummable warfare, which is very different from anything we ever faced in the past. somehow to allege the united states of america, our government, would drop a drone hellfire missile on jane fonda, that is -- that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about u.s. policy, to the realm of the ridiculous. i'd also like to add an additional note, mr. president. about 42%, as i'm told, of the members of this senate are here for six years or less. everytime a majority party is in power, they become frustrated with the exercise of the

minority of their rights here in the senate. and back some years ago there was going to be -- we were going to eliminate -- when republicans this side of the aisle was the majority we were going to eliminated the call for 60 votes for judges. confirmation of judges. we put that asideful there was another effort at the beginning of this senate to do away with 60 votes and back down to 51, which, in my view, would have destroyed the senate. a lot of us worked -- a group of us worked very hard for a long time to come up some of compromises that would allow the senate to move more rapidly but at the same time -- and eefficiently but at the same time preserve the 60-vote majority requirement on some pieces of legislation. what we saw yesterday is going

do give ammunition to the critics who say the rules of the senate are being abused. i hope my colleagues on this side of the aisle will take that into consideration. i notice the president of the senator from south carolina. he is a lawyer. he has been a military lawyer in the air force reserve for some -- over 20 years. if there's anyone in the united states senate that knows about this issue from a legal technical standpoint, would ask -- it is my colleague from south carolina. i would ask my colleague from south carolina, there is any way that the president of the united states could just randomly attack with a drone or hellfire missile someone without that person being designatedded a enemy combatant, and i don't think, as much as i hate to say it, that applies to jane fonda. >> thank you.

that's a very good question. it's been a very lively debate. senator paul has a lot of passion. that's a great thing. this is an important issue. i welcome a reasoned discussion. but to my republican colleague i don't remember any of you coming down here suggesting that president bush was going to kill anybody with a drone. i don't even remember the harshest critics of pressure pressure on the democratic side. they had a drone program back then. so what is it, all of a sudden this drone program has gotten every republican so spun up? what are we up to here? i think president obama has in many ways, been a thorough president. i think his executive order oversteps and has gone into the executive arena. there's a thousand examples of a failed presidency. but there's also some agreement.

people are astonished that president obama, senator mccain, is doing many of the things that president bush did. i'm not astonished. i congratulate him a for having the good judgment to understand we're at war, and to my party, i'm a bit disappointed that you no longer apparently think we're at war. not senator paul. he it's a man to himself -- he is a man to himself. he has a view i don't think is a republican view. it's a libertarian view. senator paul was the one senator who voted against the resolution that said the policy of the united states will not be to contain a nuclear capable iran. it was 90-1. to his credit, he felt like that would be provocative and may lead to a military conflict. he'd rather have a nuclear capable iran than use military force, and he said so to his

credit. 90 of us thought, we would like not to have a military conflict with iran, but we're not going to contain a nuclear capable iran, senator mccain, because it's impossible. what would happen is if iran got a nuclear weapon, the sunni arab states would want a nuclear weapon, and most of us believe that they would share the technology with the terrorists. that would wind up attacking israel and the it's. it's not so -- and the united states. it's not so much i fear a missile from iran. i form if they got nuclear technology, they'd give it to some terrorist organization like they gave ieds to shia militia in iraq to kill americans, and they would wreak havoc on the world. so we don't believe letting them have and it trying to contain them because we believe their association with terrorism is too long and do deep. do dangerous for israel and do dangerous for us, put senator paul, to his credit, was okay

with that. i just disagree with him. now, as to what he is saying about the drone program, he has come our way some -- i want to appreciate that. before he had some doubt in his mind as to whether or not we should appeal anwar al quarterback can i, an american citizen citizen, one of the military leaders of al qaeda in yemen, who radicalized, had been involved in planning terrorist attacks on u.s. forces throughout the region. president obama was informed through the military intelligence community channels of anwar aulaqi's existence, all the videos he made supporting jihad and killing americans, and he as commander-in-chief designated this person as enemy combatant. mr. president you did what you had the authority to do, and i congratulate you for making that informed decision and the process to get on this target list is rigorous. i think sometimes too rigorous.

but now apparently senator paul says it's okay to kill him because we have a photo of him with an rpg on his shoulder. he has moved the ball. he is saying now that he wants this president to tell him that he will not use a drone to kill an american citizen sitting in a cafe having a cup of coffee. who is not a combatant. i find the question offensive. as much as i disagree with president obama. much as i support past presidents, i do not believe that question deserves an answer. because as senator mccain said, this president is not going to use a drone against a noncombatant sitting in a cafe in the ute. nor will future presidents because if they do, will have

committed an act of murder. noncombatant under the laws of war are protected, not subject to being called randomly. so, to suggest that the president won't answer that question somehow legitimizes the drone program is going to result in being used against anybody is in room having a cup of coffee, to me cheapens the debate and is something north worthy of -- >> could i ask my colleague a question, especially on that subject. a lot of our friends, particularly senator paul and others, pride themselves on their strict adherence to the constitution and the decisions of the united state supreme court. isn't it true that as a result of an attack in long island, during world war ii, that american citizen, among others, was captured and hung on

american soil, and the united states supreme court upheld that execution because that individual was an enemy combatant. does that establish without a doubt -- >> there is -- >> -- the fact these are enemy combatant and no matter where they are, they are subject to the form of justice as the terrorist in world war ii was. >> it's been a long-held concept in american juris prudence that when an american citizen sides with the enemies of our nation, they can be held, captured, and treat as an enemy combatant. they have committed an act of war against our country, not a common crime. so in world war ii you had german sack tours land in long island that had been planning and training in germany to blow up a lot of infrastructure, and some 0 was in chicago.

