U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–961 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 109–20

SELL AND SCARLETT NOMINATIONS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

TO

CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF JEFFREY CLAY SELL TO BE DEPUTY 

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND PATRICIA LYNN 

SCARLETT TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR

MARCH 9, 2005

(

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

ALEX FLINT, Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel 

BOB SIMON, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico .......................................... 3

Cornyn, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Texas ....................................................... 1

Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico ..................................... 1

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas ........................................ 2

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska ................................................ 18

Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado ................................................... 16

Scarlett, Patricia Lynn, Nominated to Be Deputy Secretary of the Interior ...... 8

Sell, Jeffrey Clay, Nominated to Be Deputy Secretary of Energy ....................... 5

Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming ............................................... 15

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon ....................................................... 11

APPENDIXES 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 27

(1)

SELL AND SCARLETT NOMINATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2005

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici, 

chairman, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will please come to order. We are 

here this morning to consider the nominations of Clay Sell to be 

Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy and Lynn Scarlett 

to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Before 

we begin, our colleague Senator Hutchison has asked to make a 

few remarks with reference to one of the nominees. We welcome 

you to the committee and would you please proceed because we 

know you have a busy schedule, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

Chairman Domenici, Ranking Member Bingaman, and committee members, it is 

a privilege to join Senator Hutchison today in supporting Clay Sell’s nomination as 

Deputy Secretary of Energy. I believe that President Bush has made strong choice 

for this nomination. As many of the members of this committee are well aware, Clay 

possesses a number of personal and professional attributes that make him an ideal 

candidate for this critical position. 

From his education in Texas, to working on national energy policy issues on Capitol Hill, to helping guide the Administration’s formation and implementation of energy initiatives, Clay has demonstrated an intelligence and ability to negotiate complex policy matters. 

There are few greater skills in Washington than the ability to perceive overreaching national needs, formulate a vision for moving forward to address those 

needs, then working tirelessly to attain that vision for the greater good. I believe 

that Clay has demonstrated these abilities. 

There are many challenges that lie ahead to meet our energy needs. Our country 

has gone too long without a strategic, comprehensive energy policy. There are few 

things that have such a direct and pervasive affect on both our economy and our 

environment than ensuring our nation’s energy security. Also, our good stewardship 

of our nuclear material and continuation of aggressive policies that assure nonproliferation have, perhaps, a greater importance now than in any other time in our 

history. 

I am confident that Clay’s leadership, breadth of knowledge and vision will help 

guide the Department of Energy through these many challenges. For your part and 

for mine, I also know that Clay will be an effective partner with Congressional 

members and leadership in working to enact beneficial policies. 

2

Thank you for the opportunity to express my support for this nominee. I look forward to continuing to work alongside you, Secretary Bodman, and Clay on these important issues.

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, U.S. SENATOR

FROM TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am so proud to be here for my fellow Texan, Clay Sell. Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I know if you were not chairing this committee you would be sitting right here next to me also introducing 

him, because you and I have both worked with him, and especially 

you have. 

I cannot think of anyone more qualified for the office of Deputy 

Secretary of Energy than Clay Sell. I want to say that Senator 

Cornyn particularly wanted me to mention what a great supporter 

he is as well. He could not be here this morning, but he is 100 percent supportive of Clay Sell for this position. 

Clay graduated from Texas Tech University and the University 

of Texas School of Law. He served his country for the past decade, 

gaining all of the experience he needs for this type of job. Especially his experience with energy policy, coupled with his vision for 

the Department of Energy, I know he will be a valuable asset for 

Secretary Bodman. 

For the last 19 months, Clay has served President Bush as Special Assistant on Energy Policy and Legislative Affairs. Prior to 

joining the White House, he served in the office of Congressman 

Mack Thornberry for 5 years and then in the Senate as Majority 

Clerk for the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee for 31⁄2 years. As the Majority Clerk for you, Mr. Chairman, Clay always worked well with me and all the members of the 

Senate, and I know that he will continue in this spirit of cooperation. 

His qualification, his experience, and especially his integrity 

make him the right person for this job. On a personal note, I want 

to say that I have had such a great impression of Clay and his integrity. As we all know, in the Senate there are rough times and 

there are times when it is hard to get something done. Energy 

issues particularly seem to be divisive sometimes. But Clay Sell is 

always honest, always doing the right thing, and always trying to 

help everyone understand the issues and work to make a win for 

all of the people concerned. So on a personal note, I recommend 

him so highly. 

I am very pleased that he has wonderful support with him, who 

I know he will introduce today. But I have also known his wife 

Alisa and worked with her. They brought their son Jack, who even 

has on a tie and a coat—I am very impressed—and two proud 

Texas parents, George and Judy Sell from Amarillo, Texas. 

So I am very pleased to be here in support of this nomination, 

Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Bingaman, did you have any comments with reference to 

the Senator, her remarks? 

Senator BINGAMAN. No, I did not, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate her 

coming. 

3

The CHAIRMAN. We will get to you in a moment. 

Thank you very much, Senator. Obviously, you are excused and 

thank you for being here. 

I think you all know that, as Senator Hutchison noted, Clay Sell 

worked for me as clerk of the Appropriations Energy and Water 

Development Subcommittee. During his tenure I was impressed by 

his combination of critical thinking skills and a wide range of 

knowledge of the numerous Department of Energy programs. Everyone on this committee and in this town that works in this area 

knows of the importance of the No. 2 job in the Department of Energy. 

As DOE moves forward this year in submitting a license application for NRC for Yucca Mountain and working on the next generation of cool nuclear power plants and continuing to work on environmental cleanup from our old wartime legacy, these are just a 

handful of issues that need to be tackled in the Department and 

I do not think there is anybody that, based on training, education, 

and experience, that is better than Clay to do that now. 

No less daunting is the task that you have, Secretary Lynn 

Scarlett. Your job as No. 2 person in the Department is a very difficult one. In your current position as Assistant for Policy and Management and Budget, which you have held since July 2001, you developed a grasp of the breadth of issues facing the Department, 

and I am hopeful that the increased authority that you will receive 

by virtue of this appointment will give you more opportunity to do 

things in the Department that are needed during the remainder of 

this President’s term. 

So I welcome both of the nominees and I want to thank both of 

you for your willingness to undertake this responsibility. It is of serious magnitude and we hope you will do well. 

Now, I would now ask Senator Bingaman if he would like to comment and then we’ll introduce your families. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator BINGAMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First let me just welcome both nominees. I have met with both 

of them and indicated to them that I support their nominations 

and wish them well in these new jobs and feel they are both highly 

qualified. I did want to just refer to two broader issues. I will have 

a specific question or two of the nominees after their statement. 

