[inaudible] and every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizens who despairs the war and wishes to bring peace should begin by looking inward. veteran journalists refect on the keep i did presidency and his peace speech sunday at 7:30 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span 3. [inaudible conversations] he did the historic state of walter and lee nor. they built it as a winter res dense. it was completed in 1966. they lived until their death in both 2002 and 2009. it has been referred to as the camp david of the west. that is of course presidents came here to relax and to get away from the hustle and bustle of washington, d.c., during the lifetime. walt territorial-type's father, moses, owned a company called triangle publication, ink. -- inc. that company published the daily racing forum and the " "philadelphia inquirer" ." his father was involved for decades. his father was sent to prison in 1940 for tax evasion, at that time walter took on the reigns of triangle publication. it was in deep financial problems, and he was responsible for introducing a number of new publishing elements that were wildly successful. "17 "magazine lawrvelged in the early '40s the first magazine gear spifngly for young women. he pulled together tv guide there were 10% of american household that owned television. that, of course, became the most popular magazine in america. had the highest circulation for decades, and made the bulk of the fortune. walt territorial-type had a gene use for for recognizing future trends and able to use his company to get ahead of those trends. his wife was a delightful woman who was typical of her generation. she was the woman behind the man. very often walter would be the person who received the first recognition, he was the one who certainly was the businessman whose money funded their lifestyle. walter actually had a speech impediment, so he practiced every day to make certain he could form his words and speech clearly. he was very careful about his language and his presentation. he was more reserved, and the mrs. was instead the more light hearted and more engaging conversationalist. in the atrium of the house. this is the room that would have seen as you were welcomed to sunny lands. presidents, the queen of england, major political figure, celebrities came through the front door. the space was used for receptions. for the new year's eves party that happened regularly. much of the furniture was removed. it was set so they could have about 110 people for a seated dinner and dancing. jimmy stewart might sit at the piano and play, bob hope intertaped and -- entertained and frank sinatra. he knew walter going back to the '30s they had a long personal history. when ronald reagan was an actor in hollywood, and so over time that relationship, which was deep and personal continued and when ronald reagan was governor of the state of california, he came here. of course we had been elected president, he continued to come here. he came every single year for eighteen of the anen berg new year's eve parties. and so that was a moment everywhere hollywood and government came together in a large social gathering. otherwise they entertained in small groups. they would invite these individuals who were their friends to spend time here, then they would thoughtfully determine who those friends might enjoy meeting, and create these kinds of connections that perhaps had hasn't existed before. the architect used these element of mid century modern architecture to create a space that was informal, that could flow from place to place, and at the same time took a huge space, this is actually 6, 00 square feet. which was the size of five average american homes in the 19 60s, yet it doesn't feel overwhelming. it has a comfortable kind of quality to it. that's the combination of the architecture and then the furniture groupings that william hanes designed. right off the atrium in lynch is the room of memory. a very special room at sunny lands. so the room of memories was actually named at by the anen bergs. they made this determination they wanted a space where they could keep the memory of the important friends and family and other individuals who they had come in contact with during their lifetime. there's actually a portrait of winston churchill signed by win ton churchill. he met walter in the late 19 40s. we have a photograph of them with prince charles, this one from 1986. they, of course, had an important relationship with the royal family. so you see walter and the queen elizabeth. because he was the ambassador to the court saint james and lived in london for five years. they continued for their rest of their lives to spond and connect. you see walter actually getting out of the carriage as he was going to be presented in london to the queen as he took on the job of ambassador. down here you actually see a photograph of the bushes signed with lasting appreciation, friendship. here is george w. bush, much later in the life. the clintons with gratitude for your friendship from hillary clinton and bill clinton. this wall is full of individual memories that record numerous conversations over decades. clearly those individuals who were important to them over time knead to this wall. so it isn't generally an individual who they knew only and interacted with only once. rather people who became their friend. in addition, we have a photograph of ronald reagan sitting in this chair looking at the television in this cabinet in 1983, when gorbachev was speak to the american people about nuclear disarmament. at the same time ronald reagan's speech to the soviet people being broadcast. this important topic was critical in changing the world political dynamics, and for titus makes this a very important historical spot in sunny land. they were definitely republican. they were lifelong republicans; however, they crossed the aisle within and so actually walter had the "philadelphia inquirer" endorse lyndon johnson when he ran for president. so he didn't only support republicans and the republicans that he did support tended to be more centrist in relation 0 to what we might see today. >> this is the yellow room. it's one of five historic guest rooms here. this room was the preferred presidential room. so the reagans always stayed in this room. it has a beautiful view, and so did the bushes, margaret thatcher was here, colin powell with his wife were here. really a prepretentious list of room residences. like all the rooms in the guest wing, this was differentiated by the color. we have a pink room and a peach room and a green and blue room along with the yellow room. if you were staying here, you would have color coordinated jelly beans and specially selected books to read. this room, as one of the earliest rooms actually also had twin beds. we have it set up that way. if you visit sunny lands as a participate in one of the retreat. we change it out and provide them with king size beds. more comfortable and with contemporary linen. you would have the opportunity to join the long list of important people who had slept here before you. they made a gift of this property to the nation for the purpose of continuing its history by dynamic and relevant conversations among people today. we had an interesting mission. our mission is both exclusive and inclusive. so our property is being preserved and maintained so it can be used by a relatively small number of people for the high level retreats. but at the same time, it's being preserved and maintained so that can be open to the public for a broader public access so they can appreciate the history of the place and experience the uniquenesses and beauty of sunny lands. next house budget committee vice chairman tom price of georgia, also a medical doctor discusses health care. the debt ceiling, immigration, and issues facing the republican party. he was interviewed wednesday at thebreak fast hosted by the christian science monitor in washington. this is about an hour. >> thank you for coming. vice chair of the house budget committee. the last visit here in october of 2009. we welcome him back. he's a michigan native who graduated from the university of michigan and the medical school. his father and grandfather were physician. he did the resident sincerity at emery medical school and stayed in georgia to begin his medical career. he was elected to the state senate in '*eu69 and became the ladies and gentlementy leader in 2002. he was elected to congress in 2004. according to a "the washington post" story transformed himself to a republican in addition to the budget committee he's currently a member of the ways & means and education and work force panel. so much for biography. now on to commune dane. no live blogging and tweeting. no filing of any kind while it's underway. there's no embargo when the breakfast is over. except c-span agreed not use video of the session for at least one hour after it ends to give those in the room a chance to fill. if you would like to ask a question do the traditional thing and send me a subtle signal. i'll call on one and all. we'll move to questions from around the table. thank you again for doing this. >> thank you, david, thank you to all of you for allowing me to join you this morning. i look forward to a good rep parte. i'll take a few comments and in the sense i'll the internal optimist. i believe things are possible, even in the town. thing are great opportunities from a budgetary standpoint, tax reform standpoint, and also entitlement reform. the big issues and challenges we have in our country must be addressed. folks on both sides of the aisle appreciate that and understand that. our challenge is to figure out how to navigate the the increasing partisanship gopped here in the town and past policy that will benefit the american people. happy to talk about whatever issues you would like to discuss. health care budget, fiscal issues. >> you're in danger for setting a record in the brevity. thank you for doing that. [laughter] i'll ask one or two and go to paul to start. we'll move around the table. let me ask you about talk about being optimist and possibility and budget and other things. the "the wall street journal" on a piece earlier this week the odds were to reduce the long-term deficit have grown worse. the journal cited that the shrinking federal deficit, slowing health care cost inmeaning any cienld of a big budget deal was not likely until after the 2014 midterm. is that a view you disagree with? >> yes. because i think as a mechanism has been put in place that both the house and the senate passed a budget. as you'll recall -- with the prodding of house action earlier no budget no pay act. we encouraged our colleagues on the other side to pass a budget. they have done so. the mechanism in place along are reconciliation to be able to goat a bigger solution than we've had available to us in the past four years. that compared with the fact that the economic situation although potentially a little less challenging than it was a couple of months ago is still foreboding. we continue to have deficit that are unsustainable, we continue have a debt that is unsustainable. i think the facts are appreciated on both sides of the aisle. now it takes the will and the leadership to be able to get done. >> and your colleagues and the other body being willing to go to conference. >> yes, exactly. >> that's the mechanism place allowing us to move to the next step. which we haven't been able to do over the last four years. >> one for nor me and off to foal. yesterday's post had a detailed report on your caucus. among the adjective coming from the member of the caucus was a drift, fractured, and leadership team learning to work together and rank and file that even the leader's allies tune them out sometimes. how would you assess this state of the g.o.p. and the house so far this season? >> i think if you take where the conference was on january 2 ntd, which was a pretty low point, and you fast forward these five months, i think that what we have seen is a coalescing and maturing of the conference in a way that allowed us to get through the challenge of the sequester, get through the challenge of the continuing resolution, pass a budget that embraces positive solutions for the country and all sorts of different areas. resequence the debt ceiling discussion and debate, and matter that will be before us now, october,/november time frame. i think of the success of the conference it had early in this 11 3th congress have been note worthy. now what -- as my mom used to say, it takes two to tan go. unless the senate is willing to work to solve the greater challenges we have, then we'll continue to work on these issues in a unilateral way. our desire is to have it be in a bipartisan way. i think that we have our sea legs and moving forward. >> paul, where are you? >> right here. >> thank you. go for it. >> [inaudible] conference on the budget resolution. can you talk about what kind of framework you think that they could agree on, and number two, do you think what is most likely is that the conference will be saved until later in the year and could be used as part of debt limit increase? >> yeah. i think that it's important for people to know that chairman murray and chairman ryan are indeed meeting and talking with great regularity. and trying to come to an agreement on the parameter of a budget conference. and those -- that framework would be less specific than you all and others might want, but it's important to develop that framework before we sit down in a conference so it's not just a free forall. so the issue of whether or not tax reform is a directed by conference committee, whether that's an issue that is included, whether or not entitlement reform and maybe parameter around what it means, the what the -- what the senator appears to be writing their appropriations bill to the 1058? those kinds of things are important to know before you sit down, otherwise the word adrift was used for something else earlier. i think the conference committee would be adrift and not have the focus it's needed. >> we're going go to david. >> your second issue. >> i'm sorry. did you think what is most likely is budget resolution conference is delayed until the end of the year and used as part of raising the debt limit. >> i don't know that the timing is necessarily the end of the year, but i do believe that the budget conference is the vehicle if there is an opportunity to come to a solution on the debt ceiling. that the budget conference is a vehicle for that. i'm sorry, david, eric, and cheryl. >> on immigration. why is there not a conference between the house and the senate. they say they do not want the debt ceiling to be raised through the mechanism. they have come to the floor on numerous occasions to block it for that reason. they don't want it to happen. why is that? >> the senate doesn't the president to happen. >> right. they don't want them to be the mechanism. the responsibility of majority is to governor and move in that a direction solving challenge is the responsibility of minority is to create a contrast and to hold the other side accountable. so the roles are different. that's not to say they are right or wrong. the roles are different. >> on immigration, some of the folks, paul, rubio, are coming to taught immigration reform. i wondered if you could talk about how you feel about the immigration reform discussion thus far. do you think of yourself as a marco rubio or a rand paul? >> i think of myself as a bob good goodlatte. a member of the house that reck nices that regardless the area is immigration. the they will take this in a step by step fashion. that decision which has been reached by the leadership and the conference is right way to go. address the issues of border security of internal enforcement, of entry/exit matters of hlb versus agricultural workers. all of those things need to be