disciplines come although other countries have a fully wto and anticipate those disciplines, might have to do with when companies go to other countries products. ..

the dispute resolution mechanism of the wto has generally been open and fair and we have aggressively pursued their interests through them so i don't know whether we need additional legal authorities than we currently have. i think we need to be able to get out there with their trade partners to build coalitions with like-minded countries and do things that help underscore the global trading system as a whole will be better if countries play by the same rules and those rules are the sort of rules that serve the wto system. that is what we need to do bilaterally with the emerging economies as they arise him play an increasing role and the global economies but what we have to do the through the trans-atlantic trade investment partnership is not only open our markets to each other but worked together with the rest of the world to help raise standards in other areas. there's a lot to be done. >> don't think we need more legal authority? >> i'm happy to think through that but i know enough to know

that i shouldn't be my own lawyer on this one. >> we need to discuss this and i urge you to think about it. you know america's beliefs and the beliefs of this committee. we have some trade terriers too. other companies aren't darth vader. they don't have black hats. we don't have white hats and they don't have black hats but the shade of gray is a lot later of the shade of gray affair hats. the playing field is really not level. do you want other countries to play by the same rules? a lot of countries don't want to do that. they are not rules based as much of rules-based as we are as a country. our founding fathers had the durable constitution and then the bill of rights based in

justice and fairness and procedure and transparency with the assumption that democratic countries work with the former governments that we have. that is not true in most other countries. they don't have that same foundation. they don't have that same basis. they come from much different perspectives. many countries am much less process oriented and much more results oriented. the united states is process oriented. we believe in rules and being fair. that is not true with other countries and they will not be fair because that is not where they come from. the only way to address those issues in my judgment is with leverage. you have to figure out some way to, make them, that's a bad choice of words for some way so that they want to play fair or if they don't we have to adjust to another world order where

justice and fairness may not be the total underpinning. it may not be our premise or assumption of what we are trying to accomplish here. i am worried about results very much, both process and americans regard ourselves as fair. the separation of powers and the independent judiciary etc.. we also need results and our world has changed so dramatically in the last 10, 15 or 20 years with globalization and advances in communications technologies and so it has undermined i think all institutions. we have to think of a lot differently if our kids and grandkids want the same that we have enjoyed as americans. i am very worried about that and i know you are too.

i sense here the that senator is going to ask you follow-up questions so what degree have you performed in the areas that they have addressed? they don't want to just hear more talk. they don't want to talk to you about this and come back and say gee we talked about a lot of this and we didn't do very much about it. it's not much better really not much better brilliant that is why asked the question what are the limits to your power? but do we address so that you have more power with respect to trading partners so we can get better results? i just urge you to think very deeply about that. and i will talk to you later and we will have follow up discussions that i think it's one of the central questions facing this country. economically how do we make sure we are not being taken advantage of by some other countries and how do we make sure that americans have a higher-quality

of life than in the past. >> i agree completelcompletel y and i very much look forward to working with you and your colleagues on that. >> i wish you very well. it's a huge challenge. i sometimes think that only the paranoids -- and i hope you are paranoid. so that you can help america survive. thank you very much mr. froman. >> thank thank you very much mr. chairman. >> the meeting is adjourned.

new jersey governor chris christie appointed the state's attorney general jeffrey keay said to temporarily fill the senate seat left vacant by the death of senator frank lautenberg. here's thursday's announcement from trenton. >> i am honored today to let you all know that i tend to appoint new jersey state attorney general jeff chiesa. i have known jeff for 22 years and he has been an extraordinary public servant in the time i'd gone to know him. a graduate of the university of notre dame, catholic university of american law school with outstanding private practice attorney. assistant united states attorney rising to leadership positions in the united states attorney's office, chief counsel to the governor my first two years as governor and now they new jersey attorney general. i said on monday that i was going to select the person who i

thought would be the best person to represent new jersey between now and the sober 16th when all new jerseyans get an opportunity to elect the person to succeed the late senator frank lautenberg. during the last few days since i've gotten to deliberate on this decision it became clear to me that attorney general chiesa would be the best person to represent the people of the state of new jersey and the united states senate. so i intend to execute all the appropriate documents to effectuate his appointment effective this monday, june 10 and i want to thank jeff and his family for their willingness to once again step in and serve the public in the state of new jersey. and so it is my honor to introduce for remarks and i will

come back for questions. it's my honor to introduce for remarks he jerseys new as united states senator, senator jeff chiesa. >> good afternoon everybody. this is an incredible honor for my family and i. the governor has given me some extraordinary chances to serve in public life. none of them that i expected. this probably the least of all, but it has -- to have this chance to continue to serve in public life is a wonderful opportunity. i will use my best judgment and the skill that i have to conduct myself in a way that will make, hope will make everybody new jersey proud and to do everything i can to advance the interests of the people that live here as i have tried to do and all the positions i have had the honor to have. i want to thank governor christie for again placing his trust and confidence in me. it's really extraordinary to me that i'm standing here again today with his confidence and his support and i really want to

thank my family because he can't have the chances that i've had and you can't do the things i have had a chance to do without the support of the family. my wife jenny and my children that powell and hannah have been incredibly supportive and i'm incredibly thankful. i look forward to doing my best in this job over the next few months. thank you. >> questions? michael. >> governor will be attorney general into the primary in august? >> he has chosen not to seek the office of united states senate. he will not be a candidate in the primary or the general election and that is his decision. he decided not to run and seek the office and i'm perfectly comfortable with that decision. yeah, janice? [inaudible]

>> well, i went to jeff and jenny's house on monday evening to sit and talk with them about this and we talked for about an hour and a half on monday night and they both ask for the overnight to think about whether or not this was something they were willing to do. jeff called me on tuesday morning and told me in fact he did not call me, he texted me and he said i am in. that is the way i got the news back from jeff. what went into one into my thinking jenny as i said all along, as i said on monday i knew this day might come. senator lautenberg have been ill and i knew this day might come so i didn't just start thinking about this on monday. i have been thinking about it on and off for some period of time but in earnest i started off on monday morning after i got the

news that senator lautenberg's death and by monday evening i was pretty certain about what i wanted to do. if he was willing to take it. [inaudible] villa. i made him the offer. i just told you he texted me the next morning and said i am in. i called them and i said great. i said now are you going to run for it or do you just want to serve on an interim basis? he said i have no interest in being a political candidate governor. i would rather not run. i said that's fine with me jeff, if you don't want to run that's fine. [inaudible] obviously we -- i'm going to have to name an acting attorney general and i'm not there yet one that. we will have something to say about that next week.

the attorney general does not resign until monday and take office until monday so he has got very capable people in his front office there that can be considered an obviously the attorney general's advice on that and we will make a decision on monday. i have no idea. i've no idea what's going to happen after october. let's see what happens after october and what senator diaz' idea is. i have made it clear to jeff and to jenny that they have sacrificed a great deal of her time at my request and that they get to decide what they want to do after october 16 and if they want to come back and serve in some capacity is something i would would be willing to consider and if they don't leave me they have given me a lot. it's up to them after october 16. [inaudible] >> i don't know that michael.

i won't be nominating somebody on monday. on monday will be i will be announcing an acting attorney general and then whatever happens thereafter will depend on my deliberations going forward and consultations with senator chiesa. >> the only republican who has entered the race so far is people on again. [inaudible] >> first of all i would disagree with your characterization. i don't think steve has been a sharp critic of mine since i've been in office in effect we have agreed on the budget more than we have disagreed since i've been in office so i would disagree with your characterization off the top. i will not speculate about who is going to run and who might not run. people have until monday at 4:00 to collect 1000 signatures and i will give my valuation but you

know steve lonegan and i have worked well together for the course of the last three plus years and we have disagreed on some issues and agreed on others but that is not atypical for the republicans who have agreed and disagreed with me as well. i'm sure in my own mind their others considering. some people were waiting to see what i was going to do before deciding what they were going to do and now all of the mystery is out of it except for those people who decide whether or not they want to put themselves forward for the office. [inaudible] [inaudible]

first off i have taken the normal course that they take in terms of my interactions with jeff since he has been the attorney general. he has got a job he is going to be responsible for. it's job -- it's his job to make those judgments and i trust him to make those judgments bear to trust him to do it as a united states senator or i would not be appointing him. we have not had conversations about any specific bees of legislation. i think the first thing we have to do is make sure that the borders are secure. i think that is probably because i come from a background of law enforcement. from there these issues are new to me and the details on it to me and i will get down there and meet with my colleagues and discuss with them the things that i think make the most sense for the people that i represent. [inaudible]

>> what i can say to you is as i said this is something that is new for me and my first concern though is the border security and again that is because of the frame of reference that i come from. this is a federal prosecutor earlier in my career and now as an attorney general and as to the other issues i need to take care of, as i get to learn about my new job as i said earlier. i need to learn about the issues so i can make meaningful judgment about some of the specifics. >> other questions? >> yes, i'm a registered republican. i believe 2000. [inaudible]

>> i don't know what the result would have been paul. i know that they would have been sued for 2014. the democrats have made that clear publicly before eight even made an announcement and i think it's the fault vault of the legislature for setting up you know less than clear statutory guidance on this. i think as a new jersey republican what i know is these kinds of thing should not be left to the courts to decide. we typically don't do too well in that regard so i certainly can't predict the result. i am a student of history as are you and i thought the idea of making a decision that was in the best interest of the people of the state to give them a voice and a choice for united states senate and to do the best i could to keep it out of the courts with serve the best interest of the people of the state.

