[Senate Hearing 111-9]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-9
HAYES NOMINATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF DAVID HAYES TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR
__________
MARCH 12, 2009
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-390 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bayh, Hon. Evan, U.S. Senator From Indiana....................... 2
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 1
Hayes, David J., Nominee to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior.. 4
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 25
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 45
HAYES NOMINATION
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:37 p.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
The Chairman. Ok. Why don't we start out? The committee
meets this morning to consider the nomination of David Hayes to
be the Deputy Secretary of Interior.
Mr. Hayes is well known to many of us on the committee from
his previous service in the Department of Interior during the
Clinton Administration. He served as Counselor to Secretary
Babbitt from 1997 to 2000. As the Deputy Secretary of Interior
in 2000 to 2001, Mr. Hayes is plainly very well qualified for
the office to which he's been nominated since he served in that
office before with great distinction.
While at the Department before he handled many of the
Department's most challenging issues including the acquisition
of the Headwaters Redwood Forest, the restoration of the
California Bay Delta Ecosystem, negotiation of habitat
conservation plans under the Endangered Species Act, Indian
Water Rights settlements and energy development on the public
lands. We're fortunate to have someone of his experience and
ability agree to return to the Department for a second tour. I
hope we can confirm his nomination as soon as possible.
Let me call on Senator Murkowski for any statement she has.
Then we would of course, hear from our colleague Senator Bayh
as well. Go ahead, please.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Hayes for appearing before us today and for your willingness to
serve in the position of Deputy Secretary, again. Either you
really enjoyed the job last time or you're a glutton for
punishment. But either way, we appreciate your willingness to
serve.
I have described the President's budget blueprint as a war
on domestic production. Subsequent Administration testimony has
not altered my opinion on this. I think that we have to take
every reasonable opportunity to promote clean, alternative
sources of energy. We certainly hope that these measures will
bear fruit.
But I believe that with all of the hopes, and all of the
wishes for where we're going with renewables it's not going to
change the reality that the vast majority of Americans are
going to run their cars on petroleum for the foreseeable
future. Punishing the domestic oil and gas industry will not
bring the age of renewable energy any faster. I believe it will
increase our dependence on foreign oil and further threaten our
energy and economic security.
The President's budget proposals would have this Nation
turn its back on workers in the petroleum industry, raise
prices for American consumers and increase the export of
American dollars, all in one fell swoop. At this point in time,
our Nation can't afford any one of these, much less all of
them. I hesitated to use this forum for a statement on where
we're going, but I think we realize that we don't have that
many opportunities as individuals come before us for the
confirmation hearings to make these statements. So I did feel
it was important to make sure that we do have a balance within
our policies.
I do understand, Mr. Chairman that there may be questions
asked of Mr. Hayes regarding details of the matters as they
relate to lobbying. I would like to take a moment to note that
the committee received an allegation regarding lobbying
activity by Mr. Hayes, stating that he was in violation of the
ban on high ranking officials regarding or returning to lobby
their old agency for a period of 1 year. Republican and
Democratic committee staff worked together to conduct an
extensive review of this allegation including interviews with
relevant parties.
At the committee's request the Acting Inspector General of
the Department of Interior has reviewed all available records
from 2001 including visitors, logs, calendars and electronic
mail, and we have not found the allegation of improper conduct
by Mr. Hayes to be substantiated. So I just wanted to put that
within my opening statement.
The Chairman. Thank you for----
Senator Murkowski. To welcome Mr. Hayes. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for that statement. Our
colleague Senator Bayh has asked permission to introduce Mr.
Hayes to the committee. We're glad to have you do that.
STATEMENT OF HON. EVAN BAYH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM INDIANA
Senator Bayh. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. After your
very gracious introductory remarks I'm tempted to just say,
Amen and get on with the business of the committee. But I have
prepared a very brief statement. If you would permit me, I will
present it to the committee.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, fellow members of
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I thank you for the
opportunity this afternoon to introduce an individual for whom
I have great personal respect, admiration and confidence, David
Hayes. David is an accomplished lawyer and knowledgeable public
servant who is exceedingly well qualified to be Deputy
Secretary of the Department of the Interior. David will bring a
lifetime of relevant experience and scholarship in
environmental, energy and natural resources matters to this
position.
As Deputy Secretary of the Department of Interior from 1999
to 2001, David was the second highest ranking official at the
Department. It was statutory responsibility to serve as Chief
Operating Officer over Interior's 70,000 employees and $10
billion annual budget. He was nominated for the position by
President Clinton and unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
As Deputy Secretary, David oversaw all the Department's
bureaus and offices including the National Park Service, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the
U.S. Geological Survey, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the
Bureau of Land Management and the Minerals Management Service.
He played a lead role in many of the Department's most
complicated and important policy matters with a principle focus
on the acquisition and protection of threatened lands, the
restoration of vulnerable ecosystems and the introduction of
modern water management in the West. David has contributed to
countless books and articles on environmental and energy
matters.
He has also served as a Senior Fellow at the World Wildlife
Fund and as a consulting professor at Stamford University Woods
Institute on the Environment.
On a personal note, Mr. Chairman I have known David Hayes
for nearly 30 years. Before I began my public career David and
I were young lawyers together at the same law firm. I know him
to be a devoted husband to his wife, Elizabeth and a loving
father to his children, Katherine, Stephen and Molly. He is
also, I'm proud to report an honorary Hoosier having earned his
undergraduate degree at Notre Dame.
David enjoys strong support from both Democratic and
Republican Senators. He is a pragmatic, bipartisan, forward
thinking individual. David has a proven track record for
approaching water and land matters in a constructive and
collaborative manner. We are fortunate to have a nominee who
has his breadth of experience and can hit the ground running at
the Department of the Interior.
Finally I have high confidence that if confirmed David will
be a strong partner to our friend and former colleague,
Secretary Salazar. Mr. Chairman based upon 30 years of personal
experience, I can offer Mr. David Hayes my highest
recommendation to the committee. I thank you for your courtesy
in allowing me to present him today.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Bayh. We
appreciate that. Let me just advise all Senators we're nearly
half way through this vote right now.
So I think what I'll do is to go ahead and administer the
oath to Mr. Hayes. Then ask him the questions we're required to
ask. Then adjourn the committee hearing and go vote and we'll
come back and hear your statement at that time, if that's
acceptable.
The rules of the committee that apply to all nominees
require that nominees be sworn in connection with their
testimony. Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to
give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Mr. Hayes. I do.
The Chairman. Please be seated. Before you begin your
statement let me ask you the three questions that we address to
each nominee that comes before our committee.
First is will you be available to appear before this
committee and other congressional committees to represent
departmental positions and to respond to issues of concern to
the Congress?
Mr. Hayes. I will.
The Chairman. A second question. Are you aware of any
personal holdings, investments or interests that could
constitute a conflict of interest or create the appearance of
such a conflict should you be confirmed and assume the office
to which you've been nominated by the President?
Mr. Hayes. Mr. Chairman, my investments, personal holdings
and other interests have been reviewed both by myself and the
appropriate Ethics counselors within the Federal Government.
I've taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of
interest. There are no conflicts of interest or appearances
thereof to my knowledge.
The Chairman. Alright. The third and final question that we
put to all nominees is are you involved or do you have any
assets that are held in blind trust?
Mr. Hayes. I do not.
The Chairman. Alright. As I indicated before we're in the
middle of a vote. Why don't we adjourn the hearing at this
time? Then when we return we will ask you to go ahead with your
opening statement.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[RECESS]
The Chairman. Ok. Why don't we reconvene the hearing? At
this point the tradition of the committee is to invite you, Mr.
Hayes to introduce any family members that are here with you
and to make your opening statement. So why don't you go right
ahead.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID J. HAYES, NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am accompanied today
by my wife, Elizabeth behind me and two of my three children,
my daughter, Kate and Molly. My son Stephen is in college on
the West Coast and claims to be studying today so couldn't be
here.
The Chairman. We welcome them.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman I have prepared a
personal statement that I would appreciate being entered into
the record.
The Chairman. We will enter it into the record.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you. I will just make a few brief comments
about the personal statement. Tell you a little bit about
myself and then what I hope to have the opportunity to do
working with you and Secretary Salazar at the Interior
Department.
Just very quickly, biographically I was born and raised in
Western New York State. My two parents are from small towns
outside of Rochester. They met in a dance hall on Conesus Lake,
a beautiful Finger Lake south of Rochester.
When I was a very small child, my parents bought a log
cabin on Conesus Lake, complete with outhouse where I spent all
of my summers growing up. It was that formative experience,
being in the outdoors, fishing, swimming, being a family, that
I think started my head in the direction of environment and
natural resources. As Senator Bayh mentioned I then moved out
to Indiana for college and enjoyed the Indiana Dunes and Lake
Michigan and then moved on to California where I went to law
school and that really opened my eyes as I crossed the country
back and forth and saw the splendors of the West.
After law school I committed myself to a career in the
environmental and natural resources area. As you mentioned, Mr.
Chairman, I had the honor of serving in the public service at
the Interior Department for 4 years in the Clinton
Administration. It's a Department whose mission I love and I
think it's an incredibly important Department.
Important because it's important to our economy and it's
important to our legacy. Our natural resources, our land, our
water, our wildlife are irreplaceable, need to be appropriately
used. Certainly, particularly with the lands, we need to be
thinking about future generations as we go forward in
implementing the administration of those resources.
As I mentioned in my personal statement there are several
matters of particular interest to me that I look forward to
working with you on as I hopefully am confirmed with your
blessing to be the Interior Deputy Secretary.
First of all just as a general matter, I believe firmly in
the collaborative process that needs to be behind every major
resource decision. I like this area in part because of the
problem solving nature of working through resource issues that
tend to be extraordinarily important to people throughout the
Nation. In terms of specific issues I'll mention four very
briefly.
I share Secretary Salazar's enthusiasm for the potential
for renewable energy on our public lands. The Interior
Department, as you know, manages one fifth the land mass of the
United States. Has enormous potential renewable resources,
solar, wind and geothermal.
Also has, I think, the unrealized potential to be a hugely
productive player in bringing stranded renewable energy to our
population centers. Going over Federal land should be the first
thing, not the last opportunity in terms of new transmission. I
look forward to working with Secretary Salazar on that
perspective and on that initiative as we proceed as well with
appropriate oil and gas leasing, coal development and the other
uses of our public lands that are so important to our domestic
energy economy.
Secondly, I'm very interested in the climate change issue,
particularly with regard to its impacts on our landscapes. The
Interior Department, as you know, is the largest water
wholesaler in the West. Water supplies are being affected by
changes in climate with 20 percent of the land mass of the
United States under our jurisdiction we are seeing impacts on
land and wildlife resources.
This committee in 2007 directed the United States
Geological Survey to help study the impacts of climate change.
We're looking forward to moving that agenda forward and helping
folks at the local, State and Federal level to understand the
impacts on our resources to climate change and to react to
them, so that they can adjust to those impacts. With regard to
climate change also, I think there's a good news story here.
Our natural landscapes are drinking in carbon dioxide.
There's a benefit to the wetlands, to the forests, to the
grasslands and the range lands that are in the public trust. I
think we need to celebrate that. Make sure the American people
realize that there are benefits in terms of climate change to
these resources.
Thirdly I'll just mention that I share the views of all of
you on the committee about the importance of continuing to
invest in our treasured landscapes. Let me say that as I
mentioned early on. I'm a native of Western New York State.
As such, while I very much love and appreciate the iconic
National Parks in the West. I also understand and appreciate
the importance of our responsibilities in the East, the South,
the Midwest, throughout the country. I look forward to pursuing
that agenda and providing opportunities for all Americans to
understand and appreciate our natural wonders.
Finally and just as importantly as all the other points, I
look forward to working with the Native American community.
When I was at Interior the first time around working with
Native Americans was one of the most rewarding aspects of the
job. As I look at you, Senator Bennett, I recall going to
Window Rock with President Clinton.
You were there talking about economic opportunity for
Indian tribes and on the communications front. When I first
started my first assignment, one of my first assignments for
Secretary Babbitt was dealing with Indian water rights issues.
We made some progress but we have much more to do. I will look
forward to spending a lot of time on Native American issues
should I be confirmed.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayes follows:]
Prepared Statement of David J. Hayes, Nominee to be
Deputy Secretary of the Interior
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and members of the
Committee. I am honored to be with you today as President Barack
Obama's nominee as Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior.
I am joined by my wife, Elizabeth, and two of my children--Kate and
Molly. My son, Stephen, is a college student on the west coast, and he
unfortunately cannot be here today.
With your indulgence, I would like to begin with a short, personal
introduction that helps to explain why I am here today.
I grew up in western New York State. Both of my parents were from
small towns in the countryside outside of Rochester, New York. They met
after World War II at a dance hall on Conesus Lake--one of the Finger
Lakes in New York State that is south of Rochester. They married and
raised my three sisters and me in Rochester. But even though they had
moved to the city to find work, my parents always remained true to
their small town roots, and their love of the rolling hills and
beautiful lakes of upstate New York. In the early 1950s, they bought a
modest log cabin cottage on the same Conesus Lake where they met, and
where my mom had spent her summers growing up with her family. Thanks
to the log cabin, my sisters and I were able to repeat the experience.
We spent all of our summers together on Conesus Lake--swimming, fishing
and just being a family. My parents have since passed on, but my
sisters and I still own that same log cabin, and now Liz and our kids
make a pilgrimage to lake country in western New York every summer to
repeat the simple joys of being together, in a beautiful place, with
family and friends.
After high school, I went to college in the Midwest, in Indiana,
and then I continued west to California, where I attended law school.
My cross-country trips to and from California introduced me to the
wonders of our nation that lay beyond the Finger Lakes, Niagara Falls,
and the sand dunes on the south shore of Lake Michigan. These formative
experiences prompted me to dedicate my career to energy, environmental
and natural resources issues. That pull toward natural and cultural
resource issues has become my life's work, both in and out of
government, and through my academic and non-profit work.
In that regard, and perhaps most pertinently to this Committee, I
was fortunate enough to have served for four years in the Department of
the Interior--the last two as Deputy Secretary--in the Clinton
Administration. I worked with many of you on the Committee during that
period, and I thoroughly enjoyed the privilege of tackling the many
important and challenging issues that arise within the vast domain of
the Interior Department.
I am extraordinarily grateful that President Obama and Secretary
Salazar have asked me to serve at the outset of this new Administration
as the Deputy Secretary--the second highest ranking official in the
Department and, by statute, its Chief Operating Officer. If confirmed,
I can assure you that I will take on this challenge with seriousness of
purpose and total commitment to the task at hand. As you know very
well, the Interior Department deals with issues that matter greatly.
The Interior Department makes decisions every day that implicate our
stewardship responsibilities over the land and water resources of this
great nation. And all of the issues that the Department touches affect
our fellow Americans.
Because of the weighty responsibility associated with managing the
Interior Department's responsibilities, I approach my prospective
position with deep humility and a commitment to work collaboratively
with you, the Department's fine career staff, and with all key
stakeholders who are affected by the Department's programs. My first
choice--always--is to look hard for collaboratively-based approaches to
decision making. I pride myself in solving problems, and in seeking
solutions that advance the interests of all interested parties.
In that regard, if confirmed, I am looking forward to working with
Secretary Salazar and our team, in close collaboration with this
Committee, to expand the portfolio of energy that is produced from the
public resources that are under the Interior Department's jurisdiction.
As the nation's largest landowner, including lands with enormous solar,
wind and geothermal potential, the Interior Department is in a unique
position to greatly expand renewable, domestically-produced energy
production in the United States. In tandem with the Department's
continued production of oil, gas, coal and other energy sources,
increased production of renewable energy is a key element of the ``moon
shot'' on energy independence that the President and Secretary Salazar
are so committed to taking. Interior Department landholdings also will
play an indispensible role in expanding the electric grid and bringing
renewable energy from the sunny southwest and the windy plains to our
population centers.
As with all other Interior Department issues, developing renewable
energy on the public lands will require a balanced approach that
addresses the impacts of such development on wildlife, water resources
and other interests. History has taught us that when it comes to our
public lands, we must proceed with care, for we have a responsibility
to take a long-term view as we manage these lands for the benefit of
all Americans, including future generations that will follow.
