sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, to exercise the authority that is given to her in legislation to recognize that there's a flaw in this policy. i am not asking secretary sebelius to make an exception for one individual. i would be the first to suggest that that would be a dangerous place to go. we don't want individual cabinet members or politicians or anyone else making decisions about who's going to get an organ and who's not. what we want is a system that works, and the current system doesn't work. for kids who are good transplant candidates and have the acute need but aren't yet 12 years old. and so i am urging secretary sebelius as strongly as i can to exercise the discretion that the law gives to her to change the policy, and don't change it for one person. change it for a category. i think any child who is a

viable candidate for the adult transplant and who has sufficient urgency ought to be able to go on the adult list. that's not to say that they automatically go to the top of the list. their ranking on the list ought to be determined by the urgency of their circumstances, as it should be for everyone else. so i would argue we're not suggesting that we make an exception for sarah. what i'm suggesting in a way is the opposite. stop making exceptions that exclude sarah. she is a good candidate for this. the doctors believe this. you know, children's hospital of philadelphia is one of the best children's hospitals in the world. nobody disputes that. her doctors are some of the best doctors in the world. and this is really, really vitally important. the life of a small child depends on this, and i don't know how many other children might be in similar circumstances. so, madam president, i -- i appreciate the opportunity to rise and make this case. again, i just want to stress

we're not asking for an exception for one individual to be chosen over others. we're asking for a change in a policy that is flawed and that is currently excluding somebody from being on the list for -- to be an organ donor recipient that ought to be on that list. i am grateful to judge bayleston for the decision he made, but that is a temporary restraining order that will only last ten days, and if the transplant does not occur within 10 days, then sarah or any other children in her circumstances, their future becomes uncertain after that. so i would urge the secretary to take the action that's necessary, and i would note the absence of a quorum, madam president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, i had hoped to be able to come down here today and call up an amendment to the pending legislation, the farm bill. i understand we're not currently on the bill, but rather in morning business. i hope to have the opportunity to try and get an amendment pending. we have been trying now for several days to have amendments considered to the farm bill. this is a germane amendment. it's very relevant to the bill. it's one that i think that the senate, the full senate, ought to have an opportunity to debate, and ultimately to vote on. and so it is very unfortunate, in my view, that we are where we are on a piece of legislation that has this much consequence for our economy, for farm country, for consumers across this country. this is a bill that is a major piece of legislation, and unfortunately we have not had the opportunity in the course of the days that we have been on the bill to get amendments up,

pending, debateed and vote on -- debated and voted on. i can't tell you how disappointing that is for those of us that come from farm country and want to try and shape the best farm bill we possibly can here in the united states senate so that when we go to conference, which i hope we will, with the house of representatives, that webster hubbell in the best position possible to have a bill that addresses the important needs that farmers and ranchers across this country have with regard to certainty on a multiyear farm bill, but also a bill that we can defend to the american taxpayers, a bill that is reform oriented, that moves us into the future of agriculture, not the past. the amendment that i had hoped to offer today, madam president, amendment 1092, amends the commodity title of the farm bill that we have been debating. now, last year, the united states senate passed a farm bill by a vote of 64-35. 64 senators voted for a farm bill that most of us believe

offered a level of reform that we could support and defend to the american taxpayer. madam president, several of my colleagues and i pointed out during the debate on the farm bill during the ag committee, we have deep concerns over what we believe is a step backwards in the commodity title with the creation of the adverse market payments or what we refer to as the amp program. this program takes a step backwards from last year's farm bill by re-creating a program with countercyclical payments and fixed target prices. in fact, madam president, i would argue that this is a policy that goes back, this policy predates cell phones. this policy predates the internet. this is going back to 1980's type farm policy. last year's senate farm bill completely eliminated this program, which meant that we could honestly say we had passed a reform-minded farm bill, a farm bill that is more interested in policies that are about the future rather than the past, that are about the market,

that are about making sure we have a necessary safety net in place where our farmers but doing it in a way that's defensible to the american taxpayer and moves us on a path to reform. madam president, our concerns are not crop specific. a lot of discussion about this being something that is between the midwest and the south or regional. this is not a crop-specific concern. this is a policy-specific concern. an outdated target price program is not, is not what most producers in this country asked us for in a new farm bill. just the opposite. almost every member of the ag committee was told by our producers that a sound crop insurance program is a much higher priority. madam president, amendment number 1092 is simply a response to the wishes of most hearms in the united states. this amendment strikes the newly created amp program and places peanuts and rice back into the art program.

or to put it simply, this amendment replaces the commodity title in the bill that we have before us and replaces it with a reform-minded market-oriented commodity title that was included in the farm bill that we passed last year. madam president, i do not believe that congress is capable of setting accurate fixed prices for the next five years. but that is precisely what the commodity title in this bill and the house bill commodity title is even much, much worse in that respect, but it has congress setting by statute, us as members of congress basically setting fixed prices for the next five years. the market, not congress and not the usda should be setting prices for title 1 commodities. if fixed target prices are set too my and commodity prices drop history has proven 235er78s will begin planting for a government program rather than in response to market signals. this not only creates the

potential unnecessary liability for taxpayers, but it also increases the risks of overproduction and negative impacts on global markets making certain crops subject to possible w.t.o. disputes. this not only moves us to the reforms that we included in last year's farm bill, it also saves taxpayers more than $3 billion. that increases the total savings in this bill by more than 12%. madam president, that is $3 billion that most of our farmers have told us we don't need to spend. this is something that the american farmer, the producers out there have made very, very clear, and i would argue, madam president, that the american taxpayer would also be very supportive of. i urge my colleagues adrian hope we get this opportunity --, urge my colleagues and i hope we get this opportunity, to debate and support this amendment because it would recapture the level of reform that we had in

last year's farm bill and save $3 billion at the same time. madam president, there are many amendments that we filed to this bill that are not getting debated, that are not getting voted on. this is one in particular to the commodity title of the bill that saves over $3 billion from the bill that is before us today. over $3 billion in savings by moving toward a market-oriented policy as opposed to a high fixed target price policy where the united states congress sets in statute the target prices rather than having the market determine what those prices ought to be. and so that's one amendment that i've offered to the commodity title of the bill. i have another amendment to the snap or the food stamp title of the bill, the nutrition title of the bill that would save $2 billion out of overhead, administrative costs, doesn't affect beneficiaries, doesn't affect income or asset

eligibility standards, simply finds savings in the food stamp program as related to overhead, administrative costs, saves $2 billion. we ought to be voting on that. we ought to have the opportunity to debate these things and vote on these amendments. i know colleagues of mine here have offered other amendments that save dollars that make this a more responsible farm policy, a policy oriented toward reform and that achieves a significant amount of savings for the american taxpayer. and so i have to say again what i said at the start -- the beginning of my remarks madam chair and that is that it is unfortunate that we are where we are, debating a bill that over a decade will cost nearly a trillion dollars, of course, about 80% of which is in the nutrition title of the bill, but with an opportunity to actually improve this as it moves across the floor of the united states senate and proceeds into a conference with the house of representatives, where they will have passed a bill out of the ag committee

headed to the floor that has high fixed target prices, higher fixed target prices than are included in the senate bill, and high fixed target prices for all commodities as opposed to the senate bill which has them simply for rice and peanuts. but we're looking at heading down a path, madam president, that takes us not to the future but to the past, to a time when farmers were farming for the government program rather than farming for the market. to a time when you have lots of potential disputes twawps because these are -- because these are margaret distorting policies that are driven by government as opposed to driven by the market. we could do so much better, madam president, and we should do so much better for our producers across this country and for the taxpayers who ultimately foot the bill. and the amendment that i have would do that. it would save over $3 billion in the commodity title of the bill, it is a market oriented

reform, and it's something that we ought to be considering here and debating in the united states senate and it is incredibly unfortunate we're not having that opportunity. madam president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that following any leader remarks on friday, june 7, that's tomorrow, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to calendar number 80, s.744, the time until 1:30 be divided as follows, senator sessions or designee controlling three hours and the majority leader or designee controlling the remaining time. further, following any leader remarks on monday, june 10, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 744, the time until 5:00 p.m. divided as follows -- mr. reid: following any leader remarks on monday, june 10, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 744, that the time until 5:00 p.m. be divided as follows. senator sessions or designee controlling two hours and senator leahy or designee controlling the remaining time. further, that at 5:00 p.m., the

senate resume consideration of s. 954, the farm bill wu the time until 5:30 equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. that at 5:30, all postcloture time be considered expired and the senate proceed to vote in relation to the leahy amendment with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote, and upon disposition of the leahy amendment, the senate proceed to vote on passage of s. 954, as amended. that upon disposition of 954, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 744, with senator sessions or designee controlling one hour of debate on monday evening. that following any leader remarks on tuesday, june 11, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 744, with the time until 12:30 p.m. equally divided between the proponents and opponents. further, with senator sessions or designee controlling up to one hour of that time. that at 2:15 p.m. on tuesday, june 11, the senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 744.

finally, if cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed, time until 4:00 p.m. be equally divided between the proponents and opponents and at 4:00 p.m., the senate proceed to vote on the adoption to proceed to s. 744. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider nominations calendar number 141, 142, and 143. that the no, ma'am know nominations be confirmed, all three of them, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and no further motion be in order to any of the no no, nominations, t president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate consider the following nominations: calendar number 147 and each number in order through 174. and all nominations on the secretary's desk in the air force, marine corps, army, and navy, that the nominations be confirmed, all of them en bloc, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations, any related statements be printed in the record, and president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by me in consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the nominations as numbered 47, 49, there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form, following the yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote on the

nominations in the order listed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, no motions be in order, any related statements be printed in the record, president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, tomorrow there will be another class of pages that will graduate after serving the united states senate so well. we expect a lot of our pages who often work as hard as senators and staffs, for their contributions which make the senate run smoothly day in and day out are greatly appreciated. i commend them for their hard work, thank them for their efforts, wish them the best of luck in their next endeavor. and speaking from a personal perspective, madam president, my two oldest grandchildren served as pages and it really changed

their lives. even though their grandfather was heavily involved in politics all my adult life, they really weren't in tune with what was going on or i guess they didn't really care that much. but after having served here as a page, they became avid readers of the press and listen to the news and became interested in what goes on here. these jobs as pages are really life changing. there are lots of examples of that. senator chris dodd, who recently retired, longtime member of congress, and senator from connecticut, his page -- serving as a page really paved the way for him to be a -- a peace corps volunteer, member of congress, a member of the senate. so each of these young men and women is a golden opportunity and i appreciate very much how hard they've worked. these young men and women have gone to school and it has been hard. it is not easy to complete the semester of school that they do here. it's very hard.

the people that run that school are -- they cut them no slack, whether it's english or math, they work them very hard. and they go through a drill living in the dorm that's not easy. they are strictly supervised and i'm proud of every one of them. i wish i had more time to spend with them individually because it's really important for this institution that the page program continues. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes it's business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning, june 7. that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that following any leader remarks, the senate resume the motion to proceed to s. 744, the comprehensive immigration reform bill under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: the next roll call vote will be monday at 5:30. if there's no further business to come before this body, i ask

that the senate adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> why [laughter] >> on july 1st student loans are going to go up. now, if we do what the republicans want, it will go up about three times, that's 300%. if we do nothing, they go up 200%. my math may be long but if we go to 2.8 that's 100%, isn't it? and if we do nothing we are better off than what the republicans want because it would go up at least three times what they are now. now, i can't understand why we are having a problem with this. governor romney and republicans have said consistently we should

close tax loopholes. the loopholes we have here are so obviously need to be closed. i hope we can have the republicans respond to us in some reasonable manner. we saw it take place out there. even republicans voted against their proposal. five or six republican senators voted against the proposal. so, i would hope that they come back to us with something that's reasonable. we thought when we put this together, going along with what governor romney wanted and they said they wanted for a long time would do the trick. so they have talked about closing the loopholes and that's what we've done. it's a common sense approach to the weekend do this to the middle class families. they are struggling as it is. and to do this would be too much.

>> this is supposed to be the new family friend of the republican party. this is the party that learned its lesson november 6 of last year. so here comes the test, will you help working families to their kids through college? do you accept the students that come out of school or anywhere from 24,000 to $33,000 in debt and if you let the interest rates doubled they will be paying thousands more to pay that off and incidentally the parents that are cosigning the loans? at this moment in time republicans have a choice they can stand with their position to dramatically increase interest rates or stand with these families trying to put their kids through school. that's what we offer to them. what they basically said is we don't want to run the risk of closing tax loopholes on the wealthiest people in america to pay for this. so we will let the working families and the students there the burden. that is what their vote was today and it's the wrong vote for america's future. some of us are standing here because of student loans.

it was enacted after the launch of sputnik created a program that used to go to school and there are a lot of people listening that went through the same experience. i wouldn't be standing here without those and a lot of students feel the same way. our obligation is to give young people in this country a chance and the best chance we can give them is a good education. for working families who can't write a check for the entire tuition they have to borrow money. if they are going to borrow it lets me get reasonable. the position is let's keep the cost of the student loans reasonable, within the grasp of working families. the position is let it go to the high heavens if it means putting a penalty on the wealthiest people of america. that's upside down. >> thank you. we no college education is a ticket to the middle class. it is exactly the type of investment the government should be encouraging in 2012. unemployment rates with bachelor's degrees, four went 5%. high school diploma, 8.3%,

nearly doubled. for adults between 25 to 30 for the distance was even more dramatic and individuals with a high school diploma or three times more likely to be unemployed as somebody that had a bachelor's degree. so, my constituents ask me what is so controversial about preventing student loans from doubling? it seems like a no-brainer. why we have to debate this every year? the answer is simple. there is a large group on the other side that seems to dominate that party that is a fundamental dislike. if they had their way they would like to end it. the reason it is so hard to extend the current rate is that the hard right would like to end the student loan program altogether. and they have a huge influence in their party. this is a quintessential issue that shows the difference between the two parties' different views of the proper role of government. the other side is so anti-government that they oppose

even federal programs like student loans. if it were up to them, this kind of lending would be left to the private sector and i would skyrocket and the would be horrible for america. we democrats on the other hand believe the government has a role to play in helping make the lives of middle class people little easier. the issue, this issue puts that contrast on display for the public like very few others. the government argues from those on the far right they may have appeal to swing voters at times, but this issue shows the limits of that argument. >> the public is perfectly fine with holding the households of four college. so, the public is with us on this issue. that's why we prevailed a year ago and we got the rate extended to the evin mitt romney in the heart of the presidential campaign was forced to step back from opposition extending a loan rate and that is why we will

prevail in the coming weeks and extend the current loan rate for another year. >> this is just another example how out of step republicans in congress are with the struggles of all of our american families today. in fact, it makes me wonder just who they are listening to when they are not here in washington, d.c. because what i hear from families at home is all i hear about sequestration and the fact that a lot of people that are working today can't afford furloughs and smaller paychecks. all i hear from a lot of people who do not understand why we are being blocked from even being able to sit down and have a conversation about a budget compromise. i hear from businesses who say the absolute last thing they want to see is another manufactured crisis share in this country and i hear from parents and students who want a shot on higher education but don't want to live with the burden of the debt and they will

never be able to pay. what we put forward today was a perfectly sensible solution to help address the problem and the bill i joined with the senator on said let's keep these rates low where they are today so that students and parents have certainty over the next two years and must use the next two years to rethink the students' financial lead systems so we do have a reliable affordable way for students to act on the funding they need to go to school. let's protect the 7 million college students from seeing their interest rate double in just a matter of weeks. it seems like a no-brainer to me. but apparently not for republicans. unbelievably their idea is for students to pay more, and for those extra dollars to go straight for the deficit reduction. frankly, i think that provides a great window into their priority when it comes to balancing the budget. they want high your student loan rates to pay for $16 billion of

deficit reduction. but they refuse to ask or to pay a dinah more. they want to build for low-income students to face the biggest of the increased cost that they blocked the bill because it calls for ending the use of posture tax savings. a bite to the and nail against the tax hikes for those that can afford to pay more but the refusal to negotiate on this issue leads to a thousand dollar tax hike on low-income students. i did everyone in this room knows a family member or someone they know coming and i went to college on student loans and i know so many kids today who are in. there ought to their necks in student loan debt putative this helps in their families and it isn't easily shed. we can't do this in the next generation of college students for the generation after that. we have to remove the barriers to education, not new ones.

they are going to be making their voices heard over the next few weeks and we stand ready to work with them. before i turn it over to the majority leader i want to add one thing in response to the comments the speaker boehner made a few minutes ago about the house appropriations bill and which she said chairman ryan and i were engaged in, "a regular order conversations that were, quote come bel air delicate yet there is nothing regular about them and there's nothing delicate about them. there isn't anything not delicate about them. that is what the regular order is. it's the next step and how we will get to a bipartisan budget as much as possible. they want to force the manufactured crisis over the debt limit because will give them leverage and you don't have to take my word for it. the chairman said, and i quote, the moves i am making to try to

maximize the chance of success in the fall. let's be clear. democrats want to get to work right now. we understand the conference is about compromise. we understand that's what we need to do to solve the americans for most problem with the budget is and what the priorities are and how we are going to pay for it and we asked republicans to join us. >> [inaudible] it doesn't seem to me like the two sides are that far apart. >> well, first of all the

president said he would veto their suggestion, the legislation, and of course he would because if he increases the debt for the burden of the students by 13 or $14 billion, they have suggested the president and his legislation puts a cap and they would be never hit with these changes under the spending so there is nothing even close to what is meant with what the republicans have tried to suggest they are similar. here is very simple as senator schumer indicated a short time ago, and that is we know as the american people understand, and mitt romney understood we cannot raise the rates of students and their families. we can't do that. the republicans can help us with

this by accepting closing these loopholes. if they have a better way of paying for it let them come to us but it can't be something so foolish the biggest problem they have in the bill is it doesn't lock in rates whereas the senate bill, the senate republican bill. >> you can try to rationalize this any way you want. the president said he would veto the republican proposal. and i agree. you can listen to all the talking points you want but this isn't even close to what we want. >> this has been for seven years as i recall. it is a program that has worked to prevent not all terrorism, but certainly the vast majority of it.

now, is the program perfect? of course not. there are people at this podium today who suggested that there be legislation offered to change that. there are votes taking on that effect. so i think that what we should do is make sure that senator feinstein has an opportunity to review what has gone on. there was a report that has come out the was being purported to take a look at that. but right now i think everyone should just calmed down and understand this is brand new and has been going on for some seven years and we've tried often to make it better and we will continue to do that. the senator, you've offered a number of amendments some of which i voted on. do you have anything to add to this?

