[Senate Hearing 111-23]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-23
PONEMAN, SANDALOW, SUH, AND
CONNOR NOMINATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF DANIEL B. PONEMAN, TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF
ENERGY, THE NOMINATION OF DAVID B. SANDALOW, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF ENERGY (INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND DOMESTIC POLICY), THE NOMINATION
OF RHEA S. SUH, TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AND THE
NOMINATION OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR, TO BE COMMISSIONER OF RECLAMATION
__________
MAY 5, 2009
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-779 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 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
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 1
Connor, Michael, Nominee to be Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior........................ 13
Lugar, Richard, U.S. Senator From Indiana........................ 2
Poneman, Daniel B., Nominee to be Deputy Secretary, Department of
Energy......................................................... 6
Sandalow, David B., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary for
International Affairs and Domestic Policy, Department of Energy 9
Suh, Rhea S., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management and Budget, Department of the Interior.............. 11
Warner, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Virginia.................... 4
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 25
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 41
PONEMAN, SANDALOW, SUH, AND
CONNOR NOMINATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.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. Why do we not go ahead and get started?
The committee meets this morning to consider four
nominations for offices in the Department of Energy and the
Department of the Interior. The four nominees are: Daniel B.
Poneman, who is to be Deputy Secretary of Energy; David B.
Sandalow, to be the Assistant Secretary of Energy for
International Affairs and Domestic Policy; Rhea S. Suh, to be
the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Policy, Management
and Budget; and Michael L. Connor, to be the Commissioner of
Reclamation at the Department of the Interior.
The President has nominated four highly qualified people
for these important offices.
For the past 8 years, Mr. Poneman has been a principal in
The Scowcroft Group. Before that, he served as Director of
Defense Policy and Arms Control at the National Security
Council under the first President Bush and as a Special
Assistant to the President and Senior Director of
Nonproliferation and Export Control at the NSC under President
Clinton.
Mr. Sandalow is a Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies
at the Brookings Institution. During the Clinton
administration, he served in senior offices in both the
National Security Council and the Council on Environmental
Quality before being appointed Assistant Secretary for Oceans,
Environment and Science in the State Department.
Both Mr. Poneman and Mr. Sandalow will bring to the
Department of Energy valuable knowledge and experience in
national security and international affairs.
Ms. Suh was a Senior Legislative Assistant for Senator Ben
Nighthorse Campbell and later a consultant for the National
Park Service. For the past 10 years, she has been a program
officer for, first, the Hewlett Foundation and then the Packard
Foundation.
Mike Connor is well known to this committee. For the past 8
years, he has been counsel to our committee. He has advised me
on water issues, as well as on Indian land and energy issues.
He was instrumental in drafting and negotiating the Navajo
Nation water settlement that was enacted as part of our Omnibus
Public Lands Act earlier this year. He has been a major asset
to me and to all members of this committee and will be greatly
missed.
So all four of the nominees are extremely well qualified
for the positions they have been nominated. We are glad to have
them before the committee this morning.
Let me call on Senator Murkowski for any statement she has
and then I will recognize our colleague, Senator Lugar, who
wishes to make an introduction to us.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, no comments this morning
other than a welcome and a good morning to the nominees, and I
look forward to hearing their statements. Again, we recognize
that the responsibilities, the duties both between the
Department of the Interior and Department of Energy are very
key. Sometimes this confirmation process seems a little slow
and tedious, but it seems like things are stepping up. Again, I
look forward to the comments from those who will be before us
this morning.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Lugar, we are glad to see you this morning and
welcome you to the Energy Committee and look forward to any
comments you have.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD LUGAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM INDIANA
Senator Lugar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski,
for welcoming me to introduce David Sandalow, to be Assistant
Secretary of Energy for Policy and International Affairs. I
congratulate you and Senator Murkowski on thoughtful leadership
of this committee while our Nation seeks to forge a secure and
sustainable energy future.
I believe that energy policy reform, in particular,
eliminating our over-dependence on oil, is critical to
bolstering our Nation's security, economy, and foreign policy.
That is why I am especially pleased to recommend David to this
distinguished committee and to our Senate colleagues and to
urge that he be confirmed quickly.
David's many years of public service include high-level
positions in the State Department, the National Security
Council, and most recently he has been a Senior Fellow at the
Brookings Institution. Over this time, David has demonstrated a
keen understanding of the strategic importance of United States
energy policy. Longstanding instability in the Middle East,
OPEC supply manipulations since the 1970s, the empowerment of
anti-Americanism from Caracas to Tehran, entrenchment of
corrupt and authoritarian regimes, and outright conflict in
places like the Niger Delta are all fueled by hundreds of
billions of dollars that Americans spend to import oil.
David brings innovative thinking to this complex problem.
He has a proven ability to look over the horizon to formulate
policy solutions that both meet current challenges and avert
future crises. He understands that enhancing our energy
security can go hand in hand with combatting the threats of
climate change, but that balancing these priorities requires
very difficult choices. Many of his ideas on the topic are laid
out in his excellent book, ``Freedom from Oil'', for which
David spent time researching, I must point out, in Reynolds,
Indiana, otherwise known as ``biotown.'' I recommend the book--
I think it is a remarkable document--to colleagues, even if I
had not contributed to it with a foreword.
I note the position for which David is being considered as
Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs. For
this, David has sound record of diplomatic experience, having
served as an Assistant Secretary of State and on the National
Security Council. He understands that domestic efforts to
reduce oil dependence and improve our energy portfolio will
have maximum effect if they are complemented by vigorous energy
diplomacy abroad. As Assistant Secretary of Energy, David would
play a critical role in meeting international energy
challenges. We must find new ways of deepening cooperation on
renewables, efficiency, and emergency response with other major
consuming nations such as India and China. We must encourage
countries holding major oil and gas reserves to make investment
and supply decisions based on economics, not politics. We must
find new ways to help poor nations provide the low energy cost
that they need for sustained economic growth and to minimize
the poor governance of oil revenues that have left too many
oil-producing countries mired in poverty.
Under my chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee
and then under Chairmen Biden and Kerry, we have been working
to ensure that our foreign policy fully reflects the challenge
of global energy security. As Assistant Secretary of Energy,
David would be tasked to oversee the other side of that
equation to ensure our international energy activities support
our foreign policy. With his range of executive branch
experience, David would be well positioned to leverage the
talent of energy, foreign policy, economic and climate
professionals across the Government.
The energy security problem David would face as Assistant
Secretary of Policy and International Affairs--these questions
are hardly new. We as a Nation have put off dealing with them
for many years. Today, for the sake of our national security,
our economy, our environment, we must find and implement
solutions.
I am confident that David Sandalow would be an exemplary
addition to the Department of Energy and to the Obama
administration. I am honored to introduce him to this
committee. I thank you, Chairman Bingaman and Senator
Murkowski, for having me here today.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your strong
endorsement of David Sandalow. We appreciate it, particularly
coming from you with your vast experience on international
issues, which will be a major focus of Mr. Sandalow's
activities in the Department. Thank you very much.
We can excuse you at this point unless any member has a
question, which I do not see anybody anxious to ask a question.
Thank you for coming.
Let me also recognize Senator Warner who is here to
introduce to the committee, David Poneman, to be the Deputy
Secretary of Energy. We are very glad to have you here and are
anxious to hear your views.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK WARNER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Murkowski and members of the committee. I am delighted to be
here to introduce my good friend, Dan Poneman.
I have to indicate in the effort of full disclosure that I
am not only here to recommend Dan professionally, but I can
also recommend him personally. His kids and my kids went to
elementary school together, and we have spent some time on
hikes in the woods. There was a little camp that our kids would
go to together, and we sometimes had to go with them as a
parent to accompany them. So we have seen each other in less
than formal circumstances, and I can assure you that not only
will Dan bring great professional credentials to this very
important position, but also great personal characteristics as
well.
Dan has served in the Clinton administration on the
National Security Council. He has served as well under
President Bush, George H.W. Bush, as well as, I mentioned,
President Clinton. He spent a year at the Department of Energy
as a White House fellow. He has practiced law. He has been a
principal with Brent Scowcroft in The Scowcroft Group and has
served on a number of Federal commissions and advisory panels
and co-authored books on nuclear energy, including Going
Critical, the first North Korean nuclear crisis, which received
the 2005 Douglas Dillon Award for distinguished writing on
American diplomacy.
As I mentioned at the outset, I think Dan will be a great
addition to the administration. He will be a great addition as
an Assistant Secretary. I am proud to support him and, as a
fellow Virginian, recommend him wholeheartedly to the committee
for its consideration.
The Chairman. Thank you very much and thanks for taking the
time to be here and heartily endorsing his nomination.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. We will excuse you.
Let me at this point call all four nominees to the witness
table. If they would please come up and just remain standing at
the table there, we will administer the oath to everybody since
that is an essential part of our rules here in the committee.
Why don't each of you please raise your right hand? Do you
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give to the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee shall be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Poneman. I do.
Mr. Sandalow. I do.
Ms. Suh. I do.
Mr. Connor. I do.
The Chairman. Please be seated.
Before you begin your statements, I would ask three
questions and address these to each of you. The first question
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?
Let me start with you, Mr. Poneman. If you would respond to
that question.
Mr. Poneman. I will, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Sandalow.
Mr. Sandalow. I will.
The Chairman. Ms. Suh.
Ms. Suh. I will.
The Chairman. Mr. Connor.
Mr. Connor. I will.
The Chairman. The 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 have been nominated by the President?
Mr. Poneman.
Mr. Poneman. Mr. Chairman, all of my personal assets have
been reviewed both by myself and by appropriate ethics
counselors within the Federal Government, and I have taken
appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest.
The Chairman. Mr. Sandalow.
Mr. Sandalow. Mr. Chairman, all of my personal assets have
been reviewed both by myself and by appropriate ethics
counselors within the Federal Government, and I have taken
appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest.
The Chairman. Ms. Suh.
Ms. Suh. My investments, personal holdings, and other
interests have been reviewed both by myself and the appropriate
ethics counselors within the Federal Government. I have taken
appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. There
are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to my
knowledge.
The Chairman. Mr. Connor.
Mr. Connor. 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 have taken appropriate action to avoid any
conflicts of interest. There are no conflicts of interest or
appearances thereof to my knowledge.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Let me ask the third and final question. Are you involved
or do you have any assets that are held in a blind trust?
Mr. Poneman. No, sir.
Mr. Sandalow. No.
Ms. Suh. No, sir.
Mr. Connor. No, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right. At this point, our tradition in
the committee and habit here is to invite nominees to introduce
any family members that are present that they would like to
introduce at this point. Mr. Poneman, did you have anyone you
would like to introduce?
Mr. Poneman. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to introduce
to the committee my wife of nearly 25 years, Susan, and our
youngest son William, who is 15. We have two older children at
school.
The Chairman. We welcome the family members that are here.
Mr. Sandalow.
Mr. Sandalow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to
introduce my wonderful wife of 20 years, Holly; my children,
Ben, Maya, and Holly; my brother Marc; and my sister Judith.
The Chairman. We welcome them as well.
Ms. Suh.
Ms. Suh. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be joined today by
my loving husband, Michael Carroll; my sister, Dr. Betty Sue
Bergman; and my parents, Yung Ja and Chung Ha Suh.
The Chairman. We welcome them to the committee.
Mr. Connor.
Mr. Connor. Yes, thank you. I am very fortunate to be
joined by my wife Shari; my children, Matthew and Gabby; and my
parents, Carl and Bea Connor.
The Chairman. We are glad to see them here, particularly
your parents who I have not seen since I was last in Las
Cruces. But it is great to have all of the family members here.
Let me now recognize each of you to make whatever opening
statement or statements you would like to make before the
committee asks questions.
Mr. Poneman.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL B. PONEMAN, NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Poneman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Bingaman,
Senator Murkowski, distinguished members of the committee, it
is an honor and a privilege to appear before you as President
Obama's nominee to be Deputy Secretary of Energy.
I am also honored that Senator Warner took time from his
busy schedule to introduce me to the committee.
If I may summarize, I would like to respectfully request to
submit my entire statement to the record.
The Chairman. Yes. We will include all the written
statements in the record, and if you could all summarize, that
would be appreciated. Go right ahead.
Mr. Poneman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful and
humbled by the confidence that President Obama and Secretary
Chu have expressed in me through this nomination. The President
has articulated a clear and compelling vision for America's
energy future, one in which we can transform our economy,
protect our security, and spare the world from the ravages of
climate change. Secretary Chu, a brilliant scientist, who has
transcended the world of pure theory and applied his knowledge
in the world of industry as well, is a uniquely well-suited
choice to implement this vision. If confirmed, I can assure
this committee that I will work as hard as I can in support of
these critical efforts and to justify their confidence and
yours.
In a sense, appearing before you today brings me full
circle. My first Government experience came as a summer intern
in the U.S. Senate in 1975 when I had the privilege to work for
Senator John Glenn.
20 years ago, the White House Fellows program brought me
into the Department of Energy, and from there, as you heard
from Senator Warner, I moved to the National Security Council.
The prospect of applying that experience to the challenges that
lay before us is truly daunting but, at the same time, an
exciting opportunity.
Americans do not shrink from challenges. We embrace them.
When the Soviets launched the Sputnik satellite in 1957,
Americans redoubled their efforts in science, and within a
dozen years, they had put a man on the moon. As President
Kennedy said in 1962, we chose to go to the moon ``because that
goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our
energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are
willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one
which we intend to win.''
We did win. Just as American technology was able to bridge
the continent through the building of the intercontinental
railroad and solid state transistors have connected us to the
world, so too we can apply this technology in the service of
our energy challenges.
But technology alone cannot explain how we overcame these
great challenges. Just as important are American leadership,
determination, and an ability to keep our eye on the ball of
our long-term strategic interests. That is how we won the cold
war. In retrospect, our success may seem to have been assured,
but the wise men surrounding President Harry Truman did not see
it that way. While they could not see all the twists and turns
that would lead them from Berlin to Cuba and beyond, they
certainly knew that only a determined, concerted effort would
succeed.
One other element contributed to our success in the cold
war. No U.S. policy, whose results must be measured over
several decades, can succeed unless it enjoys broad, bipartisan
support and close cooperation between our executive and
legislative branches. The partnership between President Truman
and Senator Arthur Vandenberg at the outset of the cold war
exemplified that kind of partnership. History has judged that
well.