so they had this fairly elaborate noon attack us. they came out of the submarine, landed in long island, and the plan was to have american citizens sympathetic to the nazi cause, german origin 0 most of them to meet them and provide them shelter and comfort. well, the fbi back then broke that plot up, and they were arrested. the american citizens were tried by the military commission, and they were found guilty, and a couple of them were executed. now, there has been a case in the war on terror where an american citizen was captured in afghanistan. our supreme court re-affirms the proposition we can hold one of our own as an enemy combatant when they align. the with the forces against this country. this congress, right after the september 11th attacks, designated authorization to use military force against al qaeda and aquill -- aye al

qaeda da and affiliated force so every president has been authorized to use affiliated force and american citizens, like the guy that a was captured in afghanistan, had been treat as enemy combatant and if president obama does that, he is doing nothing new or novel. what would be novel is for us to say that if a terrorist cell came to the united states, an al qaeda cell was operating in the united states, that's a common crime and the law does not aplay. that would be the most perverse situation in the world for the congress to say the united states itself is a terrorist safe haven when it comes to legal rights. we can blow you up with a drone overseas, capture you in afghanistan, hold you under the law of war, but if there's a terror cell operating in the united states, somehow you're a common criminal, we'll read you

your miranda rights. and i had this one thing. i hope you realize that hypothetically there are patriot missile batteries all over washington that do interdict an airplane coming to attack the capitol or the white house or other vital government facilities. i hope you understand, senator mccain is a fighter pilot, there are f-15s and f-16s, on three to five minute alert all up and down the east coast and if there's a vessel coming into the united states where a plane has been hijacked or ship has been hijacked, loaded with munitions, or the threat is real they've taken over a craft and about to attack us, i hope all of us would agree, using military force in that situation is not only lawful under the authorization to use military force, it's within the inherent

authority of the commander-in-chief to protect it all and should not be construed as an authority to kill somebody in a cafe. it should be construed as a reasonable ability to defend the homeland against a real threat, and the question is, do you feel threatened sometime do. i think al qaeda is alive and well, and to all those who have been fighting this war for a very long time, multiple tours in iraq and afghanistan, you tried to keep the war over there so it doesn't come here. to fail presidents broken up by the cia and fbi, gad bless you. we got be right everytime. they only have to be right once. if you think to the homeland is not in the desire of al qaeda, it is absolutely on the top of their list, and they're recruiting american citizens to their cause, and unfortunately, few will probably go over to their side. thank god it will be just a few. but to take this debate into the

absurd is what i object to. we can have reasonable disagreements about the regulatory nature of the drone program, should it be under the department of defense. what kind of oversight congress should have? i think that's a really good discussion, and i'd like to work with senator durbin and others to -- the detainee treatment act, when congress got involved with the executive proven come up with way to handle the detainee issue. i think there's one commander in chief, not 535, and i believe this commander-in-chief, and all future commander in chiefs, are unique in our constitution, and have indispensable role to play when it comes to protecting the homeland and if we have 3535 commander-in-chiefs we'll be less save, and if you turn over military decisions to the courts you've done the ultimate harm to our nation, you criminalize the

war, and i don't think our judiciary wants that. so as much as i disagree with president obama, think you have been responsible in the use of the drone program overseas. i think you have been thorough in your analysis. aid like to make it more transparent. i'd like to have more oversight, as to the accusation being leveled against you, that if you don't somehow answer this question, we're to assume you're going to use the drone or your administration or future administrations would, to kill somebody who is a noncombatant, no intelligence to suggest they're an enemy combatant sitting at a cafe. and one final thought. if there is an al qaeda operative, u.s. citizen, who is helping the al qaeda cause in a cafe in the united states, we don't want to blow up the cafe. we want to go in there and grab the person for intelligence purposes. the reason we're using drones in

afghanistan and pakistan, we don't have any military presence along the tribal border. the reason we're having to use drones is we can't capture people. the preference is to capture them, not to kill them. but there are certain areas where they operate that the only way we can get to them is through a drone strike. and i would say this -- >> could i just say to my friend, there is scenarios where there could be an extreme situation where there is a direct threat. we could draw many scenarios. a bomb laden explosive laden vehicle headed for the nuclear power plant, where the president of the united states may have to use any asset that the president has in order to prevent an impending catastrophic attack on the united states of america. and that is not -- that is within the realm of possible scenarios. so, to somehow say that we would

kill people in cafes and, therefore, drone strikes should never be used under any circumstances, i believe is a distortion of the realities of the threats we face. as we are speaking, there are people who are plotting to attack the united states of america. we know that. and at the same time, we are ready, as you said to discuss, debate, and frame legislation which brings us up to date with the new kind of war we're in. but to somehow have a debate and a discussion that we would have killed jane fonda, does in my view, a disservice to the debate that needs to be -- ask discussion that needs to be conducted. >> that's a very good point. i look forward to a discussion about how to deal with the drone program, and it's just a tactical weapon. it is an air platform without a pilot. now, if there is a truck going toward a military base, or

nuclear power plant, we have a lot of assets to interdict that truck. maybe you don't need the f-16. i guarantee if there's a hijacked aircraft coming to the capitol, the president of the united states would be well in his rights to order the patriot missile bat toys shoot the plane down or have an f-16 shoot it down, and we're ready for that. and i would just suggest one thing. the number of americans killed in the united states by drones is zero. the number of americans killed in the united states by al qaeda is 2,958. the reason it's not two million, two million, or 200 million, is because they can't get the weapons to kill that many of us. the only reason it's 2,958 is because their weapons of choice couldn't kill more.