>> senator isn't this exactly what some people were concerned about when the whole debate was being debated? >> the reason we sunset the act is we want to keep america safe but we don't want to compromise our basic freedoms and privacy is as individuals. what i tried to do in the committee and on the floor is to keep the sun set alive and also to put in some specificity in terms of the use of this information. there is some. i think it could be better. i've offered amendments in the committee and i've been restrained many times because of the cost of the information. some of us have been briefed and we know a little bit more about the background than others but i continue to believe that is the bottom line we want a safe and secure nation. we want to balance that against the basic rights and privacy of american citizens to be i think we should revisit this on a regular basis. this disclosure and i think reported by other sources is an invitation to renew that

conversation. >> [inaudible] >> do you think the white house should put forth the interpretation of the order allows going to court to get the phone records? have they been sweeping in their purchase of passion? >> there is a limitation in law and the question is whether or not it is adequate. that is something for the congress to ask and answer and i think the latest news disclosure gives the challenge in an opportunity to do just that >> have you made a decision how you were going to handle the amendments on the immigration bill? >> yes, i met today with the gang of four on my side. i met with senator leahy today. we are going to have a caucus today on this issue. i think we have -- we know what

we are going to do. we are going to try to be as often as we can beat. i had a conversation even today with jeff sessions at length so we are going to move to this bill and start to see an effort in the morning it will substantive debate in the morning and tuesday we will be on the bill with all of the preliminary stuff being done at 4 o'clock on tuesday. i told senator sessions, i told anyone that will listen including me, the gang of four, and i'm sure they've conveyed that to the gang of the other four to but i talked to senator leahy the very a. we all acknowledge, i don't know about all the republicans, but we are going to finish the bill before the july 4th recess and so the longer they take on time they are entitled to do that, we just need to finish the bill and we will do that as quickly as we can. there are few pieces of legislation we have had come to the floor in recent years and

has been thoroughly discussed, be dated and presented but what was done in the judiciary committee having more than 20 hearings with multiple days on markups, this bill has everybody, that is what this bill is about. no one can complain about not having had time to read the bill. they have read it and studied it and there is no reason we can't finish the debate quickly. >> cementer read? >> is the bill in the discussion on the 70 plus votes to implement and house i wonder what do you think is the key to getting that many boats and doesn't revolve about the senator rubio's amendment and something you think he would support? >> we are interested in getting as many votes as we can and getting as many votes as we can does not depend on any one amendment. the last question. >> do you feel the momentum has

started to weigh in on some of the comments with an overall momentum? >> senator schumer can respond to this. i can say i haven't been as involved as the two senators year. but i am totally convinced that there is a tremendous momentum to get this legislation passed no matter what people are saying on the record come off the record. this is an important piece of legislation. we have a system of immigration system is broken that needs to be fixed and the american people any poll that you see agrees on this. senator schumer? >> i think the momentum is getting stronger every day. right now we have a broad coalition of people who you normally wouldn't be aligned with here pushing the legislation, the chamber of commerce, the bishops of the catholic church, the evangelicals, high-tech, the big growers and they are in the process of contacting the senators that haven't committed to the bill and urging them to do it. that's number one. number two, we welcome changes

just as we did in the committee. the bottom line is we can make this bill better. we think we have come up with a very good compromise. we think it will make america a lot better. but many people can propose changes and senator rubio thinks he's obviously a supporter of the proposal we have come hasn't changed his mind on that. but he thinks we can make border security better and we agree if we can we will look at those amendments. there are some bottom lines. the trigger is a very delicate issue and we are going to make sure that the truckers cannot be used by someone in future years as anti-immigration to present a path to citizenship the process is moving forward very, very well. >> thanks everyone. student loan interest rates by the way set to double on

july 1st. the senate today failed to move forward with either democratic or the republican version of the bill carried a live look at the capitol with the flags of the capitol at half staff for the new jersey senator frank lautenberg that died at the age of 89 on monday. in just a bit the body of frank lautenberg will a life of the u.s. capital to bid on the east front of the u.s. capitol this is a look at the east front, the northeast front plaza at about 1:30 we expect the hearse and the arrival of frank lautenberg's body lying in repose from two to 6 p.m. in the senate chamber on lincoln floor from 1865 cable said a word from new jersey, chris christi, the governor of new jersey, named a temporary successor to frank lautenberg. we will have coverage on the c-span networks of his news conference at 1:30 eastern. frank lautenberg and died early monday when the senate started its day monday with a prayer from the chaplain reverend barry

and several speeches in memory of frank lautenberg. >> let us pray. god, thank you for being here us in good and bad times. we celebrate your wonderful blessings that bring us new victories each day. as we look at the flowers on the desk of our friend and brother, senator frank lautenberg, we thank you for his life and legacy. as we mourn his death, send your comfort into our hearts. less bonnie -- bless bonnie ands

family to let our memory of this good and courageous american inspire us to transcend the barriers that divide us and to work for the good of america. we pray in your merciful name, amen. >> please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

the clerk will read a communication to the senate. >> washington, d.c. june 3rd, 2013 to the senate debate on the provision of rule one paragraph three of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tim kaine to perform the duties of the chair from patrick leahy. >> majority leader. >> i ask the senate to observe a moment of silence to honor frank lautenberg, the late senator from the state of new jersey. some of the senate will now observe an amount of time if we could stand.

>> tester president? >> majority leader? >> we are in a period of morning business and the senate will resume the consideration of the planned bill and there will be a roll call vote on the amendment to that bill. there are two bills in the second reading. >> the clerk will read the titles of the bills for a second time. >> an act to approve the construction operation and maintenance of the keystone exfil pipeline. h. r. 271 and act clarified by compliance with an emergency order under section 202 of the federal power act and so forth for other purposes.

>> i object with regard to both of these matters. >> objection having been heard. the measures will now be placed on the order. >> mr. president, when i learned earlier this morning that frank lautenberg had died, of course i became very, very sad. i served with him for two and a half decades or more and to see now the flowers on his desk it seems they have barely wilted on the desk right behind me, center in a way -- cementer inouye. i have a heavy heart and senior centers for new jersey and my friend, frank lautenberg died this morning as we all know. my thoughts are with his lovely wife bonnie his children and

grandchildren. some people in the history of the institution contribute as much to the nation and to the united states senate as frank lautenberg. this is what the american dream is all about he came from a family of working-class immigrants and eastern europe. they worked so hard and around new jersey and often. when frank was the team during the middle of world war ii he enlisted in the united states army. during world war ii he served in the single court and i can remember frank talking about his experiences in the european theater. he was on the army signal corps and the water and power poles

and he could see the war going on on his side. during world war ii, he talked about the experiences he had. he's very proud of this military service, and the last world war ii veteran having served in the senate we don't have any world war ii veterans mr. president kim vignette he said a great loss for this institution and in many different ways. when frank came home from the war, he was obviously very smart and was permitted to attend a very prestigious columbia university. he did this of course on the g.i. bill like millions of other returning americans did. but he quickly found his own business on his own company.

he did it with two friends. all three of them from new jersey, three kids from new jersey. under his leadership, this automatic data processing grew into the largest computing service of its kind in the world. he was so very proud of that company and he never hesitated to tell anyone he made money and became rich. he became wealthy as a result of people being able to fill dreams as people can bring america. frank wasn't content with his personal fact alone. he was proud a lot of the contra beatable things he did but nothing made him more proud than outside of government than when he served as the head of the appeal. now the jewish federation of america he was very proud of that.

mr. president, frank lautenberg was known for many things before he came to the senate's but he was elected in 1982. he came to the congress the same year that i did and in the three decades since he's worked tirelessly on behalf of his state and the country. he couldn't stand retirement, he hated retirement, he couldn't stay away from public service and he returned to the senate again in 2002. he had a remarkable career. i just touched upon a few of these things. his determination made him successful in the private sector and served him well in the united states senate. mo -- mcdata by his own experience, a world war ii

veteran in recognizing he did, how much this meant to him and he wanted to help ensure that the veterans returning from iraq and afghanistan enjoy the same opportunities for education that helped him become so successful. my knee youngest boy just hated cigarette smoke. it nearly made him ill. airplanes remember we went through a procedure there when you could smoke every place in the airplane finally part of the airplane but it didn't matter. everyone sucked in that second-hand smoke. frank lautenberg took care of my boy and other people. you know longer have to suck in that smoke on the airplane. he is the one more than anyone else we have to think us from

protecting us from second-hand smoke because his legislation ban smoking on airplanes. it also was a longtime member of the committee heading out in a short period of time he would have been chairman of the committee because he wasn't there. i got the opportunity to be the chair of the committee on separate occasions, so he focused on the infrastructure of the roads and highways and one of the things he thought would make the country a much safer place is to pass a drinking limit anyplace in the country until you're 21 years of age and that is what he did. the national joint driving standard is what it was called. he believed in helping the state of new jersey will. it was his first priority. and the second was held in the

pretty and i am not sure which order they came. he was focused on the country in new jersey at the same time. frank wanted to make sure women and children were protected from gun violence and because of him, we passed legislation that convicted domestic of users couldn't win. so just a few examples of his work that literally saved lives. he came out of his bed in a wheelchair to vote on gun legislation would. he agreed with 90% of the american people what they had severe mental problems where felons shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun a pity if he agreed with 90% of the american people and he came from his bed to come here and vote with us. he was so happy to be here

became once after a group that just a few days ago to vote when we needed him again. he tried so hard. talking to mauney he would constantly live to be 100 to the he was a very strong man physically. i took a big delegation to china, a bipartisan group with a wonderful trip. that was his last travel to the i haven't been to the great wall of china i don't know how many others have been by him and it's pretty steep. there's big rocks that have been there for centuries and centuries. because frank was 88-years-old at the time, someone grabbed his arm to help him they pushed him away come he wanted no help from

anybody to get he was on his own and that is where he wanted to be. the gratitude was for his outstanding service and he has always been so kind to me. he was one that really appreciated his service and appreciated being here and he loved being in the senate. the nation is going to miss his strength and progressive leadership will. the other thing that a lot of people don't know about frank lautenberg will. i have him tell the story because no one could tell the story. another reason to come he laughed at his own jokes to be he thought they were funny as everyone listening to them did. one of our favorites was he

would retain about five minutes to tell the story but it was hilarious. no one could tell it like frank said he had a sense of humor and we certainly appreciated that even though the united states senator at midnight last night and al franken, and we still have him but there was room for too funny people will prior to his death this morning, frank and elwood, al franken lautenberg will always made us laugh will. now i guess it's going to be up to him to do this alone as they were both really funny together and apart. so it is with a deep sadness that the senate family is going to say goodbye.

we are going to do that wednesday morning. say goodbye to an exemplary public servant and a faithful friend of frank lautenberg. note the absence of a quorum. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] mr. president, i just flew in from chicago this morning. i was given the news that i lost a great friend would, and one of my dearest colleagues. senator lautenberg of new jersey passed away. most of us saw him just a few weeks ago here in the senate and he had to come down it was one of those moments it was crucial. and he knew that he was struggling, but he also knew that he would be here. he said he would and he was. he sat right over here.

no wheelchair -- i don't think i've ever run into a person of my life as happy as frank lautenberg. he was a great joke teller and the best thing about his joke even if he were telling it for the 254th time, he would start laughing before the end of the joke and pretty soon the whole world was laughing. he always wanted to be out to dinner because you knew it was going to be a good time. you would hear a lot of jokes your before that he would encourage him to tell it. he had so many stories to tell. here he was a member of the greatest generation having served in world war ii and served here in the united states senate. two different approaches he retired once and came back to the age of 89. he established this when he came to the end of the senate that he was wheeled in in a wheelchair to vote on some important

amendments related to gun safety and gun-control. if he were alive he wouldn't have missed those votes. it meant so much to him. it was an issue that he led the and he was respected for when it came to closing the loopholes when convicted felons and people who had no business owning guns were buying them any way frank lautenberg led the effort to stop the proliferation of guns in the distribution with people who had misused them. it was a cause that he felt passionately about and one that he cast many votes on as he was in the u.s. senate. his return for those votes and a long life was filled with courage starting with a service in the united states army in world war i continued throughout his life. political courage and moral

courage. when they spoke to sum all students at rutgers university about ten years ago, he said he considered briefly studying law himself after he served in the army of world war ii. he was 25-years-old after world war ii and was able to start laforme to and he told the students was too late. i missed my opportunity. he wasn't into law degree but make no mistake to become a stick frank lautenberg of new jersey left an important mark on the walls of america. here is how i first came to know him. i was a congressman in 1986. i had been here for four years. i was from springfield illinois. i never met frank lautenberg of new jersey who was a senator at that time. but i got a crazy motion to introduce a bill that band smoking on airplanes to the and i didn't have a chance, not a chance. the entire leadership of the house of representatives opposed

me. all the democratic leaders of my party and all of the republican leaders, too. and yet, like the amendment on the transportation bill of the appropriation bill and through some good luck and breaks, it made it through the rules committee that wasn't supposed to have been carried it turns out that claude pepper of florida the chairman of the rules committee, when he was a senator years before had been instrumental in starting the national cancer institute did as a southerner he didn't talk about tobacco. nobody did much in those days but in his heart come he knew that tobacco smoking was killing people. he let me give that amendment to the floor which shocked everybody to read and i remember the day -- this goes back quite a few years now, 27 years ago i was in the house of representatives calling this amendment to ban smoking on flights that for two hours or less. that's how it started and i looked up in the gallery and was filled with flight attendants in their uniforms from the

different airlines. they were victims of secondhand smoke. well, we call that measure for a vote in the past. it shocked everybody and it turned out that the house of representatives was the biggest frequent flier club in america. they were tired of sitting in airplanes and breeding in someone else's secondhand smoke. there were a few moments of tribulation of celebration and then somebody said what are you going to do in the senate and i thought my goodness, that is an important part of this pity if so, i decided to call the chairman of the transportation appropriations subcommittee a fellow named frank lautenberg of new jersey. i didn't know him, i said to him i would like to ask a favor. would you consider offering this bill as an amendment to the senate transportation appropriation bill? he said i will get back to you and he did come in a hurry. he said on board. let's do it together pitting and

that was the best phone call i ever made. for the people of this country and those that fly in airplanes, that team of lautenberg and durbin managed to pass a bill signed into law which did much more than we ever dreamed of. they felt this little idea taking smoking off airplanes would make the flight a little more comfortable and safer from the health point of view either frank or i realize that time it was a tipping point. americans looked around and said if we are going to take the smoking of airplanes, why stop there? trains, buses, offices, hospitals, restaurants. just look across the board what's happened in america. it's changed this country and the house and the senate it's changed this country. i wouldn't be standing here today telling you the story if it were not for frank lautenberg he was the best partner i ever

could have had to be when the day came that i was elected to the senate, he and i would tell the story from time to time, reminiscing about that battle nec in 1986. frank told us he was once a to pack a day cigarette smoker himself. but when it came to this bill come he knew the right thing to do we and i was lucky to have him by my side. i couldn't have done it without him and he was the guiding force behind a lot of other laws that were important, too. setting the national drinking age of 21 and the flood level definition at 08 for drunk driving. just these on smoking in the drunk driving save millions of lives thanks to the leadership of frank lautenberg. he was the last remaining world were to bet in the senate just a few weeks ago. we lost daniel inouye who used to sit right here and he of course served in world war ii as well. he passed away, frank did, early

this morning in new york. survived by his wife bonnie. what an extraordinarily good person she is. i left a message for her on her voice mail that said you know, standing by his side made a big difference in this life in the years that they were together. they were great, great partnerships. in addition, he survived by six children, 13 grandchildren. he was a leader on environmental protection, transportation, protecting public health to get he offered the law that prevented domestic abusers from possessing guns. it wasn't an easy thing to do. it looks pretty obvious. it turns out police organizations for opposing him because the policemen, some of them had been accused of domestic abuse and they couldn't carry a gun in the amendment. frank stood his ground.

he wrote the g.i. bill for that one of century. a man who was a beneficiary of the g.i. bill in world war ii teamed up with the speed of virginia and the two of them put together a bill that our men and women who served here more deserving of to the it he issued the right to know all that he and i co-sponsored. it came down to a question of the chemicals that are put in fabric of our furniture, which sadly are put out into the environment of our homes many times affecting small children. frank was quick to be the leader on that issue and he would note the state of new jersey has a lot of chemical manufacturers and producers. he led this effort to protect families and children. he rode the law to create the patterson national historic park. after he cast his 9,000 votes in december 2011, senator harry reid declared on the senate

floor frank lautenberg is one of the most effective senators in the history of the country. while it was that you are a 15th frank announced he wasn't going to seek another term in the senate, the time the announcement in paterson he set out an agenda for the remaining two years of what he wanted to get done before he left the senate reforming that safety laws and improving the safety and providing resources from new jersey to rebuild this two per store and sandy -- super storm sandy. i know that his friend and close colleague from new jersey will pick up on that and proceed to carry on in his name to the he used to say with some pride he was a success in business and he was and he understood the mind of businessmen but he never lost touch with the common man and people who counted on him in new jersey and around the united states. the senate is going to miss

frank lautenberg. i'm going to miss a great pal and one of the best companions you could ever dream of here in washington, d.c.. we are going to join together in wednesday in new york for a memorial service to be a i'm sure it is going to be widely attended because he did a lot things for a lot of people over the course of his years in public service. i'm going to miss him. some attribute speeches to senator frank lautenberg who died monday at the age of 89. we are live now outside the u.s. senate chamber. this is the plaza and outside of the senate, the northeast plaza as the color bar is waiting for the arrival of the hearse of frank lautenberg. he was praised yesterday and a funeral service in new york city and his body put on board an amtrak train in the union station is just a couple blocks north here and the body should be arriving shortly. live coverage on c-span2. the body will lie in repose this afternoon between two to 5 p.m.

eastern. [background sound]

[background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] forward one, march. [background sounds] march, ready, set.

