does it not madam chair, i would suggest that for separation of powers, whoever was so sloppy running this for you, probably did not segregate out the supreme court to make sure that when you are jumping out of your executive branch lane, you want to make sure that you are not gaining new intel or leverage over separated powers under our constitution. i would hope it we would get absolute assurance that not a single supreme court justice was at all involved in this verizon thing. a senator shelby raises great point. why don't we talk about how you would like to proceed when we do our due diligence as a

committee, but also this does involve others in addition to the justice department. >> i would like to do that and i believe it is a relevant thing and we would probably be talking about -- >> and i would be more than glad in an appropriate setting. senator, please do not take my responses as being anything but respectful of the concerns you have raised. there is no intention to do anything of that nature, to spy on members of congress, to spy on members of the supreme court. without getting into anything specific, i will say this, with regard to members of congress have been fully briefed as these issues, matters have been underway. i am not really comfortable in saying an awful lot more about that, but the concerns you have raised -- >> we are going to stop here, because this drives us up a wall.

eight it means a group of leadership. it does not necessarily mean relevant committees. sitting right here now a senator shelby and i, a former chair of the intelligence committee, senator collins, who chaired the homeland security committee, and that is the new framework to coordinate intelligence, with national leaders. senator graham's experience, and senator kirk himself was an intelligence officer in the u.s. navy. so we are kind of like an a- team, but we have also been in the fully briefed circle. that does not mean we know what is going on. and senator shelby says we have to know what is going on. and there are appropriate questions to ask. madam chairman, if i could, i think it falls within the jurisdiction of the appropriations committee that you chair and the subcommittee that you chair, and i am on both, to get into this.

we fund the justice department, we fund the fbi, we fund the operations. and if we don't know and if we are not properly briefed as to what is going on, we are not doing our oversight. isso what you are suggesting a classified hearing for the full appropriations committee. >> absolutely. >> that's fine. >> we will proceed in that direction and we look forward to working in a collaborative way. actually, we have senator feinstein tapping the full expertise of the full committee. senator kirk, did you have anything else? your work on the gang violence is really excellent. i do not know if you had a question. >> i wanted to announce i would be offering an amendment to the next markup of this bill for 30 million bucks to identify gangs of national significance, which i would hope would be the

gangster disciples in illinois. i have talked about the possible need to arrest upwards of 18,000 people who are members of that gang. , especiallyis because of my overwhelming concern for the baltimore gang situation, which is shameless sucking up to the chairwoman. >> anything else, senator kirk? >> that is it. but because i rate this issue, whoever was running this program knows they really screwed up. i would just ask that you kind of seize the records and not allow the destruction of evidence that they have accidentally monitored other branches of the government. >> as i said, i would be more than glad to discuss this in an appropriate setting. >> we will. and i give my word to both committee members. senator grant? >> thank you.

i'm very glad i came. this is been an interesting hearing. i washed you a question. pay close attention. >> i always do. >> i know you do. the purpose of the patriot act and the fisa court and the national security administration is to make sure that we are aware of terrorist activities in disrupting plots against our interests abroad. is that true? >> i would agree with that. >> the purpose of the patriot act is not to allow the executive branch to gather political intelligence on the judicial branch or the legislative branch. would you agree with that? >> i would agree with that. >> this is exactly like trying to kill it people in a café. there is no other strategy to drone somebody who has done wrong anywhere. am i would agree with that. >> we are trying to capture and

kill people who we believe our national security threat to our nation, right? >> also true. >> and one thing we are trying to do with the patriot act is find out about terrorist organizations and individual terrorists who they may be talking to. isagain, i would say that overall -- >> i hope the american people appreciate we are at war, and because i sure as hell do. i hope that the american people appreciate the way that you try to protect the homeland is try to figure out with the enemy is up to. i'm a verizon customer. it does not bother me one bit for the national security administration to have my phone number because what they are trying to do is find out what terrorist groups we know about and individuals and who the hell they are calling, and if my number pops up on a terrorist phone, i'm confident the pfizer court is not going to allow my phone calls to be monitored by my government unless you and

others can prove to them that i am up to a terrorist activity through a probable cause standard. i may come out differently than my colleagues on this. is was created by the congress. if we made mistakes and we have gotten outside of the lane, we are going to get inside. but the consequences of taking these tools away from the american people through the government would be catastrophic. so you keep up what you are doing, and if you have gone outside the lane, you fix it. president bush started it, president obama is continuing it, and we needed from my point of view. now, under the law of war, there are three branches of government. what branch of government is in charge of actually implementing annex a kidding the war? >> the executive branch. >> so we don't have 35 commanders in chief, we have one, right? >> that is true. >> can you tell me any other time in any other war where the judiciary took over the decision

over who to target, who the many was,s -- who the enemy and took that away from the executive branch? of that.ot aware we operate within legal parameters, but within those legal parameters -- astonished for america during this war to turn over from the commander-in- chief the ability to use lethal force to a bunch of unelected judges. and noe no expertise background as to who the enemy is and whether or not we should use lethal force. i think the worst possible thing we could do is to take away from this commander-in-chief and any other commander-in- chief the power to determine who the enemy is in a time of war and what kind of forced to use and give it to a bunch of judges. that would be the ultimate criminalization of the war. i support you for having transparency and for making the hard call, but you have, from my point of view, been more than

reasonable when it comes to the drone program. into an american citizen, if you side with the enemy and we go through a laborious process to determine that you have, we will kill you or capture you. the best way to avoid that is to not help out qaeda. the citizen in yemen, any doubt in your mind that he was helping al qaeda? >> none, and we laid out exactly why he was a target, that he was an appropriate target. >> and there are other american citizens who have associated with al qaeda. one is a spokesman. >> that is correct. , orf we find him, kill him capture him, don't go to the court because it is the executive branch's job. finally, she asked a very good question -- with this administration used wonton amo bay in the future to house a law of war capture? >> i think the president has

been clear it is not our intention to add any additional prisoners to guantanmo. >> agl cannot be a ship. under the geneva convention, that is not a viable option. so we are a nation without a jail. the reason we have the guy on the ship is we have no place to put him. this will catch up with us. this nation has lost the ability to gather intelligence because we don't have a prison that people -- we don't have a prison to put people. and last question, do you agree with me that the people that we have had at gitmo for years, that the intelligence that we have gathered humanely through the law of war of and delegation -- the law of war of interrogation is how we sit safely got been laden? >> i think one of the main reasons we got osama bin laden is a variety of intelligence. >> would you agree with me that one of the treasure trove's of intelligence involving the war on terror is from the people at

gitmo. >> at this point, you have some people who have been there 8, 12 years, and their intelligence level is zero at this point. >> there is no doubt in my mind that we have not tortured our way to getting bin laden. we have put the pieces of the puzzle together. last question, sequestration. what is it doing to your ability to protect us as a nation? >> we are struggling, really, to keep our resources at the level where we can do our job. i put anuary of 2011, hiring freeze in place. we have lost 2400 people, about 600 prosecutors. >> when you say lost, what does that mean, did they quit? i don't mean to interrupt, but could you be clear? >> these are people who have left the department of justice who have not been replaced. so we are a smaller department of justice than we were before i

instituted the hiring freeze. if we do not get assistance in 2014, the furloughs we were able to avoid because of your assistance, your assistance, ranking member shelby, those are furloughs we would have to institute and you would have fbi agents not on the streets, prosecutors not in the courts, and my guess would be that wherever the attorney general is year, two years from now, you will see reduced numbers with regard to prosecutions. and i think that will be a function of this sequestration that we are trying to deal with, and we have tried to deal with again with your help. >> i have such a great committee. i really do. the members. the reason i ask, and i did not mean to intervene on your time, it is really talent on both sides of the aisle to really

get to protecting our citizens. if i could just clarify before i turn to senator murkowski, the people when you say they were lost, were they voluntary departures or involuntary departures? i think largely voluntary departures, people through normal attrition. >> which you do not request. in other words they left and you do not replace. we sell, along with our officials in justice management, that the economic clouds were forming and that we needed to get ahead of this. it was as a result of the hiring freeze and other great work done by the jmg that we were able to with your cooperation avoid furloughs this year by having the hiring freeze, which kept our costs low, but at a price. we are paying a price for those -- that lack of capacity. >> i understand. senator murkowski? >> thank you, madam chairwoman.

i wish i had been here for more of the discussion earlier. i understand it was quite animated. i will dial it back a little bit, perhaps, before alaskans this goes back to the misconduct that was found in the ted stevens prosecution some years ago. clearly admitted procedural after thatd then the department has a disciplinary process. effectively, the judge throughout the discipline the department had imposed against the two assistant u.s. attorneys. that was extraordinarily troubling to many of us. we wrote a letter to suggest the department should appeal this decision as well as look at these disciplinary procedures in light of the board's decision. the question to you, mr. attorney general, is, do you think the decision to throw out the discipline that had been

twosed on these prosecutors was fair? are you going to be appealing that? where are we with this, because alaskans are left dangling wondering is there any justice out there, and they think not. >> i have respect for the people at the board who made that decision. i disagree with it. my expectation is we will be appealing that decision. >> in light of that, do you envision any changes in the prosecutorial system as a consequence of what we have seen from this? >> i think we have a system in place, a disciplinary system that i think works, is adequate. i don't agree with the way the board looked at the way in which we conducted that disciplinary system. i think we follow the rules, came up with a disciplinary sanction that was appropriate given the misconduct that was found, and we will as i said be appealing that with the board's determination. >> well, i would encourage that.

and unfortunately, it leaves the appearance that some of the folks who were not perhaps at the highest level of the decision-making process were held accountable, while others were given a pass. and that just does not sit well. so i would again encourage that appeal and encourage you to look at how we might address clearly what some of the gaps in the discrepancies are. the second question, and again this is per agree oh, -- and again this is parochial, but we just pass the obama containment act and in that we direct the justice department to consult with the state alaska, consult with our tribes, and present some recommendations to us in congress about reasserting the alaska rural justice law

enforcement commission. those recommendations are due out in 2014. this is a commission that had been establish some time ago that allows for basically a venue for various officials to come together and improve law enforcement, judiciary responses to crime, domestic violence, the whole gamut. the commission is no longer active because the your marked funding ran out. so we don't have any forum really need to move forward on the commission's initial work. so i would just ask that you have folks look into whether or not we have started to work on implementation of section 909 to see if we could make some progress. as you know, we have some considerable challenges that face particularly our native villages when it comes to public safety, domestic violence. we need to turn this around and we need your help. >> i agree with you, senator,

and that is not a parochial concern. the mechanism is, but the concerns you raised go outside of your state and i think are worthy of your attention, my intention, and i look forward to working with you. wecome up with ways in which can make effective that provision of the reauthorization. it is something we have tried to make a priority generally in the justice department, but the concerns you have raised about what is going on in your state are very legitimate concerns. they are not parochial. they are not. these are national issues that require national responses and national attention. >> i appreciate that. thank you madam chair. >> thank you, mr. attorney general. if there are no other questions for the committee, i would like to thank you, until we meet again, and the matter that we and called -- there are many questions we will want to talk about and work with your staff, but we would

like to hear from the inspector general. we know the senators have other duties. mr. attorney general, i want to thank you for your flexibility in the schedule. you were originally scheduled theier today because of votes. thank you for your cooperation in participating at the time that we requested, and we look forward to working with you and your staff. and we just have a lot to do here. >> ok, thank you very much. >> thank you, chairwoman mikulski, ranking members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to testify today. it is just over one year now that i was sworn in as inspector general and it has been an extraordinarily busy time for me in the office. we have issued numerous reports of great importance over the past year, including on atf's operation, fast and furious, and wide receiver, the justice management division improper hiring practices, the department hearing of the clarence hearing limits a

request, and the federal security program. we also included many reports that do not make headlines that will help make the department's operations more effective and efficient. we use to do more than 70 all that's in the past year, financial audit statements, information security audits, and audits of grant recipients. we investigated the fbi's implementation of several projects, the u.s. marshal service management of its procurement activities, and the executive office of immigration reviews and immigration of -- management of immigration cases. at the same time our agents made dozens of arrests and conducted misconduct investigations that resulted in well over 100 administrative actions against department employees. i am particularly proud of having appointed the first ever doj person. we must make sure that people

can step forward without fear of retaliation. i have learned that our work this past year is a typical of the extraordinary work of oig has produced. we have identified nearly $1 billion of questionable costs, far more than the budget during that same time. identified a for a quarter billion dollars of taxpayer funds that could have been put to better use by the department. as inspector general's, however, sequestration has significantly impacted our office. we received a five percent reduction to base this fiscal year and are scheduled to receive a 2.3% additional reduction next year. approximately 79% of art manages our personnel related in these budget reductions we equate to a reduction of nearly a percent of our workforce. we are well below the staffing levels when i became inspector general last year and we continue to substantially restrict our spending.