addressed, yes, they need to be addressed in a separate fashion so people can work diligently for the solution in those targeted area. i think that's the way the house will spread. >> can i do a quick followup. is that qicial? we had mr. goodlatte here. is that approach tantamount to not getting something? there are a lot of folk who say if you do it piece mail you doomed immigration reform? do you agree with the assessment? >> no. won't we have betteroff in the area of immigration had we done a bill every congress for the last four or five congresses? wouldn't we be further ahead? that's not what i'm suggesting we do now. i believe a step wise fashion that allows members of congress to be able to have the input on a specific area of border security, for example, and that work product move forward and have the issue being solved in portions as opposed to this comprehensive overall solution that clearly hasn't worked in the past. i don't see it working now. >> what do you think should be attached to the debt ceiling? what kind of solutions? let's talk about keystone, this, that, the other thing. what is mr. price's solution? >> i think it's important for us to put ab array of options out there. so that, for example, the large solution to all of this and our bucket woe and deficit woe is entitlement reform. so the solutions that we put forward in our budget for medicare and medicaid, i think, are something we could emigres -- embrace in a context of a get ceiling discussion that would get significant resources to be able to talk about and put on the table. that's kind of a long ball, that wasn't possible. then pro-growth tax reform, i think is the -- we think is the kind of things that need get the economy rolling again. getting jobs being created. solving the incredible challenges that are out there from a financial standpoint for families. that would get you a little less,ic in term of the debt ceiling increase. but would move us in the right direction. finally, you can get back to the dollar for dollar baseballer rule. whether it's in deficit reduction or spending reduction. i think an array of options is important to does so that -- we're trying to be the ones moving the ball forward for solutions. and being whetted to just one is not helpful forest for the discussion at this point. >> cheryl? >> [inaudible] try to assess changing republican attitudes on the same-sex marriage. with the supreme court ruling coming up. you voted against repealing don't ask don't tell. i have three questions. would you vote that way today? >> yes. >> you would vote -- let me ask my questions. would you vote that way today? do you see in 2016, a g.o.p. candidate winning the nomination, embracing a platform of same-sex marriage? could it happen? finally, some republicans like ted olson and the former party chairman argued it's good for the party to embrace same-sex marriage, do you think it's good for the party? >> well, i would have voted the same way. >> the same way? >> yes. i think that's the right position. it certainly is a position representative of my district. any . >> why is that right the decision? >> that's what i believe. any candidate for any position whether it's for the future nomination, for our party for president 2016 or member of congress or senate. they ought to espouse what they believe. it's all about a the give and take of battle of idea. and so whether a republican -- espouses that or not, i think it's not something we ought to be stipulating. it's whatever he or she believes. >> could they win? i guess have attitude changed enough that republicans would have embraced that nominee? >> that's why they have the election; right? yo gi bear said that's why they play the game. that's, you know, the nation is shifting in the view on the position. whether or not the party shifts, i think it's something to be seen. >> [inaudible] >> yesterday that going back to immigration, if republicans if immigration fails and it's the republican's fault they'll be dead in 2016. do you agree with that? also, looking forward the next -- the midterm. what is the republican's message? the conference we talked about has been criticized for passing some what are seen as messaging bills. ic you probably disagree with the assessment. what is the message of the past republicans? >> the first question on immigration, i'm sorry? >> do you agree that republicans would be in trouble if they don't . >> no. i think what the american people want is to see individuals working to solve challenges and i think that the house republicans will demonstrate as a conference in as a body that we have positive solutions for the challenge of both legal and illegal immigration. we will be putting those forward. and how far down the road we get on that, i think will be evidence for folks to recognize that we're trying to address this issue in a way that is responsive to the nation, but also solve the challenges we have in the area. so i think we'll -- i think people will see we're working to solve the challenge. from a messaging standpoint in 2014, the messages that i would -- the umbrella i would have painted under we are interested in creating the greatest amount of opportunity and success for the greatest number of individual so that the greatest number of american dreams can be realized. that's what we're about. and our budget clearly was demonstrative of that. and evidence to get us on a -- to balance budget within a ten year period of time which is hugely important not just to have numbers add up on a page. but make it so the economy can become vibrant again and jobs can be created and people can more secure in their future. we have clearly tackled the big issues that are confounding us from a fiscal standpoint in the entitlement arena with medicare and medicaid. with positive solutions we haven't seen it from the other side. so i think we have a great opportunity. i think the tax reform issue that we are embracing right now and the bill that i believe will be coming out of the ways & means committee, at some point this year, will demonstrate that we are looking out for folks across the country so they can keep more of hair hard earned money and not have a government that continues to spend more than it takes but also takes more from the american people. i think we have a positive message. we're work on a health care bill right now that we believe is the positive alternative to washington running your health care. and we're excited about it. and look forward to introducing that within a short period of time. get folks covered with insurance they want. that the government wants for them. and saves hundreds of billions of dollars to so we can get the folks covered unable to have the financial where withold to do so. >> we go next to roxanne. and nancy has one. i couldn't tell if you were nonthreatening than. >> i want to clarify something. the republican in the house determined that the [inaudible] and that's the budget conference would be -- [inaudible] is that sort of the final . >> i don't know that -- . >> what are the options you are looking at? >> i don't think that the conference has determined, which i think was your language. but in my sense is that is the vehicle for moving the debt ceiling issue. no. the budget. budget. i'm sorry. two conferences. the budget conference report. yeah. i think that makes the most sense to me. whether or not there's an another opportunity do that or whether there are certainly other ways to do it. but i think that's one the makes the most -- . >> and the time frame would be later this year? >> well, the exdate. the date that the administration selects when. they have the opportunity to select when the treasury says that the jig is up. and so they define that. i would refer prefer we move forward before that period of time. so we're not in a crisis mode which tends to be the time when washington makes the least responsible decisions. >> nancy? >> hi. [inaudible] ways and means committee. what is the leg room of reaching the floor. , two, how do you think what is happening with the irs affectings the scope of what you're try dog with tax reform. >> the time frame for tax reform is -- has been specific defined. i think it's this year. i think probably as soon as we can move forward with it we will. the chairman has done remarkable due diligence on getting input from all sector of society, really, and certainly from the other side with our working groups we have done so in a bipartisan way. it's been working over a period of years, literally. so i think that i would suspect by the end of the year possibly before. i think the irs issues that have been raced in the -- raised in the real concern of folks about the functioning of that agency allow us to greater impetus for tax reform. i'm not one who believes it puts the kibosh on tax reform i think it gives us a greater tint. we embrace that greater opportunity. i think all folks when they look at the issue recognize that the irs is a huge model that is concerning and frightening to many americans. and anything we can do to simplify the tax code and name less make the internal revenue service less threatening to the nation could be a good thing. i think you are beginning to hear that a little bit. or change the scope of it like you're going to -- tax rates? >> all that have has been on the table. we are starting with a blank piece of paper and adding the policy to as opposed to start with current policy and extracting thing we don't think are appropriate. [inaudible] that's a problem for the republican party. what can be done, i mean, how is it happen? what can be done to remedy it? i'm impressed by your optimist, quite frankly today. i would like to ask you if you would, tell me in your judgment the democratic colleagues there's a feeling across the i'm who share the same sense of mission and common purpose in getting this done than you could give us an indication of today. wonder why the folks they elect to congress and to the executive branch are unable oar unwilling to get things done. our lack of popularity is well deserved because we, i mean, we haven't -- as an overall growth solve the problem that exists. how you turn that around is demonstrate leadership and create positive solutions that are responsive to the needs of the american people. the particular problem is house republicans. they blame obama, bush, or clinton. i mean, this seems to be specifically directed in to the group you're leading a part of. >> i think what we see is a greater level of demagogue i are from the other team that has, you know, that in some circles has worked, absolutely. the way we counter that is to remain optimistic about the future of this country. remain commit to the principle that made us the greatest country in the history of the world. and address the challenges we have with the solutions we have consistent with the principle. >> and three you look to work across the aisle and the mission so you outline today? >> tax reform? >> tax reform and entitlement reform. you thought there was a comment shared vision that across the aisle. you mentioned -- tax reform. >> on our committee ron, joe, i think our at least two individuals that appreciate the challenges we -- challenges we have -- we are working on some of the tax issues he clearly understands that the challenges we have got. we need to be able to come together on that common ground. it has to be there in order for us to move forward as a nation. we can't -- i tell folks, look, i practiced medicine for over twenty years. i didn't give up the practice of medicine and the incredible privilege it was and come to the town and fight for the other side. that's not -- i gave up the practice of medicine so i could come to washington, hopefully, and have some positive input in to solving the incredible challenges we've got. that same story is basically true for every member of congress regardless of their background. they didn't give up what they were doing so they and fight partisan political battle over and over again. they came to solve problems. >> ever regret the choice in. >> nope. absolutely not. what an incredible opportunity it is to be involved in this beacon of freedom to the world and have an opportunity to preserve it to and increase that opportunity for future generations in this country. incredible privilege. >> robert? >> i'm a little unclear why hasn't the house appointed -- [inaudible] budget conference. specifically on the debt ceiling, you guys have one of the negotiate an agreement the white house said they won't. you stick to your guns and we go over the debt ceiling. frankly, in your view what happens then. some people say it's doom and gloom. other says it's manageable. >> point of con free is going to conference in the budget. we believe requires some parameters if it's just a free for all it becomes more of an opportunity for the dem phlog that won't reach any solution. chairman is wise in laying out the goal of defining those prior to going to conference. i think that's all i have. i think that's a responsible process. in terms of the debt ceiling, again, i'm the optimist. i think we can get to a solution before we get to that. it requires a willing partner on the ore side to say, yes, there are things that they would attach to the debt ceiling as opposed to being dog dogmatic about whether or not they would allow anything to move forward. the closer we get in the time frame that stance will soften. and i'm not -- i think that the house has acted responsibly to say that default cannot occur. won't occur. which is why we passed the bill we did a couple of weeks ago to make certain that the prioritization of the payment and the ability of the federal government to pay its debts is solid. >> do you think it makes sense to have -- [inaudible] the only country that budgets in the manner. would it make sense to get rid of it and have accrue debt as we pass bills? >> you want to ask the american people does it make any sense to have a limit on the credit card? yeah, it makes sense to have a limit on the considered. -- credit card. yeah. >> lauren? >> i was going to ask you indicated earlier that the house leadership and the conferences decided that, you know, peace mail bill on immigration is the best way to go. what about the bipartisan group working in the house. they came to ab agreement how much willingness would there be on the part of chairman goodlatte and others to before the senate bill got a vote on the floor? >> it's a great question. i don't know that the parameter that the folks are working on. the group in the house are working on are as broad as what we have seen come out of the come forward in the senate. and i think that group has actually would be heartened by any movement on the issue in. i think what would likely occur prosecution a -- my suspicious is that the jew dpish will break it down in the segment. that's my sense of what will occur. that hold the greatest amount of progress of moving something forward. there used to be coalitions on issues in this town instead of just the shirt and skip we seem to have now. you have a water coalition and a transportation coalition and a health care coalition and energy coalition. the more focused, the issue was that came forward in a bill that the easier it was to put forward the coalition to be supportive of that issue moving on. i think there's wisdom in that. broad expansive comp comp hennive piece piece of legislation give everybody an opportunity to say i don't like this. i'm going oppose it. the state legislature most have single issue rule. you can't have a piece of legislation that has, you know, -- you have focused legislation. i think that's what allows you not only to produce a better work product but forward the coalition that can solve the problem. >> we are going next to tom. paul? [inaudible] is going to be a nightmare. you have the secretary of health and human services say no problem. it's