[background sounds] [background sounds] will [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds]

when you put on a uniform for a job that is a maintenance job -- and this is true if you are a business a janitor or sanitation worker -- you are subsumed by the royal to the point where it's almost like you are just a part of the background. i'm going to say almost like a machine. cingular a human being wearing that uniform. the general world gets to overlook you had not see you. i've called it -- it is like a cloaking device for those of our fellow store tracked geeks will

recognize that, or harry potter. it's frustrating and interesting privilege. because when i'm wearing a sanitation workers uniform i can observe people in ways they don't realize i am observing them.

yesterday in boston the candidates in the senate race, representative ed markey, democrat and republican gabriel gomez participated in the debate before the june 25th special election. being held to fill the seat vacated by john kerry when he became secretary of state due to technical difficulties, this is just a portion of last night's debate courtesy of wbz-tv in boston. >> good evening and welcome to the wbz-tv "boston globe" u.s. senate debate. i'm john keller analyst for wbz-tv. welcoming the viewers on wbz-tv and across the nation on c-span. our radio audience on wbz-tv radio 1030 and for those of you watching on line at cbsboston.com, boston.com and

bostonglobe.com and the spanish-speaking viewers on univision. the political editor of the "boston globe" will be sharing the questioning duties tonight and most importantly, we welcome the two candidates for the u.s. senate. republican gabriel gomez, a businessman, and democrat ed markey first elected to congress in 1976. now, before we began a brief word about the format. each candidate has up to 90 seconds to address the same question. they will take turns going first in alphabetical order. after they have had their say there will be an open-ended period of rebuttal and debate between them. that cycle will repeat for wealth the debate with no formal or opening closing statements. so let's begin with the first question from cynthia directed first to mr. gomez. >> there has been considerable energy expended on questioning the other candidates' character. mr. gomez, you are running an ad

calls your opponent dirty. mr. markey your campaign has challenged the ethics of your opponents financial disclosure and called on him for to come clean. let's get this out of the way. is your opponent's character an issue in this race? and if it is, why? >> mr. gomez, 90 seconds. >> gomez: cynthia and the "boston globe," thank you. for everybody watching i appreciate you watching. it is an honor to be able to speak with so many voters at one time debate after 37 years in d.c. welcome back to boston to but i think character doesn't become a point in the campaign. what really what people are caring about is that we talk about the issues and they want us to talk about the issues that matter to them and that is the economy and how we are going to get jobs back here into massachusetts. and the reality is this a positive. that is what we have been doing during the campaign. we talk about what they care about and how we are going to bring jobs to fix this economy back up into massachusetts. we also thought about national security and how we can make

ourselves seaver. weeks ago, you know, we saw firsthand how dangerous the world is the we live and and we have to make sure we stay vigilant and focus on the national security but more importantly we are staying positive and talking about what people care about. >> thank you. is character an issue? 90 seconds. >> markey: thank you for conducting this debate and for siting it at 7:00 so everyone can watch the game starting at 8:00 tonight. you are going to hear a lot from mr. gomez about how he is a new kind of republican. but you are going to hear the same old stale republican ideas. and that is going to be a big part of what this is all about. mr. gomez opposes an assault weapons ban. i support the ban. mr. gomez opposes the ban on high-capacity magazines, which attach to those in terms them into weapons of the war. i support the ban on the

high-capacity magazines. mr. gomez supports a cut in social security benefits for our seniors and i oppose that. mr. gomez opposes any further burdens on the billionaires' in our country. i support tax fairness and so there is going to be a big difference between mr. gomez and i all these big issues as we debate this evening. and it is going to go right to who it is that mr. gomez and i want to go to washington to represent. i want to represent those massachusetts values that ensure that we protect the citizens in their homes and that we are also able to protect the elderly, the working class, the middle class from unfair tax burdens that should be shared by the wealthy, the multinationals in our country. >> mr. markey, thank you to get a rebuttal. >> gomez: you are going to see somebody that is going to try to scare you. i am going to speak from the heart. i am going to tell you the truth. a lot of people in my party and

you're party's are run on gun-control debate is said to be an issue that is going to require bipartisanship once we get down to d.c.. like most of the issues that you have been involved in, you want to be divisive about that instead of trying to fix and solve the problem. now, you are the first candidate to invoke the gnutella massacre for political gain. that is beyond disgusting. as a navy seal, i know what happens when the weapons fall into the hands of the wrong person. that's when i go down to d.c. i want to make sure we pass the extended background check for the bill because that's the bill that's going to make our communities, our schools and our kids safer and it's going to require bipartisanship. >> go ahead, mr. markey. >> markey: i am not linking him to newtown but it's not as

ludicrous as the position banning assault weapons. we need that ban. we need to tell the nra that it stands for not relevant anymore in american politics. we need to ban those high-capacity magazines that attach them which turn it into the board on the battlefields, not on the streets of massachusetts, not on the streets that is a dividing line to be i want to go back to the united states senate to fight their position on assault weapons and on high-capacity magazines. mr. gomez supports their positions on those issues. that is a huge dividing line between the two of us. >> wbz-tv let him respond. >> gomez: he knows this yet he continues to try to scare you in telling the truth here. the reality is we need to fix this problem. the way to fix this problem is to make sure that we pass the bill in the only way we are going to pass that bill is if we get bipartisan support.

you know that is the way we make our communities safer to get the only way is you are the most piper partisan congress and the last ten years. you voted with your party 99% of the time. you haven't found a single time you thought your party on even tax increases. they asked you just last week to name one time you didn't vote -- >> moderator: what can respond. >> markey: mr. gomez, massachusetts is the leader on the issue of assault weapons bans come on the issue of high-capacity magazines. that background checks, that something that the senator from west virginia can support pity we are special. we are supposed to be the leader. we know that the assault weapons should be off the streets. we know high-capacity magazines should be banned. that is a huge difference

between what you and i are promising the people of massachusetts will do when we go down to washington and i think that taking on the nra is a critical issue in terms of who is going to be standing up for the people what massachusetts. >> that is a good exchange and you can continue that in a moment >> moderator: going back to the original question there is a lot of mud slinging, a lot of discussion about each other's candidates, about each other's character. would you say about that? do you have an issue with your opponent's character? >> gomez: the people are smart enough to realize if they have somebody they want to vote for as opposed to against. if they want to ask somebody to tell them what the truth as opposed somebody that's went to try to scare them and the reality is back to that bill, he knows firsthand the assault weapons ban didn't work. he knows that what he is trying to do if he is trying to ban weapons from everybody instead

of banning certain weapons to make sure they don't get into the hands of the wrong people and that is what we need to do. we need to make sure that we pass it and the only way to pass the bill is to get bipartisan support >> markey: in the 1990's there was a flood, millions of chinese assault weapons and $130 apiece coming into the united states. it was an epidemic. it was being used for crime all over the country. i put together a coalition that led to the ban on those chinese assault weapons coming into the united states. that is still on the books. so, don't say that those bands didn't work. they did work. the problem is that now that we have an even greater of the dennett and we need someone who is going to go down to washington to take on the nra to fight this epidemic. 20 children did die at newtown but they die every single week from gun violence in our country and we have a responsibility to

be the leaders and putting in place the preventative measures that reduce dramatically the number of deaths in our country >> i would like to move on and then you can return to it later. go ahead, mr. gomez. >> gomez: i am not a part of any lobbyist. you are taking 3.5 million from the lobbyists and from the ones who actually control and oversee and regulate. >> moderator: rebuttal. >> markey: it's very clear it's mitch mcconnell in the senate. the republican leader who is leading the effort on blocking the passage, not only of ofmanchin and toomey but the dannel and high-capacity magazine, and mr. gomez opposes those bands, and i think that that goes right to the heart of his bid to be standing up for the people of massachusetts. >> moderator: the format allows you to return to this later on in the opening period and you should feel free to do so. thank you. you will start of mr. marchi. the question came from a few

work by a cbs boston.com. politicians pay attention to the middle class but it isn't always clear exactly what they mean. please define in terms of income range what you think being middle class means come and explain what he will do in the senate to ease middle class economic anxiety. >> gomez: the middle class in massachusetts it's a basically to look at the income in the state it's about $80,000. that's the medium. but of course it can go up to 200,000. and so, for me, as i look at those middle-income families, that is what i am constantly concentrating on putting it is the issue of ensuring that they get the tax breaks the need. over the last 15 years, i voted for $1 trillion worth of tax breaks for middle class families, working class families. i have supported for example a first-time homeownership tax break for those workers.

i've also supported the pell grants, the educational loan programs that help their children to be able to gain access to the education which they need in order to qualify for these jobs. and i worked hard to bring in the till about jobs, the biotech jobs, the cleantech jobs that all play into giving middle class families in the state of massachusetts an opportunity to believe that with the education and the health care of their children that they can prosper even more greatly and the 21st century than the family stayed in the 20th century in massachusetts and across the country. >> moderator: thank you. mr. gomez, the middle class, how will you help it? >> gomez: it's between $175,000. now, less taxes equals more jobs. more taxes equals more jobs. mr. markey has voted to raise taxes over 300 times in his career. that might be a world record in the congress. you can't name a single time,

congressmen, that you didn't vote to increase taxes to go against your party. now, i give you credit for inventing the internet over 20 years ago. but the reality is that over the last 20 years, you have not offered maquis single piece of legislation that is and signed into law to be the private sector, where i come from coming you know, that is the last thing you would do is ask for a raise or even a promotion. and that's the difference between you and i come congressman markey. i come from the private sector. i understand the middle class and what they need. the need jobs and lower taxes, which is why i think we should have a comprehensive tax reform on the business side. >> moderator: rebuttal. >> markey: you couldn't be more wrong. in the last few years i passed a bill that created the requirement that we actually have a plan to find the cure for alzheimer's. that is my bill. i passed bill wall that created an on ramp to the wireless world

for the deaf and blind in our country. and why did i do that? i did it because of the school for the blind so every one of the deaf and blind not just in massachusetts but all across the country at the world would have access to it. i offered mackey piece of legislation called independence at home, that ensures there's a change in the way that we view those people that have alzheimer's and those people have parkinson's so we can keep them at home. the nursing homes and hospitals, the nurse practitioners all have a financial incentive to keep those patient at home. those are all my laws and they've passed just in the last two or three years and they are revolutionary in the telecommunications sector while helping the people, like my mother who had alzheimer's to be able to stay at home and not [inaudible] >> moderator: response? >> gomez: the politician on how he passed these, he probably

co-sponsored these to be the remains in the last 20 years, congressman, you haven't offered mackey single piece of legislation that isn't passed into law and this is why i put a rebuilt converse plan out there to hold this. and it's also why we need to have a new budget and no pay. if you don't do your job you don't get paid and for the last 20 years, you haven't been doing your job, congressman and in the private sector if you don't do your job, you don't get a pay raise or a promotion which is what you're asking the people of massachusetts. >> he is throwing out these statements that are completely inaccurate but we keep going. the author of all because of the flight attendants and the problems are worth fighting but not screening the cargo on the passenger planes on my 11. they require screening for nuclear bombs coming into the port of ostensible that a nuclear explosion on the port of

boston or any of their part in the country. so, i could go on and on in terms of the numbers of law which i am the author of, the principal author of. mr. gomez can continue to maintain this mythology which he's trying to create. but whether it be the people who are concerned about bombs on planes and flight attendants whether it be the kids at the school, they know i was the author and they know that i work for them because they came to me and asked me to pass these bills as people from the state of massachusetts that wanted their government to work for them. >> you just heard again the author of these laws you bring up the security which is great. i know the congressman doesn't like it when i talk about his national security record. it's weak and i will give you an example of this were up to the congressman we wouldn't have the department of homeland security. you voted against the creation of that and the reauthorization of the act and even more in

control, twice, congressman, you voted against a resolution to honor the victims of 9/11. he's going to give an explanation why he was one of only 16 people out of 435 to not vote to honor the victims of my 11. >> let him respond to those charges. >> i voted eight times to honor the victims from 9/11. these plans were hijacked from logan airport. they were from my district on the plains. i went to their funerals. i honor those families. i honor them. when they try to create department of homeland security on wanted the department to make sure it never happened again but when the republicans brought the bill out and controlled the house, they put inside of that bill a provision stripping the workers, stripping the first responders from their ability to be able to negotiate and call their wages for the health care collectively. now, mr. gomez supports the

department of homeland security that strips the workers of the right to negotiate for their health care, for their pay. .. think this election is about the future not the past. i think it's about fresh ideas. more poorly is because we need to put the people of massachusetts before party and politics. >> we are moving on. let him and.

markey: by the way, my position ultimately prevailed. i voted no. i thought that these workers, these first responders should not be stripped of the rights to negotiate and ultimately that was taken out. even though mr. gomez supported it and that is now the law. we have a department of homeland security. these workers given the respect they need. when you rush into the world trade center, rushing to help victims, no one checks to see whether they are in a union or not. i don't think stripping them of their ability to negotiate was the way for us to construct the department of homeland security. >> thank you. you can again return to this later but we'll move on to our next question. >> moderator: officials and a number of states including massachusetts have expressed frustration or even alarm at the prospect of implementing the affordable care act, of the -- otherwise known as obamacare. please give a specific example of something you see wrong with the new law that you would try to change in the senate and

please expend exactly what you would do to try to fix it. >> mr. gomez, 90 seconds please. gomez: i think everybody should have access to only and affordable health care. i sincerely believe that. what we should not have done is done that at a federal level but it should have done at the state level. just like we did here in massachusetts where we have 98% of our population has health care. one of the most egregious parts of the affordable care act is a medical device tax that you voted for. then you had a chance to repeal it, and you didn't vote to repeal it. a medical device tax year where hundreds of companies in massachusetts with over 25,000 employees depend, it's a noble and export coming of massachusetts, the medical device. and now suddenly, typical politician thing to do, now you're running for the senate, you are for regarding the medical device tax. i think your actions spoke for themselves when you voted for

the affordable care act and you have a chance to repeal the medical device tax and you didn't know either hundreds of companies in massachusetts, over 25,000 employees depend on the medical device. it's a number export out of massachusetts. it tells you that you put party and politics before the people of massachusetts. >> mr. markey, 90 seconds. markey: the affordable care act is going to revolutionize the relationship that exists between americans and their access to health care. it interested every child has access to health care for the first time. it ensures that it, if you become sick, but you cannot become the banker. two-thirds of all personal bankruptcies until two years ago was until -- was because of medical insurance bills. it ensures that you get a pre-existing condition, that the insurance company cannot deny you insurance coverage. so this is a huge revolution. i opposed putting the medical

device tax indigo in the first place. i'm working to repeal it. i don't want to repeal it because you have to find an equivalent amount of money to repeal it. and so for me i want to repeal it, and my amendment on the senate floor would be to reduce the tax breaks which the oil companies get so that we can give back the tax break to the medical device industry. that's the way you have to legislate. the way the republicans have set it up is that they cut into the programs of the poor and middle class in their access to health care. the better way of going is to find an industry that does not need a tax break come in the oil industry is at the top of that list, partnership with the need to protect the medical device industry and to have a winning formula for our state and for our country. >> mr. gomez, rebuttal? gomez: i spent the last four months everyday of my campaign here in massachusetts visiting the small businesses, talking to voters, talking to families here

and their main concern is the economy. and the over burden of taxes and the effect the affordable care act is having on these small businesses. go out and talk to the small businesses. go out and visit any of them throughout the state and they will tell you the common thread is that the cost of the affordable care act is actually going to increase the number of bankruptcies which is what we try to prevent. it will increase less hiring to go put a more bigger burden, companies hiring less and try to figure out how to start away from the affordable care act if you want to talk about corporate loopholes with the oil and all that. that's what i'm for a corporate tax overhaul, that includes getting rid of the corporate loopholes. we need to lower the corporate tax rates. president obama wants to go with 28%. >> let's let him in here. gomez markey: our uncle rate is much lower than the national average, even providing health care for

every child in the country, in our state. as well as providing health insurance up to 98% of all adults. so we've already proven that you can have a much more robust economy and arrest of the country, and provide health care. by the way, we're number one at the fourth, eighth and 10th grades in science so we should be proud of that as was every kid gets a high quality education and its high quality health care. so we can have a good economy, provide health care and education for the children in our state, and still be ahead of the rest of the nation. i'm sure there are other states that don't want to provide for every child. i'm sure there are other states that don't want to run for every adult, but that's not us, mr. gomez. again, we have to be the leader and not the laggard. we are massachusetts. we not just th the base state. with a frame state and we understand health care and education are essential components to ensuring that we cheer our economy by having the best workforce in the nation. >> go ahead, mr. gomez. gomez: we met one of the lower

unemployment rates but i'm not satisfied with that. i think we met at a lower unemployment rate and the way we're going with the affordable care act, if you would go out to the commonwealth and ask him as you talk to the small business owners and families and the voters out there, they will tell you that the affordable care act is a huge burden on the. now, i understand you may spend you time down in d.c. where the economy is booming, unemployment is low, the number of lobbies is going up and the people that spend all the time down in d.c. live in a cocoon way forget how the rest of the country, how the state actually operates and the to understand just because things are going well in d.c. doesn't mean they're going well everywhere else up here in massachusetts. >> response, please. markey: we decide you don't have to make a choice. you can have a robust economy and you can make sure that everyone has health care. we are doing that. we have a responsibility as well to be the leaders in hospital cost containment and to put together innovative new ideas to

keep the costs from escalating, and that's by the way, that's what my program that is called independence at home is all about. it's reforming the way in which we treat long-term chronic care by keeping the patient in the living room so that you can save upwards of $30 billion over a ten-year period. and that's the way we should be thinking, not taking away health care from people. i don't think people want to do that. i think make sure the system works better, more innovative, more creative and controlled the cost but if we do that our economy will be better off and ultimately the entire american economy spent a final brief exchange and then we will break. gomez: we did a great job under governor ron in 2004. the difference between you and i, congress and, is that i trust the state and people could do that better. you always trust the federal government in everything that you think about. i think the people of massachusetts are smarter to realize to tell dysfunctional,

discord, which failure is down in d.c. they don't want the federal government to do this. they would prefer the state just like we did in massachusetts under governor romney. 98% of us are health care coverage. the other states can do a lot better on the suspect go ahead, by themselves. markey: you can't be praising governor romney, who was the architect of our massachusetts plan and then turn around at the same time and say, well, everyone is complaining about the romney plan. you can't have it both ways. so the truth is, this is the ronnie penton is working. the romney plan is providing health care for the citizens of massachusetts. the romneycare became the model for the whole rest of the country. but here in massachusetts it's working. we have to make it better. we have to control the escalating health care and insurance cost. we can do that because, again, we are the innovation state. >> briefly go ahead. gomez: you just said you don't spend much time in massachusetts if you talk to the voters and the families, they would tell you actually the opposite is happening here, congress and.