these reduced staffing levels are negatively impacting our work in a number of ways, including requiring us to reevaluate the number and types of audits and investigations we will be able to conduct going forward. regarding our plans for future work, this past november we 10eased a list of the top management challenges. i would like to briefly mention three of them. first, safeguarding national security. there remains one of the highest priorities, as tragically demonstrated by the boston marathon bombings. is investigating national security issues, including intelligence information sharing among federal agencies prior to the boston bombing. to disrupt terrorist financing and the use of the fbi's foreign tariff -- foreign terror tracking task force. we revealed the potential risks for failing to improperly share -- to properly share intelligence. we also missed make sure we are

properly using the investigative tools we have been given and we continue our substantial work in this area as well, including the latest reviews of the fbi use of national security letters and section 215 orders. second, cybersecurity must be one of the department's highest priorities. computer systems in the public and private sector that are integral to the infrastructure, economy, and defense of the united states face a rapidly growing threat of cyber intrusion and attack. the oig previously examined the operations of the justice security operations center and the national cyber investigative joint task force, as well as the capabilities of fbi field offices to investigate cyber intrusion. we made important recommendations in these reports and we are currently evaluating additional reviews. thed, let me turn to significant budget challenges the department is facing, in particular with relation to the federal prison system wil.

the bureau of prisons continues to consume an ever-increasing share of that budget due to the growth of the risen population and the aging. 15 years ago, the doj busted -- the doj budget represent a 50%. it represents 25%. and i would note that if the projected growth in the budget over the next several years continues and the department's budget stays flat, that number grows to 30% in the next several years there. they account for more employees than the fbi or any other department component. despite the budget growth, federal prisons are now 37% over rated capacity and the projection is that will increase to 44% in the years ahead even with additional funding. the prison path is not sustainable and it department must address this issue before it necessitates cuts to the

budgets of other doj components. as the department faces these and many other important challenges in the years ahead, the oig will continues to conduct vigorous oversight. the department of justice is more than just another federal agency. it is the guardian of the system of justice and is responsible for enforcing our laws fairly, without bias, and with the utmost integrity. we play a critical role in ensuring the fulfillment of that mission. i look forward to working with the subcommittee and look forward to the questions from you today. >> that was a testimony, and it really raises -- there are many things i worry about with the department of justice. one is of course cost escalating in the prison program where we have to be so careful because we don't want to increase risk in our community. and then the other is cybersecurity. let me go to the cybersecurity question. mr. horwitz, you identified this

as a something of great concern of yours and it is a great concern of mine. it is so great of a concern that i am going to have a hearing across subcommittee lines on cyber. the administration has asked for every agency $13 billion. by and large, because this committee works through the subcommittees, we can have a stovepipe approach and all we get a smoke but i don't know if we get fire. the other thing that i worry about is we want to make sure that whatever we do to protect the nation we are maximizing resources, getting value for the dollar, and we have our committees working in a coordinating way. i also worry about techno boondoggles, where everybody likes to buy digits and widgets, but we and up with incompatibility, interoperability, and

dysfunction. here is my question -- what would you say are the top three issues in the field of cybersecurity, and how can we insist if there are deficiencies or whatever or dysfunctions will we as a committee should be insisting upon or, at the same time, investing in corrective action, or a combination of -? >> let me mention what i think are three of the most important issues. >> are my fears justified? verythink they are justified concerns, and we have done reports in this area about some of the technology efforts to implement some. some work, like sentinel, but this is our 10th report on the sentinel system we are preparing to do. of thehink in terms significant issues, first and foremost is the public/private relationship. it is very important for the to theent to reach out

private sector, and for the private sector to be willing to come in and report criminal activity to the department of justice, to local officials in this area. that is something that needs to be working on. second is information sharing and computer sharing, which you just raised. oneng sure that it is not component's system and then another component system not speaking to one another. that is one of the issues we will end up looking at probably in the boston marathon bombing review we are doing, as we have four i.g.'s working together. >> the so-called watchlist issue? >> that is correct. >> which you are an expert on, senator collins. go ahead. are reviewing that to follow-up on the christmas bombing incident and whether changes have been made there that needed to be done. and then we identified in our

prior reports the need to make sure that the fbi agents you are the front-line people in this effort have the right training, the right tools on the ground. that is where the action is happening. headquarters, i was a prosecutor in the u.s. attorney's office, that is where you need to make sure people are well-trained. they will have the relationships on the ground with local businesses, the local community. those are the folks who need to know and understand how to take these actions come out to woodruff these issues. those of the folks who need to understand how to take these actions and how to address those issues. doi am looking at a must list that we can actually implement through three appropriations process. on this compatibility, interoperability, in particular intradepartmental and then intradepartmental. the second question goes to the

federal prison population. i think you have raised in your reports the compassionate leap program and the aging population. that is a very intriguing thing, but one we don't think is well managed. but second, that you think these are possibilities where, if done properly, we could reduce the number and not increase the risk, which is an up session of the committee. could you share with us what you think the reform should be? thes we indicated in compassionate release were, as the gao indicated in some of their reviews on residential reentry and elderly populations, we indicated on our international prisoner transfer treaty report there are ways to manage the prison population that allows individuals with very low recidivism rates. you will never reduce it to zero, but with compassionate

release the recidivism rate was very low, three percent. they are low risk individuals, they are elderly prisoners who are released who, if you carefully select it was eligible, you can find ways to address the issue with a very low potential for recidivism. there are several programs dealing with current inmates that can be done. the international prisoner transfer issue, for example, that is a program that there are tens of thousands of inmates who in theory are eligible for. we found the department had used it with regard to 299 inmates one year. if that number was say, less than one percent of the eligible inmates -- >> we are not talking about terrorists, like to get no problem. talking aboutre

low-level offenders. 27% of our offenders are non-us individuals. 46% last year of defendants were non-us nationals. so this is a number that is likely -- >> could you repeat those numbers again? >> 27% approximately of current inmates are non-us nationals. , of 84,000ar's defendants prosecuted by the justice department, approximately 46% were non-us nationals. is obviously very significant. those individuals, our report citizenree percent are right. people coming back to this country and threatening individuals here. again, this is not a mandatory program. if you carefully manage a program like this, you look at

nonviolent offenders, first-time individuals who have acted appropriately in prison, who have stable potential home lives. there are a variety of factors you look at before making that decision. so we are not looking at sending tens of thousands of people overseas, but as we found in our report, if you just did three percent of the eligible inmates, for example, that would save about $50 million. >> 50 million? >> so there are possibilities i think are out there that need to be addressed. there is a wide-ranging issue, obviously that that affects who was coming in the door, what happens in residential reentry centers, very important issue we have done a lot of reviews on and found a lot of issues with how residential reentry centers, halfway houses are managed. they have to be managed better because they are an important transit point for inmates to

leave the prison and get back to the community and have that transition in the residential reentry centers. >> thank you very much. i want to senator shelby. very meatyt was a exchange and quite frankly an eye-opener. and then i will follow-up on what i like like from you. senator shelby? >> mr. inspector general, i would like to follow-up on senator mikulski's question a little. , currently pending, is that right? >> approximately 46%. >> what are said to joke that is violent crime, is it all kinds of crime, or how do you break that down? can you do kind of a generic thing here? >> i don't have the numbers, but i can get that for you. what you do find, and i think it is interesting, as you see these numbers involved, -- as

you see the numbers involved, the crime that used to have the largest is drugs prosecution. immigration is now the largest. drugs are second. in the needed to firearm offenses. >> if you excluded, just for the conversation, immigration and drugs, what about violent crimes? is it connected to drugs, or is all across the board? it cuts across the board, and one of the issues congress has tried to a dress and we tried to a dress -- that we tried to address was which first-time offenders might be eligible for reentry courts or other positions because they don't have a connection to violence. and i think that is an important issue. >> thank you. i want to get back to an area that i was into question what the attorney general, public trust and confidence, i think most of us would agree, is key to a successful federal law

enforcement effort across the board. if the department of justice is --ing sick michigan issues, is facing significant issues, as we all know it has, and in particular in recent weeks that has jeopardize confidence, what can be done to restore that public trust by the american people, in your judgment? will it take new personnel? will it take a different attitude? it take? because i think this is very much under attack, the confidence of the american people in the justice department right now because of a lot of things. , that thes misconduct senator from alaska raised, a lot of things. as you will know in your role. >> yeah, i think of utmost importance to the justice

thertment, to all of prosecutors and agents and all the people who work there is being able to make arrests, bring cases, try cases, and have confidence in the juror sitting in the jury box with what they are hearing and who they are hearing from. there have been a series of incidents over the last several years, certainly at the justice department, that have raised concerns in that regard. we did a report on fast and furious that involved what we thought were highly problematic if vents -- problematic events involving both agents and prosecutors. prosecutione senator murkowski mentioned, other prosecutions that have been brought and raise concerns about that. i think the department has to keep in mind the importance of maintaining that integrity. it has been on our top 10 list of challenges allow several years. in part because of that issue. the confidence of the

american people, would it not be based on the trust, truthfulness, veracity of coming evenhandedness, of the department of justice? >> i agree, a critical point is there has to be that confidence. >> and if that is question, it undermines law enforcement, does it not? >> certainly if there is a basis where that takes hold, law enforcement, prosecutors, and agents feel that. >> i have just a few more seconds, i guess, but in the area that senator mikulski got into, cyber crimes, which is so important, we have always had, i guess from the times of the persians and greeks and romans, you name it, industrial apps panache -- industrial espionage. people trying to find out products and so forth for the edge. we understand that, and that is big. but it seems now with the

computer age that it has gotten , and there are other countries, including some of our friends, so-called friends who are very interested in the processes of tomorrow's products, be they pharmaceutical, be they weapons, be they anything, energy, chemicals, you name it. cyber is so important, but the defense against that -- because i think in the cyber war, we better not forget that people are looking for the edge. and you have competitors in the ourd who are getting into so-called industrial secrets and so forth, things that have been built up over years by billions of dollars of worth of research. so i agree with senator

mikulski, that is a real challenge to this country, from the economic standpoint, and of course always for national security. you disagree with me? >> no, i agree completely, and one of the things we do is understand whether the private sector is willing to bring that evidence in. whatat do you need -- does the justice department need? they need resources, always, and this is the appropriation committee, but they need the tools, and it is changing everyday, is it not? >> yeah, it is constantly evolving and changing. >> and it is not going away? >> i doubt that. >> is this one of our biggest challenges as a nation right now? >> i think it is clearly one of the most significant challenges we are facing. >> thank you. >> great questions. senator collins? >> thank you, madam chairman.