going work out fine. >> i think that senator back bachus was very wise when he observed that the law, when it is fully implemented looks like it's going a train wreck. and whack we need to do is pull the emergency brake for before the wreck occurs. i don't think -- as a physician i can tell you that this law is unworkable for patients and for docs. as a former employer i can't tell you it work for employees or employers. as a former state legislator with it doesn't work states or federal government. it doesn't work for anybody in the system. and i think that there are so many other positive solutions that we ought to move in the direction as soon as possible. my concern, my fear is that if this law is allowed to come in to the full glory, that it won't work, it will collapse. but in the interim real people will be hurt. and it is irresponsible of us as the congress and as a government, i believe, to allow that to occur not because of anything inherit within the people trying to make it work but because of the rules that have been put in place. we continue to work and fight and put forward solution as alternative. >> you've been around to remember the page program. they are trying to bring it back now. do you think the leadership or you would be open to doing that? >> i think the page program was a huge asset to our body but also especially the individuals able to participate. >> tom? >> congressman, can you be more specific than patient-centered solutions because i think there's an attitude that, you know, republicans say they have a replacement and alternative. they dmoant what it can do. can you be more specific? >> sure. in fact we'll be introducing a bill maybe even today that will be a comprehensive opportunity to solve the challenges in the area of health care so we move in that direction of patient-centered health care. and it's there a lot of things in it. but a couple of specifics. one we have got get folked covered. you have to get americans covered with health insurance. there are a couple ways to do that. you can do it the way that the administration and congress did in the aca that is to mandate they have coverage. dictate they have coverage. force them to have coverage. put the irs on whether or not they have coverage. we believe it's the wrong way to do. the way we propose is make it financially feasible for every single american and attractive for every single american to purchase the coverage they want. you do it through the tax code through detections and credits and refundable advanceble credit so every single american has the wherewithal to have health care. we believe it gets everybody covered. second, you have to solve the insurance challenges. the two biggest are affordable and preexisting. you ought not change your insurance if you change or lose your job. if you worked far company you tend to work for the company forever. our son just graduated from college last year, statistics he'll work for twelve different employers in the course of his career. which mean he's going to -- if the employers provide health coverage if they are able to continue do so. he'll have to plug-in at twelve different spots with who knows what. allow every single american to own their health coverage regardless of who is paying for it. you solve the the affordn't issue overnight. it's like a 401(k) plan. you change, -- if you suffer from an awful disease. if they have an awful diagnoses. that's a system that isn't working. how do you solve that without having the federal government dictate to people and insurance company. you make it so the $18 million individuals can pool together. the health department status of any one individual. it doesn't drive up the cost of health insurance for anybody. you get the power of number. it's why self-ensured plans work. it's why the federal employee health benefit plan works. it's an easy one to solve as well. finally we waste hundreds of billions of dollars in it country in health care. the main way we do that is through the practice of defensive medicine. st it what i did. it's what every single physician in the country does. if say that are ever called to the court of law they can look them in the eye and say i don't know what you expected me to do. i had everything. everything. rand estimate it is $600 billion of waste in the country on that tax and health care has done a study. they estimate it's one out of every three dollars. that's $800 billion. that's big money still in the town. you can solve it not by a cap on economic challenge. it doesn't think to decrease it. you can put in place a lawsuit abuse reform system that the president talked about which would recognize that specially society guidelines if a doctor does the right thing based upon what they say is the right thing to do for a set of symptom or diagnoses that individual is allowed to use that. not preventing anybody from going court but a higher bar. that's the thing that would change the culture of the practice of medicine. so you can get folks covered, everybody. you can solve the insurance challenge and save hundreds of billions of dollar and do all of them without putting them in charge of a thing. that's what, i mean, when i thought about patient-centered health care. >> the house of representatives pass the first appropriations bill as you know, we have very widely differing spending levels in the house side and the senate side. we'll likely need to have a cr. the appropriations bill probably not be able to pass all of them? >> i sure hope not. i think the appropriating by continuing resolution a failure of the body as a failure of the house is -- i think work through the appropriations bill. i'm hopeful we'll get all done. i know, that's the goal of the chairman. and we started that last evening and we'll work through them. i think that they'll -- cr at the end of this doesn't respect the citizens or the individuals working on their behalf. who are bringing their best effort to the table to put in place the priority for the country. the number was same on both sides. that, if i have sat at the table four months ago and say the house and senate were going to agree to the top line number in the budget. none of you would have believed me. and you would are been right in your skepticism. but that's what happened. and so we have got the foundation for moving forward on the appropriations bill. [inaudible] do you think there is a legislation for pathway to citizenship that can pass the house and the majority in the majority? >> i think at this point that would be highly unlikely because i don't think there's any trust of our conference in the administration to enforce the current laws on the book as they relate to much of immigration. and not just this administration. it's been previous ms as well. the american people don't trust washington in this area because the promise that was made in 1986 has been broken. there were three million individuals estimated to be here illegally. and the agreement bipartisan agreement was that we will provide a path to citizenship for those 3 million individuals and control and secure the border so we're never in this situation again. and when we -- as a nation did away with a job -- and a willful job on controlling and securing the border. there's no trust at all. the first step in regaining that trust is living up to the promise that was made to the nation back in 1986. that is controlling and securing the border. until the administration is able to did that. i don't think there's any trust whenever we pass would be in enforced or made certain that it worked in a positive way. the boston bombing that occurred pointed out a huge defect in lack of responsibility and enforcement of our simple student visa. when it expires we ought to know it as a nation. it's foolishness. it's reckless not to know when somebody's visa expires and make certain that they regain a new visa or return to their home. one of the bombers clearly exit the his country. went back to the country where he was given asylum. the asylum system didn't work. and return to the country with an expired student visa and regained access. this is terribly broken and needs fixing. the first step is make sure what we in the books works and prove it works and demonstrate it work. that's the way you regain the trust so you can move forward and solve in a positive way. >> alexis? >> [inaudible] i was wondering for you could -- [inaudible] but if there any concerns about having various number of the delegation running for the same office and if the rivalry will have any bank account. >> well, chambliss announced in january he would not be running for are third term. it opened up an opportunity in the state of georgia. the open senate seats don't come along very long so part-time jump at it. three of my colleagues in the house are running for that seat as well as former secretary of state, karen handle. and there's rumor of one or two individuals from private sector getting in. our primary in july of next year. there's a lot of between now and then. .. families are desirous of moving forward with a solution and they are being held at not because of science and not because of the capability of of the facility and the willingness of the family or the patient but because of the rule and the escape for that and everybody agrees that this young lady ought to get a long transplant. the full legal authority to sign a waiver exclusion to allow that to move forward. it's astounding that the government services won't provide that waiver not just for this young lady but apparently the two other young people who are also on this list. as i understand there were three pediatric lung transplants last year, three. the likelihood of the pediatric lung becoming available for these children is not great at all. we are not asking for her to go to the top of the list. what we are asking for is for her to -- status would dictate under the rules of the transplantation to move her to the top of the list if she were allowed to be on the list. so the notion that the secretary of health and human services is protecting some sacrosanct thing so that we keep ordering the system i just disagree with it adamantly and i think these days, the young girl's days are numbered with her current medical status and i have yet to see any reason why the secretary ought not to let that -- >> i believe it has been quoted by congressman diaz-balart the possibility if there is a legalization program that it should be important to force them to buy insurance if they are not a drain on the system and have the resources in the system and it's been reported in a way as an individual mandate but could you talk about that a little bit? do you support that idea assuming there is a legalization in the program? >> i'm not sure i want to buy the premise of the assumption. these are tough issues and conflating the issue of illegal immigration in how we deal with those that are here in immigrant status and health care i think confounds both of the issues and makes each of them less likely to be solved. my preference on this ,-com,-com ma i haven't spent a lot of time in this area down the immigration matter. that is why command chairman goodlatte so much for his process to allow this to work through in our normal committee process and allow all of the pros and the cons of what you describe in what others would say our options to be available for public evaluation and evaluatioevaluatio n by the members of congress and we will come up with a work product and a solution that is most able to be supported by members of the house. >> as follow-up congressman. you said the house and senate agreed on the budget resolutions. i am wondering what you mean given that the house discretionary is 967 billion descendents discretionary limit is 1.5 trillion. >> that discretion and number that the senate agreed to us 966. what their budget also said was that day in a nebulous way said the sequester would be fixed and done away with and that is how they get to it. they are writing to an outcome to occur so the agreement was a discretionary number of 966 which i think is a starting point. we as you well know think the sequester has been administered in a responsible fashion. we believe there is a better solution for the sequester. we believe the spending level needs to be in place but there is a much better solution in terms of prior decision which is why appropriations bills are so important so you can define where the priorities are and that is what we will be working through. the common ground is the 966/967 number. dealing with the sequester something that has to be addressed and the process that we will go through to address that on our side will be the appropriations bills written 2966 sequester number. >> within three minutes of remaining let me ask you a question opted by "the new york times" article on colonoscopies. this is what the "christian science monitor" brings to the special breakfast. [laughter] what struck me was in that remarkable piece of reporting in the times was the wide variance in prices. looking down the road you were talking about not wanting the government and health care and having it be patient-centered. looking down the road five or 10 years served is it going to be possible for that kind of model without more government interference to work given what is supposed to happen to health care cost? isn't the government in the end going to have to do more to bring down this wide variance cost so that we can afford to take care of people like myself? >> we want to take care of all like yourself is an issue and i'm approaching that myself. i think that the argument can the credibly made that a significant portion of the cost and the reason for the cost of health care is governmental involved. if you look at, and this is one of the things i would use as evidence for this, if you take areas of health care that are uncontrolled by the government you see significant reductions in price over a period of time and greater flexibility and greater options and greater choices for patients in those areas. so i think that the argument the government has to engage to get involved so that it keeps prices under control is a lack of appreciation for the main reasons why health care spending and costs are out of control and i would suggest that it's significantly related to governmental intervention in the first place from a price standpoint and health care. i think we can hold down costs in a much more efficient matter if you allow family doctors to make medical decisions about their patients. speeds 9:30. thank you. >> thank you. thank you all very much. you are not an optimist, mark? [laughter] [inaudible conversations] up next on c-span2 interior secretary sally jewell testifies a better department's 2014 budget. senate democratic leaders talk about their bills to keep current student loan interest rates. that is followed by part of wednesday night's massachusetts senate debate. former state and defense department officials and a reporter with bbc news will discuss serious civil war at an event friday hosted by the national council and u.s.