Senate Proceeding on May 13th, 2009 :: 0:23:05 to 0:43:05
Total video length: 3 hours Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:152 Duration: 0:20:00 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

0:17:35 to 0:23:05( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Robert Bennett

0:22:59 to 0:23:06( Edit History Discussion )

Robert Bennett: the environmental group decided which challenged, not the department of interior.

0:23:07 to 0:23:27( Edit History Discussion )

it was not career officer in the department of interior that said these leases are flawed. it was a political decision by an environmental group that said we're going to file a lawsuit and in response to that lawsuit the secretary of interior said i'm going to pull these 77 leases. and then gave the same justification for his actions that the majority leader

0:23:28 to 0:23:49( Edit History Discussion )

given here on the floor today. that is, they're right next door to the wants an oil rig next to a national -- and n oil rig next to a national park. number one, most of t leases are natural gas. they're not oil rigs involved at all. -- involved at all.

0:23:50 to 0:24:10( Edit History Discussion )

number two, they're not next door to the national parks. some of them are as far as 60 miles away. let's look at a map and see where these leases are. on this map, mr. yellow are the national parks. this

0:24:11 to 0:24:31( Edit History Discussion )

is canyon lands. the green are existing oil and gas leases where oil and gas is now the red are the leases that were ante midnight hours of the bush administration.

0:24:32 to 0:24:54( Edit History Discussion )

a quick glance at the map makes it very clear that the leases that are being challenged as being right next door to a national park are surrounded by producing that are closer to the national park than the leases that are being challenged. the facts simply aren't there to support the position that the

0:24:55 to 0:25:16( Edit History Discussion )

and the majority leader has repeated here the majority leader has depen upon the secretary for his facts. the mistake in depending on the secretary because the secretary is wrong. that's one of the things that has caused me what is the real m behind this? because to say that motivation

0:25:17 to 0:25:41( Edit History Discussion )

is that they're too close to the national parks simply doesn't apply. now, there are these leases right here in red that do not have any leases national park. but they do have a highway. if you're concerned about the

0:25:42 to 0:26:04( Edit History Discussion )

integrity integrity gated by having leases that may be going will destroy our experience in the national park, how about a highway destroying the experience in the national park. they're separated in national bark by a highway. let' this one having to do with the dinosaur national this

0:26:05 to 0:26:26( Edit History Discussion )

are 60 miles away. an interior would have you believe they're right next door, that they boundaries of the national park. look at the fact, abut the boundaries of the dino no one has ever c that.

0:26:27 to 0:26:47( Edit History Discussion )

this was a purel decision bas purely based on the lawsuit by the environ than by any kind of review. so i have asked the department of interior: justify your ac the information we

0:26:48 to 0:27:09( Edit History Discussion )

and that will tell us why the 7 are different than the -- 77 are different than the rest of the 128. this is the reaction, this is the response that i have received from the dep interior to my questions. the first response came from david hayes. it came on department of interior letter head.

0:27:10 to 0:27:31( Edit History Discussion )

and he signed it david hayes, deputy secretary designee. this statement as we're going to get. this is what letter he said david hayes will have overall responsibility for underta the review of the 77 parcels that

0:27:32 to 0:27:53( Edit History Discussion )

utah lease sale. pending mr. hayes' confirmatn. not dependent upon, but pending mr. hayes' confirmation, the review acting secretary for policy, the acting

0:27:54 to 0:28:14( Edit History Discussion )

their designees, the acting solicitor, art gary, will provide the legal support to the extent needed. the commitment there would be a preliminary report to me by the first of may and the ent reso when the 1st of may came along

0:28:15 to 0:28:35( Edit History Discussion )

and we expected a preliminary report from the secretary s done nothing and we can do nothing until david confirmed. directly contradicting the statement we have in writing over the signature of david hayes.

0:28:36 to 0:28:58( Edit History Discussion )

i think we are entitled to raise a question about this kind of procedure. the secretary -- or leader talked about the real issue in this matter. the real issue in this matter is the credibility of the department of interior. if we're going to deal with the department in the coming four or

0:28:59 to 0:29:19( Edit History Discussion )

eight years, whatever the electorate decides, we need to have some confidence that when the department sends us a document and makes a promise and names the specific people who will be involved in fulfilling that promise, that that will happen. now, one final comment.