>> oven or. [inaudible] >> because of the unclear statutory construction there was no perfect decision to be made here. i went to what my core principles are which are that i believe people should have the right to make a choice if that's available and so that is why i made the decision i made. as far as the ramifications politically that is for everybody else to decide. my position was i had imperfect statutory construction a history of an activist court in election matters and a limited set of choices. i made the choice that i think is in the best interest of the people of new jersey. everyone will debate the political effects until we actually see what they are. then everybody will be a genius

in hindsight. that's just the way it goes. my consideration was to look at what my options were and to make the best and most legally defensible choice that i could make. [inaudible] >> anybody who thinks they want to run for statewide office and get 1000 people to sign a petition in five days -- do you think it's hard to get 1000 signatures? wait until you try to get 1 million votes. it's a lot harder. [inaudible] >> it was unexpected for sure but i knew been the governor called late on monday and asked

to meet with jenny and i had an inkling of what he might be talking about. there was no arm-twisting. the decision is one for my wife and my family. he has always respected that and he understands that and it's an extraordinary opportunity. there is some disruption with my family life with the time i will be spending in washington but it's an incredible chance to serve. all of the chances i have had have been incredible chance is to serve and i'm incredibly honored to have this one. i'm incredibly honored and thankfully i have my family support. [inaudible] >> it's usually like 3000 bills introduced in every session. this is one of them that will be

on the sheet as well. secondly again let me be really clear. i understand i was confronted with a set of imperfect choices but i don't believe that deciding on the leading people select the senator is in as possible and get them to washington as soon as possible is something that should be discounted. what we are talking about is maybe, maybe an additional $12 million in costs because as i said on monday some of this is being misinterpreted. i was going to insist on a primary no matter what. that was nonnegotiable with me. i was not going to have state party insiders of either party selecting the candidate to go on the ballot for the united states senate so we were going to have to have a primary no matter what and given the fact senator lautenberg's death came within one day of our primary there is no way to to do that obviously and june 4 so we will have to have a primary anyway.

my view was let's get this started as quickly as possible and remember the framers of our constitution if you go back and look at the 1947 constitution, i have, the framers of the constitution made it clear that they wanted federal election separated from state elections in new jersey. they made a conscious choice to only have state elections in odd numbered years because they did not want voters to be conflating federal issues and state issues. our framers in the 47th constitution emphasize that in their debates and discussions and i think my decision was faithful to the intent of the constitution. there are probably not a lot of people over those things that back then the decision is consistent with that and the 12 million-dollar cost while not insubstantial is i don't think something in a conflict of the $32 billion budget something that should sway us from the opportunity to getting a united

states senator there as quickly as we can. [inaudible] >> i love being attorney general. it's a way having lived here my whole life a way to make incredible contributions to the staid. having been a prosecutor i felt comfortable doing the work but i think the experiences i have had and have had the good fortune to have allow me to do this job as well and i didn't have these chances because of the governor. i don't kid myself and i don't think there's another governor out there who will say do you know what, will you be my attorney general some day next when he gave me that chance and asked me to do this i think so long as my family felt it was okay with them and that's number one then i think because of the extraordinary generosity given to me and having the opportunities that if i took comfortable in my family felt comfortable that it's certainly

something i should do. [inaudible] >> 1991. >> yes, absolutely. their fear a few people in my life that i know better than jeff and i have enormous respect and admiration for him and his integrity and his honesty and his ability and i think everybody who has watched him in new jersey new jersey is this what people have watched them here inside the statehouse have come to the same conclusion. i remember saying to him as i said my office listening to his confirmation hearings, as attorney general i have rarely ever heard such a -- in my entire life but republicans and democrats both have great admiration for attorney general chiesa so obviously i have the

unique view because i have known him since he was a brand-new lawyer 22 years ago. we have been together much of the time since then. i have appointed somebody who i have great faith and confidence in and someone who i will and almost as well as i know my own family. >> the senate is a contentious place to work right now. i'm wondering with the atmosphere what do you think about going to work -- to. [inaudible] >> yes. i think it will be a new experience for me for sure but as i said all of the experiences i have had have been new and i've tried to use my best ability and my best judgments and that is what i will do focusing on what's best for this people of new jersey and in the best i can in representing them

in the best way i know how. [inaudible] >> in your consideration and deliberations did you weigh the fact that he does not have a background in elective politics and taking somebody who has that background making him less of a -- [inaudible] >> no, i didn't. what i weighed is who i thought was the best person for the job and i believe he is the best person for the job. you know jeff brings a great approach to solving problems in this job. charlie you can interviewed dozens and dozens of people in this building and i won't doubt that you will find anyone who will have anything bad to say

about jeff chiesa. that is where for someone who is held that position himself. somebody has been the chief counsel for the governor for two years and often a very difficult and contentious position as well and a state the state attorney general now for 18 months. both of those jobs can make you enemies yet you won't find anyone i think who has anything bad to say about jeff and i think that's a reflection on his integrity and his personality. that kind of person during these times going going to the united states senate is something they need so i think it will be a good thing to have been down there. we have had plenty of people i've never run for office who wound up running for the united states senate and winning. two of our four senators have not had experience. jeff has decided he does not want to run for the job and that

is his choice and i'm supportive of it if that is what he believes is the best thing to do. if he tells me i want to run for the job i would be incredibly supportive as well if that is what he wanted to do. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> anybody who knows jeff knows he has got a mind of his own and that's one of the reasons i value our friendship so much. charlie there are lots of people you hear about, these old sayings about politics and how people get into executive positions in any dead people around them who can tell them them no. they need to have people around them who will tell them the truth. the reason i have loved having

jeff chiesa around me as u.s. attorney in governor is because he is one of those people and everybody in the executive branch knows this. it i can't say how many times as chief is chief counsel when there was bad news to be given for somebody had to deliver something they didn't necessarily want to deliver they went to jeff's office first to try to get him to do it for them or to get him -- is advice on the best way to approach it because they knew jeff was somebody who could tell the truth even when they disagreed and i assume he will do the same thing in the new york senate. as i said on monday if he calls me and asked me hey there's a vote for cloture on the following bill what to think i should do? i'm going to hang up. i have got enough to do here to even make that call but if he did i would tell him to do what you think is right. that is what i sent you down there for it i think that is exactly what he will do.

>> have either of you spoken to senator menendez? >> no, i have not spoken to senator menendez. >> i have not. sure, of course. [inaudible] >> it's not going to change right now. the discussion at any point in my life will be made as a family because i have seen first-hand the impact that running for a significant office heads. it's not just on the candidate. it's not just the candidate, it's your family so that first conversation was between jenny and i and we included our children in that discussion but

i'm telling you i'm not running so that will not change because it's not a time for me and my family to do that and if it were ever at some point in my life to make that decision i would make it with them, period. that is would be involved in that decision because that is who it's going to affect every day. [inaudible] [laughter] >> no. >> welcome to the political world. [inaudible] c-47. >> there will be an election on october 16 and the winner on october 16, my understanding will be announced the next day to become united states senator and finish the remainder of senator lautenberg's term. [inaudible]

>> that's it? [laughter] >> pick one. i am my own person so when i go down there with try as best they can to conduct this up in a way that i think is going to represent and my family in the way that we can be proud of the people that i represent so i look forward to having in interaction and exchanges with all of the distinguished members of the senate but i don't pick anybody. i'm going to go down there and use my experiences in my life to conduct itself in a way as i said that i think will carry out my responsibilities. i am a conservative republican. i would say generally speaking. going through a litany of issues right now, it wouldn't be the time to do that but primarily what i hope to do is to answer

the last part of your question what was up to achieve? i have a limited time period to contribute and i will try to contribute in every way can but i don't kid myself into thinking i'm going to go down there with a handful of draft bills and start moving them is in as i get there. i want to understand the process. i want to understand the people that i'm working with and develop relationships with them to the best i can. [inaudible] >> the context of that was this is a bill that was pending by assemblyman mckeon in the lame-duck session that aim to do two things, eliminates special elections and require that the governor -- a retiring senator with someone of the party of the retiring senator so they were talking about this in the

concept of governor corzine's conduct. my statement was no responsible governor would spend $10 million on a special election to replace himself. that was the context of the statement. but i was also defending keeping the statute the way it was which was give the governor the option to call a special election and to be able to make sure that governor has an unfettered right to pick whoever he or she wants regardless of political party. and so the context of the conversation that my friend jon stewart took one small part out of which is great. it was very funny. i saw it and was hysterical but it has no relationship to the truth in the context of what we are discussing at the time which is a particular piece of legislation we significantly pared back the flexibility and the options available to the governor. let me say this. if that had been accomplished you would have had two statues

which conflict with each other with no part of either statute in concert. so you would would have guarantd litigation. this way the option we selected that was referenced in both statutes. both conflicting statutes had the provision that the governor does have the right if deemed advisable to call a special election. it was typical of john and it was funny. i laughed and it was really good that it has utterly no relationship to the truth of my condition. it would have been irresponsible for governor corzine to call for a special election to replace himself in that context that this is a much different context and at a much different time than it was before. remember he was replacing himself also a time when there was going to be a primary six months later and a general election five months thereafter. it was a entirely different circumstance. it's good for "the daily show" but it doesn't make any sense in terms of what we are talking about here.

i want to thank all of you for coming today. i appreciate it. i want to thank senator chiesa for his willingness to step forward and represent the state of new jersey and his people in the united states senate. i look forward to him going to washington on monday and beginning his service. i have absolute complete confidence in the fact that if he will represent the people of new jersey with great integrity and honor and he will contribute mightily during that period of time in every way that he can to the united states senate and to that body. i think jeff and his family for their willingness to step forward and serve in this way and i look forward to watching him over the next number of months serve new jersey as their united states senator. thank you all very much.

the casket of late new jersey senator frank lautenberg was transported to the u.s. capital today where it lay in repose on the lincoln cat paul and the senate chambers that afternoon. at the part of the capital early this evening to senator lautenberg died on monday at the age of 89 due to competitions from viral pneumonia. he will be buried friday morning in arlington national cemetery. [background sounds] [background sounds]

>> forward, march. [background sounds]

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

[background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds]

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

[background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds]