In addition to devoting substantial attention to energy issues, I
expect to give special attention, if confirmed, to the issue of how
climate change is impacting our water, land, and wildlife resources.
Given the Interior Department's vast land base, its statutory
obligations to address wildlife issues, and its responsibilities as the
largest water wholesaler in the western United States, Interior must be
at the forefront of our efforts to understand how climate change is
affecting our resources, and to anticipate and react to these impacts.
With the substantial scientific capabilities of the United States
Geological Survey, the Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Park
Service, Interior is well-positioned to lead this vitally important
work, and to do so in partnership with state and local land and water
managers, and ordinary citizens, who are concerned about the effects
that climate change are having on their resources. In that regard, I
hope that the Interior Department can also bring good news to Americans
on the climate change front. Our forests, rangelands and open spaces
are providing climate change benefits--day in and day out--as they
absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. We need to tell this story,
and help Americans understand how their support for parks, wildlife
habitat, wetlands, and other natural landscapes is helping to address
our climate change challenge by removing excess heat-trapping gases
from the atmosphere.
I also look forward to working with you, if I am confirmed, as we
invest in the many national treasures that the National Park Service,
the Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish & Wildlife Service oversee.
While I share the affinity that all Americans have for our magnificent
and iconic national parks in the west, I am an equally strong supporter
of the parks, monuments and refuges in the east, midwest, and south,
and the many historical sites that are under our trust--from
Constitutional Hall and the Liberty Bell to our Civil War battlefields.
And I am a firm believer that we must give more attention to our urban
parks and to the lakes and rivers that run through our cities and
countryside and that so many people enjoy. I believe that we should be
mindful of our responsibility to provide opportunities for all
Americans to enjoy God's bounty that surround us--regardless of where
we live.
Finally, if I am fortunate enough to receive your endorsement, I
look forward to working closely with Native Americans who look first to
the Interior Department to work with them on a government-to-government
basis. We must honor our trust obligation to the tribes. This is an
obligation, and a challenge, that I accept without hesitation. During
my first tour of duty at the Interior Department, I worked closely with
many tribes on a broad range of issues, and I look forward to
continuing that work in the months and years ahead.
Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to responding to
your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your statement.
Senator Murkowski mentioned in her opening statement there have
been questions raised about contacts that you may have had with
Interior Department officials during the first year of the Bush
Administration when you, under the statute then and now were
barred from lobbying anyone in the Department on behalf of a
client. You've already provided a written response to those
questions which we will make part of the record.
But let me ask for the benefit of the committee, three
questions and get your response.
Number one, did you have any contact with any officer or
employee of the Department of Interior in connection with any
matter on which you were seeking official action on behalf of
another person within 1 year after you left the Department in
January 2001?
Mr. Hayes. I did not.
The Chairman. Let me ask a second question, more
specifically, did you during any of your contacts with Deputy
Secretary Griles or Assistant Secretary Scarlett within 1 year
after you left the Department seek official action from either
of them on any matter on behalf of another person?
Mr. Hayes. No, sir. I did not.
The Chairman. let me ask one final question. President
Obama has issued an Executive Order on Ethics that prohibits
the appointment of a registered lobbyist to any executive
agency that he or she lobbied within 2 years before the
appointment. Have you lobbied the Department of Interior at any
time during the past 2 years?
Mr. Hayes. I have not, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Let me defer to Senator Murkowski for her
questions.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hayes, in
the past month Secretary Salazar has delayed the 5-year plan
for off shore leasing. He's withdrawn more than 130,000 acres
from oil and gas exploration in Utah and he's canceled the next
round of oil shale leasing.
Now I don't dispute that the officials at the Interior have
the right to review the previous Administration's actions, but
all of these actions will slow down rather than speed up
domestic energy production. Can you tell me what the plans are
at Interior to increase the amount of oil and gas that is
produced here in this country?
Mr. Hayes. Certainly, Senator. I should first make clear of
course that I'm at the Department now only in a senior advisor
capacity. I am not a decisionmaker in the Department. Have not
made any of the decisions to which you are referencing. I've
been very careful about that because I know how important
prerogative is at the Senate in terms of my position.
I can say though that I know that Secretary Salazar on the
offshore drilling issue was concerned about the very short time
period there was to evaluate the potential opening up of very,
very large area of the offshore for potential oil and gas
development. He wants to have a full and complete discussion
about the possibility of increasing oil and gas production in
areas that have been subject to the moratorium. That was the
purpose of extending what was a 60 day comment period that
would be actually over within a week or so of now to a 6-month
period.
What he did is asked the USGS and the Minerals Management
Service to, on an expedited basis, come up with a report which
is due at the end of this month to help lay out what
information we have in terms of oil and gas resources for all
these areas. Then he has scheduled a series of four meetings,
one on the East Coast, one on the Gulf Coast, one in California
and one in Anchorage, Alaska to take in public comment on the
very important question of whether these areas that have not
been open to oil and gas leasing should be in fact open.
So that's my response on that point, Senator.
Senator Murkowski. Yes, but in terms of oil increased
production here in this country obviously I would agree with
you. We need to assess and understand what we have on the OCS.
I would hope that you would advise Secretary Salazar and
President Obama with regards to that.
As you know, we lifted the moratoria. I don't know whether
you intend to suggest that that moratoria be re-imposed or how
you feel about the direction that we should be taking with
offshore, but I'd like you to address that a little bit
further.
There are more to our domestic----
Mr. Hayes. Yes.
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. Resources than just the
offshore resources.
Mr. Hayes. That's exactly right. The Secretary, I know that
Secretary Salazar is committed to continuing with bigger
responsible oil and gas drilling throughout the United States.
The Utah lease situation, I think, was an unusual one because
when we came into office, the issue was on the plate. There
were questions about whether there was adequate consultation
with the National Park service.
The Secretary--I did not take those leases off the table
for all time. He took the leases that had been questioned and
said we just need more time to evaluate them. But the Secretary
intends to move forward with many, many scheduled oil and gas
leases and is very committed to continuing to take full
advantage of our domestic oil and gas resources.
Senator Murkowski. We're giving the Administration another
opportunity to revisit ANWR. During the Clinton Administration,
and in various writings after you left your post at the
Interior, you opposed development of the 10 02 area. But it
appears that most of your arguments really center on the impact
that surface development could have on the ecosystem of the
refuge.
So what we've done is we've said ok--we're not crazy. We're
not going to run the same idea that has been rejected by those
who have opposed it.
Let's go underneath. Let's use the technology that allows
us to drill directionally under the surface with no surface
occupancy. Can you tell me whether or not you would encourage
the Administration to look carefully at the opportunities that
present themselves in ANWR with the advancements that we have
in technology now?
Mr. Hayes. Senator, I look forward to learning more about
the technologies and will be happy to do so. I expect that the
ultimate decision will be Secretary Salazar's and the
President's on this issue. But I'm certainly looking forward
and open to learning more about the new technologies that
you're mentioning.
Senator Murkowski. We'll bring you up and show you what
they're doing at Liberty. It's about eight miles of directional
drilling under the surface.
Mr. Hayes. I look forward to doing that, Senator. I would
like to go see it.
The Chairman. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Hayes. I would like to echo
the earlier comments from other members of the committee about
your willingness to come back and serve in government. I think
that's admirable and we appreciate that.
Also want to point out that my youngest daughter is named
Molly.
[Laughter.]
Senator Shaheen. So I especially appreciate Molly being
here today.
You talked a little bit about the importance of recognizing
the grass lands and the forests and our public lands as an
opportunity to store carbon which we very much appreciate in
New Hampshire as the second most heavily forested State in the
country. But how do you see the balance of protecting those
resources along with thinking about using our public lands for
renewable energy sources? How do you determine the balance?
Mr. Hayes. That's a good question, Senator. It's hard to
answer in the abstract, I think. But I personally believe based
on some experience from the last go round, that where there's a
will, there's often a way.
Much like we have developed oil and gas resources
increasingly in an environmentally sensitive manner, I think
that we could do the same in terms of solar and wind. There
clearly are--and geothermal. There clearly are environmental
impacts associated with any type of energy production.
But we have tools available. We can consider things like
land exchanges, like, you know, habitat conservation plans,
other approaches to deal with the conservation impacts of some
of these projects. I think we have to if we're going to change
our economy and make real progress in this area.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. On another topic you will be
overseeing the Minerals Management Service. Can you talk a
little bit about some of the things that you think need to be
done to address the inappropriate activities that have been
engaged in by that agency in the past?
Mr. Hayes. Yes, Senator. As you know this has been a top
priority for Secretary Salazar. Very early on he went out to
Lakewood and visited with the MMS staff. In a nutshell, I think
has, you know, expressed grave concern.
While recognizing that the, by far, the vast majority of
MMS employees are good, upstanding citizens. There were clearly
very inappropriate activities. He has asked for a special
review of all of that and is emphasizing the importance of
ensuring that this department is ethical from top to bottom. We
are reminded of that every day in the Department.
Senator Shaheen. Is there a time period when you expect
that review to be completed?
Mr. Hayes. It's an ongoing review. I will look into that
and see if we can get you some more definitive information,
Senator. But it's an ongoing thing that we're constantly
concerned about.
We also, I should say on a policy level we look forward to
working with your committee on the question of royalty
collection and reform potentially to make sure that the process
is such that it's more transparent, fair and you don't have the
environment that creates the potential for these kinds of
ethical issues. So we'll look forward to working with your
committee on that angle.
Senator Shaheen. Good. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that
you were a registered lobbyist?
Mr. Hayes. Yes, I was, Senator.
Senator McCain. For how long?
Mr. Hayes. I think I was a registered lobbyist for four or
five entities beginning in 2001 and ending in 2006.
Senator McCain. The firm that you worked for did pretty
well. In 2003 they got a million and $730,000. In 2004 they got
almost $2 million in lobbying fees. 2002 they got $1.38 million
in lobbying fees. They did pretty well Latham and Watkins
lobbying here in Washington. I mean that's the information we
have.
Mr. Hayes. Right. Senator, the Latham and Watkins actually
it's true. Though it's certainly true it's a very, very large
law firm of over 2,000 lawyers.
Senator McCain. How many lobbyists?
Mr. Hayes. I don't know.
Senator McCain. The point is you were a registered lobbyist
for a number of years.
Mr. Hayes. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. How does this coincide with President, then
candidate Senator Obama saying that there would not be
lobbyists in his Administration? Do you know?
Mr. Hayes. Senator, I know that he requested that no one be
a registered lobbyist within 2 years and I'm not.
Senator McCain. I see. Would you like to tell the committee
who you'd lobbied for on behalf of who you lobbied?
Mr. Hayes. Certainly, sir. That information is available on
the committee questionnaire that has been provided to the
committee. Would you like me to go through that?
Senator McCain. No, that's alright. We'll look at it.
Mr. Hayes, in April 2006 on behalf of the Progressive
Policy Institute that I believe you were part of you wrote and
I quote.
``The conservative political agenda in the West is grounded
in hoary stereotypes about the region and its people. In their
world view the West natural resources are inexhaustible.
Exploiting them will produce a bonanza of dollars and jobs,
(never mind the West's sad history of boom and bust cycles,)
and Federal bureaucrats with title to the land the only thing
blocking that utopian vision from becoming reality. Out of this
conservative world view emerges a stereotypical western man
(and it is unquestionably a he) a drugged gun toting
individualist who fiercely regards every man's right to drill,
mine, log or do whatever he damn well pleases on the land. He
hates government, taxes, regulations, environmentalists and
anyone or anything else that tries to tell him what to do
provided of course, that Federal subsidies from mining,
logging, grazing and the like continue unabated. Like Ronald
Reagan before him President Bush has embraced the Western
stereotype to the point of adopting some of its affectations,
the boots, brush clearing and get the government off our backs
proviso.''
You know, a lot of us don't feel that way about President
Reagan. A lot of us feel that President Reagan did a lot for
our environment. A lot of us honor his service to this country,
not only as President of the United States, but Governor of the
great State of California where there were many environmental
accomplishments which I would be glad to provide you since
clearly you didn't know in April 2006 or you never would have
made such a comment about President Reagan.
Do you stand by those remarks? What you wrote in April
2006?
Mr. Hayes. I think the prose is overly florid, Senator. I
regret that. I did feel at the time that the Bush
Administration was not as balanced as they should be in natural
resources policy.
Senator McCain. So you had to throw Reagan's name in there
too about brush clearing?
Mr. Hayes. I shouldn't have done that, Senator.
Senator McCain. You know, I find it highly offensive but
you're certainly entitled to your views. I just don't know if
that helps in any way the efforts that many of us made for a
long, long time trying to protect the great natural treasures
that we have. I'm very proud of my record and I'm very proud of
Democrats as well as Republicans.
I guarantee you I would never have said anything like that
about former Governor and Secretary of the Interior Bruce
Babbitt. In fact, I've done nothing but praise him. So later in
your article you state that today for instance, we're all
grateful that the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dams were
never built in the middle of the Grand Canyon, etcetera. Do you
think that the Glen Canyon dam should have been built, Mr.
Hayes?
Mr. Hayes. I think the Glen Canyon dam is providing
terrifically important resources to the Southwest as you know.
As I understand it--and you certainly know this history far
better than I do--I think a broad consensus developed that
those two additional dam sites were not appropriate.
Senator McCain. I thank you for your answers. I will be
considering seriously whether I can support your nomination or
not. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Bingaman. Good
afternoon, Mr. Hayes. Let me start with oil shale if I might.
You know there's been a lot of concern expressed about the
potential of element oil shale in the West as well as the
recently released oil shale regulations. Do you have any
comments on how you view the development of this potential
energy resource?
Mr. Hayes. Senator, I know that Secretary Salazar is
interested in the information that will come out of the RD and
D leases that already were granted by the Department and is
seriously interested in moving forward with a second round of
RD and D leases. I think as he testified before this committee
he is interested in learning more about issues like potential
water impacts, etcetera. But absolutely has an open mind about
it.
Senator Udall. I think there are many of us in the West who
are and certainly all over the country who are intrigued with
the oil shale potential. But also know that there are
significantly unanswered questions about the amount of water
that's necessary. About the energy inputs that will be
necessary and what sorts of reclamation policies may be
necessary, particularly in wide scale oil shale development,
would involve stripping off the over burden. We're talking
literally thousands and thousands of square miles. So I look
forward to working with you, if you're confirmed and of course
Secretary Salazar.
Let me turn to renewable energy certainly it's a large
interest of mine. It's a large interest of many of us in the
Southwest. Could you comment on the role that you foresee that
the Department of Interior will have in expanding and promoting
renewable energy? Not just in the West, I don't want to be too
Rocky Mountain West centric here, but all over the country?
Mr. Hayes. Senator, I know that Secretary Salazar,
consistent with President Obama's emphasis on taking full
advantage of our domestic energy resources is very committed to
having the Interior Department be a leader here. Being an
observer, as an advisor, at this point I am seeing that happen.
As he, just yesterday issued an order forming a task force that
will be focused on this and that will make renewable energy a
priority for the Department.
Senator Udall. Let me follow up and talk about
transmission. We had an important hearing this morning. In fact
it lasted all morning and I think into the afternoon.
We've got to balance out the needs of the country with the
needs and points of views of local and regional interests. What
is the plan the Department of Interior has to address those
challenges dealing with transmission expansion and transmission
capacity and in effect creating a 21st century interstate
highway system of transmission?
Mr. Hayes. Senator, as Secretary Salazar met just last
night with Secretary Chu, with the Acting Chair of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission and with Secretary Vilsack to talk
about this specific issue, the potential formation of a cross
agency effort to work together on transmission.
Senator Udall. I think we heard about a transmission line
from Montana to Utah I believe earlier today. That proposed
line only 17 miles and over 1,000 mile transmission system were
on private land. So the public estate will play a key role in
expanding our transmission capabilities, our transmission
system.
But let me turn to coal. We have vast resources of coal. We
also, I think, know as a country that we have to reduce our
carbon footprint. There's much to do with carbon capture and
sequestration technology. Please comment on what Department of
Interior's role will be in promoting that technology
understanding the geological limitations and opportunities as
well.