The challenges we face over the coming decades demand no
less. If confirmed, I pledge that I will do my best to support
the President and Secretary Chu and to work with the
distinguished members of this committee to forge the kind of
partnership that will best advance our shared interests in
achieving America's energy objectives in a manner that promotes
our prosperity and protects our security.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Poneman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel B. Poneman, Nominee to be Deputy
Secretary, Department of Energy
Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and distinguished
Members of the Committee, it is an honor and a privilege to appear
before you today as President Obama's nominee to be Deputy Secretary of
Energy.
I would like to introduce my wife of nearly 25 years, Susan, and
our sons, Michael and William. Our daughter, Claire, is away at
college.
I am grateful and humbled by the confidence that President Obama
and Secretary Chu have expressed in me through this nomination.
President Obama has articulated a clear and compelling vision of
America's energy future--one that will transform our economy, protect
our security, and save our planet from the worst impacts of climate
change. Achieving this vision will require the United States to play a
leading international role in combating global warming, to invest in a
secure energy future achieved through new technologies and improved
efficiency, and to reduce nuclear dangers. Secretary Chu--as a
brilliant scientist whose work has taken him beyond pure theory into
the practical worlds of innovation and industrial applications--is
uniquely qualified to spearhead the implementation of a new energy
strategy. If confirmed, I can assure this Committee that I will work as
hard as I can in support of those critical efforts to justify their
confidence and yours.
In a sense, appearing before you today brings me full circle. My
first experience working in government occurred here, in the U.S.
Senate, in 1975, through the opportunity of a summer internship with my
home state Senator, John Glenn. That summer launched a lifelong
interest in energy, national security, and the relationship between the
two disciplines. For over 30 years I have pursued that interest as I
have passed through the worlds of academia, law, government, and
business. Each phase has brought new perspectives and insights.
Twenty years ago the White House Fellows program first brought me
to the Department of Energy which, in turn, led to the opportunity to
join the National Security Council staff under George H.W. Bush, where
I participated in efforts to assure that the break-up of the Soviet
Union did not result in the spread of nuclear materials and
technologies to more nations and adversaries. This included the
negotiations that led to the landmark deal under which the United
States agreed to purchase 500 metric tons of highly-enriched uranium
from the Soviet nuclear arsenal, to be blended down to low-enriched
uranium fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. Under this ``Megatons to
Megawatts'' program, over 14,000 nuclear warheads' worth of HEU has
been converted to LEU, and one in every ten American light bulbs is now
powered by material that once sat atop missiles targeting our cities.
When President Clinton assumed office, I remained to stand up the
newly-formed Directorate for Nonproliferation and Export Controls at
the National Security Council. As Special Assistant to the President, I
worked hard on a wide array of nuclear and nonnuclear proliferation
challenges in many parts of the globe, as well as on the 1995
conference which, through US leadership, secured the indefinite
extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since leaving
government service in 1996, I have worked on a wide variety of legal
and commercial issues along the seams where law, policy, commerce, and
national security intersect, first as an attorney at Hogan & Hartson
and, since 2001, as a principal at The Scowcroft Group.
The prospect of applying this experience to advance the interests
of the Nation represents both an exciting challenge and an awesome
opportunity.
Americans do not shrink from challenges. They embrace them. That
has been the hallmark of the American experience. When the Soviets
launched the Sputnik satellite in 1957, Americans responded through a
redoubled commitment to science, and within a dozen years won the race
to place the first man on the moon. In 1962, President Kennedy said
that we chose to go to the moon within the decade not because it was
easy, but because it was hard, ``because that goal will serve to
organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that
challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to
postpone, and one which we intend to win. . . .''
And we did win. Just as Americans have conquered so many challenges
over the years--from building railroads to connect our continent to
inventing the solid-state transistors that connected our world.
Within that spirit and that wellspring of American ingenuity lie
the answers to this Nation's energy challenges.
Better technology has played an indispensable role in moving our
country forward--and science can give us better choices on energy. But
technology alone cannot explain how we overcame these great challenges.
Innovation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success.
Just as important are American leadership, determination, and an
ability to keep our eye on the ball of our long-term strategic
interests.
That is how we won the Cold War. In retrospect, our success may
seem to have been assured. But that is not how it appeared to the
``wise men'' surrounding President Truman, when they devised the
containment strategy to counter the threat of Soviet aggression. They
could not possibly have foreseen all the twists and turns that lay
ahead, from Berlin to Cuba and beyond, but they understood that only a
determined, collective effort would succeed. They supported the
investments in technology to assure our military outmatched the Warsaw
Pact, and organized the Atlantic Alliance to enlist the collective
resources and energies of the West to resist Communist aggression.
And one other element contributed to our success in the Cold War.
No US policy whose results must be measured over several decades can
succeed unless it enjoys bipartisan support, and close cooperation
between our Executive and Legislative Branches. The partnership between
President Harry Truman and Senator Arthur Vandenberg personified that
cooperation at the outset of the Cold War, and history has judged that
kind of partnership to have served our Nation well. The challenges we
face over the coming decades--in transforming our energy systems,
mitigating the effects of climate change, and sustaining our deterrent
while reducing nuclear dangers--demand no less. If confirmed, I pledge
that I will do my best to work with the distinguished members of this
Committee to forge the kind of partnership that will best advance our
shared interests in achieving America's energy objectives in a manner
that promotes our prosperity and protects our security.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sandalow, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF DAVID B. SANDALOW, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND DOMESTIC POLICY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Sandalow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Murkowski, and members of the committee. Thank you for holding
this hearing in this busy time. I am honored to appear before
you as President Obama's nominee to serve as Assistant
Secretary of Energy for Policy and International Affairs. I am
deeply grateful to President Obama and Secretary Chu for
entrusting me with this challenging assignment, and I am deeply
grateful to Senator Lugar for his friendship, support, and
generous introduction, as well as his long record of
distinguished leadership on international energy issues.
Thank you for allowing me to introduce members of my family
who were here today earlier. I am also thinking today of my
warm and loving grandmother, Mary Davis Cohn, who was taken
from us recently after a long and full life. Today's hearing
would have made her very happy.
When he appeared before this committee in January,
Secretary Chu spoke of an ``ambitious and urgent mission--to
move to a sustainable, economically prosperous and secure
energy future.'' If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, I would
be a principal advisor to the Secretary on energy policy as he
pursues this mission and would help coordinate the Department's
engagement on international affairs.
My own professional background provides long training for
this post. I am currently a Senior Fellow in foreign policy
studies at the Brookings Institution where my research focuses
on energy policy. During the 1990s, I served as an Assistant
Secretary of State, as a senior director on the National
Security Council staff, and as an associate director on the
White House Council for Environmental Quality. Other parts of
my background are set forth in the statement submitted for the
record.
Mr. Chairman, in the early 1980s, I was privileged to spend
part of the summer in Shanghai in one of the first groups of
exchange students to live in China following normalization of
U.S.-China relations. At the time, there was one international
phone line in the entire city of Shanghai that we could use to
call home. I remember taking cabs to the Heping Hotel on
weekends to do just that. In contrast, last year, when I landed
at Beijing airport after a 14-hour nonstop flight from
Washington, my BlackBerry automatically connected with a
wireless network moments after the plane landed. By the time we
reached the gate, I had already sent several emails to family
and colleagues back home.
Now, if you had told me more than 25 years ago that I would
1 day send written messages around the world from a device I
could fit in my pocket, as I sat waiting to unload from an
airplane, I would have been skeptical. In much the same way,
many people today doubt that we will ever be able to provide
clean, cheap, and secure energy for billions of people around
the world. However, I believe that clean energy technologies
have the potential to transform the world in the next 25 years
as much as information and communications technologies have in
the past 25. I believe clean energy technologies can help speed
recovery from our current economic troubles and provide good
jobs for Americans for decades to come.
The U.S. Department of Energy can play a central role in
this transition. I am honored to be nominated to a leadership
post in the Department at this very special moment. If
confirmed, I look forward to working closely with members of
this committee and with many others to help President Obama and
Secretary Chu build a clean energy future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sandalow follows:]
Prepared Statement of David B. Sandalow, Nominee to be Assistant
Secretary for International Affairs and Domestic Policy, Department of
Energy
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski and Members of the
Committee: Thank you for holding this hearing in this busy time. I am
honored to come before you as President Obama's nominee to serve as
Assistant Secretary of Energy for Policy and International Affairs. I
am deeply grateful to President Obama and Secretary Chu for entrusting
me with this challenging assignment. I am also deeply grateful to
Senator Lugar for his friendship, support and generous introduction, as
well as his long record of distinguished leadership on international
energy issues.
I would like to introduce my wonderful wife of 19 years, Holly
Hammonds, and our children, Ben, Maya and Holly. I am also delighted to
introduce my brother Marc and sister Judith. The love and support of my
family sustains me in everything I do. I am also thinking today of my
warm and loving grandmother Mary Davis Cohn, who was taken from us
recently after a long and full life. Today's hearing would have made
her very happy.
When he appeared before this Committee in January, Secretary Chu
spoke of an ``ambitious and urgent mission--to move to a sustainable,
economically prosperous, and secure energy future.'' If confirmed as
Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, I would be a
principal advisor to the Secretary on energy policy as he pursues this
mission and would help coordinate the Department's engagement on
international affairs.
My own professional background provides long training for this
post. I am currently a senior fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the
Brookings Institution, where my research and writing focuses on energy
policy. In recent years, my work has included books and articles on oil
dependence, plug-in electric vehicles and climate change. I have helped
organize large conferences, expert seminars and bipartisan dialogue on
the same topics. During the 1990s, I served as Assistant Secretary of
State for Oceans, Environment & Science, as a senior director on the
National Security Council and as an associate director on the staff of
the White House Council on Environmental Quality. I have served as
executive vice president of World Wildlife Fund-US, as an attorney at
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and as an attorney in private
practice. At the beginning of my career, I worked to create jobs for
the people of Michigan in a position with the Michigan Department of
Commerce.
In the early 1980s, I was privileged to spend part of a summer in
Shanghai, China, as part of one of the first groups of exchange
students to live in China following normalization of U.S.-China
relations. At the time, there was one international phone line in the
entire city of Shanghai we could use to call home. I remember taking
cabs to the Heping Hotel on weekends to do just that. In contrast, last
year, when I landed at Beijing Airport after the 14-hour nonstop flight
from Washington, my Blackberry automatically connected with a wireless
network moments after my plane landed. By the time we reached the gate,
I had already sent several emails to family and colleagues back home.
If you had told me more than 25 years ago that I would one day send
written messages around the world from a device I could fit in my
pocket as I sat waiting to unload from an airplane, I would have been
skeptical. In much the same way, many people today doubt we will ever
be able to provide clean, cheap and secure energy for billions of
people around the world. However I believe that clean energy
technologies have the potential to transform the world in the next 25
years as much as information and communications technologies have in
the past 25. I believe clean energy technologies can help speed
recovery from our current economic troubles and provide good jobs for
Americans for decades to come.
The U.S. Department of Energy can play a central role in this
transition. I am honored to be nominated to a leadership post in the
Department at this special moment. If confirmed, I look forward to
working closely with Members of this Committee--and with many others--
to help President Obama and Secretary Chu build a clean energy future.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Suh, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF RHEA S. SUH, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Suh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and
distinguished members of the committee. It is an honor and
privilege to be here today as President Obama's nominee for
Assistant Secretary of Policy, Management and Budget at the
Department of the Interior. Thank you for the opportunity and
thanks to the members of the committee staff and the personal
staff who took time to meet with me last week.
I also want to thank Secretary Salazar. It would be a great
privilege to work for him, as well as the thousands of
dedicated men and women within the Department itself.
I was born on the edge of the Rocky Mountains in Boulder,
Colorado, and raised by Korean immigrant parents who found
their way to that great State like so many other pioneers with
the dreams of freedom and of a better life for their family.
Like so many other westerners, I grew up reaping the benefits
of the lands and waters managed by our Federal Government. My
dad first taught me how to fish in waters managed by the Bureau
of Reclamation. As a Girl Scout, I camped out under the starry
skies in Rocky Mountain National Park, and in high school, I
helped build a section of the Continental Divide Trail, which
is in part managed by the Bureau of Land Management. This
tapestry of lands, the backdrop of my childhood, has influenced
me and my values throughout my life.
Early on in my career, I worked to inspire young people
about our natural world as a high school teacher of earth
sciences and then later as a consultant to the National Park
Service.
During my tenure as a legislative assistant to Senator Ben
Nighthorse Campbell, I worked in and with both political
parties, negotiating collaborative opportunities in legislation
that included the Presidio Trust, the Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park, and the Boston Harbor Islands National
Recreation Area.
Most recently, I have served as a grant-maker for two of
the largest charitable foundations in the country, first at the
Hewlett Foundation and now at the Packard Foundation.
Over the last 11 years, I have managed hundreds of grants
and millions of dollars focused on consideration in the North
American West. In particular, I have sought opportunities to
support a broad array of conservation voices, including the
voices of Native Americans, hunters and anglers, faith-based
coalitions, and environmental justice organizations. Over time,
I have come to believe that the most durable and successful
conservation policies are those that are created with broad
input, including local input, to create place-based solutions
that ultimately provide both biological sustainability of our
natural systems as well as the economic viability of local
communities.
I believe that the Department of the Interior is presently
facing many critical challenges. These challenges include
issues of accountability and fiscal management, educating the
public about the importance of public lands and resources, and
understanding and reacting proactively to the impacts of
climate change. With these challenges comes an enormous amount
of opportunity and responsibility. The Department must bring a
new level of transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness to its
work. In addition, it must ensure broad public input into the
decisionmaking process. Finally, the Department has a huge
opportunity to involve a new generation of leaders helping them
find a place in building the Department's future legacy.
So I would like to end by coming back to my beginnings.
From the first time I hooked a rainbow trout with my dad, I was
the beneficiary of the bounty of our Nation's rich natural
heritage. If confirmed, I hope to continue the legacy of this
bounty by providing for the sustainable use and management of
the Department's lands and waters for the benefit of all of the
people of this great country.
Thank you so much for the honor.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Suh follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rhea S. Suh, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary
for Policy, Management and Budget, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Committee, it is an
honor and privilege to be here today as President Obama's nominee for
Assistant Secretary of Policy, Management and Budget at the Department
of the Interior. Thank you for the opportunity and thanks to the
members of the committee staff and personal staff who took the time to
meet with me last week.