their next weapon of choice will not be a aircraft, i fear. it will be nuclear technology, chemical weapon, weapon of moose destruction. when you capture someone who is associated with al qaeda, the best thing is to hold them for interrogation purposes, because we found bin laden not through torture, my friend. we found bin laden through a decade of putting the puzzle together. and senator durbin, senator mccain, baath of you were very eeffective advocate wes have to live in our values and when we capture somebody, we're going to hold them under the law of war, and explore intelligence but do it within the laws of the geneva convention, laws against torture so my friends on this side of the aisle -- >> yield. >> absolutely. >> my colleagues on the other side of the aisle issue was 12

hours ago when i was standing right here in -- a lonely voice among others who were discussing this issue, bringing up the points you raised. the first is, the drone is a weapon. there are many weapons that can deliver lethal force. we should view this as an issue of lethal force, not an issue of drones per se, although it may raise some questions. it's a question of lethal force. what is the of the fourth airplane had not been brought down by the passengers? what if that plane were headed toward the capitol building and all other planessed landed across america and we knew this plain was the plane in control of the terrorists. what authority did pressure pressure haves a chancer in chief? i don't think anyone would question he had the authority to

use lethal force to stop the terrorist from using that plane as a fourth weapon against the united states itch don't think -- there was no debate last night about that particular point. this notion -- and i'm glad this point has been raid -- we're somehow going to use drones to kill peep sipping coffee in cav phase is lewd rouse. we need those people, bringing those anymore our control gives us more information. secondly, for goodness sakes, the collateral damage of something that brutish would be awful. so, i thank you for putting it in perspective. i think that attorney general holder could have been more artful in his language yesterday, but at the end of the day, even senator cruz acknowledged he said it would be unconstitutional to use this kind of lethal force if there wasn't an imminent threat pending again the united states. >> real quickly. an imminent threat. >> yes. >> now, we may have to do also better job of defining that.

but to say, imminent threat, would then translate into killing somebody in a cafe, it is not a mature debate or discussion. >> if i could add, let me tell you about imminent threat and military law. in iraq, you had disabled terrorists, insurgents, and there was big debate in the marine corps because under military law, when a lawful combatant, a person in uniform has been disabled, and it doesn't present an imminent threat, you don't have the ability to shoot them. okay? terrorist in iraq put iedsieds on wounded unlawful enemy 0 combat tantz so the marine corps wasled long and hard with the rules of engagement.

if you come upon somebody who is wounded, apparently was disabled, under what circumstances can you uses lethal force because they may be booby-trapped to the marine corps credit, they came 'up with a balance, we don't shoot our enemy whose our hundredless and wound. here's what i would say about the circumstance in question. the process of determining who an enemy combatant in has always been a military process. it's not a congressional debate. our committees do not gate list of names and we make a vote on whether or not we think they're an eneenem combatant courts dont have trials over who an combatant is. if there's a question about enemy combatant statusser in the geneva convention you're entitled to a singing hearing and that's all in world war ii there war lot of people captured

who claimed they were made to wear the uniforms by the germ maps and all has a hearing by a single officer. it's been long held in hill tear law it's a military decision, not a judicial decision or legislative decision to determine the enemy of a nation. so president obama has really taken this far beyond what it was envisioned. this administration has a very elaborate process to determine who should be determined to be an enemy combatant. i think it's thorough, it has many checks and balances and as much as i disagree with this president on many issues, i would never dream of taking that right away from him because he is the same person, that commander in chief, who whoevern the future that, we give the tort to order american citizens into battle where they day. the has the authority to pick up the phone and say, you will launch today. and you may not come back. i can't imagine a congress who is okay with the authority to

order an american citizen in battle, we don't want to take that away from him, i hope -- that's uncomfortable with the same person determining who the enemy we face may be. as to american citizens, here's the law. ifhonou collaborate with al qaeda, or their affiliates, and you're engaged in helping the enemy,honou're subject to being captured or killed under the law of war. what is an imminent threat? the dayhonou associatehonourself with al qaeda and become part of their team, everywhere you go and everythinghonou do presentsa threat to the country. so why do we shoot people walking down a road in pakistan? they don't have a weapon. therenss no military person in front of them. the logic is that once you join al qaeda,honou're a de facto imminent threat because the

organization you're supporting is a threat. so, for someone to suggest we got to let them wake down the road, go pick up a gun and head toward our soldiers before you can shoot them, is not very healthy for the soldier thehetre trying to kill and it would be a total distortion of law as it exists back here at home. and i'll conclude. >> allow me one last comment, and i thank you for the statement on the floor. the judiciary subcommittee on constitution is going to have a hearing, already scheduled, on this issue of drones, and there are legitimate questions to be raised and answers. and i might add, my conversations with the president, he welcomes this. he has invited to us come up with the legal architecture to make certain is it consistent with existing press -- precedent and military law and other court cases and our constitution. i think that's a healtd e environment for us to have this hearing and invite all points of view and try to come up with a reasonable conclusion.

>> i could not welcome that more. it worked with the sane treatment act, the military commissions act. i think it's the right way to go. >> if could i make one more ressuest. madam president, committees to meet during the session of the senate, with the approval of the mac rity and minority leaders, i ask these be agreed and instant pit printed in the record. >> without ox. >> i think that concludes our discussion, but i would agree with the senator from illinois and my colleague from south carolina, we need hearings. we need to discuss how we conduct this -- the united states in what appears to be for all intents and purposes an interminable conflict we're in. but that service should not be talking about drone killing jane fonda and people in cafes. it should be all about what authority and what chehecs and

balances should ectust in ort er to make it a most effective ability to combat an enemy that we knobe a ill be with us for a long time. >> could i just have two minutes to wrap up. to my fellow citizens, the chance ofhonou bsubng killed bya my fow because you to a tea pary rally or moveon.org rally or any other political rally, orhonou'e be a st chatting on the , quietly at home, by your government, through the use of a drone, is zero. under this as adinistration and future administrations. and if that day ever happened, the president of the united states 0, or whoever ordered such attack, would commit murder and will be tried. i don't worry about that. here's what i worry about. that al qaeda, who has killed

2,958 of us, is going to aansw o the total if we let our guart down. and i will do everything in my power to protect this president, who i disagree with a lot, and future presidents, from having an ill-informed congress take over the legitimate authority under the constitution and the laws of this land, to the commander-in-chief on behalf of all of us, as to any american citizen thinking about joining us with al qaeda, at home or abroad, you better think twice. because herenss what is going to comehonour way. if we can capture you, we will. you will be interrogated. you will go bmakeore a federal be a dge. and one day you'll go before a court. and you'll have a lot of legal rights about ifhonou're found

guilty, woe be unto you. and here's another possibility. if you join with these thugs, and these nuts, to attackhonour homeland, and if we have no ability to capture you, we will killhonou. and we will do it becausehonou made us. and the process of determining whether or not you have joined al qaeda is not going to be some federal court trial. it's not going to be committee meeting in the congress because if we put those conditions on our able to defend ourselves, we cannot act in real time. bottom line, ladies and gentlemen, i think wensre at wa. i think we're at war with an enemy who would kill us all if they could, and every war america has been in, wensve recognized the difference between fighting crime and fighting a war.