0:29:20 to 0:29:40( Edit History Discussion )

the majority leader and the secretary have said this happened without consulting the national park service. on that i have two points. number one, it is a matter of law that the b.l.m. is not required to con national park service. they could have done this whole thing without talking to anybody

0:29:41 to 0:30:02( Edit History Discussion )

in the natiol park service and been completely proper in terms of the law. they went beyond the requirements of the law and consulted with the park service to make sure that there was no interference parks. and here's what the career employees out in the field had

0:30:03 to 0:30:23( Edit History Discussion )

to say about that kind of cooperation and coordination. "i would extend my cooperation to the b.l.m. field office managers who worked with the park the parcel by parcel review of these oil and gas lease parcels. they did working in colla us."

0:30:24 to 0:30:45( Edit History Discussion )

Robert Bennett: and, secondly, we will provide for the record the names of ose who made these working with b.l.m. utah state director has resulted in the kind of resource protection that americans w?st and deserve for their national parks. we didn't consult with the

0:30:30 to 0:32:25( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Robert Bennett

0:30:46 to 0:31:06( Edit History Discussion )

Robert Bennett: national parks? we didn't discuss -- we is the wrong term. the b.l.m. did not discuss with the when the national park service makes a statement of this kind i repeat, mr. predent, the

0:31:07 to 0:31:28( Edit History Discussion )

Robert Bennett: problem here has to do with the credibility of the department of interior. statements that are not true. they say these leases are too close to the national 60 miles away is n they say there was no consultation with the national park service. the national park service is on record as saying it's done.

0:31:29 to 0:31:49( Edit History Discussion )

Robert Bennett: they made a promise on official letterhead by the department of -- from the department of interior that a team would be appointed and a date would be met. the team was not appointed and the date has not been met. i am perfectly willing to vote for the confirmation of hayes as soon as the department of interior lives up to the

0:31:50 to 0:32:11( Edit History Discussion )

Robert Bennett: promises that they've made and acknowledges that the statements they made about these l factually incorrect. it's not a matter of interpretation. it's not a matter o the maps are here. the documents are here. the statements are here. let's have of it. and when that discussion is taken care of and the commitment made by mr. hayes on the

0:32:12 to 0:32:29( Edit History Discussion )

Robert Bennett: part letterhead is met, i will be happy to remove my hold and vote for his confirmation and urge all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle to do the that is the issue with which we

0:32:38 to 0:32:58( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: are faced. ms. mkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska is recognized. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to follow my colleague from utah as he has so clearly laid out the grounds upon which he has a hold on the department of interior nominee

0:32:45 to 0:45:55( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Lisa Murkowski

0:32:59 to 0:33:20( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: and i want to make just a comment at the outset. i don't think that either the senator from utah -- certainly hold. this is not a situation where there is disagreement about mr. hayes' qualification this is not a personal matter

0:33:21 to 0:33:42( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: , anybody out to get mr. hayes, if you will. this is really about what is happening within the department, as my colle mentioned, about the credibility within the department of interior at this moment in and the actions taken by senator

0:33:43 to 0:34:03( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: bennett in placing a hold and subsequently my actions in also placing a hold on mr. hayes and his nomination. practice of being able potential nominee, whether it's

0:34:04 to 0:34:25( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: in the department of interior or any other position within the administration, asking the nominees questions and expecting to receive a response from that individual. so i too rise today to oppose the cloture position for the nomination of david hayes for

0:34:26 to 0:34:47( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: the deputy and from my perspective, this vote is over a very, very simple issue, and it can be distilled quite easily, and that is will this administration answer legitimate questions from republican senators? and before i give the on my situation, i also want to

0:34:48 to 0:35:09( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: say that i do regret being on the floor at this moment and having to make this statement. i believe that this whole process through has been and at any point leading up to this the department of interior could very easily have cleared the way for this nominee without

0:35:10 to 0:35:32( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: havi to force a cloture i'll explain why. it was two weeks ago that i added my name to the junior senator from utah's procedural hold on this nominee. i did so very reluctantly. i did not do it to be obstructive, to be an obstructionist in any way, but

0:35:33 to 0:35:56( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: rather to constructively obtain an understanding, an understanding of the actions by the department of interior that seem to be, at least in my opinion, dramatically at with sectary salazar's and president obama's statements regarding domestic energy production.

0:35:57 to 0:36:19( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: i will make a statement for the record that i, and certainly not senator bennett either -- neither one of us have asked the department of interior to adopt or repeal any specific rule or policy or take or repeal any specific administrative action. and the secretary -- the senator from utah has laid out very

0:36:20 to 0:36:41( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: clearly his concerns, and i will only summarize for those of you who just started listening to what we're talking about, that the interior shortly after the beginning of this administration canceled these 77 oil and gas leases in utah, gave factually incorrect justifications for its actions.

