Lisa Murkowski

I will be working with you as we advance this legislation.

This legislation is a step toward justice for Native Hawaiians.

I look forward to working with Mr. Garcia regarding the role that DOE can play with regard to improving the affordability and reliability of energy for native Alaskans as this nomination process continues.

I would like to thank Chairman Bingaman for holding this hearing today, and our nominees for their willingness to serve.

I look forward to an interesting discussion with Mr. Norris, our FERC nominee.

With the reestablishment of this position as Assistant Secretary for Insular Affairs, which I think is a very good thing, a good direction.

I had sent to Secretary Chu a letter that outlined my concerns and actually my disappointment over the administration's position on Yucca Mountain.

I certainly do encourage that level of awareness, education, and training to follow through with the law that the Congress has passed.

This position has more impact on my State than any other State, as 65 percent of the lands controlled by the National Park Service are located within the State of Alaska.

I'm pleased that the administration has decided to reinstate the position of Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Insular Affairs.

As much as we all hope for the creation and expansion of other economic sources of energy, we must continue to invest in technologies that will allow the growth of these, our largest sources of domestically produced energy.

I think we recognize that when you have strong timber harvest programs that reduce the fuels, decrease the intensity of the fire and ultimately decrease the costs.

I'm from Missouri and you've got to show it to me. I've seen it and I'm ready to do something about it.

So how then do we make sure that we have done all that we should be doing again, to reduce the hazardous fuels if we're not insuring that the dollars are available to do just that.

Would you agree that we might ultimately need less in that FLAME fund or perhaps use less if in fact we were to do the prevention work?

If the mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels is less expensive ultimately both monetarily and really environmentally, then paying for the suppression of these large catastrophic fires, why would we not want to use a portion of the FLAME…

I would agree. So it sounds like you are withholding judgment or perhaps not certain, actually how this provision coming over from the House might be implemented in the FLAME Act.

It's also tough. I know that when we have had prescribed burns up North you're really subject to a window of weather conditions.

If I could urge any expediency I would certainly do that.

In the 2005 Interior appropriations report the Forest Service was directed to provide a strategic plan.

Do you get concerned at all with the fact that, you can't always rely on the National Guard when you need them?

In looking at that visual there in at least, 6, or 7 of the past 10 years, we have not guessed right.

That's why this reserve fund is important.

How do we reconcile what I perceive to be a mismatch between what the administration has recommended for fire suppression funding and the reality of where we know those dollars are spent?

But whether it's 2 percent or whether it's 3 percent, I think we understand what we're dealing with.