I also want to thank Secretary Salazar; it would be a great
privilege to work for a man whom I deeply respect and admire. It would
also be a true honor to work on behalf of and with the thousands of
dedicated men and women within the Department of Interior.
Being in this room today brings back many fond memories of the time
when I worked for Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. It would be a
pleasure to have the opportunity to work with so many familiar and
respected colleagues again.
I was born on the edge of the Rocky Mountains in Boulder, Colorado,
and raised by Korean immigrant parents who found their way to that
great state like so many other pioneers, with dreams of the freedom
that this nation promises and of a better life for their family. Like
so many other Westerners, I grew up reaping the benefits of the lands
and waters managed by our federal government. My dad first taught me
how to bait-fish for trout in Lake Granby, managed by the Bureau of
Reclamation; as a Girl Scout, I camped out and told ghost stories under
the starry skies in Rocky Mountain National Park; and in high school, I
helped build a section of the Continental Divide Trail, which is in
part managed by the Bureau of Land Management. This tapestry of lands--
the backdrop of my childhood--has influenced me and my values
throughout my life.
My background taught me the importance of sustainable use of our
resources, the protection of the most special places within our nation,
and the need to balance protection of those special places with the
needs of local communities. With these values, I have worked in a
variety positions thorough my career. Early on, I worked to inspire
young people about our natural world as a high school teacher of Earth
Sciences in the public school system in New York City and later as a
consultant to the National Park Service in New England. During my
tenure as a Legislative Assistant to Senator Campbell, I worked in and
with both political parties, negotiating collaborative approaches in
legislation that included the Presidio Trust, the Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park, and the Boston Harbor Islands National
Recreation Area. And most recently, I have served as a grantmaker for
two of the largest charitable foundations in the country--first at the
Hewlett Foundation and now currently with the Packard Foundation.
Over the past eleven years, I have managed hundreds of grants and
millions of dollars focused on conservation issues in the North
American West. In particular, I have sought opportunities to support a
broad array of conservation voices, including the voices of Native
Americans, hunters and anglers, faith-based coalitions and
environmental justice organizations. Over time, I have come to believe
that the most durable and successful conservation policies are those
that are created with broad input, including local knowledge to create
place-based solutions that ultimately promote both the biological
sustainability of natural systems as well as the economic viability of
local communities. I have also worked diligently to create
accountability within my grantmaking--developing clear strategic plans
with performance metrics that can be monitored and evaluated over time
for their effectiveness.
I believe that the Department of the Interior is presently facing
many critical challenges. These challenges include issues of
accountability and fiscal management, educating the public about the
importance of public lands and resources, and understanding and
reacting proactively to the impacts of climate change. With these
challenges comes an enormous amount of opportunity and responsibility.
The Department must bring a new level of transparency, efficiency and
effectiveness to its work. In addition, it must ensure broad public
input into the decision-making process. It must also involve a new
generation of leaders looking both to discover their country's natural,
cultural and historical heritage and to help them find a place in
building the Department's future legacy. Finally, the Department must
provide economic opportunities for local communities through the
sustainable use of our public lands, including alternative energy
generation and transmission.
So I would like to end by coming back to my beginnings. From the
first time I hooked a rainbow trout with my Dad, I was a beneficiary of
the bounty of our nation's rich natural heritage. If confirmed, I hope
to continue the legacy of this bounty by providing for the sustainable
use and management of the Department's lands and waters for the benefit
of all the people of this great country.
Thank you again for the honor of being here today.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your statement.
Mr. Connor, we are glad to hear your statement.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CONNOR, NOMINEE TO BE COMMISSIONER, BUREAU
OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Connor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and
members of the committee. I am honored to appear before you
today as President Obama's nominee to be the Commissioner of
the Bureau of Reclamation.
As I mentioned earlier, I am fortunate to be joined by my
wonderful wife and my kids and my parents, and needless to say,
without their love and support over the years, I would not be
in this position, and for that I am very grateful.
As most of you know, I am in a unique position relative to
most nominees, having spent the last 8 years serving on the
staff of this committee. Given that background, I hope you will
indulge me a brief comment on my tenure here. In short, these
years have been the highlight of my professional career. During
that time, I have been privileged to work with and for
individuals who represent the most positive aspects of public
service. Notwithstanding competing interests, my colleagues
have demonstrated time and again a remarkable ability to stay
focused on an overriding goal, and that is to address this
country's energy and natural resources challenges in a manner
reflecting good public policy. Simply put, Mr. Chairman, they
follow your example.
Similarly, I have had the good fortune to work with high-
quality professionals on the other side of the aisle. In the
area of water policy, we have worked closely together and we
have agreed much more than we have disagreed. But even in those
instances in which we did not share similar views, we typically
found sufficient common ground to make progress on those
issues. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing that
approach in new position.
Finally, I cannot do justice in conveying the value of the
support and the friendships that exist on the committee and in
your personal office, Mr. Chairman. Through both good and
difficult times, I have benefited by witnessing the strength,
intellect, modesty, and good humor by which you and my
colleagues have dealt with personal and professional challenges
during the past 8 years. I have learned a lot in the process,
and I will miss working here, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to both you
and my colleagues for the opportunities provided on this
committee.
I am now afforded an incredible opportunity to be part of
President Obama's administration and to work with Secretary
Salazar and the talented team he is putting together at the
Department of the Interior. I am excited at the prospect but
recognize the enormous challenges ahead in addressing water
issues facing the 17 western States.
Taking the helm of the Bureau of Reclamation, is a
monumental task. As a New Mexican, one who understands the
importance of water in the West, it is a job that I will
relish, if I am confirmed. Water is a recurring part of my
family's history. My maternal grandfather was an original
member of Taos Pueblo's water rights task force. My paternal
grandfather was part of the construction crews that built the
aqueduct tunnels delivering water to New York City out of the
Catskill Mountains. One of my great grandfathers was seasonally
employed cleaning ditches for an irrigation district in
southern Colorado.
In my written statement, I have outlined my qualifications,
as well as some thoughts and the key issues facing the Bureau
of Reclamation and the need to work with all the different
constituencies that are involved
If I have learned nothing else on this committee, though,
it is the value of brevity, so I will end my statement there,
and I will be available to answer questions at the appropriate
time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Connor, Nominee to be Commissioner,
Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior
Chairman Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, and members of the Committee,
I am honored to appear before you today as President Obama's nominee to
be the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am fortunate to be
joined today by my wife Shari, our two children Matthew and Gabriela,
and my parents, Carl and Bea Connor. Needless to say, without their
love and support through the years, I would not be in the position I am
today. For that, I am grateful.
As most of you know, I am in a unique position relative to most
nominees, having spent the last 8 years serving on the staff of this
Committee. Given that background, I hope you'll indulge me a brief
comment on my tenure here. In short, these years have been the
highlight of my professional career. During this time, I have been
privileged to work with and for, individuals who represent the most
positive aspects of public service. Notwithstanding competing
interests, my colleagues have demonstrated time and again, a remarkable
ability to stay focused on an overriding goal--addressing the country's
energy and natural resource challenges in a manner reflecting good
public policy. Simply put Mr. Chairman, they follow your example.
Similarly, I have had the good fortune to work with high-quality
professionals on the other side of the aisle. In the area of water
policy, we have worked closely together and have agreed much more than
we have disagreed. But even in those instances in which we did not
share similar views, we typically found sufficient common ground to
make progress. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing that approach
in my new position.
Finally, I cannot do justice in conveying the value of the support
and the friendships that exist on the Committee and in your personal
office, Mr. Chairman. Through both good and difficult times, I have
benefited by witnessing the strength, intellect, modesty, and good
humor, by which you and my colleagues have dealt with the personal and
professional challenges arising during the past 8 years. I will miss
working here, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, to both you and my colleagues,
for the opportunities provided me here.
I am now afforded an incredible opportunity to be a part of
President Obama's administration, and to work with Secretary Salazar
and the talented team he is putting together at the Interior
Department. I am excited at the prospect but recognize the enormous
challenges ahead in addressing water issues facing the seventeen
western states. Similar to energy, water is fundamental to the economic
well-being of the West. Its use, of course, has enormous implications
for the environment. We have not always struck the right balance
between these important and sometimes competing interests. If
confirmed, I will continue efforts to find that balance, and to do so
as efficiently as possible.
Taking the helm of the Bureau of Reclamation is a monumental task.
As a New Mexican, one who understands the importance of water in the
West, it is a job that I will relish. Water is a recurring part of my
family history. My maternal grandfather was an original member of Taos
Pueblo's water rights task force. My paternal grandfather was part of
the construction crews that built the aqueduct tunnels delivering water
to New York City out of the Catskill Mountains. And one of my great-
grandfathers was seasonally employed cleaning ditches for an irrigation
district in Southern Colorado. I have been lucky in my career to carry
on a family tradition associated with water.
As for my qualifications, I am confident that my background as an
engineer and lawyer and my experience in the private sector and in
government have prepared me well for this position. First, I understand
the issues facing the Bureau of Reclamation. Drought, climate change,
aging infrastructure, increasing population, environmental needs, and
site security are all issues that drive a great deal of Reclamation's
actions these days. We have made tremendous progress in this Committee
in establishing the programs necessary to confront these issues. It is
my hope that the Senate will now allow me to work on the implementation
side.
Second, I am familiar with the talented staff at the Bureau of
Reclamation and I have a general understanding of how the organization
functions. At the same time, I have a perspective that is external to
the organization which should enable me to assess its operations
objectively and offer a different view on how to improve the agency's
mission.
Finally, I am fully aware that the key to making progress on
critical water and hydropower issues is to work cooperatively and
openly with the different constituencies involved in these issues. The
states, water users, power users, environmental community, Indian
tribes, scientists, and several Federal agencies, all have an important
role to play. Progress on seemingly intractable issues will only come
through a cooperative effort based on a fundamental recognition of the
legitimate interests of each of these stakeholders and a serious
commitment to achieving long-term certainty in water use and
allocation. Without that commitment, water policy will continue to be
formulated in the courtrooms rather than the negotiating table.
Of course, the Congress will be at the center of any problem-
solving actions which involve the Bureau of Reclamation. As I've
already acknowledged, I have a deep respect for this institution and
look forward to working closely with Members and staff to address the
water and energy challenges facing their constituents.
Thank you for the opportunity to address my nomination. I will be
happy to respond to your questions at the appropriate time.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you all for your
great statements. As I said in my opening statement, I
compliment the President on all of your nominations. I think he
has chosen very well, and obviously in the case of Mike Connor,
the Obama administration's gain is our committee's loss. I have
made that point to many people as well.
But at this point, let me call on other members, Senator
Murkowski first, to see if she has questions.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let us start with you, Mr. Connor. I will do the easy ones
first. We have had some very interesting conversations here at
the committee as we talk about renewable energy concepts and
implementation on a broader scale and the recognition that
water is a very, very, very key component. Regardless of the
energy source that we are talking about, whether it is solar or
nuclear or wind, you have got to have the water.
From your perspective, if confirmed there at the Bureau of
Reclamation, how do you see the issues of climate change
playing out within the Bureau and your ability to analyze the
available data, the impact on the water resources? How do you
see that kind of integration, if you will?
Mr. Connor. I think there are two parts of the way the
Bureau of Reclamation can play a role with respect to climate
change and the challenges facing this country. I think, first
and foremost, the Bureau of Reclamation has a role to play with
respect to water conservation which, as we know, equals energy
conservation. So the Bureau of Reclamation, in improving its
operations, helping its customers improve their operations, has
a role to play to enhancing energy efficiency in this country
through water conservation applications.
I think also the Bureau of Reclamation, given its
facilities, its land, its access to the infrastructure, has a
role to play in deployment of renewable energy technologies,
and I would like to see opportunities to integrate renewable
energy opportunities into Reclamation's operations. That may
help us use some of the hydropower resources that the Bureau
generates, put more of that on the grid if we can integrate
renewable energy into Reclamation's operations itself. So I
think both of those are part of the equation.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Ms. Suh, let me ask you. There is a great deal of
conversation around here about our reliance on foreign sources
of oil and the vulnerability that brings us as a Nation when we
talk about our energy security. When we are talking about
alternative energy technologies, though, we recognize that we
are very, very heavily reliant on minerals that are found
overseas. We are 100 percent import-reliant for the rare earths
used in hybrid vehicles. We are 56 percent import-reliant for
the silicone that is found in the solar panels. We are 91
percent import-reliant for the platinum that we need for the
fuel cell catalysts.
Are you concerned that we are potentially risking
exchanging our reliance on foreign oil for a similar reliance
on foreign minerals? What policies do you see at the Department
of the Interior that can address what I perceive to be an ever-
increasing risk of security?
Ms. Suh. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, for that great
question.
Certainly I believe that both President Obama and Secretary
Salazar have made it clear that they are very serious about
energy independence for this country, and what energy
independence, obviously, requires is both the continued and
responsible development of domestic resources as well as the
additional development of alternative resources again from
domestic production itself.
Having not been a part of the Department of the Interior
yet, I am not entirely aware of all of the issues related to
both the domestic energy production as well as mineral
production on our public lands, but certainly, if confirmed, I
look forward to getting up to speed quickly and working with
you and the members of this committee on this important issue
moving forward.
Senator Murkowski. I do think it is an important issue, and
I think it is one that is often overlooked. As Mr. Sandalow
knows, you focused on that with your book, Freedom from Oil,
recognizing that this dependency puts us in a very difficult, a
very awkward spot at times. I have suggested that it is very
easy for us as a Nation to move down that same path with
natural gas, although we are seeing some very impressive
opportunities and developments here domestically with natural
gas.
But when it comes to the minerals, I think that we have
kind of closed our eyes on that as an issue. Maybe we do not
have a policy. Maybe it is a policy by default. But I would
look forward to an opportunity to discuss that with you at some
length later.
Mr. Sandalow, I want to ask you. You have made some
statements in not only your book but in other places about our
reliance on foreign sources of oil. I guess I want to ask you
if your concern is, as we consider policies to reduce oil
consumption, do you believe that we should do everything
possible to reduce oil consumption or reduce foreign oil
consumption? Because that is a concern for me.
Mr. Sandalow. Thank you very much, Senator. It is a very
important question. A reliance on foreign oil is an enormous
national security threat to our Nation and that is something
that President Obama and Secretary Chu have made clear. It is
certainly a threat that I take very seriously and that I have
written about.