go out there and talk to them. >> i'll give you 15 seconds. markey: look at, i'm out there all day long every single day crisscrossing the state talking to everybody and every corner of the commonwealth. let me just to you something. this health care plan might not be perfect. people want to make a better. they don't want to take it off the table. they don't want to take health care insurance away from people in our commonwealth. we are the model for the country. >> good job so far. plenty of time in the next half-hour to continue that and who also moved to other topics including foreign policy after this brief break as the wbz-tv senate debate continues. >> welcome back to the wbz-tv "boston globe" sent debate and we continue now with our next question and mr. markey, you'll start on this round. let's turn to really the most important foreign policy question, the u.s. senate will

ever vote on. what is your criteria for taking the united states to war? in d.c. a global trouble spots right now where that might send a polite? 90 seconds, sir. markey: from my perspective, there has to be an imminent threat to the united states. there has to be no other option than for our country to send in our military. it is the most important decision which we can make. and if we do this to win, we have to build the coalition of our allies so the we're not going in alone. so that we are ensuring the maximum consensus in dealing with the threat that exists not just to the united states but to the whole region or to the entire world. so from my perspective, that -- [inaudible] is one that has to be made with great reserve. for example, in syria right now, i do not think it would be wise

for us to send in ground troops into the middle of a syrian civil war. i think that would be a big mistake. similarly, i think it's wise for us now to pull out of iraq and have a plan for pulling out of afghanistan. i think our nation's their have now been completed and that we should begin a new process to deploy whether are greater threats to the united states of america. so and each and every instance i think it's critical for the united states to determine that our security interests, our in imminent danger and we can build a coalition that shows we can deal with them with a collective response, that maximizes our likelihood of a success in the nation. >> mr. gomez, 90 seconds. gomez: i have a very unique perspective on national security. i had the honor of serving nine years in the navy as an aircraft carrier pilot and as a navy seal. and having deployed in parts of the world.

have to have a lot of friends in the service out there everyday that accomplish missions for the security of our country. putting troops on the ground is the last option that we should do before we have expanded every part of the diplomacy. nashe security has to be a threat in order for this incident of course want to build a coalition as possible. you mentioned syria. this is iran's last only friend in the middle east. i think we've taken too long to do anything in syria right now. we've had a huge uprising in the middle east where regime change in egypt, in yemen and in libya. we have a great a burden here to make sure we align ourselves with the right terrorist group, or the right group in syria to make sure that when they do take over because assad is going to fall, that they best promote peace and democracy throughout the middle east. at a minimum, you should have a

no-fly zone, congressman, and we should be supplying aid to that rebel group that we identify. to eventually take over because assad is going to fall and this is serious, is iran's last thing. iran is all in on series. they're supplying troops, armament, intelligent, doing everything they can because they know serious their last friend. >> thank you. rebuttal. markey: i think suggested john kerry is doing a very good job over there. he is building a coalition towards the goal of isolating iran, isolating others who might be allies of syria. but at the same time, we have to be careful. we've learned this lesson in afghanistan when we gave weapons to one faction. they wound up coming back to haunt us. so selecting just the right groups that we would be helping, that's important because we cannot make a mistake because the most important thing in any action we take in syria is not

how we get in, but whether or not at the end of the process we actually have a peaceful syria, that we don't have a civil war break out with multiple factions all going at each other's throats. answer each action has to be carefully calibrated to elicit a specific response. so material aid going in, yes. but to the extent we're sending in military aid, we just have to make sure that it is not going to come back and bite us as the law of unintended consequences, as it has in many other areas of the world. >> go ahead, mr. gomez try to the conflict in three has been going on for a year and a half. there have been 80,000 people dead in syria because of this. we have an opportunity here, congressman, to take out iran's best friend and ally. now, our best friend and ally i see his israel. and in israel is safer if assad

falls, iran is isolated come and the right rebel group goes in there that promotes peace throughout the region. at a minimum we should be doing -- i don't understand how you cannot think we can't have a no-fly zone in syria because right now we haven't done effectively anything india and have. look at what happened in egypt. you have the muslim brotherhood takeover, which is now putting at risk the cornerstone peace in the middle east which is between egypt and israel. >> let him respond trying to we're the wrong group and you are, that causes risk throughout israel and the rest of the world. >> let him respond to the question trend with look, i support israel when it was attacked, missiles coming from iran heading for hezbollah. they just did that last week and i support their action. i think israel is right to protect its own interest. let's be honest. if hezbollah put down its weapons they would be peace, but if israel put down there's they

would be no more israel. so we have to support israel. we have to have their back. wherwe have to make sure that we protecting them. anything that we do has to be done in conjunction with our allies. we have to have a concerted plan going in, and some even a no-fly zone requires all of our allies to understand that that's the first step towards a concerted effort to achieve a particular set of nstic and a fortunate if it's done wrong it could lead to military escalation on the ground that the golden the united states. spent a portion of last nights debate. due to technical difficulties but that special election in massachusetts is june 25. ally look at the was coupled with a flag at half staff. the body of the late senator frank lautenberg is lying in repose in the u.s. senate chambers through 6 p.m. eastern today. he will be buried at arlington national cemetery tomorrow. today in new jersey just a short while ago governor chris christie has announced his

replacement. that will be new jersey attorney general who will fill the senate seat at least t for the special election which is october the 16th. meanwhile, on capitol hill today attorney general eric holder said as long as he's in office the justice department won't prosecute any reporter for doing his or her job in response to questions about the agency's investigation into leaks of secret information. you can see the attorney general's entire commons today. he testified at eight eastern on c-span. that will be followed by today's irs hearing on the irs conferences. iris officials at the center of the agency's latest controversy told lawmakers today that the $4 million carpets in 2010 complied with rules at the time. he apologize and acknowledged it was not the best use of taxpayer money. the hearing is tonight at 9:15 p.m. on c-span. another hearing we covered today on 2014 spending, the interior department.

secretary she will testify before the senate energy and natural resources committee. should talk about issues like offshore drilling, wildfire management and the maintenance backlog in national parks. >> good morning. senator murkowski is on her way, and also because we have votes at 10:00, we're going to try and move everything quickly this morning. i want to thank senator murkowski and senator barrasso but we always do me in a bipartisan way and want to thank my college. this morning will review the programs programs and activities in the department of the injury. a hearing marks the first time that the secretary joe, i like those words, secretary jewel has testified before the committee since her confirmation so i would like to welcome her back to the committee and we look forward to your state in just a few mr. dudley this hearing also marks the amount of time the

deputy secretary david hayes will appear before the committee before he leaves office later this month and i would like to extend my appreciation to him for his long career in public service and advocacy as deputy secretary over the past, and especially his work as deputy secretary over the past four and half years. and his second tour of duty in the department. i want to take a minute to highlight a few provisions in the department's current budget proposal. overall, i'm pleased the mr. risch proposed budget for the department budget for the department venture is 11 points $7 billion, nearly a 3% increase over the 2013 continuing resolution level. budgets are places where got to make tough decisions and the administration in many particulars has done a thoughtful job of putting scarce dollars in the right place. the president has made the conservation of our public lands to our national parks policy scourge out of requisition and support the land and water conservation fund a hybrid that i strongly support the president commitment.

outdoor recreation, people talk about in this committee is major, major business, and a jobs producer for our country and studies have found that americans spend $646 billion each year on outdoor recreation. that equates to over 6 million direct american jobs. the secretary jewel understand a lot of this because she been living and breathing it in the private sector and is acutely aware of the link between conservation jobs and economic growth. it's encouraging the administration's proposed funding for the water and land conservation fund, specifically your 2014 and intends to see full mandatory starting in 2015. i look forward to seeing the legislative proposal for this program. it's an essential component to the country's efforts to serve lands and provides areas or people to get outside.

with respect to our national parks, i've been exploring new ways to provide necessary funding for our partners. i've talked about this at length at the national park service director jarvis and we want to discuss it further with the secretary this morning because clearly, with the enormous challenge presented as a result of the sequestration, looking at fresh ideas, creative new ideas. bringing the private sector, look to public-private partnerships to do a responsible job of addressing the needs of our parks and a sickly mystic physically challenging army. the department plays an important role in providing energy resources for the country. significant strides were made during secretary salazar's tenure on exciting, renewable energy projects on public land. the department just this week announced its first sale for renewable energy projects on the oc. secretary jewell and we're going to encourage you to continue those efforts in the area of

renewable energy. i'm also pleased to see strong budget to support for the departments and energy initiative that promotes responsible energy government on our public land. as secretary knows and colleagues can we talk an awful lot about here we are especially concerned about the management of our forest as the length and severity of drought and wildfires seem to increase year after year, and i'm one who believes that certainly a measure of this is due to climate change. it's clear the federal forests are important health making them more vulnerable to catastrophic forest fires. as we talked about just a couple of days ago in this room, i am troubled the president's budget request includes a 50% reduction in hazardous fuels treatment for the department of the interior. as we discussed on tuesday you are not here, secretary jewell, but i'm sure you have gotten a report from we're anxious to work with you, secretary vilsack

and we're going to make sure that folks of the office of management and budget side are part of these discussions as well. to get a new, big picture effort to improve our policies with respect to fire budgeting. finally, i'm grateful for the administration budget proposes to extend the payments as a permanent program with the sole funding level in fiscal your 2014. the secretary knows how strongly we feel about the program. that, of course, appears in the forest service budget and would also note that there's very important component that is run by the bureau of land management, especially for the omc lands. i'll be working on legislation to address both a short-term reauthorization of these for grass and long-term funding for towns as well as jobs from increased forest management. and on that point we appreciate the proposed budget increases

1.8 million, to increase the volume of timber offered for sale and for other forestry work. this is an enormous importance to oregon. as the secretary knows, the focus on increasing the harvest, underline the, increasing the harvest on omc lands recently released a framework for legislation to make that happen. and look forward to working with the administration and colleagues on both sides of the aisle and making it a bicameral effort with house of representatives as well. with that i would like to recognize my colleague, senator murkowski, for any comments that she would like to make. i so appreciate the chance to work on these issues in a bipartisan way, and with a, i welcome my colleague. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome, madam secretary, mr. hayes. good to see both of you. madam secretary, for someone to thank you for your commitment that you have made as relates to

kinko's. the director of indian affairs, mr. washburn is going to be visiting king told in late june. the commitment that you have made to visit in august is one that i can appreciate an it foro join you. on the trip i don't want to belabor this point, but i am looking forward to this visit for a number of reasons. first and foremost to introduce you to my constituents. i think you know how strongly i feel, how strongly the members of the alaska delegation field about this road that we've been talking about, visit 10-mile single lane, gravel, noncommercial use road that would help provide for essential emergency access for the residents of king cove to an all weather airport. so we thought we had reconciled that in the 2009 omnibus act. it's not done yet but i want to work with you to see that we

finally and fully resolve this fairly for the citizens of king cove. i do have a number of questions asked today giunta were going have some votes that will interrupt, but i do hope that we will have a chance to have further discussion about some of the things that i find really timely for us right now. one that i want to bring up is the situation that we have with our legacy up in the national petroleum reserve. my statement has been, i think the department is presiding over an environmental disaster within the national petroleum reserve, and that is has to be addressed. it has to be remedied. we have more than 100 wells that were drilled by the federal government, then they walked away. they abandoned them, and these legacies wells as they are referred to are full of contaminants that pollute the environment. the federal government has all

but abandoned the responsibility to clean up after itself. blm's annual budget has for many years contained is funny of only about $1 million for cleaning up these wells and yet the last two sites cost the agency $2 million each to remediate. so if we keep it up at this pace, it's going to be more than 100 years to clean up the mess the federal government participated in. and as i have told you, madam secretary, in person and in recent hearings, it's categorically unacceptable. and so is the administration's proposal to use alaska' alaska'e of future npra revenues for remediation. i met with the mayor of north slope borough, charlotte broward, as well as others several weeks back. i know that you had a chance as well. i have a copy of a letter from the mayor, from our commissioner

natural resources, and the president of the community on the north slope that i would like to include as part of the record. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a related concern is the pattern of falling production on federal lands. it's true that our nation is in the midst of a historic oil and gas boom, that it's also true that production on federal lands is in trouble. contrary to some of the statements, the rhetoric that we've heard, oil production from the federal states actually fell 5% last year after falling by even more than that in 2011. natural gas production from the same federal areas meanwhile, is an virtual freefall, down 8% last year and down 23% since 2009. the fact of the matter is that america's energy boom is happening in spite of federal policies that stymie our production. we should be opening new lands to development, making sure that permits are approved on time,

and preventing regulation and litigation from locking down our lands but and if anyone's looking for a place to start, i'll invite you to look to a basket. i also want to very briefly mentioned before i conclude, mr. chairman, the sioux and subtle tactic to depart has engaged in to enforce the endangered species act, suicidal in my view it is alarming and the decisions now doing hundreds of species, the economic consequences could be considerable. ..

comfortable with that we can have each senator who is present here get five minutes worth of questioning in before the vote. it will be tight, but if colleagues find that successful, let's give that a try. secretary jewell. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member murkowski. congratulations on grandparent hood, senator franken. i'm looking forward to that day. no pressure on my kids though. [laughter] [inaudible] [inaudible] [laughter] i want to begin by echoing comments of chairman wyden on colleague of mine has been an enormous help to me. more importantly an enormous help to the american people and the service to his country through the department of the interior. it is very helpful certainly today to have him besides me.

more importantly, he's been generous with his wisdom and experience. i'm going to miss him terribly. i know, he's a phone call way. i'll make sure i have a hotline to his office as he goes to support students at stanford university. we'll miss him. i'm happy he's with me today. i want to thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee. i have learned a lot in the seven and a half weeks on the job. i've been to many, many places around the country. many of your states, and so what i want to go is organize my thoughts to a few broad categories. i want to start with energy onshore. onshore oil production on public land is at the highest level in over a decade. the amount of producing acreage continues to increase. i'm happy to provide you with statistics that are a little different than the comments you just referenced in term of oil production. i have looked at the leasing

reform they put in place. they changed them in 2010. they had the lowest number of protests on the sales on mlm lands in ten years. we're making progress there. i know, the team is working hard on reducing the time for permitting and approval of new project. that will be facilitated through automation, sequestration impacted that a bit. we're committed to getting that done. i also want to reference the hydraulic fracking rule we released a short while ago with a thirty-day comment period. lots of comments have been made on the rule 177,000 since the first rule was put in place. we changed it significantly. one of the significant things i have heard is a request for more time. we're going to give an extra sixty days to the comment period on the hydraulic fracturing. if will have another sixty days. that gives people ample time. we need to get on with the

regulation that has been over thirty years in place, and technology has moved forward. i also want to say that alaska, of course, is an important component for the energy strategy. they provides access to over 70% of the oil potential there. it also supports infrastructure needs, but recognizes the importance of providing protection for vital assistance, has been at a time which certainly ranking member murkowski is familiar with. on the offshore side, senator lan drink stepped out. i have been out on oil production platform. i visited a deepwater floating rig, had a major discovery in the gulf of mexico. it's a very substantial project, and something that is growing in development. i also went to a production platform from chevron, and saw that how the technology has

evolved since i was in the industry and stayed the same in many ways. in april we announced property posed notice of sales for lease sales 233 which will make available 21 million acres offshore texas which will be the third sales in the current-five year program. we implemented key reform that reduce the time for review of exper ration and development plan for deepwater drilling in the gulf of mexico. ly say there's more floating deepwater rigs operating in the gulf prior to the spill. i think it's something close to a 25 fortunate increase over what was happening prior to that activity. our bureau of ocean energy management has begun a environmental impact at the same time -- statement. off the mid and south atlantic, and that is continuing. on the renewable side. we have critical role to play in fulfilling the president's goal of doubling it by 2020.

on public lands. as a overseer of those lands, i'm pleased to say that science 2009 we have authorized 42 renewable public energy projects that has a potential to produce electricity for more than 4.12 million homes. on the offshore side, just issued a notice that we will have the first competitive sale off the coast of rhode island and ms. -- mississippi another one in virginia this year. about 278,000 acres and could produce electricity to power 1.9 million homes. i want to shift gears to federal lands, and reference something chairman wyden mentioned which is the national park centennial. coming up i hope you'll join me in making sure we take the milestone seriously, and engage the american public more in the support of our national parks, but also broadly our public

lands. besides being in a number of national park sites, i have also joined with young people in several places. one a city park in portland, oregon, another jamaica bay, where we were working with shuttles in case of the park in oregon removing e vassive species. in new york city shoveling sand in area of hurricane sandy where it wouldn't have been previously. engaging young people in conservation and building a connection to those lands that will stay with them forever. this 21st century civilian service corp. is listening and learning from the civilian conservation corp. but doing it in the form of public-private partnership. referencing chairman wyden's comments. it's a great lesson how we connect people with public lands. i hope you'll join me in supporting more programs. as the chairman mentioned, we in our budget are looking for mandatory fund of the land water

conservation fund over a two- year period snape have been used to support every single county across the united states. very important program that has immediate a big difference on a local level and a big difference on a national level. we hope you'll support us there. as the chairman mention the, we're snit -- committed to ensuring multiple uses so they sport the resources and opportunity important to americans. we are committed to supporting sustained yield with the blm and working with folks from oregon and california on that. one of the things that keenly aware of is our commitment to wildland firefighting. 2013 season is unfortunately off to a hot start. you seen fires in california, new mexico, arizona, this is early. it looks like it could be a severe fire season. our ability to fight the fires is certainly impacted by sequestration to some degree

particularly our ability to reduce hazardous fuels and remediate after fire. we're working in a way that it cooperative across agencies to do the best job we can. i visited boise interagency fire center along with. we saw what happened there. it's encouraging. the way people work together with regard to agency. it's a big issue and something we appreciate your support and help in addressing over a longer term basis. last, i want to talk about water. water is a chairman wyden takes a drink it's critical to our lives, but it is under a lot of pressure from population growth and changing climate. i want to give particular nod to my colleague here david heys, mike connor, commissioner of the bureau of ebbing clay -- reck clay make. they are dote -- doing providing leadership to

communities as we address the committing demands for water. the need to increase water availability, restore water sheds, and resolve conflict out there for a long time. so through water conservation, water smart is the program that we call the best drop of water we don't need is the one we don't use. we certainly play an important role in finding better ways to stretch existing water supplies and highlight best practices throughout that everyone can learn from. and wrap up, i want to just say that sequestration is continues to be an enormous frustration as a business person. you would never run the business we are required to run government with sequestration. i know that budget times are tight. we are committed to being thoughtful about the money we spend. doing it across the board in programs that is important to all of you is not a sensible way to run our business. we have frozen pay, cut across every line item, some of the

line items are important to all of you. sky for your support in getting us past the sequestration period and to a more rational budget climate. >> thank you. we're going call another -- [inaudible] we had other senators come inspect i think we are going to have to come back for a few minutes after the vote. several colleagues have been gracious murkowski, franken, about the possibility of keeping it going. my hope is we'll be able to get most of it done before the end of the vote at 10:15 and come back after that. just a quick question on the omc matter, secretary jewell, this is to confirm something. the oregon delegation feels strongly about this. we have 18 of these omc counties that are really hurting. pushing very hard to get the harvest up. we talked -- when you were in portland, and you all particularly the blm giving us the technical support so we can get in to the maps and find a

way to address the kind of partition concept have areas you focus on the harvest areas we protect the treasury. can you state publicly in effect what you said privately you will be there to give us the blm the technical support we need over the next few weeks? >> turn this on. happy to work closely with you with the blm. i know, that checker board situation that is prief lent throughout the west is a challenge in term of managing these resources, consolidating, doing in a thoughtful, sustainable yield way is something we're committed to. the blm people will be happy to work closely with you on that. >> very good. let me talk next about national park funding. we've had several senators raise concerns about authorizing new national parks given the scope of the backlog, this very significant backlog. i'm one who said we ought to be working on two tracks.