But the two broader issues, one relates to science. These are issues 

related to the Department of the Interior. 

One relates to science. There is a recent survey that I think is 

troubling, a survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists that 

was conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public 

Employees for Environmental Responsibility. They found what they 

saw as widespread political interference with the scientific work 

there in the Fish and Wildlife Service. I would be, obviously, concerned if that is the case. 

Nearly half the scientists who responded in that poll, who 

worked on endangered species-related issues, said that they had 

been directed for non-scientific reasons to refrain from making findings that were protective of environmental species. I think we need 

4

to run that down. Obviously, public trust in our institutions of government I think is eroded to the extent that people feel like all decisions are politically driven. 

The second concern relates to the Department’s responsiveness to 

the committee. I think 4 years ago the previous Deputy Secretary 

at his confirmation hearing pledged to work in a forthright, bipartisan and cooperative manner with the committee. Many of us have 

felt that that did not happen, as it should have. We have had difficulty getting technical and factual information without long 

delays, and career employees have apparently been forbidden to 

answer questions without first getting clearance from political appointees. 

Those are issues that have obviously caused consternation among 

myself and others in the committee and they are issues—I thought 

this was an appropriate issue to raise with these two nominees 

since they will be in a position to correct that in their new positions. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Bingaman. 

Now, we would like to permit each of you, starting with you, Mr. 

Sell, to introduce family members that you would like to be introduced so they can stand up and we can see who they are and know 

who is supporting you. 

Mr. SELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am very proud today to have my wife here with me, Alisa Sell, 

as Senator Hutchison introduced; my oldest son Jack. I have two 

other children, Robert, who is 2, and Mary Margaret, who is 1, and 

I was tempted to bring them here today with the hopes that it 

might shorten the hearing. But I left them at home. 

[Laughter.] 

And my parents, George and Judy Sell from Amarillo, Texas, are 

here as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Scarlett. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, Senator. I have with me my mother Virginia 

Scarlett that I would like to introduce today. I regret that my husband is unable to be here. He is enjoying the warm weather of 

southern California in Santa Barbara. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Scarlett. 

Now, I think we have to do some things that we have to ask 

every nominee to do. The rules require that you be sworn in in connection with your testimony. So would each of you rise and raise 

your right hands. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you 

are about to give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth? 

Mr. SELL. I do. 

Ms. SCARLETT. I do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Be seated. 

Before you begin your statements, I ask you three questions. 

One: Will you be available to appear before this committee and 

other Congressional committees to represent departmental positions and respond to issues of concern to Congress? First, Mr. Sell? 

5

Mr. SELL. I will. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Scarlett? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I will. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you aware of any personal holdings, investments or interests that could constitute a conflict 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. SELL. Senator, my investments, personal holdings, and other 

interests have been reviewed both by myself and the appropriate 

ethics counselors within the Federal Government. I’ve taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. There are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to my knowledge. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Scarlett? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, Senator, 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. Are you involved or do you have any assets held 

in blind trust? 

Mr. SELL. I do not. 

Ms. SCARLETT. No, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now we’re going to proceed to have 

each of you give your statements, and I hope they will be as brief 

as possible, and then we’ll proceed to questions. 

Mr. Sell. 

TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY CLAY SELL, NOMINATED TO BE 

DEPUTY SECRETARY OF ENERGY 

Mr. SELL. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and members of 

the committee, I’m honored to appear before you today as the 

President’s nominee to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. I earlier introduced my family, but I would like to say particularly about my 

wife, one of my greatest assets is being married to a tough, strong, 

Texas woman. I want to publicly thank Alisa for not just permitting me to continue to serve in the Government, but for being a 

great source of encouragement in my continuation. 

My educational background, as Senator Hutchison said, is in 

business and law. But for the last 10 years I’ve had the wonderful 

honor of serving my country and government. As such, I’m a product of my experiences in the House, Senate, and White House and 

of the outstanding individuals for whom I worked. 

For 5 years I served Congressman Mack Thornberry of Texas. 

His interest in national security missions of the Department of Energy and his vision for the National Nuclear Security Administration allowed me great involvement with the Department early in 

my career. Thereafter, I was proud to serve Senator Ted Stevens 

and you, Mr. Chairman, as your lead staffer on the Energy and 

Water Appropriations Subcommittee for 31⁄2 years. That experience 

allowed me to get to know and understand the programs of the Department in a way few people are permitted to know them, and the 

experience allowed me to work under one of the Nation’s foremost 

leaders of energy, science, and nonproliferation policy. 

6

For the last 19 months, as Senator Hutchison said, I’ve served 

President Bush as a Special Assistant on matters of energy policy 

and legislative affairs, a broadening experience that I believe further prepared me to help implement the President’s vision for energy and national security. 

The experiences in these three jobs will assist me in serving the 

Department and I hope complement the impressive qualifications 

of the new Secretary of Energy, Sam Bodman. 

I have long thought that the Department’s missions flow from 

two broad overarching themes, what can be and what must never 

be. The first mission theme allows us to lay out a vision of what 

can be: policies resulting in secure, reliable, and affordable sources 

of energy; new energy technologies that embrace the future and 

flow from the research occurring today in our laboratories and universities; world leadership in the management of resources in a 

way that increases and secures our Nation’s wealth, but also allows 

us to share with the world our prosperity and the peace that follows prosperity. These are the Department’s missions of energy policy, energy research and development, and science. 

The second mission theme is one that requires a commitment to 

what must never be. For 48 years this Department and its predecessors going back to the Manhattan Project combined human ingenuity with the physical sciences to end World War II and then win 

the cold war, protecting us from what must never be. Today this 

Department and its scientists, its technicians, its civil servants, are 

again called to build upon this historic mission by protecting the 

American people from the threat of nuclear terrorism in a rapidly 

changing world. These are the missions of the Department’s nonproliferation activities around the globe, of its national security 

programs, and of the requirements to be true to the environmental 

obligations resulting from this work. 

These missions are among the most important to our Nation and 

to our world. The Department cannot succeed, however, without 

full management focus from the top on the safety and security of 

the Department’s people and facilities. The Secretary has made 

this a top priority and if I am confirmed I intend to join him in 

making the management decisions and leading the operations of 

the Department in a manner that is true to the Secretary’s commitment. 

Finally, regarding the management of the Department, I should 

say that I have the greatest respect and regard for former Deputy 

Secretary Kyle McSlarrow and I thank him for the course that he 

has set. 