Mr. Hayes. Senator, the Department of Interior, I believe
can be very helpful potentially in carbon capture and storage.
In the 2007 Energy Independence Act coming out of this
committee, there was a request for the U.S. Geological Survey
to prepare methodology to help evaluate the appropriate sites
for carbon capture and storage. That report is near finished.
My understanding is that it will be ready for release very
soon. So it's been a priority for the USGS to help in that
regard. I know that the Secretary Salazar is interested in
potentially offering Federal sites for experimental carbon
capture and storage to help move along the technology.
Senator Udall. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is expired. If
we have another round I have some additional questions.
The Chairman. Ok.
Senator Udall. Otherwise I'd like to submit some for the
record.
The Chairman. Alright.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Hayes, thank you for coming by the office yesterday.
Congratulations. I want to welcome your wife and daughters
here. It's a family commitment to do this sort of work. Then I
appreciate their efforts to be with you.
Senator McCain talked about Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan
came to Cheyenne, Wyoming in the early 1980s and drew a big
crowd, overflowing capacity in a gymnasium. He pointed out the
thing he loved about Wyoming and the Rocky Mountain West. He
said that the people here still believe that the future is ours
to shape. He said ours, because he was one of us.
Yesterday you and I discussed some of the natural resource
issues that are very important to the people of Wyoming. We
agree that this country needs to abandon the ideological
battles of years past. We have to focus on the people, the
land, the communities that are affected by these policies.
I told you about my concern that there were mistakes in the
past, and the people of Wyoming have been forced to pay the
price for many of those mistakes. What seemed to be simple
decisions made in Washington have dramatic effects back home in
Wyoming.
We've seen it with wolves, grazing permits, energy
development, lawsuits and with much, much more. So what I need
from you is a commitment to abandon the restrictive attitudes
of the past. You and I talked about not repeating failed
policies and really charting a new course in a number of areas.
So with that I'd like to talk about the issue of wolves
which we talked about yesterday. This is a big issue in
Wyoming. Secretary Babbitt, who you served under, reintroduced
gray wolves into the Wyoming landscape. The decision was really
made with disregard, I felt, to the people who live there.
It's where we raise our families, where we build our
businesses. I think people felt that the Federal Government
really treated us like it was some kind of a Petri dish for an
environmental experiment. When we started they were required
that there be 30 packs of wolves in the Yellowstone area. Since
then, the number has just multiplied and multiplied. They're in
Montana, in Wyoming, in Idaho and States beyond.
Yet the Fish and Wildlife Service refuses to delist the
wolf in Wyoming. The Clinton Administration created the
problem. The Bush Administration failed to solve it. Now the
Obama Administration has refused to deal with it.
Will you commit to me today that you will take a fresh look
at gray wolf management in Wyoming? Will you work with our
State to find a solution to the problem?
Mr. Hayes. Senator, I will. As I said to you yesterday,
very interested in working with you and your State. I think
Interior Department, if I'm confirmed, and if I can play a
role, would like nothing better than to delist the wolf in
Wyoming as well. I would like to work with you toward that end.
Senator Barrasso. Another issue that we talked about was
abandoned land mine money. As you know, there is a tax charged
on every ton of coal produced in the State of Wyoming. That tax
was established with the understanding that the money would go
back to the States where it came from to clean up the abandoned
mines. But also to take care of the communities where there's
been an impact. There has been an impact.
When President Obama was a member of the Senate he actually
supported the bill that promised Wyoming its fair share of the
AML funding. Senator Salazar supported the bill that promised
Wyoming its fair share of AML funding. It applied to his State
as well in Colorado.
The money rightfully belongs to the States. Unfortunately
the new budget that came out, the President's budget, proposes
terminating the payments to the States that are called
certified States. This proposal truly contradicts the position
that both President Obama and Secretary Salazar voted for just
3 years ago here in the Senate. Plus it short-changes the
people of Wyoming and Wyoming communities by millions and
millions of dollars.
Do you believe that the people of Wyoming are entitled to
their share of the payments to the abandoned mine land fund as
required by law? If appointed how will you address this issue?
Mr. Hayes. Senator, as we discussed yesterday I am not up
to speed on this issue. I will look forward to doing so. The
message is loud and clear about your concern about this. Of
course I was not a decisionmaker on this point.
I look forward to working with you as we move forward on
this very important issue.
Senator Barrasso. My time is expired but Mr. Chairman I can
go with one more question if you'd like. I wanted to move to
the topic of grazing. Do you believe that grazing should
continue on public lands or will you advocate reductions in
grazing on public lands?
Mr. Hayes. I think grazing should continue on public lands
as a general matter, Senator.
Senator Barrasso. Will you advocate for a reduction in the
grazing on public lands?
Mr. Hayes. I have no personal reason to advocate for a
reduction. I think that obviously that grazing, the
appropriateness of grazing and the intensity of the grazing
differs from area to area. These issues primarily should be
dealt with on the local level.
Senator Barrasso. Because the Department of Interior took
an aggressive position on grazing during the Clinton
Administration. There were changes made to grazing regulations
in the mid 1990s. It's been a great concern to the people of
Wyoming.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Hayes, welcome.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bennett. I've made some notes of what you have been
saying. You say you're for appropriate oil and gas development
on public lands. I like that.
You want a full and complete discussion. I like that. That
this should be done in an increasingly environmentally
sensitive way and I like that.
You've been around Washington long enough to know that when
I start out like that I'm setting you up.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bennett. Secretary Salazar, one of the very first
things he did, if not his first official act was to reject the
bids of 77 parcels of BLM land that had been offered for lease.
Senator Murkowski has already referred to these. He said the
Bush Administration had done this in the dead of night. That
the environmental impacts to the National Park units had not
been studied.
That is flat not true. They comply with everything you have
just said that it is appropriate oil and gas. It's done with
full and complete discussion.
These leases have been in the process of preparation and
review for years, not months, not in the dead of night, for
years. The reason they have taken years is because they were
examined in an increasingly environmentally sensitive way.
Indeed Mike Snyder, the Regional Director of the National Park
Service, quoting him has said of this lease sale when it
occurred, ``Has resulted in the kind of resource protection
that Americans want and deserve for their National Parks.''
The reason it was so late in the Bush Administration is
that it took so long to jump through all of the environmental
hoops to make sure every ``I'' was dotted. Every ``T'' was
crossed. Every aspect of the law was complied with. They were
sure.
We finally have oil leases that comply in every possible
way. We've taken the time to do it right. Then they're told
they're pulled. They're pulled by the fiat of the Secretary.
The Secretary further insults everyone in the Department and
out by saying, you know, it was done in the dead of night and
ignoring the years that went into that.
I know you're not there yet. I know you had nothing to do
with this decision to pull these leases. But the only chance I
get at you is this one to make it very clear that what the
Interior Department here has done is not in coordination with
what you've told this committee is an appropriate way to
proceed.
I agree with what you've told this committee. I would, at
the very least, hope that we would go back and look at this
very, very carefully because if it stands that these leases
stay pulled we are sending a message that this Administration
doesn't really care how carefully you comply with the law, how
carefully you approach this from an environmentally sensitive
way. They simply want to kill oil and gas leases, period. They
will make up whatever excuse they can.
Now that's harsh language. But it complies with the facts.
Now quickly in the time remaining we've heard rumblings in Utah
that the Interior Department will begin to make changes in the
RMPs for land use that were finished in Utah last year.
The same thing I've just said about the oil leases applies
to these RMPs. They've been carefully, carefully put together.
They represent thorough extensive public input, millions of
dollars and nearly a decade to complete.
If the Interior Department now says, well we're going to
toss them all out and start over again. Once again they're
sending the message that this Interior Department doesn't
really care about the law or the precedent. They simply want to
pursue some other agenda.
Now that's my rant. I'd be happy to hear you respond in
whatever fashion you might like.
Mr. Hayes. Senator, I appreciate hearing the rant in all
seriousness. It's important that we have a good dialog on these
issues. If confirmed I will be happy to work with you on this
subject.
The issue of balance and sound appropriate oil and gas
production is very important to Secretary Salazar. I regret
we're off on this foot with you. I know Secretary Salazar does
as well. We'll look forward to working with you going forward
so that we can address these issues as we move forward.
Senator Bennett. I would hope so. Senator Murkowski has
raised them most appropriately even though it's not from her
State because the precedent really is quite chilling. If they
had been sloppily put together we'd have a different reaction.
But the amount of effort and money that has gone into this, not
only the oil and gas leases, but the RMPs as well is something
we take very seriously.
So I look forward to working with you on it. Thank you.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. We'll see what additional questions members
have in a second round. I do not have any questions. Senator
Murkowski?
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to bring
up the issue of the polar bear listing. As you know very
controversial in my State, the Alaska delegation certainly did
not support Secretary Kempthorne's decision last year to list
the polar bear as threatened.
But what he did do in that ESA designation. He provided for
a 4D provision to lessen the threat to subsistence, hunting and
on oil and gas development. So fast forward to today or at
least last week with the Omnibus provision.
In that Omnibus budget bill this Administration was given
the ability to remove those provisions without any new public
comment, period. So no process in other words. I believe very,
very strongly that this was a process mistake as well as a
policy mistake.
I think making the polar bear listing unlimited in scope
when in terms of the scientific evidence that is out there.
Part of the hearing record on oil and gas exploration and
production, yeah. I think we recognize that there's not a nexus
there.
I disagreed with the Kempthorne decision but at least there
was a process in place for it. We were not successful in
ensuring that process will be in place moving forward. Now
without this 4D protection that was inserted by the Secretary,
you've got a situation where you're just ripe for litigation
with any development project that may come forward, anything
that might produce carbon emissions.
Quite honestly we don't have the personnel at United States
Fish and Wildlife to do the Section seven consultations on
every action that could present itself out there. What will
Interior do in so far as the consultation requests moving
forward on this issue?
Mr. Hayes. Senator, I know that you've mentioned this to
Secretary Salazar. If confirmed I will be engaged in
discussions with him at the Department on this point. I think
your primary point about ensuring that any project that emits
greenhouse gases does not trigger a consultation because of
some extended theory impact on polar bears is a very good one.
The Endangered Species Act is not well suited to deal with
climate change which is a global phenomenon that has built up
over decades. I know that the Secretary wants to have a common
sense approach to implementing the Endangered Species Act.
We'll look forward to working with you toward that end if I'm
confirmed.
Senator Murkowski. I'm glad to hear you say that you agree
that the ESA is not the tool with which we should work to
reduce carbon emissions. But there are those who have made it
very clear, the Center for Biological Diversity is one who has
made it very clear in their statements that they specifically
intend to use it to do so. So you're setting yourself up for a
conflict.
I think you appreciate this. I think Secretary Salazar does
as well that despite the best intentions the way it can play
out is that it will be used. We will find ourselves in a series
of lengthy and protracted and expensive litigation with, you
know, pick your project, road development in Florida. It
doesn't necessarily have to be oil and gas development on the
North Slope.
So this is something that we remain very, very concerned
about. I still don't think that I understand what it is that
the Administration intends to do insofar as the consultation
and how that will work. But I think we're going to get slammed
on this. I'm very, very concerned about it.
We need to figure out a path forward. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hayes, let me
turn to wilderness. We've come to understand over time that
wilderness, not only has value as a place in which to recreate
and recreate and to connect with the wonderful lands, not only
in the West, but all over our country. But it's also a real
economic driver, increasingly, particularly in the West, State
of Alaska.
We have a lot of potential in our Bureau of Land Management
lands. There are a lot of proposals for wilderness
designations. I know you shared an interest in common sense
based wilderness designations.
Do you have any initial thoughts on how you might go about
considering recommendations on our BLM lands for additional
wilderness protection?
Mr. Hayes. Senator, I do not. But I look forward to talking
with you and others about this process. Obviously the
designation process is a Congressional prerogative in terms of
wilderness.
So the job of the Administration I think is to work with
you to move forward and help decide what areas might be
appropriately designated as wilderness. We'll look forward to
doing that.
Senator Udall. I would add that Senator Salazar has a
record, as I think I do of working from the bottom up with
local stakeholder groups that represent all the various
economic interests in places like Colorado. We've had some
successes in Colorado.
Mr. Hayes. Right.
Senator Udall. Hopefully the Public Lands bill that's
pending in the House which may be coming back to the Senate
will pass. I know there are important success stories in there
for all of us here in the Senate. If you'd care to comment?
Mr. Hayes. We hope so also. Wilderness should not be a
wedge issue. It should be a consensus based issue. The
tremendous advances in S. 22 in that regard in your State of
Colorado, for example are testament to that I think.
Senator Udall. Let me move to mining law reform. I know my
friend and colleague from the neighboring State of Wyoming,
Senator Barrasso talked about the Abandoned Mine Land Fund. I
know Senator Salazar was a leader here on implementing such
reform.
In the House of Representatives I was keen to put in place
a Good Samaritan law which would help people in local
communities have the tools and the protection from liability to
clean up these thousands of abandoned mine sites. The jobs that
can be created, water quality can be enhanced and if we would
provide the direction and the protection. It's not a question,
just as a comment that I look forward to working with you and
Senator Barrasso as well as we move forward.
I thought on my remaining time I'd try and get two
questions. No. 1, I wanted to ask you about the Centennial
Challenge. Give you a chance to tell us about your thinking
there. If talked about that earlier I'd still like to hear
about here now.
Then I want to respond to Senator Bennett's concerns about
the Utah leases before I complete my questioning.
Mr. Hayes. Senator, on the Centennial Challenge I know that
Secretary Salazar, of course was a supporter of that with many
of you on this committee. Is committed to taking advantage of
the anniversary of the parks to help develop and enhance the
public/private partnership that should be supporting the parks.
It's going to be one of his top priorities. We'll look forward
to working with all of you on that.
I know that the Secretary is excited about the Ken Burns
film series that's coming out this fall in the National Parks.
I think there's going to be a very exciting opportunity to
remind all Americans about the treasures of our parks. So
hopefully we can do something great together.
Senator Udall. I understand in the Economic Recovery
Package there are some resources there to invest in our
National Parks. Is that right?
Mr. Hayes. That's right, Senator. Thank all of you for the
Recovery Act in that regard. It's $750 million for to deal with
what has been as you well know a chronic backlog problem in the
parks.
Also, you know, very significant expenditures for our BLM
lands, for our National Wildlife Refuges. All our public lands,
we have an opportunity to not only provide jobs because these
are projects that directly will generate jobs in the very short
term in construction trades and other trades, road building,
etcetera. We're very excited about moving out quickly and hope
that that will also help provide a reminder of the importance
of the parks. Frankly get folks reacquainted again with the
parks.
Senator Udall. If I might, Mr. Chairman, I just would like
to end with a comment. I respectfully disagree with Senator
Bennett when he talked at some length about the process you
followed to set aside those leases in Utah. The Bush
Administration, it's well documented, granted thousands and
thousands of oil and gas leases.
The Bush Administration clearly accelerated some of that
lease activity toward the end of its tenure as Administrations
are want to do. There's a particular block of leases that were
issued for, in a draft form, for the area around Arches
National Park which is a unique and wonderful park of our
National Park portfolio. These are very sensitive lands. There
were ground water considerations.
I supported that decision. I believe that we can return to
the question of how and when we develop those particular leases
in those particular lands. But the oil and gas isn't going
anywhere. It will still be there. It will only get more
valuable. But in this case, I believe the resource provided by
the National Park is worth protecting and erring on the side
that the Secretary erred upon. I just wanted to make that clear
for the record.
The Chairman. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You
just mentioned wilderness and it's a consensus based issue. I
wanted to now switch a little bit to the Antiquities Act
because you know as a second ranking official under then
Secretary Bruce Babbitt, you witnessed the creation of more
national monuments than during any Presidential administration
in history.
These designations met with much controversy, lots of anger
in the West because of the size and the lack of consultation
with the States and communities. The consequences of these
designations for private land owners for grazing permitting and
for other users within the designated areas really has proven
to be excruciating. Do you agree with the methodology of those
widespread Presidential designations? Should the designations
of these protected places really be reviewed by Congress to
reflect public input, stakeholder commitment?