we have colleagues here, democrats, republicans, want to designate new parks. i support that earth. -- effort. i share the view of colleagues who say we have to come up with a fiscally responsible approach to deal with the backlog, we have been talking to the director, john jarvis, about it, and my question is. i understand that you all are reviewing several funding recommendations that are in the national park conservation association report, the park concessionary have offered idea with respect to through the bipartisan policy center. can you tell us a little bit more about ways in which we could look to bring in the private sector, fiscally responsible approaches give the fact that we're going try hard to build a bipartisan coalition so that we can have these new parks, which you and i have talked about. they are good for our future preserving our future. and good for the economy. i think colleagues are making legitimate points about the

backlog, tell us what ideas you may be looking at from the park conservation association, the bipartisan policy center. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. which is certainly something that i'm familiar with having served on the second century commission of the national park along with senator portman. he left us to run for elective office, which we certainly appreciate as well. there's no question that we have a significant deferred maintenance back lock. it's estimated to be over $11 billion in our national parks. that is really something that has been accumulating over many years of not treating our assets in the public lands in the way we might do them in the private sector in term of setting aside depressuruation. as has more to do with the appropriation and less to do what the national park would like to do. they would like to maintain the facilities. it's a challenge in budgetary times. we need your help to put the

federal government's part in the budget to supplement what we might do for the private sector. there are opportunities for private sector engagement. one of the things that sect century commission worked on was public private partnership and recognizing people love the national park. there's an opportunity to leverage the love of the parks to find ways to support and recognize private donations. but i think it's very fraternity -- fair to say it came from the second century collision with a private philanthropy should be the -- i think it's critically important that we step up as a federal government to support these assets that are so important. and there's hardly a senator that i visited with on either side of the aisle that didn't have some wish or desire that related to a national park in their district or certainly public lands in their district in support for them. we need to work with you, and with the appropriators on

adequate funding to begin to address the maintenance backlog. we are willing, director jarvis is in particular finds ways to support it. a quick story. i went to the washington monument with a private donor spitting -- splitting with the federal government for the cost. i appreciate his support in setting a great example for the private sector. we are looking for more opportunity like that. >> i'll give you one question for the record, and stay under time. on the issue in oregon, which is, as you know, is a classic kind of challenge. fish, agricultural, water, energy. commissioner connor testified a few weeks ago that the bureau didn't anticipate any supply cutoff to on project users. if you can give back to me in writing with a quick conformation of that. i have not heard anything to the contrary. my time is up. if you can get back to me with

response reaffirming what commissioner connor said. >> sure. >> senator murkowski. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, i'm going to defer my questions until my colleagues had a chance to address theirs. i'm going to be coming back after the vote. i did want to just put a statement on the record, you had noted in your opening statement that oil production from federal onshore land at the highest level in over a decade. you noted that perhaps our commentaries differed. i said that oil production from the federal state fell 5%, and the reference there. so i think it's important to just give some of the numbers here very briefly. because i think it can be con fiesing. federal onshore oil production was at 89.5 million barrels in 2003. it's gone up to 108.7 million in 2012. you do have a substantial increase there. but it's not the full picture.

that's my point. was on federal offshore production, we have seen that fall from 532.7 million barrels in '03 to 430.6 million barrels in 2012. so what we have got is federal onshore production, which rose by about 20 million barrels. the federal offshore production fell by 100 million barrels, more than five times the joan shore increase. i think it's important. when we're talking about this we look at the full picture. if your numbers are different than mine. i would be happy to share with them. with that, mr. chairman, i will defer to others so they can get their questions in before the vote. >> very good. senator frank. >> yeah. can i the bp oil -- the moratorium after the bp oil spill, is that really what is caused that dip? i mean, we had a huge thing happen, and there was a moratorium after that. is it okay if i ask that of

mr. heys? >> sure. >> mr. cheys? >> yes, senator. it is true that oil production in the gulf did decline because of the safety issues that arose and the need to upgrade our safety standards. the good news is that there's -- yeah, they recently reported a strong upward trend now in the gulf, the secretary mentioned a major discovery there. there have, ten major new discoveries. there are more than fifty rigs drilling in the offshore. the sales are very strong we're having. and we had in the central gulf and the western gulf. we expect to be back to where we were, and further. but there certainly was a time we did a pause, and increase the safety standard and change the way we did business. it affected, we believe temperature prayerly production in the offshore. >> i'm sorry put to clarify

that. shame out of my time to put pressure on the secretary's children for grandchildren. i regret that. i'm going to be cheering. we can do that. we find out the whole story there. secretary jewell, i want to briefly talk about an issue that is important in northern minnesota. there are 93,000 acres of school trust lands that belong to the state that are trapped in the boundary water canoe wilderness area. they can't contribute to the economic development to support the schools in minnesota. the forest service is working with the state to both purchase land from the state and to exchange the rest of the land with minnesota. the superior national forest has submitted to the administration a preproposal for the purchase

piece that i want to urge you to give every consideration to this application. it's an important issue to minnesotans and our schools. >> just to clarify, senator, if it's forest service. it's in the department of agricultural. i'm not sure we're involved directly in that one unless david knows otherwise. >> [inaudible] >> yeah. certainly can support that with my colleague, tom vilsack. >> it goes to both agencies. we'll clarify. >> i would be happy to review that. >> i just want to get in to water a little bit, you mentioned water. it's critical, obviously, to our economy, and to our well being. we need water for farming, for healthy ecosystem and energy production. the drought that devastated so much of the country last year drove home just how important water is. to make ourselves resilient to

drought, we need to monitor our groundwater resources. we need to know if the rates which our aquifers recharge are sustainable given how much water is being taken out. your department is issuing a lot of oil and gas permits in drought-prone areas. these activities require a huge amount of water, for instance, a single hydraulic infrastructuring well using between 10 and 12 million gallons of water. we have heard of competition between farmers and oil and drilling. so can you just give me a -- your take on the walk through, how you consider water issues when issuing permits for energy development on public lands largest wholesale supplier in the nation is the department of

interior. you have to be leader in sustainable management. can you walk through these considerations? >> i'll do it at the high level and ask my colleague to weigh in with a little more detail. first, on hydraulic fracturing, one of the things that we are encouraging is the reuse of hydraulic fracturing fluids. it can be reused. another thing that is happening within the industry is a potential of using produced water which is salt water from lower depths for lie drawlic fracturing as opposed to groundwater that may be competing with other resources, and those activities are being encouraged. the water generally is controlled by states, and so as energy companies purchase water, they're not purchasing it from us or asking us for it. it's coming from state and local resources. so i think that the role that we can play is encouraging reuse and monitoring appropriate use

of produced water so there isn't competition for that. it's expensive for the energy companies to buy water for the purposes as well. but david, i want to turn to you to give perhaps a little more detail specific to this topic. >> just very quickly, senator, obviously the water use is a big issue for us. the president's budget follows through on the requirement that congress laid out for us in 2007, for a water census. we are spending -- we are asking for about 15 million for the united states agree logical survey to help provide the data for that. in term of permitting what the secretary said is very important. typically the states have primacy with regard to the water use. the proposed fracking rule now up for further comment us suggestions that we require a tracking of the water because when it comes up, it can can with -- if it's not handled appropriately it can be cause damage to the for example, the

public lands. we look further to the forward dialogue. >> we'll have senator browne. >> thank you, thank you for your dedicated service. you brought up sequestration. and i want to ask about this revenue owed to states under the mineral leasing act. in march, the department of entire your notified states it would withhold over $109 million over the remainder of fiscal year 2013. it was before you were confirmed and sworn to office. at that time the department said the decision was? in accordance with the budget control act of 2011, the sequester. three weeks ago a group of ten senators, five members of the committee, senator mark udall, senator lee, and i sent you a letter along with -- to omb, you have a copy of the letter. in the letter we asked omb to confirm your department would

return mineral revenue withheld in fiscal year 2013 in the states and do it next year in 2014. we explain that a provision within the federal budget law requires the department to return withheld mineral revenue to the states when sequestration took place in the mid '80s. it applies today to the sequester which took effect this year. you have a copy of the letter to omb. can you confirm that the department will return mineral revenue withheld in fiscal year 2013 to the tune of $109 million to the states it's owed? >> thank you for the question your letter. i understand the importance of mineral revenue to the states. we are doing our best to comply with the balance budget in emergency deficit and control act, otherwise known as the sequester. our understanding is they were required to withhold payments. it's designed to be inflexible, damaging with, this is an

example of that. so i will be fulfilling my obligation under the law, whether that requires a repayment to the states or not is something that certainly omb is the right place to assess this, and we are absolutely will do that. we appreciate the importance to the states. we are doing our best to comply with the law as it's written. >> thank you. i would like to ask about the blm revising fracturing rule. i understand the oil and gas producers will be able to obtain a variance from blm's rules in state which is have their own hydraulic fracturing rules that meet or exceed the blm rule in is how it's written. >> correct. >> blm, it says also that the blm may rescind the various or modify the condition of approval at any time. it's hardly the certainty you acknowledged during your

conformation is important for the private sector. it's unclear why they are adding federal regulations on top of state regulations, wyoming don't fracturing regulations three years ago. since then nearly all states who have meaningful oil and gas production have adopted or in the process of adopting their own fracturing rules. many states such as wyoming apply their rules to federal lands within the borders. in this respect, blm's rule as a solution seems to be looking for problems. do you believe states which are currently regulating hydraulic fracturing aren't doing a sufficient job? which states do you have in mind? >> senator, i want to say that it's highly variable between states. state of wyoming is sophisticated in its oversight of hydraulic fracturing. we applaud that. you understand the resources within the state, and i think it's a good example of the state that is doing an effective job. our role is to provide minimum acceptable standards on public

lands. that is our oversight on behalf of the american people, that's what we're doing. the reason for the comment period, the thirty days initially and now the extension of sixty days to provide an opportunity for people to comment on the rules to determine if it's problematic for them. we will be listening to the extents and reacting. >> i appreciate. the various process leads to an uncertainty. it doesn't give the certainty you talk about the conformation. i appreciate that. final question about leadership of bureau of land management. last year, the director retired. president obama has yet to nominate a successor. the president considers a replacement, it's critical he look to qualification outlined in federal law. the federal land policy management act states the director of the bureau should have a quote, broad background and substantial experience in public lands and natural resource management. bob had over thirty years of experience working for land

management agencies prior to the nomination of blm director. his predecessor over thirty years of experience in land and national resource management prior to the nomination. do you believe the blm director showmentd -- should have a -- as the law calls for? >> senator, i'm going do my best job to find someone highly qualified for the position that has experience. i need to take the talents that exists the blm. ..

>> after senator landrieu will be senator rich. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i apologize, i had to step out for another meeting. welcome, secretary jewell, and thank you so much for taking one of your first trips down to the gulf coast. i understand you were off the coast of louisiana at one of our rigs, and we really appreciate you reconnecting with an important industry and resource for our nation based on your experience in your, earlier in your career. i wanted to bring up two issues and have questions just on two issues. first, the request in the budget for the land and water conservation fund. there are many of us that are very interested in funding the

land and water conservation fund for many reasons. there's a federal side that helps our parks and our land acquisition, there's a state side that helps our states to really leverage those conservation dollars to expand recreational opportunities and save special places. and i don't think there's really a member on this committee that doesn't want to do that within reason, recognizing the western states think they still -- they have too many, too much land already purchased by the federal government, and i acknowledge their concern. however, my concern is that in this budget we are using revenues generated off the coast of louisiana and texas when louisiana and texas and alabama and mississippi and florida are coastal area -- our coastal areas, have so much need. the money that we're generating, it seems like to me -- which is pretty significant, i'm going to put up a chart in a minute -- is

basically being used, all the money's going elsewhere in the country. we're saving the redwoods in the northeast and in california and the sequoias, but we're not saving the marsh where the revenues are coming from. do you have a comment about that, or what are your general feelings? and i say coming from louisiana, i mean, our states are serving as platforms for production. without the louisiana, texas, there would be no way for the federal government to access resources that are clearly ours. but without our states, there could be no access to the offshore. >> yes, senator, thank you for the question, and as i mentioned in my opening comments, i support full funding of the land and water conservation fund which has not been the case for more than one year in its almost 50-year history. i appreciate the revenue generated from offshore oil and gas production. as i went to the gulf coast, i

saw firsthand the positive impact it has on the residents of louisiana through the jobs that it's created including visiting our offices there which has over 500 people in the offices there -- >> and, listen, look, we appreciate the jobs. but 500 jobs and jobs that are created along the coast do not compensate for the loss of revenues. this is six billion in 2006. it's projected to be 11 billion annually coming off the coast of louisiana and texas. and yet we are struggling here for years trying to get a fair share of that just to be kept at home along the coast that's producing these revenues. now meanwhile, if you put up the other chart, the inland states which i do not -- you know, i'm a little jealous, actually, of the deal that they were able to

get. because wyoming and new mexico -- senator, your state, as you know -- keeps 50% of their revenues. the western states have a deal with the federal government. all the money that they generate on federal lands, they keep 50%. so over the course of time, the western states have kept $61 billion, the western states, to spend on anything they want. not even on conservation. they spend it on schools, hospitals, roads. they don't even have to spend it on the environment. meanwhile, the gulf coast states get nothing, get nothing. we generate more money than they do, and in our case we're even willing -- at least for the state of louisiana -- we are willing to dedicate all of that money to coastal restoration. so i just can't impress upon the both of you how critical this is. and i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their

support of this general concept. now, how we work out the details i don't know, but again i want to say to the western states, i just want the same deal you all have. and i'm even willing to take a little bit less, i'm willing to be more flexible. the people i represent are truly desperate. this is the largest land loss in the continent of north america. in the whole continent, the largest land loss. alaska has some serious erosion issues, and they're serious. i don't think they're as serious as louisiana's. and this is a river that supports the whole -- this is not a stream or a little paddle place where you just paddle around and have an enjoyable time. we're putting the largest tankers and commerce down this river. so i'm not going to stop on this, and i just want to tell you, share with you that i'm going to be watching this very carefully. the second question i will

submit is on the permitting process. we cannot produce any of these revenues. not in the western states, not off of our shores without streamlined, efficient best practices permitting. and i'm still, i like the good work -- despite the good work you're doing, hearing complaints from the industry that they've got to get some green lights to drill. they can do it safely, they need permits. thank you very much. >> senator rich. >> thank you for visiting the interagency center in boise. i think you'd agree with me after you and i toured that facility that the agency is prepared, they're ready and they're willing and able to take on the 2013 fire season. well equipped, even better trained. but at the end of the day, of course, it's going to depend on the fuel loads and mother nature and the number of fires that they have to deal with. but we appreciate your input, and we certainly appreciate you appearing there. they've already been tested last friday. they had a fire, a small one,

but nonetheless, a fire. less than five miles from the facility. so they'll, they'll be at it this summer. you and i have had a number of conversations about sage grouse, and you're probably hearing about sage grouse. but i just, i want to get a response from you now that you've been on the job for a while and been able to review this. you and i talked about the letter that, first of all, the comments and the suggestions that secretary salazar made regarding how we should rehabilitate the population of the sage grouse. and particularly his letter of december 18, 2012, which outlined the department's view of what should be done. and then the questions for the record and the answers that were attached. and all of it is in sync with my view of a collaborative method and a state-driven method to address this issue. i think in sync with what your

view is about the collaborative system. after you've been on the job now for the period of time you've had, do you have any more thoughts on this? are you still in agreement that this is the best way to pursue how we do what all of us want to do, and that is preserve, protect and rehabilitate the greater sage grouse? are we still on, are we still singing off the same sheet of music? >> yes, senator, i believe we are. i've seen great collaboration between states, private landowners, the bureau of land management, indian tribes all in working together to say how can we preserve and protect this important habitat. it's a challenging issue with invasive species and wildfires, as you know, but these are things that we want to work on together, and there's some great examples out there for us to learn from. and we certainly are learning from that. so i'm looking forward to an

ongoing effort as you described. >> thank you. i think we've learned that this new approach of doing it from the state up seems to have, seems to work a lot better and actually gets results. so i'm delighted to hear that you remain committed to that. thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank my colleague. here's where we are. senator portman can't come back. he will chair at 11, and senator her kousky will be here, so we can get you in before the break because of the thoughtfulness of senator heinrich. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i've always thought heinrich was a thoughtful guy, and now it's proven. [laughter] also my men tee in the ways that we have a mentor/mentee relationship here. i can't go into detail, but i think that's the reason he's willing to do it. [laughter] thank you, martin. quickly on hydraulic fracking, i

know you've come up with this rule for federally-controlled lands, and thank you for your testimony on that. it's a big deal, because as you know about 90% is on public lands. i would just, you know, ohio, frankly, doesn't have a lot of public lands. however, we do a lot of fracking, and we've been doing it for about 50 years, and we have some good regulations. we think we're some of the best in the country. we have no documented cases of groundwater contamination. we're proud of that. so i would just raise the point that on average it takes 307 days to get grids on federal lands, and this is one reason i've been working with colleagues from both sides of the aisle on permitting reform. and we're now 17th in the world based on the imf metrics for the ease of doing business with regard to building something. and that affects everybody; energy developers seeking approval on whether it's oil and gas or wind or solar are facing

the same thing. and federal lands is often a gauntlet of separate agencies and federal litigation concerning permits can go as long as six years as you know. so it's up certainty -- uncertainty, i think, that's leading to a lot of investors being hesitant to make these kind of commitments to capital investment. so i would hope that as you look at this, you would look at what the states are doing, and specifically our state of ohio where, you know, we do have a good record. and second, that you'll help us in this permitting bill. this is not something bev introduced -- we've introduced yet, we're still looking for input and ideas, but we want to be sure we have the input from the department and that it's a bipartisan effort going forward. second, want to ask for your comment on that because of the short period of time, but if you have any comments after i raise two other quick issues, i'd

appreciate it. this world war ii prayer bill, it passed the house last year with a vote of 386-26. it would take in this d-day prayer that fdr said on the day of the d-day invasion and, as you know, today is the 69th anniversary of d-day. and we're interested in moving it forward in the senate as well. last year senator lieberman and i were able to make some progress but not get it through the process, and we would love your help on that. the park service has worked with us to insure the bill is subject to the standard commemorative works and approval process and getting your support would be terrific since it's the anniversary of d-day today i thought i had to raise that. it's s. 1044. and finally on national parks, your comments were correct that we need to do better on the public/private partnership front. interested in your specific example of washington monument.