>> interior secretary sally jewell announced it is late and implementing new rules on natural gas drilling on public lands. she made the announcement about hydraulic fracturing drilling or fracking in testimony thursday before the senate energy and natural resources committee. this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> good morning. senator murkowski is on her way and also because we have votes at 10:00 we are going to try and move everything as quick way this morning and i want to thank senator murkowski and senator barrasso. this morning we are going to review the programs and activities in the department of interior. this hearing marks the first time that the secretary's jewell. i like those words, secretary said to his testified before the committee censor -- confirmation

in april and i would like to welcome her back and we look for tour statement in a few minutes. this hearing marks the final time that's 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 advocacy as deputy secretary over the past and especially his work as did the secretary over the past four and half years and his second tour of duty in this department. i want to take a minute to highlight the provisions in the current budget proposal. overall i'm pleased with the administration's proposed budget for the department of interior of $11.7 billion with a 3% increase over the 2013 continuing resolution level. budgets are places where you have to make tough decisions and the administration in many particulars has done a thoughtful job of putting scarce dollars into the right places. the president has made the conservation of our public lands and our national parks policies

encouraging after a regression to support the land and water conservation a high priority and i strongly support the president's commitment. outdoor recreation, we have talked about it in this committee, is a major major business and job producers for our country. studies have found that americans spend $646 billion each year on outdoor recreation. that equates to over $6 billion direct american jobs. secretary jewell understands a whole lot about this because she has been living and breathing it in the private sector and is acutely aware of the link between conservation, jobs and economic growth. she encouraged administration to oppose funding for the land and water conservation fund in fiscal year 2014 and intends to see full mandatory -- starting in 2015. i look forward to full and permanent funding for this program. this program. l. w. cf is an essential component to the country's

effort to conserve lands and provide areas for people to get outside and recreate. with respect to our national parks i have been exploring new ways to provide necessary funding and have talked about this at length with the national park service director jarvis and i want to discuss it further with its secretary this morning because clearly with the enormous challenge presented as a result of the sequestration we ought to be looking at fresh ideas creative new ideas, ideas that bring in the private sector, look at the private-public partnerships to do a responsible job of addressing the needs of our partners in this fiscally challenging environment. turning to energy issues the department plays an important role in providing resources for the country. significant strides were made during secretary salazar's tenure on the setting of renewable energy products on public lands.

secretary jewell we are going to encourage you to continue those efforts in the area of renewable energy. i'm also pleased to see strong as budgetary support for the department's energy frontier initiative that promotes responsible energy development on our public lands. as the secretary knows and colleagues have talked an awful lot about it here we are concerned about the management of our forests. the severity of drought and wildfires increase year after year and i'm one who believes that certainly an an in measure of this is due to climate change. it's clear that federal forests are in poor 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 that president's budget request includes 50 beside reduction for the end department of interior. as we discussed on tuesday you're not here secretary but

i'm sure you have gotten reports. were anxious to work with you secretary vilsack and we are going to make sure that the folks on the office of management and budget side are part of the discussion as well to get a nuke take picture effort to improve our policies with respect to the fire budget. finally i'm grateful to the administration's budget proposal to extend the payments as a permanent program at the sole funding level for fiscal year 2014. the secretary knows how strongly we feel about the secure rural school program. that of course appears in the forest service budget and we also know there's a very important component that is run by the bureau of land management especially for the -- i will be working on legislation to draft short-term rasterization for long-term funding for counties as well as jobs for increased force

management. on that point we appreciate the proposed budget increase of $1.8 billion in management programs to increase the volume of tempered offered for sale and other forestry work. this is an enormous importance to oregon and as the secretary knows we are increasing the harvest on onc lands. a recently released a framework for legislation to make that happen and i look forward to working with the administration with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in making it a bicameral effort with the 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 and i so appreciate the chance to work on these issues in a bipartisan way and welcome my colleague. >> thank you mr. chairman and welcome adam secretary and esther hayes. good to see both of you. adam secretary first i want to thank you for your commitment

that you have made as it relates to kinko's the director of indian affairs. ms. washboard is going to be visiting king cove in late june. the commitment you have made to visit in august is one that i appreciate and i look forward to joining you on that 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 and how strongly the members of the alaska delegation feel about this road that we have been talking about, this 10 miles single lane gravel noncommercial use of road that would help provide for eventually 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 wanted to work with you to see that we finally and fully resolved this fairly for the citizens of king cove. i do have a number of questions to ask today. i know we will have some votes that will and drugs 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 and the national petroleum reserve. my statement has been that i think the department is presiding over an environmental disaster within the national petroleum reserve and this has to be addressed and it has to be remedied. we have more than 100 wells drilled by the federal government and then they walked away. they abandoned them and these legacy wells as they are

referred to are full of contaminants that pollute the environment. the federal government has all but abandoned their responsibility to clean up after itself. the animal budget has for many years contained state funding of only $1 million for cleaning up these wells and get the last few sites cost the agency $2 million each to remediate. if we keep it up this pace it's going to be more than 100 years to clean up the mess that the federal government participated in. as i have told you madam secretary, in person and in recent hearings, it is categorically unacceptable and so is the administration's proposal to use alaska's share of future npr a revenues for radiation. i have matt with a mayor of the north slope borough charlotte or our as well as other several weeks back.

i know you had a chance as well. i have a copy of a letter from the mayor from natural resources and the president of the community on the north slope. i would like to have it included as part of the record. a related concern is the pattern of falling production on federal land. it is true our nation is in the midst of then historic oil and gas boom but it's also true that production on federal lands is in trouble. contrary to some of the statements and record we have heard oral production is a federal and state fell 5% last year after falling by more than that in 2011. natural gas production in the same federal areas meanwhile aren't virtual freefall down 23% since 2009. the fact of the matter is america's energy boom is happening despite federal policies. we should be opening new lands

making sure that permits are approved on time and preventing regulation and litigation from locking down our lands. if anyone is looking for a place to start i will invite you to look to alaska. i also want to briefly mention before i conclude mr. chairman the federal tactics this department is engaged in to enforce the endangered species act in my view is alarming and with provisions to one hundreds of species the economic consequences could be considerable. madam secretary i recognize that you have a unique background to set before us as the secretary of the interior. the private sector and the conservation community. i think this is all the right mix and i welcome you in this position. you have promised to bring stakeholders together to help solve problems. we need that good again i welcome you and i am hopeful you

will bring that fresh perspective to help us move through some of these long-standing stalemate. i look forward to working with you and thank you for being here this morning. >> madam secretary and colleagues here is where i think we are with the votes. the secretary can take 10 minutes or so if she is comfortable that. we can have each senator present here give five minutes for questioning. ..

to the department of the interior. it is very helpful to have him beside me, but more importantly he's been generous with his wrist on the next year and i know it's only a phone call away on the hotline to his office as he goes to support stanford university in the community to the hewlett foundation. we will miss him, but very happy uses me today. i want to thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee. ever thought in the seven and a half weeks on the job. i've been to many places around the country and many of your state, so i want to do is ask about a few broad categories. i want to start with energy on shore appeared onshore oil production is the highest level in over a decade. he continues to increase and i'm

very happy ranking member murkowski to provide you with statistics that are different from the comments referenced in terms of oil production. i've looked at the leasing reforms the blm has put in place. they changed in 2010. it's had the lowest number of protests on blm lands in years, so we're making progress there. another team is working hard for a permanent approval of new projects that will be facilitated your automation. we are still committed to getting that done. i also want to reference the hydraulic fracturing will be released a short while ago with a 30 day comment period. lots of comments have been made on the road. 177,000 the first row was put in place. one of the consistent things i've heard is a request for more time msn right now given extras exudates to that comment. on the hydraulic fracturing

role. rather than expired in a week or two, you will have another 60 days on top of that is not what it ample time for people to express their views, but we do need to get on with this regulation over 30 years in plays and technology has moved forward. i want to say alaska is an important component of our nation's energy strategy. the plan we have for the petroleum reserve alaska provides access to 70% of the oil potential buyer. it also supports infrastructure needs that recognizes the importance of providing protection for vital subsistence habitat, which ranking member murkowski is familiar with. senator landrieu step down an oil rig the production platforms. visited a deepwater flowing rig, which turns out a major discovery in the gulf of mexico.

it's a very substantial project and some pain that is growing and develop them. also went to a production platform from chevron and saw the technology has evolved and how it's also stayed the same in anyways. in a pro we announced the sales for 233, which would make available 21 million acres, which will be the third sale of the current five-year program. with most of the magic that reduce the time for review exploration and development for deepwater drilling in the gulf of mexico and there's more floating deepwater rigs than prior to this bill. something close to a 25% increase over what is happening to that activity. the bureau of ocean energy management has come a programmatic impact statement to support assessment of resource potential of the mid and south atlantic and that is continuing.

on the renewable side, sharon white mentioned a critical role to play at renewable energy and fulfilling the president's goal of doubling renewable electricity generation by 2020 on public lands and as an overseer of lance, i am pleased to say since 2009 we thought the race 42 renewable energy projects that has the potential to produce electricity for more than 4.2 million homes in on the offshore side the of ocean management just tissue a notice to love our first ever sail up the coast of rhode island and massachusetts with another offshore virginia next year is about 270,000 acres and could produce electricity to power 1.9 million homes. i want to shift keirsey federal land in reference to the chairman white mentioned the national park centennial.

coming up in 2016 i hope you all join man making sure we take this seriously and engage the american public more in support of national part nurse in public lands. besides being out in a number of national park sites, eyeballs though joined with young people in several places. he parks in portland, oregon and jamaica bay and gateway national recreation area where we work with cases shoveling sand delivered by hurricane sandy in areas where it wouldn't have been previously most importantly engaging young people in conservation and building a connection to those lands that stay forever. the 21st century civilian corps is listening and learning from the civilian conservation corps in the form of public private partnerships referencing chairman biden's comments tonight is a great lesson of how

we connect people to public lands in a way that stays forever and i hope will join me in supporting more of those programs. as the chairman mentioned, we are looking for mandatory funding of the land water conservation fund over a two-year period. the suns have been used to support every single county across the united states. very, very important program has made a big difference on a local level and a national level, so we hope to support his hair. as the chairman mentioned, we're committed to multiple uses on public lands so the resources and opportunity important to americans. the lnc lancer very committed to supporting the same deal them working closely with the folks are more again in california. one of the things you're keenly aware of is our commitment to wild land fire fighting. 2013 season is unfortunately off to a hot start.