first i would like to commend the ig for what i think is extraordinary work and a very productive time during his leadership of the office. office released a public summary of an interim on the department's handling of known or suspected terrorists who had been admitted into the federal witness protection program. i must say that it came as a shock to me that we had known or suspected terrorists who were part of the witness protection program, but that is a whole another issue. what is troubling in this report to me is that it illustrated yet another failure of government to share absolutely vital information.

in this case, according to your report, the federal witness protection program was not theseg information about suspected or even known terrorists who had been admitted to the program with the terrorist screening center. now, the reason this is important is the terrorist screening center's watchlist is used by tsa for its no-fly and selected list. so here we have a situation where one agency has admitted known or suspected terrorists into its program, may have changed their identities, given them new names, likely has, and is not sharing that information to allow tsa to put these ,ndividuals on its no-fly list

or at least the list where there is extra screening. i would like to ask whether you found out whether or not some of these individuals actually did fly on commercial flights because their names were not on the no-fly lists? >> we found that individuals flew, and that they flew with the knowledge and permission of the marshal service. what we did not go further to find out was whether on their own accord they flew, but i had that ability to do so using their new identities, even though under their real names they had been put on a no-fly was by the tsa, and that because, as you indicated, the criminal division of the marshals service did not share with the terrorist screening center their new identity the individual got. >> so think how extraordinary

this is. is terrorist's real name known and is on the no-fly list, but the new identity created by our government under the witness protection program is not shared with tsa or the terrorism screening center, and thus that identity, which is the identity they are using, allows them to escape him on this list. them to escape being on this list. another is travel that may be necessary, but the fact is we have no idea whether these individuals traveled on their own. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> my second and related question to this is, were these individuals accompanied on the airplanes when they were traveling, at the official

behest of the government? >> our understanding is that too marshals brought them to the airplane, but once they get on the plane, they were not escorted further until they landed and got off the plane on the other side, where two marshals met them. but for the travel itself, nobody was accompanying them. >> so think about this, madam chairwoman -- this is so extraordinary, these individuals are dangerous enough that two marshals accompany them to the gate to get them on the plane. without any fly marshals accompanying them or any law enforcement assigned to them, and they are so dangerous they are met at the other end. this is just mind-boggling to me. now, is there any information that suggests to us that the air

wereals who are on planes informed of the presence of these known or suspected terrorists? >> we are not aware of the air marshals come if they were on those planes, but they were notified. it appears that the effort to compartmentalize this and keep the information close limited to sharing that should have otherwise occurred. >> so it is not as if the air marshal took over while they were on the plane. exactly. i just find this mind-boggling and so on acceptable and so dangerous, -- i find is so unacceptable and so dangerous, and i want to thank you publicly for doing this work and revealing this incredible gap. and due to your work, i know the department of justice is looking at changing its procedures, but it is just extraordinary that it

happened in the first place. thank you for your good work. i know my time has expired. >> thank you, senator. , i invite collins you, first of all your expertise for having shared -- chaired homeland security, particularly in these early times come your expert only watchlist, but even when we have a watch list you have to get on the watchlist. i have people, prominent maryland citizens who cannot off the watchlist, but if you are a known terrorist, you don't get on the watchlist. -- iwould really like would invite you and your staff to work with the i.g. for any reform jew but like to include. >> thank you. >> senator murkowski? ,> thank you, madam chairwoman and i would agree this has been a fascinating hearing, in part to to the expertise of some of our colleagues. am just thinking senator

collins about all you have detailed. you just kind of have to shake your head at what goes on. it was announced yesterday tsa has decided they will not enforce that rule about allowing small minds on airplanes. as insignificant as that was, it is one more example of how we are able to confuse and confound the public when it comes to safety as we travel. also thank you, mr. horwitz, for your work here. i would like to focus for a moment on what senator shelby raised, which is the public trust. and the issue of how we regain the public's confidence, because i think the public's confidence is clearly shaken in many areas. we had an opportunity to visit, and in that meeting you indicated to me that the inspector general is really confined. e ofare bound by section 8-

the inspector general act that precludes the examination of the work of the department of justice attorneys. so the i.g. can look at everybody else and they can do an independent review and investigation, but when it comes to the department of justice attorneys, they are exempted. and when you look at the law come again, you shake your head and say, well, why is this? i for one would like to have really seen a truly independent inquiry into whether the justice department possibly gators had made the right decisions. i mentioned the terrible situation with senator stevens. for youre are told office and the predecessors to your office that it is not possible because of this provision within the inspector general act. if there is any

legitimate reason in your mind why this section 8-e should not be modified to allow your office to conduct these independent inquiries into the department's litigation units? >> my office has long taken a view there is no reason for that provision to prohibit us for looking at attorney decision where we, as you indicated, review actions of agents and every other employee in the department. >> do you think if you were able to conduct these independent investigations of the department of justice attorneys that that would help us in kind of reclaiming that public trust, if you will, or the confidence that i think we are lacking right now when it comes to certain aspects of the department of justice? mention two reports we have done. fast and furious, where we addressed what looked initially to be aging conduct, but as we

found also involved attorney conduct and it decision making. that was one area where we spoke to attorneys, but it was largely because it was originally investigator driven. and the questions were about atf but it also involve the u.s. attorney's office, as well as we just issued a few weeks ago a report on a leak that occurred out of the case that we found involve the u.s. attorney himself. reports in both instances were made public. they were judged by the public, by members of congress. i was called to testify, at least at first, the fast and furious report, and from our standpoint, we are subject to rigorous oversight in that regard, and we make our reports public. and i think from our standpoint, it is important to be transparent, to be open, so that when issues arise, if there is misconduct, people know it is dealt with appropriately, and when there are allegations

of misconduct that are not ausa's frankly, lots of had allegations made against them that are disproven. that is just as important to have out there. their records, their name should be cleared if that is true. so i think on both instances that is important. >> madam chairwoman, i would love to discuss this further with you. i think it is an issue and area that we need to look to to address. i cannot think of any good reason why the justice department attorneys would be exempted, would be completely carved out. i think it would go towards really restoring a level of confidence that you know that you can have a truly independent investigation and assessment. and right now we are prohibited, the i.g. is prohibited from doing this.

there is no transparency within the department when there needs to be and this is something i think we should be looking at. thank you for your work and thank you, madam chairwoman. >> mr. horwitz, thank you for really adding very much to our knowledge, to our insights, and to i think really rounding out the committee hearing. we would like to work on these reforms that the senators have indicated. and for me, i want to come back to two areas, the must do list on the cybersecurity, knowing we are not authorize or's, -- we we not authorizeor's but think we can give guidance and direction and resources. the other goes to the prisoner issue. in particular the areas where we could look at least this year at the beginning's. not an overhaul.

again, we are not the executive branch. but where we know we have reasonable outcomes of reducing population, but we know that people will be safe and we won't be sorry. and i would look then at the aging population, what your suggestions would be in the area of aging and compassionate release, again, carefully selected, and the other, the fact that 27% of those in our federal prisons could be in prisons in other countries, and these are not terrorism. so we are not into releasing them in the street or releasing them into the streets of paris or yemen or something like that. how we couldgain, encourage the department of justice to get more on the ball in this area. because it sounds like they have not been on the ball in this area.

and what we can do to do that. ok. , we want to thank you, and you were an assistant u.s. attorney. , seven and half years up in manhattan, new york city, and before he came came to washington in 2009, and worked with the criminal division three and half years. so i have seen a variety of cases. >> well, the u.s. attorney's office in manhattan sees every kind of case in the world, actually, because you have the world with new york. having said that, as was an excellent hearing. our witnesses were very insightful, and our subcommittee was excellent. if there are no further questions, the senators can submit additional questions on the official record. we respect the response within

30 days. the subcommittee stand in recess, subject to the call of the chair. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> learn more about your senators and congressmen with the congress and all directory. also cabinet members, supreme court justices, and the nation's governors. at c-ectory is $12.95 span.org/shop./ irs official apologized for a $4 million conference cheering. featuring parody videos. here's a few minutes from the hearing with the committee's top democrat, elijah cummings. what happens here is when we have episodes like this, it has an impact on the average person.

i live in a block where most people don't even make $50,000 per year, but yet and still we can produce a video that has no redeeming value. none. and spend taxpayer's hard-earned dollars for that. and then there was the line dance. any there, either. and so i say we can do better. , theuess what -- mr. fink money that was spent on that, that is my money. that is the lady who got the early us this morning, that is her money. the one who makes $35,000. her. the gentleman up the street from he who makes 45,000. hauling trash. that is their money.

and so it was wasted. in my district, i can tell you $50,000 is a huge amount for families who are struggling to get by. that is more than many households make in this country. unfortunately, this was only part of a broader problem which was the growth of the conference spending over the past decade. the inspector general's report report finds the irs spent approximately $48.6 million on conferences over the past three fiscal years, from 2010 to 2012, but the irs spent far more than that in the three prior fiscal years, from 2007 to 2009. when the irs spent an astonishing $72 million on conferences. mr. george, the scope of your inquiry was limited. but let me say this, mr. chairman, it would be legislative malpractice, legislative malpractice if we did not bring mr. shuman and

here to asksam, to explain to and explain tom us why in 2007, 2008, the conference budget was over $13 million, and more than doubled when we are going into a recession, when president bush is coming to us, telling us to ouruise the fall, that economic situation is about to go over a cliff. we've". it would be legislative malpractice if we don't figure out what happened there. because if we are truly going to get to the cause of this, we have to understand what happened to calls something to do double. >> see that entire hearing tonight at 9:15 eastern on c- span. governor chris christie today appointed state attorney general jeffrey chiesa to fill the senate seat

>> i realize the pursuit of peace is not as germanic as the pursuit of war, and frequently the words of the pursuant fall on deaf years, but we have no more urgent task. to speak of peace or andd law or world dominance it will be useful until the leaders of the soviet union adopt a more enlightened attitude. i hope they do. i believe we can help them do it. i also believe we must re- examine our own attitudes, as andviduals and as a nation, every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace should begin looking

inward. >> tom brokaw and nick clooney reflect on the candidate president and his peace speech on sunday at 7:30 eastern on c- span thre3. >> when you put on a uniform for a maintenance job, and this is true if you are janitor or a sanitation worker, you are subsumed the role to the point where it is almost like you are just a part of the background, almost like a machine, so that you are a human being wearing that uniform. the world gets to overlook you and not see you. i have called it like a romulan cloaking device, those people who are fellow "stark look at geeks.- "stark trek"

when i wear the sanitation uniform, i can observe people in ways i am not observing them. nagle, sunday at 8:00. theally jewell announced delay in implementing rules on gas drilling on public lands. she made the announcement on fracking in testimony before the senate he energy and natural resources committee. .> good morning senator murkowski is on her way, and also because we have votes at 10:00, we are going to try to move everything quickly this morning. i want to thank senator murkowski and senator progress so -- barrasso.

we want to review the programs in the department of interior. the hearing marked the first time that secretary jewell -- i liked those words -- has testified before the committee since her confirmation, and we look forward your statement. i believe this hearing marks the time that the deputy secretary david hayes will appear before the committee before he leaves office later this month, and i would like to extend my appreciation to him for his long career in public service and advocacy as deputy secretary of the past and especially his work as deputy secretary over the past four and a half years in his second tour of duty. i want to take a minute to highlight a few provisions in that current budget proposal of the department. i am pleased with the administration puts proposed budget for the department of interior, $11.7 billion, there'll a three percent increase over the 2013

continued resolution. 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 in the right places. the president has made conference or duration of our public lands, our national parks, aussies encouraging recreation, and support of the land and water conversation fund a high priority, and i support his commitment. outdoor recreation, as we have talked about in this committee, , and ar, major business jobs producer for our country, and studies have found americans spend $646 billion each year on outdoor recreation. that equates to more than 6 million direct american jobs. understand all whole lot about this, and is aware of the link between conservation jobs and economic growth. it is encouraging the administration has proposed and the tory funding for the land

and water conservation fund in fiscal year 2014 and it tends to see the full mandatory funding starting in 2015. i look forward to seeing legislative proposal to authorize full annual funding for this program. lwcf is an essential component in the country's effort to provide areas for people to get outside and recreate. with respect to our national parks, i've been exploring new ways to provide necessary funding for our parks. i have talked about this at to discuss will want it further with his secretary this morning, because clearly, with the enormous challenge resented as result of sequestration, we should look at fresh ideas creative ideas, ideas that bring in the private sector, look to public-private partnerships to do a responsible job of addressing the needs of our parks in a fiscally challenged environment.