this $11 billion backlog in the deferred maintenance backlog, i was at the cuyahoga national park over we moral day which is a top ten mark in the country i'm told in terms of attendance, they've got some serious concerns on this very issue. so my question to you is, in the process of the centennial coming up, do you all have a plan to try to encourage public/private partnership? we started this initiative that you and madam secretary know a lot about. and the notion was to the centennial challenge, challenge the private sector, frankly, to match dollar for dollar. do you have a centennial plan that you all have put together? we haven't seen one yet, and we are, as you know, trying to encourage that. mark udall and i sent a letter around to our colleagues on this that you may have seen. so anything you could tell us about what you're doing on the

permitting, um, any thoughts on world war ii prayer and any thoughts on the public/private partnerships as we come up to the centennial would be appreciated. >> i'll try and do this quickly. first, on the centennial there's actually quite a lot of work going on with the national parks foundation and with the national park service and various advisory boards to look at what we can do to facilitate the public/private partnerships, i think, are going to be a very important part of that. it also raises the ability among the american people. people love their parks. we want to give them an easy opportunity to support their parks. so that is coming, and should there be legislation involved, i'll make sure that you're well aware of that. at this point we're working within the park service and the external friends groups and so on to facilitate that. on the permitting side, there's actually been a lot of work that has been done by the blm to streamline the permitting process. we've also done that offshore. there's lessons from offshore

that we think we can bring onshore. there is a desperate need for automation in the process. we've also found that, unfortunately, with sequestration across the board the offices that are most active still have to scale back their operations. so getting past that would be very, very helpful. we -- so there is a lot of work going on in the 2014 budget there is a request for fees generated to support that activity so it doesn't become just strictly a line item in the budget that can be cut. it's variable depending on the demand, it's going to fend on the -- depend on the areas where the development is going on. it doesn't -- formations don't go across state lines, but that's how we're required to fund these state agencies, so we're going to need your help on streamlining. on the world war ii prayer bill, certainly, we appreciate the sacrifices paid in world war ii, happy to continue to work with you on that bill. thank you. >> okay. we will stand in recess until

11:00 or until the series of votes are concluded, and i will be back and senator heinrich will be back. thank you. >> secretary jewell and mr. hayes, thanks for your patience. we're going to get started here. i'm going to go ahead and ask a question that i held off earlier, and ten we've got a couple of other senators who have been very patient as well, and we'll get to them as quickly as we can. secretary jewell, you mentioned interagency cooperation around your fire fighting effort, something that is very timely for me right now. that coordination is especially important when it comes to

post-fire rehabilitation and flood prevention in the commitments that are oftentimes down -- in the communities that are oftentimes downstream from department of interior lands as well as forest service lands. are there any additional authorities that you need to insure a seamless and coordinated response between interior like blm, bia, fish and wildlife service, park service and the forest service to make sure that we're meeting these challenges as, in as coordinated and consistent and seamless a way as possible? >> senate, thanks for bringing up the important issue of wildland fire. i would say that on the coordination we are very well coordinated. and be when i went to the interagency fire center, i went there with secretary vilsack and all the various units of the federal as well as the state governments and the local

governments are well coordinated. i would say that you raise an issue around post-fire remediation and making sure we prepare lands for fires in advance whether that's prescribed burns or hazardous fuel removal and other means. those are being squeezed from a budgetary stand point, and that is the biggest challenge i would say that we face. when we do have a wildland fire, for example, on range land, the ability to go back after that and replant native, you know, shrub step, sage and so on is really important. if we don't do that, you end up with other nonnative species that are much more prone to fire and actually have a habitat destroyed. we have not had sufficient money to be able to do that work, and that's very important. not to mention on our tribal lands where year round it's an important source for jobs, for tribes as well. so i would appreciate support in making sure that the emergency part of fire fighting gets

segregated so that we can year in, year out do the right job in terms of management of the lands for wildland fire. >> i appreciate that. we recently had a hearing earlier this week with the forest issue, and we've had challenges in terms of the downstream impacts on tribes and other communities in new mexico after big fires last year and the year before. so it's something i'm more than happy to work with you on. senator franken brought something up which i hadn't thought of before the hearing, but i think there's a little attention. he talked about the issue of land consolidation and state lands within federal lands. knowing the specifics of the situation in northern minnesota, i can say that that is an enormous issue that has not received a lot of attention but is ubiquitous across to the west whether you're in new mexico or utah or nevada.

you have these jurisdictions where you have state land -- [inaudible] through federal lands. and it makes, it's a very large resource efficiency issue, and some of the tools that we typically use to consolidate and do land swaps and other things have, are limit inside that case -- limited in that case, particularly the land and water conservation fund is a tool we can't use to purchase state lands. i've proposed reauthorizing it which was used for ten years and resulted in higher disposal rates at blm but also was something we could use to resolve these types of conflicts and focus those resources back on high value lands. but i would be curious if you have any sort of concerted effort, and i would encourage you to give this issue its, its due while you're secretary

because i think it is something that has festered for a long time, and it leads to a lot of unnecessary management and resource conflicts between states and the federal government. >> well, i very much appreciate your support of reauthorizing the legislation. i think it's been a useful tool in the past, so thank you for your support there. we're in full agreement. i would say that we've done it more on a case-by-case basis as land swaps have made sense, and there are certainly some that are pending that i'm aware of. there's also some lands that are federal that may not serve the federal government as well as they might serve a state, so we are very open to that, and i think have the procedures in place to be able to deal with those things. i don't think we have looked at it necessarily on a land scale base. there may be opportunity to do that in some areas, but we are with you in concept fully. >> i know it can be damaging and there are transparency issues -- it can be challenging and there

are transparency issues. when it's done well, it can definitely serve the public on multiple fronts. um, let's see. it's just the two of us. >> all right. >> so -- i'm looking around at my list, but none of them are here. >> thank you. thank you, i appreciate it, mr. chairman. madam secretary, let me start with some questions that i alluded to in my opening, and this is as it relates to the npra legacy wells. i think that you feel my frustration and my concern. as i mentioned in our conversations earlier, if the federal government was a private operator and had, um, and had abandoned these wells as the federal government has, the state would have had an opportunity to levy some fines on that private operator. and our estimates are that it would be about $41 billion in

fines. and so i've just been so concerned about what i believe to be a double standard here, because i think we do have an expectation that if you're going to be exploring and producing in an arctic environment, there is an absolute need to be responsible, to be cautious, to really be careful. and so it just hurts to see what we have left. and so now we get to the part where, okay, it happened, let's figure out how we're going to clean it up. and i thought that we had, um, that we had agreed that, look, there's got to be a better path forward rather than just telling the states, you figure it out. and so when we met before the interior probes hearing last month, i thought we had a pretty good discussion on how we might work together to find a path forward that didn't require the state to pay for these federal

well remediation efforts. and since that time i've had constituents come back to me who have had meetings, um, not only with you, but those in your department. and they have effectively told me that they believe that the department and that you actually support and agree with the proposal that was put out, again, before you took the position as secretary. and those decisions that were made before you came, um, you're now kind of stuck to deal with them, to sell with them. but i guess the question that i would have of you this morning -- and i had submitted the letter from mayor brower for the record that outlines their concerns about that -- is, is it your opinion that the, that the state of alaska should be held financially responsible for the

federal government's responsibility to remediate these wells? >> turn this on. i completely agree that the legacy wells are a problem that we need to solve. they were drilled by the usgs and the navy years ago to assess the potential of the national petroleum reserve in alaska. it's one of the reasons we have a sense of the resource potential there and, of course, modern techniques have been used as well. they do need to be cleaned up. i'm pleased that the blm has done an assessment and has shared with the state a priority list of where they would go first so that we deal with the worst offenders first. we do need money to be able to do that, and, you know, i would like to think that as the resource was assessed in part through the use of these wells, that the revenue from the resource, state and federal, be used to help in the cleanup. i think that it is a revenue generator, it puts oil in the pipeline, but we need to work on

figuring out how to pay for it because right now there isn't sufficient money. >> i would agree that we have some very difficult budget limitations. we all know that. but i have a very difficult time suggesting that those revenues that would go to the state that in turn go to the residents of the north slope -- and, again, i will refer you to the mayor's letter and the commissioner's letter -- that somehow or another you think that it is right to take those revenues that would go to those residents, um, for no value that they have gained from the exploration of these wells some 30, 40 years ago. all that's left is an eyesore and a level of contamination. i want to work with you on a path. but if that path is going to mean that monies that would be going to the state of alaska and

the residents of the north slope are going to be choked back, that's not, that's not appropriate. so i'm hoping to hear you say that you're willing to work with us to find a better path forward. >> i'm absolutely willing to work with you and to find the money that we need to remediate the legacy wells. certainly committed to doing that. and any creative suggestions you have on how we can fund that, i'd be all ears. >> well, let's, let's work on this. we do need to be creative. but being creative does not mean that we assess the state for the cost to have cleanup that the federal government is responsible for. the other area that i wanted to visit with you on, and this is, this is, again, a little bit of a rub, too, to alaska. as you know, we became a state some 50-odd years ago.

our lands have not been yet fully and finally conveyed under the terms of the native claims settlement act, lands that are owed to our native peoples have not yet been finally conveyed. we are working on that. we had some good discussions about some ways, and we're thinking creatively, okay? can we use a different methodology to do the, to do the surveys, how we reduce our costs to still accomplish that same goal. and i want -- i think that that's a good step for us. but, again, in the proposal that we have before us with the budget, effectively alaska -- those revenues that would be coming to our state we're saying, okay, we will take from

you in order to complete the conveyances or to pay for those conveyances. i cannot, i cannot understand why any state should ever be expected to effectively pay the federal government to perform that federal obligation of conveying the lands that have been approved by congress and clearly passed administrations. and yet somehow or other it seems that the interior department is suggesting that alaska needs to share in this financial burden. so you need to know that, again, i've been pushing on this issue since i came to the senate. we advanced legislation that put in place an expedited process, and we're still nine years, nine years later, and we still have not yet fully and finally finished these conveyances. so we need to make better

progress on that. we've got more in the budget this year. that's helpful. but, again, we're still looking at decades and decades before advances are complete. so i'd like to hear your proposal on how we move forward on that. but, again, if the expectation is that the state is going to have to pay for the conveyances or the costs that are associate with the the advances, that's just not going to work. >> senator, i'm not aware of anything that suggests the states pay the costs of the conveyances, so i appreciate a chance to work with you and better understand -- >> what they're suggesting is a share of the mineral payments that alaska would receive would be utilized to, um, to help cover the costs for the conveyances. >> okay. i'll look into that. on the survey themselves, the blm is committed to an expedited

process so that we can move forward. we agree that we want to convey these lands. i really appreciate your willingness to do an expedited process and use gis techniques. you put an actual stake every two miles, and you know how impractical and expensive that is to do in alaska. we'll be working with the blm. again, i hadn't heard about the issue of the state paying and will look into that further. >> well, i appreciate it. and the other thing that i learned in my most recent immediating with bud clip -- meeting with bud cripley in alaska was, in fact, there will be no surveys conducted if alaska this year. he pointed the finger to the budget, but if there's no surveys going on at all, how are we ever going to get this done? so if you could look into that aspect as well, i would appreciate it. thank you, mr. chairman, i've gone over time. i've got another question, but i'm going to defer to my

colleagues here. >> thank you, senator murkowski. senator scott. >> thank you very much. secretary jewell, thank you for appearing before us and taking the time to answer a couple of questions. i know you're new on the job, so congratulations on your confirmation. as it relates to the environmental impact study in the atlantic, we're running about a year late. and have you, have you been able to discover why we're running a year late on the eis? >> senator, this is for the geological and geophysical survey activity? i know that it's in process, and we're doing the programmatic eis right now in order to move forward on that. deputy secretary, do you know about delays? are we on schedule as far as you know? >> um, senator, we have been pushing forward on this, actually. i recall a year ago we accelerated the schedule. my sense of it is that we are, we are moving forward in a deliberate pace. we are very, very interested in getting this done.

and so we're certainly not dragging our feet. we're telling our folks we want this environmental analysis done. >> do you believe that you have enough of the right folks working on this project as we speak now? >> yes, yes. we are giving it, again, in this time of sequester -- >> yes. >> -- it's a challenge, but we are very committed to funding that effort and bringing it to completion. >> one thing, mr. hayes, is to recognize the fact that this started before the sequester, so we're about a year late from our perspective. so one of the questions i'd have for you is do you have any expectation on what you believe will be a part of the completed eis? do you have any idea what your anticipations are on what the report will show? any indications at all at this point? >> i have no personal knowledge of any special items there. my understanding is there's a very vigorous analysis that will be put forward. there are consultations with the other affected agencies including noaa in particular.

those are proceeding along. so we're helpful that this will be -- and, obviously, senator, a as you know, an environmental impact statement is a major deal particularly for such a large area as the, as this, the mid and south atlantic. but nothing, nothing on the horizon as far as we're aware in terms of issues that would be out of the ordinary in terms of an eis. >> certainly, secretary jewell, you've expressed support. i'm looking forward to collect more data so we'll be in a better position realizing that some of the data's about 30 years old. so for us it's an important part of the equation when we look at the revenues and the opportunity for job creation in our atlantic ocs. from the southland perspective, we think about the companies that would go out and shoot the seismic and perhaps discover the resources. after discovering the resources,

the question that we're going to ask is will we have the opportunity to gain, get those resources? my question is you look at the company's necessity for a return on investment, what do you think the prospects are of our ability to move forward and provide the company as with the necessary -- companies with the necessary opportunity to recoup their investment? >> well, senator, as someone who spent time early in my career in the oil and gas industry, i appreciate not only the importance of resource development, but also the time frame that it takes. these are massive investments when you're talking about exploring and developing new areas. so i think that this first step toward the geological and geophysical analysis is important. it'll take time for industry to analyze that data and to decide where their priorities are and where they want to lease. we certainly will be there in terms of lease sales to open the lands as appropriate. it's not in the five-year plan that came out the 2012-'17 -- >> '17.

>> but the data will be accessible once we do the analysis. and so companies can plan for that. having been recently out in the gulf of mexico, these are long-term operations. they require infrastructure development and planning. and in my early career i did some of that development and planning, and so i think, you know, when 2017 rolls around and that five-year plan is regenerated, that will be the opportunity for people to actually do the exploration production activities. >> are there any other obstacles or impediments to moving forward from your perspective that you would like assistance with? >> i think that the programmatic eis that we're doing is important in identifying if those obstacles exist, but there's nothing that i'm ware of at this point in -- aware of at this point in time. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is that it? >> yes. >> super. well, we'll do another quick round for those folks who have stepped around. senator murkowski, why don't you

go first, and i'll wrap up with a couple questions. >> thank you. just a couple here to follow up, and this follows on senator lap drew's comments about -- landrieu's comments about revenue sharing. it's something she and have i have worked on for a period of time, and we're hopeful that we'll have an opportunity to have that bill presented here before the committee so that our colleagues can take a look at it. in your confirmation hearing, you indicated that you'd be willing to work with us on the concept. so the question is whether or not you've with had a chance to look at our legislation, if you think that this is an approach that you might be able to support and work with us on. >> senator, i haven't looked at any specific legislation. i know that it's a tricky issue in terms of federal revenues going here and then, you know, what do you use to support the federal government. and these are assets in the outer continental shelves that are federal assets. so i'm happy to look into the bill language. i haven't seen it specifically.

>> okay. it is when we're kind of talking about thinking outside the box and how we're going to deal with some of the issues that are at play. i know that the chairman has mentioned when we talk about revenue sharing, it needs to be broader than we have envisioned in the past, and it might be able to assist us with some of the issues that we face for instance on land with our secure real schools funding. so i would commend that to you for your review. we have had a whole series of hearings and moved some public lands bills through the committee already. i'd like to think we can move them through to the floor and see passage of them. but one of the issues that comes up continually as we deal with parks and park issues is the fact that we have a $13 billion parks maintenance backlog. and so a lot of the conversation around this dais is, gosh, should we really be adding more

to the parks when we can't afford to maintain what we already have? and so it was noted by yourself and by others that we've got the parks' centennial coming upon us in just this year after next. it seems to me that this would be a great time to really kind of reevaluate how we establish, how we maintain our parks as we move into this second century and really, also, how we build support for our parks within our local communities and effectively nationwide and whether it's getting support through private dollars, whether it's just getting the local people engaged and having ownership in their parks. i think that that's going to be important for us. so just very generically asking if you will, would work with chairman widen, work with myself and other members of the committee to review the options and really how we define a path

forward for the parks as we advance into the second century of our national parks. >> thank you, senator. there's no question that this historic opportunity, the centennial that will fall on this congress and this administration is extraordinarily important to seize. i'm very happy to work with you and senator wyden on whatever we can do to address the maintenance back roll on our national parks and look at more broadly just the challenges we have on maintaining our public lands. i'll also say sometimes you've got a willing buyer and a willing seller in the federal government on private lands, and it understood doesn't necessarily increasing the costs. so i don't want to stop about what we need to do because of the maintenance backlog. we want to knock it down, but i am learning about the complexity of land management and landscape-level conservation and understanding, so would really

love to work with you and chairman wyden and others on this committee for a more permanent solution. >> good, good. another thing we have discussed a lot is downly case, um, of efforts within government agencies, the redundancies that are inherent there. programs in the three bureaus

are duplicative, but it does kind of beg the question as to whether or not they are and what kind of review is underway and just kind of from a department perspective if you've got your folks looking internally to make sure that we are being smart in how we are advancing these programs and paying for these programs. >> well, if i can take just a minute to respond. these are budget category titles, but i have observed as i've gone corridor by corridor and sat down with a lot of people that they are actually leveraging each other. there are scientific resources available in the usgs, in the fish and wildlife service that are working to support those wildlife or fish needs that are in the national park service or blm, so i'm looking for duplication of effort, streamlining where we can. i don't see a lot of overlapping effort when you have the sort of land manager on the ground that's trying to do the work with the scientist that maybe at

the u.s. geological survey there are ways that that knits together. but i appreciate the sentiment that we need to be making sure we're not overlapping, and i'm certainly committed to doing that. >> good, good. knowing that you're all looking at that is important. and then one final question here. fish and wildlife came out with their draft conservation plan and their eis for anwr. it did not include a development alternative for oil and gas within the coastal plain. i've been told that the service's rationale for this was that development requires an act of congress. but the draft plan also included some services that also require an act of congress. so it seems a little bit inconsistent there. so the question to you is whether or not the conservation plan and the eis for anwr will include an oil and gas development alternative, and if