-arab relations. interior secretary sally jewell announced a delay in implementing new rules on natural gas drilling on public lands. she made the announcement about hydraulic fracturing trilling or frack ring in testimony thursday before the senate energy and natural resources committee. this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> good morning this. senator murkowski is on her way and also because we have floats at 10:00 we are going to try and move everything as quick way this morning. i want to thank senator murkowski and senator barrasso. i want to thank my colleagues. we will review the programs and activities in the department of interior. this hearing marks the first time the secretary jewell, i like those words, secretary jewell commas testified before the committee censor confirmation in april so i would like to welcome her back and we look forward to her statement in a few minutes. i believe the hearing marks the final time the deputy secretary david hayes will appear before the committee or leaves office later this month and i would like to extend my appreciation to him for his long career in public service and advocacy over the past and especially his work is that deputy secretary over the past four and half years in his second tour of duty in the department padawan stacum and to highlight a few provisions in the current budget proposal. overall i'm pleased with the administration's proposed budget in the department of interior which is $11.7 billion nearly 3% increase over 2013 continuing resolution level. budgets are places where you have to make tough decisions and the administration in many particulars as the methodical job of putting scarce dollars in the right place. the president has made conservation of our public lands and national parks policies encouraging out the rotation and support for land and water conservation a high priority and i strongly support the president's commitment. outdoor recreation, we have talked about it on this committee, is a major major business and a job producer for our country and the studies have found americans spend $646 billion each year on outdoor recreation. that equates to over 6 million direct american jobs. secretary jewell understands a whole lot about this because she has been living and breathing it in the private sector and is acutely aware of the link between conservation jobs and economic growth. the administration's proposed partial funding for land and water conservation fund for fiscal year 2014 and full mandatory funding starting in 2015. i look forward to seeing the proposal to authorize full annual funding for this program. lwcf is an essential component to the country's effort to conserve land and provide areas for people to get outside and recreate. with respect to our national parks i have been exploring for new ways to provide necessary funding for our parks paired i talked about this at length with national park director jarvis and i want to discuss it further with the secretary this morning because clearly we have seen an enormous challenge presented as a result of sequestration. we ought to be looking at fresh ideas, creative new 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 this fiscally challenging environment. the department plays an important role and provides energy resources for the country. significant strides were made during secretary salazar's tenure on the siting of renewable energy projects on public land. the department just this week announced the first resale renewable energy projects on those sea. secretary jewell we are going to encourage you to continue those efforts in the area of renewable energy and i'm also pleased to see strong budgetary support for the department's new energy frontier initiative that promotes responsible energy development on our public lands. as the secretary knows and colleagues have talked an awful lot about it here we are especially concerned about the management of our forests. the length and severity of drought and wildfires seem to increase year after year and i'm one who believes certainly a measure of this is due to climate change. it's clear that federal forests are in poor health making them more vulnerable to catastrophic forest fires. as we talk about this a couple of days ago i am troubled the president budget request includes nearly a 50% reduction in hazardous fuel treatment for the department of the interior. as we have discussed on tuesday i am sure you have gotten report. we are anxious to work with you secretary vilsack and we are going to make sure that the focus on the office of management and budget site are part of the discussion as well to get a new big picture efforts to improve our policies with respect to the prior budget. :-( i'm grateful that budget proposal to extend the payments of the tax program at the full funding level in fiscal year 2014. the secretary knows how strongly we feel about the secure rural schools program and that of course appears in the forest serves budget and important component run by the bureau of land management especially for the omc lance. lands. i will be working on legislation on the short-term rasterization and long-term funding for the county as well as jobs for increased force management. on that point we appreciate the proposed budget increase of $1.8 million in omb force management increasing timber offered for sale and forestry work. this is of enormous importance in oregon and the secretary knows increasing the harvests, increasing the harvests on omc lands. a recently they recently released a framework for legislation to make that happen and look forward to working with you and the and colleagues on both sides of the aisle and making it a bicameral effort with the house of representatives as well. with that i would like to recognize my colleague senator murkowski for any comments that she would like to make and i so appreciate the chance to work on on this issue in a bipartisan way. i welcome my colleague. >> thank you mr. chairman and welcome adam secretary and mr. hayes. it's good to see both of you. madam secretary first i want to thank you for your commitment that you have made as it relates to king cove, the director of indian affairs is going to be visiting king cove in late june, commitment that you have made to visit in august is once again i appreciate it and look forward to joining you on that trip. i don't want to belabor this point but i am looking forward to this visit for a number of reasons. first and foremost to introduce you to my constituents. i think you know how strongly i feel and how strongly the members of the alaska delegation feel about this road that we have been talking about, this 10 miles single lane gravel noncommercial use road that would help provide for essentially emergency access for the residents of king cove to an all weather airport so we thought we had reconciled back in the 2009 on that this act. it's not done yet but i wanted to work with you to see that we finally and fully resolved this fairly for the citizens of king cove. i do have a number of questions to ask today. i know we are going to have votes that will interrupt but i do hope that we will have a chance to have further discussion and some of the things that are really timely for us right now. one that i want to bring up is the situation that we have with their legacy well in the national petroleum reserve. my statement has been that i believe the department is presiding over an environmental disaster within the national petroleum reserve and this has to be addressed and has to be remedied. we have more than 100 wells that were drilled by the federal government and then i walked away. they abandoned them and these legacy well says they are referred who are full of contaminants that pollute the environment. the federal government has all but abandoned their responsibility to clean up after itself. the annual budget has for many years contained base funding of all me $1 million for cleaning up these wells and yet the last two sites cost the agency $2 million each to remediate. if we keep it up at this pace it's going to be war than 100 years to clean up the mess that the federal government participated in. as i have told you madam secretary in person and in recent hearings it is categorically unacceptable and so is the administration's proposal to use alaska share of future and cra revenue for mediation. i've met with the mayor of the north slope borough charlotte row or as well as other several weeks back. i know that you had a chance as well. i have a copy of a letter from the mayor from our commissioner of natural resources from the president of the asr sea and the community on the north slope that i would like to have included as part of the record. thank you mr. chairman. a related concern is the pattern of falling production on federal lands. it's true that our nation is in the midst of an historic oil and gas boom but it's also true production on federal lands is in trouble. contrary to the rhetoric we have heard l. oil production in a federal estate actually fell 5% after falling by even more than that in 2011. natural gas production in the same federal areas meanwhile are in virtual freefall down 8% last year and down 23% in 2009. the fact of the matter is america's energy boom is happening in spite of federal policies that stymie our production. we should be opening new lands for development may can sure permits or improve -- approved on time and preventing regulation and mitigation from locking down our plans. if anyone is looking for a place to start i will invite you to look to alaska. i also want to very briefly mention before i conclude mr. chairman this subtle tactic the departments engage in to enforce the endangered species act in my view is alarming and the economic consequences could be considerable. madam secretary i recognize that you have a unique background to set before us as the secretary of the interior with a background in the oil and gas industry and the private sector conservation community. i think this is all the right mix and i welcome you in this position. you have promised to bring stakeholders together to solve problems. we need that again and i welcome it. i'm hopeful you bring back fresh perspective to help us move some of these long-standing stalemates and i look forward to working with you. thank you for being here this morning. >> madam secretary and colleagues here is where i think we are with the floats at hand. the secretary can take 10 minutes or so if she is comfortable with that. we can have each senator present here get five minutes for questions before the floats. it will be tight but if colleagues find that acceptable let's give that a trial. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and ranking member murkowski and other members. congratulations senator franken. i look forward to that day. no pressure on the kids though. [inaudible] i want to begin by echoing the comments of chairman wyden and the colleague to my left david hayes has been enormous help but mourn partly an enormous help to the american people in his service to this country through department of interior ,-com,-com ma it is very helpful certainly today to have him beside me but more importantly he has been very generous with his wisdom and his experience and i'm going to miss them terribly but he is only a phonecall away and i will make sure i have a hotline to his office. he supports the communities through the hewlett foundation so we will miss him but happy he is with me today. thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee. i've learned a lot in a 7.5 weeks on the job. i've been to many places around the country, many of your states and soul that i want to do is organize my thoughts into a few broad categories. i want to start with energy on shore. onshore oil production on public lands is at its highest level in over a decade. amount continues to increase and i'm very happy frankie member murkowski to provide you with the statistics that are little different than the comments you just referenced in terms of oil production. i have looked at the leasing reforms that blm has put in place and change them in 2010 and has the lowest number of protests on the cells in 10 years so we are making progress there. i know the team is working hard on reducing time for permitting and approval of new projects. i will be facilitated through automation sequestration is impacted at a bet that we are committed to getting that done. i also want to reference the hydraulic fracturing rule that we released a short while ago with a three day comment period. comments have been made on that rule, 177,000 of them since the rule was put in place. we changed significantly. one of the consistent things i've heard is a request for more time and so i'm announcing right now we will give an extra 60 days to that comment terry on the hydraulic fracturing rule so rather than expiring here in a week or two it will have another 60 days on top of that and that will have ample time for people to express their views on it that we need to get on with this regulation that has been over 30 years in place and technology has moved forward. i also want to say that alaska of course is an important component of our nation's energy strategy. the plans we have for the national petroleum reserve or abide access to 70% of the oil potential there. it also supports infrastructure needs to recognize recognizes the importance of providing protection for vital habitats like -- lake which ranking member murkowski is money with. senator landrieu just step out. i've been out on oil production platforms. this is a deep water floating-rate which turns out had a major discovery in the gulf of mexico. it is a very substantial project and something that is going in development. i also went to a production platform with chevron and saw how the technology has evolved in the industry and frankly how it hit has stayed the same in many ways. in april we announced the proposed notice of sale for lease sales to 33 which will make available 21 million acres offshore texas which will be the third in the current five-year program. we have also implemented key reforms that reduce the time for review but exploration plans for deepwater drilling in the gulf of mexico and i will say there is now more than floating deep water rigs them prior to the deep water horizon spill close to a 25% increase prior to what was happening before that activity. the bureau energy management is begun a environmental statement to supporters estimate the resource potential on the south atlantic and that is continuing. on the renewable side chairman widened mentioned we have a critical role to play in renewable energy and particularly fulfilling the president's goal of doubling renewable electricity generation by 2020. on public lands and as an overseer of those plans i'm pleased to say since 2000 we have authorized 42 renewable energy projects on public lands. that is the potential to produce electricity for more than 4.2 million homes and on the offshore side the bureau of ocean management just issued a notice that we will have our first ever competitive sail off the coast of rhode island and massachusetts with another one to be held in offshore virginia this year with 270,000 eggers that could produce electricity to power 1.9 million homes. now i want to shift gears to federal lands and reference something chairman wyden mentioned which is the national parks centennial. coming up in 2016 i hope you all join me in making sure that we take this seriously and engage the american public more in the support of our national parks but also our public lands. besides being out in a number of national park sites i have also joined with young people in several places. one of city park in an area working with shovels and in the park in oregon removing invasive species and shoveling sand in areas where it wouldn't have been previously him corporate corporate been gauging and 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-private partnerships again referencing chairman wyden's comments and that is the great lesson of how we connect people to public lands in a way that stays with them forever and i hope he will join me in supporting those kinds of programs. as the chairman mentioned in our budget we are looking for mandatory funding of the water conservation fund over a two-year period. those funds have been used to support every single county across the united states. very very important program that is made a big difference on the local level but also a big difference on the national level so we hope you you will support is fair. as the chairman mentioned we are committed to ensuring multiple uses on our public lands