In closing, I want to once again thank the President for the trust 

he has placed in me and thank the committee for the consideration 

of my nomination. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and 

at the appropriate time I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY CLAY SELL,

NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF ENERGY

Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and members of the committee, I am honored 

to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. 

7

Before I proceed further, I would like to introduce and recognize my wife of 12 

years, Alisa Sell. Like many Texas men, my greatest asset is being married to a 

tough, strong Texas woman. I want to publicly thank Alisa for not just permitting 

me to continue to serve, but for being my greatest source of encouragement. 

My oldest son, Jack, is here with me today, as well as my parents George and 

Judy Sell, from my home town of Amarillo, Texas. My two youngest children, Robert, age two, and Mary Margaret, age one, are not here today, but I believe I have 

their support as well. 

My educational background is in business and law. But for the last 10 years, I 

have had the wonderful honor of serving my country in government. As such, I am 

a product of my experiences in the House, Senate, and White House; and of the outstanding individuals for whom I worked. 

For five years I served Congressman Mac Thornberry of Texas. His interest in the 

national security missions of the Department of Energy, and his vision for the National Nuclear Security Administration, allowed me great involvement with the Department early in my career. 

Thereafter, I was very proud to serve Senator Ted Stevens and you, Mr. Chairman, as your lead staffer on the Energy & Water Appropriations Subcommittee. For 

three and one-half years, that experience allowed me to get to know and understand 

the programs of the Department in a way few people are permitted to know them. 

And, the experience allowed me to work in the background of one of our Nation’s 

foremost leaders of energy, science, and nonproliferation policy. 

For the last 19 months, I have served President Bush as a Special Assistant on 

matters of energy policy and legislative affairs—a broadening experience that I believe further prepared me to help implement the President’s vision for energy and 

national security. 

The experiences in these three jobs will assist me in serving the Department and, 

I hope, complement the impressive qualifications of the new Secretary of Energy 

Sam Bodman. 

I have long thought that the Department’s missions flow from two broad overarching themes: what can be, and what must never be. 

The first mission theme allows us to lay out a vision of what can be:

• Policies resulting in secure, reliable and affordable sources of energy; 

• New energy technologies that embrace the future and flow from the research 

occurring today in our laboratories and universities. 

• World leadership in the management of resources in a way that increases and 

secures our nation’s wealth, but also allows us to share with the world our prosperity and the peace that follows prosperity. 

• These are the Department’s missions of energy policy, energy R&D, and 

Science.

The second mission theme is one that requires a commitment to what must never 

be:

• For 48 years, this Department, and its predecessors going back to the Manhattan Project, combined human ingenuity with the physical sciences to end World 

War II, and then win the Cold War—protecting us from what must never be. 

• Today, this Department and its scientists, technicians, and civil servants are 

again called to build upon this historic mission by protecting the American people from the threat of nuclear terrorism in a rapidly changing world. 

• These are the missions of the Department’s nonproliferation activities around 

the globe, of its national security programs, and of the requirement to be true 

to the environmental obligations resulting from this work.

These missions are among the most important to our nation and to our world. The 

Department cannot succeed, however, without full management focus from the top 

on the safety and security of the Department’s people and facilities. The Secretary 

has made this a top priority, and if I am confirmed, I intend to join him in making 

the management decisions and leading the operations of the Department in a manner that is true to the Secretary’s commitment. Finally, regarding the management 

of the Department, I should say that I have the greatest respect and regard for 

former Deputy Secretary Kyle McSlarrow and I thank him for the course that he 

has set. 

In closing, I want to once again thank the President for the trust he has placed 

in me and thank the Committee for considering my nomination. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

8

First, I want to apologize for misstating your name. I say ‘‘ScarLETT,’’ but it’s ‘‘SCAR-lett.’’ I hope I won’t do that again. 

Ms. SCARLETT. That’s okay. Anything will do. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, I used to cringe when everybody said 

‘‘DOMM-inn-EE-chee’’ and it took them a long time to learn, and 

they still insist that I say it wrong and they say it right. 

Would you please proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA LYNN SCARLETT, NOMINATED TO 

BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator 

Bingaman and all members of the committee. I am honored to be 

here today as the President’s nominee for Deputy Secretary of the 

Department of the Interior. I’ve been privileged these past 4 years 

to serve as Assistant Secretary of Policy, Management, and Budget 

at Interior, a position with responsibilities that span the scope of 

the entire Department and its eight bureaus. I’ve experienced both 

the challenges and opportunities in helping the Secretary of the Interior set priorities at a Department that manages one in every five 

acres of the United States with a work force of 70,000 people who 

operate at 2,400 locations and manage over 40,000 facilities. 

As manager of over 500 million acres, Interior has a mission that 

lies at the confluence of people, land, and water. What is our compass in tackling those responsibilities? Three themes underpin our 

efforts. First is an emphasis on partnered problem-solving and cooperative conservation so that our decisions sustain healthy lands, 

thriving communities, and dynamic economies. That focus has set 

the stage, for example, for our multi-state partnerships to protect 

sage grouse. It underpins the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative 

and the bipartisan Healthy Forest Restoration Act. It lies behind 

our budget emphasis on cooperative conservation grant programs. 

A second theme is our emphasis on balance. Americans want outdoor recreation opportunities. They want reliable and affordable 

energy and water. They want to ensure stewardship of this Nation’s phenomenal natural, cultural, and historic resources. 

Our third theme is management excellence. 4 years ago Congress 

gave us an ‘‘F’’ for our information technology security. Today 98 

percent of our systems have been certified and accredited for their 

security measures. In 2002 it took us 4 months to close our financial books. This year it took us 45 days. 

Should I be confirmed as Deputy Secretary of the Department of 

the Interior, I would anticipate maintaining the trajectory set by 

Secretary Norton to enhance cooperative decisionmaking, achieve 

balance among multiple goals and responsibilities, and modernize 

our administrative and management practices. My experiences over 

the past 4 years have deepened my familiarity with Interior’s responsibilities. Those experiences have required diplomacy, openness to many voices and perspectives both within the agency and 

with the public, an ability to grapple with highly diverse and complex issues, and an attention to setting targets and time lines to 

achieve results. I have tried to bring those qualities to the position 

of Assistant Secretary. Should I be confirmed as Deputy Secretary, 

I will strive to apply those same qualities to the job. 

Thank you and I would be very happy to answer any questions. 

9

[The prepared statement of Ms. Scarlett follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF P. LYNN SCARLETT, NOMINEE FOR THE POSITION OF

DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and members of the Committee, I am honored 

to appear before you today as the President’s nominee for Deputy Secretary of the 

Department of the Interior. I have been privileged, these past four years, to serve 

as Assistant Secretary of Policy, Management and Budget at the Department—a position with responsibilities that span the entire Department and its eight bureaus. 