, theng to energy issues department plays and a portal role in providing resources for the country. significant strides were made during secretary salazar's projects the siding of on public land. come a we willl encourage you to continue those efforts in the area of renewable energy. i am pleased to see strong support for the department cost new frontier initiative that promotes the spousal energy development on our public lands. as the secretary knows and collies have talked a lot about it here, we are concerned about the management of our forests. as the length and severity of -- drought and wildlife wildfire season has increased your after year, and i am one who believes a measure of this is due to climate change and it is clear that federal forests are in poor health, making the more vulnerability the

catastrophic forest fires. as we talked about just a couple of days ago in this room, i am troubled that the president's 50%est includes a reduction in hazardous fuels treatments for the department of the interior. as we discussed on tuesday, you were not here, but i am sure you have gotten the report, we are and just work with you my secretary vill sack, and and we will make sure that the folks on the office of management and budget side are part of these discussions as well, to get a new big picture effort to improve our policies with respect to fire budgeting. i am grateful the administration's proposal to extend payments program is a permanent program at the full funding level in 2014. the secretary knows how strong we feel about the schools program. that appears in the forest service budget, and we also note there is an important

component that is run by the bureau of land management, .specially for the omc lands i will address the short-term authorization and long-term funding for counties as well as funds -- jobs for increased forest management. he appreciate the proposed budget increase of $1.8 billion in the program to increase the volume of timber offered for sale and for other for street were. this is and the more nervous -- this is of an norma's importance to organ. we are increasing the harvest omc lands. i look forward to working with the administration, with colleagues on both sides of the out, in making it a bicameral effort with the house as well. with that i would like to recognize a colleague of a senator murkowski, for any

comments that you would like to make. i so appreciate the chance to work on these issues in a bipartisan way, and welcome my colleagues. comeank you, and welcome a madam secretary. good to see but are you. i want to thank you for your commitment that you have made as relates to king cove, the mr.ctor of indian affairs washburn will be visiting king cove in late june. the commitment that you have made to this visit in august is again one that i appreciate and i look forward to joining you on a trip. i don't want to to belabor this point, but i want to look forward to this visit, to introduce you to my constituents. you know how strongly i feel, how strongly the members of the alaskan delegation feel about this road that we have been

talking about, this 10-mile single-lakne road that would hep provide for essentially membered z-axis for the residents of king cove to an all-weather airport. we thought we had reconciled that in the 2009 on the bus act. it is not done yet, but i want to work with you to see that we finally and fully resolve this fairly for the citizens of king conan. i have a number of questions to ask. we have votes that will interact, but i 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 wells up in 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 that this has to be addressed, it has to be remedied. we have more than a hundred wells drilled by the federal government and then they walked away. they abandoned them. are full of wells contaminants, that pollute the environment. the federal government has abandoned responsibly to clean up after itself. el --'s funding if we keep it up at this pace, it is 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. so is the administration's postal the use of alaska cost

npra revenuese for mediation. i met the mayor of the north slope borough, as well as the others, several weeks back that you had a chance as well. i have a copy of a letter from the mayor from our commissioner of natural resources, from the on the northsic slope, that i would like to have included as part of the record. thank you, mr. chairman. a related concern is that pattern of falling production on federal lands. our nation is in the midst of an historic oil and gas boom, but it is also true that production on federal lands is in trouble. contrary to some of the statements, the rhetoric we have heard, oil production from the federal estate actually fell five percent last year after falling even more than that in 2011.

natural gas production from the same federal areas is in virtual freefall, down 8% down last year and down only two percent from 2009. the fact of the matter is america plus energy boom is happening in spite of federal policy that stymie our production. we should the opening new lands to development am a making sure permits are approved on time, and preventing regulation and ourgation from locking down lands. if anyone is looking for a place to start, i will invite you to look to alaska. i also want to mention before i tactic thee department has engaged in to enforce the endangered species act. in my view it is alarming and with decisions now to on hundreds of species, the economic consequences could be considerable. i recognize that you have a unique background to sit before us as the secretary of the interior, background in the oil

and gas industry, and the private sector, and the conversation -- conservation community. this is the right mix. you have promised bring stakeholders together to help solve problems, to be that convener. we need that and what i welcome it. i hope you will bring that fresh perspective that was moved to some of these longest standing stalemates. i look forward to working with you, and i think you being here this morning. >> here is where i think we are with the boats at 10:00. if the secretary takes 10 minutes or so, she is comfortable with that, we can have each senator who is present here get five minutes worth of questioning in before the vote. it will be tight, but if colleagues find that is acceptable, let's give that a try. secretary jewel, welcome. >> thank you very much. i appreciate being here today.

[indiscernible] i want to begin by echoing comments of chairman wyden on the collect my left, a bit hazy he has been and are must up to me and to the mac and people his service to the country to the department of the interior. it is helpful to me today to have him beside me, but more importantly, he has been generous with his wisdom and experience. i will miss them terribly, but he is only a phone call away. i will make sure he has a hotline to his office. but i am veryim, happy he is with me today. i want to thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee. i have learned a lot in these 7 1/2 weeks on the job. i've been to many places, many of your states and so why wanted

to organize my thoughts and/or if you write categories. i want to start with energy on shore. on-sure the projection is that it's ice protection in over a decade. it continues to increase and i am very happy to provide with statistics that are different from the comments that you just referenced in terms of oil production. i looked at the reforms that the blm has put in place. they changed them in 2010. we have had the lowest numbers of protests of sales in 10 years, so we are making progress there. the team is working hard on reducing the time for permitting and approval of new projects. i will be facilitated through automation, and sequestration has enacted that, but we are committed to getting that done. i want to reference the hydraulic fracking rule we released just short while ago time.he 30-day, and

a lot of comets have been ratmae on that role. we changed it significantly. one of the consistent things i have heard is a request for more time, so i announced that 60 daysgive an extra thi on that rolule. i think that will be an ample time for people to express their views on it, but we need to get on with this regulation that has been over 30 years in place and technology has moved forward. i want to say alaska is an important component of our nation plus energy strategy. the plans we have for the national petroleum reserve provide assets to more than 70% of the oil potential there. it supports infrastructure needs, but recognizes the importance of providing protection for final subsistence, habitat, which the member is familiar with.

oil rigs andut on platforms, visited a deepwater floating-rate which turns out just a few weeks that it had a major discovery in the gulf of mexico. it is a very substantial project, and something that is growing in developing. i also went to a production platform from chevron and saw how the technology has evolved, and how it has stayed the same in many ways. in april we announced the proposed notice of sale for lease sale 233 which will make available acres offshore texas will be the third sale in the program. we've also implemented key reforms that reduce the time for review of exploration and element plans for deepwater drilling in the gulf, and i will say there is now more floating deepwater rigs operating in the gulf than prior to the deepwater

horizon spell. it is something to ia 25% increase. the bureau of ocean energy management has begun a programmatic and frontal impact statement to support assessment of resort potential -- resource potential off the mid--south atlantic. we have a critical role to play in renewable energy and in fulfilling the goal of doubling renewable electricity generation by 2020. on public lands. as an overseer of those lancet i am pleased to say that since 2009 we have authorized me to renewable energy projects on public lands that has the potential to produce electricity for more than 4.2 million homes. on the offshore side, the bureau of ocean energy management just issued a notice that we will have our first ever competitive lease sale off the coast of rhode island and massachusetts with another one

to be held offshore in virginia this year. that is 270,000 acres i could reduce electricity to power 1.9 million homes. i want to shift gears to federal lands and reference something the chairman mentioned which is the national parks centennial. i hope that you will join me in making sure that we take this milestone seriously and engaged the public more in the support of our national parks, but also broadly our public lands. besides being out in a number of national parks, i have also joined with young people in several places, one in a park in and other in the gateway national recreation area i'm . most importantly, engaging people in conservation and building a connection to those

lands that will stay with them forever. this 21st century civilian service corps is listening and learning from the civilian conservation corps, but doing it in the form of public-hybrid partnerships, referencing the comments, and that is a great lesson of how we connect people to public lands in a way that stays with them forever, and i hope you will join me in supporting more of those kinds of programs. as the chairman mentioned, in our budget we are looking for mandatory funding of the land- water conservation fund over eight two-year time. those are supporting every single county across the united states, very important program that has made a big difference on a local level, but also a big difference on a national level. we hope you will support us there. we are committed to ensuring livable uses on our public lands so they support the resources and the opportunities important to americans. the onc lands the chairman mentioned we are committed to supporting sustained yield with

blm and working with folks in california on that. one of the things that you are keenly aware of is our commitment to wildland firefighting. 2000 13 season is unfortunately often a hot start. we have seen fires in california and new mexico and arizona. his is early. it looks like it could be a severe fire season. our ability to fight those fires has been impacted by sequestration, particularly our ability to reduce hazardous fuels and remediate after fires we are working in a way that is so cooperative across agencies to do the best job weekend, and i visited boise interagency fire center along with senator risch. it is very encouraging the way people work together without regard to agency, but it is a big issue and something we would appreciate your support and help in addressing over long term basis. i want to talk about water.

to our lives,cal but it is under a lot of pressure from population growth and a changing climate. i want to give a nod my colleague here, david hayes, also might connor -- mike connor, who are doing a great job to address these significant issues, providing leadership to communities as redress the competing demands for water, they need to increase water availability, restore watersheds, and resolve conflicts that have been there for a long time. through water conservation, water smart is a program we call the best drop of water that we do not need is the one we do not use, and we certainly played an important role in finding better ways to stretch existing water supplies and highlight this practice is out there that everyone can learn from. and to up, i want to say that

sequestration continues to be an owner must frustration. you would never run a business the way we are required to run government with sequestration. tight.budget times are we're committed to to being thoughtful about the money we spend, but doing it across the board in programs important to all of you is not a sensible way to run our business. we have frozen hiring, done furloughs in some cases. it had to cut across every line item and some of those are important to all of you. so i ask for your support in getting us past this sequestration and onto a more rational budget climate. i look forward to taking your questions, and thank you very much. >> we will also call another audible. we have had other senators come in, so 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, so my hope is we will be able to get most of it done before the end of the vote at