I think our reliance on oil broadly in our transportation
fleet is a threat as well. 96 percent of the energy in our cars
and trucks today comes from this one source, which is oil. Now,
oil is a very important fuel. It is a high-quality fuel. But I
think our dependence to that extent exposes our country to a
variety of problems, including national security problems,
economic problems, and environmental problems. So my own view
would be that we need to diversify the fuel mix in our auto
fleet.
Senator Murkowski. In transportation.
Mr. Sandalow. That is correct. Biofuels and electricity
would be two other places that I think we should look in
particular, along with natural gas which, as you point out, we
have got abundant supplies of natural gas in this country which
could help to fuel our vehicles. I visited Buenos Aires
recently, and there the taxi cabs drive on natural gas. That is
the type of thing that we should be looking at in this country
as well.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, my time has run out. I
have got a couple more questions, but I will defer to my
colleagues and then come back for a second.
The Chairman. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you all and congratulate you all on your
willingness to provide public service. You will find there are
days when you may wonder about the wisdom of your decision, but
I think looking back on it as an overall situation, you will be
grateful for the opportunity.
Mr. Connor, we have a number of projects in Utah. That, I
think, means we will be having a lot of conversations with you,
and we are grateful to you for your willingness to take on this
challenge.
Mr. Poneman, as I look around the committee, I am probably
the only one here who has served in the executive branch in
previous administrations. My observation is the Deputy
Secretary is the one who has to run the building. I simply
share that with you. The Secretary deals with the policy levels
at the top, but the person who is responsible to make sure that
everybody gets along, that everybody meets his or her
deadlines, that things happen and they work--it is an
enormously significant administrative challenge. I know you
will have an Assistant Secretary for Administration, but
basically the guy who has to run the building is the Deputy
Secretary. I hope you will exercise your management muscles as
well as your analytic muscles to give Secretary Chu all of the
help you possibly can in that area. Just a bit of gratuitous
advice, which you are more than free to ignore, but I could not
pass up the opportunity to offer it.
Mr. Poneman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bennett. Ms. Suh, I guess you anticipated that I
would talk to you. Secretary Salazar went to Utah on the 1st of
May to talk about various items. The 1st of May is an important
date because that is the date that David Hayes established, in
responses to my questions with respect to his confirmation,
that there would be a preliminary analysis for the review of
the 77 leases that the Secretary canceled. Unfortunately, the
press reported the Secretary said, well, we could not meet the
May 1st deadline because we did not have David Hayes. There
have been statements, well, it is all Senator Bennett's fault
because he is keeping us from getting the people that we need.
So I would like to talk about that for a minute. I have
repeatedly told the Secretary that I would be happy to lift my
hold on David Hayes after we have seen some progress on the
review, but there has been no progress, simply the public
statements that somehow I am responsible for the fact that the
Department is not doing anything.
Now, David Hayes came to visit me in my office after we had
this conversation and he made a personal commitment to me that
the review would proceed with or without him. Now, he said if
it was with him, if he could be confirmed, it would proceed
more rapidly, but that it would proceed. He understood the
current dynamic, recognized that he could not lead the team if
he were not confirmed, but that it would go forward.
It was not just in conversation. I have the documents that
he sent me, and he says--and I will quote--``The review will
proceed in a disciplined and timely way. The administrative
record will be provided to all members of the review team as
soon as it can be made available and before it is required by
the court. Assuming the record can be made available within the
next couple of weeks, every attempt will be made to review the
record, conduct a site visit, and complete relevant interviews
by May 1st. The review team will seek to complete its work and
provide a report to the Secretary by May 29th.''
Now, here is the point where you come in. Composition of
the review team. If confirmed, David J. Hayes will have overall
responsibility for undertaking the review of the 77 parcels
that were withdrawn from the Utah lease sale. Pending Mr.
Hayes' confirmation, the review team will consist of the acting
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget and
acting Directors of the BLM and the National Park Service and
their designees. The acting Solicitor, Art Gary, will provide
legal support to the extent needed.
Now, that does not indicate to me that the thing cannot go
forward without David Hayes. It is a pretty clear statement
that there was every intention that it would go forward. None
of that has happened.
So I come to your statement that you say that we need to
have more transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness, and
there is nothing I would like more, with respect to these 77
leases, than more transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness.
Assuming that your confirmation will go through--and I see no
reason why it should not--you will take over the responsibility
of this, and I would hope we could get from you a pledge here
today that you will complete the commitment that was made to me
by Mr. Hayes on Interior Department stationery. Since it is on
the official stationery of the Interior Department, I assume
the commitment was made by the Department, not Mr. Hayes.
Now, is that something you are comfortable in undertaking?
Ms. Suh. Yes, sir, it is. Obviously, I understand how
important this issue is to you, Senator, and certainly, if
confirmed, I would be more than happy to work with you and your
staff personally in providing you the details that you are
looking for. Obviously, I have not been at the Department of
the Interior and so am not aware of the relevant facts with
respect to this issue, but certainly, if confirmed, again I
would be more than happy to work with you personally.
Senator Bennett. I understand that, and my plea is not
necessarily that you work with me personally, although I will
maintain my continued interest in the matter. My plea is that
you will work within the Department to get the Department to
keep the commitment that they have made to me in writing toward
which they have made zero progress ever since the commitment
was made. Since you will replace the acting Secretary for
Policy, Management and Budget and take the lead on this, I
appreciate your commitment here. In my view--I agree with you
absolutely--we need more transparency, efficiency, and
effectiveness, and this issue is a very good place to start.
Ms. Suh. Understood, sir. Thank you.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. I pass, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sandalow, let us go back to you here. A project that we
are following with great interest and hoping to encourage along
is one that would ultimately deliver the vast quantities of
natural gas from Alaska's Northern Slope down through the
State, across through Canada, and then ultimately to the
customers here in the Lower 48. Very important not only to my
State but really to deliver this clean energy source that the
country needs.
I agree with your previous comment that when we look at our
energy dependency, we can be smarter with how we are using our
domestic energy sources, and if we can reconfigure our
transportation sector, I think that that is a good thing. If we
have got good stocks of natural gas, that is even better.
When it comes to the Alaska project, we are working through
things on our side. It is going slower, unfortunately, than we
would like. But we have a tendency to kind of focus on the
Alaska side and may often forget that we have got to go through
another country in order for this project to come to fruition.
What steps would you support, if any, to speed up
construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline? What steps
should the Government be taking to ensure that Canada settles
its first nation's issues, clears the right-of-way, permits
construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline, working with
the Canadian government? What do you see as kind of that
critical path forward?
Mr. Sandalow. Thank you, Senator. I strongly support the
points made in the premise of your question, that we need to
develop our domestic natural gas resources, need to work
closely to get those resources to market, and to work closely
with our neighbors in Canada on that. I am not familiar with
the details of the pipeline and the permitting issues and other
siting issues, but to the extent that the Department of Energy
has a role in this, I would look forward to working with you
and with others to make that possible, if confirmed.
Senator Murkowski. It clearly has a role. Again, we have
got to remember that it is a project that is massive in scope,
and it is not just working with our Federal agencies and State
agencies, but we are dealing with Canada as well. So if
confirmed, I think you would find that that is going to rise to
a heightened level of interest. We are certainly hopeful that
it does.
Let me ask you a question about a comment or perhaps
several comments that I understand you have made as it relates
to offshore oil production. I am told that you made a comment
that was quoted as saying, ``Offshore drilling is weak. It's
like walking an extra 20 feet per day to lose weight.'' I also
understand that you have been quoted as saying that offshore
drilling should not be among the top solutions to America's
energy issues.
I would like to know if the statements that I have read are
an accurate representation of your current thinking, and if so
or if not, what is your thinking on offshore and should it be
part of our country's energy policy? Should it be part of that
mix?
Mr. Sandalow. I think it should be, Senator. I believe we
need a comprehensive plan to address our energy challenges, and
that would include domestic energy production in an
environmentally appropriate way, and that can include and
should include offshore drilling where it is appropriate to do
so.
The comments I made were in the context of an overall
global energy challenge, and in that context, I think we need
to adopt measures such as alternative fuels and fuel efficiency
in our vehicle fleet and simply focusing on one aspect of the
problem is never going to be sufficient. But I very much
support environmentally responsible domestic drilling.
Senator Murkowski. So it is part of that mix.
Mr. Sandalow. Very much so.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that.
Then last for you, Mr. Poneman, an issue about nuclear and
Yucca Mountain. It has been made very clear by the Obama
administration that they have no intention of pursuing the used
nuclear fuel repository at Yucca which, of course, DOE has been
focusing on for over 20 years. I think that this has caused
more than just a little bit of confusion within this committee
and with other Members of Congress since it comes before the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has even had a chance to review
the Yucca Mountain license application.
The administration's position has implications not only for
licensing of current and future nuclear powerplants, but also
for the disposition of defense program waste.
So I am curious as to your views relating to the Yucca
Mountain project. The license review is currently underfunded
both at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and at DOE. So I
guess the question is, regardless of what decisions are made
with regard to the Yucca Mountain project, the license review
efforts that could provide, I think, invaluable regulatory,
scientific insights that will inform future nuclear waste
policy--do you think that these should be fully funded at both
agencies whether it is NRC or DOE while we continue to debate
up here about the future of nuclear fuel?
Mr. Poneman. Thank you, Senator.
Obviously, the Yucca decision was made previously, and I
was not privy to that decision. But I think it speaks to the
larger point of the role of nuclear moving forward and the
extent to which it is critical that we resolve the issues
surrounding the back end of the fuel cycle in order to enable
that to occur. In that respect, I have not reviewed the 8,600-
page filing that went to the NRC, but I agree with the premise
of your question, that there may be extremely valuable
information contained therein which we could all go to school
on in terms of figuring out a smart path forward for the back
end of the fuel cycle.
In this respect, what I have discussed with Secretary Chu
is his commitment, as soon as possible, to stand up a blue
ribbon commission that is going to look at the question of the
disposition of spent fuel in the context of the whole
international nuclear fuel cycle and to make sure that whatever
learning we can derive from Yucca is applied to a solid basis
going forward to have a politically sustainable and technically
sound approach to spent fuel management.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you just very quickly on that
because this whole concept of the blue ribbon commission coming
forward--you have mentioned, I think it was, political
sustainability. How do you think with a blue ribbon commission
we will be able to keep the political emotion out of this
debate that we have seen swirling around around Yucca? Why
would the blue ribbon commission be any different and somehow
insulated from the politics of what we are dealing with here?
Any ideas on that?
Mr. Poneman. Senator, I am not naive to think that
something that has engendered this much emotion will suddenly
become merely antiseptic. But as someone once famously said,
everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not
entitled to their own facts. I would hope that with
distinguished Americans representing a variety of perspectives,
scientific, political, industrial, and others pull together a
kind of approach that you often see with the National Academy
of Sciences and so on, that it is possible perhaps to lance the
boil, bring science to the table, and have people of known
credibility and stature help us reason through this to a
position where we could come to some kind of closure. Not every
blue ribbon commission has had that outcome. Some have. I would
work as hard as I could to support the Secretary and, of
course, work with you and this committee to make sure that is
the kind of panel we are able to put together.
Senator Murkowski. I think it would be critical to its
success if it is advanced. I certainly hope that you would
agree with Secretary Chu's comments that nuclear must be part
of our energy solution in this country and work toward that
end.
Mr. Poneman. Senator, in my private capacity, I have spent
a lot of time reading about this and reviewing demand curves
looking out many decades. For me, I think perhaps one of the
most persuasive was the MIT study in 2003. I have personally
not seen any of these studies that are able to close the gap in
terms of where we want to be with greenhouse gas emissions
without a significant deployment of nuclear energy. I know for
a fact, because I have discussed it with him, that Secretary
Chu supports the role of nuclear in an energy mix. Obviously,
we get a fifth of our electricity from it, 70 percent of our
non-carbon-emitting energy. It must be in my view, my personal
view, part of the equation for a low carbon energy future.
The Chairman. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would
like to congratulate each of the four nominees and welcome you
here, welcome your families.
Mr. Sandalow, thank you very much for taking the time to
visit with me last evening.
Mr. Connor, I will tell you that Gabby, sitting behind you,
has been the most welcome member of the committee. She has been
very attentive, paid attention to everything, and has done a
great job in representing your family very well. I have a good
look at her right there and she is smiling and doing a terrific
job.
[Laughter.]
Senator Barrasso. I did have a question, Mr. Connor,
because you have handled a number of complex water settlements
during your time in public service, both as an employee of the
Department of the Interior and as counsel for this committee. I
wanted to visit a little about that because probably you know
better than most, if not all, the implications of both
interstate agreements and intrastate agreements and how that
plays out. It can affect the supply, the allocation, the use of
water, and in the Rocky Mountains water is a big issue for us.
So I wanted to talk to you also about how these effects can be
amplified when there is an agreement that is blessed by an act
of the U.S. Congress.
So with that in mind, I would like to ask you a few related
questions about your views and philosophy on negotiating some
of these settlements from an intrastate as well as an
interstate agreement.
Do you agree that the best approach to dealing with complex
interstate or regional issues involving the use or allocation
of water in the West is through negotiation and settlement
among the stakeholders as opposed to, say, litigation?
Mr. Connor. Oh, absolutely, Senator.
Senator Barrasso. If the parties with potentially adverse
or conflicting interests decide to take that approach,
negotiation and settlement, what importance then do you place
on the inclusion of all of the possibly affected parties?
Mr. Connor. I think all affected parties ultimately need to
be part of the process. Sometimes, though, quite frankly,
progress is made by the parties most affected whose rights are
at stake, get together, figure out a regime of water allocation
that fits their needs, and then it is taken to a broader
audience. I have seen progress come about both ways through
small groups working outwards. Ultimately, the larger
implications are seen by other parties--they are brought to the
table and those issues can be resolved.
So I think we can work this in a lot of different ways, but
I think ultimately all parties with a legitimate interest are
going to have their say and they have got to be dealt with in
some way, shape, or form.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Mr. Sandalow, I had a series of questions on oil and gas. I
think Senator Murkowski asked those. Nuclear. I think you asked
a number of those as well.