using fires in california, new mexico nares or not. this is early. looks like a severe fire season. our ability to fight fires is impacted by his equalization to some degree, particularly to reduce hazardous hills and remediate after fires, but working in a way that's so cooperative across agencies to do the best job we can and i visited the interagency fire center lot with senator risch. we thought was happening there. it's encouraging the way people work together without regard to agency, but it's a big issue and something we appreciate your support and help in addressing over longer-term basis for your last i want to talk about water. water is chairman biden takes a drink is critical to our lives, but it is under a lot of pressure from population growth in a changing climate. i want to give a particular not to my colleague comment david

stream three. they've done a great job of conveying to people to address these really significant issues, providing leadership to communities as we address the competing demands for water, the need to increase water availability, restore watersheds and above conflicts for a long time. through water conservation, water smart as a programmer called the best job of water. we certainly played an important role in finding better ways to stretch existing water supplies and highlight best practices out there that everyone can learn from. to wrap up, i want to just say sequestration continues to be an enormous frustration and as a businessperson you never run a business of labor required to run government was sequestration. i know budget times or type your recommended to be thoughtful of the many weeks and, but doing it

across the border programs important to all of was not a sensible way to run our business. we frozen hiring, john furloughs. had to cut across every light and a midsummer very important to all of you. i ask for your support in getting us past the sequestration and onto a much more rational budget climate. with that look forward to taking your questions. >> thank you, non-secretary. we had other senators come in and so i think we are going to have to come back for a few minutes after the vote. several colleagues have been very gracious about the possibility of keeping this going. my hope is will get most of it done before the end of the vote at 10 and then we'll come back after that. just a quick question on the lnc matter, secretary jewell to confirm something. as you know, the oregon delegation feels so strongly if

they've got 18 onc counties hurting and pushing hard to get a harvest. we talked when you're in portland you all particularly giving us the technical support so we can get into these maps, find a way to address the partition concept in areas where you focus on the hardest areas to protect the treasuries. could you say publicly what you said privately that he will be there to give us the technical support we need here over the next few weeks. >> happy to work closely with you and i know the checkerboard situation that is prevalent throughout the west is a challenge in terms of managing resources, consolidating in a thoughtful sustainable ways that they were committed to. the blm people will be happy to work closely. >> very good. when we talk next to that national park funding. with it the most senators raised

concerns about authorizing new national parks given the scope of the backlog is very significant backlog. we ought to be working on two tracks. colleagues here, democrats, republicans. i also share the view of colleagues who say we've got to come up with a fiscally responsible approach to do with the backlog. we've been talking to direct or john jarvis about it and my question is i understand you've all of reviewing several funding recommend nations that are in the national parks conservation association report. offers some ideas with respect to the bipartisan policy center. can you tell us a little bit more about ways in which we could book to bring in the private sector fiscally responsible approach is given the fact were going to try hard to build a bipartisan coalition

so that we can have these new parts, which you and i talked about that are good for future preserving treasures and the economy, but colleagues are making legitimate points about the backlog. tell us what ideas you may be lucky not for the conservation association of bipartisan policy center. >> thank you, mr. chairman. certainly something i'm familiar with having served on the commission of the national parks with senator portman, although he left to run for elective office, which we certainly appreciate as well. there's no question we have a significant deferred maintenance backlog estimated to be $11 billion in our national parks and released something that's been accumulating over many, many years of not treating our assets in the public lands in the way we might do in the dirt in terms of setting aside depreciation and that is more to

do with appropriations unless to do with what the national park would like to do. they would like to maintain these facilities. but it is a challenging budgetary times and we need your help to put the federal government 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 the second century commission were done with public-private partnerships in recognizing people of their national parks and as an opportunity to leverage that love of the perks to find ways to support and recognize private donation. i think it's fair to say from the second century commission as well that private philanthropy should be the margin of excellence, not the margin of survival. it's critically important to step up as a federal government to support these assets that are so important and there's hardly a senator he visited on either side of the aisle that didn't have some wish or desire to

related to national park in their district or public lands and support for them. we do need to work with you and with the appropriators adequate funding to begin to address the maintenance backlog, but we are very willing and director jarvis is an particular common come in finding frenemies to support and enhance engagement. i went to the washington monument with a private donor who is funding the federal government costs for the renovations of that facility david rubenstein and i appreciate his support in setting a great example for the private sector and were certainly looking for more opportunities like that. >> one question for the record and standard time. on the issue nor can you know is a classic challenge of fish, agriculture, commissioner connor testified a few weeks ago the bureau of reclamation didn't anticipate any supply cut off to users. if you could get back to me and

waiting with a quick confirmation i've not heard anything to the contrary. my time is up if you could get back to me with the response reaffirming what commissioner conyers. >> were happy to do that. >> senator murkowski. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to do for my question until colleagues have had a chance to address there is because i'm coming back after the votes. i did want to just put a statement on the record. you noted in your opening statement the oil production or monster lance is at its highest level in over a decade. united perhaps her commentaries differed. i said oil production from the federal state fell 5% in the reference there. i think it is important to just get some of the numbers here very briefly because i think it can be confusing.

federal onshore oil production with 89.5 million barrels back in 2003 has gone up to 108.7 million in 2012. so you do have a substantial increase they are, but it's not the full picture and that's my point because federal onshore production leasing call from 500 dirty 2.7 million barrels in 03 to 430.6 million barrels in 2012. so what we've got is federal onshore production, which rose by 20 million barrels a federal onshore production by 100 barrels more than five times the onshore increase. it's important to me talk about this we look at the full picture. so if your numbers are different than mine, i'd be happy to share with them. with that, mr. chairman, i defer to others so they can get questions in before the pope. >> very good senator franking. >> at the moratorium after the

bp oil spill, is that really what cost effective? we had a huge thing happen and there was a moratorium after that. is it okay if i ask that of mr. hayes? >> yes, senator. it is true oil production in the gulf to decline because of the safety issues that arose in the need to upgrade or save standards. the good news is dia recently reported a very strong upward trend now in the goals. the secretary mentioned a major discovery. there've been 10 major new discoveries. there are now more than 50 rigs drilling in the onshore. without the central gulf and western goals, so we expect to be back to where we were in further. there certainly was the time we

did increase the safety standard and change the way we did business and that did affect temporarily production of the onshore. >> i'm sorry i just wanted to clarify that. it might come out of my time to put pressure on the secretary's children, for grandchildren i regret that. we can find out the whole story there. secretary jewell, want to talk about an issue important northern minnesota. there were 93,000 acres of school trust lands that belonged to the state chart timna wilderness area, which means they can't contribute the economic development of sports schools in minnesota. the forest service is working with the state to purchase land

from the state into exchange with minnesota. this international forest has submitted to the administration a pre-proposal for the purchase peace and i want to urge you to give every consideration to this application, this important issue to minnesotan vendor schools. >> just to clarify, senator, if it's for service in the department of agriculture not sure about directly and not one unless david knows otherwise. certainly can support that with my colleague, tom vilsack tiered >> goes to those agencies will clarify. i just want to get in the water is little bit. you mentioned water. it's critical, obviously to our economy and our well-being. we need water for farming,

healthy ecosystems and we need it for energy production. the drought that devastated so much of the country last year drove home how important water is. to make ourselves resilient to mawhinney to monitor groundwater resources and if the rate at which our aquifers rechargers sustainable given how much water is taken out. the department is issuing a lot of oil and gas permits and drop prone areas. the effect of these require huge amounts of water. for instance, a single hydraulic fracturing users between one and 10 million pounds of water. we've even heard about competition between farmers in oil and drilling. so can you just give me your take on the walk through how you consider water issues and

issuing permanent for energy development on public lands, the largest wholesale supplier in the nation is the department of interior and you have to be a leader in sustainable management. can you give me -- just walk through these considerations. >> obdurate high level and not my colleague with a little more detail. for some hydraulic fracturing, one of the things that we are encouraging is the reuse of hydraulic fracturing fluid so it can be reused. another thing within the industry has the potential of using produced water, salt water for more tips for hydraulic fracturing as opposed to groundwater that may be competing with other resources in a sec cavities encouraged. the water generally is controlled by states, suez energy companies purchase water,

they are not purchasing it from us are asking us for it. it comes from state and local resource is. so i think the role we can play is encouraging reuse and monitoring appropriate use said there is a competition for that. it's certainly very expensive for the energy companies to buy water for these purposes as well. i want to turn to you to give more details specific to this topic. >> just very quickly, senator, obviously water use is a big issue for us. the president's budget follows through on the requirement congress laid out in 2007. were asking about 50 million for the united states geological survey to help provide data for that. in terms of permitting what the secretary said is very important, typically the state of privacy with regard to the water use. the proposed franking role now

offer further comment suggests we require a tracking of that because if it's not handled appropriately, it can cause damage for the public lands. we look forward to further dialogue. >> were going to have the good fortune after the break. senator barrasso. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for her dedicated service. >> and secretary tommy brought up sequestration. i want to ask about revenue owed to states under the mineral leasing act. in march the department of interior notified stacy would withhold over $109 of revenue during the remainder of fiscal year 2013. this is before you were confirmed or sworn into office. the department said this decision was in accordance with the budget control act of 2011. two weeks ago a bipartisan group five members, and i sent a

letter you have a copy of the letter. we had stormed the to confirm your department would return to states and do that next year in fiscal year 14. explain to provision the federal budget law required the department to return without mineral that next the statesmen sequestration to place back in the 1980s. the supervision of the law applies today to sequester which took effect this year. you have a copy of the letter to omb. can you confirm the department will return mineral revenue withheld in fiscal year 2013 to the tune of $109 million to the 35's case to which it is out? >> senator, thanks for the question. i understand the importance of revenue to the state. we are doing our best to comply