you're not proposing that, i guess the question would be why would you not consider that? >> well, i'm going to give a high-level answer and then ask my colleague, david hayes, who's been very involved to administer color. the president has made it clear that it is not part of his agenda to do oil and gas exploration in the arctic national wildlife refuge, and i support that decision. so further details on this, david is very immersed in issues around the arctic and has been really committed to the issues there. so, david, would you mind adding? >> sure. senator, i believe that the fish and wildlife service was consistent in not including its alternatives that would require congressional action -- >> but you would agree that when you have an alternative that allows for additional wilderness or wild and scenic that that also requires act of congress? >> yes. >> right. >> yes, absolutely. but, in fact, all it does is

that the, there is no act chewuation of any wilderness designation by an agency. there can only be a recommendation. so, and then as the secretary said -- and, of course, the law is very clear on the oil and gas side about needing congressional issue -- decision before going forward. let me just, if i can, senator, mention that thank you for your arctic leadership. and i just wanted to state publicly that the wows came out, as you know, with a new national strategy for the arctic and promised to have some outreach sessions in this month in alaska as a follow up. and we are going to go forward with these listening sessions in alaska at the end of next week. and we will have leadership from across the government in those

sessions and are taking very seriously the issues that you take so seriously, and thank you for your leadership in the arctic generally. >> well, i appreciate what you have done to help us on the arctic issues. your leadership in advancing the report out of the department of interior was very important. you will be missed, and i've said that, and i'm not afraid to say it publicly. i think you have been a big help to us, and i appreciate that. let me just conclude then, do you know, david, when the final plan might be released? do you have any time frame on that? >> i -- we do not have a time frame on that, senator. >> when okay. and then you mentioned the listening sessions up north, and i was pleased to see that they will be moving forward. we're trying to get things pinned down so that we can make sure that the appropriate folks

are in place. i was a little troubled this morning, there's an article in one of our online newspapers, and the headline is: are the interior department's alaska listening sessions just hot air? it takes a little punch at me, it takes a little punch at you -- not you personally, me personally. but i do hope that they're not hot air. i do hope that there is real substance that we, we as alaskans are not only engaged, but i will reach out, too, to my colleagues from all states. new mexicans need to be reminded that we are an arctic nation. it's not just alaska as a state. we are an arctic nation. and hopefully, these listening sessions will allow us to push that, that reality out so that people know and understand it. so i look forward to working with the folks at interior on that. and i thank you for your ip --

indulgence, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator lee, why don't you go next, and then i'll wrap up. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also thank our witnesses for joining us. as you've undoubtedly heard from some of my western cleanings on this -- colleagues on this committee, the potential listing of the endangered sage grouse would have some far-ranging impacts on the people of utah and on the residents of several of our neighboring states. as you know, the state of's proposed a management plan -- of utah has proposed a management plan that would protect more than 90% of greater sage grouse while significantly limiting the adverse economic impacts that these efforts would have. so we see it as a real win/win potentially, should it be approved. during your confirmation process, you stressed quite repeatedly that cooperation and coordination with states and with all the stakeholders

involved would be the hallmarks of your tenure at interior. can the state of utah and its three million residents count on your commitment to give serious consideration to approving our state management plan for the greater sage grouse, and can i count on your commitment to work with the state of utah and with other western states on this issue and on similar issues under the jurisdiction of the department of the interior? >> yes. you have my commitment that we'll work with states, we'll work with private landowners, we'll work with everyone that is involved in this. the habitat necessary for the greater sage grouse is vast. it covers a lot of jurisdictions, and the only way we're going to be able to take care of this over the long term is by working together. >> okay, thank you. i hope you'll take a very serious look at the efforts put forward by the state of utah because, again, i think they achieve the environmental gains that are necessary, but they do so in a way that also respect the needs of our residents, the people on the ground that are

most affected. um, a recent study by the u.s. chamber of commerce reveals that from 2009 through 2012 a total of 73 lawsuits against various federal agencies were settled under circumstances that could be described as sue and settle, sue and settle cases, sue and settle case resolutions. settlement of these cases directly resulted in more than a hundred new federal rules, many of which were major rules meaning rules that carry annual aggregate economic compliance impact of $100 million or more. while some of these cases involved epa settlements under the clean air act and the clean water act, more than a few of them fell under the jurisdiction of your department highlighted by some key fish and wildlife service settlements under the endangered species act.

the sue and settle process that i'm describing allows agencies to avoid in some circumstances the normal protections that are built into the rulemaking process. including, first, a reby the office of -- a review by the office of management and budget, but also including nod insignificantly the public -- the review process by the public, the opportunity the public has to review the proposed rulemaking. as your tenure as the secretary of the department to have interior begins, do you think the practice of using settlement agreements and consent decrees to further policy goals is consistent with your commitment to how you want to run the department, including your commitment to transparency? >> senator, as a business person you want to avoid lawsuits at all costs. i have certainly been struck by the amount of lawsuits that are filed against interior.

we're trying to uphold the laws. people differ with that, and can they sue. they sue. as a business person i know that sometimes the most cost effective way to deal with a lawsuit is to settle, certainly not something that i want to make any kind of a practice of. i want to avoid lawsuits to begin with by making sure we have parties around the table that understand the law and understand what we're doing and upholding the law. and certainly transparency is something i've been known for on the business side, and i'm committed to being transparent in this process as well. i do know that we have laws that have time requirements on them such as the endangered species act. we are overwhelmed sometimes with the amount of volume that comes in, and we work to try and address the underlying needs in the most cost effective way that we can in dealing with upholding those laws. so this is an area that i'm becoming more familiar with,

particularly as all the lawsuits now bear my name. [laughter] but it's -- we want to avoid lawsuits to begin with, and that's going to be my commitment. >> i understand that, and i respect it, and i certainly understand that as a businesswoman when you were involved in lawsuits, you had an obligation to find resolutions of those cases. and you also had a natural inclination to defend the most important thing for your business and settle only where it was reasonably possible without doing harm to your business. settlements involving government are sometimes a little bit different, because when the aim of the lawsuit is to achieve a different policy, that can have the effect of a law making effort. and so where there is not a distinct adverse interest on the part of the government with the plaintiff, you do have some potential for what some people call a friendly suit or a

friendly suit resolution where two people can just agree, the government can agree with the plaintiff, yeah, that's a good policy, we should implement that, and you have de facto lawmaking by means of a friendly suit resolution, and so that's the problem we're concerned about there. um, mr. chairman, if i could have your indulgence to ask just another line of questions? i know we're on a short timeline. is that a possibility? >> how many do you have? >> just one more. >> you bet. >> okay. so the united states congress recognized the need for the development of domestic oil shale resources. with the passage of the energy policy act of 2005. in which the congress directed now almost eight years ago the department of the interior to establish commercial oil shale, a commercial oil shale leasing program. and then following an extensive public process, the bureau of land management issued a final

programmatic eis for oil shield development and established a leasing rule in 2008. then in 2009 a group of nongovernmental organizations challenged the 2008 oil shale management plan resulting in a settlement agreement with interior that was followed by new oil shale regulations in 2012 that reduced the ache rage available for -- acreage by almost 75%. just a few weeks ago blm was notified that another group of ngos is planning a lawsuit concerning these new regulations. so with the understanding that all these decisions were made during secretary salazar's decision, will you commit to take a fresh look at the oil shale leasing program and whether it complies with the objectives of the energy policy act of 2005? >> senator, as i understand we have about 600,000 acres available for oil shale development under these research and development leases. and i think that, you know, the

realities right now are more economic on oil shale development not to be mixed up with shale oil. >> right. >> that, you know, there's work to be done to assess the value of these resources and their potential for the future. certainly, continuing to do that is part of the president's all of the above energy strategy, and i'm support i of that. i'm going to ask david hayes to provide more detail as it specifically relates to these programs. >> senator, i would just add that per the previous point about settle and sue, this was a situation where there was a lawsuit, but what followed was the notice and comment proceeding that led to the final rule that's before us. >> sure, i understand. i didn't intend necessarily to lump that -- >> okay. but i think that our view is that the final rule is solid and that we are open for business for demonstration projects in the oil shale area. >> okay. so it sounds like you're

prepared to defend the -- >> correct, we are. >> will thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to both of you for your service and for your testimony. >> thanks, senator lee. a couple more things i wanted to bring up, and i very much appreciate the ranking member's comments around the need to address the backlog in the park service and to be efficient with our conservation and public lands dollars. i thought i'd bring up a situation we have in new mexico where we currently have a national preserve that is basically a one-off model. it is almost an agency in and of itself. as a result, their spending per visitor right now is about $250 per visitor. you drive across a two-lane road to the vannedler national monument, and the spending is $13 per visitor, often times for the same visitor. so i thought i'd bring that up. we are going to be looking at legislation on this committee to

consider transferring management of that to the park service to see if we can't achieve some level of efficiency there. and so i just put that on your radar screen. i did want to ask a question about the work that the blm has done around renewable energy on public lands. i think you've done an incredible, a lot of good work using existing authorities. i would note that congress has really never directly addressed the question of how best to site wind and solar projects on public lands, and i wanted to get your view as to whether there are any additional authorities that you feel would help facilitate good siting of renewable projects on public lands and what issues you would ask us to consider if we look at legislation on this topic. >> well, senator, thanks, thanks for the question. one of the things that's pretty exciting to me as i enter this job is the potential that we have to use modern techniques

like gis mapping to better understand the whole federal land management picture. we have done some good work over the last few years on understanding the solar and the wind energy potential, understanding the underlying environmental sensitivities, and i think that's very, very useful. there could be some things that we would work with you on that facilitates the development, certainly transmission. ..

>> we are open to the validation of these efforts and an we are very pleased with the cooperation across all interests of, developers, a conservationist, tribes, as states and federal interest flow may together have repaired able to cite over 12,000 megawatts of renewable energy within the last four years. >> i will say very much appreciate your effort and

attention to the transmission issues that certainly there is an enormous amount to generation right now that is just waiting for the transmission to be able to move energy potential into markets in the west and so to get well transmission to do that. let me ask you one more question then me will wrap up by the you have a speaking engagement in a few minutes but the department 2010 introduced the master planning process to take a more into a long dash "in-depth" look but i think we can all agree there are many places where energy development is not only appropriate but oftentimes the best use but there are also other places where development may be

incompatible with important uses like hunting and fishing or watershed protection or important cultural sites. how can the master of leasing plan to identify those conflicts with other resources and tribal sacred sites? >> this fits into the comment earlier of the potential be give on the landscaped level conservation mary together with mapping. people in the ground know their sacred sites people on the ground know the special places that are important to them and they know the land like the back of their hands will and gas companies and mineral development companies understand the resource potential and it is important to know that so we could help facilitate the right kind of transactions with no conflict and if there is substantial

conflict we know that a front and can plan accordingly. that is useful but david has done great work in terms of the notion of landscape level planning and cooperatives have been helpful to think about water on a watershed for the landscape level, fire management is another. we have great potential to accelerate this given the technological advances that we have. we just activated which will give us more data for like those places to better understand the ministry source. >> i think those tools will be important. we're obviously in northwestern new mexico we having incredible whale and gas resources also the most important archaeological sites to be able to avoid those conflicts up front is

always better than trying to reverse engineer when you have a mess on your hand. i would say members of the committee will be able to submit additional questions in writing and i ask you answer those for inclusion for the record and i will defer to the ranking member for the last question. >> i just want to make a clarification when i mentioned the articles yesterday we have a couple of different sessions going on this week in alaska the boem hearings you have your listing session on the 14th as interest and but i am hopeful we will have good but i want to make sure we are clear for the record when we talk about the national article strategy we're on the same page then

one final clarification relates to the question i asked about and more. it is my understanding it does require that department does have all reasonable alternatives for anwr including oil and gas. a understand the position that has been reiterated here but it is my and standing you just cannot decide not to include a developmental alternative because you don't have support for that but the regulations requires the department evaluate the reasonableness stephen f. the alternative would require an act of congress so i just ask you to look at that. i understand where the politics negative as want to make sure we are complying with the requirements out there. i apologize for taking so

much time but as the secretary knows when we talk about the department of interior and its role in my state we have a lot to talk about. i appreciate that of afford to seeing you and i with four to welcome you at the end of the summer. >> thank you for joining us. that hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> flags continue to fly at half staff of the new jersey democrat died at the age of 89 and his body is currently lying in reposed in the senate chamber until 6:00 p.m. eastern part we plan to bring you live coverage of his casket as it departs the capital at that time. among the congressional hearings to cover today's senate appropriations subcommittee heard from attorney general eric holder in we will show the complete hearing tonight on c-span but here is a quick look. >> mr. attorney general of the department as we all know has been mired in the controversy of late. it began with the reports of the over a broad collection of telephone records, a 20 ap reporters and editors

followed by revelation of the department led espionage investigation of fox news reporter james rosen and culminated in questions about the veracity of your testimony before the house judiciary committee. these issues have led said members of congress and the public to question the appearance to the rule of law in your ability as the attorney general to lead the such reverses have become a significant distraction for this department and have led to calls for investigation into your actions and of your department others have even called for your resignation. mr. attorney-general i hope you would agree that leading the department justice is a full-time job and i thank you would also agree that these controversial controversies have become a distraction for the department and you as the leader. i hope you would agree the american people deserve an

attorney general who is completely focused on the fair and impartial of lot of justice not distracted by controversies of his own making. i have observed over the years said effective leaders from time to time subject themselves to self evaluation it hopes of improving their performance. how would you, mr. attorney-general, e valuate your performance to date, if you could and is there room for improvement? and have you or will you take action to move the department beyond this controversy to ensure similar missteps will not continue there? >> i first want to assure you and the american people that in spite of the recent controversies that you mentioned, the department is fully engaged in the work of protecting the american people in all the ways that is unique to the department didn't want to wish --

assure the department i am fully engaged in that regard i go through a sova violation process almost on a daily basis i have not done a perfect job but i think i have done a good job and i always try to do better. some of the criticism that has been thrown at me in the department has caused us to think the way we will deal with the media inquiries and we will make changes that is one of the reasons we are engaged with the process of media groups to formulate new policies and new regulations to hopefully get that behind us. >> i believe mr. attorney general and i hope you would agree the american people need to know the department of justice is in the hands of a dispassionate and capable leader whether you continue to be the chief law-enforcement officer of the federal government is a decision for you or the

president to make. i am understand that i am interested to know in what criteria were used to determine whether you can continue to lead the department. in other words, , what is the tipping point*? you will clear up the controversy over it will hover over us and the justice it departments limit the tipping point*. >> you just get tired. beyond fatigue, the tipping point* there are certain goals that i set for myself and this department when i started back in 2009 when i get to a point* i have accomplished all the goals that i set come i will sit down with the president and we will talk about a transition to a new attorney general. change is frequently a good thing for a new perspective. i -- it is the honor of my

professional life to serve as attorney general by have such respect for the department of justice i want to make sure it operates at peak efficiency and new ideas are constantly being exported i am proud of the work i have done and the men and women have done under my leadership and when the time comes for me to step aside for my successor i will do so. >> the short session of the hearing with the attorney general told you can see the entire eve bent on c-span or online anytime nazis bandit or. >> i realize it is not as dramatic as the pursuit of for infrequently the words fall on deaf ears some

people say it is useless to talk of government until the leaders of the soviet union have the light in the attitude. i hope they do i believe we can help them do it. but i also believe we must examine our own attitudes as individuals and as a nation nation, for our attitude that every graduate, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of four should begin by looking inward. >> veteran journalist tom brokaw reflect on the kennedy presidency and his peace speech on american history tv and.

>> republicans and democrats both have introduced bills reauthorize think the windstorm impact reduction act as seeks to provide information about star research to builders and other groups. this hearing is one hour 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning everyone. this is a joint hearing of the subcommittee of research

and technology will come to order. welcome to the federal efforts to reduce the impact of wind storm in a different view our packets of the with written testimony and bark of trees and disclosures of the witnesses before rigorous started -- started by one to explain how we will operate so all members understand how question and the answer session period will be handled. the chairman and ranking members of research and technology subcommittee will be recognized first then members of the two subcommittees, present at the gavel in order of seniority those coming in after the gavel will be recognized in the order of arrival. now i recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. today's hearing will focus on how to reduce the impact of debilitating storms eric predicate -- communities across the country even with forecasting capabilities come these storms can be an expected and leave a trail of destruction in their past. in addition to literally

destroying lives, the wind storm shut down entire economies in the region during the time it takes to rebuild. strictions are more resilient but often not billed to sustain high winter storm damage that may follow the storm. building codes, practices and performance standards can help but oftentimes retrofitting the existing building is too costly given the relatively small risk of a direct hit of a wind storm. federal agencies currently conduct research and development to inform the resilience of buildings and communities but it is not clear how each agency conducts unique work that is not duplicated by another agency. record needed mechanism will host of light onto what is going on at the federal level and how we can strengthen it to ensure better coordination. every year the federal government funds not only disaster relief the billions of dollars of emergency supplemental appropriations

when states are hit particularly hard by an unexpected disasters. i believe we need to be more responsible in planning how to deal with natural disasters for i am curious to hear from our witnesses if they believe better research could cut down on the dollar figure. the time that my representative introduced his windstorm research bill in may to april, several midwestern states have endured significant damage and loss of life from powerful tornado spurred by would now like to yield to the representative to share background on that legislation. >> thank you mr. chairman i appreciate you holding this hearing today and one of the things that we know about wind from west texas it can be your friend or your file and in west texas right now my congressional district for example, has the largest concentration of lead production for electricity in the world.