0:36:42 to 0:37:06( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: and all that the senator from utah is asking for i of this very same issue. now, following the decision on the utah leases, the administration announced a 180-day delay of the five-year outer continental shelf leasing plan. there was also a delay of the

0:37:07 to 0:37:27( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: scheduled round resources. there was also a finding for justification of listing the yellow bill whose range through major oil and gas regions in my state of alaska. there was also the determination that the bush administration's mountaintop coal mining rule is considered legally defective.

0:37:28 to 0:37:48( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: and then finally, there was the unilateral reversal of the previous administration's endangered species act consultation rules. and this was done without public hearing or without public comment. and it was issue as it relates to the endangered species act, that in my opinion was really the straw

0:37:49 to 0:38:10( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: that broke the camel's back here. when the bush administration listed the polar bear as a threatened species due to loss of sea ice, the world really changed insofar as their thr had to be clear -- there had to be clear guidelines for keeping normal activities out of the purview of a huge and really impossible regulatory scheme.

0:38:11 to 0:38:32( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: we cautioned against an overbroad interpretation of the polar bear rule, and interior, to their credit, has correct path on some of important rule makings. and i truly do appreate that and i've had opportunity to convey my appreciation to senator salazar. we are thankful for that.

0:38:33 to 0:38:53( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: but my larger concern remains that consultations could still be required for a hos of energy projects. and in any event, that the endangered species act citizens suits provisions there are still going to give rise to a multitude of lawsuits on when and where consultation with the

0:38:54 to 0:39:16( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: fish and mandating. so all of this combined, all of these various actions wit department of interior, within a very short time period, cause great concern about the direction of our nation's energy policy. now, i have been really very pleased about some of the comments that i have heard from

0:39:17 to 0:39:40( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: the president and from secretary salaza they themselves have very clearly stated that we do need oil producinmore of it domestically. but what has been happening is the statements that have been made and the rule ming andhe odds with one another.

0:39:41 to 0:40:01( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: quotes from both the secretary and the president. secretary salazar has said, there's no question -- he was talking about renewable increase. -- energies. he goes on to state there question the nation will continue to produce oil and gas as a bridge to this energy future. i actually agree with the secretary. and the president a couple weeks

0:40:02 to 0:40:24( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: ago "as i've often said in the short term, as we transition to renewable energy, we can and should increase our domestic production of oil and natural gas. we're not going to transform our economy overnight. we still need more oil. we need more gas. if we've got some here in the united states

0:40:25 to 0:40:45( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: we should find it and do so in an environmentally sustainable and that's the end of the president's quote. i couldn't agree with him more. but there is an as i have said, in statements that have been coming from the administration and the actions as evidenced through the rule making or dictives.

0:40:46 to 0:41:06( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: so i still have questions about whether or not this administration does indeed want to include increased domestic conventional energy as one of the legs of our comprehensive energy policy. or if the administration is going to say one thing and then do another.

0:41:07 to 0:41:27( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: if this president and interior department want to scale back production, that is their prerogative, and we certainly talk about that. but that's something that i need to knowoth as the ranking member on the energy committee and as the senator, a senator coming fro the greatest onshore and

0:41:28 to 0:41:49( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: offshore oil and gas prospects left in north america. this is important that we know and understand where this administration is coming from. so i sent a letter to the secretary when i placed the hold on mr. hayes, and i outlined my concerns. and all of my questions in that letter focus on how interior will implement the policies that

0:41:50 to 0:42:10( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: it's announced and how it will defend against things like the third-party lawsuits, to which we believe that they have made themselves pretty vulnerable. the white house and the interior department have communicated with me and my staff since i wrote that letter. initially we were told that d.o.i. doesn't want to answer the questions because they're

0:42:11 to 0:42:31( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: too them, they're too mean. since that time, received a draft of a letter. i received it last night at about 7:00. i appreciated their response, but in many ways it avoided many of the specific questions. opportunity for us to go through

0:42:32 to 0:42:52( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: my series of questions, have that discussion in a meaningful way and get am seeking. and as a senator, i believe i'm entitled to. i will ask, mr. president, if we can presume that the interior department has been making its decisions and policies based on rational and well-thought-out

0:42:53 to 0:43:15( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: facts and science, it be to question about the decisions it? i would -- decisions and the policies behind it? i would like to submit for the record the letter i sent to secretary salazar. i think you'll see there are indeed some very hard questions contained in my letter.