Mr. Hayes. Senator, of course Congress has plenary
authority here. Can overturn an Antiquities Act designation by
a President. Should if the Congress believes it should.
To your point though, I agree that Antiquities Act
designations should occur after there has been good discussion
with all stakeholders. I'll mention that Congressman Mike
Simpson from Idaho was over at the Department recently and
talking about the Craters of the Moon National Monument which
was created at the end of the Administration with a lot of
collaboration, with a Congressional delegation and others.
That's the way it should be done.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Craig Thomas who had this seat
before I did used to say if it's a good idea it's going to be a
good idea after the public gets a good look at it and Congress
gets a chance to weigh its merits and its costs.
You wrote a 2006 paper for the Progressive Policy Institute
an arm of the Democratic Leadership Council. You had advised
progressives that they need to, ``Respect the live and let live
ethic that courses through the blood of long time Westerners
and newcomers alike.'' But then you wrote in the Virginia
Environmental Law Journal that Interior Secretary Babbitt was
not, ``shy in recommending that President Clinton use his
authority under the Antiquities Act to protect some of our most
special and treasured public lands.''
You praised the Clinton Administration for ``using the
thread of potential action under the Antiquities Act to
encourage Congressional conservation legislation.'' The people
in Wyoming, you know, really don't see this kind of political
gamesmanship as respectful of that live and let live value that
you talked about in the 2006 paper. So if appointed do you
intend to use some of these political games to reach
ideological goals or can we count on you to, as you and I
talked about yesterday, charting a new course.
Mr. Hayes. Very much so the latter, Senator. Let me say I
appreciate your quoting from elsewhere in my article. I think
the body of my written work shows that I'm a believer in
collaboration.
I think that these resource issues are solved when there is
local input, all stakeholders are heard and sensible win/win
decisions are reached. That's my philosophy. That's the
philosophy I will follow if I am confirmed.
Senator Barrasso. My final question, Mr. Chairman. You
talked about some of the more heartwarming experiences in your
time is working with the Native Americans, with our tribes.
Indian economic development is a big issue in Wyoming.
The Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming is the home of
the Eastern Shoshone and the Northern Arapahoe tribes. That
community and many others in Indian country have a great need
for economic development yet the bureaucratic red tape often
stands in the way of this economic development. Will you commit
to focus significant resources and priorities of the Department
on removing some burdensome, duplicative and overly restrictive
Federal regulations that impede Indian community's economic
development? We're talking about energy development and others.
Mr. Hayes. Absolutely, Senator. This has been an issue that
you have raised. Senator Dorgan has raised it as well. In fact
we are already moving out and doing experimental one stop shop
in Indian country for energy development.
We need to do this because there's a terrific economic
opportunity in the energy area in particular for tribes. We
want to help facilitate that.
Senator Barrasso. We must allow these communities to
succeed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Let me just make a
comment since Senator Barrasso raised the issue of the
Antiquities Act. We've had a lot of discussion about that over
the years.
I just wanted to indicate for the record that I think
Secretary Babbitt, President Clinton and yourself deserve great
credit for some of the designations that were made under the
Antiquities Act. One in my State was the Tent Rocks Monument
which was very much appreciated and something that I think has
been a good thing for our State.
I also wanted to just complement President Bush for his use
of the Antiquities Act on the sixth of January to designate the
Marianas Trench, the Pacific remote islands and the Rose Atoll
Marine National Monuments. I think that's another example where
that act has been very useful.
Did you have additional questions, Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure you have
the last word. But I would add to your list of important uses
of the Antiquities Act two additional national parks that were
designated national parks after initially being designated
national monuments. One, the Grand Canyon National Park which
is seen as the crown jewel, perhaps, of the National Park
System with all due respect to Yellowstone National Park and
others that may want to vie for that title.
In Colorado we have a new national park, the Black Canyon
of the Gunnison National Park which was initially designated
through the Antiquities Act as a national monument by I
believe, President Hoover. That foresightedness on the part of
President Hoover in that particular policy area left us the
option in this timeframe to then create a new national park. So
the Antiquities Act has been used to great effect, by and large
and very appropriate ways as Senator Bingaman just pointed out
with the recent actions of President Bush. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you for mentioning those other
incidents or instances. Let me at this point indicate for the
record that members will have until five tomorrow to submit any
additional questions for the record.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for all of your time this
afternoon. We will hope to proceed with your nomination this
next week.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator
Udall.
The Chairman. That will conclude our hearing.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of David J. Hayes to Questions From Senator Bingaman
on Behalf of Senator Max Baucus
Question 1. The 100th anniversary of the Park System in 2016 is
quickly approaching--The National Park Service has taken good steps to
build a strong foundation for the future, but much needs to be done to
prepare our Parks for another century of conservation, preservation,
and enjoyment, I am working to reintroduce the National Park Centennial
Challenge Fund Act, a bill introduced in 2008 by then-Senator, now-
Secretary, Ken Salazar. A matching donation fund in the federal
treasury that will provide up to 5100 million a year to the national
parks in support of signature ``Centennial projects and programs.''
This would allow supporters of the parks to match their contributions
with federal dollars to carry out a program or a project at a national
park unit, provided that the project or program is approved by the Park
Service and Congress. I feel that this additional funding would allow
our national parks to reach their full educational, economic,
environmental, and civic potential.
Nominee Hayes, what is your plan to prepare our National Parks for
the upcoming Centennial?
Answer. The upcoming National Park Service centennial in 2016
offers a great opportunity to celebrate our national parks'
preservation of spectacular scenery, wildlife and the most significant
places in our nation's history. As we prepare for the centennial, I
will be a strong supporter of exploring ways to engage new audiences,
particularly young people, in our national park's programs and
stewardship. 1 will also support continuing to engage park partners and
the public in investing in the parks. The President's budget includes
$25 million for FY 2010 for matching contributions toward programs and
projects for the National Park System. In addition, I look forward to
seeing the funding Congress provided through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act used to make significant progress on addressing the
serious backlog of park maintenance needs well before 2016.
Question 2. How will you help to gamer support for legislation that
would help to secure funds for projects related to the 2016 Centennial?
Answer. I have not yet had an opportunity to fully review the
issues surrounding the legislation providing for National Park Service
centennial partnership projects and programs. However, Secretary
Salazar has made known his strong interest in working with Congress to
pursue legislation to provide dedicated funding for partnership
projects and programs to improve our parks for the centennial. If
confirmed, I will work with him to develop a strategy for that purpose.
Responses of David J. Hayes to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 3. In testimony before this Committee in both 2000 and
2001, you discussed the evolution of our nation's long-standing
moratoria on offshore development. Last year, however, the President
lifted the executive ban, and the House and Senate agreed to allow the
congressional ban to expire.
As Deputy Secretary, would you advise Secretary Salazar and
President Obama to reapply the executive moratorium on offshore
development? Would you lobby Congress to do the same? Or do you agree,
with the vast majority of the public, that those bans should not be
resurrected?
Answer. The Secretary has just announced the schedule for public
meetings that the Department will be holding around the nation to
discuss both conventional and renewable energy on the Outer Continental
Shelf. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the input received at
these meetings as well as the report the MMS and USGS are preparing on
this issue. Improving our nation's energy independence is important to
our economy and our environment. I believe we should look at all of our
options and then focus our effons where it makes the most sense.
Question 4. I hope you are aware of the effort of many to gain a
nonessential-experimental population designation for the Woodland Bison
near Fairbanks, Alaska so they can he reintroduced into the wild.
According to a white paper that your staff shared with my office
the ``ADF&G will not release Woodland Bison into the wild until the
final special rule containing the nonessential experimental population
designation and special conditions and exemptions are in place and
determined to ensure sufficient protection to existing and future land
uses.''
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game have been playing around with this proposal since the early
1990's.
Will you commit to direct the U,S. Fish & Wildlife Service to make
a decision one way or the other on using the experimental population
designation through the 10(j) and 4(d) provisions of the Endangered
Species Act for the Woodland Bison within the next 6 months?
I suspect that without such a listing there is no chance of
releasing these animals into the wild and that would be a real shame.
I also want you to understand that it is entirely unacceptable for
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to continue to play kick the can, year
after year, by refusing to make a decision on the status in hopes of
getting a different level of support from the Doyon's and the public.
Answer. I understand that officials within the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service are working with the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game on reintroduction of wood bison in Alaska and that the Service is
supportive of reintroduction. If confirmed, I will ensure that the
Department works with the State of Alaska in a timely and responsive
fashion on reintroduction of wood bison in Alaska and their
classification under the Endangered Species Act.
Question 5. Mr. Hayes, in response to a supplemental question asked
by Senator Murkowski in your last confirmation hearing before this
committee on September 15, 1999, you provided the following answer to
this question----
Senator Frank Murkowski: ``Do you think that it is appropriate in
this day age to ignore NEPA compliance in a major federal action?''
Your response: ``The National Environmental Policy Act applies to
major federal actions taken by federal agencies. Clearly, federal
agencies may not ignore NEPA in taking major federal actions. I am
advised that Presidential and Congressional actions are not covered by
NEPA.''
I would like to explore the very last part of your response to that
question. That would be ``that President and Congressional actions are
not covered by NEPA''.
Do you still hold that position?
If yes--
I want to make sure I am clear, that if the President or
Congress sends you a law that does not mention the need to
oompletc NEPA prior to implementation of a project you will
direct the agencies you oversee to implement the law or
Presidential order without a NEPA analysis, is that correct?
If Congress sends you a bill that does not expressly direct
NEPA or a Finding of Public Benefit requirement, say on a ]and
exchange, or the building of a transmission line, or the
building of a dam, how would you expect the implementing agency
to implement the law?
Given your answers do you think there is a need for Congress
to include direction to undertake NEPA or include a ``finding
of public interest'' requirement when passing legislation that
directs the implementation of projects on federal lands?
If no--
In 1999 you made it expressly clear that you did not think
that either the President or Congress were covered under NEPA.
What has changed either legally or in your thinking to alter
your position between 1999 and today?
Answer. I continue to believe that the National Environmental
Policy Act applies to major federal actions taken by federal agencies,
and that federal agencies may not ignore NEPA in taking major federal
actions. The coverage of NEPA in a specific circumstance is a legal
question for which I would seek the advice of a NEPA expert. That is
why I qualified my statement in 1999 that ``I am advised'' regarding
the relationship between Presidential and Congressional actions and
NEPA obligations. It is my general understanding that direct
Presidential actions are not covered by NEPA, and that Congress can
enact specific exceptions to NEPA. Given the legal nature of this
question, I would look to the Interior Department's Solicitor to
provide me, if confirmed, with appropriate guidance for how to apply
these principles to any specific situation.
Question 6. At a hearing held by this Committee in April 2001, you
testified about the tremendous impact that deepwater royalty relief was
having on offshore oil and gas production. There was much debate in the
last Congress regarding the fact that some of the leases issued in 1998
and 1999 did not contain royalty relief thresholds. Now the Fifth
Circuit has upheld summary judgment from a lower court that Interior
did not have the authority to impose royalties on those leases in the
first place.
Do you believe that it is appropriate to attempt to impose
royalties on those leases retroactively, even if it ultimately means
breaching contracts that were entered into with private companies? Will
you continue to support the practice of deepwater royalty relief in the
future?
Answer. I believe the focus should be to ensure that the public
receives fair value for these resources. The President's Budget
Blueprint, released last month, calls for an excise tax on Gulf of
Mexico oil and gas production starting in 2011 to ensure a fair return
to the public--an approach that would not impose royalties
retroactively. I look forward to working with Congress in considering
how to best address this issue.
Regarding deep water royalty relief, I have not yet had the
opportunity to look at whether there are circumstances where such
relief is currently appropriate. This is something that needs to be
considered as we look at creating an energy policy that makes sense.
Question 7. I realize that Interior does not have jurisdiction over
the Clean Air Act, but it is nonetheless an issue that DOI should have
an interest in since the some of the department's offshore leases are
significantly encumbered.
My concern is that it appears to be unreasonably difficult to
obtain an air permit for offshore exploration activity. Offshore
exploration is not development or production; it is just a temporary
activity. The drill ship moves onto a site for 30 to 60 days and then
leaves. The emissions from the drill ship are small and temporary--
insignificant compared to permanent installations. Shouldn't it be
relatively straightforward to permit these exploration activities?
Specifically, one company has tried for three years to receive a
final air permit. Three years and I am told they have spent well over
$11 million. The amount of money spent by the federal government is
likely significant as well. Given the temporary nature of offshore
exploration drilling activities and the relatively insignificant level
of air emissions involved, in combination with the fact that the
exploration drilling season is at most three months long on the Alaskan
OCS, I am concerned that a situation of diminishing returns is being
created. Ultimately, how can the Department of the Interior expect to
ever run a strong leasing program if air permits continue to cause
delays and increase costs?
Answer. One of the goals for meeting our energy needs must be to
ensure that we are promoting the right kind of development in the right
places. Achieving that goal will require us to have effective and
efficient government operations and processes. If confirmed, I will
reach across agency lines to identify where bottlenecks exist, promote
coordination among agencies, and fashion solutions to ensure that
unnecessary delays are eliminated. If confirmed, I will certainly look
into the circumstances surrounding this issue to see what needs to be
done to meet our country's energy needs.
Question 8. One of the most important aspects of any legislation is
the precise and accurate definition of the key terms included within
it. This is particularly true for the term ``renewable energy.'' Can
you list the resources that you consider to be renewable?
Answer. On March 11, 2009, Secretary Salazar issued Secretarial
Order Number 3285, establishing the development of renewable energy on
the public lands and the Outer Continental Shelf as a priority for the
Department of the Interior. In that Order, the Secretary mentioned
solar, wind, geothermal, incremental or small hydroelectric power on
existing structures, and biomass energy as renewable energy sources.
The Secretary has also indicated that future Outer Continental Shelf
development should include consideration of wind, wave, and ocean
current energy as sources of renewable energy. I think this provides a
good list of the sources that may qualify as ``renewable energy.'' I
also believe it is important to remain flexible about the possibility
of identifying additional sources for which the term ``renewable
energy'' would be appropriate.
Question 9. In transitioning to cleaner energy technologies, I am
concerned that we risk trading our reliance upon foreign oil for
reliance upon other foreign minerals. We are 56 percent reliant upon
imports for the silicon in solar panels, 100 percent reliant upon
imports for the rare earths contained in hybrid-electric vehicle
motors, and 91 percent reliant upon imports for the Platinum used in
fuel cells and other applications. And much of these imports come from
places like China, Venezuela, and Russia.
How important do you believe it is that the raw materials for clean
energy technologies be produced here in the United States?
Would you consider the jobs associated with providing the raw
materials for clean energy technologies to be ``green''?
Answer. It is important for the raw materials for clean energy
technologies to be produced here in the United States when possible and
economically feasible. President Obama has made clean energy technology
development an important component of his plans for the recovery of our
economy. I believe environmentally responsible production of the raw
materials needed for new clean energy technologies can be a part of
that effort.
Question 10. Less than a year ago, you testified before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee on Cap-and-Trade legislation and your
support for the inclusion of an Emission Allowance Account ``for use in
carrying out forest carbon activities in countries other than the
United States'' in such a measure. In the President's budget blueprint,
however, he has committed to a 100 percent auction of allowances, which
would not allow for the creation of any allowance accounts.
Have you revised in any way your position on spending money raised
through Cap-and-Trade on forestation in other countries as a result of
the global climate change policies contained in the President's budget
blueprint?
Answer. In the testimony that I delivered for the World Wildlife
Fund, I referenced WWF's support for a specific provision in the
Lieberman-Warner bill that would provide funding for local citizens and
institutions to monitor forest carbon. If confirmed, I will adhere to
whatever position the Administration develops in climate change
negotiations and in the legislative context, including whatever funding
approaches or priorities it may adopt for forest carbon activities.
Question 11. Mr. Hayes, in a number of situations the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service has utilized the 4(d) and 10(j) provisions of the
Endangered Species Act and regulations to designate certain species as
a ``nonessential-experimental population''. This helped facilitate the
reintroduction of species in areas, on private land that might not
otherwise have been able to be re-introduced. One that comes to my mind
is the Aplomado (Ap-lo-muad-o) falcon restoration in New Mexico.