I have experienced both the challenges and opportunities of helping the Secretary 

of the Interior set priorities at a Department that manages one in every five acres 

of the United States, with a workforce of 70,000 employees who operate at 2,400 

locations and maintain some 40,000 facilities. 

As manager of over 500 million acres, Interior has a mission that lies at the confluence of people, land, and water. How well we do our job at Interior affects whether:

• people have water in their homes; 

• farmers can irrigate their fields; 

• families can warm and cool their homes with affordable, reliable energy; 

• Indian children enjoy educational opportunities; 

• communities avoid risks from catastrophic fires and natural hazards; 

• our children and grandchildren can enjoy the grand vistas of the Grand Canyon, 

or the geologic rainbows of Arches National Park; and 

• habitats flourish for this Nation’s diverse flora and fauna

As this Nation’s premier land manager, our mission inevitably places us amid conflict as different people have diverse aspirations for these public lands. As guardian 

of thousands of buildings, roads, trails, research facilities, and scientific systems, 

our mission also triggers many basic management challenges. 

What is our compass in tackling these responsibilities? Three themes have underpinned our efforts over the past four years. 

First is an emphasis on partnered problem solving and cooperative conservation 

so that our decisions sustain healthy lands, thriving communities, and dynamic 

economies. That focus has set the stage for multi-state partnerships to protect sage 

grouse. It underlies the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative and the bipartisan 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act through which reduction of hazardous fuels in forests and on rangelands occurs through collaboration with communities. It lies behind our budget emphasis on cooperative conservation grant programs. 

A second theme is our emphasis on balance. Americans want access to outdoor 

recreation opportunities; they want reliable and affordable energy; they want reliable supplies of clean water; they want to ensure the stewardship of this Nation’s 

phenomenal natural, cultural and historic resources. 

Our third theme is management excellence. Though unglamorous and often outside the public eye, how well we manage facilities, financial reporting, information 

technology, and other basic administrative functions significantly affects our ability 

to serve the public effectively and efficiently. Four years ago, Congress gave us an 

‘‘F’’ for our information technology security. Today, 98 percent of our systems have 

been certified and accredited for their security practices. Four years ago, it took us 

four months to close our financial books. This year is took us 45 days after the close 

of the fiscal year. Four years ago, we had no idea what condition our facilities were 

in. Today, almost all of our bureaus have completed condition assessments on their 

thousands of facilities. 

Should I be confirmed as Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior, I 

would anticipate maintaining the trajectory set by Secretary Norton over the past 

four years to enhance cooperative decision making, achieve balance among multiple 

goals and responsibilities, and modernize our administrative and management practices. 

These three themes—cooperation, balance, and management excellence—will inform our decisions to ensure the Nation has access to energy; enjoys clean and sufficient water supplies; and maintains healthy forests. These themes will also continue 

to underpin our approach to protecting at-risk and endangered species. And, finally, 

the theme of management excellence is the benchmark against which we are striving to tackle our Indian Trust responsibilities. 

My experiences over the past four years as Assistant Secretary of Policy, Management and Budget have deepened my familiarity with Interior’s responsibilities. 

Those experiences have required diplomacy, openness to many voices and perspectives—both within the agency and with the public, ability to grapple with highly diVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:22 May 06, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\20961.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
10

verse and complex issues, and an attention to setting targets and timelines to 

achieve results. I have tried to bring those qualities to that position. Should I be 

confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I will strive to apply those qualities to the job. 

Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Bingaman, do you have any questions? 

Senator BINGAMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Let me just ask about one issue that we raised during our budget 

hearing with Ms. Scarlett and raised with Secretary Norton at that 

time. It’s one that concerns me still. I know it concerns you, Mr. 

Chairman. It’s one that you’ve worked hard on. This relates to the 

funding for the Middle Rio Grande Area and how we get the resources to comply with this 2003 biological opinion there. 

It strikes me, as I understand it, we have a reasonable and prudent alternative in this 2003 biological opinion, and the estimate 

that I’ve seen from the Department is that it’s going to cost $230 

million over 10 years to essentially do what’s necessary in that alternative. The administration has asked in each of the last 3 years 

for a little over $6 million to implement this rather than the $23 

million that would be necessary if you were to do a tenth of it each 

year, and I’m not sure that’s the right speed with which to do it. 

Mr. Chairman, you’ve added funds in the appropriations process 

to try to get the funding up so that we could go ahead and get this 

done. It’s very important to our State. I’m just concerned about 

what the level of commitment is in the Department to actually seeing this 2003 biological opinion followed through on, and I thought 

maybe this was a good time to ask Ms. Scarlett to give us any additional thoughts she has on this or how we can get this moved up 

on the priority list in the Department of the Interior. It seems to 

fall low on that priority list, or at least it has in recent years. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Thank you, Senator, and of course first I’d like to 

say we applaud and thank you for your strong leadership and Senator Domenici in the Rio Grande, and with the challenging issues 

we have there. 

Our overall Middle Grande Budget for 2006 is proposed at $19 

million. That is somewhat less than what the Congress appropriated in 2005, but nonetheless an increase over past years in 

what we had proposed. That effort is a composite of efforts, very 

collaborative, and we certainly place a high priority on it. I know 

we had some success last year with the silvery minnow in protecting them during low water flows and being able to move them 

and save some 12,000 silvery minnows that would have been adversely affected. Our Bureau of Reclamation continues to work on 

the design and planning for a possible sanctuary, which I know 

you’ve expressed interest in. 

So I look forward to working with you on continuing to focus on 

the Middle Grande, Middle Rio Grande, and the biological opinion 

there, and if we need to enhance our efforts we’ll explore how we 

can do that. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Thank you. I think that’s important and it’s 

an issue that’s not going to go away in our State. It’s been a good 

wet winter in New Mexico for a change and we’re very pleased 

about that, but this is an issue that is long term and will continue 

11

to require funding. I think any help you can get us in getting more 

administration support for that would be much appreciated. 

As I said before, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support both nominees, and I do not have any other questions at this time. 

The CHAIRMAN. If any members have questions, we want them 

submitted, what do you think, by the close of business today. Since 

there is no objection that we’re aware of, no serious objection, we’re 

going to proceed with dispatch. We need both of you confirmed as 

quickly as possible. So, Senators, if you’ve got questions get them 

in. Equally important that you get the answers in, so don’t take 4 

or 5 days if you can do it in 1 because it just delays your confirmation. 