ifhonou believe as i do, wensret war, those who aid our enemies are not going to be treated as are not going to be treated as if they robbed a liquor store. >> madam president. i thank my colleagues, and i also thank the senator from illinois for his engagement and in closing i'd like to congratulate my friend frohrea@ south carolina for his really best behavior last night at dinner. he was on his best manners and everyone was very impressed. i yield the floor. >> attorney general eric holder responded to senator rand paul's ssuestion about the u.s. of u.s. drones in a letter. the attorney general rote: it has come to my attentionhonou have now asked an aanswitional question. does the president have the authority to use a weapopiized drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil. the answer to that question is, no. that from attorney general holder.

and in response, senator paul wrote: hooray. for 13 hourshonestert rn we a. ded thatzeuestion and it does result in a victory. under duress and public brmiliation, the white house will respond and do the ras dif thing. now we get some reaction from the white house.inn >> mroh paul sghtid earlier todn on cpi that the white house is talking with his office about a way treew_ to resolve his concerns over the use of drones on american soil. are those conversations taking place and dttos the president have an oing inion on whether or not he has the constitutional authority to use drones against american citskens on ur. soil, and under which circumstances? >> well, would say that of course, the white house is in tomuh with senator pauand is stf and that's true, what senator paul said. let's back up a little bit. ed thrst of all, this debate has nothing to do with the qualifications of john brennan.

senator paul himself sghtid as er-chhonestert rn, and ashonou , mr. brennan was spotted out of the intelligence commitee by a wide bipartireen margin. and he should be prost btly confirmed. the country needs a cia director, and there is wing ce agreement that john brepian is imminentlyzeualified to lead the cia. as i said, he should be cominisirmed immediately. noit. senator paul has rghtised ssuestions about the president's authority to use legal force within the united states. which c hat s brepian, and the attorney general, have both answered. today, senator paul rghtised an additionalzeuestion, and the attoengaey general has answered it. and to be crystal clear, i want to be cbilstal clear about what senator paul is now asking eye. going read directly phloem attorney general's letter tt sr. attorney general's letter tt sr. he santa letter reyionding tney@ paul within the last half houes@ or so. and here is from the letter: quote: does the president have

the authority use a weapopisked drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil? the answer is no. the answer to thatzeuestion is no. and that is a letter sienemy edy the attorney general, and was submitted to senator paul and his office. nobe _- >> after the circummstances -- s to when those drones could be used, would that be a 9/11 or pearl harbor -- >> inigl srn the issue of technology has nothing to do with the legal matters that we're discumssing. the president has not and would not use drone strikes against american citizens on american soil. on the broaderzeuestion, lnothal authorities that exist to use lethal force are bound by and consichghtined y h the law and e constitution. the issue here is not the technology. the method does not change the law. the president swoenga an oath to

uphold the constitution and he is bound by the law. whether the lethal force is a drone strike for a gunshot, the law and the constitution apply the same way. and that's -- again, that's wd e i think there's been a great deal of confusion about the technology here when the technolowaãis irrelevant to what the ll m and the constitution say, and the president is bound by the constitution, bound by lde ll ms, and is swoenga to ue. them. >> so, when you say he would never -- you're saying there are hobecause ianceswe thought there -- >> again -- >> the attorney general talk about asoil?the a1 or pearl harr style attack. >>honou can make wild hypotheticals but they don't change the law. it is certainly the case that the president, as part of his oath to the constitution, to uphold the constitution, is noiorn to protect the united states, and in an event like an attack like pearl harbor, an attack lthe a1esoil?the a1, obve the president has the constitutional authority to take action to prevent those attacks.

but that has nothing to do with the techat sol and wy used to pt those attacks. there is no distinction in the law or the constitution with regart to -- in termm of the authorities invested in the president or the congress for that matteen when it comes to the methods used to enforce the law. >> contribute to the confusion on this? >>honou would heade to a. d senator paul. i think the -- >> original language, i suppose this was sent directly to imagine extraordinabil cileadumstance which it would be necessary and appropriate for the president to authorie at militabil use of force within te territory of the united states. >> how is -- again, has nothing to do with the methodolowaãhere. if the united states were under attack, all the same laws that ap ovy to the president's authority apply now. whether it has to do with

drones or other modes you would use to prevent a terrorist attatalk or an attack lthe a1e l harbor or any other matter. the law is the law and the constitution is the constitution. in response to the question that senator paul has asked the attorney general tt srn, i think the answer i geadehonou iszeuite categoryial and clear. the question, does the president have the authority to use a weaponnie atd thrown to kill an american not in combat on american soil. the answer to thatzeuestion is, no.inninn

>> the united states patent and ichademark office is actually designated to exist in the constitution. patentses and trademarks are a fairly mt sern invention. the first patents were actually royal grants given to iack estos for a monopolies on their inventions and they were popular in inning command continental europe. cet the constitution takes it one step further. this is for useful inventions, and from the beginning, novelty was a kautho ayiect of the pates ofed thce's role. you'll notice that every one of the models has a little tag with it. in each of the tags i tied on by

a piece of red ribbon, this piece of red ribbon is one of the supposed originations of the ed. ase, red tape, and governmet red tape. it's hard to tell but this was oras inally red ry to tbon. ...has tstity othas tstity otha1

one of the things in early american wife was tied to do, she said warded her husband carrier, usually through entertaining. dolly was both socially adept and politically savvy. she could structure entertainments in such a way that she could lobby for her has been under the guise of entertaining. she also thought it was very important to create a setting in the white house, almost like a stage for the performance ever has been in the conduct of politics and diplomacy. >> president obama saying that

the violence against women act, which passed passed last week. first authorized in 1994, to protect and support the dems of domestic violence. one of the bills offered was then senator joe biden. this is 30 minutes. ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, introduced the vice president of the united states, please welcome, diane millich. [applause] be my good afternoon.