including resources and opportunities important to americans. the onc land that the chairman mentioned we are committed to supporting and will be working closely with the folks from oregon and california on that and one of the things you are keenly aware of his/her commitment to wildland firefighting. in 2013 seasons is unfortunately off to a hot start. we have seen fires in california and new mexico and arizona. it is early and it looks like it could be a severe fire season. our ability to fight those fires is impacted by sequestration particular ability to remediate after fires working in a way that is cooperative across agencies to do the best job we can and i've visited boise interagency fire center along with senator risch and saw what's happening there. i think it's very encouraging that people -- the way people work together without regard to agency but it's a big issue and we appreciate your support and help in addressing it over a longer term basis. last i want to talk about water. as chairman wyden takes a drink of water is critical to our life but it is under a lot of pressure from population growth and a changing climate. i want to give a nod to my colleague from the bureau of reclamation and the secretary of water and science. they are doing a great job of bringing people together to address these significant issues and providing leadership to communities as we address competing demands for water, the need to increase water availability and restore watersheds and resolve conflicts that have been out there for a long time. through water conservation and water smart the program we call the best drop of water. we certainly play an important role in finding better ways to stretch existing water supplies and highlights best practices that everyone can learn from. to wrap up i want to just say that sequestration continues to be an enormous frustration. as a business person you would never run a business we are required to run government and sequestration, and that the budget is tight and we need to be thoughtful about the money we spend it doing across-the-board and programs that are important to all of you is not a central way. we have had to cut across line items and some of those line items are important to all of you so i ask for your support and getting us pass this sequestration to a much more rational budget climate and with that i look for to taking your questions and thank you very much. >> thank you madam secretary. we had other senators come on and so i think we are going to have to come back for a few minutes. this is to confirm. as you know the oregon delegation feel strongly about this. pushing very hard to get the harvest up. we talked when you were in portland about particular the blm giving us technical support so we can get into these maps and find a way to address and partition concept and have areas where we focused on the harvest and can you stay publicly in effect what you said privately that he will be there to give us through the blm the technical support we need over the next few weeks? c. i would be happy to work closely with you and the blm the blm and i know the checkerboard situation relevant throughout the west is a challenge in terms of managing these resources and consolidating doing it in a thoughtful and sustainable yield way play is something we are committed to so the blm people will be happy to work closely with you on that. >> very good. let me talk next about national park funding. we have had several senators raised concerns about authorizing new national parks given the scope of the back log. this is very significant backlog. we have got colleagues here, democrats and republicans, designating parks and i also share the view of colleagues to say we have got to come up with a fiscally responsible approach to deal with about log. we have been talking to the director john jarvis about it and my question is, and to stand do you all are reviewing several funding recommendations that are in the national park conservation association report. park concessionaires have offered some ideas with respect to through the bipartisan policy center. can you tell us a little bit more about ways in which we could look to bring in the private sector fiscally responsible approaches given the fact that we are going to try hard to build a bipartisan coalition so that we can have these new parks which you and i have talked about that are good for our future and preserving our treasures but also good for the economy. i think colleagues are making legitimate points about the backlog. tell us what ideas you may be looking at from the park conservation association and bipartisan policy center. >> thank you thank you very much mr. chairman. this is certainly something i'm familiar with. with senator portman although he left us to run for elective office which we certainly appreciate as well. there is no question that we have a significant deferred maintenance backlog estimated to be over $11 billion in our national parks and that is really something that has been accumulating over many many years of not treating our assets in the public lands in the way we might do in the private sector in terms of setting aside depreciation and that is more to do with appropriations and less to do with at 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 for the private sector. there are opportunities for private sector engagement. one of the things the second century commission worked on was public-private partnerships and recognizing that people love their national parks and there is an opportunity, of leverage for love of parks to find ways to support and recognize private donations but i think it is fair to say and this came from the second century commission as well that a private philanthropy should be the margin of vessel and not the margin of survival. it's critically important we step up as the federal government to support these assets that are so important. there is hardly a senator that i visited i visited with him he decided that i'll but that didn't have some wish or desire related to the national park in their districts are certainly public lands in their district and support for them. we do need to work with you and with the appropriators on adequate funding to begin to address the maintenance backlog that we are very willing and i know mr. jarvis is in particular in finding ways to support and enhance private sector engagement and just a quick story. i went up to the washington monument with a private donor who is splitting the cost for the renovations of that facility david rubenstein. i appreciate his support in setting a great example for the private sector and we are certainly looking for more opportunities like that. >> i will give you one question for the record. on the klamath fish agriculture water and energy commissioner connor testified he was at the bureau reclamation didn't anticipate any supply cut off to project users. if you could give that to me in writing with a quick confirmation. i have not heard anything to the contrary. my time is up. if you could just get that to mean with a response reaffirming what commissioner connor said. >> i would be happy to do that. >> senator murkowski. >> thank you mr. chairman and secretary i am going to do for my questions until my colleagues have had a chance to address theirs because i'm going to be coming back after the votes. i did want to just put a statement on the record. you had noted in your opening statement the oil production from the the federal onshore lance lands is at its highest level in over a decade. you noted that perhaps our commentaries differed. i had said that oil production from the federal estate fell 5% and referenced there so i think it is important to just give some of the numbers here very briefly because i think it can be confusing. federal onshore oil production was 89.5 million barrels in 2003 and it has gone up to 108-point -- we have seen that fall from 532.7 million barrels in 03, two and 30.6 million barrels in 2012. what we have got his federal onshore production which rose by about 20 million barrels and federal offshore production fell by 100 million barrels, more than five times the onshore increase i think it's important when they are talking about this that we look at the full picture. if your numbers are different than mine i would be happy to share with them but with that mr. mr. chairman i will defer to others so they can get their questions and before the vote. >> very good. senator franken. >> can i ask, and the tory them after the vp oil spill is that really what caused that dip? we had a huge thing happened and there was a moratorium after that. is it okay if i ask that? >> yes senator. it is true oil production in the gulf did decline because of faith's safety issues that are of a rose and the need to needs of greater safety standards. the good news is di aid tia recently reported a very strong upward trend now in the gulf. the secretary mentioned of major discovery. there've been 10 major new discoveries. there are now more than 50 rigs drilling in the offshore. the lease sales are very strong that we are having and we had in the central gulf and the western gulf so we expect to be back to where we were and further but there certainly was a time that we did increase safety standards and change the way we did business and that did affect we believe temporarily the production and the offshore. >> i'm sorry. i just wanted to clarify that. i'm going to be cheering and we can find out the whole story there. secretary jewell i want to briefly talk about an issue that is important in northern minnesota. there are 93,000 acres of lands that belong to the state that are trapped in the boundary waters wilderness area which means they can't contribute to the economic development to support schools in minnesota. the forest service is working with the state to purchase land from the state in two and two exchanged the lands with minnesota. the national force has submitted to the frustration of pre-proposal for the purchased piece and i want to urge you to give every consideration to this application. it's an important issue to minnesotans and to our schools. >> just to clarify senator gets in the department of agriculture so i'm not sure we are involved directly in that one. i certainly can support that with my colleague tom vilsack. >> goes to both agencies and we will clarify. >> i would be happy to do that. >> i just want to get in the water little bit as you mentioned water. it is critical obviously to our economy and to our well-being. we need water for farming and four healthy ecosystems and we need it for energy production. the drought that devastated so much of the country last year drove home how important water is. we need to monitor our groundwater resources and their rates at which your aquifers recharge our sustainable and how much water is being taken now. your department is issuing a lot of oil and gas permits in drought prone areas. these activities required huge amounts of water. for instance a single single hydraulic fracturing will use as between and 10 million gallons of water. you have heard about competition and between farmers and oil and drilling. so can you just give me your take on and walk through how you consider water she's when issuing permits for energy development on public lands, the largest wholesale supplier in the nation is the department of interior and you have to be a leader in sustainable management. can you give me -- just walk through these considerations? >> i will do that and ask my colleague david hayes to weigh in with more detail. first some hydraulic fracturing one of the things that we are encouraging is the reuse of hydraulic fracturing fluids. another thing happening in the industry is producing water which is saltwater from lower depths for hydraulic fracturing as opposed to water, groundwater with other resources in those activities are being encouraged. the water is generally controlled by -- the suez energy companies purchase water they are not purchasing it from us are asking us for it. it's coming from state and local resources. i think the role we can play is encouraging reuse and monitoring appropriate use of water so there is competition for that. it's certainly very sensitive for the energy company to buy water for these purposes as well but david i want to turn to you to get perhaps a little more detail in and specifics. >> just very quickly senator obviously the water uses a big issue for us. the president's budget calls the requirement that congress laid out in 2007 for the water census. we are asking for 15 million for the geological surveys to provide data for that. in terms of permitting what the secretary said is for important. typically the states regard to water use, the proposed fracking ruled that is now up for further comment suggests we require a tracking about water because when it comes up if it is not handled appropriately it can cause damage to for example the public lands. we look forward to further dialogue. >> lets do this. we will have senator franken -- senator brandes so. >> thank you for your dedicated service. we are very grateful. madam secretary you brought up sequestration i wanted to ask about this revenue owed to states under the mineral leasing act. in march the departmendepartmen t of interior interior notified states would hold over 100000009 -- $109 million in revenue. this was before you were sworn into office. at that time the department said its decision was in accordance with the budget control act of 2011, the sequestered. three weeks ago a bipartisan group, 10 senators and five members of this committee senator mark udall senator hultgren, senator lee and i sent you a letter to owen be. in that letter that letter we has to wannabes to confirm your department would return mineral revenue withheld in fiscal year 2013 in fiscal year 14. we explained a provision within the federal budget low required the department to return with revenue to the states were sequestration to face in the mid-1980s. the same provision of the law place today. the sequester which took effect this year so you have a copy of a letter to omb. can you confirm the department will return mineral revenue withheld in fiscal year 2013 to the tune of $109 million to 35 states to which it is a vote? >> senator thanks for the question in your letter. i understand the revenue to the state. we are doing our best to comply with a balanced budget emergency control act otherwise than as the sequester and our understanding is that we were required to withhold payment. it is designed to be flexible and indiscriminate. this is an example of that so i will be fulfilling my application under the law. whether that requires a repayment to the states are not is something that certainly omb is the right place to assess this and if we are asked to do that we will absolutely do that. we are doing our best to comply with the law. >> i would like to ask about the revised hydraulic fracturing row. you advised extending the comment period another 60 days. gas producers will be able to obtain a variance for roof which have their own hijacking -- hydraulic fracking rules. the blm says also that that blm may resend that blm may resent this variance or modify the conditions of approval at any time. this is hardly with certainty that you acknowledged during your confirmation process is so important for the private sector. it's unclear to me why blm is adding federal regulations on top of the state regulations. wyoming adopted regulations three years ago and since then nearly all states have meaningful oil and gas production rules adopted or the process of adopting their own rules. investors bet dlm's rules as a solution it seems to be looking for a problem. are there states that are currently regulating hydraulic fracking and are they doing a sufficient job? >> senator i want to say is highly variable between states through the state state of wyoming is sophisticated in its oversight of hydro at fracturing. we applaud that and understand the resources within the state and it's a good example of the state doing an effective job. our role is to provide minimum acceptable standards on public lands. that is oversight on behalf on behalf of the mac in people in people and that's what we are doing. the reason for the comment period 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 so we will be listening to those comments. >> i appreciate it because the variance process doesn't give the certainty you talked about in your confirmation so i appreciate that. a final question about leadership of bureau of land management. last year bob abbey the director retired and president obama has yet to hire successor. as the present looks for a replacement, the federal land policy and management act states that bureau, the drifter that bureau shall have broad background and substantial experience in public lands and natural resources management. bob abbey had 30 years of experience working for land management agencies prior to his and his predecessor ari -- predecessor. to believe that blm director should have a broad background in substantial sig experience in land and natural resources management as the law calls for? >> senator and going to do my best to find someone who is highly qualified for the position who has requisite experience and i'd need to take into account the talent that exist throughout the blm and the ability of individuals to leave that organization leveraging their talent and that is what we do in the industry. we would take all of these into account and we are committed to that as well. >> thank you and secretary. >> senator heinrich is going to be next because i think colleagues are trying to figure out their schedules. what we'll do is get as many colleagues and attack senator landrieu will be next and we will get you in before 10:15. when the boat started 10:15 we will break. anticipate those votes being done at 11:00 and senator franken will come back and share we will keep going and senator landrieu will be next and after senator landrieu will be senator risch. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i apologize. i stepped out for another meeting. welcome secretary jewell and thank you for taking one of your trips to the gulf coast. i understand you you were on the coasts of louisiana mom on our offshore rigs and we appreciate you reconnecting with important as an resource for nation based on your experience earlier in your career. i wanted to bring up two issues and have questions on two issues. first is the request in the budget for the land and water conservation. there are many of us that are very interested in funding the land and water conservation fund for many reasons. there is a set aside that helps our planet position in the state site that helps our state to really leverage the conservation dollars to expand recreational opportunities and save special places. i don't think there's really a member on this committee that doesn't want to do that within reason recognizing they have too much land already purchased by the federal government and i knowledge their concern. however my concern is that in this budget we are using revenues generated off the coast of louisiana and texas. when the louisiana and texas and alabama and mississippi and florida are coastal areas have so much needs. the money that we are generating seems like to me which is pretty significant. i'm going to put up a chart in a minute. it's basically being used to fund the land and water conservation fund. all the money goes is when the country. we are saving the redwoods in the northeast and california and the sequoias but we are not saving the marsh where those revenues are coming from. do you have a comment about that or what are your general feelings? and coming from louisiana preserving a platform for the reduction without there would be no way for the federal government to access resources that are clearly hours. without our state there could be no access to the offshore. >> senator thank you for the question and as i mentioned in my opening comments i support full funding of the land of moderate conservation fund which has not been the case for more than one year in this almost 50 year history. i appreciate the revenue generated from the production. as i went they went to the gulf coast i saw first-hand the positive impact it had on the residents of louisiana through the jobs it has created including our office there which has over 500 people in the offices there. >> and we appreciate that jobs but 500 jobs and the jobs that are created along the coast do not compensate for the loss of revenue. $6 billion in 2006. it's projected to be $11 billion annually coming off the coast of louisiana and texas and yet we are struggling here for years trying to get a fair share of that money just to be kept at home along the coast that is producing the revenues. meanwhile the other charts, the inland states which i do not, you know, i am a little jealous actually of the deal that they were able to get because wyoming and new mexico senator your status you know keeps 50% of their revenues. the western states had to deal with the federal government. all the money that they generate from federal lands they keep 50% to over the course of time the western states have kept $51 billion to spend on anything they want. not even on conservation. they spend it on schools, hospitals, roads. they don't have to spend it on the environment. meanwhile the golden coast states get nothing. we generate more money than they do and did our case we are even willing at least for the state of louisiana, we are willing to dedicate all of that money to coastal restoration. so i just can't impress upon the both of you how critical this is and i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support of this general concept. now how we work out the details i don't now and again i want to say to the western states, i just want the same deal you all have. i am even willing to take a little bit less. i'm willing to be more flexible. the people i represent are truly desperate. this is the largest land loss in the continent of north america in the whole continent, the largest land laws. alaska has serious erosion issues but, and they are serious but i don't think they are as serious as louisiana. this is a river that supports all nation. this river is not his dream or if paddle place where you paddle round and have an enjoyable time. we are putting the largest tankers and commerce down this river. i'm not going to stop on this and i just want to tell you that or share with you that i will be watching this budget very carefully. the second question i have and i've will submit is on the permitting process. we cannot produce any of these revenues, neither the western states and not off of our shore without streamlined efficient best practices permitting. the good work you are doing hearing complaints from the industries that they have got to get green lights to drill. they can do and they can do it safely and they need permits. thank you very much. >> senator risch. >> secretary jewell thank you for visiting the interagency fire center in boise. i think you gritty factory tour that facility if the agency is prepared and they are ready willing and able to take on the 2013th fire season, well equipped and better better trained and at the end of the day it will depend on mother nature and the number fires that they have to deal with it we appreciate your input and we certainly appreciate you appearing. they were tested last friday. a small one but nonetheless the fire, less than five miles from the facility so they will be at it this summer. you and i have had a number of conversations about sage grouse and you're probably tired of hearing about sage grouse but i want to get a response from you now that you have been on the job for a while and were able to review this. you and i talked about first of all the comments and suggestions that secretary salazar made regarding how we should rehabilitate the population of the sage grouse and particularly his letter december 18, 2012 which outlined the departments 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 the collaborative method, a state driven method to address this issue and i think in sync with what your view is about the collaborative system. after you have been on the job now for the period of time you have do you have many of -- any more thoughts on this? are you in agreement that this is the best way to pursue how we do what all of us want to do and that is preserve, protect and rehabilitate the greater sage grouse? are we still singing off the same sheet of music? >> yes senator i believe we are. i see great collaboration through states, private landowners the prayer of land management indian tribes, all working together to say how can we preserve for text and support habitat? challenging issues with the bases species and fires as you know but these are things we want to work on together and it is great examples out there for us to learn from and we are certainly learning from that so i'm committed to it in ongoing collaborative effort as you describe. >> we appreciate that and we know in past years all of us have been driven top down from the government and i think we have learned that the 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 and thank you mr. chairman. >> i think my colleague. here is where we are. senator portman can't come back and senator heinrich will chair at 11:00 and center murkowski will be here. senator portman can we get you in before the break because of the thoughtfulness of senator heinrich? >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i've always thought mr. heinrich was a particularly wonderful guy. he is also my mentee. i think that is the reason he wanted to do it. he is looking for something. thank you very much. quickly on hydraulic fracking. it's a big deal because 90% of fewer wells will be for act on public lands and ohio frankly doesn't have a lot of public land however we do a lot of fracking and we have been doing it for years. we have good regulations and we think some of the best in the country. we have no documented cases of groundwater contamination we are part of that. i would raise the point on average it takes 307 days to get needed permits on federal land and this is one reason i've been working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on permitting reform. we we are now 17th in the world based on the imf metrics for the use of doing business with regard to holding something. it affects everybody. energy developers for major capital projects whether it's oil and gas or whether it is wind or solar. they are facing the same thing and federal lands from multiple separate agencies and federal goes from one to six years so it's a certainty leading to a lot of investors being hesitant to make these kinds of commitments to the capital investment. so i would hope as you look at this you will look at what states are doing and specificaspecifica lly our state of ohio were we to have eight that record. secondly you help us on this permitting bill. this is not something we have introduced. it is open for input on ideas that we want to make sure that we have the input from the department and it is a bipartisan effort going forward. second, i want to ask your comment on that because of the short period of time but if i could raise two quick issues i would appreciate. this bill we talked about during the confirmation process. the house last year passed with a vote of 386-26. as you know today is the 69th anniversary of d-day and we are interested in moving it forward in the senate as well. lester senator lieberman and i were able to make progress and we would love your help on that. the park service has worked with us to ensure that those subject to the standards in the review process and your support on that would be traffic since it is the anniversaanniversa ry of d-day today. it is s1 404 and find the one national parks your comments were correct. we need to do better partnership and i'm interested in your specific example of washington monument. this 11 billion-dollar backlog and the deferred maintenance backlog of the valley national park which is a real jewel. [inaudible] they have got some serious concerns on this very issue so my question to you is in the process of the centennial coming up to you all have a plan to encourage more public-private partnership to start this initiative that you madam secretary now a lot about in the notion was to challenge the church to match dollar for dollar. do you have the centennial plan that you have put together? we haven't seen one yet and we are as you know trying to encourage that. i sent a letter around to our colleagues on this and you may have seen it. maybe you could tell us about what you are doing on the permitting and any thoughts on the public private partnerships as they come to the centennial. we appreciate it very. >> i will try and do this quick way. first on the centennial there is actually quite a lot of work going on with national park foundation and with the national park service and various advisory boards to look at what we can do to facilitate public by the partnerships and i think it will be a very important part of that and also raise the -- on the american people. people love their parks and we want to give them an opportunity to support their parks. should there be legislation involves? i will make sure you are well aware of that. at this point we are working within the park service and the external to facilitate the appeared on the permitting site actually there has been a lot of work done by the blm to streamline the permitting process and we have done that offshore. their lessons off sure that we can bring on shore. there is a desperate need for automation in the process. we have also found unfortunately sequestration across-the-board the offices that are the most active still have to scale back their operations of getting past that would be very helpful. so there is a lot of work going on in the 2014 budget. there is a request for fees generated to support that activity so it doesn't become just strictly a line item in the budget that can be cut. it's variable depending on the demand which will depend on the areas that come with the development is going on. the formations don't go across state lines but that is how we are required to run the agency so we are going to need your help on some of those things for streamlining. on the world war ii prayer bill we appreciate the importance and the lives of americans and i'm happy to contain to work with you on that bill. thank you. >> we will stand in recess until 11:00 or until the interior is included and i will be back. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> secretary said to and secretary hayes thank you for your patience. we are going to get started here. i'm going to go ahead and ask a question that i held off earlier and a couple of other senators who have been very patient as well and we will get to them as quickly as we can. secretary jewell 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 in the communities that are oftentimes downstream from the department of interior lands as well as downstream from forest service land. are there any additional authorities that you need to ensure a seamless and coordinated response between interior agencies like dom and bia and the fish and wildlife service, park service and the forest service to make sure that we are meeting these challenges and it is coordinated and consistent and seamless a way as possible? >> senator thanks for bringing up the important issue of fire. on the coordination front we are very well coordinated and when i went to the interagency fire center i went there with secretary vilsack and all the various units of the federal government as well as the state governments and local governments are well coordinated. i would say you raise an issue around post-fire remediation and making sure we prepare lands for fires in advance whether that is prescribed burns for hazardous fuel removal and other needs. those are being squeezed from oj -- budgetary standpoint and that's the biggest challenge we face. we do have a fire on -- to plant native shrub like sage is very important. if you don't and up with cheatgrass and species that are prone to fire and habitat destroying. we have not had sufficient money to spare had sufficient money to spare would see that work and that's very important not to mention our tribal lands where it's an important source of jobs for tribes as well. i would appreciate support in making sure the emergency part of firefighting is segregated so we can do the right job in terms of management for wild land fires. see i perceived that. we recently had a hearing earlier this week with the forest service about this issue and we had real challenges in terms of some of the downstream impacts on tribes and other communities going after the big fires last year and the year before. it's something that i'm more than happy to work with you on. senator franken brought something up which i hadn't thought of before this hearing but i think bears attention. he talked about the issue of land consolidation and state lands in federal lands. not knowing the specifics of the situation in northern minnesota i can say that is an enormous issue that is not received a lot of attention but is ubiquitous across much of of the west whether you are in new new new mexico or utah or nevada. you have the situations where you you have state lands checker board approved federal lands and it's a very large research efficiency issue and some of the tools that we typically use to consolidate and to land swaps and other things are limit to do in that case particularly the land and water conservation fund. we can't use emergency plan. i propose -- which resulted in higher disposal rates at dom and also a something we can use to resolve these conflicts and focused those resources back on high value lands. but i would be curious if you have any sort of concerted effort and i would encourage you to give this issue is due well you are the secretary because i think it's something that has led to a lot of unnecessary management and resource complex between the state and the federal government. see i very much appreciate your support. i think that is a useful tool that has worked in the past and would be helpful to have in the future so thank you for your support there. we are in full agreement. i would say we have done it more on a case-by-case basis. there are certainly some that are pending that i'm aware that there are some lands that are federal that may not serve the federal government as well as they might serve the state so we are very open to that. i don't think we have looked at it on a landscape level basis and there may be an opportunity to do that in some areas. >> can be challenging and they are often her transparency issues but i would urge you to take a look at that. when it is done well it doesn't serve the public on multiple fronts. it is just the two of us. i'm looking around at my list but there is no one here. >> i appreciate it mr. chairman. madam secretary let me start with some questions that i alluded to in my opening and this relates to the npr a legacy i think that you feel my frustration in my concern. as i mentioned in our conversations earlier, if the federal government was a private operator and had abandoned these is the federal government had the state would have had an opportunity to let be some fines on a private operator and our estimates are that it would he about $41 billion in fines. so i've just been so concerned about what i believe to be a double standard here because i think we do have an expectation. if you are going to be exploring and producing an arctic environment there is an absolute need to be responsible and to be cautious, to really be careful. so it just hurts to see what we have left. so now we get to the part where it okay to figure out how we are going to clean it up. i thought that we had agreed that would be a better path forward rather than to tell the state, you figure it out. so when we met before the interior last month i thought we had a pretty good discussion on how we might work together to find a path forward that didn't require the state to pay for the federal remediation efforts and since that time i've had constituents come back to me who have had meetings not only with you but those in your department and they have effectively told me that they believe that the department and that you actually support and agree with a proposal the proposal that was put out again before you took the position as secretary. and, those decisions that were made before you came you are now kind of stuck to deal with them. i guess the question that i would have of you this morning ,-com,-com ma and i had submitted the letter from the mayor that outlines their concerns about that. is it your opinion that the state of alaska should he held financially responsible for the federal government's responsibility to remediate these wells? >> i completely agree that the legacy wells are a problem that we need to solve. they were drilled by the u.s. cs and the navy to assess the potential of the national petroleum reserve in alaska and is one of the reasons we have resource potential there and modern techniques have been used as well. they need to be cleaned up. i'm pleased that the deal and has done an assessment and shared with the state of party list of where they would go first so we would deal with the worst offenders first. we need money to be alluded to that end i would like to think that as the resource was assessed in part through the use of these wells that the revenue from the resource state and federal be used to help in the cleanup. i think it is a revenue generator and puts oil in the pipeline. we need to work on figuring out how to pay for it is right now there isn't sufficient money. >> i would agree that we have some very difficult budget limitations. we all know that but i have a very difficult time suggesting that those revenues that would go to the state that in turn go to the residents of the borough and again i would refer you to the mayor's letter and the in the commissioner's letter that somehow or other you think that it is right to take those revenues that would go to those residents for no value that they have gained from the exploration of these wells some 30 or 40 years ago. all that is left is an eyesore and a level of contamination. i want to work with you on a path but if that path is going to mean that monies that would be going to the state of alaska and the residents of the north slope are going to be choked back, that is not appropriate. i am hoping to hear you say that you are willing to work with us to find a better path forward. >> i am absolutely willing to work -- work with you and to find the money to remediate the legacy wells and i'm certainly committed to doing that in any creative suggestion you have on how to fund that. >> lets work on this. we do need to be creative but being creative does not mean that we assess for the cost of the cleanup if the federal government is responsible. the other areas that i wanted to visit with you on and this is again a little bit of a rub to alaska. as you know we became the state 50 odd years ago. our lands have not been yet fully and finally engaged under the terms of the native claims settlement act. lands that are owned -- owed to i native people have not yet been finalized. we are working that and we have good discussions about some ways we are thinking creatively. can we use a different methodology to do the surveys and how we reduce our costs to accomplish that same goal. i think that is a good step for us but again in the proposal that we have before us in the budget effectively those revenues that would be coming to our state we are saying okay we will take from you in order to complete to pay for those. i cannot understand why any state should ever be expected to effectively pay the federal government to perform that federal application of conveying the lands that have been approved by congress and clearly past administrations had somehow or other it seems that the interior department needs to share in this financial burden. so you need to know that again i've been pushing on this issue since i came to the senate. we advance legislation that put in place an expedited process and we are still nine years later and we still have not yet fully and finally issued these conveyances. so we need to make better progress on that. we have got more in the budget this year. that is helpful but again we are still looking at decades and decades of when these conveyances are complete so i would like to hear your proposal and how we might move forward with that but i can if the expectation is the state is going to have to pay for the conveyances were the costs associated with it is going toward. >> center are not aware of anything worth the cost of the conveyances. see what they're suggesting is that a share of the mineral payments and that alaska would receive would be utilized to help cover the cost for the conveyances. >> i will look into that. the surveys themselves the blm is agreeing we want to convey these lands. i really appreciate your willingness to do an expedited process and use the mapping techniques. you know how impractical and expensive that is in alaska so we will be working with the blm to get it moving forward. i hadn't heard of the issue about the state and we will look into that further. >> i appreciate you looking into. the other thing that i learned that my most recent meeting with bud triply from alaska is that in fact there will be no survey that will be conducted in alaska this year. he pointed the finger to the budget but there are no surveys going on at all? if you could look into that aspect i would appreciate it. thank you mr. chairman. i have got another question but i'm going to defer to my colleagues. >> thank you senator murkowski. senator scott. >> secretary jewell thank you for taking the time to answer a couple of questions. congratulations on your confirmation. as a release to the environmental impact study and atlantic, we are about a year late. have you been able to discover why we are running a year late on the bls? >> senator this is for this survey activity? i know it's in process and we are doing the programmatic eis doubts in order to move forward on that. deputy sec. do you know about delays or are we on schedule as far as you know? >> senator we have been pushing forward on this actually. i recall a year ago we accelerated the schedule. my sense of it is that we are moving forward at a deliberate pace. we are very interested in getting this done. we are certainly not dragging our feet and we are telling our folks we want this environmental analysis done. >> do you believe you have enough working on this project? >> yes, yes. in this time of sequester it's a challenge but we are very committed to funding that effort and bringing it to completion. >> the one thing mr. hayes is the starter before the sequester so we are about a year late. one of the questions i have is to have an expectation what you believe will be a part of the eis sandia any idea on what the report will show? and the indications at all at this point? >> i have no personal knowledge of any special items. my understanding is there is a very vigorous analysis that will be put forward. there are consultations with the other affected agencies including the lead in let in particular. those are proceeding along so we are hopeful that this will and always the senator as you know environmental impact statement is a major deal particularly for such a large area as this in the south atlantic but nothing on the horizon as far as we are aware in terms of issues that would be out of the ordinary. >> certainly secretary jewell you have expressed moving forward to collect more data so will lead the unit better position recognizing some of the data is about 30 years old. from the southland perspective we think about the companies that would go out and perhaps discover the resources and the questions they are going to ask is we have the opportunity to get those resources? my question is if you look at the company's necessity of a return on investments what do you think the prospects are of our ability to move forward and provide the companies with the necessary opportunity to recoup their investment? >> senator as someone who spent time early in my career in the oil and gas industry i appreciate not only the importance of resource development but also the timeframe that it takes. these are massive investments when you're talking about exploring and developing new areas so i think the first step toward the geological and geophysical and houses is important. it will take time for the industry to analyze that data and decide where their priorities are and where they want to lease. we certainly will be there in terms of lease sales to open the lands when appropriate. .. >> one man mcmann this she head and i have worked on for a period of time and we're hopeful we have an opportunity to have that bill presented before the committees of our colleagues can take a look at it. in your confirmation hearing you indicated you're willing to work with us on the concepts of the question is if you have had a chance to look at our legislation if you think this is an approach you might be able to support and work with us on? >> i have not looked at any specific legislation. it is the tricky issue with federal revenues going here and what you used to support the federal government in these assets on the outer continental shelf so i am happy to look into the bill but i have not seen it specifically. >> and me are talking about thinking outside the box to deal with some of the issues that are at play, i know the chairman has mentioned many taco revenue-sharing committee is to be broader than we had envisioned in the past in might be able to assist us with the issues may face for instance on land so i would commend that to you for your review. we have had a whole series of hearings and moved land bills to the committee already but one of the issues that comes up continually has to deal with part sam part issues that is the main ince backlog so a lot of the conversation is we should be adding more to what we already have? it was noted buyers self and others we have the centennial coming upon us and it seems this is a great time to reevaluate how we establish a maintain the parks as a move into the second century and now we build support for the parks within the local communities and and if it is getting support through private dollars and getting local people engage with ownership in their parks i think that will be important. and if you will work with myself and other members to review the options and how we define a pass for word as we did dance into the second century of the national parks. >> no doubt this is a historic opportunity i am very happy to work with you and senator wide and on whatever we can do to address the maintenance backlog and look at the challenges we have to maintain the public land and sometimes you have a willing buyer and a seller in the federal government that does not necessarily increase the cost so i don't want to think of what we need to do because of the backlog but i am learning about the complexity of land management conservation and understanding would really like to work with you on a more permanent solution. >> another thing we have discussed is the implementation of the redundancy that is inherent in the inventory of programs was published observation you have 24 different programs