I have a number of questions, but I’m not so sure I’m going to 

ask them. I have maybe six or eight. I’m going to submit them to 

you and ask you to answer them. 

Perhaps I could ask you, Mr. Sell, would you just discuss a little 

bit your views on nuclear power? 

Mr. SELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

speak to that. As you have said and as the President has said on 

many occasions, beginning with the National Energy Policy from 

June 2001, nuclear power is critical to our energy security. It produces 20 percent of our electricity today and it is important, both 

for reasons of domestic energy security as well as due to environmental concerns, that nuclear power continues to be a large and in 

fact growing part of the United States energy mix. 

The Department has taken a number of efforts and started new 

initiatives in order to support nuclear power. The country has not 

ordered a new nuclear power plant since the 1970’s, and the President has stated clearly his desire for that to change. 

The nuclear budget in the Department of Energy has increased 

substantially in fiscal year 2006 and if I’m confirmed I look forward 

to the opportunity to work closely with you and other Members of 

the Congress to continue to promote nuclear power as a safe, clean 

energy alternative. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Again, I want to move things along, so I don’t have any additional questions. I’ll submit them. 

I note the presence of—Senator, do you have some questions, observations? Are you for them, against them? 

Senator BURR. I’m for them. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that’s good. 

I understand there’s a Senator who wants to be heard. Would 

you please call him up and tell him I’ll be open here for 10 minutes. If he’s not here we close the hearing down. 

We stand in recess for 10 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will please come to order. 

Senator Wyden. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my 

apologies to you. This was a crazy morning even by Senate standVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:22 May 06, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\20961.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
12

ards, and I want to thank you for your thoughtfulness and appreciate all the courtesies that you always extend to me. 

I also want to note how extraordinarily helpful you’ve been to the 

people of our part of the country with respect to this administration proposal to privatize our power system, the Bonneville Power 

Administration. There’s no question in my mind that the reason 

that we are well positioned legislatively to block it is we’ve had the 

good fortune of your support, and I want to thank you for that as 

well. 

The CHAIRMAN. You’re welcome, Senator. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to explore with Mr. Sell, 

the nominee, both his position with respect to privatization, but 

also the way in which he’s dealt with me and my office with respect 

to this whole topic, because I regret to say that I don’t think in his 

dealings with our office that he has been completely forthright and 

I want to discuss my concerns and give him a chance to respond. 

Mr. Sell came——

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, let me just say from the offset, I have 

found him to be nothing but forthright always. And I respect the 

prerogative of every Senator to do what, ask what they like, but 

I do remind you that we all have feelings about this man, many 

of us. So I would caution you to be sure you know what you’re talking about with reference to him. That is enough. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, he came to my office, and I want 

to go through with some specifics exactly what happened. Frankly, 

I would have blocked the Sell nomination formally with a public 

hold, which has been my practice, other than the fact that he is 

well thought of by you. I said that when I went to the floor, and 

the fact that you think favorably about him carries enormous 

weight with me. And as I announced on the floor, I would put a 

formal hold on the Sell nomination already because of my dealings 

if it were not for my friendship and respect for you, Mr. Chairman, 

and I appreciate your bringing that up. 

I want to go through with you, Mr. Sell, the events as I understand them and get your reaction to them so that the committee 

is aware of my concerns. You came to my office on January 17, 

when Secretary Bodman came to discuss his appointment as Secretary, and you were in the meeting when I asked Dr. Bodman on 

January 17 about privatization of Bonneville and he told me he opposed privatization, and you did not say that day that the White 

House had a privatization proposal. 

Now, the next day you worked with my staff where we extended 

a courtesy to the Bush administration to say we would like to make 

sure that the administration understands our concerns about privatization, and my staff, after extending the courtesy to the Bush 

administration, worked with you on the questions that I would ask 

the Secretary. And again you didn’t say that the White House had 

a privatization proposal, and then the Secretary came and testified 

to that effect on January 19. 

Now, you came next to my office on February 16, to meet about 

your own nomination, and I asked if you knew about the administration’s budget proposal affecting Bonneville when you accompanied Energy Secretary Bodman to my office on January 17. And 

13

you admitted to me that day that you knew about the administration’s proposal at that January 17 meeting. 

Is that still correct? Is that still your understanding? 

Mr. SELL. Senator Wyden, if I could, I would like to—your recitation of the facts is consistent with my recollection, with two points. 

I now understand, because you’ve been kind enough to meet with 

me three times, including the meetings that you’ve just outlined, 

I now have a much greater appreciation for your perspective and 

the perspective of your constituents on this matter. 

Had I known at the time that you viewed privatization and a 

change in the law to charge market-based rates as the same thing, 

perhaps I could have handled the situation differently. I’m sure 

with the knowledge I have today, had I had it then I would have 

handled it in a different way. 

But the administration does not view privatization, that is selling the Federal asset which is Bonneville Power to a private entity, 

as the same thing as our proposal. You asked Secretary Bodman 

that day if he was—then-nominee Bodman that day, if he was opposed to privatization of BPA, and he responded that he was personally opposed to privatization and he believed that was the position of the administration. And I will tell you today, Senator 

Wyden, that I am personally opposed to privatization and I believe 

that continues to be the position of the administration. 

At that time in January, I did not perceive privatization, as I’ve 

just described it, as the same thing that was at that point under 

consideration in the White House. But as you said in your statement, I was aware that that proposal and other general proposals 

related to the power marketing administrations were under consideration inside the White House when I was in your office on January 16th. 

Senator WYDEN. Do you think that at the time you should have 

told me that there was a proposal under consideration to move to 

market rates? 

Mr. SELL. Once again, Senator Wyden, I do want to thank you 

for the courtesy that you’ve extended me in offering me, giving me 

a number of opportunities to visit with you about this. And once 

again, I’ll say, if I fully appreciated your concerns then as I do 

today I believe I could have handled the matter and handled your 

questions in a better way. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, I intend to talk to the chairman about this 

some more. As I say, because of my enormous respect and affection 

for Chairman Domenici, which goes, as he knows, beyond the question of energy to our families and our families’ history, I’m going 

to talk to the chairman about it some more. 

I would just make two points, Mr. Sell. First, if it looks like a 

pig and acts like a pig, it’s a pig. And certainly, in our part of the 

world this approach with respect to market rates, this is seen as 

code for privatization, and I think that I should have been told at 

the time that there was an approach being advocated at the White 

House as it relates to market-based rates. 