10;15. a quick questions on the onc that are. something.confirm as you know the oregon delegation feel strongly about this. we have 18 of these onc counties which are hurting. we are pushing hard to get the harvest up. we talked when you were in portland about you come in the blm, giving us the technical support, so we can get into these maps and find a way to address the kind of partition concept, have areas where you focus on the harvest area, where we protect the treasures. did you state publicly what you said privately that you will be there to give us that the lm the technical support we need here over the next few weeks? workwill be happy to closely with you with the blm, and i know the checkerboard situation that is prevalent throughout the west is a challenge in terms of managing

these resources, consolidating, doing it in a thoughtful yield way is something we are committed to. the blm people will be happy to work closely with you on that. >> good. let me talk about national park funding. senatorsad several raise concerns about authorizing new national parks. given the scope of the backlog, the very significant backlog, i am one who says we ought to be working on two tracks. we're colleagues here, democrats, republicans, who want to designate new parks. we support that that. i share the view of colleagues who say we have got to come up with a fiscally sponsored the approach to deal with the backlog. we have been talking to the director john jarvis about it, and my question is, i understand you all are reviewing several funding recommendations that are in the national park conservation association report. the park concessionaires have

offered ideas with respect to the bipartisan policy center. can you tell us a little bit more about ways in which we could look to bring in the , fiscallyctor responsible purchase, given the fact that we are going to try hard to build a bipartisan coalition so we can have these new parks, which you and i have talked about, they are good for our future, preserving our treasures, but the city economy, but i think colleagues are making legitimate points about the backlog of mind tell us what ideas you may be looking at from the park restoration association, the bipartisan policy center. >> this is something i am familiar with and have served on the second century commission early with senator portman, although he left us to run for elective office, as we certainly appreciate as well. there's no question that we have a significant deferred maintenance backlog. it is estimated to be over $11

billion, and that is something that we have been accumulating over many years of not treating our assets in the public lands in the way we might do them in the private sector in terms of setting aside depreciation, and that has more to do with appropriations and less to do with what the national park would like to do. they would like to maintain these facilities, but it is a challenge in budgetary times, and we need your help to put the federal government's part in the budget to supplement what we might do from the private sector. there are opportunities for private sector engagement. one of the things that the second century commission work on was public-private partnerships and recognizing the people love their national parks and there's an opportunity to average that love of the parks to find ways to support and recognize private donations. it is fair to say and this came from the commission as well that private philanthropy

should be the margin of excellence for the park, not the margin for survival. it is critically important that we step up as a government to support these assets that are so important, and there is hardly a senator i visited with on either side of the aisle that did not have some wish or desire that related to the national park in their district or public lands in their district and support for them. we need to work with you and with the appropriators on adequate funding to begin to address the maintenance backlog, but we are very well -- willing, and director jarvis in particular infighting ways to enhance engagement and a quick story. i went up to the washington monument with a private donor was splitting with the government the cost for the renovations of that facility, david rubenstein, and i appreciate his support in setting a great example for the private sector, and we are looking for more opportunities like that. >> i will give you one russian for the record and stay under time. ,n the klamath issue in oregon

which is a classic kind of challenge, fish, agriculture, water, energy, commissioner connor is a fight that the bureau of reclamation's did not anticipate any supply if you can get back to me in writing with a quick confirmation of that i have not heard anything to the contrary. if you can get back to me with a response reaffirming what the commissioner connor said. >> sure. happy to do that. >> thank you mr. chairman. secretary, i am going to defer my questions until my colleagues had a chance to address theirs. i will be coming back after the votes. i did want to put a statement on the record. you noted in your opening statement that oil production from off shore lands is at the highest production level in over a decade. you noticed our commentaries differed.

i said oil production from the federal state fell 5% and the reference there. i think that it is important to just give some of the numbers here very briefly. because i think that it can be confusing. federal on shore oil production was at 8 .5 million barrels in 2003 and has gone up to 108.7 million in 2012. so, you do have a substantial increase there but is not the full picture. that is my point. on federal off shore production 438.6 it fall in 2003 to million barrels in 2012. so, what we have got is federal on shore production which rose by about 20 million barrels and federal off shore production fell by 100 million barrels, more than five times the on shore increase. when we are talking about this i think it is fortunate look at

the full picture. if your numbers are different than mine i would be happy to share. but i will defer to others so they can get questions in before the vote. >> very good. senator. >> the moratorium after the b.p. oil spill is that really what caused that dip? we had a huge thing happen. there was a moratorium after that. is it ok if i ask that? >> sure. >> yes, senator. it is true that oil production in the gulf did decline because of the safety issues that arose and the need to upgrade our safety standards. the good news is that there is e.i.a. recently reporting a strong upward trend now in the gulf, the secretary mentioned a major discovery. there are 10 major new

discoveries. there are now more than 50 rigs drilling in the off shore. the sales are very strong that we are having in the central and western gulf. so we expect to be back to where we were and further. but there certainly was a time we did pause and increase the safety standard and change the way we did business. and that did affect, we believe, production of the off shore. >> i'm sorry. i just wanted to clarify that. >> i regret that. but i will be chairing lately. we can find out the whole story there. secretary, i want to briefly talk about an issue that is really important in northern minnesota. here are 93,000 acres of lands that belong to the state that are trapped in the boundary

water canoe wilderness area. that means they can't contribute to the economic development to support the schools in minnesota. the forest service is working with the state to both purchase land from the state and to exchange the lands with minnesota. the superior national forest submitted to the administration a preproposal for the purchase piece, and i want to urge you to give every consideration to this application. it is an important issue to minnesota and to our schools. >> just to clarify, senator, if it is forest service, it is in the department of agriculture. i am not sure we are involved directly in that one unless david knows otherwise. >> no. but we will certainly work on it. >> certainly will support that with my colleague. >> it goes to both agencies. we will clarify. >> i would be happy to review

that. >> i just want to get into water a little bit. you mentioned water. it is critical, obviously, to the economy and to our well-being. we need water for farming and for a healthy ecosystems and for energy production. the drought that devastated so much of the country last year drove home how important water is. to make ourselves resill i don't drought we need to monitor groundwater resources and need to know with the rate which is our aquifers charge is sustainable given how much water is taken out. your department is issuing a lot of oil and gas permits in drought-prone areas requiring a huge amount of water. for instance a single fracturing well uses between 1 million to 10 million gallons of water. we heard about competition

between farmers and oil and rilling. can you just give me your take on how you consider water for s when issuing permits energy development on public lands, largest wholesale supplier in the nation is the department of interior. you have to be a leader in sustainable management. can you give me your -- just walk through the considerations. >> i will ask my colleague david heywards to weigh in with a little more detail. fracturing raulic we are encouraging the reuse of the fluids so it can be reused. another thing happening within the industry is the potential of using salt water from lower

depths as opposed to groundwater that may be competing with other resources and those activities are being ncouraged. they are not asking us for it. it is coming from state and local resources. i think the role we can play is to encourage reuse and monitoring appropriate use of produced water so there is not competition for that. it is expensive for the energy companies to buy water for these purposes as well. dave, i want to turn to you to give more detail specific to the topic. >> quickly, senator, obviously the water use is a big issue for us. the president's budget follows through on the requirement that congress laid out for us in 2007 for a water census. we are asking for about $15

million for the united states survey to provide the data for that. in terms of permitting what the secretary said is important, typically the states have privacy with regards to the water use. the proposed fracking rule out for further comment suggests that we require a tracking of that water. because when it comes up, if it is not handled appropriately it will cause damage to, for example, the public lands. but we look forward to a further dialogue. it is a very important issue. >> we have will senator frankel after the break. >> senator hayes, thanks for your dedicated service. you brought up sequestration. i want to bring up the revenue owed to states under the mineral leasing act. the department of the interior notified states it would withhold revenue in the fiscal year of 2013 before you were

confirmed and sworn into office. the department said the decision was in accordance with the budget control act of 2011, the sequester. three weeks ago a bipartisan group of us, 10 senators, five members of this committee. we sent a all right to o.m.b. have you a copy of that letter. we asked to confirm that your department would return mineral revenue withheld in 2013 to the states and do that next year in fiscal year 2014. we explained a provision within the federal budget law required the department to return withheld mineral revenue to the states back in the middle 1980's. the same provision of the law applies today. you have a copy of the letter. can you confirm the department will return mineral revenue withheld in 2013 to the tune of

$109 million to the 35 states to which it is owed? >> senator, thanks for the question. in your letter i understand the importance of mineral revenue to the states. we are doing our best to comply with a balanced budget and emergency deficit and control act otherwise known as the sequester. our understanding is that we were required to withhold payments, designed to be inflexible, damaging and indiscriminate. this is an example of that. i will be fulfilling my obligation under the law. whether that requires a repayment to the states or not is something that certainly o.m.b. is the right place to assess this and if we are asked to do that we absolutely will do that. we appreciate the importance to the state but we are doing the best to comply with the laws as written. rir would like to ask you that today you extended the comment

eriod another 60 days. b.l.m. may rescind this variance or modify the conditions of approval at any time. this is hardly a certainty that you acknowledged during your confirmation process that is so important for the private sector. you said they need certainty. it is unclear why they are adding federal regulations on top of state regulations. wyoming adopted it three years ago. since then nearly all states with meaningful oil and gas production adopted or are in the process of adopting their own rules. many states, such as wyoming, already applied their rules to federal lands within their borders. in this respect it seems to be looking for a problem. do you believe states which are

currently regulating hydraulic frarkting are not doing a sufficient job and if so which states do have you in mind? >> senator it is highly varible in between states. wyoming is sophisticated in its oversight of hydraulic fracturing. you understand the resources within the state. it is a good example of a state doing an effective job. our role is to provide minimum acceptable standards on public lands. oversight on behalf of the american people. that is what we are doing. the reason for the comment period, the 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 is problematic for them. we will be listening to the comments and reacting. >> final question about the

leadership of bureau of land management. last year the director retired. president obama has yet to nominate a successor. it is critical that he look to qualifications outlined in federal law. federal land policy and management act states the director of the bureau should have a broad background in substantial experience in public lands and natural resource management. the predecessor, over 30 years of experience in land and natural resource management prior to his nomination. do you believe the director should have a broad background and substantial experience in land and natural resource management as the law calls for? >> senator, i doll my best job to find someone that is highly qualified for the position. i need to take into account the talent that exists throughout

the b.l.m. and ability of an individual to lead that organization leveraging the talent that is there. you take all of these things into account and i am committed to doing that as well. >> thank my colleague. senator hinrich will be next. just because i think colleagues are trying to figure out their schedules, we will get as many colleagues in. when the votes start at 10:15 we will break. anticipate the votes being done at 11:00 and senator franken will come back and share. e will keep going. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i had to step out for another meeting. welcome. secretary jewel thank you so much for taking one of your first trips down to the gulf coast.

you were down in louisiana at one of our offshore gas rigs. reconnecting ou with that important industry based on your experience earlier in your career. i wanted to bring up two issues and i have questions on two issues. first is the request in the udget for the land and water conservation fund. many are interested in funding it for many reasons. there is a federal side that helps the parks and land acquisition. there is a state side that helps the states to really dollars.conservation i don't think there is a member on the committee that does not want to do that within reason.