i am known as diane millich, a citizen of the new indian tribe located in colorado. [applause] when i was 26 years old, i.t. did not indian, a white man. after six months, we are married. my not indian has been moved in on the reservation. to my shot, days after her marriage he assaulted me. after a year of abuse than 100 incidents of being slapped, kicked, punched and living in horrific terror i love forget. during the year of marriage i called the police many times. i caught her southern tribal police department, but the law prevented them from addressing arresting and prosecuting because he was not in the end. they couldn't help me in the beatings occurred on tribal reservation land. after one beating, my ex-husband

called the police and the shares to pardon himself to show me that no one could stop him. other times i called the police and nothing was done on the make my ex-believe he was above the law and untouchable. i ex-husband told me, you, says until death do us part, said that they shall be. finally coming he arrived at my office. i'm alive today only because my coworker pushed me out of harms way and took a bullet in the shoulder. for this crime he was finally arrested. because he had never been arrested for any of the abuse against me, he was treated as a first-time offender. the state prosecutor reached a plea agreement of aggravated revocation. if the bill signed today were in were it not when it is merit, it would have allowed nitride to arrest and prosecute my abuser.

when the bill is signed, the violent against women act will finally reach native american women like me. [applause] [applause] we think the president for all he has done for women everywhere and we think the vice president for his incredible leadership. he was a leader who wrote the original bill was instrumental that reauthorizes and strengthens the support. it is now my honor to introduce vice president, joe biden. thank you.

[cheers and applause] >> thank you very much, diane. thank you. some of you in the audience who are survivors know how much coverage it takes to do with diane date. every single time. [applause] some people say she's just recounting what happened. but every single time you stand in recount, it brings it all back. it brings it back like a nightmare. but you are speaking out in so many survivors like you are literally saving the lives of so many other women who god willing

will be able to avoid the abuse he had to put up with. i want to thank all the advocates here today. i got a chance to meet in my office earlier. not only does on this stage who again had a chance to meet with, that the many women out in the audience is a look at and see familiar faces like pat roos n. l. ishmael and paulette sullivan more for my home state and so many others. you know, those of you with and around a while know that i quote my father on the time, who've literally would say the greatest sin that can be committed was the abuse of power. the ultimate abuse of power is for someone physically stronger and weaker to raise their hand and straight can be someone

else. in most cases that tends to be a man striking a woman or a man or woman stricken a child. thus the overarching reason why john conyers and i started so many years ago to draft the legislation called the violence against women act. their past 19 years ago and that's why we shortly after institute a hotline, where women in distress could call for help. i remember when we did that hotline and they would be useful, but am not so sure how much it would be used. the truth of the matter is it's been used a lot in saved a lot of lives. over 2 million women have had the courage, the courage to get out of here i'd trade earshot of the abuser, escape from the prison of their own home, pick

up the phone and call to align you had no idea who is going to answer to say, i'm in trouble, can you help me? can you help me? i love this man they would say we started this, but why don't they just leave? if they had one or the kurdish of those 2 million women had who picked up the phone and call, not knowing what to expect, it would be a whole lot better nation. we build a network of shelters immediately available because we found that the vast majority of children homeless on the street is nancy knows another's, where they are because their mothers were refused. imagine fleeing for your life with only the clothes on your back and your child in your

arms. but the shelter is thrown a lifeline. we also have specialized on enforcement unit with trained prosecutors, victim advocates, personnel who understand challenges that the excise because of all of you here today, we've been able to train judges and intake officers so when a frightened woman shows up and face to the intake officer, i want to tell you -- speak up, will you? they turn around and walk away because there's only a very brief window with all of you know. after a woman screws up the carriage, the carriage to us for help. all these links of the chain have made a difference in the lives of women. it's one woman, one girl, one

person at a time, one piece at a time. you providers know that better than anyone. there's still too many women this country you live in fear of violence, who are still prisoners of their own home. to many the embassy have to mourn. we knew from the outset in 1994 that there is much marley could done at the beginning if we were able to get the vote. we did what was necessary and important, but we knew more high to be done to reduce domestic violence. domestic violence homicides to provide new tools isis just spoken to protect native american women, to address dating violence and so much more. because of the people on this stage, every time we authorize the violence against women act,

we approve it, every single time. [applause] and we did this again. first it gave jurisdiction to kabul court so that those who are abused regardless -- [cheers and applause] providing more resources in the state that they can be trained as to how to collect evidence to acquire convictions in prosecutions. we'll increase proven models to reduce domestic violence homicides. with all focused on the gun violence in the news lately. i want to point something out. from 2009 tonight 2012, or 8% of the mass shooting other than the celebrated one eocene, 40% have been shot.

the target has been a farmer in the net partner or close family member. they go into the office like the young man or woman who stood in front of you when your husband came with a loaded pistol to shoot you. 40% are a consequence of domestic violence that creates a strong, strong anti-violence program. campuses have more tools to educate students about sexual violence. [applause] when congress passes a law, they renew what i consider a sacred commitment to protect mothers, daughters, sisters. i want to thank them. i hope they don't leave anybody out. starting off with pat i.e. who chairs the committee -- thank you very, very much. [applause] and mike crapo, this would not

have been had you not set the. [applause] lisa murkowski is not here, but my friend who i don't want to get her in trouble, but i know she really likes me because i like her a lot, senator collins. seriously was republicans standing up and saying this has to be done in the senate. so we owe you. [applause] and by the way, if you want a partner to get anything important on, call nancy pelosi. [applause] and steny hoyer and congressman moyer and my old buddy -- hope i'm not leaving anybody out here. but you know, my old i.d., john

conyers. [cheers and applause] i'm sure i'm leaving someone out for which i apologize. we all know we have a lot more to do, but will continue to make progress in one of the reasons that make progress this will have for at least three more years the president of the united states, my friend, barack obama. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. if thank you, everybody. [applause] thank you. everybody have a seat. i want to thank all of you for being here.