You’ve given your response today that, had you understood my 

concerns, you would have indicated that, and I think that’s a step 

in the right direction. I want to have a chance to talk about this 

further with the chairman and ask—I would only ask you one other 

14

substantive question, and the chairman has been helpful on this 

point as well. Do you believe that it would be wrong to try to go 

to a market-based rate structure system for Bonneville and the 

other PMA’s administratively? Because there is great concern that, 

while Congress may block this legislatively—certainly there is support in this committee for doing it—that there could be an end run 

by the administration to do this administratively, and I hope to 

work with the chairman and other colleagues as we try to address 

that tomorrow. 

But I would like to know your position substantively as to whether you would be opposed to an effort to administratively put in 

place this market-based approach to setting rates. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before you answer, Mr. Sell, might I just say to 

you, Senator Wyden, I think I’m fully aware of the issue. However, 

to ask a nominee for a position that is not going to be able to make 

the decision as to whether they go administratively or not—that’s 

not his decision. It’s not even the Secretary’s decision. The President of the United States would have to say we’re going to do it 

administratively. 

So I would think it’s not relevant what he thinks personally. If 

you want to ask him—if you want to answer personally, I hope it’s 

understood that whatever you say doesn’t make any difference. The 

President of the United States will or won’t. 

I’m hoping that we’re finished with this issue. I’ve made it very 

clear I don’t think we ought to keep sending that issue up here. 

You know that. 

I hope you’re not part, Secretary Bodman said he’s not going to 

be part, of—he’s been telling the administration, don’t send it up 

again. It’s just getting to the point where it’s finished. 

So, having said that, is that fair enough, that we understand the 

prerogative of his answer? 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I think your comment is a very 

fair one. I just am interested in getting a sense from Mr. Sell with 

respect to how he would approach it, because he clearly is involved 

at the White House in these energy discussions. And while I think 

your point, Mr. Chairman, is very fair, I would be, with your leave, 

interested in having Mr. Sell’s thoughts on the subject. 

Mr. SELL. I’m happy to respond to your question, Senator Wyden. 

It is my understanding that the underlying statutes governing the 

power marketing administrations and Bonneville require that the 

rates be based on a cost recovery methodology. That is why the administration in seeking to propose, pursue a different policy, proposed a change in the law. If that change is not made—and that 

is a change that would have to first begin in this committee. And 

if that change is not made, then we will continue to comply with 

the requirements of the existing law. 

Senator WYDEN. I will take that as an answer that you will not 

go the administrative route. That’s constructive as well. 

Mr. Chairman, you’ve been kind both in giving me this extra 

time and I just want to come back to what I have tried to say to 

the administration on this point, that I’m going to do everything 

in my power to make sure that there is a bipartisan coalition in 

this Senate to not inflict on our part of the world what amounts 

to economic poison. We have huge unemployment. Our whole ecoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:22 May 06, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\20961.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
15

nomic underbelly is hard-hit, and this would cause enormous harm 

right now. 

Mr. Chairman, again I thank you both for your support in terms 

of the substance of this effort and your thoughtfulness with respect 

to my concerns about this appointment. And it’s my inclination, before taking a position on this appointment, to have further discussions with you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I do want to say for the record before I call on 

the two remaining Senators—in fact, I want to thank you, Mr. Sell, 

as the current nominee, for the work you did with reference to 

helping when the BPA had to increase its borrowing authority in 

2003. That was very helpful to the same area that Senator Wyden 

is talking about, and you were very helpful in seeing to it that the 

additional borrowing authority was granted, which became—was a 

very important, positive step in the direction of assuring that 

power that he is commenting upon as being vital to the area. 

I think the record should know that you helped then and we 

thank you for that. Those in the area ought to be thankful for it, 

too, including Senator Wyden. 

Senator Thomas. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM WYOMING 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is my fourth 

committee meeting this morning, so I did want to stop by for a moment and welcome both of our folks here today and thank them for 

being here, certainly have done a great job. Ms. Scarlett, Lynn 

Scarlett, has really worked so hard over at Interior and we appreciate that very much. 

Just a couple of general philosophical kinds of things, I guess. In 

our bill in 1998 for parks, we set up a situation where we asked 

for a commission to specifically report about the rules and regulations with regard to concessions. Could you tell me where we are 

with that and what you expect? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, Senator. I am pleased that we have made 

significant progress on the concession issue. The advisory board 

has met and come to agreement on certain principles with respect 

to how to implement the new concession contracts. We have some 

300 contracts that actually have been reissued and we are working 

on refining in particular some of the challenging issues, such as the 

possessory interest issue and how to translate into the new leasehold surrender calculations. I think we have agreement on that. 

We now look forward to moving ahead with the implementing details on that. 

Senator THOMAS. Good. 

One of the problems we’re having, of course, is the endangered 

species thing, and working with the various agencies, whether it be 

Forest Service or whether it be Park Service or so on. It just seems 

to me that maybe we could resolve some of those problems a little 

more easily if there was more cooperative, apparently more cooperative work done prior to the listing and prior to the development 

of recovery, so that more of these agencies could work together. 

Does that sound reasonable to you? 

16

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, that exactly expresses the philosophy 

that Secretary Norton has tried to advance these past 4 years. She 

uses her phrase ‘‘Four C’s—conservation through cooperation, communication, consultation.’’ We have worked with the Congress on 

a number of grant programs that enable us to work with ranchers, 

other landowners, and citizens, States, tribes, and so forth to get 

ahead of the game. 

I think one very good example of that in fact is beginning to 

occur on the Middle Rio Grande with the silvery minnow; also our 

recent sage grouse decision in which we’ll be working cooperatively 

across multiple States to try to protect that habitat and the sage 

grouse itself, so that listing is not necessary. 

Senator THOMAS. Good, I hope not. I hope you’ll give some 

thought to wolves and grizzly bears. That seems to be a little bit 

of a problem. 

Mr. Sell, glad to have you here, sir. I am pleased to have someone in this position with the kind of background that you have and 

energy, and I think that’s very important. The Senator’s gone from 

Oregon, but I also think when we talk about regional transmission 

organizations and other kinds of things that are going to be necessary to have a good national transportation system for electricity 

that places like Bonneville are going to have to be a little more cooperative and not be isolated quite as much as some would like to 

have them. 

At any rate, congratulations, both of you, and we look forward 

to working with you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Don’t you even nod as he says that. Stay still. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Salazar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR

FROM COLORADO 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you, Chairman Domenici. Congratulations to both of you, Lynn Scarlett and Jeff Sell, for your appointments. I have just a couple of questions. 

First to you, Mr. Sell, as the Deputy Secretary for Energy. I’m 

interested in hearing your views as we try to move our Nation 

more toward energy independence. All of us on this committee and 

with your background know what has happened to our country 

over the last 3 decades, where we’ve gone from a point where we 

were importing 30 percent of our oil to the point now where projections are it’s going to be up to 70 percent. 