the balanced budget and emergency deficit control act known as the sequester in our understanding that we were required to withhold payments. it is defined to be inflexible, damaging and indiscriminate. this is an example of that. i will be fulfilling obligation under the law, whether that requires repayment to the states are not is something that certainly omb is the right place to assess various ended for us to do that, we absolutely do that. we appreciate the importance of the states, but we do our best to comply with the law as written. >> update to ask you about the blm rule today. to announce extending the comment. another 60 days. oil and gas producers will be a lot to obtain a variance from the rolls and save which have their own roles that meet or exceed the blm rule howitzer at. if that is also the blm may

resend this variance or modify conditions of approval at any time. so this is hardly the certainty you acknowledge during your confirmation process is so important for the private sector. he said they need certainty. it's unclear why blm is adding federal regulations on top of state regulations. i am an adoptive hydraulic fracturing three years ago. and spent nearly all states with meaningful oil and gas production have a.good or in the process of about ina road fracturing rules. many states already apply other ghost of federal within their borders. in this respect the rule is a solution that seems to be looking for problems. jubilee stays current regulating hydraulic fracturing are doing a sufficient job in which states do you have in mind? >> senator, i want to say is highly variable between states. the state of wyoming is sophisticated in its oversight of hydraulic fracturing.

we applaud that. you understand resources within the state and it's a good example of the state doing an effective job. our role is to provide minimum acceptable standards on public lands. that's overdoing. the reason for the comment. 30 days initially and now the extension of 60 days is to provide an opportunity for people to comment on those rules to determine if it's problematic for them. we will be listening to those comments and reacting. >> covariance process leads to uncertainty. i appreciate that. the final question about leadership of your land management. last year the director retired. president obama has yet to nominate a successor. as the president considers the replacement is critical elected qualifications outlined federal law. the federal ban policy and

bureau shall have a broad background in substantial experience in public lands and natural resource management. bath abby had over 30 or six years working for land management prior to blm director. his predecessor also over 30 years subjects area prior to his nomination. do you believe the director should have a broad background in substantial experience in land and natural resource management as the law calls for? >> senator, are going to do my best not to find someone highly qualified for the position that has requisite experience and i need to take into account the talent that exists throughout the blm and the ability to be that organization, beverage and the talent to spare. that's what we do in private industry. and certainly committed to doing that here as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator heinrich is next.

just because colleagues are trying to figure their schedule. what we'll do is get as many colleagues and now senator lander has come. i think we'll get you in before 10:15. under those start at 10:15, we will break and anticipate those being done at 11:00. senator franken will come back and senator murkowski will be there. we'll just keep going. senator landrieu will be back soon after senator landrieu will be senator risch. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i do step up for another meeting. thank you so much for taking one of their first trips to the gulf coast. i understand you're off the course that the offshore island gas rigs and we appreciate you reconnect and with that important industry in resource for nation based on your experience earlier in your career. i wanted to bring up two issues

and help questions on two issues. first is the request in the budget for the land and water conservation fund. many of us are very interested in signing the land and water conservation fund for many reasons. there's a federal site that helps our parks and land acquisition. as a stateside that helps our states really leverage the conservation dollars to expand recreational opportunities and say special places. i don't think there's a number on this committee that doesn't want to do that within reason recognizing the western state think they have too much land already purchased by the federal government and acknowledge their concern. however, my concern is in this budget we are using revenues generated off the coasts of louisiana and texas and louisiana and texas and alabama and mississippi and florida are

coastal areas have so much need. the money were generating seems like to me, which is pretty significant. i'll put up a chart in a minute, it's basically used to fund the land and water conservation fund at all the money goes elsewhere in the country. readers even the redwood in the north eastern california and the sequoias, but were not saving the marsh for the revenues are coming from. do you have a comment about matter what are your general feelings? coming from louisiana, our states service platforms for the production without the south louisiana texas, there would be no way for the federal government to access resources that are clearly ours. without our states, there could be no access to the offshore. >> senator, thank you for the question. as i mentioned come i support full funding of the conservation

fund, which has not been the case for more than one year and it's almost 50 year history. i appreciate the revenue generated for oil and gas production. as i went to the gulf coast, i saw firsthand the positive impact it has on the residents of louisiana to the jobs they created including but in office is that has over 500 people in the offices they are. >> we appreciate the job, but 500 jobs in the jobs they created along the coast do not compensate for the loss of revenues. this is 6 billion in 2006 and is projected to be 11 billion annually coming off the coast of louisiana and texas. and yeah, we are struggling here for years trying to get a fair share of that money to be kept at home along the coast producing these revenues.

being bielecki but at the other chart, the inland states, which i do not, you know, i'm a little jealous actually a good deal they were able to get because wyoming and new mexico keeps 50% of their revenues. the western states have a deal with the federal government. all the money they generate on federal lands they keep 50%. over the course of time the western states have kept $61 million to western states to spend on anything they want, not even conservation. they spend on schools, hospitals, roads. they don't even have to spend it environment. meanwhile, the poll states get nothing. we generate more money than they do and in our case, were even willing 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. i want to thank the chairman and the rate remember for their support of this general concept. how we work out the details i don't know. again, i want to sit in the western states, i want the same deal you all have. 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 landmass in the continent of north america at the largest land loss. alaska has serious erosion issues and they're serious. i don't think they are a serious is louisiana. this is a river that supports the whole nation. it's not a stream or pond a place where you have an enjoyable time. we are putting the largest tankers and commerce down this river. so i'm not going to stop on this

than i just want to tell you or share with you and i'm going to be watching this budget carefully. the second question i have a one on us because my time is over, but i will submit on the permitting process. we cannot produce any of these revenues. not in the western state, not off of our sure but that streamline, efficient, best practices permitting and still 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 be safely. they need permits. thank you very much. >> senator risch. >> thank you for visiting the interagency fire center in boise. do you agree with me after you and i toured the facility that the agency is prepared, ready and willing and able to take on the 2013th fire season, well-equipped, even better trained, but at the end of the payable depend on mother nature

and the number of fires they have to deal with. we appreciate your input and certainly appreciate your appearing there. they've been tested. last friday they had a fire, a small one less than five miles from the facility. go beyond it this summer. you and i have had a number of conversations. you're probably tired of hearing, but i just want to get a response from you now that she's been on the job for a while and enable to review this, you and i talked about the letter, the comments and suggestions for salazar made regarding how we should rehabilitate the population of the sage grouse, particularly his vital 2012, which outlined the departments view of how that should be done in questions for the record answers attached.

all of it is in sync with my view of her collaborative methods in this state driven method to address this issue and 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 thought on this? are you still in agreement this is the best way to pursue how we do what all of us want to do and that is preserve, protect and rehabilitate. are we still see not the same sheet? >> yes, senator, i believe we are. it's a great collaboration between states, private landowners, bureau of land management, indian tribes, all working together to say how can we preserve and protect it a challenging issue with species of wild land fire as you know, but these are things we want to work on together and there's

some great examples to learn from and were certainly learning, so i'm committed to an ongoing collaborative effort as you describe. >> i appreciate that. we know in past years all this has an driven top down from the federal government and it we've learned this new approach of doing it from the state up teams to work a lot better and actually gets results. i'm delighted to hear you remain committed to that. thank you very much and thank you, mr. chairman. >> i think my colleague. senator portman can't come back. senator henry just been very gracious. you will chart 11:00 and senator murkowski will be here. we can get you in before the break because of the thoughtfulness of senator heinrich. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was not heinrich was a thoughtful guy and now it's proven. he's also my men to you.

i can't go into detail because your time is too precious, but it's really the reason he's willing to do it. he's looking for something. thank you. quickly on hydraulic fracturing, i know you came up at the role for control of my aunts and thank you for your it's a big deal because 90% will be on public lands in ohio frankly does not a lot of public lands. however, we been doing it for about 50 years and we have some good regulation that are some of the best in the country. we have documented cases of marcotte of the and so i would just raise the point on average it takes 307 days to get permits on federal lands and this is one reason i've been working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle and permitting the warm and we are now 17th in the world based on the imf metrics for the ease of doing business with regard to building

something. it affects everybody. energy developers seeking approvals for capital projects whether it's oil and gas or wind or solar are facing the same thing. on federal lands off in a bureaucratic comment of multiple separate agencies in litigation concerning permits can go as long as six years. so its uncertainty. i think it's leading to a lot of investors been hesitant to make these kind of commitments to new capital investments. i would hope is elected this community with the states are doing and specifically our state of ohio, where we do have a good record. second, you, you help us in this permitting bill. were 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, i want to ask your comments because it's a short period of time. if you have any comments, i appreciate it. this world war ii that we talked about during your confirmation process to pass the house last year with a vote of 386 to 26 would take this d-day prayer that fdr sat on the day of the invasion and as you know today is the 69th anniversary of d-day and were interested in moving us forward in the senate as well. last year senator lieberman and i were able to make progress but not get it through the process and we would love your help on that. the park service has worked with us to ensure that those subject to the standard works approval process in your support on that would be terrific senses the anniversary of d-day today.

s. 1044. your comments i think were correct that we need to do better on the public-private partnership fund. adventures in your specific example of washington monument. this $11 million backlog in the deferred maintenance backlog at the national park over memorial day, which is real feel and now i'm told in terms of attendance. they've got some serious concerns on this very issue. my question to you is in the process of the centennial coming up, do you have a plan to try to encourage mark public-private partnership as we start this initiative that you know a lot about and the notion was to the centennial challenge to private sector to match dollar for dollar. do you have the centennial plan you all put together.