We also had a chance yesterday to talk a little bit about
coal and the importance of clean coal technology. As we
discussed, coal is a very abundant, affordable and reliable
secure source of energy. Wyoming has more than 1.4 trillion
tons of coal. It is enough coal for the United States for
centuries to come. I believe coal can be a very clean energy
source.
Do you believe the U.S. has a responsibility to take the
lead in developing clean coal technology, as we know that coal
is going to continue to be used across not just our Nation but
across the world?
Mr. Sandalow. I do, Senator, very strongly, and I know that
President Obama and Secretary Chu share that view.
Senator Barrasso. Then how would you recommend we move
forward with respect to clean coal technology? We talked a
little bit about carbon capture and sequestration.
Mr. Sandalow. Senator, thank you for the chance to visit in
your office yesterday. I appreciate that greatly. I was told by
one of your staff there, by the way, that if Wyoming were a
country, it would be the world's third largest coal producer.
So I am delighted to talk about this.
I strongly believe that we need to move forward on clean
coal technology. The $3.4 billion in the Recovery Act, I think,
is an important step forward on that. The Department of Energy,
I understand, is moving forward to implement spending on that.
There is further money in Department of Energy budget proposals
on this.
But more broadly, I think this is an area in which we need
our best scientists, our best engineers, and our best minds
working on it. In this country, as well as around the world,
this is an area that is ripe for international cooperation. The
best engineers in the world can profit greatly from visiting
other countries and seeing what is happening in projects. There
are many different geologies around the world, many different
technologies, and I think it is an area that should be and I
hope will be a top priority for our Government and others in
the years ahead.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski, did you have additional
questions?
Senator Murkowski. I do not. Thank you.
The Chairman. Let me thank all members for coming to the
hearing and also the witnesses. I think it has been a useful
hearing.
We will allow until 5 o'clock tomorrow for members to
submit any additional questions that they would have for the
record. If the nominees would respond quickly to those
questions, if there are some submitted, we would appreciate
that, and we hope to act quickly on your nominations and
recommend action by the full Senate.
Thank you again, and that will conclude our hearing.
[Whereupon, at 10:43 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Response of Daniel B. Poneman to Question From Senator Murkowski
loan guarantee program
Question 1. Many questions remain as to DOE's interpretation of
Title 17 provisions from the 2005 Energy Policy Act, specifically on
the superiority of rights and cross-default issues for projects with
multiple owners or creditors.
Given Secretary Chu's desire to issue loan guarantees in the next
month or two, do you believe the loan guarantee office is doing a
satisfactory job of interacting with applicants to make sure that their
questions and concerns are addressed?
Answer. Secretary Chu has made the loan guarantee program a top
priority, and has pushed hard to streamline the program and to make it
more responsive to applicants. If confirmed, I will work closely with
the Secretary and our Loan Guarantee Program staff to make sure that
the Department is addressing questions and concerns of applicants in a
timely manner.
Response of Daniel B. Poneman to Question From Senator Stabenow
Question 1. As you may know, Congress passed a provision in the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to provide the auto
industry low cost loans to retool plants for the production of advance
technology vehicles. What are your views of this program, and when do
you expect the agency to issue its first loan?
Answer. I support the Section 136 program and believe that it can
be an important tool to create jobs and invest in technologies that
will help reduce carbon emissions and lower our dependence on foreign
oil. As I understand it, the Department's goal continues to be to issue
loans in the summer and, if confirmed, I look forward to working with
the Secretary to meet that goal.
Responses of Daniel B. Poneman to Questions From Senator Corker
Question 1. The Global Threat Reduction Initiative program has 3
competitively awarded small business contracts in place to perform
activities for the program. Yet, the program has not fully utilized
those contracts. Each GTRI small business contract has a ceiling of
$100 million, for a total of $300 million, but only $5.7 million has
been applied to those contracts to date. What is your opinion of GTRI
using small business contracts? Do you think they should be used more?
Please explain.
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the GTRI program
contracts, but I do believe that small businesses have an important
role to play in providing services to the Department. If confirmed, I
look forward to examining this issue and working with you to ensure
that small businesses are used appropriately.
Question 2. It has been brought to my attention that in recent
decades, the Department of Energy has greatly increased its oversight
of the contractors responsible for managing and operating (M&O) the
national laboratories under M&O contracts. Concerns have been raised to
me that as a result, decision making within the Department may have
slowed, and support organizations seemingly have more authority and
less accountability than the mission organizations, and the amount of
oversight conducted by the federal staff of the Department's
contractors is not commensurate with other government/contractor
relationships.
In your opinion, has increased DOE oversight of the contractors
responsible for managing and operating the national laboratories had an
impact on the timeliness of decision making within the Department, and
is the relationship consistent with other government/contractor
relationships?
Would you be willing to assess the way in which the Department's
various support organizations, such as the Office of Health, Safety and
Security (HSS), Office of Engineering and Construction Management
(OECM), CFO, General Counsel, etc., support the Department's mission
organizations and determine if changes are necessary to ensure that
this model is consistent with the original government-owned contractor-
operated (GOCO) model of laboratory governance, which was originally
designed to bring the best possible scientific and management talent
and private-sector business practices to the laboratories. And, if
changes are deemed necessary, would you be willing to make the
appropriate adjustments?
Answer. I believe that accountability and oversight of the
Department's operating facilities and national laboratories are vital
to ensuring that the Department meets its mission goals. As a matter of
principle, I believe that any effective contractual arrangement must
include clear mission statement, scope of work, and milestones, that
the contractor must be empowered to perform without undue
micromanagement, but with full accountability and regular oversight of
performance deliverables and quality. The Secretary has made improved
management of the Department one of his priorities. In that spirit, if
confirmed I would certainly be willing to examine the issues you raise
and make appropriate adjustments.
______
Responses of David B. Sandalow to Questions From Senator Murkowski
clean energy
Question 1. In attempting to address global climate change, a great
deal of faith has been put into the ability of the United States to
advance cleaner technologies, and assure their deployment to the
developing world.
What role do you see DOE playing in clean technology transfer,
particularly to the developing world?
Answer. I believe that DOE can play an important role in promoting
cooperation on clean energy technologies with the developing world. I
understand that the Department has ongoing energy partnerships with its
counterparts in many countries, including in developing countries. If
confirmed I would work to build on this base of existing relationships
to help improve processes and procedures with respect to transfer and
deployment of clean energy technologies.
green jobs
Question 2. In recent months, many have asserted that the ``green
jobs'' sought through a number of DOE programs, as well as the Stimulus
and other measures, are incapable of being exported.
Given the current level of importation associated with batteries,
wind farm components, and turbines for geothermal steam, do you believe
that so-called ``green jobs'' are any less susceptible to off-shoring
than traditional, non-green jobs?
Answer. In many cases, yes. For example, improving efficiency in
our buildings--the lowest hanging fruit in terms of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions and lowering energy bills for consumers--offers great
potential to create jobs that cannot be outsourced. I believe that
investments in research, development and deployment of clean energy
technologies can help to create good new jobs in the United States.
Restoring U.S. technological leadership in these areas is an important
component of ensuring that clean energy jobs of the future are U.S.
jobs.
natural gas
Question 3. Mr. Sandalow, from your writings and published articles
it is very clear how you feel about oil production, but it is a bit
less clear how you feel about production of domestic natural gas. In
your article Ending Oil Dependence for the Brookings Institute, you
argued against gasoline as a transportation fuel, and instead favor
electric vehicles and biofuels. How do you feel about compressed
natural gas as a transportation fuel?
Answer. I believe compressed natural gas can make an important
contribution to reducing our dependence on oil as a transportation
fuel.
biofuels
Question 4a. I appreciate the candid comments you have made on
corn-based biofuels and am glad that you recognize the need to develop
advanced feedstocks. While biofuels are not part of the energy bill
that we are currently working on, I do have several questions for you
on this topic.
First, do you support the inclusion of promising new feedstocks,
such as algae, in the Renewable Fuel Standard? Do you believe it is
important for the RFS to be technology-neutral?
Answer. In general I believe that government should set goals and
allow the private sector to find the best technological solutions. I am
not familiar with specific issues surrounding algae feedstocks and the
RFS, but would be eager to work with you on this if confirmed.
Question 4b. In the past, you have supported the elimination of the
tariff on imported ethanol. Will you continue to support the removal of
that tariff if you are confirmed as Assistant Secretary?
Answer. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, I would support the
President's position on this issue. As I've written, this is a complex
issue.
Question 4c. In ``Freedom From Oil,'' you also supported a variable
subsidy for corn-based ethanol production that would range from 70
cents per gallon when oil prices are at $40 per barrel, to no subsidy
when oil prices rise above $75 per barrel. Do you still support this
policy? Would you urge the administration to adopt it, should you be
confirmed?
Answer. I believe the idea of a variable subsidy is worth
consideration. Those specific numbers were offered as an example--I
don't have a view on what schedule, if any, would be best. Since I
first wrote on this, several experts have approached me to point out
that rising oil prices are often associated with higher production
costs for ethanol, arguing that this undercuts the case for a variable
subsidy. This is an important point that should be analyzed in any
future consideration of this issue.
Question 4d. In order to properly evaluate whether biofuels will
help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, do you agree that it is important
to measure the lifecycle emissions associated with their production and
use, including land-use changes and other indirect factors?
Answer. I do.
blend wall
Question 5a. As you know, the EPA restricts the amount of ethanol
that can be blended into regular gasoline to 10 percent or less. Annual
biofuel production is already on the verge of saturating that
limitation, however, and within the next few years, the RFS will
mandate more biofuel production than can legally be blended into the
gasoline supply.
How do you believe this so-called ``blend wall'' should be
addressed? Do you believe that the ethanol content in gasoline can be
increased without harming hundreds of billions of dollars worth of
vehicles, equipment, and infrastructure?
Answer. This is an important question that needs to be carefully
evaluated. I do not have a view at this time about the impact of
increased ethanol blends on vehicles and other equipment.
Question 5b. Will you commit to advising against an increase in the
10 percent limit until scientific data proves that no damages will
result from such a decision?
Answer. If confirmed, I will look into this matter and will provide
advice to Secretary Chu after consideration of the relevant scientific
information.
Question 5c. Some have likened the ``blend wall'' to a
steeplechase, because this issue will arise repeatedly as RFS volumes
continue to increase. What strategy will you follow to balance the
desire to increase biofuel production with the need to protect
individual property from harm associated with its use?
Answer. Again, I think this is an important question that needs to
be carefully evaluated. If confirmed I will work with you, as well as
my colleagues in the Administration to be sure that we consider the
issues you raise.
domestic oil
Question 6. Let me ask one clarifying question. You obviously want
us to reduce oil usage in the transportation sector to make us less
dependent on foreign oil sources, but market penetration of electric
cars will not happen overnight. Shouldn't we be attempting to increase
production of domestic oil supplies in the short-run to provide a
bridge to the era of renewable energy, especially as a transportation
fuel? Given the estimates of over 100 billion barrels of oil still
remaining in America from onshore areas like under the Arctic coastal
plain, to the OCS off our coasts, why shouldn't we be developing that
oil now while we push ahead with renewables and alternatives?
Answer. President Obama has indicated that he is open to increased
domestic production as part of a comprehensive energy plan. If
confirmed I will work with you and with others in the Administration on
this important topic.
transportation
Question 7. You advocate plug-in hybrid vehicles as one of the most
effective ways for the United States to reduce oil consumption. This
seems to leave out the aviation and marine industries, which are also
large consumers of petroleum-based fuels. Which policies would you
propose or support to reduce fuel consumption in those industries?
Answer. While cars and trucks account for the lion's share of our
petroleum consumption, you identify an important issue with respect to
aviation and marine industries. I strongly support research to develop
potential alternatives to oil in these sectors, such as biofuels, and
ongoing work to improve fuel efficiency. I look forward to working with
you on these issues if I am confirmed.
asia-pacific partnership
Question 8. The Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and
Climate (Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, Korea, and the United
States) works with private sector partners to meet goals for energy
security, national air pollution reduction, and climate change. The APP
has eight private sector task forces working on: Aluminum; Buildings
and Appliances; Cement; Cleaner Fossil Energy; Coal Mining; Power
Generation and Transmission; Renewable Energy and Distributed
Generation; and Steel.
Do you support the previous Administration's work on the Asia
Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate?
a. If yes: If you are confirmed, how will you work to advance the
Partnership?
b. If no: What do you view as an alternative?
Answer. I believe the Asia-Pacific Partnership can make an
important contribution to promoting clean energy and fighting climate
change. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the work of
the Asia-Pacific Partnership and how best to advance it.
clean energy trade
Question 9. Last year USTR and the European Union submitted a
proposal to the World Trade Organization to remove barriers to
international trade in environmental technologies and services. Global
trade of the goods covered by the proposal totaled approximately $613
billion in 2006, with some WTO members charging duties as high as 70%
on certain goods.
Do you support moving this proposal forward at the WTO? If you are
confirmed, what role will you play in gathering global support for it?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about
the proposal and how best to advance it.
state-owned oil companies
Question 10. State-owned oil companies control close to 80% of the
world's estimated 1.2 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves and make
up 18 of the world's 20 largest oil companies. Beijing is probably one
of the most active players in locking in resources from around the
world.
Should the United States be concerned by the increasing amount of
leverage that state-owned oil companies, particularly those from China,
have in the international oil market?
Answer. Yes, I share this concern.
international civil nuclear cooperation
Question 11. Two weeks ago Ambassador Greg Schulte, the U.S.
Permanent Representative to the UN offices in Vienna and the IAEA, gave
a speech on behalf of Secretary Chu at the IAEA International
Ministerial Conference in Beijing. In this speech Ambassador Schulte
referenced President Obama's call for a new framework for international
civil nuclear cooperation and described the role of the Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership's Steering Group in establishing such a framework. I
realize that much of the GNEP effort has been refocused on research and
development, but I would agree with Ambassador Schulte that diplomatic
efforts such as the GNEP Steering Group play a central role in ensuring
the responsible development of a safe and secure world-wide nuclear
energy enterprise. This is particularly true today with so many
countries considering new or expanded civilian nuclear power programs
whether or not the U.S. chooses to remain engaged.
Can you briefly describe for this Committee the current status of
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Steering Group? If you are
confirmed as Assistant Secretary of Energy for International Affairs
and Domestic Policy, what steps will you take to ensure that the
Department of Energy continues to support the Steering Group and
provides U.S. leadership in this area?