Could you tell us how those efforts are progressing?
Answer. The nonessential experimental population designation under
the Endangered Species Act enables the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
in appropriate situations, to reintroduce listed species and assist in
their recovery in a manner that minimizes conflict with human
activities and provides regulatory flexibility in their management. I
have been informed that in the Southwest, where falcons have been
reintroduced as a nonessential experimental population since 2006,
there are now breeding pairs of aplomado falcons in both New Mexico and
Texas as a result of the Service's work and that of partners such as
the Peregrine Fund.
Question 12. Mr. Hayes, I know you are acutely aware of the
situation in the intermountain west with the overpopulation of Wild
Horse and Burros on some rangelands in Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and
Montana. It was a problem when you left the Clinton Administration and
the problem continued through the Bush Administration. Now due to
prolonged draught, ever expanding wild horse populations, over
populated wild horse facilities, limited budgets, and the failure of
the Bureau of Land Management to utilize its legislative authority to
euthanize horses, the Bureau is in a crisis on some ranges when it
comes to wild horses.
When you left the government in 2001 what were the estimated
populations of wild horses in the intermountain states? What are they
today?
Answer. I know that maintaining healthy wild horse and burro
populations on healthy public rangelands is important to Secretary
Salazar. I understand that since 2001, the BLM has reduced on-the-range
herd numbers by 25 percent--from 45,500 to about 34,000. I am aware
that this is an ongoing issue; wild horses have no natural predators
and herd populations can double every four years. The BLM must remove
thousands of animals from public rangelands each year to ensure that
herd sizes are consistent with the land's capacity to support them, and
to ensure healthy landscapes. If confirmed, I am committed to working
with the Congress, stakeholders and the BLM to develop a workable
strategy for managing herd populations both on the range and off-range.
Question 13. I know the Bureau has expressed real concerns about
Mrs. Madeleine Pickens' plan to move 30,000 of the horses to her
preserve. What are the agency's options if the Pickens' plan to take
30,000 horses off the range and out of the holding facilities does not
come to fruition?
Answer. I know that Secretary Salazar greatly appreciates Mrs.
Pickens' desire to protect wild horses, and I understand that the BLM
is open to continuing its discussions with Mrs. Pickens and her
representatives. I understand that the GAO recently reported to the
Congress that the BLM has limited options for dealing with unadopted
animals, and that the costs of pasturing the excess animals removed
from the range continue to overwhelm the program. If confirmed, I am
committed to working with the Congress, stakeholders, and the BLM to
improve the way excess animals are managed while at the same time
protecting the wild herds in designated Herd Management Areas, their
habitat, and the public lands from the destructive effects of
overpopulation.
Question 14. Mr. Hayes, in your original confirmation hearing
before this Committee you mentioned your involvement in the Headwaters
Forest Settlement in California. Can you describe what has happened to
the major players in that agreement (i.e, Pacific Lumber Company, the
State of California, and the U.S, Forest Service) since the agreement
was concluded? Are the U.S. Forest Service, the State, and Pacific
Lumber Company better off today than prior to that agreement?
With the benefit of hindsight is there anything you would do
differently today, as compared to the agreement that you helped to
develop?
Answer. Congress established the agenda for the Headwaters Forest
transaction, including the terms for the purchase of the Headwaters
Forest, and the requirement for the negotiation of a Habitat
Conservation Plan for neighboring lands that remained in private
ownership. I was part of a team at the Interior Department that
effectuated this Congressional intent. I did not remain involved in the
Headwaters Forest matter after leaving the Interior Department in 2001.
As a result, I am not in a position to comment on the relative benefits
associated with the protection of the Headwaters Forest and the Habitat
Conservation Plan that the landowner voluntarily entered into with the
United States.
Question 15. Mr. Hayes, in your April 22, 2008 testimony before the
Senate Foreign Affairs Committee on international deforestation, you
spoke quite eloquently about tropical deforestation, and the Kyoto
Accords. You reported that the World Wildlife Fund did not believe that
countries should be allowed to get credit for existing forest resources
as a means to avoiding having to reduce emissions.
Do you still hold that opinion?
If so, when a country allows its forests to burn or be consumed by
insect and disease do you believe there should be a price that country
has to pay within a global greenhouse gas reduction scheme? Or should
we just ignore the fires and neglect what is on going within the
borders of those countries, in terms of forest management practices?
Answer. As explained in the testimony, in 1997, when the Kyoto
Protocol was negotiated, WWF objected to countries relying on existing
forestry resources as a means of avoiding having to reduce emissions
from industrial sources. As pointed out in the testimony, however,
``the times and circumstances have changed'' and WWF indicated that all
forest-related issues should now be on the table, including forestry
management issues. As a general matter, if confirmed, I anticipate that
I will adhere to whatever position the Administration develops
regarding the treatment of forest-related issues in climate change
negotiations and in the legislative context.
Question 16. Over the next few years, the Department of the
Interior will play an important role in analyzing our available water
resources, the impact of climate change on these resources, and the
availability of these resources in maintaining and developing
additional supplies of energy.
Please describe how recommendations aimed at climate mitigation and
adoption may shape policies developed in the energy and water sectors,
and, specifically, to the interrelationship between energy-water.
Answer. This is an important topic to which the Department will be
giving significant consideration as we try to understand how climate
change is affecting our resources and to anticipate and react to those
impacts. If confirmed I would be happy to keep your office informed of
our progress.
Question 17. Please describe the key institutions, within the
Department of the Interior, and other Federal agencies, that should be
strengthened to ensure more integrated and effective policy making on
climate, energy and water.
Answer. As I noted in my response to the previous question, the
answers to this question will be more fully developed as we continue
our efforts to understand how climate change is affecting our
resources, and to anticipate and react to those impacts. If confirmed,
I would be happy to keep your office informed of our progress.
Question 18. Amidst all of the other areas of jurisdiction for the
Department of the Interior it can be easy to overlook the Department's
responsibilities to the territories of Guam, the Northern Marianas,
American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. What steps will you take
to ensure that the territories receive the attention and assistance
they need, both from within the Department of the Interior as well as
from other federal departments and agencies?
Answer. The United States territories are largely self-governing,
much like states. Departmental officials seek not to infringe on that
self-governance. However, there are times when issues arise that are
outside the province of local self-government. When that occurs, I
would expect to work through the Department's Office of Insular
Affairs, to seek solutions. In addition, issues may arise that could
lend themselves to consideration by the Interagency Group on Insular
Affairs (IGIA).
While both the Office of Insular Affairs and IGIA provide
institutional bases for solving issues of concern in the territories,
Secretary Salazar and I, if confirmed, plan to consider possibilities
for increasing the authority and effectiveness of these institutions.
Question 19. Your name comes up in a couple of September 1999
Washington Times articles concerning the Secretary Babbitt having to
recuse himself from involvement in decisions and discussions concerning
the Canyon Forest Village near the Grand Canyon. Those articles suggest
that Secretary Babbitt used you as his surrogate to communicate his
desires concerning that project to the Forest Service who were
developing an Environmental Impact Statement on the project.
Please describe what your role was in the communications between
Secretary Babbitt and the Forest Service on the Canyon Forest Village
project.
Answer. In 1999, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
examined those allegations on a bipartisan basis and found them to have
no merit. Chairman Frank Murkowski reported this conclusion in a
Committee meeting of October 20, 1999. As former and current Committee
staff who were involved in this matter can confirm, I did not
participate in decision-making that the Forest Service was undertaking
with regard to the proposed Canyon Forest Village, a development
proposed for construction outside the boundary of the Grand Canyon
National Park on U.S. Forest Service land.
Question 20. Having been placed in the position of being Secretary
Babbitt's surrogate in those discussions can you give us your assurance
that you will not require any Department of Interior employee from
having to perform a similar role on any of the issues that you have
recused yourself from if you are confirmed as Deputy Secretary?
Answer. As I stated in my response to the previous question, in
1999 the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee examined those
allegations on a bipartisan basis and found them to have no merit.
Chairman Frank Murkowski reported this conclusion in a Committee
meeting of October 20, 1999. As former and current Committee staff who
were involved in this matter can confirm, I did not participate in
decision-making that the Forest Service was undertaking with regard to
the proposed Canyon Forest Village, a development proposed for
construction outside the boundary of the Grand Canyon National Park on
U.S. Forest Service land.
Question 21. In Section 388 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, Congress
directed the Department of the Interior to issue leases, easements or
rights of way for alternative energy projects on the Outer Continental
Shelf. To date, however, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) has not
issued its Final Rule on offshore energy production and no leases or
other permits have been granted pursuant to this authority. The Cape
Wind project, for example, has been pending since 2001. When do you
expect the MMS to have its offshore energy program up and running?
Answer. Secretary Salazar has publicly stated that publishing the
final rule for offshore renewable energy is a top priority. The rule is
currently under review so that we can better understand its operation
and determine whether there are any parts of the rule that can be
improved. If confirmed, I will work to see that a final rule is
published as soon as possible.
Question 22. Mr. Hayes, I remain interested in the December 2008
Utah Oil and Gas leasing situation and would like for the Department of
the Interior to which you have been nominated to provide the following
information:
A list of each of the original parcels nominated and who nominated
each parcel to be considered by the BLM for lease for the fall 2008
lease sale. If you cannot provide individual names, or company names,
please tell us if the lease request came from a company, individual
known to work in the oil or gas industry, or from an individual that is
not known to work in the oil or gas industry.
Answer. I understand that after an oil and gas lease sale, the BLM
will make information available about the parcels sold and successful
bidders. However, the BLM does not release information regarding
original expressions of interest for parcels to be included in an oil
and gas lease sale unless and until those parcels are actually offered
at an auction and then only upon request. This is considered to be
proprietary information. Releasing this information could expose the
nominating party's exploration and development strategies to their
competitors and affect the integrity of the auction process and the
value of bid received. In this instance, all of the nominating entities
were either known industry representatives or individuals who work with
industry. The BLM advises me that it has not received requests for
leasing from individuals not known to work in the oil, and gas
industry. If confirmed, I will ensure that the BLM provides you with a
copy of the appropriate information related to this lease sale.
Question 23. The criteria used by the Department of the Interior to
determine which parcels would be withdrawn from the December 19, 2008
lease auction. The Administrative record on how parcels were added to
the list for the sale and how each parcel that was withdrawn got
withdrawn, along with all e-mails, letters, or records of phone
conversations related to requests to add or withdraw individual parcels
from the fall 2008 lease sale in Utah.
Answer. As you know, Secretary Salazar has expressed his goal of
ensuring that oil and gas resources are developed in a thoughtful and
balanced way that complies with all legal requirements. The 77 leases
in questions were the subject of a court challenge that led to the
entry of a restraining order by a federal district court judge. The
court concluded that it did not appear that all legally-required
environmental analysis had been completed for the leases, and that
irreparable harm could occur if the sale of those particular leases
were to go forward. The 77 leases that Secretary Salazar withdrew from
the sale were the same 77 leases that the court enjoined from sale on
this basis. Secretary Salazar removed the leases from the sale to
provide an opportunity to review the legal adequacy of the sale. He has
committed to undertake that review and, if confirmed, I will work with
you as that review proceeds. I understand that, upon completion of this
review, it is possible that some of these parcels may be offered in
future lease sales.
I am also advised that the BLM compiles an Administrative Record
for each of its oil and gas lease sales. If confirmed, I will ensure
the BLM transmits to you a copy of the appropriate records for the
December 19, 2008, Utah oil and gas lease sale.
Question 24. The date of the next lease sale to be held in Utah,
given that the law calls for there to be four lease sales per year, and
if you delay the March offerings, on what dates will those sales be
held to meet the four sales per year direction?
Answer. I understand that Utah's next quarterly oil and gas lease
sale is scheduled for March 24. Subsequent oil and gas lease sales for
2009 are currently scheduled for May 19, August 18 and November 17.
Question 25. In Secretary Salazar's February 6, 2009 memorandum to
State Director Selma Sierra, he directed that the 77 leases be
withdrawn. In his press statements the Secretary indicated that
Interior would conduct further review on whether coordination between
agencies and consideration of ``cultural resources'' were adequate.
Please provide the Committee with a detailed plan for that review,
including who will undertake the review, who within the BLM, MMS, and
Department will participate in the review, who will lead the review,
and deadlines for accomplishing the review.
Answer. Due to ongoing litigation surrounding this lease sale, it
is my understanding that the BLM has not begun this review, and is
currently working with the Solicitor's Office on how best to proceed.
If confirmed. I commit to keeping you fully informed as this situation
evolves.
Question 26. Is it the BLM's or the Secretary's intention to
include any public hearings or meetings in relation to this review, and
if so how many and where they will be held?
Answer. As I noted in the respomse to my previous question, due to
ongoing litigation surrounding this lease sale, I understand that the
BLM has not yet begun this review and is currently working with the
Solicitor's Office on how best to proceed. If confirmed, I commit to
keeping you fully informed as this situation evolves.
Question 27. As soon as that review is completed I would like your
office to send a copy of it, along with its recommendations and the
Secretary's decisions on these leases, to the Committee.
Answer. Due to ongoing litigation surrounding this lease sale, I
understand that the BLM has not yet begun this review and is currently
working with the Solicitor's Office on how best to proceed. If
confirmed, I commit to keeping you fully informed as this situation
evolves.
Question 28. Please also provide the Committee a detailed log of
contacts between Agency or the Department and the State and or Federal
Prosecutor related to the bid opening for the Utah lease sale which was
held in December of 2008. Please include the names of the employees who
made the contact, the nature of the contact, and any requests that were
made by the Secretary, his office or any of the Department or Bureau of
Land Management's employees.
Answer. I understand that this matter is the subject of an ongoing
Federal investigation. All materials related to the case, including any
records of communications between agency employees and State or federal
prosecutors are within the exclusive control of the Assistant United
States Attorney for Utah.
Question 29. Has a new Administration ever come in, prior to the
current Administration, and had its Interior Secretary reverse a lease
sale? What is the administrative review process for such a reversal?
Answer. While I am not personally aware of another situation where
an incoming Secretary of the Interior has deferred leasing parcels
awarded at an oil and gas lease sale, the Secretary has the authority
to administratively review oil and gas lease decisions.
Question 30. Mr. Hayes, in recent years, the Park Service has
demonstrated an inexplicable resistance to embrace the willingness of
qualified volunteers to help address wildlife overpopulation situations
in national parks. There are tragic overpopulation issues where our
majestic elk herds are dying of starvation and depleting their habitat,
but the park service has repeatedly resisted efforts to employ the free
services of qualified volunteers, instead in some instances paying
millions of dollars to foreign companies to hire snipers. At the same
time, the park service routinely tells the Congress that it needs more
funding to manage our parks. Can you give me your opinion on this
inexplicable inconsistency?
Answer. I am aware that overabundant ungulate populations,
particularly deer and elk, are common in many modern landscapes,
including National Parks. The NPS Organic Act and longstanding NPS
policy allow hunting only where it is either mandated or authorized by
federal statute. Sixty-one park units authorize hunting. Where hunting
is not mandated or authorized, the use of skilled volunteers, pursuant
to the Volunteers in the Parks Act, is being considered and in some
cases, implemented to assist NPS in reducing deer and elk populations
where it is compatible with existing law, regulations, and NPS Policy.
I am unaware of any National Park that currently contracts with foreign
companies to control native populations of wildlife.
Question 31. Mr. Hayes, just two days ago the park service
announced a ban on the use of traditional ammunition in all park lands.
The park service's news release does not cite scientific evidence that
wildlife populations are being negatively impacted by the use of
traditional ammunition, and there is no indication that park visitors'
health was affected in any way by hunters and wildlife managers using
traditional ammunition.
Ammunition containing lead components has been the choice of
hunters for well over 100 years, during which time wildlife populations
in America have surged. Also, there has never been a documented case of
lead poisoning among humans who have eaten game taken with traditional
ammunition, and a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
study on North Dakota hunters who consumed game confirmed that there
was no reason for concern over eating game taken with traditional
ammunition. Can you advise the committee whether the park service will
be making its regulatory decisions with any scientific basis? Or is the
service pursuing some form of agenda hostile to the Second Amendment
rights of Americans?