we are resting on trying to encourage that. i sent a letter to air colleagues that you may have seen. and it's not some world or to is that, centeno, we'd appreciate it. >> i'll try and do this quickly. first on the centennial, there's a lot of work going on with the national park foundation and the national park service and various advisory boards to look at what we can do to facilitate the private partnerships they think will be an important part of that and raise visibility among the american people. we want to give them an easy opportunity to support their parks, so that is coming and should there be legislation, i'll make sure you're well aware of that. at this point we work within the park service in the external

groups and so on to facilitate that. on the permitting site, there's been a lot of work that's been done by the blm to streamline the permitting process. his lessons from offshore be converting onshore. is a desperate need for automation in the peer before an with sequestration across the board the officers must start you still have to scale back operations. getting past that would be very, very hopeful. so there's a lot of work going on in the 24 team budget is a request for fees generated to support the tv so it doesn't become strictly a line item in the budget that can make it depending on the demand, which will depend on the area for the development is going on. that's how we're required to fund agencies of the silly nature up on some of those things for streamlining. in the world war ii prayer bill,

we appreciate the importance and the lives of all americans and sacrifices made and happy to continue to work with you on that bill. thank you. >> we will stand in recess until 11:00 or until the series of us are concluded and i'll be back. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> secretary jewell and mr. mr. hayes, thank you for your patience. i'm going to go and ask a question i hauled off earlier and then we've got a couple of other senators who've been very patient as well and we look at them as quickly as we can.

secretary jewell company mentioned interagency cooperation around the firefighting effort, something very timely for me right now. that coordination is especially important when it comes to posts by every politician of flood or pension in the communities often timed downstream from the department of interior lands as well as downstream from service plans. are there any additional authorities you need to ensure a seamless and coordinated response between interior agencies that blm, fish and wildlife service, park service and the forest service to make sure we are meeting these challenges and massport mated and consistent seamless possible? >> senator, thanks for bringing up the important issue of wild land fire. by the same accord nation proud we are very well coordinated and when i went to the interagency

fire center, i went with secretary vilsack and all the various unit of the federal government as well as the state governments in the local governments are well coordinated he raised an issue around post by a remediation and making sure we prepare lands in advance, whether that's prescribed burns for hazardous fuel removal and other means. those are squeezed from the budgetary stand point and that is the biggest challenge i say we face. we do have about land fire on rangeland, the ability to go after that and we plan shrub steps stage and so on is really. if we don't do that, you end up with cheap grass and other non-native species much more prone to fire and habitat destroying. we have not had sufficient money to be able to do that work and that's very important. not to mention on tribal lands,

where year-round it's an souris of jobs for tribes as well. i would appreciate support in making sure the emergency part of firefighting get segregated so we can hear in and year out to the job in management of the lambs for wild land fire. >> i appreciate that. we recently had a hearing about this issue and without real challenges in terms of the downstream impacts on tribes and other communities in new mexico after the big fires last year in the year before. it's something i'm more than happy to work with you on. senator franken rustin cannot, which i hadn't audit before the hearing, but there's a little attention. he talked about the issue of land consolidation and not knowing specifics in northern minnesota, i can say that is an

enormous issue not raised the eight a lot of attention, that is ubiquitous across much of the west, whether you're in new mexico or utah or nevada and have situations where your estate plan strecker boarded through federal lands and it's a very large resource efficient the issue and some of the tools that we typically use to consolidate into land swaps and other game are limited in that case, particularly the land and water conservation fund is the tool we can't use to purchase state lands. i propose reauthorizing overseas for about 10 years and resulted in higher disposal rate that blm, but also something we could use to resolve these conflicts and focus 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 get this issue it's due while you're the secretary because it is something that is faster for a long time and leads to a lot of unnecessary management and resource conflicts between state and the federal government. >> i very much appreciate your support of reauthorizing. i think that's a useful tool to search in the past would be hope what i have in the future. thank you for your support there. we are in full agreement. and say we've done up on a case-by-case basis of land swaps have made tents and some are pending that i'm aware of. some lands that are federal that may not serve the federal government as well as they might serve the state. we are very open to bat in how the procedures in place to deal with those things. i don't think we've looked at it necessarily in a landscape of a basis that there may be an opportunity of america's, but we

are with you and concept. >> it can be challenging others often times transparency issues, but i urge you to take a look at that. when it's done well, you can definitely serve the public on multiple fronts. it's just the two of us. i'm looking around at my list, but none of them are here. >> thank you. i appreciate it, mr. chairman. madame secretary, let me start with some questions i have that is to admit opening and this is as it relates to the mtr where they could see. i think you fill my frustration and can turn it a mention in our conversations earlier. if the federal government was a private operator and had

abandoned the spouse of the federal government house, the state would've had an opportunity to levy sometimes on send a private operator in our estimates are that it would be at route $41 billion in fines. so i've just been so concerned about what i believe to be a double standard here because we do have an expectation that if you're exploring and producing in an art take environment, there's an absolute need to be responsible, to be cautious, to really be careful. so it just hurts to see what we have left. so now we get to the part where it happened. this figure out how were going to clean it up. i thought that we had -- that we had agreed it's got to be a better path forward rather than the states you figure it out. so when we met before the

interior 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 the federal remediation efforts. since that time, i have had this unit come back to me who have had the name, not only with you, but those in your department. they have effectively told me they believed the department and that you support and agree with the proposal put out before you took the position as secretary. those decisions made before you came, you are not stuck to deal with them. i guess the question i would have if you this morning and mayor broward outlines their concerns about that.

is it your opinion that the state of alaska should be held financially response of all for the federal government responsibility to remediate these wells? >> i completely agree the legacy of us are a problem we need to they were chilled by the usgs and the navy years ago to assess the potential of the national petroleum reserve in alaska. one of the reasons we have a sense honored techniques used as well need to be cleaned out. i am pleased to blm has done an assessment shared the stage a priority list of where they would gofers so we deal with the worst offenders first. we need money to do that and i would like to think 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 it is a revenue generator that put oil in the pipe line. work on figuring how to pay for it this right now there isn't sufficient money. i would agree we have some difficult budget limitations. we all know that, but i have a very difficult time suggesting those revenues that would go to the state that in turn go to the residents of the north bureau and i will refer you to the mayor's letter in the commissioner's letter is somehow or other you think that it is right to take those revenues i would go to those residents for now values they have from the exploration 720, 30 years ago. all that's left is that it's an

eyesore and level of contamination. i want to work with you on a path. but if that path is going to mean that money that would be going to the state of alaska and the residents of the north slope are going to be choked back, and that's not -- that's not appropriate. i'm hoping to hear you say that you're willing to work with us to find a better path forward. >> on absolute mind to work with you and find the money we need to remediate the legacy and certainly committed to doing that in any creative suggestion you have on how we can find that. >> we do need to be creative, but being created does not mean we assess the state for the cost of the cleanup that the federal government is responsible for. the other area i wanted to visit with you on and this is again a

little bit of a route to alaska. as you now, we became a state some 50 odd years ago. our lands have not been yet fully and finally come made under the terms of the native claims settlement act lands that are old to write native peoples have not yet been finally conveyed. we are working on that. we had some good discussions about some ways thinking creatively, can we use a different methodology to do the surveys, how we reduce our cost and still accomplish the same goal. i think that's a good step for us. again, in the proposal that we have before us with the budget,

affect to flee alaska, those revenues coming to ours date saint okay, we'll take from you in order to complete and pay for those commences. 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 the administration. yet somehow or the other it seems that the interior department is suggesting alaska needs to share in its financial burden. you need to now again i've been pushing on this issues insight came to the senate. we advance legislation that put in place an expedited process and were still nine years -- nine years later we still have

not yet fully and finally finish these conveying this. so we need to make that her progress on that. we've got more in the budget this year that's helpful, but again, we years to at decades and decades before these conveyances are complete. i'd like to hear your proposal on how we might move forward with that, but again at the expectation is the state is going to have to pay for the conveyances for the costs associated issue is not going to work. ..

thank you for the confirmation. as related to the environmental impact study, we are definitely about a year late. we have been able to discover why we are running about a year late. have we know my? >> senator, this is for the geological survey. i know that part of this is moving forward. and the deputy secretary, do you know about this or are we on schedule for this? >> senator, we have been pushing forward on this. i recall a year ago we celebrated the schedule. my sentiment is that we are

moving forward we are very interested in getting this done. we are certainly not dragging our feet. we are telling folks that we want this environmental analysis done. >> do you believe that we have a lot of the folks working on this project as we speak. >> yes, in this time of sequester, it is a challenge. but we are very committed to bringing it to completion. >> the one thing that i would like to recognize that was what is that we are about a year late. one question is do you have any expectation on what will be a part of this? you have any idea what your stations are on what the report that has been released is about? and the indications? >> i have no personal knowledge about any special items there. my understanding is that it is a very vigorous analysis that will

be put forward. there are consultations with the other affected agencies, including noah in particular. so we are hopeful that this will be, and are briefly, senator, if you know, the environmental impact statement is a major deal, particularly for such a large area. you know, but nothing on the horizon as far as we are aware in terms of issues that would be out of the ordinary. >> you have expressed support. moving forward, we are collecting more data so we can be in a better position. this is an important part of the equation. we think about the companies and

perhaps those that would discover the resources. the question is available that will we have the opportunity to get those resources? my question is if you look at that and the companies necessity of the return on investment, what do you think of our ability to move forward with the necessary opportunities recoup their investments? >> senator, as someone who spent a lot of time in my career, i appreciate not only the importance of resource development, but the timeframe and the massive investments when you're talking about developing new areas. i think that this is the first step towards the geophysical analysis, which is important. we will take time for the industry to analyze the data and decide where their priorities are. we will certainly be there in terms of opening the land is

appropriate. it is not in the five-year plan. but it came out in 2012 to 2017. but the data will be accessible once we do the analysis. so companies can plan for that. having been in the gulf of mexico, these are long-term operations that require infrastructure development and planning. in my early career, i did some of that development and planning. in 2017 rolls around, when a plan is regenerated, that will be the opportunity for people to actually do the production activities. >> anything else you would like assistance with? >> i think that what we are doing is going to be really important in identifying this. but there's nothing that i'm aware of at this point of time. >> thank you. >> thank you.