Answer. I understand that progress was made at the recent Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership Steering Group meeting in several areas,
including key areas of focus for the expert working groups on Reliable
Nuclear Fuel Services and Infrastructure Development. If confirmed, I
will work with Secretary Chu and other Administration officials to
determine the best approach for advancing the Administration's
nonproliferation and energy priorities through participation in the
international activities of GNEP.
offshore production
Question 12a. Last summer, with oil prices well above $100 per
barrel, you criticized the push to increase offshore production. You
stated that any gains in offshore production would be outweighed by an
increase in environmental risk. That argument minimizes the importance
of decades of safety improvements and technological advancement, and it
also relies on outdated resource estimates. Is it fair to make such an
assessment without even knowing the full extent of our nation's
offshore resources?
Answer. I strongly agree that safety improvements and technological
advances have reduced the environmental risk in offshore drilling
during the past few decades. I believe in assessing our nation's
offshore resources as part of a comprehensive domestic energy plan.
Question 12b. Do you think that restricting domestic development
will force lower domestic oil consumption?
Answer. No.
Question 12c. If domestic oil consumption remains about the same as
it is today, does the fact that most of our oil will come from foreign
production, outside of American environmental regulation, make it more
environmentally-responsible?
Answer. No.
Question 12d. As we consider policies to reduce oil consumption--
which you might call ``freedom from oil''--do you believe that we
should do everything possible to first ensure our freedom from foreign
oil?
Answer. I believe our dependence on foreign oil is a very serious
problem. In part because oil is a fungible product traded on a global
market, I believe the most fundamental problem is our near-total
dependence on oil in our cars and trucks. If most cars and trucks also
ran on other fuels--such as electricity, biofuels and natural gas--our
dependence on foreign oil would decline dramatically.
Question 12e. Would you prefer the price of oil to be $50 per
barrel, or $100 per barrel?
Answer. $50.
______
Responses of Rhea S. Suh to Questions From Senator Murkowski
abandoned well clean-up in alaska
Question 1. As you set about producing an FY11 budget I would just
like to encourage you to consider building additional funding into the
BLM base for the cleanup of federally produced abandoned oil wells in
Arctic Alaska. Back in the late 1970s and early 80s there was an
exploratory program in NPR-A conducted under contract for the
government and there is an estimated $150 million worth of work needed
to better cap those abandoned wells. I appreciate the $9 million in the
FY09 budget for such cleanup efforts, but I hope that you will
generously fund such efforts in the future since the responsibility
clearly is with the government.
Do you have any general comments on abandoned well cleanup and how
you feel it fits in your priorities for future funding?
Answer. I understand that the Department of the Interior and the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) share your concerns about the
importance of cleaning up ``legacy'' wells on Alaska's North Slope, and
the urgency of this effort because of the risks posed by increasing
coastal erosion. I am advised that the BLM has recently completed
remediation of the Atigaru well, and that the next priority is
remediation of the Drew Point well during the winter of 2009-2010. I
also understand that the BLM is funding the Drew Point well remediation
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), and that for
this reason, the President's Budget Request for FY 2010 does not
include funding for the Drew Point project. Although I cannot make
budget commitments on behalf of the Administration, if I am confirmed
as Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget, I will work
closely with the Secretary to assure that this program is examined
carefully as the Department formulates future budget requests.
north slope science initiative
Question 2. Back about 5 years ago a number of federal agencies--
including BLM and the F&WS--joined with Alaska state agencies and local
governments to create a North Slope Science Initiative to find funding
for scientific studies of importance for resource development in Arctic
Alaska. But the effort has never been built into the budget base. As
you work on your FY11 budget, I hope you will find a permanent place
for the NSSI. My general question is, what are your priorities for
scientific funding in your Department's budget process?
Answer. Like President Obama, I believe that understanding of
science, technology, and innovation will be key to strengthening our
economy and forming policy that will work for the American people. The
President has called for a national strategy to nurture and sustain a
culture of scientific innovation. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary
at the Department of the Interior, I will commit to a fair and balanced
approach to consideration of funding needs, including science.
previous employment
Question 3. One of the often-repeated frustrations by many
Democratic members on this Committee over the previous eight years were
the close ties some nominees for the Department of the Interior had
with the oil, gas, or other commodity industries.
Ms. Suh, you have very close ties to a number of environmental and
preservation groups. In fact, according to your background papers, you
were a program officer and manager for two foundations that provided
significant financial resources to a number of advocacy groups who have
and likely will continue to attempt to drive changes in federal land
policy and federal land management. As a manager, you helped to make
decisions on which groups and what projects received funding form the
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard
Foundation. More specifically, you worked on the environmental programs
at these foundations.
While you were not a lobbyist, you funded organizations to lobby
and are thus, in my mind, an accessory to lobbying the very agency you
have been nominated to work within.
I think that all Members of this Committee understand that
foundation funding is critical to the survival of many of the advocacy
groups like the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, or the Southeast
Alaska Conservation Council, or the Idaho Conservation League.
At the same time, I think that all Members also understand that
many of these foundations provide important funding to many other
groups, universities, and even local governments to help them respond
to new laws, regulations, and demands.
Ms. Suh--I have a series of questions that I would like you to
answer with a simple yes or no answer and then I will get into a couple
of questions that will require a little more in terms of responding.
Given the direct financial support you had some responsibility of
steering to groups that come before the Department of the Interior, do
you intend, if confirmed, to recuse yourself from meeting with any of
the groups that received funding from either the William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation? More
specifically, from the environmental programs at those two foundations?
Answer. Let me first clarify a point about the funding granted by
the two foundations in which I have worked. Both the Hewlett and
Packard foundations do not provide funds to organizations for lobbying
purposes and are prohibited from doing so by the Internal Revenue
Service regulations that govern charitable giving. I have consulted
with the ethics officials at the Department of the Interior, and they
have informed me that they do not think there would be an appearance of
a conflict of interest in meeting with groups that have received
funding from these foundations.
As I have stated in my ethics agreement addressed to the designated
agency ethics official at the Department of Interior, I will comply
fully with the ethics policies set forth in 5 C.F.R. Sec. 2635.502 and
upon confirmation, I will resign from my position as a program manager
with the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. In addition, for a period
of one year after my resignation, I will not participate personally and
substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in
which the Foundation is a party or represents a party, unless I am
first authorized to participate pursuant to 5 C.F.R. Sec. 2635.502(d).
Question 4a. In March 2005, you participated in an online debate on
environmentalism with Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus. In that
online forum you said some very interesting things that I would like
you to help us understand. First you said: ``Ultimately, I think we all
strive for (re)establishing strong environmental/conservation values to
the point where they are seen as the `political third rail. . . .' ''
In making the grants that you made, to what extent were you
attempting to fund groups that would make environmental values a
`political third rail' for those of us in congress that are charged
with overseeing the Department of the Interior?
Answer. Let me first underscore the fact that I have the utmost
respect for and understanding of the importance of the oversight
Congress provides for the Department of the Interior. From my time as a
Senate staffer for Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell in the 104th
Congress, I gained a deep appreciation of this oversight role. During
my tenure with the Senator, I supported his work on the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee and did so both from within the Minority
party and then, after 1995, in the Majority party. From this
experience, I gained not only an appreciation of the critical role of
Congress in supporting and overseeing the mission of the Department of
the Interior, but also a unique perspective on the issues that are
critically important to both parties and to various stakeholders on
natural resource issues. This experience is the foundation for my
beliefs and optimism about conservation and natural resource policy.
Within the context of this online debate, I was articulating my
opinion that environmental politics for the last several decades have
become overly partisan and environmental debates seem to devolve too
quickly into polarizing positions. These positions often result in
stalemate situations where ``winners'' or ``losers'' are too often
chosen by courts. In my remarks, I was not referring to the appropriate
and legal role Congressional oversight plays in ensuring accountability
by federal land management agencies, but was focusing on the sad fact
that environmental groups or commodity user groups are pigeonholed and
categorized in a way (and often by each other) that I believe
diminishes the real values and needs of our communities.
Conservation values are broadly held by Americans: we love to hunt
and fish, we want clean water to drink and air to breathe and we want
our children to grow up in communities that are vital and sustainable.
Conservation debates should explore the opportunities growing from
these shared values and should help us collectively define a better
vision for our future. I hope that if confirmed, I can work with the
Department and Congress to develop new opportunities for proactive and
positive decisionmaking.
Question 4b. Can you explain why you wanted Congress to be so
skittish about addressing environmental values?
Answer. My discussion points were focused on stakeholder groups,
not Congress. Specifically, I was encouraging the broader community to
be more focused on the values that could bring us together rather than
on politics that would perpetuate divisiveness.
Question 4c. You also said: ``The whole inside-the-Beltway game has
its obvious drawbacks right now. However, to be fair, I think that even
though things are bleak, we have to continue to put up a fight in D.C.
There will be huge battles over the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species
Act . . . and as we saw from the Arctic debate, we need to make a
strong showing, even if we ultimately fail.''
Understanding you said this in 2005 when Republicans controlled the
House, Senate, and White House, do you think that the commodity user
groups could use some foundation support to help them withstand the
onslaught of environmental changes that have been announced by the
Department of the Interior up to this point, as well as those that are
likely to be announced over the next four years?
Answer. There are thousands of foundations throughout the country
and the trustees or benefactors of each foundation determine how to
best allocate their charitable dollars. So while I am not in the
position to advocate for new categories of funding, I do think that it
is important for foundation staff to recognize and have an appreciation
of the broader public debate and of the interests of all stakeholders
in any given area of focus.
Question 4d. You also wrote: ``How can you turn something like the
politics of environmental protection in Alaska around? Ultimately, I
don't think it is going to be by getting more people to walk the halls
of Congress--perhaps more people to walk the roads of Fairbanks?''
I am curious, what specifically did you find wrong with the
politics of environmental protection in Alaska in 2005?
Answer. As you know well, Alaska has been the focus of some of the
most contentious environmental debates. I believe that these
environmental debates have been overly polarized and have too often
resulted in lengthy and costly legal battles without addressing long-
term needs or solutions. My point on this question was to draw specific
attention to the need for the national environmental community to begin
to build a greater capacity for work in and understanding of local
communities in Alaska. As I noted in my personal statement during my
confirmation hearing, 1 believe strongly that the most successful and
durable conservation solutions are those that have included broad
public input, including local knowledge to create place-based solutions
for conservation issues.
Question 4e. And more importantly, if confirmed as the Under
Secretary for Policy and Budget, what changes to environmental
protection for Alaska do you plan to advocate for?
Answer. I understand the importance of this question to you and I
recognize that the Department has a special relationship with Alaska
given the immense presence the Department has in your state. I know
that the Department implements many and diverse Alaska-specific laws
and programs, and I look forward to becoming familiar with them if I am
confirmed.
I think it is important to ensure that we have a balanced policy
that recognizes the importance of Alaska's vast storehouse of natural
resources to the nation's economic future, while also honoring the
treasures protected by Congress and previous administrations.
Implementing one of these tasks should never preclude implementing the
other.
As I previously noted, it is my belief that the stewardship role
entrusted to the Department is often best accomplished by including
broad public input and creating solutions informed by local knowledge.
We also must recognize, however, that the Department's decisions must
be implemented in accordance with applicable laws. Good decision-
making, including careful regard for decision-making processes, can
keep important decisions from ending up in and being made by the
courts. In the case of development, waiting for the judicial process to
run its course can delay development for years and make long-range
planning difficult for both the Department and industry.
Question 4f. You also said: ``Indicators of progress might not be
the passage of a new hill to protect the Tongass (to use the Alaska
analogy again), but rather indicators of social and/or political change
that are meaningful.''.... ``For example, on many federal policies we
have relied on the public comment process to have our voices heard.
Organizing people to sign letters or send faxes (through an
increasingly automated system) worked pretty effectively for a while.
Now, however, we are seeing that public comments don't really seem to
hold the weight they once did. Thus, the question really is whether the
strategy is actually going to move you toward the solution you seek.''
In your capacity as Under Secretary for Policy and Budget, if
confirmed, you will not directly oversee the Tongass National Forest,
but you will certainly have the ability to shape what does and does not
occur in that national forest through your relationship with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
What are the specific changes that you believe are needed with
regard to the management of the Tongass National Forest?
Answer. As a program officer for both the Hewlett Foundation and
now the Packard Foundation, I was able to successfully recommend seed
grants to support the Tongass Roundtable process (primarily through the
Nature Conservancy). I believe this process currently represents one of
the most promising models for developing comprehensive, collaborative
and long-term solutions for conservation issues in the nation. While it
has not been an easy road, and certainly there are still many
challenges ahead, it is an example of what can happen when you bring
people together to collectively define a vision for their future. And
this future is dependent on the Forest Service implementing a
management plan that supports the unique values of the Tongass National
Forest--which could include the values of timber harvesting, unique
species and ecosystems, carbon sequestration, tourism, recreation,
Alaska Native heritage and subsistence uses.
Question 4g. In 2005 you opined that the public comment process and
letter writing did not hold the weight it once did. What will your
policy be regarding letter writing campaigns? Will you make policy
decisions based on the number of letters or faxes you receive, or on
sound science and economic considerations?
Answer. As I have stated earlier, I am a strong believer in robust
public participation in policy processes. Letters (or faxes, emails, or
telephone calls) will always serve as an important element to
understanding the views and opinions of the American public on any
given subject. These inputs, alongside public hearings, public comment
periods, and on-going discussions with local communities, are a few of
the many tools that should be a part of ensuring the ability of the
public to engage in the decision-making process. In addition, these
processes must be built upon the best available scientific and economic
data available.
Question 5. If confirmed you will oversee the department's budget
preparation including recommendations to the Administration concerning
funding for each of the agencies within the department. Over the last
four or five decades it has become apparent that the Park Service
budget is significantly higher on a per-employee or per-acre basis than
any of the other land management agencies within the department. To
some extent this is the result of the budget requests that the
department has submitted over the years, as well as Congressional
appropriations.
As the department's budget officer will you commit to developing an
analysis to be shared with the Congress that examines this issue and
recommends ways to better balance the department's budget requests to
that all the agencies get a similar amount of funding on a per-acre and
per-employee basis?
Answer. I appreciate the importance of funding all of the land
management agencies within the Department of the Interior and their
important programs for stewardship of lands and resources. I am not yet
familiar with the details of the Department's budget nor with the
approach related to determining the appropriate funding level for land
management agencies. I will commit to examining this issue and
reporting back on the results if I am confirmed.