I think that under the leadership of this committee and Chairman Domenici and his bipartisan approach to coming up with an 

energy bill, we hope to be able to get something for the President 

to be able to sign and create an energy framework for the future. 

As part of that framework, for me one of the matters that is of 

great interest is the interest that I have in renewable energy. I’ve 

always felt that renewable energy was important from the perspective of helping rural communities economically, developing energy 

in a way that is environmentally friendly, and also to help us lessen our overdependence on foreign oil. 

So I would like your views as Deputy Secretary on the renewable 

energy portfolio in terms of the components of that portfolio, as 

17

well as your views concerning a national standard with respect to 

renewable energy. 

Mr. SELL. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to respond to 

that. The President’s view and Secretary Bodman’s view—and it’s 

mine as well—is that energy security must involve a diversity of 

many energy sources and that renewable power will continue to 

play a key and it must play a growing role as part of our energy 

mix. 

When this administration’s energy policy was developed, I understand a very hard look was taken at how to incentivize an increase 

in renewable production of electricity, and the method that this administration arrived upon was to choose to do that through the tax 

code, and the President has proposed a number of tax incentives, 

production tax credits, to incentivize the development of more renewable resources. 

As you’re well aware because you represent the National Renewable Energy Lab, we have also made a significant R&D effort and 

continue to do so, and if I’m confirmed as Deputy Secretary I look 

forward to returning to your lab out there and learning more about 

that. 

But to get back to your question on the renewable portfolio 

standard, the administration has chosen to support and grow this 

sector through incentives in the tax code and we have not at this 

point chosen to support the other alternative, which is to mandate 

a certain percentage of power to come from renewable sources. 

I understand from the hearing that this committee had yesterday, as well as Senator Domenici’s statement and others, that the 

committee is considering that, and if I’m confirmed I would look 

forward to working closely with this committee and others in the 

Congress, because the one thing we all have in common, even 

though we may not agree on every point or initiative, is that we 

must get a comprehensive energy bill passed. And I look forward 

to working with you and the chairman in doing that. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Sell. 

Ms. Scarlett, I recognize that this may be the first time in history that we have a woman who is Secretary of the Interior and 

a woman who is Deputy Secretary of the Interior. So, given the fact 

that I have only two daughters and no sons, I think Interior is 

headed in the right direction in terms of gender balance. So I congratulate you. 

Let me just ask you a question about a specific issue in Colorado, 

and that’s with respect to the Roan Plateau. There has been a plan 

on the part of the BLM which would allow for drilling on the top 

of the Roan Plateau, but to be phased in over a period of years 

commencing probably 10 or 15 years from now. There are a number 

of communities around the Roan Creek Plateau that are very concerned about the drilling on the top of the plateau. Garfield County 

and all of the cities within Garfield County have passed resolutions 

expressing their concern. 

Looking at that specific issue, how is it that you as Deputy Secretary of the Interior would take into account the feelings of those 

local elected officials who represent the county and the communities that are going to be affected by this drilling on the top of the 

Roan Creek Plateau in terms of how you move forward with those 

18

decisions? I know we have a development program on developing 

our fossil fuels, but how would you go about making sure that the 

most immediately impacted communities are in fact heard, and use 

the Roan Creek Plateau as your real hypothetical to explain that 

approach to us? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Thank you, Senator. You touch upon an issue 

that really confronts the Department of the Interior in the many 

places where we must make management decisions and juggle and 

balance multiple interests, multiple concerns and needs. We put a 

priority on collaborating with relevant communities, the tribes, 

States, counties, local governments, as well as the citizenry, and indeed, in the particular instance of the Roan Plateau had many 

open forums and extended comment periods in order to try and 

achieve an outcome which on the one hand, speaking to your desire 

for energy security in the United States, would allow us to access 

those energy resources, and yet at the same time lighten our environmental footprint. 

The particular proposal in question is one that has the primary 

focus actually below the plateau and it is a performance-based 

plan, that is one that would require certain environmental performance to be achieved, and then over time through looking at that 

performance make determinations on any further extension of activity before actual oil activity would occur on the plateau itself. 

I might point out that there already is some preexisting activity 

on the plateau on some State lands. But this is one of the balancing acts that we have in play, and very much welcome ongoing 

public input on that process. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

I note that Senator Murkowski’s here. I’m glad that you’ve arrived from Alaska and you didn’t freeze up there, 48 degrees below 

or however cold it was. Was that the coldest, or 58, when we were 

there? 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR

FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. It was 48. We don’t want to exaggerate. 

The CHAIRMAN. Or 58. I was up there also with her and others, 

Senator. We invited you and you couldn’t make it. But needless to 

say, it’s rather exhilarating. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SALAZAR. I look forward to going there some time. 

The CHAIRMAN. You can’t stay outside very long. 

Senator SALAZAR. I want to go in the summer, though. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I tell you, if you go in the summer the environmentalists will tell you you didn’t go in winter when all the activity’s going to take place. If you go in the winter and not the summer, they’ll say you should have gone in the summer because that’s 

when there’s marshes around and you can have more damage. So 

I guess you have to go two times. I won’t do that, however. I’ve had 

my share of ANWR. If we win, if we win I’ll never have to go back, 

send somebody else. If we lose, that’s the end for me. Somebody 

else can take up this cause. 

19

Senator, we’ve got a few more minutes. You can proceed. If you 

want to go on very long, I’ll leave the committee to you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple quick 

questions, and I apologize that I wasn’t here earlier. I was at Environment and Public Works. We’re trying to get Clear Skies, and 

unfortunately we were not successful in that effort. 

But thank you, and I hear very clearly that you won’t be joining 

me on my next trip to ANWR. We don’t have spring and fall, so 

I can’t offer you those seasons. But I do appreciate you leading the 

delegation up north this weekend. It was very important. 

A couple questions to both of you. First, thank you for being here 

this morning and congratulations to you as you move up and on. 

First, Ms. Scarlett, if I can ask you just a couple questions about 

the U.S. minerals industry. The National Mining Association frequently observes that many areas in the U.S. are regarded as the 

least attractive for new mineral investment due to permitting and 

other public policy considerations. Countries like Chile are often 

cited as most favorable for mineral development. 

What can the Interior Department do to improve the investment 

climate for mineral exploration here in the United States? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. We have worked 

hard these past 4 years at the Department of the Interior, whether 

it’s with respect to energy development or minerals access, to ensure access to public lands where those resources are, doing so 

while balancing the environmental and other considerations. 