senator, why don't you go first to thank you. just a couple of questions to follow up. revenue-sharing we are hopeful that we'll have an opportunity to have the bill presented before the committee. so that our colleagues can take a look at it. in your confirmation hearing you indicated that you're going to work with us on the concept. the question is whether or not you have had a chance to look at our legislation. if you think that this is an approach that you could support and work with us on. >> senator, i haven't looked at any specific legislation. i know that there has been a tricky issue in terms of federal revenues and then supporting the federal government and these are assets to the continental shelf.

so i'm having to look into the bill. i have tenet specifically. >> when we are talking about this, thinking outside of the box, and how we will deal with some of the issues that are at play. i know that the chairman has mentioned that 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. we have some of the issues that we face with this. so i would commend to you for your review. we have had a whole series of hearings and moved from public land build through the committee already. i would like to think that we can move them through to the floor and sea passage on them. one of the issues that comes up continually as we deal with parks in part issues is the fact that we have a 13 billion-dollar

backlog. a lot of this is that we really should be adding more to the park when we can afford to maintain the what we already had. it was noted that we have the park centennial coming upon us. it seems to me that this would be a great time to reevaluate how we have established and maintained our parks as we move into this second century. also how we have built support for our parks and nationwide. getting support through private dollars. whether it is getting local people engaged and having ownership. i think that that will be important for us.

and really how we how we define this path forward. >> thank you, senator. there is no question with a historic opportunity of the centennial that will fall on this congress and this administration is extraordinarily important. we have the challenges in maintaining a public land. we also have a willing buyer and a willing seller and the federal government on private land, so doesn't necessarily increase the cost. i don't want to stop speaking about landscape level issues and what we need to do because of the maintenance backlog. we want to learn about the

complexity about land management and landscape levels and conservation and understanding. we would really love to work with you and the chairman and others on the committee for a permanent solution. >> we have duplication of efforts and the redundancies that are inherent here. they published an inventory of programs and you see the program about fish and wildlife development and the program that they have come another fish and wildlife program. i say all of this to suggest that just from the casual observation coming out about 24 different programs within the

fish and wildlife and within the other department. i'm not suggesting here that all of these 20 programs are duplicate it. but it does beg the question is what kind of review is under way. from a department store perspective, if you have 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 could take a minute to respond. these are budget category titles that i have observed as i have gone to court or by court order and sat down with a lot of people who are there. there are scientific resources that are available in the fish and wildlife service are working to support those wildlife and fish needs. i'm certainly looking for opportunity to streamline what we can.

a lot of land managers on the ground there may be some of that mix together. but i appreciate the sentiment that we need to be making sure that we are doing this. >> that is important. and one final question here. it did not include a developmental system. i have been told that there is rational for this and development requires an act of congress. but the draft plan also includes some alternatives for additional wilderness and scenic rivers, which also require an act of congress. so it seems little bit inconsistent error. so the question to you is whether or not the conservation

plan will include an oil and gas development alternative. the question is why we do not consider that. >> i'm going to give a high-level answer to be very involved. the president has made it clear that it is not part of his agenda to do oil and gas explanation exploration and i support that position. we are very immersed in these issues and really committed to the issues at hand. >> senator, i believe that the fish and wildlife service includes alternatives that we require congressional action. >> would you agree that when you have an alternative that allows for additional wilderness, wild and scenic, but that requires act of congress? >> yes, absolutely.

but in fact all it does there is no actuation of any wilderness designation by an agency. there can only be a recommendation. as the secretary said, this is very clear about needing a congressional decision before going forward. if i can, the senator mentioned this, thank you for your leadership. i just wanted to say publicly that he came out with a new strategy for the arctic and promised to have some outreach sessions in this month in alaska as a follow-up. we are going to go forward with these listening sessions in

alaska at the end of next week. we will have leadership from across the government in those sessions and are taking very seriously the issues that you take so seriously. thank you for your leadership. >> i appreciate what you have done to help us on these issues. this includes the report which is very important. you will be missed. i am not afraid to say publicly. you have been a big help to us. and i appreciate that. many conclude that you know when the final plan may be released? >> i have a timeframe, but i do not know, senator. he mentioned the listening sessions up more than i was pleased to see that they will be

moving forward were trying to get things pinned down so we can make sure that the appropriate folks are in place. the headline is the interior department alaska's sessions, are they just hot air? it takes little punch at me and you. not you personally, but me personally. but i do hope that they are not hot air. i do hope that there is real substance that we as alaskans are not only engaged in, but i will reach out to my colleagues from all states, need to be reminded that we are in arctic nation. it is not just alaska as a state. hopefully these listening sessions will allow us to push that so i look forward to working with the folks on that.

>> thank you. senator, why don't you go next. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think the witnesses for joining us. madame secretary, you have undoubtedly heard from some of our western colleagues, the potential of the endangered species would inevitably have some really far ranging impacts on the people of utah and the residents of several of our neighboring states. as you know, the state of utah proposes a management plan. all significantly limiting economic impact. so we see it as a real win-win situation potentially. should it be improvement.

you stress quite repeatedly that cooperation and coordination with all the stakeholders involved would be the hallmarks of your interior. can i count on your commitment to work with the state of utah and on similar issues under the jurisdiction of the department of the interior. >> yes, you have my commitment to work with states and private landowners and everyone that is involved in this. have a the habitat is back. untrendy only way we are are going to take your business through the long term. >> i hope you will take very serious looks at the efforts that have been put forward. again, i think we have achieved the environmental gains that are

necessary. but we need to do so in a way that also respects the needs of our residents as well. >> a recent study by the u.s. chamber of commerce reveals that from 2009 to 2012, a total of 71 losses against various federal agencies were settled under circumstances that could be described as sue and federal case resolutions. the settlement of these cases resulted in more than 100 new federal rules. many of which were major rules at the annual aggregate impact of $100 million or more. these cases involve epa settlements more than a few of them fall in the jurisdiction of your department. highlighted by some key fish and

wildlife service settlements on the endangered species act. also including not insignificantly, the public review process. the opportunity to include the review of the proposed rule makers. as your tenure of the secretary of the department of interior began, using the practice of using settlement agreements and consent decree for the policy goals is sufficient with the commitment to how you want to run the department, including transparency? >> you want to avoid lawsuits at

all costs. i have been struck by the amount of lawsuits that are filed and we are trying to uphold the laws. as a businessperson, we know that sometimes the most cost effective way to deal with the lawsuit is to settle. certainly not something that i want to make any kind of a practice. i want to avoid the lawsuits to begin with by making sure that we have parties around the table that understand the law and understand what we are doing in upholding the law. certainly transparency is something that i have been known for and i'm committed to being transparent in this process as well. i do know that we have laws that have time requirements. we are overwhelmed by the amount of volume that comes in and we work to address the underlying needs in the most cost effective ways that we can in dealing with upholding the laws.

this is an area that i'm becoming more familiar with. but we want to avoid lawsuits to begin with. and i will be my commitment. >> i understand and i respect that and i certainly understand that as a businesswoman, when you are involved in lawsuits we have a natural inclination to defend the most important thing for your business. and settle where it is reasonably possible. sentiment involving government sometimes little bit different because when the aim of the lawsuit is to achieve a different policy, that can have the effect of lawmaking effort

we have to people that can just agree. the government can agree with the plaintiff. yes, that is a good policy that we should implement. we have de facto lawmaking by the means of a friendly resolution. so that's the that is the problem we are concerned about their. >> mr. chairman, if i could have you answer another question, i have one more question. >> okay. the united states congress recognizes the need for the development of domestic oil and shale resources with a package of the energy policy act of 2005. in which the congress directed almost eight years ago.

>> this includes oil shale development and establishing the oil shale leasing grew into custody. in 2009, a group of nongovernmental ambitious calendar is resulted in a settlement agreement within the interior that was followed by new oil shale regulations in 2012 the reduced the oil shale development by almost 75%. just a few weeks ago, another group of ngos was planning a lawsuit concerning these new regulations. so with the understanding that all of these suspicions were made during the decision, would you commit to take a fresh look at the oil shale program and whether this complies with the objective of the energy of the 2005? >> senator, as i understand, we have about 600,000 acres

available for oil shale development under the research and development leases. it is all of the above energy strategy that the president put forth. i'm all for that. i'm going to ask president hayes to put forward more detail. >> senator, i would just add that per the previous point, this is a situation where there was a lawsuit. what followed was a proceeding that led to the final rule that is before us. >> i understand. okay. i understand that our view is that the final rule is saying

that we are open for business for demonstration projects in the oil shale area. >> and it sounds like you are prepared to defend. >> rett. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to both of you for your service and your testimony. >> thank you, senator. >> a couple more things i'd like to bring up that i very much appreciate the ranking member and his comment around. i thought i would bring up a situation that we have in new mexico where we currently have a national reserve that is basically the national preserve. it is almost an agency in and of itself. as a result, the spending is about $250 curve of that. you drive across a two-lane you drive across a two-lane road in the spending is $13

oftentimes the same visitor. so i thought it would bring that up. we are going to be looking at legislation on this committee to consider transferring management of that to the park service. what i do want to ask about the work that the dom has done amount of renewable energy and public land. we have done an incredible amount of work on these existing authorities. progress has really never asked the question on how best to cite this. i want to get your view as to whether or not there any additional authorities. and what issues you would ask us to consider if we look at legislation.