Responses of Rhea S. Suh to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 6a. One of the greatest duties of federal employees is to
uphold the public's trust. You have been nominated for a position of
responsibility for over 70,000 employees. If confirmed, 1 hope that you
will be keenly focused on upholding the public's trust in the
Department of Interior. This is a significant challenge, particularly
in a Department as vast and important as DOI. One challenge that you
must face head-on is the tendency for federal employees to ``fail
upward''. In other words, the tendency for subpar employees to be moved
from the duty station to duty station, rather than be appropriately
reprimanded or removed from government service. These subpar employees
seem to move around the country year-after-year, through transfers or
promotions. This only hurts taxpayers, public land users and the
thousands of invaluable public servants employed by the Department.
What concrete steps will you take to address this trend in
personnel management?
Answer. I consider the public's trust in the Department of the
Interior and its employees to be of the utmost importance. It is
critical that we have productive and effective employees within the
Department. Your question raises two separate issues, conduct and
performance. In terms of issues of conduct, I will review the current
conduct and discipline policies to ensure that appropriate policies are
in place. Managers and supervisors throughout the Department need to be
fully aware of the rules, principles and guidelines to be followed in
disciplining Federal employees and have the skills and support they
need when action is warranted.
How well an employee performs their job is addressed through
performance management. I will review the performance management system
to determine where improvements can he made, make the improvements, and
train and hold Interior managers accountable for dealing with poor
performance.
Question 6b. What timeframe will you set for taking these steps?
Answer. I will make this a priority once I am confirmed.
Question 7. We see a growing trend of field offices in Wyoming
being bogged down in limitless FOIA requests from activist groups.
These groups are using the FOIA process not simply to obtain
information. They are manipulating the system in order to paralyze the
agencies. By overloading local offices with paperwork, they are
preventing timely decision making and on-the-ground management. If
confirmed, how will you direct the bureaus to address the problem of
paralyzing FOIA requests?
Answer. As you are aware, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
establishes a number of specific requirements on federal agencies when
responding to requests for information from the public, including a
requirement to conduct a reasonable search for documents reasonably
described in the request. Compliance with these requirements
occasionally creates a burden on agency personnel who must search for
responsive documents and otherwise process the request. If confirmed, I
commit to instruct the bureaus to follow the mandates of the FOIA when
applicable. That said, I expect to also comply with the provisions of
the OPEN Government Act of 2007, which provide that the Chief FOIA
Officer shall be responsible for efficient and appropriate compliance
with the FOIA and for recommending adjustments to agency practices,
policies, personnel, and funding necessary to improve implementation of
this section. When the Chief FOIA Officer identifies improvements and
adjustments to the FOIA process at the Department, including any
adjustments that would minimize the burdens on bureau personnel, I will
fully support these efforts to improve FOIA processing.
______
Responses of Michael Connor to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Please describe your views regarding the current
mission of the Bureau of Reclamation. As Commissioner, do you envision
a new mission for the Bureau of Reclamation on how it develops and
manages water?
Answer. Reclamation was established more than one hundred years ago
with a mission centered on the construction of irrigation and
hydropower projects, many of which are still functioning today. In the
107 years since its creation, Reclamation's mission has evolved to
include municipal and industrial water supply projects, water
recycling, ecosystem restoration, site security, and the protection and
management of water supplies. As part of this evolution, Reclamation is
looking for ways to better address environmental impacts, changing
demographics, and periodic drought in the West. The effects of climate
change on water resources pose new challenges that Reclamation must
also address in fulfilling its mission. I believe Reclamation needs to
work closely with its contractors, the states, environmental interests,
Indian tribes, and Congress as it carries out its core
responsibilities. If confirmed as Commissioner, I will support these
efforts and help ensure that Reclamation's programs continue to serve
the needs of an evolving West.
Question 2. Please describe how you intend to prioritize stimulus
funding for the backlog of water recycling projects at the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Answer. The Recovery Act directed that Reclamation devote a minimum
of $126 million for authorized water recycling projects. The Department
announced April 15 that a total of $135 million of Reclamation's $1
billion Recovery Act appropriation would be dedicated to these
projects, which will make significant progress on the backlog. These
projects are being rated and ranked based on criteria which have been
publicly announced. I am advised that specific project awards will be
announced this month.
Question 3. Over the next few years, as climate issues are
addressed, the Bureau of Reclamation will play a key role in analyzing
the available data, and its likely impact on water resources. Please
describe how you intend to address the impact of climate change on
these resources.
Answer. I believe strongly that wherever possible, climate change
science should be incorporated into water resources decisions and
planning. I understand Reclamation has a number of research activities
underway in partnership with other federal agencies aimed at expanding
the body of climate change information. I agree that the collection and
analysis of this information is critically important for modern water
managers. Congress has directed Reclamation to assess the impact of
climate change on its operations and plan accordingly. If confirmed, I
will support these and other initiatives to address climate change.
Question 4. Will additional water resources need to be developed?
If so, what options are currently available to augment these resources?
Answer. Additional water resources may need to be developed, and
that may occur through many different means. As noted earlier, water
conservation can play a key role in providing new supplies. Congress
has authorized long-term investments in water conservation and
efficiency projects. This same law authorizes Reclamation to study new
ground or surface water storage proposals as a means to address the
impacts of climate change. Finally, continued efforts to develop cost-
effective desalination technologies may ultimately yield additional
useable water resources.
Question 5. Please describe how you, as commissioner, intend to
address the relationship between energy and water within Reclamation.
Answer. There is a clear nexus between water use and the energy
needed to make that water available. Pumping and delivering water, and
recycling brackish and wastewater are energy-intensive. Current
desalination technologies are energy- and capital-intensive. Conserving
water conserves energy. I believe that water conservation is one of the
most promising avenues for overall energy conservation, and if
confirmed, I will work aggressively in this arena. I will also work to
assure that Reclamation's hydropower assets continue to provide
essential energy supplies in a safe and environmentally sound manner in
the interest of the American public. I think that Reclamation should
look for opportunities to integrate renewable energy generation into
its base operations. Finally, through an active desalination research
and demonstration program Reclamation could help to reduce the large
energy costs associated with desalination, leading potentially to
increased public acceptance of desalination technologies.
Question 6. Currently there are several agencies and departments
within the executive branch that focus on water. Please describe the
role the Bureau of Reclamation will play in working with these other
agencies to ensure that there is collaboration and cooperation in
integrating policy on climate, energy, and water.
Answer. First, Reclamation needs to continue to be an active
participant in an aggressive science program to continue efforts at
better understanding the effects of climate change on water resources.
Second, based on the best available scientific data, Reclamation needs
to continue working closely with affected interests to assess the need
to modify its operations and infrastructure to adapt to changes in
hydrology and climate. Finally, Reclamation needs to continue its
efforts to help water users conserve water and operate more
efficiently. This latter effort will help the West address many of its
future water supply challenges, including those that result from
climate change. I believe that transparency and proactive communication
are essential to successful collaborative relationships with fellow
federal agencies, and I will strive to foster these relationships if
confirmed.
Responses of Michael Connor to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 7a. You may be aware that Yellowtail Dam, managed by the
Bureau of Reclamation on the Bighorn River, forms Bighorn Lake. The
lake is the heart of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, managed
by the National Park Service, that spans the border between Montana and
Wyoming. When the dam was built, the federal government condemned
prosperous farms and ranches in Big Horn County Wyoming. The community
was promised a tourism economy to replace the condemned agricultural
land. Wyoming stakeholders observe the management of the dam and the
recreation area carefully in hopes that the government will one day
make good on this promise.
Yellowtail Dam presents unique management challenges for the
Bureau. The upstream lake, wildlife habitat and fishery are dependent
upon ample water levels behind the darn. The downstream trout fishery
and recreation area are dependent upon well-timed releases from the
dam. These are distinct and contradicting purposes. Management of the
dam requires balancing the interests of users upstream and downstream
in Wyoming and in Montana, respectively. The dam also serves power
customers and tribal users.
If confirmed, how will you direct Bureau of Reclamation employees
to handle this management challenge?
Answer. I am informed that Reclamation has established a Long Term
Issues Group together with the National Park Service at Yellowtail Dam
which includes participation from local interests and relevant state
agencies. The group provides a forum to address the multi-purpose
functions of the Dam, and I believe this to be a sound approach. If
confirmed, I will work to foster this collaborative approach that
considers the needs of all stakeholders in the management of Yellowtail
Dam and the Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area.
Question 7b. Additionally, there is a need for improved
coordination between the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park
Service. In fact, there is an MOU in place between the agencies for
management of the dam and National Recreation Area that is often
overlooked.
What steps will you take address the need for coordination with the
National Park Service? (Please be specific.)
Answer. I am advised that as the manager of the Bighorn Canyon
National Recreation Area and fellow federal participant in the Long
Term Issues Group, the National Park Service establishes reservoir
elevation targets to meet their resource management objectives.
Reclamation considers those needs along with the needs of the other
stakeholders and customers in making operational decisions at
Yellowtail. If confirmed, I will ensure that this coordination
continues.
Question 7c. How will you direct local-level Bureau of Reclamation
employees to handle this coordination? (Please be specific.)
Answer. Reclamation's Montana Area Office is responsible for the
coordinated operations of Yellowtail Dam. If confirmed I will ensure
that they fulfill these coordination responsibilities and continue to
explore opportunities to maximize benefits for all users at Yellowtail
Dam.
Responses of Michael Connor to Questions From Senator Sessions
fiscal issues
Question 1. Reclamation has received data that indicates the costs
of its projects more than double when steel pipe has no competition. To
my knowledge, Reclamation has never disputed this information. Before
Reclamation changed the Technical Memorandum, it routinely cited the
importance of competition and cost concerns. What role does competition
and an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of a project and the
materials used in a project play in Reclamation's decision-making?
Answer. I am informed that Reclamation considers several factors in
selecting materials, such as cost, performance, long-term reliability,
availability, ease of replacement or repair, and other factors.
Competitive solicitation processes are typically used to select
materials for a particular specification, with the selection based on
products that best meet the technical requirements of that
specification.
Question 2. Has Reclamation evaluated the effect of the Technical
Memorandum on the ability of Reclamation to provide water in a cost-
effective manner?
Answer. I am advised that the Technical Memorandum (TM) was
prepared in response to direction in House Appropriations Committee
Report 108-212, to ``establish good engineering practices which address
the long-term value and cost effectiveness of facilities constructed
over time.'' Congressional direction at the time stated that,
``[A]dditional work is needed to develop a more definitive corrosion
standard on which to decide the best product for a particular
application.'' I am further advised that Reclamation considers the use
of bonded dielectric coatings and cathodic protection for all metallic
pipe in highly corrosive soils a worthy investment to enhance each pipe
option's ability to provide reliable performance for the duration of
its service life.
Question 3. Has Reclamation performed an analysis of whether the
increased costs caused by the requirement to use bonded coatings versus
polyethylene encasement on ductile iron pipe provides benefits that
outweigh the costs?
Answer. I am not aware of any specific analysis that has been
performed of the benefits versus the costs of bonded coatings versus
polyethylene encasement on ductile iron pipe. However, I am informed
that material costs factor into Reclamation materials selections as one
of many considerations. Further, I am advised that Reclamation
maintains an active dialogue with organizations interested in pipe
materials, such as the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA)
and National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) to share the
latest information on this and other issues related to corrosion
mitigation on buried metallic pipe.
Question 4. Did Reclamation provide the National Academies'
Committee with any guidance about whether the National Academies'
Committee should evaluate economics in its review of the Technical
Memorandum?
Answer. I did not participate in the National Academies' review
process, but I am advised that the National Academies review focused on
two questions: 1. whether polyethylene encasement with cathodic
protection works on ductile iron pipe installed in highly corrosive
soils; and 2. whether polyethylene encasement and cathodic protection
can reliably provide a minimum service life of 50 years. I further
understand that the NAS review was structured to allow DIPRA and others
to provide additional information they felt was appropriate for NAS to
consider, which could include information about economic
considerations.
Question 5. It is my understanding that the entities receiving
Reclamation funding own the pipeline after the repayment period. Why
does Reclamation not allow the owner of a project to determine the best
material for its projects?
Answer. As a federal agency Reclamation constructs projects to
carry out Congressional intent behind the authorization and
appropriation of funds. Reclamation retains an active interest in the
reliability of the projects at least through the project repayment
period (typically 50 years) or beyond, depending on a project-specific
authorizing legislation. I am advised that Reclamation's 50 year
service life requirement for pipelines reflects this interest. I also
understand that Reclamation works with the entities that receive
funding for projects to be constructed under Reclamation's authority on
design and construction issues.
Question 6. It is my understanding that it is reasonable to assume
that water leaks will occur on a pipeline and that entities include
maintenance funds in their budget. Why should an owner of a
Reclamation-funded pipeline not be able to evaluate all of the costs of
potential pipe materials (initial costs, maintenance costs, etc.) to
determine the best material for its end-users taking into account their
particular situation?
Answer. I am informed that Reclamation often considers this cost
information in the selection of materials and works with the entities
that receive funding for projects on design and construction issues.
Reclamation makes decisions based on the best available scientific
information and engineering experience. As noted above, Reclamation
retains an active interest in the reliability of the projects at least
through the project repayment period (typically 50 years) or beyond,
depending on project-specific authorizing legislation.
Question 7. Many utilities and entities across the country use
their buried pipe as assets for financing. Reclamation has taken the
position that the corrosion method of choice in the water works
industry--polyethylene encasement--is not acceptabe in all soil
environments. Has Reclamation considered the effect that this decision
may have on the ability of entities to receive financing or the
detrimental effect this decision may have on the valuation of
underground assets throughout the United States?
Answer. I do not have information on the ability of entities to
secure funding based on the financial community's reaction to
Reclamation's decisions or documents, but I am advised that Reclamation
has not been made aware of any financing issues caused by its policy on
materials for pipelines.
process
Question 8. Reclamation invested more than $100 million in
polyethylene-encased ductile iron pipe before it changed the Technical
Memorandum. When reviewing the previous Technical Memorandum,
Reclamation contacted numerous utilities throughout the country but did
not contact the Reclamation-funded projects that used polyethylene
encasement to get their opinion of polyethylene encasement, which is
positive. Why did Reclamation not contact the most relevant entities
for its inquiry?