my concern is that in this budget we are using revenues generated off of the coast of louisiana and texas when louisiana and texas and alabama and mississippi and florida are coastal areas with so much need that the money that we are generating, it seems like to me is pretty significant. i will put up a chart in a minute. it is basically being used to have all of the money going elsewhere in the country. we are saving the redwoods in the northeast and california but we are not saving the marsh where the revenue is coming from. do you have a comment about that? hat are your general feelings? our states are serving as platforms for the production. without south louisiana and texas there would be no way for

the federal government to access resources that are clearly ours. without our states there could e no access to the offshore. >> thank you for the question. as i mentioned in the comments i mentioned full support of the fund which hasn't been the case for more than one year in its 50-year history. i appreciate the revenue generated. i went to the gulf coast, i saw firsthand the positive impact that it has on the residents of louisiana through the jobs that it created including visiting our offices there which has over 500 people in the offices there. >> listen, we appreciate the job. but 500 jobs and jobs created along the coast do not compensate for the loss of revenues. this is $6 billion in 2006 and projected to be $11 billion

annually. that is coming of the coast of louisiana and texas. but we are struggling for years trying to get a fair share of that money just to be kept at home along the coast that is producing these revenues. if you put up the other chart the in land states, which i do not, you know, i am a little jealous actually of the deal that they were able to get. wyoming and new mexico, your state as you know, keep 50% of heir revenues. they keep 50%. the western states kept 61 billion, the western states, to spend on anything that they want. not even on conservation. they spend it on schools, hospitals, roads, don't even have to spend it on the

environment. meanwhile the gulf coast states get nothing. in our case we are even willing to dedicate all of that montoy coastal restoration. so, i can't impress upon the both of you how critical that this is. and i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support of this general concept. now, how we work out the details, i don't know. but i want to say to the western states i just want the same deal that you all have. and i am even willing to take a little bit less. i am willing to be more flexible. the people that i represent are truly desperate. this is the largest land loss in the continent of north america in the whole continent the whole continent. alaska has serious issues but i

don't think they are as serious as louisiana. this is a river that supports the whole nation. this is not a stream or a paddle place where you go around and have an enjoyable time. we are putting the largest commerce down this river. so, i am not going to stop. i want to tell you or share with you that i am going to be watching this budget carefully. the second question that i will have or submit that on the permitting process. we cannot produce any of these revenues, not in the western states. not off of our shore without streamline, efficient best practices permitting. i am still, despite the good work that you are doing, hearing complaints from the industry that they have got to get green lights to drill. they can do it and do it safely. they need permits. thank you very much.

>> the agency is prepared and willing and able to take on the 2013 fire season well equipped. at the end of the day it will fend on mother nature and the number of fires that you have to deal with. we appreciate your input and appreciate you appearing there. ast friday they have a fire. i want to get the response from review been able to this. the comments and suggestions that the secretary salazar made

regarding how we should rehabilitate the population and particularly in his letter of december 18, 2012 which outlined the department's view of how that should be done. and then the questions for the record and the answers that were attached. all of it is in sync with my view of a collaborative method and a state driven method to ddress this issue. now for the period of time you have had, do you have any thoughts with it? are you in agreement that this is the best way to pursue that this is how we do what all of us do and that is to preserve, project and rehabilitate? are we still singing off of the same sheet of music? >> yes senator, i believe we are. i have seen great collaboration

between states, private landowners, bureau of land management, indian tribes all in working together to see how we can preserve and protect the important habitat. a challenging issue as you know. but these are things that we ant to work on together. >> now we know in past years all of this has been driven top down from the federal government. and i think that we have learned that this new approach of doing it from the state up seems to work a lot better and actually gets results. i am delighted to hear that you remain committed to that. thank you very much. >> here is where we are, senator hinrich is being gracious. he will chair at 11:00. senator portman we can get

nubefore the break because of the thoughtfulness of senator hinrich. >> thank you very much. i always thought he is a particularly thoughtful guy and ow it is proven. thank you, martin. quickly i know you have come up with this rule for federal controlled land and thank you for testimony on that. it is a big deal. 90% of your wells will be fracked on public land. ohio does not have a lot of public lands. but we do a lot of fracking. we have good regulations and think they are some of the best in the country. we have no documented cases of contamination and we are proud of that. on average it takes 307 days to

get needed permits on federal lands. this is a reason i have been working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. we are now 17th in the world based on the i.m.f. metrics for the ease of doing business with regards to building something. it affects everybody, whether it is oil and gas or wind or solar. often a bureaucratic gauntlet of going through multiple, separate agencies and the threat of litigation concerning permits can go on up to six years. uncertainty, i think that is leading to a lot of investors being hesitant to make these types of commitments to new investments. i hope you will look at what the states are doing. you know specifically the state of ohio. we do have a good record here.

i think this is not something we introduced yet. we are still hoping for input and ideas but want to be sure that we have it and have the input from the department and that it is a bipartisan effort going forward. second, i want to ask your comment on that because of the short period of time. if have you any comments i would appreciate it. this bill that we talked about during your confirmation process, it passed the house last year with a vote of 386-26. -- that take the f.d.r. said on the day of the d-day invasion. we are interested in moving it forward in the senate as well. last year senator leiberman and i made some progress but could not get it through the progress. we would love your help on

that. the park service has worked with us to insure the bill is up to approval and process and your support on that would be terrific. i think i had to raise that. d finally on national parks, your comments were correct that we need to do better on the public-private partnership front and i am interested in your specific example of washington monument. is $11 billion backlog and the deferred maintenance backlog. i was at the national park over memorial day, a top 10 park in the country i am told in terms of attendance. they have some serious concerns on this very issue. my question to suthat in the process of centennial coming out, you don't have a plan to encourage more private-public

partnership. we started an initiative that you know a lot about. and the notion was to sen tinial challenge to the private sector to match dollar for dollar. do have you the plan that you all have put together? we haven't seen one yet. you know we are trying to encourage that. mark, you know we have sent a letter out to our colleagues on this that you may have seen. anything you can tell us about what you are doing on the ermitting, any thoughts on the public-private partnerships as we come up to the sen tinial. we would appreciate it. >> i will try to do it quickly. first there is quite a lot of work going on with the national parks foundation and with the national parks service and various advisory boards to look at what we can do to facilitate the public-private partnerships that i think will be a very important part of that and

raise the ability on the american people. people love their parks. that is coming and should there be legislation i will make sure that you are well aware of that. we are working within the park service and the external friends groups and so on to facilitate that. on the permit side there has been a lot of work done by the b.l.m. to streamline the process. we have done that off shore. there are lessons from off shore we can bring on shore. there is a need for automation in the process. we found that with sequestration across the board the offices most active have to still scale back their operation. getting past that would be very, very helpful. there is a lot of work going on. in the 2014 budget there is a request for fees generated to support that activity so it does not become a line item in the budget that can be cut. it is varible depending on the

demand and the areas where the development is going on. formations don't go across straight lines. we will need your help for treamlining. >> we will stand in recess until 11:00 or until the series of votes are concluded. the senatorck and will be back. thank you. >> secretary jewell and mr. hayes, thank you for your patience.

i'm going to ask a question i held off earlier than we have a couple other senators who have been very patient and we will get to them as quickly as we can. you mentioned interagency cooperation around your firefighting effort, something that is very timely for me right now. that coordination is especially important when it comes to post fire rehabilitation and flood prevention and the communities often downstream from department of interior lands and forests service lands. are there any additional authorities you need to ensure a seamless and coordinated response between interior parkies like blm, bla, service and forests service to make sure the we are meeting the way.enges in a seamless

>> thank you for bringing up the important issue. front, we areion very well coordinated. when i went to the interagency fire center, i went there with secretary bill fact -- secretary vilsack. the units of the federal government as well as the state and local governments are well coordinated. postaise an issue around fire remediation and making sure we prepare lands for fires in advance whether that is prescribed burns or hazardous fuel removal. those are being squeezed from a budgetary standpoint. that is the biggest challenge we face. but we do have a wild mind fire, the ability to go back after shrubnd re-plant native and so on is really important.

if we don't do that, you end up with another -- you end up with non-native species that are more profounprone to fire. , it is anl lands important source of jobs for tribes as well. i would appreciate the support i n making sure the emergency part of firefighting gets segregated so we can do the right job in terms of we had at here >> hearing earlier this week about this issue. we have had real challenges in terms of the downstream impacts on tribes and other communities in new mexico after the big fires last year and the year before. senator franken bought that there's

attention. he talked about the issue of land consolidation and state grants and federal land. not knowing the specifics of the situation in northern minnesota, i can say that is an anonymous issue that has not received a lot of attention. you have the situations where you have state lands through federal lands. resource issuege and some of the tools we typically used to consolidate and do land swaps are limited in that case, particularly the land and water conservation fund. i have proposed with

[indiscernible] that was something we could use to resolve these sorts of conflicts and focus resources back on high-value land. i would be curious if you have any concerted effort and i would encourage you to give this issue you are thele secretary because it is festered for a long time and leave to a lot of unnecessary management -- and leads to a lot of unnecessary management. >> i appreciate your support of reauthorizing flip. the it's a useful tool that in the past. -- that is a useful tool that we'd used in the past. we have done the morning case- by-case basis. there is some land swaps that are pending, some that are federal that may not serve

the federal government as well as they might serve a state. i don't think the look that it necessarily on a landscape basis and an opportunity to do that in some areas but we are with you in concept fully. >> i know it can be challenging and there are often times transparency issues but i would urge you to take a look at that can it's done well, it serve the public on multiple fronts. it's just the two of us. i'm looking around on my list but none of them are here. >> thank you. startsecretary, let me with some questions i alluded to in my opening. as it relates to the npra legacy.

i think you feel my frustration and my concern, as i mentioned in our conversations earlier, if the federal government was a private operator and had abandoned it, the state would've ad an opportunity wto levy private operator. our estimates are it would be $41 billion in fines. i had been concerned about what i believed to be a double standard here. i think we do have a nice dictation -- we do have an expectation. if you're going to be exploring an environment, there is an absolute need to be responsible and cautious, to really be careful. it hurts to see what we have left. now we get to the part where it

happened, let's figure out how we're going to clean it up. agreedht that we had there has to be a better path forward rather than telling the state you figure it out. lome met -- when we met before last month, i thought we had a good discussion of how we might work together to find a path forward that did not require the state to pay for these remediation efforts. since that time, i have had constituents come back to me who have had a meeting 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 that was put out again before you took the position as secretary. those decisions that were made

before you came, you are now stuck to deal with. i guess the question i have of you this morning, and i submitted the later -- and the that outlines concerns about your is -- is it opinion that alaska should be for financially responsible the federal government's responsibility to remediate these welds -- these wells? >> i completely agree that the legacy wells are problems we need to solve. they were drilled by the usgf and navy to assess the natural petroleum reserves in alaska. they do need to be cleaned up. doneleased that blm has

an assessment and has shared a priority list of where they would go first so we deal with the worst offenders first. we do need money to be able to do that. thatld like to thinik as the resource was assessed, that the revenues from the resource be used to help in the cleanup. i think that it is a revenue generator, it puts oil and the pop line. need to work on figuring out how to pay for it. right now, there is not sufficient money. >> i would agree we hasn't difficult budget limitations. we all know that. but i have a very vocal time suggesting some -- suggesting those revenues that would go to the state that in turn go to the residents,- to the it'ssomehow you think right to take those revenues

that would go to those residents for no value that they have gained from the exploration of these wells 40 years ago. all that is left is an eyesore and a level of contamination. i want to work with you on a path that is that path -- if that path is going to mean that monies that would be going to the state of alaska and the residents of the north slope are going to be choked back, that is not appropriate. i'm hoping to hear you say that you are willing to work with us to find a better path forward. >> i'm absolutely willing to work with you and to find the money that we need to remediate the legacy wells and am committed to doing that. any creative suggestions you would be all ears. >> let's work on this.