Answer. My understanding is that the announcement made last week by
the NPS indicated NPS's intention to begin to remove lead from a
limited range of activities conducted by the NPS. I am assured that the
reduced use of lead is not intended to have any impact on Second
Amendment rights, and is not intended to impact hunters in those parks
where hunting is allowed. If confirmed, I will follow up with the
Committee on this issue and ensure that any actions taken by the NPS
along these lines are supported by sound science and do not impinge
Second Amendment rights in any way.
Question 32. As you know, I'm committed to the construction of a
natural gas pipeline that will bring Alaska's gas to market.
Do you support additional federal incentives for the Alaskan
Natural Gas Pipeline?
Answer. At his confirmation hearing, Secretary Salazar specifically
stressed the importance of prioritizing the construction of the Alaska
natural gas pipeline. The pipeline will play a key role in providing
access to the substantial natural gas resources in Alaska that can
significantly contribute to our nation's energy and security needs.
Question 33. Back in 2004 Congress passed a provision that
authorized the government to take over and study an independent
pipeline plan and financing mechanism to hring Alaska gas to market,
should a pipeline project not proceed within 18 months. The entity to
do that plan is not Interior, but Energy, but do you have any feelings
about whether now is the time for greater actions to promote an Alaska
gas line?
Answer. The Secretary in his confirmation hearing emphasized the
importance of prioritizing the construction of the Alaska natural gas
pipeline. I know that in 2004, the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act
greatly enhanced the prospects for the pipeline by providing an $18
billion federal loan guarantee, significant tax incentives, and
streamlined permitting. In addition, the State of Alaska, through the
Alaska Gas Inducement Act, provided a $500 million incentive to the
successful licensee. I am aware that since that time, two pipeline
projects have been proposed, and various federal and state entities are
reviewing the applications as part of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) process for natural gas pipelines. The Department of
the Interior is a cooperating agency with FERC and the Office of the
Federal Coordinator (established by the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline
Act) in this process. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the
Secretary to support the efforts.
Question 34. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress provided
for 10-year lease extensions in the National Petroleum Reserve in
Alaska (NPRA). That was because without a gas line being built, it is
impossible for companies to develop their gas within a 10-year lease
period with no possibility of being able to market their gas. Last
year, however, there was talk of revising EPACT and again limiting
lease terms under the mantra of ``use it or lose it.'' What is your
feeling about the need for changes to leases, if there is any, for NPRA
leases?
Answer. During his confirmation hearing, Secretary Salazar
expressed his support for responsible energy development in the
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. I am aware of the particular
challenges associated with oil and gas development in the NPR-A due to
the limited window of opportunity in which exploration and development
can occur. I am also aware that lease extensions are permitted under
certain circumstances (e.g., discovery of an oil or gas resource). If
confirmed, I am committed to the construction of a natural gas pipeline
that will bring Alaska's gas to market and look forward to working with
you and the Committee as this project progresses. With regard to ``use
it or lose'' it, I look forward to working with you and other Committee
Members to evaluate this legislation, including lease term extensions.
Question 35. An issue of tremendous importance to my home state,
Alaska, is the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If
confirmed, would you support the development of this area, its
permanent designation as wilderness, or leaving its status as it is
today?
Answer. Secretary Salazar is committed to continuing responsible
oil and gas development throughout the United States. The decision
regarding the potential use or designation of the 1002 Area of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ultimately will be Secretary Salazar's
and the President's.
Question 36. This past November, the U.S. Geological Survey
released its assessment of gas hydrates located beneath the North Slope
of Alaska. The survey indicated that up to 85.4 trillion cubic feet of
this clean-burning resource may be present, but that additional
research would be necessary to demonstrate that it is economically
viable and possible to produce. Do you support additional research
related to gas hydrates? While DOE had some money, $15 million in its
FY 09 budget, USGS still had no funding for such work. What is your
reaction to USGS getting back into the study of methane gas hydrates?
Answer. I have been informed that the U.S. Geological Survey has
been studying gas hydrates since the mid-198O's. This long record of
gas hydrate research has allowed for recent advances such as the
technically recoverable resource assessment released in November,
current efforts by the USGS and the Bureau of Land Management to
evaluate the impact of gas hydrate energy resource development in
Northern Alaska, and the planning of long term production tests on this
important potential energy resource. I look forward if confirmed to
learning more about natural gas hydrates.
Question 37. As a top official at Interior Secretary, the
environmental community will likely press you to designate even more
federal lands in Alaska, perhaps by creating de facto wilderness areas
via the Antiquities Act. However, the aptly named ``no-more'' clause in
the Alaska Lands Act bars the withdrawal of more than 5,000 acre tracts
in Alaska for more than a year absent Congressional approval. What is
your position on land withdrawals under the Antiquities Act?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Solicitor of the
Department of the Interior to ensure that the Department complies with
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and all laws.
Question 38. March 24th is the 20th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez
Oil Spill that savaged the environment in Alaska's Prince William
Sound. Three years ago the Department of Justice at the encouragement
of the Interior Department and this Senator filed papers to ``reopen''
the civil settlement with Exxon involving damages to seek additional
money to pay for cleanup efforts. The government agreed to seek $92
million in additional aid to speed cleanup on beaches where oil can
still be found in the gravels. Efforts to press the ``reopener'' clause
have been moving seemingly slowly. Can you give me any information on
your feelings about the reopener and if there is anything you can do at
Interior to speed the court action to gain those funds, perhaps by
better funding research needed to make the legal case for the need for
the funds to pay for additional cleanup?
Answer. As a result of my prior positions at Interior, I am
generally aware of the ``reopener'' provisions of the settlement which
enable both the United States and the State of Alaska to obtain
additional recoveries from Exxon for the restoration of the natural
resources injured by the oil spill. I am not personally familiar with
the status of the reopener claims presented by the United States and
Alaska. If confirmed, I will work closely with our Solicitor's Office,
the Department of Justice and the State of Alaska to ensure that we
provide the support necessary to further these claims and that the
obligations of Exxon under the 1991 settlement are fully met.
Question 39. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering
listing dozens of Alaskan species under the Endangered Species Act,
such as walruses and seals, in addition to Beluga whales. The North
Slope Science Initiative (NSSI) was established in Alaska to produce
sound science upon which to base these important policy decisions but
funding for the NSSI has been very limited and is nonexistent in the FY
09 Omnibus budget. Will you support additional funding for the NSSI as
you build your detailed FY 10 budget submissions for release next
month?
Answer. We value the added scientific information that is made
available through the North Slope Science Initiative. I will evaluate
the funding opportunities for the NSSI as we develop our future
budgets.
Question 40. As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Alaska's
statehood, we are still waiting for the federal government to complete
the land conveyances promised to the State in 1959. Four years ago, I
sponsored the Alaska Statehood Lands Acceleration Act to complete the
conveyances within the next year. While enactment of that legislation
did improve the pace somewhat, approximately 35 million acres of land
must still be transferred. If confirmed, will you commit to providing
funding to help complete these land transfers?
Answer. We are eager to complete the conveyance of these lands to
the State and Native Corporations. I will commit to examine the funding
opportunities for the Alaska Conveyance program in the Bureau of Land
Management's budget.
Question 41. Included in the Committee's omnibus lands package now
pending before the House, and perhaps soon back before the Senate in a
vehicle other than S-22, is a land-exchange involving the Izembek
Wildlife Refuge. This legislation provides for a one-lane gravel road,
from Cold Bay to the King Cove airport, for medical emergency cases.
What is your position on this legislation? As a key Interior official,
will you support the package if the House passes it and sends it to the
President for his signature?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to review the numerous
provisions included in S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act.
Therefore, I am not in a position at this time to make specific
recommendations regarding whether or not the President should sign it
into law. In regard to the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge provision
specifically, I am cognizant of the safety concerns of the local
communities, as well as the environmental concerns voiced by a variety
of organizations. If confirmed, I will work in the Department of the
Interior to ensure that the Department complies with this provision if
it is signed into law.
Question 42. The BLM has done a good job in recent years in funding
the cleanup of abandoned oil wells in northern Alaska--wells developed
by the government in National Petroleum Reserve as part of its
government-led exploration efforts in the early 1980s. The FY 09 bill
includes $6 million in funding, for which we are very appreciative.
Unfortunately the estimates are that there is another $150 million of
cleanup work still needed from abandoned, federal, not private industry
drilled wells. Will you support this continued funding in the Interior
Department's budget?
Answer. I am aware that the remediation of the historic abandoned
oil wells in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska is an important
issue. If confirmed, I will work to support the BLM in its ongoing
efforts to evaluate and address these abandoned wells to protect public
health and safety and the environment.
Responses of David J. Hayes to Questions From Senator McCain
Question 43. As you know, 18 U.S.C. Section 207(c) sets forth,
``any person who is a officer or employee of the executive branch of
the Unites States (including an independent agency)...within 1 year
after termination of his or her service or employment as such officer
or employee'' may not knowingly make ``with the intent to influence,
any communication to or appearance before any officer or employee of
the department or agency in which such person served within 1 year
before such termination, on behalf of any other person (except the
united States), in connection with any matter on which such person
seeks official action by any officer or employee of such department or
agency...''
Attached are three lobbying disclosure reports* that were filed by
Latham & Watkins stating that you lobbied the Department of Interior
during the period of July 1, 2001, to December 31, 2001, in an apparent
violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 207(c). As I understand it, you left the
Department of Interior in January of 2001. Please explain
representations on behalf of clients Hearst Corporation Sunical Land &
Livestock Division and Sempra Energy in 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Reports have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. As I stated at the hearing, and as explained in a letter
that I provided to the Committee on March 9, 2008, I did not contact
any official at the Interior Department on behalf of a client within
one year of my service as Deputy Secretary of the Interior in the
Clinton Administration.
Confusion apparently has arisen because the Lobbying Disclosure Act
requires that Latham & Watkins file a single lobbying report for each
company for each reporting period. This single report must list all
covered entities that have been contacted by any Latham & Watkins
employee during the relevant period, and it also must identify all
individuals in the firm who have engaged in any lobbying contacts
during the period, even if an individual (such as me) had no lobbying
contacts with some of the entities listed on the report (such as the
Department of the Interior). It is because the Act requires that all
individuals and entities contacted be filed on a single report that my
name appears on reports that Latham & Watkins filed for two companies
in 2001, even though I did not contact any official at the Interior
Department on behalf of either company in 2001.
With regard to the lobbying contacts that I made during the one
year period after I left the Department of the Interior in January
2001, my lobbying contacts for the Hearst Corporation were limited to
briefings with Congressional delegations about the potential
conservation of Hearst Ranch property in San Simeon, California and,
for Sempra Energy, Congressional briefings regarding the potential
construction of an electric transmission line in southern California.
Question 44. In your letter to Melinda J. Loftin, Designated Agency
Ethics Official and Director for the U.S. Department of Interior, you
state ``[o]n December 31, 2008, I retired from my position as a partner
with the law firm of Latham & Watkins.'' Until December 31, 2006, it
appears you spent your entire career at Latham & Watkins serving as a
registered lobbyist for many of the firm's clients, according to the
Lobbying Disclosure Act Database.
Did you stop lobbying activities beginning January 1, 2007, as
shown by the Lobbying Disclosure Act Database? If so,why?
Answer. During the 2001 to 2008 period, I was practicing law and
was providing legal services to clients in a variety of matters,
typically including negotiations and/or litigation regarding existing
and/or potential legal disputes. I typically worked with teams of
lawyers on legal matters only. I had minimal lobbying contacts for very
few clients (only four, over the eight year period from 2001 through
2008). In each case, the lobbying contacts were incidental to legal
representations that the law firm was handling. The contacts
constituted a very small percentage of the work that I was engaged in
during the 2001 to 2006 period--and none during the 2007 and 2008
period.
With regard to the end of my lobbying contacts in 2006, I note that
by 2006, I was only involved in a single matter that involved lobbying
contacts. I was not the lead lawyer for the matter and had limited
involvement in it. (This was a transmission matter involving complex
rights-of-way that one of my partners was handling for San Diego Gas &
Electric.) I was removed from the lobbying reports at the end of 2006
because I was fully engaged in legal matters for other clients and was
no longer an active participant in the legal team working on the
project. Although Latham & Watkins dropped my name from the
registration in 2006, the law firm maintained its registration for the
matter, as required by the Lobbying Disclosure Act, so that the other
lawyers at Latham & Watkins who were actively working on the matter
could have the flexibility to provide briefings to Congress and
relevant federal agencies on the matter, if needed.
Question 45. If you were not lobbying on behalf of clients at
Latham & Watkins beginning January 1, 2007, could you please explain
what duties you performed at the firm from January 1, 2007, to December
31, 2008?
Answer. As explained above, during the 2001 to 2008 period, I was
practicing law and was providing legal services to clients in a variety
of matters, typically including negotiations and/or litigation
regarding existing and/or potential legal disputes. I typically worked
with teams of lawyers on legal matters only. I had minimal lobbying
contacts for very few clients; in each case, the lobbying contacts were
incidental to legal representations that the law firm was handling. My
involvement in those few matters for which I had lobbying contacts
ended by the end of 2006. In 2007 and 2008, I continued to handle legal
matters, including negotiations and litigation matters--just as I had
during my entire tenure at the law firm.
Question 46. From a review of the lobbying disclosure forms filed
by Latham & Watkins, it appears your firm continued to lobby the
Department of Interior, the Senate and the House on behalf of many of
the clients for whom you performed lobbying duties between 2001 and
2006. To what extent did you continue to be involved with these clients
between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2008?
Answer. The statement that lawyers at Latham & Watkins continued to
lobby the Department of the Interior, the Senate and the House on
behalf of many of the clients for whom I performed lobbying duties
between 2001 and 2006 is not correct. Three of the four clients for
whom I was a registered lobbyist prior to 2007 completed the projects
that were the subject of lobbying contacts before the end of 2006. More
specifically, the Hearst Corporation, Sempra Energy and MWD matters
were completed in 2003, 2004 and 2005, respectively, and lobbying
termination reports were filed in those years. The San Diego Gas &
Electric matter continued at the firm after 2006, but without my active
involvement, as explained above.
Question 47. As I understand it, while working at the Department of
Interior during the Clinton Administration, you served as the chief
negotiator for the Department of Interior during discussions between
water districts in California which included Metropolitan Water
District as a party. You then left the Department of Interior and
became a lobbyist for Metropolitan Water District. If confirmed, to
what extent will you be involved in further negotiations with
Metropolitan Water District or issues related to California water
resources?
Answer. As explained above, the nature and scope of my legal work
for MWD at Latham & Watkins was narrow and the subject matter of that
limited representation is not implicated in California water issues
that are currently before the U.S. Department of the Interior.
Question 48. You recently served as a Senior Fellow at the World
Wildlife Fund and according to its website, ``As senior fellow at WWF,
Hayes has been a key advisor on forestry issues, specifically on
reducing carbon emissions from deforestation, and has played an
integral role in developing WWF' s public policy strategy and has
testified before Congress on behalf of the organization.'' Did you
lobby Congress or the Department of the Interior during the past two
years on behalf of the World Wildlife Fund?
Answer. No, I did not lobby Congress or the Department of the
Interior during the past two years on behalf of the World Wildlife
Fund. I testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but
that testimony was not a lobbying contact, as noted in Section
3(8)(B)(vii) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act.
Question 49. At the same time you served as the chairman of the
Environmental Law Institute (ELI), you were representing clients of
Latham and Watkins as Global Chair of the Environment, Land & Resources
Department, some of whom were involved in energy development in Western
states. One such client was Sempra Energy which sought to build a
natural gas-fired power plant in southern California. That proposal was
met with stiff resistance from state and local authorities who would
have required Sempra to comply with strict air quality regulations.
Facing mounting opposition and environmental analyses, Sempra opted to
move its plant across the border to Mexico where environmental
standards are less strict. To what extent, if any, was your role in the
development of this project? Do you believe bypassing U.S.
environmental laws was an honorable action by Sempra? How were you able
to simultaneously reconcile the clear differences between the missions
of Sempra, a Western energy company, and ELI, an environmental justice
advocacy group?