i want to thank secretary salazar, my great friend for letting us into the building. make sure everybody picks up their stray soda cans and everything afterwards. i want to thank attorney general holder for joining us. klotzbach we usually host the spill sightings at the white house, but they were just too many of you. who helped make this happen. clawback you all deserve to be a part of this moment. i want to thank everybody on this stage. show just mention the extraordinary work that each and everyone at the theaters leaders, both advocate as well as legislators. [inaudible] >> they go. [cheers and applause]

but everybody on this stage were extraordinarily hired. most of all though, this is your day. this is the day of the survivors. this is your big area. [inaudible] >> i love you back. [applause] this victory shows when the american people make their voices heard, washington listens. so i want to join joe and thinking all the members of congress from both ready to cut the spill across the finish line. a special thanks to pat leahy and mike crapo. thank you for your leadership.

[applause] much love to plan more who worked so hard on this. [cheers and applause] i also want to take a minute to thank the senators to a few hours ago took another big step toward safety reforms by advancing the federal gun trafficking the. [applause] the senate judiciary committee since legislation that would crack down on folks who buy guns only to turn around and filed into dangerous criminals. if a bill named in part. you remember how they've marched in the evacuation and just a few weeks later had been gunned down a mile away from my house. i urge to give it a go and hurt the house to follow suit and i

urge congress to move on other areas that have supported the american people from universal background checks to get an assault weapons off our streets moving to stop illegal guns to criminals and because these families into many other families really do deserve it though. [applause] finally, i want to thank joe biden for being such an outstanding vice president. [cheers and applause] that's right, you can stand for joe. give it up for joe biden. [cheers and applause] shows a hard-working vice president. he told me when i was vice president, well, i don't want to just be sitting around. said i promise you, i will let

you sit around. he has played a key role in forging the gun safety reforms i talked about and working closely with survivors of gun violence and their families. he forced the violence against women act 20 years ago, never forgetting who it was all about. [applause] on behalf of all the lights you had a positive impact and touch to the violence against women fact, survivors were alive today because of this law. the women no longer in fear because of this law. the gross aware of their right to be free from abuse because of this law. on behalf of them and their families, i want to thank joe biden for making this wonderful cause of his career. [applause] as joe said earlier, we've come along way.

back when joe wrote this law, domestic abuse is too often seen as a private matter hidden behind closed doors. victims too often stayed silent or felt they had to live in shame because they had done something wrong. when that to the hospital or police station, too often they were sent home without intervention or support. they felt trapped, isolated and as a result, domestic violence too often ended in tragedy. the great legacies of this law is that it didn't just change the rules. it changed our culture. empower people to start speaking up. it made it okay for us as a society to talk about domestic abuse. it made it possible for us as a country to address the problem in a real and meaningful way and

it clear to the guns that they were not about, that they are daylights out of place to go and they always had people on their side. today because members of both parties worked together, we are able to renew that commitment. reauthorizing the violence against women not is something i called for in my state of the union address and when i see how quick it got done -- [cheers and applause] make me feel optimistic. [cheers and applause] because of this bill, we'll keep in place all the protections and services that joe described. as he said, will expand them to cover even more because this is a country where everybody should pursue their own measure of happiness amidst their lives free from fear and matter who

you are, via the. that's got to be our priority. [applause] today is about the millions of women, that it is the domestic abuse and assault who are out there right now looking for a lifeline, looking for support. because of this bill, the love access to services that help establish 19 years ago. networker shelters that carry across state lines and because of this bill, were expanding housing assistance said no woman has to choose between a violent home and no home at all. that's what today is all about. [applause] today is about law enforcement officials. [applause] the first to respond when a big

calls for help. we are continuing all the training and support that's proven so effect give in bridging gaps over enforcement of the law so they can actually bring more offenders to justice. and we're giving my enforcement better tools to investigate cases of rape, which is consistently underreported. that's what today is all about. today is about women like diane. i'm so grateful i had shared her story. that takes great. i know we've got tribal leaders here today and i want to thank all of you for fighting so hard. to make this bill a reality.

[applause] indian country of some of the highest rates of domestic abuse in america and one of the reasons is the native american women are abused by an attacker is not native american, the attacker is immune from prosecution by forests. as soon as i sign this bill, that ends. [cheers and applause] tribal governments have an inherent right to protect their people now women deserve the right to live free from fear and not asserted all about.

[applause] today is about americans have faced discrimination based on orientation and gender identity. [applause] i want to thank sharon chappel lussier. there she is right they are, for what she's doing, the great work with the intent of violence project. all the other advocate focused on this community can't do it alone and now they will have to. that's what today is all about. [applause] today is about women who calmed to rosa hidalgo looking for support. immigrants who were picked ends of domestic abuse.

[applause] imagine that the llama for so many. if your immigration status society has been who abuses you are beef stew, if you're undocumented, you may feel there's too much to lose by coming forward. the violence against women fact without fear deportation on those protections save lives. because we thought are to keep them in place, they remain a lifeline or so women. that's part of what today is all about. [applause] today is about you women responded to the sex trade a neighbor when she was 12 years old. she was rescued with the help of an organization monday trafficking survivors.

today she's enrolled in college, working full-time to help at-risk girls. [applause] so with this though, we authorize trafficking victims protection act. that's what today is all about. today is about all the survivors standing on this stage. it is also that the millions more they represent, that you represent. it's about our commitment as a country to address this problem in every corner of america,

every community, every town, every city, as long as it takes. we've made incredible progress since 1994, but we cannot let a period not when domestic violence still kills three women a day. not when one of five women will be a big a rape in a lifetime. i promise you, not just as your president, but a son, had, father, i will keep at this. i know vice president biden will keep at it. my administration will keep at it for as long as it takes and i know that all the advocates said. , although legislators, republican and democrat who supports a could not be prouder of the work they've done together and i think i speak for all of them when we say we could not done it without you.