that is a time when it is our friend but it could be our foe when obviously we have seen these deadly tornadoes that have occurred in texas and oklahoma and other states recently we have seen where hurricanes and wind storms and tornadoes have caused tremendous amount of property damage but more importantly, causing the loss of lives. it is estimated every year there is about 80 deaths and 1500 injuries. in 2011 there were 551 fatalities. this is not a good year and unfortunately we are off to a rough start this year. so what makes sense is to take research and technology to figure out ways to incorporate into our construction techniques a way to protect the people that have to take the facilities but also to

mitigate the damage as the chairman mentioned that causes billions of domenic -- damage and if we could mitigate that it is obviously say is that many natalie for the taxpayers but in particular i am delighted with the great panel we have today and my good friend for a long time from texas tech his pioneering work on the mitigation of wind. so with that there is reason i introduce the national windstorm impact reduction act to try to coordinate the research going on to make sure one of the things i feel strongly about it is strongly to do the research but then to commercialize the research in one of the things we have seen is a lot of research said has been done across the country to

be commercialized and we will hear more about that today but there is another thing that is important and that is to make sure we're efficiently using the taxpayers' money. we see everybody has their turf but the wind issue has a different part so it makes sense to make sure there is coordination between the various participants that are involved in that. so this bill will help protect the lives and reduce property loss but more importantly to make sure there is good coordination so that when we do come up with good ideas we can make sure we commercialize them to utilize them and that information in the future. thank you so much for having this important hearing and a look forward to hearing from these witnesses. >> thank you. we have the panel to articulate what it will take

to cut down on the economic impact of lives lost on these storms are would like to extend my appreciation to each of the witnesses to take time and effort to appear before us today and we look forward to your testimony i now recognize ms. wilson for her opening statement. >> thank you chairmans for holding today's hearing on the national wind storm impact reduction program. i would also like to recognize our ranking member of the committee ms. johnson who is that our committee meeting today and feed them them, and sf and noaa to conduct research on windstorm and ways to mitigate their impact. the program also calls on these agencies to make sure the research is translated into practice it has led to advances to monitor the

design and construction of buildings and increased awareness of preparation by the public that there is much more to be done. regrettably consideration of this program is our thoughts and prayers go out to the people of more oklahoma for putting the pieces back together after a massive tornadoes ripped through their community two weeks ago. as a florida yen and a survivor of hurricane andrew i know firsthand natural disasters hit american lives we have seen so flooded subway stations, earthquake damage and new orleans submerged under water and unimaginable devastation in joplin, missouri and now entire neighborhoods of the oklahoma flag and to the ground. there has been a record number of declared federal

disaster is in the united states over the last two years and in 2011 was the deadliest year on record for tornadoes with over 550 fatalities. while we cannot stop a hurricane or tornado we should do all we can to make sure our communities have the tools they need to respond and recover from such an event we must do that and prepared this and resilience. of the fema disaster mitigation program shows that every dollar we invest in mitigation may say fear for dollars of recovery cost. and has the potential to do generally bolster the resiliency of our communities and reduce the cost associated with faster recovery. unfortunately experts have expressed concerns that insufficient funding has negatively impacted the implementation of the program and we are missing out on low-cost mitigation opportunities.

because of this i do have some concern with the legislation we are considering today. first the bill cuts the authorization level for the program by 14%. second, it locks in the lower funding level for the duration of the bill. we don't have any reasons to believe the agencies any -- need any less money to carry up the responsibilities reassigned them the last time reauthorize the program but when the consider the devastating losses plaguing the united states recently the course of action seems irresponsible. that is why i introduced the bipartisan version of the national hazard risk reduction act to provide a program with the authorization level more appropriate to the task. this legislation passed the house by the overwhelming margin in the 111th congress and reauthorize as the national earthquake

hazard program while there are differences there are commonalities we should leverage resources. this as an important role to play but the reauthorization of both programs recommitted gatt -- reduce those other hundred killed by natural disaster or who have faith and challenges to put their homes, businesses and communities back together. of four to work with my colleague to make our communities more disaster resilient than thank you again mr. chairman for holding this hearing and thank-you to the witnesses for being here today. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank-you. the chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee mrs. johnson for the opening statement. >> thank you very much chairman bucshon for holding

the hearing for the national windstorm impact reduction program. the last few years have been devastating for natural disasters in this country and we experienced the deadliest and most destructive season in history in 2011 and unfortunately the trend continues with massive tornadoes and oklahoma and in my home state of texas. we also had earthquakes in areas that don't usually experience earthquakes including oklahoma and sandy and i rain caused widespread destruction and this committee has an important role to play to minimize the number of americans who are harmed or killed by natural disasters to have to face the challenge to rebuild their homes and businesses and communities. by reoffer arising the national windstorm impact reduction program we can

reduce the vulnerability of cover community's of disasters. therefore i am glad my fellow texans have been a champion and he has introduced legislation to authorize this important program. i want to express my support for the legislation recently introduced by congressman wilson of which i am a co-sponsor the reduction act of 2013 would reauthorize the program and the national earthquake hazard reduction program. so to take a approach to disaster mitigation and it would link these two critical programs to a single interagency coordinating committee for synergy among the activities. i also don't believe we

should put one program over another as they are all are important to the producing communities that are resilient to any and all disasters but i hope as we move forward with the legislation may consider all of the hazardous programs and finally it is clear that agencies do not have the resources they need to carry out there responsibilities signed by the congress of i am concerned of the legislation that is a topic of today's hearing. we simply cannot afford to have the agencies miss the opportunity and in the end, a strong and effective programs would not only save lives and property but also provide us with meaningful cost savings. thank you chairman bucshon. i yield back the balance of my time.

>> serve, are members who wish to submit additional statements they will be added to the record at this point*. now by to introduce the witnesses. first a professor of civil engineering at texas tech univ. they second director of the national storm shelter association. he has had a long career with texas tech university's serving as chairman of the civil engineering department and associate dean of engineering for research and leads the star michelle served research center at texas tech and he received his and as a mechanical engineering from texas technological college and his ph.d. in applied math that -- mathematics and michigan state university. wellcome. the second witness chris is deborah balen from public policy insurance institute of safety.

ms. balen has also worked with the american insurance association and the university of colorado advisory committee for the hazard center and graduated from harvard law and from princeton university. thank you. >> our final witness is an assistant professor at a university of florida. he is some of the university of florida department of civil and coastal engineering since 2007 and his research focuses on the mitigation of extreme wind damage to low-rise construction. he is a member of the american society of civil engineers come on the board of the american association for wind engineering and a member of the u.k. wind engineering society. he received his ph.d.. welcome the spokane test manet is committed to five minutes each after which members of the committee have five minutes each to

ask questions your written testimony will be included in the record in the hearing and i now recognize our first witness for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. bucshon, mr. . . . -- neugebauer i think for the opportunity to be here and you have outlined the problem and potential solution to one of the major problems that we face and then only lack of funding but lack of continuity of funding to do the research we need to do. one other thing i point* out is not just the loss of lives and human suffering but the anxiety that comes with severe events like tornadoes and hurricanes and i will speak primarily on storm shelter or safe rooms because that is where i spent most of my career working and secondly i think

it depresses the last problem of anxiety and human suffering. i have been part of the wind engineering program of texas tech since 1970 when the ef5 tornado impactive love the guy was chairman of the civil engineering department at that time and you can make my day that i don't look old enough to have done that. [laughter] but i don't want you to live [laughter] but with your support we have developed a world-class program at texas tech unparalleled facilities that i have included pictures of in the report a unique doctoral program of wind science and engineering and we have turned out to about 20 doctoral students, graduates there and they take prominent places and professional

community. today we have very good weather forecasting from the path of tornadoes that we have to deal with the effective severe wind even the advice we found the last two weeks leaves much to be desired and it is inaccurate and dangerous some of the device that is given so not only do we need to do the good work such as forecasting has done but convey a consistent message as to how do you react and respond to disasters? have focused approach to implementation is needed to reduce impact to wind storms

of urban society. many specific areas can be mentioned testing facilities, a repository for the when storm damage documentation and progress in to know the standards and codes and the development of manpower to pursue meaningful research and then educational programs that conveys sound and consistent guidance to the people as to how they react and respond to extreme wind defense. property damage could be improved by improved ability -- building codes and enforcement and we have a tremendous problem with lack of enforcement that is done largely at the local level

and there are many disconnects fed occurred between the agencies and researchers that generate the research and what happens in the field and education is the best way to address that. we have particularly in the storm shelter area of the available standards and guidelines a industry association national storm shelter association and a seal the recognizes those storm shelters that comply. with the standards. we have all types of shelters available today that's provided in your abs from extreme when even the ef5 despite some of the information that has been given especially the last couple weeks and some of the advice given has been deadly and wrong.

there are many characteristics of the hazard mitigation and grant program and you mentioned that that does a lot of good things but the down side is the funding that is generated is close to disaster sometimes for five years we just finish projects that we are funded with the hazard mitigation program with funding coming out of hurricane aicher from five years ago. it takes time and it is important to have free disaster mitigation grants of some type and sizable ones that can do preparation and not respond to them. i understand why the pre-disaster mitigation gramm program was discontinued and i am not saying that we knew that the something like that that allows us to prepare in

advance. there has been a lot of talk of shelters being mandatory. i believe that the states such as alabama and a set of a good example that storm shelters for schools should be made mandatory by states that have a serious problem with new buildings and much can be done to improve existing buildings in that regard. and i believe mandatory law or a shelter should be a multifamily residential units of a vulnerable population such as a day care center or retirement villages and so forth. nursing homes, mobile home parks and apartments. i think it should not be mandatory for privately owned single-family arm of the family residence although incentives of some

type would be appropriate. my recommended action would simply be you have identified the agency's nsf nsf, noaa, fema, to it minister long -- large-scale programs and we have got to have adequate funding to do so and i think if you look particularly for the programs with the earthquake program and the prediction program you will see we have unprecedented return of investment on those programs and i would encourage congress to make funding available to make similar investments in the area of mitigating the wind disaster. thank you. >> thank you. i now recognize our second

witness, ms. balen. five minutes bag figure for the opportunity to testify today. i am with the insurance institute for business and a safety, five o one ct organization fully supported by the property insurance and reinsurance industry and dedicated to mitigation research and communication. as a research organization focusing on mitigation hour-long have been supportive giving testimony touse hearings as well as the effort to reauthorize the program in 2008 and worked in partnership with other agencies and their pleas to be here today and we thank you for your interest in this matter. given the broad threat of wind storm the frequency of events the federal investment of wind related research is much less than it should be.

that said we are not negative on a multi has approached the coordinated research program as embodied is needed to pull together scientific information about wind hazard, wind engineering expertise to define the connection between storm characteristics and those put on buildings and structural expertise to develop systems to handle the flow of new and existing buildings and national coordinated effort and we believe ibhs plays an important role in these initiatives the centerpiece is the unique world class research center and to simulate wind as well as full-size residential and commercial test specimens and other equipment ibhs can recreate a variety of highly realistic natural disasters involved with when the loan, wind plus rain, wind

plus fire and wind plus sale parker would like to take a moment to contribute to the and standing of the destructive power of the benefits of mitigation. you will see the power of wind in the first public demonstration that we conducted in the research center in the fall 2010. we subjected to wood frame houses to a highly realistic storm as has occurred in the midwest although they look the same from the outside the home on the left like central illinois by the home on the right is built to a higher standard and i should add the wind you will see are not tornadic so here is a very short video of that test.

>> you can see just how quickly and completely the home on the left was destroyed and if you think about the loss of life and property that was a real event the people inside the home you can also understand the importance of research at as a complement to communication in order to get people to pay attention and change their attitude to ultimately demand safer and stronger buildings purpose much better to learn this from the chamber than from places of more oklahoma and miami florida. along with stronger and safer buildings we believe medication needs to a stronger and safer insurance system. among the benefits of mitigation are a reduction in the frequency and severity of weather-related claims a downward shift shift, better management of losses as severe defense and more capital plan and

healthier private insurance markets and less threat on residual markets research priorities aren't directly in line with shareholder interest west physical disruption and economic lot and less societal displacement fewer injuries and deaths. breaking the cycle so that commercial structures to not have to be put together again and again we'll benefit to the builders and the communities and the insurers and enclosing a figure for the opportunity to offer comments on mitigation research and the importance of reauthorization we urge you to move forward on this important legislation to help parnis advancement in order to improve the nation's safety and resilience. >> thank you for your testimony. >> we now recognize the final witness for five

minutes. >> chairman bucshon and chairman neugebauer my name is dr. prevatt when you to advocate on the behalf of the american people of the wind hazards easily and communities within the next 10 years. i believe the reason we don't have this already is no one is committed enough to demand it. with the civil engineers and the american association when the of and support of h.r. 1786 disorganizations have been working for the last 10 years as a first was proposed the legislation and also we support the transfer of leadership to the national institute of standards and technology. since fujita scale was first

published in 1971 and his report on the lubbock tornado our population of tornado alley has grown 50%. what does that mean? we have more schools, more hospitals and certainly a lot more houses it is not complicated. there are more r jacks in harm's way than there were before. also since 1970 noaa has invested heavily in whether infrastructure over $167 million over the last 10 years. and better research to predict whether to provide warnings of tornadoes and forecasting products and the public is a warehouse -- aware and confident of its private use and we can get

that on this march from. it is not complicated. a lot of times before a tornadoes strakes it is reduced loss of life. in parallel, the 1970 texas tech university wind engineering faculty initiated the building damage study after the lubbock tornado. documented problems with houses and how they're made comment modern houses still have problems. they have smaller nails, if you were nails than the 1940's, connections are inadequate, they cannot resist tornado loads. houses are insufficiently anchored to the foundation and a rattle very easily there is no vertical load path in the houses built in tornado alley and i was there in oklahoma two weeks ago. it is not complicated.

the result is more houses houses, and more portly build houses, more property loss and disruption of our community. tornadoes now damage has increased 2.5 times since the 1970's. so my message today is not complicated. it is to tell the representatives the people of the united states want to live in a tornado resilient community. they also deserve to live there without fear. attorney the resilient community is one where all schools have shelter, or least spaces that afford protection to their children. and with the emergency building all hardened against tornadoes with wind hazards and earthquakes.

houses are built so few were will be completely destroyed destroying the life and some will be repairable after a tornado. civil infrastructure is designed for tornadoes and the private sector has the research backing to work to economically develop affordable and whether resilient house is. really, it is not complicated. the wind engineering and structural engineering communities stand ready to begin this work for we have been ready for 10 years. and with your support, we can begin this path to provide for our people. to get there please support h.r. 1786 authorizing funding and sustained support for the wind engineering and structural engineering communities for our houses. let's mobilize communities communities, leaders to upgrade building codes to include those low pass provision in all buildings in all buildings.

support the research community to work with innovative private sector companies to design buildings and build resilient and sustainable 21st century houses. it can be done. with the wind and structural engineering research program support your faculty to provide these solutions to these problems. it really is not complicated. thank you. >> thank you very much want to thank the witnesses for your testimony is a fascinating subject. we limit questioning to five minutes and the chair will open a round of questions and recognize myself. ms. balen and dr. prevatt initially, what are the stepping stones preventing us from building better homes? what is the of limiting

steps, even my with all the information we have white don't we do it? >> we develop a strategic plan at ibhs and think response your question first we need to get people to pay attention may have the research capability at the fine university to provide the technical answer but we need people to understand in the video that you saw as an example to get people to pay attention that has been on the weather channel, the "today show" and people are thinking how do i make that not have been? the next step is getting them to change their mind to value that stronger proof instead of the granite counter top then we need to rise up to demand in a community with a better building code or demand that congress enact these types of legislation and people just not have gotten that

first step and cannot get to the second or the third and that is how we start. >> we still lack the knowledge of designing buildings for tornadoes. there has been researching and wind engineering that supports the faculty working on wind engineering, we have the resilience of the 1980's and since that time frame that has not been the research there and we currently try to understand how the tornado loads interacts on a particular building and how that is improved in order to do that. support of the problem is not only do people need to be initiated, we have to provide an opportunity and a knowledge of how we can change. >> i was in health care before and there is a powerful motivating factor called denial. said is so good to overcome

when people see the statistical chance of their home being hit and convincing them they need to have that a home built with higher standards it is a very difficult thing to overcome as well as messaging. dr. kiesling, mail and personal question, is their research out there on not on a telling us where tornadoes are and where they are going but how to divert away from urban centers? >> the first part is yes. certainly people in doing an excellent job to predict the paths and where the tornadoes are. i don't see any hope of diverting. we occasionally hear from people who have proposals for that but in the first place we don't know where they will occur far enough in advance but there's a tremendous amount of energy

that has to be dealt with to divert them so frankly personally i do not have much hope for that. >> board to dissipate the energy? >> hopefully it can work. i have to depend on the next generation for those solutions because i simply do not see how we can dissipate or divert tournedos. >> okay. describes the different research with a straight line wind or tornadic wind is there a big difference? >> straight line wind we know the pressure they exert on buildings and they are pretty predictable, in a tornado or hurricane the variations are great and we need to know all lot more about not only the intensity but the variation of the characteristics of extreme

wind so we can better deal with them. remaking progress but it is a long and slow process and the manpower is hard to come on negative come by. >> with tornadoes as well we have something we don't understand which is below the four attacks and -- for tax and how it interacts with the wind going into the tornado. >> thank you very much my a time is about to expire so i will now recognize ms. wilson for a line of questioning. >> the deal. in her testimony, 83 states that went hazard research has been underfunded for decades. the of the witnesses also express a similar sentiment in their testimony.

all of you indicate that it has not been implemented in any meaningful way because of lack of resources. what opportunities are we missing not providing the program that dr. kiesling says a reliable sustained source of sending of maturation and expansion? >> i think we have to look at the earthquake engineering program to see what benefits we have gained from that. we're talking about finding tussaud level of millions of dollars per year. all of the wind engineering research over the last 10 years of the top schools have $1 million per year. we're talking about, i have seen it, a joplin, missouri, at tuscaloosa, at

more oklahoma, a 2 billion, 3 billion and 5 billion. those of the numbers and we simply are not addressing them. what has happened over the time unfortunately is attrition of wind engineering faculty, a structural engineering faculty no longer study how to make houses stronger. there onto commercial structures and these are the areas where we have the most damage or the most dollars but lost or lives affected. >> i agree certainly with everything that dr. prevatt has said but if there were more many in the program says there really hasn't been we have identified in a broadway the areas we think we need to progress. and understanding the events themselves and different issues in terms of understanding tornadoes and

hurricanes but it starts with the meteorology of that and second to understanding connections with those events we do some of that at the research center but more could be done through enhanced funding but we recreate the nature and we see how nature reacts to the environment to small homes and businesses. also to identify the mitigation measures that work. tornado proof home or even in the area of hurricanes where we know a lot more there is more to learn about how to make those structures better able to sustain nature and the final thing is to make sure the test the products are based on director in the reflect the real world. what we saw with the auto safety reid and everyone could build a car that

withstood the first test because they knew they had to build two that did not mean it was safe and the real world we have to have testing standards that to reflect what we learned in terms of the real world whether even and but the first level is you identified in your opening statement, whenever the level is and more is better i think of the perspective from all panelist your view also identify static funding is a problem if the idea is some of these are short or medium or long-term evens, if you find for the same will fall zero to three year period then you get everything started and you cannot identify anything new. we would recommend modest upticks as you go forward. . .

to generate funding. and if they have areas where that funding is more readily available and dependable, then they are going to go to those areas. it is difficult for us to recruit young faculty