Answer. I had no involvement in the development of a natural gas-
fired power plant in Mexico by Sempra Energy, and I have no knowledge
of the factors that Sempra Energy took into account in constructing the
plant.
Question 50. In 2005-2007, you represented Ford Motor Company in
their attempts to have the Borough of Ringwood, New Jersey, pay the
bill for the cleanup of Ford's industrial waste sludge--approximately
$17 million. At the time you publically stated that it was
``outrageous'' to suggest that the Mayor and Council of Ringwood were
unaware of Ford's disposal activities. Do you still believe the
Ringwood community possessed full knowledge of Ford's actions?
Answer. Ford has been engaged in a legal dispute with the Borough
of Ringwood regarding the cleanup of a historical disposal site that
was successively owned and operated by both Ford and the Borough of
Ringwood. EPA issued an Order that the Borough assist Ford in financing
on-going cleanup activities at the site based on EPA's conclusion that
the Borough shared liability for cleanup costs due to its prior
involvement in waste disposal activities on the site. The letter
referenced in your question pertained to the Borough's failure to
comply with the EPA Order against the Borough. The dispute has not
impacted on-going cleanup efforts at the site; Ford has been the sole
financier of investigative and cleanup costs that have been incurred in
the last several years.
Question 51. In April 2006, you wrote an article for the
Progressive Policy Institute that strongly condemned conservative
energy and land management policies. Specifically, you wrote that
conservatives believe ``the West's natural resources are inexhaustible,
exploiting them will produce a bonanza of dollars and jobs, and federal
bureaucrats with title to the land are the only thing blocking that
utopian vision from becoming reality.'' Do you stand by the article?
Can you pledge that your views of conservative policy will not prevent
you from working constructively with conservative members of Congress?
Answer. In the Progressive Policy Institute article, I criticized
the Bush administration for ``push[ing] the conservative agenda in the
West harder than many of its strongest supporters ever dreamed.'' I
suggested that the Bush administration was reinforcing outdated and
misinformed western stereotypes to promote a natural resources agenda
that lacked balance. I do not believe that most Americans--whatever
their political leanings--embrace natural resource policies that are
not balanced, or the stereotypes that such policies can appear to
reinforce. As discussed throughout the article, I favor pragmatic,
common sense and solution-oriented approaches to resolving natural
resources disputes and, if confirmed, I will work constructively with
Congress and individuals of all political persuasions to address our
natural resource challenges.
Question 52. We have seen increasing concerns regarding the quality
of the Colorado River water due to uranium tailings, nitrates, and
pharmaceuticals. These issues have been raised and prioritized by the
Colorado River Regional Sewer Coalition (CRRSCo). What role do you
anticipate the Department of Interior will play in addressing water
quality issues raised by CRRSCo?
Answer. First, let me assure the Committee that I believe the
overall water quality of the Colorado River is good. I understand the
concerns about water quality along the Colorado River system as demands
on the River continue to grow.
I believe the Department must continue to seek opportunities to
collaborate with the many and diverse stakeholders with interests in
the Colorado River. No one agency can hope to address all the concerns
involving the Colorado River by itself; however, we can work to ensure
that these groups are successful by bringing the right agencies
together to address specific issues.
It is my understanding that the Department has already worked with
the CRRSCo, exploring a possible method of reducing nitrates from
municipal wastewater discharges and has facilitated bringing the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) into the process of addressing
water quality issues. EPA's involvement with the CRRSCo is appropriate,
as that agency has the statutory authority and ability to play a more
operational and positive role in meeting the CRRSCo members' needs. I
see facilitation as an important role; one that the Department should
continue.
Question 53. In a March 2007 Bureau of Reclamation report entitled,
``Wastewater Treatment Needs Along the Lower Colorado River,'' the
Bureau concluded it would cost $2.1 billion over a 20-year timeframe to
address nitrate pollution issues in the Lower Colorado River Basin. If
confirmed, what measures will the Department of Interior propose to
assist these smaller communities, who cannot raise the funds alone? How
will you coordinate with other Federal agencies to address these
concerns?
Answer. I am aware of the referenced report and want to note that
it was a preliminary assessment. I understand and agree that funding
major wastewater treatment facilities can be an overwhelming burden for
local governments, especially smaller communities. I believe the
Department should always be sensitive to local needs and provide
funding and technical assistance within its statutory authorities and
budget capability.
To assist smaller communities with wastewater treatment issues, the
Department can facilitate communications with appropriate Federal and
State agencies that have the authorities and capabilities to meet these
needs.
Currently, it is outside the statutory scope of authority of the
Department and Reclamation to fund construction of municipal wastewater
treatment facilities, and I would not seek an expansion of authority in
this area. However, as a Federal agency with major operational
responsibilities on the Colorado River, I believe the appropriate role
is to be involved and provide leadership in coordinating with states,
Indian tribes, and local communities to bring the right players to the
table to resolve issues.
Question 54. Quagga mussels have become a serious threat to the
Lower Colorado River Basin, its lakes and tributaries. What is the
Department's plan for abating the onslaught of quaggas?
Answer. Aquatic nuisance species can have a significant negative
ecological and economic impact. If confirmed, I will engage all the
relevant Department of the Interior bureaus to strategically plan and
implement invasive species prevention and control activities related to
quagga mussels.
Question 55. Five years ago, Congress authorized a boundary
expansion of the Petrified Forest National Monument (P.L. 108-430) by
means of acquiring both private and State-owned lands through purchase,
donation, or exchange. How do you propose to manage the process that
identifies state properties for acquisition by the National Park
Service? How about for private properties identified for acquisition?
Answer. I am aware that the acquisition of private and public
property as part of this legislation is ongoing. The property in
question is a checkerboard of federal, State and private lands. The
identified private landowners have indicated their willingness to sell
their property. Negotiations to purchase or trade federal lands to
fulfill the terms of this legislation are near completion. If
confirmed, I will direct staff to continue to work with our State of
Arizona partners to review this situation and arrive at a resolution
that will satisfy all parties.
Question 56. I believe the responsible use of nuclear energy will
play a pivotal role in addressing global climate change. About 90% of
the uranium used in our nation's 120 operating nuclear power plants is
imported from foreign countries. As demand for nuclear energy increases
both in the U.S. and overseas, we will need to increase the development
of our vast, untapped domestic uranium supplies. Do you believe uranium
can be mined and reclaimed in an environmentally sound way using
current technology?
Answer. President Obama has stated that it is unlikely that we can
meet our aggressive climate change goals unless we continue to utilize
nuclear power. I am aware that uranium mining, vital to nuclear power,
must comply with current surface management regulations, environmental
laws, and Federal and state permitting requirements. Additionally,
operators must submit a bond that covers the full cost of reclamation
before any ground disturbing activity occurs. If confirmed, I will work
to ensure that uranium mining on the public lands is done in an
environmentally sound manner.
Question 57. Can you assure the Committee that the Department will
provide the necessary resources, within existing rules and guidelines,
to complete the required environmental studies that are needed to
assess the full impact of uranium mining in areas that are
environmentally sensitive and culturally significant?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed I will ensure that we budget adequately
for the environmental studies that are necessary to assess the full
impact of uranium mining on Federal lands and on natural and cultural
resources.
Question 58. There are several pending Indian water settlements in
the West, as you likely know. For those settlements that Congress
authorizes, how will you ensure there are sufficient resources to
implement those settlements?
Answer. During my past service to the Department of the Interior, I
was responsible for the Department's Indian Water Rights Settlement
initiative and these settlements are of personal interest to me. I am
familiar with the funding challenges that new settlements face, having
faced the same challenges with the settlements achieved under my watch.
An unprecedented number of Indian water rights settlements are
approaching finalization and many are already making their way through
Congress. There is a real need for the Federal government to identify
reliable and appropriate funding sources for these settlements. If
confirmed, I will work with Congress and with the Office of Management
and Budget to analyze potential funding sources and identify
appropriate mechanisms for funding. Part of this analysis may involve
consideration of whether other Federal agencies besides Interior with
mandates that overlap the policy goals achieved through these water
rights settlements could appropriately fund parts of settlements. On a
case-by-case basis, I will also work with groups actively negotiating
settlements to identify potential funding sources unique to individual
settlements and to ensure that all reasonable cost sharing
opportunities are fully explored.
Responses of David J. Hayes to Questions From Senator Wyden
Question 59. The 2007 energy bill included a definition of
renewable biomass that excluded all biomass from Federal lands. I
recently introduced a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to modify the
definition of the term ``renewable biomass'' contained in the Federal
Renewable Fuel Standard so that biomass from National Forests and
Bureau of Land Management forests is eligible as a fuel source under
this standard (S. 536). This definition includes protections for
sensitive lands and requirements that projects be sustainable. I intend
to work to ensure that this definition also gets incorporated into the
Renewable Electricity Standard and other future pieces of legislation.
Will you work with me to ensure that Federal lands aren't off limits as
a source of biofuels?
Answer. Development of renewable energy sources, including the use
of biomass is an issue that is important to President Obama and
Secretary Salazar. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that appropriate
federal lands are available as sources of biofuels.
Question 60. The recently passed stimulus includes funding for
hazardous fuels reduction work, which has an incredible backlog. Will
you work with the Senate Energy Committee and the Chief of the Forest
Service to move aggressively to advance hazardous fuels reduction
projects--particularly in areas where the danger to forests and
communities is the greatest and where BLM and National Forest lands are
intermixed and require an extra measure of coordination? And will you
commit to helping identify opportunities to develop uses for woody
biomass that would result from these fuel reduction activities and
could provide a source of revenue to finance them?
Answer. As I noted in my response to the previous question,
development of renewable energy sources like biomass is an important
issue and, if confirmed, I will ensure that the Department is working
with all stakeholders in reducing hazardous fuels in a coordinated
fashion and developing opportunities to use biomass from these
projects.
Question 61. I have been deeply troubled by the ethical problems at
the Interior Department. Whether it's Jack Abramoff, or Steve Griles or
Julie MacDonald, the news from the Interior Department shows example
after example of an agency where private and political interest was
placed above the public interest. One Inspector General report
initiated at my request found that a former deputy assistant secretary
inappropriately influenced two-thirds of the endangered species
decisions that were investigated. As Deputy Secretary, what will you do
to 1) make sure that the tainted decisions are fixed, 2) ensure that
that these types of improper actions highlighted in the Inspector
General's findings no longer take place at Interior employees and 3)
build on Secretary Salazar's efforts to reform and clean up the Agency
so that this never happens again?
Answer. Secretary Salazar has made it clear that he will not
tolerate the kind of actions that were highlighted in the Inspector
General's report, and neither will I if confirmed as Deputy Secretary.
I am also in firm agreement with the Secretary in stressing the
importance of scientific integrity in our decisionmaking.
Question 62. Senator Salazar made a commitment to get back to us
with a timetable as to how and when the Department will correct the
tainted decisions identified in the Inspector General's Report on
endangered species decisions. Can you give us an indication of when we
will be able to get that from the Interior Department?
Answer. This issue is a high priority. I understand that these
decisions are being reviewed as the Secretary gets his team in place
and that he has said he will provide information on those matters at
that time.
Question 63. While these decisions are being revised, they are
being used as a basis for a host of projects and land management
decisions that are moving forward. How will you ensure those decisions
and projects also receive review and that no improper harm comes to a
species or its habitat while the tainted decisions are being reviewed?
Answer. Review of these projects, as well as the decisions that
allowed them to go forward, will occur as the Department's fish and
wildlife and legal teams are put into place. I know that the Secretary
is working deliberately in this regard.
Question 64. Will you remove or reassign career staff who have been
named by the Inspector General or Government Accountability Office as
having improperly influenced species decisions?
Answer. These are personnel matters and decisions that will be made
in accordance with appropriate guidelines and requirements relating to
the career civil service. The Secretary is on record, however, as
noting that any necessary and appropriate steps to redress improper
decision-making regarding endangered species determinations will be
taken.
Question 65. At the end of the last Congress, Sen. Barrasso and I
introduced legislation to begin to reform the Minerals Management
Service, by making the Director a Presidential appointee and Senate
confirmed. It is the only major agency within Interior that doesn't
have Senate confirmed director or statutory framework governing its
responsibilities. We also required the Secretary to implement all of
the outstanding Inspector General's recommendations. Once you get in, I
would like to work with you to drain the swamp and create some basic
level of accountability and checks and balances. You could install a
new Director, in the interim, to begin the process, but I would still
like to make some of these changes statutory. Will you work with me to
help make these changes permanent?
Answer. This is an important issue. As you know, Secretary Salazar
recently launched an ethics reform initiative that is intended to
reexamine the potential criminal conduct that the Inspector General
wrote about, to look at restructuring the agency's oil and as royalty
program, and to thoroughly review the Department's ethics regulations
and policies. He has also met with Minerals Management Service
employees in Colorado
Question 66. Several basins in Oregon are going through major
efforts to improve habitat, stream flows and provide adequate water
supplies--the Klamath, Deschutes, Umatilla among others. These projects
cut across agency departments. I want to work with you to establish a
process that we can use to work through these issues on a basin by
basin basis with your Department. Can I get your thoughts on how we
might do that?
Answer. I am happy to work with you to develop efficient and
effective cross-departmental approaches to basin-specific projects.
Question 67. The Deschutes Basin recently reintroduced endangered
salmon and the communities, the Tribes, irrigators and Portland General
Electric are all making great strides, with the Bureau of Reclamation
and Fish and Wildlife support, to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan.
Will you support your Department's continued involvement in these
efforts?
Answer. I know that Secretary Salazar supports these ongoing
efforts, and if confirmed I will support them, as well.
Question 68. I have a bill to expand the Oregon Caves National
Monument boundary by 4,084 acres to include the entire Cave Creek
Watershed, the management of which would be transferred from the United
States Forest Service to the National Park Service. Last year at a
hearing on this bill, the Park Service gave testimony that contradicted
their long held position supporting expansion of the Monument
boundary--a position held since the 1930's and articulated in the
Monument's 1998 General Management Plan. I believe this was politically
motivated. Can I get your commitment to look with fresh eyes at this
legislation, which I will again be seeking to move this year?
Answer. Yes, If confirmed, you have my commitment that I will
review this legislation with fresh eyes.
Question 69. There are a number of Tribes in my home state that
face a number of challenges and are also involved in a whole host of
projects involving the Department of Interior. As you know, this Bureau
too has faced a number of criticisms of mismanagement and lack of
responsiveness to needs within the Tribal community. In President
Obama's announcement of Secretary Salazar's nomination, he acknowledged
that among the many responsibilities is to help ensure that we live up
to our treaty obligations and honor a nation-to-nation relationship
with tribes. People often think the Bureau of Indian Affairs' has the
only direct federal relationship with tribal governments. However, many
tribes in Oregon and across the West have treaty reserved rights that
extend beyond their reservations and are likely to be impacted by the
other programs within Interior, such as management of parks and refuges
and Bureau of Land Management lands and where activities might involve
grazing, logging, irrigation, and mining. How will you go about
ensuring that the federal relationship extends across all agencies and
services in Interior and not just the BIA?
Answer. Secretary Salazar has been clear in the importance of and
his commitment to the consultation process with tribes by all Interior
bureaus and agencies--not just the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If
confirmed, I will work with Secretary Salazar to ensure that all
corners of the Department are engaging in government-to-government
relationships with the tribes.
Question 70. How do you propose cleaning up the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and creating trust once again between the Tribes and the
Federal Government, especially following major legal challenges such as
the Cobell v. Kempthorne lawsuit, that alleges mismanagement of the
Government's trust obligation?
Answer. As I noted at my confirmation hearing, our trust obligation
is a challenge that I accept without hesitation. If confirmed, I will
make certain that lines of communication are open and the sovereignty
of tribes and their rights to self-determination and self-governance
are fully recognized.
Question 71. The Interior Department's compensable trust obligation
to manage Indian lands is certainly equal to that owed by the US for
the management of Forest Service or BLM public lands. And even while
funding for managing those lands has been very woefully inadequate, BIA
funding for managing these natural resources is just a fraction of that
spent by other federal agencies. Shouldn't Indian trust resources
receive the same level of support accorded similar public lands?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department looks at
the funding levels for the management of Indian lands as we develop our
budget requests for the coming years.