so with that, let me sign this bill. [cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

>> i believe the united states has many fantastic qualities. i do believe that maybe many people have the possibility of going themselves up at the bootstraps. i think every year that is less and less probable. if the united states, especially in its foreign policy, which is

whatever god for years and years is not a great nation. it's an interventionist state, extremely aggressive militarily. we mess with other people's politics in ways that i can't imagine americans tolerating. imagine if some country invaded us to bring our system the way they did iraq. can you imagine american thinking that's okay? and yet somehow we still in this country have a myth that people are thrilled we invade them. that's insane. i believe 99% of the time we create new enemies. >> now, president obama's

nominee for secretary, sally jewell testified about energy policy and the management. this trend for us mechanical engineer by training and a slow day outdoor company rei since 2005. this hearing is two hours 45 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. this morning, the committee meets to consider the nomination of sally jewell to the secretary of the interior with authorities ranging from managing national parks to offshore oil and gas development in to protect fish and wildlife, serving as secretary of interior is almost like an extreme sport for

multi-caspers. earlier this morning from sally jewell who knows about multitasking from having been a petroleum engineer, a corporate ceo, a banker and a conservationist. she will certainly need to draw on all these experiences and more to tackle responsibilities of the secretary of the interior. the biggest challenge will be striking the right balance between the secretary's dual roles of conserving and developing resources. the trade-off as we talked about are complicated because we americans want to have it all. we want to have jobs and protect our treasures and obviously that can be easier said than actually done. i also intend to discuss the

fact that american now spend $646 billion a year on outdoor recreation, generating $40 billion in federal tax revenues. so the economics of public lands have changed in america. recreation has become a big jobs engine and will be good for our economy if it grows bigger. i think we all understand the jobs in america come from the private sector ended through the department we can look to come up with innovative fresh post the to set the climate for job growth in protecting treasures, but will certainly be good for our country. as the former ceo of a $2 billion after equipment company, ms. jewell's experience makes her well-positioned to

address the issue of maximizing jobs created in revenue generated for federal taxpayers from recreation on public lands in the business of supporting. finally, i hope state of oregon has no shortage of resource issues, whether it's managing the checkerboard pattern of our land to get the timber cut up while protecting our environmental values, addressing the wider conflicts and developing renewable energy off the coast. there's plenty to keep the secretary of the interior pc for the next 40 years. i realize the next secretary of interior cannot spend her time focus solely on issues anymore than i can as chairman of the committee and certainly there's important national issues than this be addressed. these include ensuring taxpayers receive full value for resources produced for federal land, managing renewable and natural

gas them to ensure it's done in environmentally responsible fashion and finding a long-term solution to provide resource communities across the country, a fair share of revenue from federal lands. on the last issue, our committee is holding a hearing on the schools program fairly shortly. this program, one that i authored has been a lifeline for dependent communities across our country. the funding has expired last year in cash-strapped communities are facing deadlines for retaining teachers, what to do about law enforcement in so many other basic services. as we look forward to the debate, a short-term extension is not a long-term solution for these communities. we've got to get people back to

work in the woods, for example have a script to increase the number of jobs in resource dependent communities or there is federal land and water. we believe that can make the same protect environmental values. i look forward to working with colleagues about parties on this approach a broader revenue sharing effort that can provide effective states and communities but the share of the money generated from resource extraction from nearby federal lands or waters. so there's a host of challenges that await our next secretary and i'm particularly pleased mr. was spending so much time talking to senators, talking to experts in the field and especially with this being a new position, and the fact spending a lot of time talking to both elected officials of both local

parties and experts in the field is very welcome. so that may yield to my ranking minority or in friend senator murkowski. we're all looking forward to looking at your challenges and about your vision for the future of the department. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome to the committee. thank you for your willingness to serve. i echo the chairman's comments. my appreciation for the time you spend visiting with so many of us, not only talking, but listening. we recognize that is so key, so important. i know there's many questions. we've got a good round up this morning and committee. so we'll get right to the point in my opening comments here. for the past several weeks, much of my time is focused on a decision that came out of the

department of fish and wildlife service, a decision that's rattled me to the court to put it very simply. that agency somehow found cause to oppose a gravel road noncommercial use to connect king cove, alaska to deal with their airport of cold day and the reason we need this simple road is equally simple and it is for the safe he of human life, which is at risk. that road would give anyone injured or ill get better chance at surviving when the weather is far more severe than we might have seen in this region yesterday. ms. chua, we discussed this issue in person last week, so i'm not going to devote much of my time today to that. what i will say is this issue should never reach your desk should he be confirmed.

secretary salazar has stated that he has a moral obligation to uphold the trust responsibility for american indians and alaska natives and in your written statement, you provide one of your top priorities is in upholding the sacred trust responsibilities to the native american and alaska native communities. respect must be balanced with respect for the refuge and it is my exit patient secretary salazar will look into his heart. he will consider that moral obligation in the right decision to allow out and exchange on the road to proceed. until that happens will stand as a prime for overreach and the harm it can cause.