we do need to be creative but being creative does not mean for theassess the state cost of the cleaning up that the federal government is responsible for. i wanted toea visit with you on, this is a bit .f a rub to alaska as you know, we became a state 50 odd years ago. our lands have not been yet fully and finally conveyed under the terms of the native claims settlement act. lands that are owed to our beene peoples hvae not yet finally conveyed. we are working on that. we had good discussions and we are thinking creatively. can we use a different ?ethodology to do the surveys

how we reduce our cost to still accomplish that same goal. i think that is a good step forward. , that we have a forest with the budget, effectively those revenues that would be coming to our state, we are saying we will take from you in order to complete and pay for those conveyances. 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 past administrations. yet somehow it seems that the interior department is suggesting alaska needs to share in this financial burden. you need to know that again, i

have been pushing on this issue since i came to the senate. we advanced legislation that put in place of the next guided process and we are still nine ands later have not fully finally finished these conveyances. we need to make better progress on that. we have more on the budget this year that is helpful. at decadesl looking before these conveyances are complete. hear yourke to proposal on how we might move forward with that. thehe expectation is that state is going to have to pay for the conveyances, that's not going to work. >> i am not aware of anything that has suggested the state pay for the cost conveyances conveyances. i appreciate an opportunity to

work with you and better understand that. >> what they are suggesting is that a share of the minimal payment that alaska would toeive would be utilized help cover the costs. >> i will look into that. blm issurvey, the committed to the next guided process. the is the -- we agreed. i appreciate your willingness to do an expedited process and use mapping techniques. put a physical stake every two miles and you know how impractical and expensive that is in alaska. we will be working with them to get it forward. i have not heard of the issue of the state paying them. >> i appreciate you looking into it. the other thing i learned in my most recent meeting was that there will be no surveys that will be conducted in alaska this

year. he pointed the finger to the budget but if there is no surveys going on at all, how are we ever going to get this done? so if you could look into that as well i would appreciate it. i can determine. -- thank you mr. chairman. >> that mr. scott. >> thank you very much. thank you for answering a couple of questions. i know you are new on the job. congratulations on the confirmation. as it relates the of i mental impact study, we are running about a year late. have you been able to discover why question mark -- discover why? >> i know that it is in process and we're doing the programmatic eis now to move forward on that.

deputy secretary, do you know about the latest? are we on schedule as far as you know? >> we have been pushing forward on this. i recall a year ago we were -- we accelerated the schedule. my sense of it is that we are moving forward in a deliberate haste -- pace, . we are very interested in getting this done. we are not dragging our feet. we are telling our folks we want this environmental analysis done. kristi believe you have enough people working on this -- do you believe you have enough people working on this project now? >> yes. to funding committed the effort and bringing it to completion. --this done before the cost before the sequester so we are about a year late from our perspective. do you have any expectation on what you believe will be a part of the completed eis?

any indications at all? >> i have no personal knowledge of any special items there. my understanding is there is a very vigorous analysis that will be put forward. those are proceeding a long. we are helpful -- hopeful that this will be, and obviously you know an environmental impact statement is a major deal, particularly for such a large area as this. as nothing on the horizon far as we are aware in terms of issues that would be out of the ordinary. ofyou've expressed support collecting more data so we will be in a better position.

some of the data is about 30 years old. in the southland perspective, we think about the companies that would shoot the seismic and discover the resources. the questions they are going to ask is will we have the opportunity to gain -- to get those resources? at the company's necessity of a return on investment, what do you think the prospects are of our ability to move forward and provide companies with the necessary opportunities to be to their investments? >> as some of that spent time earning my career in the oil and gas industry,, i appreciate the importance of resource development and the timeframe it takes. .hese are massive investments when you are talking about exploring and developing new areas. i think this first step towards

the geological and geophysical analysis is important. it will take time for industry to analyze that data and decide where their priorities are. tocertainly will be there open the lands as appropriate. buts not the five-year plan the data will be accessible once .e do the analysis companies can plan for that. have you been recently out in the gulf of mexico question mark are long-term operations are required development and planning. in my early career, i did some of that and i think when 2017 rolls around and that five-year plan is regenerated, that will be the opportunity for people to do the exploration production activities. >> are there any other obstacles or impediments to moving forward from your perspective that you would like assistance with? >> i think the problematic --

we aregrammatic eis doing will be important in identifying those risks and problems. i'm not aware of any at the time. >> we will do another quick round for those who stuck around. just a couple to follow-up. this follows on the comment about revenue sharing, something she and i have worked on and we're hopeful we we will have an opportunity to have that bill presented here before the committee so our colleagues can take a look at it. in your confirmation hearing, you indicated that you would be willing to work on the concept. the western is whether you had a chance to look at the legislation. if you think this is an approach that you might be able to support and work with us on.

>> i have not looked at any specific legislation. i know it is a tricky issue in ands of federal revenues what do you use to support the federal government. aree are assets that federal assets. i would be happy to look into the bill. andhinking outside the box thinking about how we will deal with some of the issues at late. i know the chairman has mentioned that we talk about revenue sharing, it needs to be more broad than we have envisioned in the past and might be able to assist us with some of the issues we face. i would commend that to you for .our review we had a series of hearings and moved public lands bills

through the committee already. i would like to think became move them through to the floor and see passage on them. but one of the issues that comes out continually as we deal with parks and part issues is the fact that we have a $13 billion parks maintenance backlog. a lot of the conversation around this is should we really be adding more to the parks we cannot afford to maintain what we already have? it was noted by yourself and others that we have the park centennial coming upon us. it seems as of the great time to reevaluate how we establish, how we maintain our parks as we move into the second century. and also how we build support for our parks within our local communities and nationwide. and whether it is getting

support in private dollars, whether it is just getting the local people engaged and having ownership in a parks, i think that will be important for us. just generically asking if you would work with chairman and members of the committee to review the options and how we define a path forward for the parks as we advance into the second century of our national parks. >> there's is no question that this historic opportunity that and fall on this congress this administration is extraordinary important to seize. i'm very happy to work with you all on whatever we can do to address the maintenance backlog on our national parks and look more broadly at this, the challenges we have. sometimes you have a willing andr and a willing seller

the federal government on private lands does not necessarily increase the costs. i do not want to stop think about landscape level issues and what we need to do because the maintenance backlog. we want to knock it down but i'm learning about the complexity of land management and landscape level conservation and understanding. so i would really love to work with you and others on this committee for a more permanent solution. i could. another thing we have discussed a lot is duplication of efforts within government agencies, the redundancies inherent there. programs wasof published last week. under the heading for bureau of land management, there is a program called wildlife and fisheries, another one called threatened endangered. your reclamation also has a program.

i say all this to suggest that it looks that you got about 24 different programs within fish and wildlife and then within the other departments. i'm not suggesting here that all of these programs and these three bureaus are duplicative but it begs the question as to whether or not they are and what kind of review is underway. from a department perspective, if you've got your folks looking internally to make sure that we are being smart in how we are advancing for and paying for these programs. these are budget category titles i have observed as i've gone court or by court order. there are signed to the resources available that are

working to support those wildlife or fish needs. i am looking for duplication of effort and opportunities to streamline where we can. i do not see a lot of overlapping efforts. when you have your land manager on the ground trying to do work that may be at the u.s. geological survey. there are ways those come together. i appreciate the sentiment that we are not overlapping and i'm committed to doing that. >> then one final question. a fish and wildlife service came out with that conservation plans. it did not include a development alternative for oil and gas and the coastal plain. i'm being told the services rationale for this was that development requires an act of congress. but the draft plan also included some alternatives for

additional wilderness and wild and scenic rivers which also require an active comment. it seems inconsistent. the question is whether or not the conservation plan will include an oil and gas development alternative and if you're not proposing that, the question would be why would you not consider that? >> i'm going to give a high- level answer that asked my colleague to add more color. the president has made clear that it is not part of his agenda to do oil and gas exploration in the arctic national liar -- national wildlife refuge. i support that position. inid is very immersed issues around the arctic and has been committed to the issues there. would you mind adding? >> senator, i believe the fish and wildlife service was consistent in not including as

alternatives that require congressional action - >> but when you have an alternative that allows for additional wilderness that that also requires act of congress with yes, absolutely. congress?of yes, absolutely. there is no actuation of any wilderness designation by an agency. there can only be a recommendation. and theecretary said, law is very clear about needing beforesional decision going forward. let me mention that -- thank you for your arctic leadership. i wanted to stay public way ,hat the white house came out

as you know, with a new national strategy for the arctic and promise to have some outreach sessions. in this month, in alaska, as a follow-up. we are going forward with these listening sessions in alaska at the end of next week. and we will have leadership from across the government and those sessions and are taking seriously the issues that you take so seriously. thank you for your leadership. >> well, i appreciate what you have done to help us on the arctic issues. your leadership in advancing the report was very important. you will be missed and i have said that. i'm not afraid to say publicly. think you did a ehealth to us -- i think you have been a big help to us and i appreciate that. let me conclude then. did you know david when the

final land might be released? >> i do not have a timeframe on that, senator. >> you mentioned the listening sessions up north. i was pleased to see that they will be moving forward. we are trying to get things pinned down. this morning there was an article in one of our online newspapers and the headline is, are the interior department alaska listening sessions just hot air? it takes a little punch at me, at you, not you personally. me, personally. but i do hope they are not hot air. i do hope there is real substance that we as alaskans are not only engaged but i will reach out to my colleagues from allstate. new mexico state to be reminded we are in arctic nation.

it is not just alaska as a state. we are in arctic nation. hopefully these listening sessions will allow us to push that reality out so that people know and understand it. i look forward to working with folks on that. for your indulgence, mr. chairman. >> senator lee, why don't you go next and i will wrap things up? >> thank you. , as you havery heard from so my colleagues on this committee, the potential listing of the greater states under the endangered species would have some far ranging impacts on the people of utah and on the residents of several neighboring states. utah has proposed a management plan that would protect more than 90% of utah's greater [indiscernible]

while limiting the adverse economic impacts that these efforts would have. win,e it as a real win potentially, should it be improved. during your confirmation process, you stressed repeatedly that cooperation and coordination with states and stakeholders involved would be the hallmarks of your tenure. can the state of utah and the residents count on your commitment to work with the state and other western states on this issue and on similar issues under the jurisdiction under the department of interior? >> yes, you have my commitment that will work work with state and private landowners and everyone involved in this. the habitat is vast.