Question 72. A number of our Tribes are actively involved in
alternative energy development. Do you have a vision to provide
opportunities for Tribes to create alternative energy?
Answer. I support efforts to increase economic development
opportunities in Indian country through the development of alternative
energy sources. As part of our plan to increase alternative energy
resources for America, I expect the next Assistant Secretary for Indian
Affairs to focus on this challenge.
Question 73. The continuing uncertainty regarding unquantified
Tribal water rights encumbers Tribal economic development and, in many
cases, especially among treaty tribes in the Pacific Northwest,
prevents the exercise of treaty-reserved fishing rights. Unquantified
Tribal water rights also cloud non-Indian water rights and development
in affected basins--and can be the source of conflict between Tribes
and their surrounding communities. What are your plans as Secretary of
the Interior to prioritize the settlement of Tribal water rights?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to looking at the Department's
criteria and the overall process for settlement of Indian water rights.
Question 74. A federal agency (non-Interior) began construction of
a large-scale public works project on the Oregon side of the Columbia
River without consulting with the tribes holding treaty fishing and
access rights in the affected area. The resulting work stoppage could
cost American taxpayers millions of dollars. Will the Department of
Interior work with the White House to set the standards for adequacy
and best practices in consultation with Indian Country?
Answer. As I noted above, consultation is an important aspect of
our relationship with federal tribes. I expect the Department to be a
leader in ensuring that Federal agencies engage in consultation with
affected tribes in connection with projects that impact these rights
and interests.
Question 75. Two blue ribbon independent assessments over the past
16 years have found BIA per acre Forestry funding to be only about \1/
3\that of the U.S. Forest Service. (FY 1991 BIA per acre: $4.14, USFS
per acre: $11.69. See An Assessment of Indian Forests and Forest
Management in the United States, IFMAT 1 Report, November 1993, Table
11, page V4. FY 2005 BIA per acre: $2.83, USFS per acre: $9.51. See
IFMAT 2 Report, December 2003, Table 2, page 9.) Funding for ESA
activities on Indian trust lands is only a quarter of that for BLM. (FY
2008 BIA ESA: $1.228 million divided by 56 million trust acres =
$00.02.19 (or 2.2 cents) per acre. FY 2008 BLM ESA: $22.3 million
divided by BLM's 258 million acres = $00.08.6 (or 8.6 cents per acre).
What will you do to ensure more parity in funding for Tribal lands?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department looks at
the funding levels for the management of Indian lands as we develop
budget requests for the coming years.
Question 76. The Umatilla Tribe's Umatilla River Basin settlement
happens to have significant workforce employment, small business and
on-farm economic and regional economic stimulus attributes.
Importantly, this economic stimulus opportunity is in rural northeast
Oregon. Literally hundreds of farms can be rescued and new agriculture
on the Umatilla Indian Reservation can be developed. Will you advocate
for and is the Administration planning to include Indian water rights
settlement projects as part of actions nationwide?
Answer. As I stated above, if confirmed I will commit to looking at
the Department's criteria and the overall process for settlement of
Indian water rights.
Question 77. In the Umatilla Basin, the State, irrigators and the
Confederated Tribe of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have worked hard
and support the Department of Interior's two related and continuing
studies: Indian Water Rights Assessment study (due mid-2009) and
Reclamation's water supply study (also due mid-2009). Can you commit to
ushering these studies forward and using them as the basis to construct
a comprehensive project to meet water needs in the basin?
Answer. I can commit to examining this issue and working to ensure
the completion of these studies in a timely manner. I would want to
examine them and understand the financial implications before I commit
to the construction of a comprehensive project.
Question 78. What are your views on funding for habitat
conservation plans under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act?
Currently, mitigation funding as well as funding to maintain habitats
are woefully absent. Will you provide leadership to better balance
funding for mitigation and maintenance to off-set the impacts of
development in listed species critical habitats?
Answer. I am committed to finding ways to make the Endangered
Species Act work for landowners affected by the requirements of the
Act. If confirmed, I will work with Secretary Salazar and the
Department's staff on this important issue.
Question 79. S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009
includes a provision extending the Department's authority to enter into
cost-shared programs to protect endangered salmon and other species in
the Northwest. This program funds fish screens, diversions, and other
measures that prevent these endangered fish from being inadvertently
diverted into irrigation systems and has been extremely cost effective.
The new bill would extend the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation
Mitigation Act (FRIMA) until the year 2015. If confirmed, would you
commit to fund the FRIMA program?
Answer. While I cannot make funding commitments, as funding
Interior programs is decided through the Administration's budget
process, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, I
can commit to look at the issue of funding for the FRIMA program,
should I be confirmed.
Responses of David J. Hayes to Questions From Senator Bennett
Question 80. Mr. Hayes, I remain interested in knowing more about
the December 2008 Utah Oil and Gas leasing situation and would like
your office to provide the following information.
Please provide the Committee with a list of each of the original
parcels nominated along with who nominated each parcel to be considered
by the BLM for lease for the fall 2008 lease sale. If you can't provide
individual names, or company names please tell us if the lease request
came from a company, individual known to work in the oil or gas
industry, or from an individual who is not known to work in the oil or
gas industry.
Answer. I understand that after an oil and gas lease sale, the BLM
will make information available about the parcels sold and successful
bidders. However, the BLM does not release information regarding
original expressions of interest for parcels to be included in an oil
and gas lease sale unless and until those parcels are actually offered
at an auction and then only upon request. This is considered to be
proprietary information. Releasing this information could expose the
nominating party's exploration and development strategies to their
competitors and affect the integrity of the auction process and the
value of bid received. In this instance, all of the nominating entities
were either known industry representatives or individuals who work with
industry. The BLM advises me that it has not received requests for
leasing from individuals not known to work in the oil and gas industry.
If confirmed, I will ensure that the BLM provides you with a copy of
the appropriate information related to this lease sale.
Question 81. Please provide the Committee with a detailed
administrative record to show the process BLM used to add parcels to
the list for the sale.
Answer. I am advised that the BLM compiles an Administrative Record
for each of its oil and gas lease sales. If confirmed, I will ensure
that the BLM transmits to you a copy of the appropriate records for the
December 19, 2008, Utah oil and gas lease sale.
Question 82. Please provide detailed justifications for withdrawing
each of the 77 parcels.
Answer. As you know, Secretary Salazar has expressed his goal of
ensuring that oil and gas resources are developed in a thoughtful and
balanced way that complies with all legal requirements. The 77 leases
in questions were the subject of a court challenge that led to the
entry of a restraining order by a federal district court judge. The
court concluded that it did not appear that all legally-required
environmental analysis had been completed for the leases, and that
irreparable harm could occur if the sale of those particular leases
were to go forward. The 77 leases that Secretary Salazar withdrew from
the sale were the same 77 leases that the court enjoined from sale on
this basis. Secretary Salazar removed the leases from the sale to
provide an opportunity to review the legal adequacy of the sale. He has
committed to undertake that review and, if confirmed, i will work with
you as that review proceeds. I understand that, upon completion of this
review, it is possible that some of these parcels may be offered in
future lease sales.
Question 83a. Mike Snyder, National Park Service Regional Director
for the Intermountain Region said regarding NPS' work with the BLM on
this lease sale that working with Selma Sierra, the BLM Utah State
Director, has resulted in the kind of resource protection that
Americans want and deserve for their national parks.'' A BLM press
release from November 25, 2008 indicated that the BLM had agreed to
defer all parcels of concern to the Park Service from the sale.
Was the BLM required by federal law to coordinate with the National
Park Service regarding this lease sale?
Answer. I am advised that while the BLM is not required by law to
coordinate with other agencies regarding lease sales, as a regular part
of the agency's collaborative process the BLM coordinates its review of
parcels in advance with other land managing agencies that could be
impacted by a lease sale. In this case, I am told that the BLM
coordinated with the National Park Service on the through the
preparation of a Natural Resources Management plan, but not the lease
sale itself
Question 83b. Please provide details of all communications and
copies of all correspondence between the Bureau of Land Management and
the Department with the National Park Service regarding this lease
sale.
Answer. I am advised that the BLM compiles an Administrative Record
for each of its oil and gas lease sales, which would include
correspondence with the National Park Service. If confirmed, I will
ensure the BLM transmits to you a copy of the appropriate records for
the December 19, 2008, Utah oil and gas lease sale.
Question 84. In Secretary Salazar's February 6, 2009 memo to State
Director Selma Sierra, he directed the 77 leases be withdrawn and any
money received by the BLM in connection with the leases to be refunded.
In his press statements, (and in your remarks before the committee) the
Secretary indicated that a review would be initiated to reexamine these
leases.
Please provide the Committee with a detailed plan for that review,
including who will undertake the review, who within the BLM, MMS, NPS,
or other agencies within the Department will participate in the review,
who will lead the review, and deadlines for accomplishing the review.
Answer. As noted in my response to question 82, Secretary Salazar
has expressed his goal of ensuring that oil and gas resources are
developed in a thoughtful and balanced way that allows for protection
of signature landscapes and cultural resources. In withdrawing the 77
leases from the Utah sale, Secretary Salazar announced that he was
doing so in order to take a fresh look at the environmental review and
analysis performed on these parcels, and to ensure that there was
adequate consultation with other agencies.
Due to ongoing litigation surrounding this lease sale, I understand
that the BLM has not yet begun this review and is currently working
with the Solicitor's Office on how best to proceed. If confirmed, I
commit to keeping you fully informed as this situation evolves.
Question 85. Additionally, is it the BLM or Secretary's intention
to include any public hearings or meetings in relation to this review,
and if so, how many and where they will be held?
Answer. Due to the ongoing litigation surrounding this lease sale,
I understand that the BLM has not yet begun this review and is
currently working with the Solicitor's Office on how best to proceed.
If confirmed, I commit to keeping you fully informed as this situation
evolves.
Question 86. As soon as that review is completed I would like your
office to send a copy of that review, its recommendations, and the
Secretary's decisions on these leases to the Committee.
Answer. As I noted in my response to the previous answer, due to
the ongoing litigation surrounding this lease sale, I understand that
the BLM has not yet begun this review and is currently working with the
Solicitor's Office on how best to proceed. If confirmed, I commit to
keeping you fully informed as this situation evolves.
Question 87. Does the BLM intend to make changes to its policies
and procedures regarding who is eligible to bid on leases to prevent
the type of bidding manipulation that occurred in the December lease
sale from happening again? If so, what and when?
Answer. I am aware that the BLM is in the process of evaluating
policy and procedural options for the management of oil and gas lease
auctions. If confirmed, I will work with the BLM to continue to look
for ways to improve the lease sale process and to ensure that no
manipulation of lease sales can occur.
Question 88. Please provide for each of the 77 parcels the earliest
date upon which the parcel originally became available for leasing. In
other words, when did the BLM first decide in a planning document
(prior to the RMPs that were approved last year) that each parcel was
open for oil and gas development and could therefore be nominated for
leasing?
Answer. It is my understanding that each of the 77 parcels was
available for leasing under the planning documents that pre-dated the
2008 revised Resource Management Plans (RMPs). These included the
Diamond Mountain RMP (1994), Book Cliffs RMP (1985), Price River
Management Framework Plan (1982), San Rafael RMP (1991) and the Grand
RMP (1985).
Question 89. Please provide the committee with estimates of oil and
gas resources within the 77 parcels.
Answer. It is my understanding that accurate estimates of oil and
gas resources that may be present beneath the 77 parcels cannot be
determined or quantified due to the largely exploratory nature of those
resources. It is also my understanding that the associated Resource
Management Plans and Mineral Reports suggest that the majority of the
parcels have high potential for oil and gas occurrence, and the
northernmost parcel in the Vernal planning area is considered to have
moderate to low potential (source: Inventory of Onshore Federal Oil and
Natural Resources and Restrictions to Their Development, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Department of Aariculture, and Department
of Energy, May 2008)
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
The Humane Society,
Washington, DC, March 17, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman: On behalf of the 11 million supporters of
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and its international
arm, Humane Society International (HSI), I write to urge the
confirmation of David Hayes as Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
Mr. Hayes is a highly qualified candidate who has devoted much of
his life, professionally and personally, to maintaining and enhancing
environmental quality. As you know, he has already served this nation
ably as Deputy Secretary of the Interior under Bruce Babbitt. Moreover,
through his actions as a private attorney he has consistently
represented and supported the public interest through legal advocacy on
behalf of wildlife and the environment. As Chairman of the
Environmental Law Institute, and at Hogan and Hartson, and at Latham
and Watkins, Mr. Hayes has shown unique dedication to promoting and
enhancing public interest pro bono work. He has represented a diversity
of parties on natural resource issues, and we have found him to be a
moderate, thoughtful leader who works hard to find common ground in an
area that is often hampered by a lack of meaningful discourse and
cooperation among the various stakeholders. It is our conviction that
such background and experience will serve him well in supporting the
Obama Administration's and Secretary Salazar's efforts to ensure that
the Department of the Interior can meet the myriad challenges it will
face in the years ahead.
Our organization has a tremendous interest in the activities of the
agency, including its work on the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Wild Horse and
Burro Program, and its efforts on such topics as non-lethal predator
control, the exotic pet trade, the importation of sport-hunted trophies
of protected species, wildlife penning, and hunting in National Parks
and National Wildlife Refuges.
From our perspective as the nation's largest animal protection
organization, and our work here and abroad, the Department of Interior
is a crucial policy-making agency. We at HSUS/HSI look forward to
working with you and your colleagues, with Secretary Salazar, with
Deputy Secretary Hayes, and with others within the Department of the
Interior, to ensure meaningful animal protection in all of the arenas
where its jurisdiction applies.
Sincerely,
Wayne Pacelle,
President & CEO.
______
World Wildlife Fund,
Washington, DC, March 11, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chair, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate
Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen
Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman and Senator Murkowski: I am writing to
express the strong support of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) for the
appointment of David Hayes as Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
Since August 1, 2007 until his nomination, Mr. Hayes served as
Senior Fellow at WWF. As Senior Fellow, Mr. Hayes has been a key
advisor on forestry issues, specifically on reducing carbon emissions
from deforestation, and has played an integral role in developing WWF's
public policy strategy and has testified before Congress on behalf of
the organization on those issues. He is a superb strategist on
conservation issues and brings a practical approach to solving
environmental challenges.
Mr. Hayes previously served as the Deputy' Secretary of the
Interior under then-Secretary and current WWF Chairman Bruce Babbitt.
With the nomination of Mr. Hayes for Deputy Secretary. President Obama
and Secretary Salazar have again demonstrated their commitment to sound
science and experienced leadership within the highest levels of the
administration.
Mr. Hayes brings many years of experience and extraordinary talent
to the number two post in the Interior Department, While we will miss
Mr. Hayes here at WWF, we are proud that he is answering the call to
serve and were extremely gratified that the enormously consequential
policies of the Department of the Interior will be entrusted to him and
Secretary Salazar.
We look forward to the Committee's expeditious and unanimous
approval of his appointment, and his unanimous confirmation by the U.S.
Senate.
Most sincerely,
Carter S. Roberts,
President and CEO.
______
The Nature Conservancy,
Government Relations,
Arlington, VA, March 11, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman and Senator Murkowski: On behalf of The
Nature Conservancy's one-million members, it is with great pleasure
that I write to you and urge your support in the confirmation of David
Hayes as Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior.
Mr. Hayes has had an illustrious career in government, law, and
environmental conservation. His breadth of experience in the public and
private sector provides him with a unique perspective that is so
necessary to the Department's mission. Mr. Hayes has played a leading
role in some of the Department's most important work, including the
Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration project, conservation of some of our
most threatened lands, endangered species protection, and energy
development. He has extensive experience with climate change and has
supported several conservation organizations through his service on
various Boards (American Rivers, and the Environmental Law Institute).
The Nature Conservancy is pleased that someone with Mr. Hayes range
of experience in water, public lands, and conservation has been
nominated for this crucial assignment. The Nature Conservancy strongly
urges you to support Senator Salazar's nomination.
Sincerely,
Robert Bendick,
Director.