the reality is nearly all of a sudden the western states hunger and kane co. we have her example of where racy that inclusion there. we're all aware of instances or misguided federal restrictions and make it harder for people to live, be safe, prosper and the lack of balance that should further that too often ignore its mission to honor multiple uses of public lands. i would anticipate that you're going to hear two main sets of concerns expressed today. the first soviet that relates to your experience and i will acknowledge it's very important to have a background. i've enjoyed the conversation and understanding where you have come from. more recently u.s. focused on

conservation. you do have less experience, less familiarity with other grants policy than many past nominees have some of the issues where you have weighed in putting the wild lands initiative are unsettling to many. as a result, this morning you need to convince i say you will maintain that balance in the various mission in the interest of the department of the interior. we are looking for you to demonstrate an understanding of the issues that face our state and again your strong commitment to multiple use. we need you to affirm public lands provide not just a playground for recreational enthusiasm of important ideas, the paychecks for energy producers, miners, loggers, ranchers. the second set is based on broader discontent within the department of the interior itself. despite resources on federal

land, nearly all gains in energy production have occurred on state and private lands. notices his essays have replaced real offshore regulation, federal tracking proposals, threaten to reverse the good work the states are doing. we ranked dead last in permitting mining projects then again for every issue where we feel like we're making progress, for example it would hasten come to see otters, other areas of the department fails to hear us. the pressing need to clean up legacy loads, advances two decades ago are some examples that come to my mind. i'm looking forward to hearing more about your vision for the department of the interior and mr. chairman, could include a noting that for two nominations at interior and department of energy we have an immense ahead.

thank you. >> thank you, senator murkowski. i look forward to working with you on most matters. now we have customarily the oath and business matters to take care of. i note what a wonderful site to see three talented residents in the pacific northwest and united states senators with you and senator mary has the easy task of putting together a budget and is trying to juggle all of that today. i'd like to senator murray and senator cantwell introduce ms. jewell to the committee. when they've completed, will go forward with the oath in brief questions and having your testimony. welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman. all of the members of this committee, i am so pleased to be with my colleague, senator

cantwell to introduce sally jewell to this hearing. all of us will miss ken salazar when he leaves the administration, but i could not be happier the president has chosen sally jewell to replace ms secretary. i have known sally for many, many years and her unique background and executive experience make her the right person at the right time to be secretary of interior and it does to her she is from what we like to refer to as the better washington. so it's great to be here. i will come to the interior to i will come to the interior to difficult time when there's a immense challenges, opportunity. we are working hard to protect our environment and invest in technology to meet energy demands. including our home state of washington, tsao will face a complex issue like tribal lands and rights, but i think of no one better prepared for this

task. sally laughed breathless for the oilfields of oklahoma and colorado where she learned about the energy sector from the inside out. from there she moved from the outdoors to the boardroom and spent two decades in the finance how pain businesses learn what it takes to succeed. time and again, broken the mold to take on tough tasks in male dominated industry. when she joined equipment inc., a seattle-based outdoor retailers struggling. after eight years, rei is thriving, topping $1 billion in sales for leading the charge to protect their environment. finding that balance, navigating the world while keeping commitment is what will make sally gray as our next interior

secretary. perhaps better than anyone cometh allie does business and the environment both benefit recommended to protect dean parks and national treasures. sally has proven sustainability makes sense for the environment and the company's bottom line. she's worked closely to help create the wild sky wilderness area and expand protections throughout her stay. she's worked with industry to expand opportunities throughout the northwest and work towards permanently detecting lands in the san juan islands, a true gem in the state of washington. she's back private partnerships that create jobs to recreation and support a groundbreaking programs to get young people involved in the outdoors. whether it's the northwest or deposits in the southwest for oil reserves on the cosine scum unconfident sally will the art

department for economic growth and a thriving environment go hand in hand. thank you, mr. chairman for allowing me to speak on behalf of sally today. i can tell all of you she's a gem of the northwest i know she'll do an outstanding job is your secretary. i'm delighted to be here. >> were very pleased senator cantwell is here. she's particularly knowledgeable about economics and shares that interest with ms. jewell. this. ms. cantwell, welcomed the statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. is a pleasure to be with my colleague before this committee. 20 thank you for holding this important hearing and it's great to be here to help introduce a longtime friend, sally jewell. i want to thank her for her willingness to serve in this position i fear has and i think

ms while because it goes without saying these are challenging on the person who does the job and family members as well. i know how hard it is to leave the northwest can come to this washington, but it the leadership tally represents that we need most of washington. senator murray said alan and it's a good word to describe. not only is she the ceo of a growing come any, she also serves on the university of washington ordered regions on the board of a nonpartisan national parks conservation association. she's been a leader as mr. oilfields of oklahoma to commercial banking and she has been a success at whatever she tackles. undersell his leadership, rei has ground and up 77 new stores in the state fails 62% in very tough economic times.

i'd like that leadership at the department of the interior. we know the department faces challenges from how to figure out the best use of public lands to the various legal challenges the department faces to modernizing bureaucracy, to thinking about climate in deepwater drilling. there's a myriad of things they need someone who can forge resolutions and i think sally jewell is that person. having grown up over 40% of our land is public land, i guarantee you she understands these western issues. whether it's water right, salmon recovery, understanding impact on water levels, wildlife fund land or the importance of public access to hiking and hunting and fishing. i guarantee you she has read about these, has been involved in organizations addressing issues and is try to provide a

leadership role. i would also note to ranking member murkowski because i know how important these issues are that this nominee has had a variety of ways than anyone since served in this position 40 years ago. i am confident commanding knowledge of training as an engineer, sally will bring a pragmatic can-do worldview to the interiors management and problem-solving challenges. science will be your compass, not an ideological event. given that it agencies and challenging mission, i'm especially excited to have someone with is this background, the science and engineering background of the department of the interior. as a member of this committee,

we appreciate the challenges every member basis when it comes to the department. i too have some of those issues would like to ask about, too. i hope you agree sally jewell is the right person for this job. i guarantee you this woman knows how to climb mountains. thank you, mr. chairman and i hope people will support her nomination out of this committee and improve the secretary of interior. >> thank you for a hopeful statement. at least we can have you back a little bit. i know you've got your hands full today can be excused and appreciate your coming. at this pointcome you are where the rules of the committee applied to all nominees. they require in connection with her testimony.

please stand and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give on energy and natural resources shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you and before you begin your statement, i will ask three questions addressed to each nominee before this committee. the first is will you be available to appear before the congressional committees to represent positions and respond to issues of concern to the congress? >> i will. >> are there any interest of such a conflict should you be concerned and assumed the office to which he been nominated by the press? >> my investments, personal holdings have been reviewed by the appropriate counselors within the federal government.