>> senator, thank you for the question. we have the potential to use the mapping to better understand the whole management picture. we have done some good work over the last few years. understanding the wind energy potential and the environmental sensitivities. i think that is very useful. it could be some things that we would work with you on. facilitate the development. certainly what you are well aware of is an important element of that. perhaps we can work together to streamline not. >> i think on the wind energy guidelines they came out of the federal advisory committee after

it, government officials really do provide a template for citing us. including what types of sites are going to provide the least likely conflict and other agencies. we appreciate also your support for the approach that we have done what we work collaboratively with parties to identify solar energy zones that attract industry to the best places that we think. our sense is that we do not need new authorities here. but we are certainly open to the validation of these efforts and we are very pleased with the cooperation across all interests with developers, conservationists, federal and state interest.

>> i would say very much appreciate your effort and your attention to these issues. certainly, that is something that has, you know, there is an enormous amount of generation right now that is just waiting for it the transmission for us to be able to move energy potential from new mexico into the market to the west. that is the bottleneck right now. allowing us to take an in-depth look.

it is not only appropriate, but often times the highest and best use, there are other places for development that may be incompatible including the preservation of important cultural sites. how can these plans identify and resolve these with other resources including cultural resources. >> thank you, senator. this fits right into my comment earlier the people on the ground in these communities know their sacred sites. the people in those those communities know of the special places that are very important to them. oil and gas companies and development companies understand the resort's potential. it is important to know this so

that we can help facilitate the right kind of transactions and if there is substantial conflict, we know that upfront and can plan accordingly. i think that is really useful. this includes landscape conservation cooperatives in terms of thinking about water on the watershed and landscape level. we have great potential to accelerate this right now given the technological advancement that we have. we have just activated this which will give us data. >> i think those tools are going to be quite important. we are obviously in northwestern new mexico and we have

incredible oil and gas resources and we also have some of the most important archaeological sites. especially being able to avoid the conflicts up front. it is always better than trying to reverse engineer once you have that on your hands. members are going to be able to submit additional questions in writing. i certainly ask that you answer those for inclusion in the record. i defer to the ranking member for the last question. >> we have a couple of different things that are going on. you have your listening session next week on the 14th, which is what i understand.

>> i understand the president's position and it has been reiterated here. it is my understanding that you just can't decide not to include a development alternative. because you don't have support for that. but the regulation requires that the department evaluate this even if the alternative would require an act of congress. i would ask you to look at that.

i understand where the politics are going. >> thank you for joining us. this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> coming up next on c-span2 tonight, the senate democratic leaders talked about their belt to keep current student loan interest rates. then congressman tom price of georgia discusses issues in congress with the christian science monitor. and sally jewell talks about the 2014 budget for her department. >> former state and department officials and a reporter with bbc news will talk about serious civil war at an event hosted by the national council on u.s. and arab relations. live coverage starts at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span2.

>> first lady ida mckinney suffered from axel at sea. william mckinney puts it next to her. despite her health problems, she traveled as first lady. her life is looked at as we conclude the first season of our series on first ladies. check it out on c-span, c-span2, and c-span radio. >> senate democratic leaders on their bill to keep student loan interest rates at current levels. the national security agency

collection of rising phone records. this is 30 minutes. >> to be never have microphones are? [laughter] >> i do not know why. [laughter] >> on july 1, student loans will club about three times if we do

nothing to go up 200%. >> even republicans vote against voted against the proposal. five or six republican senators. so i would hope that if they come back with something that is

reasonable, that we would do the trick. they have talked, they will continue talking about the tax loopholes. middle-class families, to do this would be too much. >> this is supposed to be the new family-friendly republican party. this is the party that learned its lesson on november 6 of last year. here comes the real test. if you are family-friendly, will you help working families put their kids through college? you accept the fact that the students are coming out of school anywhere from $24,033,000 in debt and that if you let the interest rates double, they will be paying thousands more to pay that loan. and the parents are cosigning those lines.

at this moment in time from the republicans would have a choice. they either have to stand with their position to increase interest rates were stand with working families who are trying to put their kids through school. what they have basically said is we don't want to run the risk of closing tax loopholes on the wealthiest americans pay for this. we will let the working families and students bear the burden. that is what the vote was today. >> our first obligation is to give young people the best chance that we can give them. it means for working families, they are going to have to borrow some money.

let's keep the cost of these student loans reasonable. including working families, the republican positions, even if it means putting a penalty on the wealthiest people of america. that is upside down. >> thank you. the government should be encouraging. high school diplomas, a .3%, nearly double. young adults, between the ages of 25 to 34, the difference is even more dramatic. we are three times more likely to be unemployed as individuals that have a bachelors degree. so what is so controversial about preventing student loans redoubling. the answer is simpler.

there's large group that dominates a party. they have a fundamental dislike towards the program. if they had their way, i would like to end it. the reason it is so hard is that the hard right would like to and the student loan program altogether. they have huge influence on their party. this is a quintessential issue that shows the difference between the two parties and their different views of the proper role of government. the other side is antigovernment and they oppose federal programs like student loans. this kind of lending would be left to the private sector and left to skyrocket. that would be horrible for america. the democrats, on the other side, we believe the government needs to help make the lives of middle-class people a little bit easier. the issue, this issue, but that contrast on display like very

few others. from those on the far right, we have to swing voters at times that this issue shows the limits of this argument. the public is perfectly fine with government helping middle-class households afford college. so the public is with us on this issue. that is why we prevailed a year ago. that is the way we have extended it. that is why we will prevail in the coming weeks in extending the current loan rates. >> congress makes me wonder just who they are listening to when they are not here in washington dc. when i hear from families at

home, sequestration and the fact that a lot of people who are working today can't afford furloughs those who don't want to live with the burden of the debt that they don't want to pay. we put forward today was a perfectly sensible solution so that students and parents have certainty over the next two years. so that we can rethink the financial aid system so that we

have a reliable affordable way for students to access the does. both protect the students. it seems like a no-brainer to me. but apparently not for republicans. we have straightforward deficit reduction. it calls for ending the use of offshore tax havens. despite tax hikes against those who can afford to pay more. it will lead to a thousand dollars in tax hikes on low income students.

i bet everyone in this room knows a family member or someone that they know. i know so many kids today and families in peoplepeople in their 40s there up to their necks in student debt. this is a weight on them. we only have a few weeks left. i know students and parents will be making their voices heard over the next few weeks and we stand ready to work with them. i'm turning this back over to the majority leader. speaker boehner me comments a few minutes ago about the house appropriations bill in which the chairman and i were engaged in regular orders of conversation that are delicate. there is nothing irregular about

it. certainly there is nothing delicate about it. there is certainly nothing on delicate about it. it is the next step. that is how we will get to a bipartisan budget as quickly as possible. we can try and maximize the chance of success democrats want it to work right now. we understand that this is about compromise and we understand that that is what we need to do to solve the american problem of water budget is and what priorities are and how we are going to pay for it.

and we asked republicans to join us. >> [inaudible question] the president said he would veto these suggestions.

now, here is the issue. it is very simple. as senator schumer indicated, we know as the american people understand that, and that romney understands it, we cannot raise the rates of students and their families. we cannot do that. so the republicans are going to help us with this to get it done. >> you can try to rationalize this anyway you want. the president has said that he

will veto the republican proposal. we can listen to the republican talking point all you want. this is not even close to only one. >> we have worked to prevent not all terrorism, but certainly the vast majority of it. is the program perfectly matter of course not. there are people at this podium today and there was legislation offer and votes taken. what i think we should do is make sure that senator feinstein has had the opportunity to review what is going on.

i think everyone should just calm down and understand that this is brand-new and this has been going on for some seven years. we have tried often to make it better and we will continue to do that. senator durbin, you are the one that offered a number of amendments that we have voted for. >> [inaudible question] >> the reason that we find the patriot act. we don't want to compromise our basic freedoms as individuals. what i have tried to do in the committee and on the floor is to keep that from satellite. also to put in some specificity in terms of the use of this

information. i think it can be better. i have been restrained many times because some of us have been briefed on this information and know a little bit more about the background than others. i continue to believe that that is the bottom-line. we want a safety issue. we want a safe and secure issue. we want to balance that with the basic rights and privacy is of american citizens. i think that we should revisit this on a regular basis and this disclosure and the guardian as reported by other sources. it is an invitation for us to renew the conversation. >> [inaudible question] >> i decline to answer questions. >> you think we can put forth this order and allow this.

>> that is something for congress to ask. this latest news disclosure gives us a challenge and an opportunity to do just that. we know what we are going to do, we are going to try to be as open as we can be. i had a conversation with jeff sessions. we will be on the bill with all the stuff being done.

we all acknowledge the republicans. so we are going to finish this before the july 4 recess. we are entitled to do that. we need to finish this bill as quickly as we can. there are very few pieces of legislation no one can complain about not having time to read the bill. we have read it, we have studied it and there is no reason that we cannot finish this debate quicker.

>> you have any questions about this? [inaudible question] >> we are interested in doing as many votes as we can. getting as many votes as we can. it does not depend on any one amendment. the last question? >> this includes the overall momentum. >> i can only say that i haven't been involved in this. i am totally convinced that there is tremendous momentum to get this legislation passed. this is an important piece of legislation. we have a system that is broken

and the american people have these resources. >> i think the momentum is getting stronger every day. right now we have a broad coalition of people who you normally wouldn't be allowing pushing the legislation. the bishops of the catholic church. evangelical. high-tech, and they are in the process of contacting those who have not yet committed to the bill. number two is we have welcomed the changes just as we do in the committee. the bottom line is that we can make this bill better. we think that we have come up with a compromise that will make america better. many people can propose changes and senator rubio thinks that, you know, he is obviously the supporter of the proposal that we have. he hasn't changed his mind on that. but he thinks that he can make security better and we agree.

>> in the process of moving through very well. >> thank you, everybody >> on the next "washington journal", the meeting between china's president and president obama. china's president, xi jinping. you can call in with your questions about national security issues and allegations of cyberespionage. we've also look at the survey of u.s. counties that outlines strategies to improve health care.

.. and that it will be useful until the leader of the soviet union adopt attitude. i hope they do. i believe we can help them do it. but i also believe that we re-examine our own attitudes as individuals and as a nation. while our