is in fish and wildlife and the other departments provide mass adjusting all 20 of these are duplicative but it does pay question as to whether or not they are and what kind of review is under way end from may department perspective to make sure we are being smart and how we are advancing these programs >> if i can take just a minute to respond there budget category titles but i have observed as i have sat down as a leverage each other there are scientific resources available at additional wildlife that are working with the wildlife for fish needs for the blm i am looking for duplication and opportunities to streamline where we can. i don't see a lot of overlapping with the land manager on the ground doing the work with the scientist of the u.s. geological survey they have ways that come together but i appreciate the sentiment we need to make sure we're not overlapping and i am committed to doing that. >> knowing they were looking at that is important. fish and wildlife came out with a draft conservation plan and it did not include the development alternative for the coastal plain and i have been told the rationale is development requires an act of congress but it also included alternatives for additional wilderness and wild and scenic rivers also requires an act of congress so it seems inconsistent. so the question is whether or not is the plan for anwr will include the development alternative and if you are not then the question is why not? >> i will give the high level answer that i know i asked david add more color. the president has made it clear it is not part of his agenda to oil and gas exploration in the wildlife refuge and i support that so further details is immersed in issues and they have been committed to the issues there. david? >> senator, i believe the fish and wildlife service was consistent to not including as alternatives that require congressional actions to make you would agree when you have an alternative that allows for additional wilderness of the also requires an act of congress? >> yes. absolutely but in fact, all it does is, there is no action ration of wilderness designation by agency there can only be a recommendation. as the secretary said of course, the law is very clear on the oil and gas side to need congress' decision to go forward and thank you for your arctic leadership and i just want to say publicly that the white house can now with a new national strategy for the arctic and promised to have outreach sessions this month in alaska as a follow-up and we're going to go forward with these listening sessions in alaska at the end of next week and we will have leadership from across the government in those sessions to take very seriously the issues that you take so seriously and thank you for your leadership generally. >> they appreciate what you have done to help us on the arctic issues in your report out of the department of interior and you will be mr. kleiman afraid to say publicly you have been a big help to us and i appreciate that. let me conclude, do you know when the final plan might be released? you have a timeframe? >> we do not. >> you mentioned the listening sessions up north and there will be moving forward to get things pin down to make sure that the appropriate folks are in place but i was troubled there is an article with the on-line newspaper the headline is are the interior department of alaska listening sessions just hot air? takes a punch at me and at you, not personally met me personally. but i do hope they're not hot air but there is real substance that we as alaskans are not only engage but we need to be reminded we are an arctic nation hopefully these sessions will allow us to push that reality out so people know and understand it tyler afford to meet with people from the interior and i thank you for your indulgence. >> thank you, mr. chairman chairman also madam secretary, as you have undoubtedly heard from my a western colleagues the potential listing of the greater sage grouse on the endangered species would have some far ranging impacts on the people of utah and residents of neighboring states the state of utah has proposed a management plan that would protect more than 90 percent of the sage grouse while significantly limiting the adverse economic impacts that these efforts would have. we see it as a real win-win potentially but during your confirmation process you stressed quite repeatedly that coordination with states is the hallmark of your tenure at interior and the status of utah and 3 million residents can they count on your commitment to give consideration for the sage grouse and can i count on your commitment to work with the state of utah and other western states on this issue and similar issues understood jurisdiction of the department of the interior? >> yes you have my commitment mueller with states, private landowners, everyone involved. the habitat covers a lot of jurisdictions the only way we will be able to take care of this long term is to work together. >> thank you. i hope you take a very serious look at the efforts put forward because i think they achieve the things necessary but they do so in a way that respect the needs of our residents of people on a grounder most affected simitar recent study by a the chamber of commerce reveals in 2009 through 2012 a total of 71 lawsuits against various federal agencies settled under circumstances that could be described as sue and settle case resolutions. the settlement of these directly resulted in more than 100 new federal rules mckee of which that carry the annual aggregate implants impact of $100 million or more and while some of these involved the epa settlements under the clean air act, more than if you fell under the jurisdiction of your department, highlighted by a key fish wildlife service settlements under the endangered species act. the sioux and subtle process that i am describing allows agencies to avoid in some circumstances the normal protections built then with the review of the office of management and budget but also not insignificantly the review process by the public that they have to review the proposed rule making. as your tenure begins the think using the settlement agreement and consent decrees is consistent with your commitment to how you want to run the department including transparency? >> as a business person, you want to avoid lawsuits at all cost. i certainly have been struck by the amount of lawsuits filed against the interior we try to uphold the law but as a business person sometimes the most cost-effective ways to deal with the lawsuit is to settle thought something and want to make any practice of i want to avoid them to begin with to make sure we have parties around the table that to understand the lot and that we are upholding the law and serve and the transparency is something i have been known for on the business side and i am committed to being transparent in this process as well. we have laws that have time requirements such as the endangered species act amir overwhelmed sometimes with the amount of volume that comes in and may work to try to address the underlying needs in the most cost-effective way we can do deal with upholding the laws. this is an area i am becoming more familiar with as they now bear my name but we want to avoid them to begin with and that is my commitment. >> i respect that and that as a businesswoman when you were involved in lawsuits you have an obligation to find a resolution of those cases and also the natural inclination to defend the most important thing for your business sentiment is a little bit different because to achieve a different policy that can have the effect of a law making effort. so as if not a distinctive adverse interest with the plaintiff, you do have some potential for what people call a friendly suit resolution read to people can just agree with the plaintive that is a good policy we should implement that with the fact lawmaking by means of a friendly suitor to resolution. and mr. chairman if i can have your indulgence, is that a possibility. >> how many? >> just one more. the united states congress recognizes the need for the development of oil shale resources with a package of the energy policy act of 2005 in which congress directed now almost eight years ago the department of the interior to establish commercial oil shale leasing programs. following the extensive process the blm issued the problematic eis for oil shale development in that established rule of 20082009 and non-governmental group challenged that plan resulting in the settlement agreement with interior followed by a new oil still regulations of 2012 to reduce acreage for development by almost 75 percent for a few weeks ago blm was notified another group of ngos was planning a lawsuit concerning these new regulations. with the in the standing of these decisions were made during the secretary salazar will you commit to take a fresh look at the oil shale leasing program and if it complies with the objectives of the energy policy act of 2005? >> as i understand we have 600,000 acres available for oil shale development under these research and development leases for pricing the reality right now is more economic on oil shale development not to be mixed with shell oil but there is work to be done to assess the value of these resources and their potential for the future certainly continuing to do that and i am supportive of that but i will ask my colleague to provide more detail as it specifically relates to these programs simic i would just add for the previous point* of sue & settle but it did have this proceeding that was before i. >> i did not intend to say that. >> but our view is solid and we're open for business for demonstration projects. >> see you are prepared to defend? >> yes. we are thank you for both of you for your testimony. >> a couple things someone to bring a by appreciate the ranking members need to redress the backlog park service to be with the public commission of that i would bring of the situation in new mexico where we currently have the reserved that is one off it is almost an agency in and of itself but as a result it is about $250 per visitor if you drive across the two-lane road to the national monument and that spending is $13 per visitor so i thought i would bring that up that we will be looking at legislation to consider transferring management of that to the park service to see if we cannot achieve some level of efficiency there. i just put that on your radar screen but to ask about of a work of the deal and energy i thank you have done an incredible, a lot of good work i would note that congress is never the best to site with solar project and publicly and but i want to your view if there are any additional stories to help facilitate the removal projects on publicly and and what issues you would ask us to consider if we look at legislation. >> figure for the question. one of the things that is exciting as a into this job is the potential to use modern techniques like mapping to understand whole federal land management picture we have done some good work over the last two years on understanding the solar and wind energy potential, understanding the sensitivities and hall that is very useful purpose of there are things we would work with you on that facilitate the development surge in the transmission as you are well aware of in your home state is it an element of that and perhaps we can work together to streamline that as i become more steeped in the rules and lawmaking process. david, do you want to add anything? >> i would add with the wind energy guidelines coming in under the federal advisory committee effort included developers and officials rule they do provide a template for criteria to help developers understand what types will provide the least likely conflict with birds and bats and other avian species. we appreciate your support for the solar citing approach where we were collaboratively was parties to identify solar energy zones that attract energy to the best places and our sense is we don't need authority here but we are certainly open to the validation of these efforts and we're very pleased with the cooperation across all interest, developers, a conservationist, tribes, a state, a federal interest. only together can we site over 12,000 megawatts of renewable energy within the last four years. >> i very much appreciate your efforts and your attention to the transmission and issues and that is something that certainly is the enormous amount degeneration right now that is just waiting for the transmission for us to be able to move energy potential from new mexico into markets in the west and that is a bottleneck right now. fact is to do that. let me ask you one more question then we will wrap up. i knew you have a speaking engagement. the department 2010 reforms introduced them master leasing planning process to allow blm to take a more "in-depth" look at mineral leasing. think we can all agree there are places where energy development is sadly inappropriate the also the best use but there are other places where development may be compatible with important uses like hunting and fishing your watershed protection and important sites. how can the master of leasing plan help to identify and resolve the conflicts we have seen with other resources including cultural resources and tribal sites? >> thank you senator this fits into the comment of the potential we have with the landscape level with the g.i. s snapping people on the ground in these community know their sites and a special place is better very important to them and they know the land like the back of their hand. oil and gas companies and mineral development understand the resource potential and it is important that we can help facilitate the right kind of transactions where there is no conflict and if there is substantial conflict we know that up front and can plan accordingly. that is useful and there is great work of the notion of planning and landscape cooperatives and has been helpful thinking of water on the watershed of level and fire management, a sage grouse habitat, we have great potential to it celebrate this right now given the technological advancements that we have. we just activated even has more data and said the blood on the ground manage their resources effectively. >> and those tools are important so we have incredible oil and gas resources with the important archaeological sites and to be able to avoid those conflicts up front is always better to reverse engineer once you have a mess on your hands. i would say members of committee can submit additional questions in writing and i would ask that you answer those for inclusion in the hearing record and i will defer to the ranking member for the last question. >> i just want to make a clarification and i mentioned the article yesterday with a hot air we have a couple different sessions going on this week in alaska. we have a the boem hearings of you have you're listening session next week and i am hopeful we will have good commentary for are just want to make sure we're clear for the record that when we talk about the strategy we are all on the same page there and one final clarification and relates to the question i have asked about anwr and the eis so they do require the department analyze all reasonable alternatives for anwr including oil and gas development. i understand the president's position that has ben reiterated here, but it is my understanding you can not just decide not to include a an alternative because you don't have support for that but the regulation requires the department evaluate even f. the alternative would require an act of congress so i would just ask you to look at that. i understand where the policy is on this but i want to make sure we comply with the requirements out there for our apologize for taking so much time and is the secretary knows when we talk about the department of interior with my state there