Answer. I do not have experience with the process leading up to
Reclamation's 2004 Technical Memorandum (TM) and at this time I do not
have information on which entities were most relevant for Reclamation's
corrosion considerations. I would be willing to look into this matter
if confirmed.
use of polyethylene encasement
Question 9. Reclamation has indicated that the Technical Memorandum
is not a standard but a set of guidelines. May a Reclamation-funded
project use polyethylene-encased, cathodically-protected ductile iron
pipe in all soil environments?
Answer. I am advised that in appropriate circumstances, it is
possible for a project to obtain an exception from the guidelines
contained in the TM.
Question 10. If so, are there any aurthorizations required?
Answer. I am advised that the Reclamation director with
programmatic responsibility for the project must approve the proposed
exception.
national academies' review
Question 11. Reclamation has taken the position that its ``target
performance level is zero external corrosion induced leaks/ruptures/
failures which would require the pipeline to be taken out of service
during the minimum service life (i.e. 50 years).'' See Reclamation
Letter to the National Academies' Committee, August 21, 2008, at 2.
Reclamation funds water projects in rural areas. It is a given that
water pipes will leak at some point, and operations budgets account for
this. Do you believe that a standard of zero leaks cuased by external
corrosion in 50 years is a reasonable standard for water pipes?
Answer. I believe that the target performance level is reasonable
in light of the types of pipelines Reclamation typically constructs,b
ut one which may not always be achieved due to a variety of factors
including unseen imperfections and the number of variables involved
with pipe installation in the field.
Question 12. Has Reclamation used the zero corrosion induced
leakes/ruptures/failures standard, which would prevent a pipleline from
being taken out of service in 50 years, to evaluate the pipe materials
it will allow on its projects?
Answer. I am advised that this is a target performance level upon
which Reclamation bases its recommended corrosion mitigation methods
for all buried metallic pipelines.
Question 13. What would it cost for a pipeline to ensure that it
could have no external corrosion leaks in 50 years?
Answer. It is not possible to answer this question without more
specificity regarding the length of the pipe, site conditions,
operations criteria, and other factors. However, according to the
quotation that you cite, Reclamation is not aiming for zero leaks in 50
years. The stated target performance level is no leaks/ruptures/
failures which would require the system to be taken out of service in
this 50 year period. I am advised that the goal is to postpone
corrosion induced major structural failures of the pipeline for at
least 50 years.
Question 14. During the National Academies' review, ``[t]he
Committee then asked if Reclamation would accept a similar failure rate
for ductile iron pipe installed in severely corrosive soils with
polyethylene encasement and cathodic proection as we would get from
steel pipe installed in severely corrosive soils with a bonded
dielectric coating and cathodic protection.'' Id. Reclamation agreed
this was a reasonable benchmark but did not have any data on the
performance of steel pipe with bonded coatings in highly corrosive
soils. Id. at 3.
For the past five years, Reclamation has required the ductile iron
pipe industryo provide significant data regarding the effectiveness of
polyethylene-encased, cathodically-protected ductile iron pipe in
``highly corrosive'' (2000 ohm-cm) soils. Why does Reclamation not
have similar information regarding the effectiveness of steel pipe with
bonded dielectric coatings in ``highly corrosive'' soils?
Answer. I am advised that Reclamation's requests for data from
DIPRA have been designed to collect information which could address the
concerns voiced by many throughout these industries regarding the
effectiveness of polyethylene encased ductile iron pipe in general, and
specifically, polyethylene encased ductile iron pipe installed with
cathodic protection systems in highly corrosive soils. I understand
that engineers and pipe experts have not raised similar concerns about
the performance of cathodically protected steel pipe with bonded
dielectric coating installed in highly corrosive soils.
Question 15. Why does Reclamation not require any data regarding
the effectiveness of steelipe in ``highly corrosive'' soils?
Answer. As stated in my response to question 14, I am advised that
Reclamation's requests for data from DIPRA have been designed to
collect information that could address concerns raised by people in
these industries. I am informed that Reclamation has been open to
dialogue with all pipe manufacturers and the National Academies since
the 2004 TM was issued.
Question 16. Instead of the requested data, Reclamation provided
the National Academies' Committee with the performance data of DOT-
regulated steel pipelines carrying natural gas in unknown soil
environments because ``this database is the best source of quantitative
data on this issue to date.'' Id.
The Technical Memorandum regulates water systems. Why is data
regarding regulated oil or gas pipelines relevant?
Answer. I am informed that Reclamation provided the most
appropriate data available which could be used to meet the information
needs of the Academies within the timeframe of the NAS review.
Question 17. Does Reclamation believe that its water pipelines have
the same oversight and maintenance requirements as regulated oil and
gas pipelines?
Answer. I am not at this time aware of how Reclamation's policy on
water pipelines compares to the oversight and maintenance requirements
of oil and gas pipelines.
Question 18. Does Reclamation believe that its water pipelines
should have the same oversight and maintenance requirements as
regulated oil and gas pipelines?
Answer. As stated earlier, I am informed that Reclamation provided
the DOT data because ii was the most appropriate data available which
could be used to meet the information needs of the Academies within the
timeframe of the NAS review. It is my understanding that by providing
this data, Reclamation was not suggesting that Reclamation water
pipelines and regulated oil and gas pipelines should have the same
oversight and maintenance requirements. I am further advised that
Reclamation's focus on the issue of corrosion mitigation for its buried
metallic pipe has been and continues to he on the ability of its
pipelines to provide a minimum 50 year service life. Facility
maintenance reviews of Reclamation projects are conducted at standard
intervals, but oversight and maintenance requirements on particular
project features vary depending on the project.
Question 19. Reclamation has repeatedly emphasized that the
Technical Memorandum only governs ``highly corrosive soils.'' Why is
the DOT data regarding the performance of steel pipe in unknown soils
relevant?
Answer. I am advised that the TM addresses all soil types, and that
the NAS review was focused on the performance of polyethylene encased
ductile iron pipe installed in highly corrosive soils because that has
been the area of disagreement between Reclamation and DIPRA. As noted
above, I have been informed that the DOT data set provided the best
source of quantitative performance data of cathodically protected steel
pipe installed with bonded dielectric coating available to Reclamation
within the timeframe of the NAS review.
Question 20. Will Reclamation accept data regarding the
effectiveness of ductile iron pipe with polyethylene encasement in
unknown soils as evidence that polyethylene encasement can meet
Reclamation's corrosion standards?
Answer. I am advised that Reclamation is open to any and all
relevant performance data.
Question 21. In the DOT data that Reclamation provided to the
National Academies' Committee, Reclamation focused exclusively on
``significant incidents'', which include:
Fatality or injury requiring in-patient hospitalization;
$50,000 or more in total costs, measured in 1984 dollars;
Highly volatile liquid releases of 5 barrels or more or
other liquid releases of 50 barrels or more; or
Liquid releases resulting in an unintentional fire or
explosion.
The ``significant incidents'' listed above demonstrate the
potential dangers that pressurized oil and gas pipelines present. Does
Reclamation believe that the risks of a leak on a Reclamation water
pipeline are comparable to the risks of a pressurized oil or gas
pipeline leak?
Answer. Depending on the location and nature of failures, water
line ruptures can present significant hazards to the public.
Question 22. It appears that the DOT database included all
incidents on steel pipelines, not just the ``significant incidents''.
Why did Reclamation only present the ``significant incidents'' to the
National Academies' Committee?
Answer. I am advised that the selection of this subset of DOT data
was based on a desire to provide data on the types of corrosion induced
problems within the DOT data which was as similar as possible to the
types of serious failures described as: ``...external corrosion induced
leaks/ruptures/failures which would require the pipeline to be taken
out of service...'' noted in Reclamation's ``target performance
level.''
Question 23. Reclamation presented a standard that it wanted ``zero
external corrosion induced leaks/ruptures/failures which would require
the pipeline to be taken out of service'' during the first 50 years.
Since Reclamation wanted perfection, how is a measurement of
``significant incidents'' relevant?
Answer. I am advised that during the NAS review, Reclamation did
not characterize this performance level as a standard but rather as a
``target performance level.'' As noted above, I am also advised that
the selection of this subset of DOT data was based on a desire to
provide data on the types of corrosion induced problems within the DOT
data which was as similar as possible to the types of serious failures
described as: ``...external corrosion induced leaks/ruptures/failures
which would require the pipeline to be taken out of service...'' noted
in Reclamation's ``target performance level.''
Question 24. Has Reclamation ever used the 0.000044 failures/mile/
year standard to evaluate proposed project or pipe material?
Answer. I am advised that Reclamation has not used this numerical
analysis of the DOT data to evaluate a proposed project or pipe
material.
Question 25. Does Reclamation intend to use this or another
calculation to evaluate pipe materials in the future?
Answer. I understand that there are further technical
considerations involved in evaluating pipe materials, and I would be
willing to look into this matter if confirmed.
Question 26. Do you believe that it is reasonable or cost-effective
to require a 450-mile, Reclamation-funded water pipeline to have one
external corrosion leak/rupture/failure in its first 50 years of
service?
Answer. I do not have experience with Reclamation's requirements in
this area but would be willing to look into this matter if confirmed.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Ducks Unlimited,
Governmental Affairs Office,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, SH-703 Hart Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, SH-709 Hart
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski: On behalf of
Ducks Unlimited's (DU) one million members and supporters, we would
like to share our support for Rhea Suh as you consider her nomination
to be Assistant Secretary for Policy Management and Budget in the
Department of the Interior. For over 70 years, DU has worked to
conserve waterfowl and the habitat they depend on, and in doing so, we
have advocated for better wildlife conservation that benefits
waterfowl, landowners, and the general public. Based on our work with
her, we believe that Ms. Suh has the background, experience, and
leadership abilities necessary to perform in an exceptional manner in
the position of Assistant Secretary.
Rhea Suh has worked throughout the Pacific Flyway with Ducks
Unlimited to protect key coastal and wetland habitats. She has been a
leader in waterfowl and wetland conservation in the Boreal forest of
Canada. Working for the Hewlett Foundation, in partnership with The Pew
Charitable Trusts and Ducks Unlimited, Suh has supported key long-term
protection for a Boreal Landscape that is critical to scaup, scoter,
wigeon, green-winged teal, black duck, and mallard ducks. Suh has
worked closely with the International Boreal Conservation Campaign and
our organization to seek true long-term conservation solutions with a
myriad of stakeholders.
Thank you for your consideration of Rhea Suh to serve the
Department of Interior as Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management,
and Budget. Please let us know if we can assist in any way.
Sincerely,
Scott A. Sutherland,
Director.
______
WateReuse Association,
April 23, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman: On behalf of the WateReuse Association, I
am writing in strong support of President Obama's nomination of Mr.
Michael L. Connor to become the next Commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (Bureau). Over the past five years, we have worked with Mr.
Connor in his capacity as counsel to the committee. During this time,
he has displayed an uncommon capacity to address policy issues in an
open manner that contributed to the development of public policy that
effectively addresses the water supply needs of our membership. Mr.
Connor will bring to the Bureau a wealth of experience and expertise to
allow the Bureau to meet the challenges of climate change, growing
populations, and water scarcity throughout the West. We hope that your
committee will act swiftly on his confirmation hearing in the coming
weeks.
Mr. Connor's credentials and experience illustrate an individual
uniquely qualified to assume the duties of Commissioner. With a degree
in chemical engineering and working within industry, he has the
knowledge essential to manage complicated programs. As a former
official of the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor,
he is well versed in the statutory obligations of the Department and
the Bureau. And finally, his most recent duties as Counsel to the
committee on Energy and Natural Resources provide a special
understanding of the policymaking process. Each of these
accomplishments alone makes him an outstanding selection. Together,
they represent an opportunity for a talented individual to take the
helm of the Bureau and swiftly address the many water-related needs of
the West.
Again, we are hopeful that the committee will move without delay
and convene Mr. Connor's confirmation hearing and move the nomination
to the Senate floor for a positive vote.
Sincerely,
Richard Atwater,
President.
______
Southeastern Colorado,
Water Conservancy District,
Pueblo, CO, April 19, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chair, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate
Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen
Senate Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Nomination and Confirmation of Michael L. Connor for Commissioner
of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Dear Senators Bingaman and Murkowski: It is my privilege to write
today in support of the nomination of Michael L. Connor for the post of
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation and I ask the Committee to
support his confirmation.
As you know, Mr. Connor has more than 15 years of experience in the
public sector, including having served as Counsel to the U.S. Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where he managed legislation
for the Bureau of Reclamation and other issues that are within the
Energy Committee's jurisdiction. In addition, from 1993 to 2001, Mr.
Connor served in the Department of the Interior, including as deputy
director and then director of the Secretary's Indian Water Rights
Office from 1998 to 2001. In his capacity, Mr. Connor represented the
Secretary of the Interior in negotiations with Indian tribes, state
representatives, and private water users to secure water rights
settlements consistent with the federal trust responsibility to tribes.
Mr. Connor's experience makes him highly qualified to serve as
Commissioner. In addition, Mike has a proven track record of building
consensus with a wide range of stakeholders, including the Southeastern
Colorado Water Conservancy District. We at the District look forward to
working with him to ensure that we are wisely managing our precious
water resources at the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project for the benefit of
the people of southeastern Colorado.
Again, please support confirmation of Mr. Connor for the post of
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Sincerely,
Bill Long,
President.
______
National Water Resources Association,
Arlington, VA, March 23, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, SD-304, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing on behalf of the membership of the
National Water Resources Association in unanimous support of President
Obama's selection of Michael L. Connor to be the next Commissioner of
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. It is our opinion that the President
could not have chosen a more qualified individual.
For the past eight years, NWRA members have worked on a myriad of
water and energy issues with Mr. Connor in his role as both majority
and minority counsel to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. Mr. Connor has a solid understanding of the issues facing
Western water and energy customers and has always been a facilitator of
compromise and fairness.
We believe Michael Conner will be a great asset to Secretary
Salazar, the President and the members of both the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee
as they address the challenges ahead.
In the strongest possible terms, the National Water Resources
Association supports the nomination of Michael L. Connor as the
Comissioner of Reclamation and urges the Committee to expeditiously
report his nomination to the full Senate.
If we can assist the Committee in any manner, please do not
hesitate to contact me personally.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas F. Donnelly,
Executive Vice President.