it covers a lot of jurisdictions. the only way we are going to be able to take care of this long- term is by working together. >> thank you. you'll take a very serious look at the efforts of them put forward by the state of utah. . actively achieve the environmental gains necessary but do so in a way that respect the needs of our residents -- i think they have achieved the environmental gains necessary but do so in a way that respect the needs of our residents. in beeson's buddy by the u.s. chambers -- a recent study by the u.s. chamber of commerce revealed lawsuits against federal agencies were settled under circumstances that could be described as sue and settle. settlement of these cases directly resulted in more than 100 new federal rules, many of .s. were major rules

epa of these cases involved settlements under the clean air and clean water act. more than a few of them fell under the jurisdiction of your department. highlighted by some key fish and wildlife service settlements under the endangered species act. the sue and subtle process i'm describing allows agencies to avoid in some circumstances the normal protections that are built into the wall making process. -- into the rule making process. not including insignificantly the review process by the public, the opportunity the public has to review the proposal rulemaking. , do youtenure begins think the practice of using settlement agreements and

consent decree to further policy goals is consistent with what your commitment to had he went to when the department and your commitment to transparency? >> as a businessperson, you want to avoid lawsuits at all cost. i've been struck by the amount of lawsuits filed against the interior. we are trying to uphold the laws. people differ with that and they sue. as a businessperson, i know sometimes the most cost- effective way to deal with a lawsuit is to settle. certainly not something that i want to make any kind of practice of, i want to avoid lawsuits by making sure we have parties around the table that andrstand the law understand what we're doing. . transparency is something i've been known for in the business side and i'm committed to being transparent in this process as well. i do know that we have logs that

have time requirements on them such as the endangered species act. we are overwhelmed sometimes with the amount of volume that comes in and we were to try and address the underlying needs in the most cost-effective way that we can in dealing with upholding those laws. so this is an area i'm becoming more familiar with. we want to avoid lawsuits to begin with and that will be my commitment. >> i understand that and i respect that and i understand that as a businesswoman when you were involved in lawsuits, you had an obligation to find resolutions of those cases. you also had a natural inclination to defend the most important thing for your business and settle only where it was reasonably possible without doing harm to your business. settlements involving government are sometimes a little bit different. because the name of the lawsuit

is to achieve a different policy. that can have the effect of a lawmaking effort. you do have some potential for what people call a friendly suit or a friendly student resolution where two people can agree, the government can agree with the plaintiff, that is a good policy, we should implement that. that's the problem we are concerned about their. mr. chairman, could i ask another line of questions? >> how many do you have? like just one more. >> yes. >> the united states congress recognized the need for the development of domestic oil shale resources with the passage of the energy policy act of 2005.

in which the congress directed the department of the interior to establish commercial oil shale leasing program. following an extensive public process, the bureau of land management issued a idle automatic -- issued a final programmatic [indiscernible] in 2009, nongovernmental organizations challenge the management plan, resulting in a settlement agreement with the interior followed by new oil shale relations in the 12 that have reduced the acreage available for development but only if -- but almost 75%. a few weeks ago, dlm was notified another group of ngo's is planning a lawsuit concerning these new regulations. with the understanding these decisions were made during secretary salazar's decision,

would you take a fresh look at the oil shale leasing program and whether it complies with the objectives of the energy policy act of 2005? >> as i understand, we have about 600,000 acres available for oil shale development under these research and development leases. i think the reality is -- the realities right now are more economic on oil shale development, not to be mixed up with shale oil. there is virtually done to assess the value of these resources and their potential for the future. certainly continuing to do that as part of the presidents all of the above energy strategy and i am supportive of that. i laughed my colleagues to provide more detail as it relates to -- i will ask my colleagues to provide more detail as it relates to this program. point aboutrevious settle and sue, this is a situation where there was a

lawsuit but what followed was a notice and comment proceeding that led to the final rule before us. >> i understand. i do not intend to lump that into the previous statement. >> our view is that the final rule is a solid and we are open for business for demonstration projects in the oil shale area. >> philatelic you are prepared to defend the 2005 -- so it sounds like you are prepared to defend the 2005 -- >> yes, i am. >> thank you. >> i appreciate the comments around waiting to get the backlog -- about needing to address the backlog. in new mexico, we currently have a national preserve that is one off. it is almost an agency in and of itself.

their spending per visitor right now is about $250. you drive across a two lane road to the national monument and spending $13 per visitor. often times for the same visitor. i thought i 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 to see if we can't achieve some level of efficiency there. so i would just put that on your radar. i did what to ask a question about the work that the blm has done around renewable energy public land. i think you've been an incredible -- you have done incredible work using existing authorities. congress has really never directly addressed the question of how best to cite wind and solar projects on public lands. i wanted to get your view as to whether there are any additional

authorities you feel would help facilitate good fighting of renewable projects and what issues you would ask us to consider if we look at legislation on this topic. the question.or one of the things that's pretty exciting to me as i enter this job is the potential to use modern techniques to better understand the whole federal land management future. we have done some good work over the last two years understanding the solar and wind energy potential. the underlying environmental sensitivities. that is very useful. there could be some things that we will work with you on that facilitates the development, certainly transmission. we can there are ways work together to streamline that.

david, do you want to add anything question mark >> i would just add that on the wind side, the guidelines i cannot of the committee effort really do and criteriaplate for citing that helps developers what sites will provide the least likely conflict with bc's. we appreciate your support for the solar approach we have done. --work collaboratively with we work collaboratively to attract industry to the best places. our sense is that we don't need no authority here. thewe are certainly open to validation of these efforts.

we are very pleased with the cooperation across all interests. only together haven't been able to fight over 12,000 -- have we been able to cite renewable energy within the last four years. >> >> i very much appreciate your efforts and your attention to the transmission issues. that is certainly something that has -- there is an enormous amount of generation right now waiting for the transmission for us to be able to move energy potential from new mexico in the markets to the west. as the bottleneck right now. let me ask you one more question then we will wrap up. and it you have a speaking engagement in a few minutes.

the departments 2010 oil and gas leasing reforms introduced the master leasing planning process to allow blm to take a more in- depth look. i think we can all agree there are many places on our public lands were energy development is not only appropriate but often times the highest and best use. there are also other places where development may be incompatible with important uses like hunting and fishing him a fishing, protection -- watershed protection. how can the plants help identify and resolve some of the conflict be it seemed there with other resources, including cultural resources and tribal sacred sites question mark -- sacred sites? >> thank you. people on the ground in these communities know their sacred

sites. they know the special places that are very important to them and they now the land like the back of their hand. oil and gas companies understand the resource potential, as does the u.s. geological survey. it is important to know those things so we can help facilitate the right kind of transactions where there is no conflict and if there is a substantial conflict, we know that up front and we can plan accordingly. i think that's really useful. avis has done some great work -- david has done some great work. landscape cooperatives have been helpful in terms of .hinking about water fire management is another thing. great potential to accelerate this right now given the technological advancements that we have with mapping to review just activated lands that will give more data that will be

helpful. so people can better understand and manage resources effectively. >> i think those tools will be quite important. bureaucracy in north western mexico where we have some the most important archaeological sites, places like chaco canyon and being able to avoid those concerts front is always better than trying to reverse engineer want to have a mess on your hands. i would say members of the committee will be able to submit additional questions in writing. i certainly asked that answer those for inclusion in the hearing record. i will defer to the ranking member. >> i want to make a clarification. when i mentioned this article we'veday and hot air, got a couple different listening sessions going on.

boem hearings. the individual was referencing. so you have your listening session next week on the 14th. i am hopeful that we will have the commentary on that. i just wanted to make sure air are clear for the record here that may talk about the national arctic strategy, we are all on the same page there. one final clarification. this relates to the question i aboutabout and more -- anwar. it's my understanding they do -- they require the department look at all alternatives. this includes oil and gas development. i understand the president position and the position that it is mysaid here but understanding you cannot decide not to include a development alternative because you don't

have or for that. -- because you don't have support for that. even if the alternative would require an act of congress. i would ask you to look at that. i understand where the politics is on this. i want to make sure we are confined -- we are aware of the dentist out there. i apologize for taking so much time. but may talk about the department of interior and its role in my state, i appreciate that. >> this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> learn more about your senators and congressmen with the 2013 congressional directory. contact information, district maps and assignments for you each member of the house and senate. also cap members, supreme court justices and the nation's governors. $12.95 forry is shipping and handling available

at c-span.org/shop. >> book tv is liable we get from the chicago tribune -- is available all weekend from the chicago tribune. douglas foster on postapartheid south africa and marking cal one presidents and more. live sunday, paul lead on winston churchill, the pentagon papers and activist medea benjamin. the citizens -- the [indiscernible] is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war. we have no more urgent task. some say it is useless to speak at peace or world law or disarmament.

and that until the leaders of the soviet union adopt a more enlightened attitude. i hope they do. i believe we can help them do it. i also believe we must re- examine our own attitudes as .ndividuals and as a nation while our attitude is as essential as there's. as a graduate of the school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs for -- fof war and peace, shouldg look inward. >> a reflection on the kennedy presidency and his peace speech sunday on american history tv on c-span3. first ladyhealth, ida ida mckinley suffered from epilepsy. or has been with the next order

at state dinners so when she had a seizure, he would shield her face from guest until the episode past. despite her health problems, she traveled as first lady, even attending the pan-american exposition where her husband was assassinated. it will look at the life of ida mckinley as we conclude the first season of our series of first ladies come alive monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span three. >> new jersey governor chris appointed state attorney general jeffrey keyes a -- jeffrey chiesa. he willican, he will -- serve into a special election in october. he says he does not plan to run in that election. in massachusetts last night, two seante candidates debated -- two senate candidate debated. now a look at that june 25

special election with the boston political inquirer. >> now we want to turn our attention to the senate race to fill secretary of state john kerry's exceeds that he left. the boston globe front page this morning had this headline about the first debate. jim o'sullivan, the politics editor for boston.com, joins us on the phone. recover this debate on c-span -- we cover this debate on c-span. what was the take away? parks that there no real game changing moment. -- >> that it was the real game changing moment. gomez went hard after marquis. some demented not shift the dynamic. -- something that did not shift

the dynamic. wasz was feisty and markey adept in sending off the attacks. gomez's chance to make a first impression in this race? >> it was the first time that a lot of voters got a look at gabriel gomez. he is a political newcomer, armor navy seal, private equity investor. it's a good chance for him to in the line ofe. attack -- and the line of attack they have chosen. that after 37 years in washington, he should not continue on. he is part of the d.c.

dysfucntion. the problem for gomez is that folks in massachusetts are inclined to go with a democrat. obviously was different in 2010 but on balance, massachusetts voters tend to side with the mower aggressive candidate. go and a lot of independents and conservative minded democrats. >> is getting help from washington? >> he is. just recently, he started to get some help. has attempted to raise funds for him. the other day, he had marco rubio sitting on a fundraiser. that's a double-edged sword of

massachusetts. scott brown's campaign told the nrsc please pay out of massachusetts. that's a pose and -- a poisoned pill in massachusetts. it's a tough balance beam to walk for a republican from massachusetts. to gett brown was able help from tea party activists outside of this state. is that a factor here? >> it was just a different time. the tea party was in its nascent stages at that point and folks did not have a -- do not have their arms wrapped around it. in aovement has evolved direction that's not necessarily favorable for a republican running in massachusetts.

any tea party assistance he -- ed markey y fibbing gomez hit him for being down in washington so long, -- when gomez came that down on him for being in washington so long [indiscernible] >> what about washington policies? >> it's different in massachusetts. of 2006 thee loss expanded healthcare on the state level. that was the forerunner to the federal law. the backlash against the proposed bill president obama had was something that helps

create the brown insurgency. the backlash here is not the same as it has been in other places across the country. >> attorney general eric holder testified on capitol hill about the screening of journalist e- mails and phone freckles -- phone records. we'll hear hear from the head of the irs small business division, and the inspector general. >> eric holder discussed reports that he approved the screening of e-mails of a fox news reporter in part of a investigation. he testified the surveillance was targeted