To that effect, we have tried to improve our permitting processes 

where that is relevant. For example, particularly in energy development, we project to reduce our backlog of applications for permits 

to drill to virtually nothing by 2006. In the minerals realm as well, 

we have undertaken certain decisions that try to provide greater 

security to those who are investing in minerals resource development on public lands. 

If you have particular issues that appear to be barriers, we 

would be happy to discuss those with you and determine how we 

might address them. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I’d look forward to that conversation because I know that some in Alaska feel that there are significant 

barriers. So we’d like to talk with you about that. 

The U.S. Geological Survey has a robust program to help identify 

promising areas for mineral exploration, including some areas in 

Alaska under the NRAP and some other programs. Do you believe 

that USGS has a legitimate role in encouraging mineral exploration in the United States and, if so, what about the funding component? 

Ms. SCARLETT. The U.S. Geological Survey has played a very significant role in this Nation’s history, in exploring its geology and 

including the minerals assessments. We have coverage of minerals 

assessments data bases in the U.S. Geological Survey of virtually 

the entire United States. Our 2006 budget does propose to concentrate that effort on further assessments on Federal lands. We 

are making some very difficult balancing choices as we develop our 

budget and try to maintain fiscal discipline. 

In that context, we have determined to focus the USGS effort on 

the Federal lands, also understanding that the private sector, inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:22 May 06, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\20961.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
20

dustry and others, do undertake some mineral assessments on the 

non-Federal private lands. So we feel that this is a good and effective utilization of the resources that we have at Interior. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So you’re suggesting then that there needs 

to be more of a private investment focus, rather than our involvement on the Federal lands? 

Ms. SCARLETT. No, let me clarify. We are continuing on the Federal lands the minerals assessment program for the U.S. Geological 

Survey, believing that that focus on Federal lands is appropriate 

and is indeed a high priority. Our 2006 proposal calls for focusing 

that assessment on Federal lands while leaving the assessment of 

non-Federal lands to other entities such as the private sector. 

Having said that, I want to note that we already do have and 

will continue to maintain the existing data bases that have coverage of mineral assessments on both Federal and non-Federal 

lands. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Okay. Very briefly on the fires that we suffered in Alaska last summer. It was the worst fire season in Alaska’s history and, as you know, the wildfires in Alaska are attacked 

on an inter-agency basis, and the State took the lead in the southern part of the State and BLM’s Alaska Fire Service took the lead 

in the northern part of the State. 

There was a lot of concern last year as the fires kind of stepped 

up about whether Canadian air tankers that were under contract 

to the State could be used to fight the fires in the BLM-protected 

areas. I was up there at that time and there was a great deal of 

uncertainty, and the uncertainty was made even worse because you 

couldn’t see. The smoke in Fairbanks was so dense that you got up 

in the air and you couldn’t tell what was State land, what was Federal land. In fact, we couldn’t even fly the aircraft. 

But in terms of fighting the fires, it really is that initial attack, 

requiring an aggressive initial attack in our wildfires, sending all 

the heavy smoke into the urban communities like Anchorage and 

Fairbanks—and we recognize that we’ve got to do what we can to 

make these conditions so that you can actually breathe in the interior there. So I would like your assurance that you’re going to work 

with me and the State of Alaska to ensure that the State’s contracted air tankers can be deployed where they will be most needed 

to protect the health and safety of Alaskans. 

We anticipate again another tough fire year up north. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, Senator, thank you very much. And I actually have looked into this specific issue because it is a high priority 

to ensure that interoperability. As you will recall, last year we had 

an issue of having to ground the Federal large air tankers because 

of some safety concerns. I am pleased to note that we now have 

gone through a safety assessment process and have eight large air 

tankers that were approved toward the end of last year and several 

more being approved going forward. 

As we do that, we will have more of the large air tankers in the 

Federal force that we will be able to utilize on an inter-agency 

basis. What I am told is that the State assets, until we go through 

this process of safety assessment, the State assets will be utilized 

on the State lands, and in an emergency basis—that is, if there’s 

a determination of threat to life or other significant emergency—

21

that the State assets can be deployed on an inter-agency basis on 

Federal locations as well. 

But we will work hard to strengthen that interoperability and to 

ensure that we have seamless firefighting in Alaska and throughout the Nation. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, that’s going to be important to us. 

When you say you will have the ability if there is threat to life, as 

you know, in many of these areas it’s pretty wide open spaces. We 

don’t have a lot of human life that is at risk, but it’s the health 

safety factor with the intensity of the smoke that’s coming in that 

causes real respiratory issues. So I’m not quite sure how we’re defining that emergency when we can say we’ve got this seamless 

interoperability. 

But I’d like to think that we can work with you on that so that 

it works when we’re in the midst of these very terrible fires. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, we very much look forward to working 

with you on that. We are getting through some hurdles on the 

large air tanker safety issues, but as we move forward through 

that certainly interoperability is a key goal. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple questions for Mr. Sell, but if Senator Salazar still has more I don’t want 

to monopolize more time right now. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can we do it this way? Senator Salazar had 

some water questions, right? 

Senator SALAZAR. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s fine with me. Can you stay and if you 

want to ask a couple would you follow him, and then close the 

hearing? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I’d be happy to do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you. 

I wanted to say in closing, Mr. Sell, I didn’t raise any issues 

about the pending RFP for management of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. I did not do that because I think you’re familiar 

with the issues. But I think it would be only unfair when we—only 

fair when we’re talking about your confirmation, that we spread on 

the record here and that you hear from me that I am very concerned at the RFP, the request for proposals, and what we ask of 

the bidders after 6 years of the same management is a very, very 

important issue for those thousands of employees who are there 

and ready to retire and those who are people we’re looking at to 

try to recruit to come there. 

I am not at all sure that in an effort to assure bidders, which 

seems to be a part of the religion of the Department—I don’t mind 

it, but they seem to want more people bidding than they seemed 

to get an idea about 6 months ago—they thought maybe there 

weren’t going to be enough, so changes are made. 

I think that’s a balancing act, and I’m very concerned that as you 

change it, like they have now to have a free-standing corporate entity be the management instrumentality—it sounds nice as a way 

of getting around the old University of California trust fund for 

pensioners and employment arrangements. But I think it cuts two 

ways. It may invite some more people, but it also may cause Los 

Alamos employees to say they don’t want to work there under those 

22

conditions or they’re fearful or they don’t know what’s going to happen. 

I thank the Department for at least considering a 180-day moratorium, so as to speak, meaning the new bidder if successful and 

it’s not California, that the people up there will have 6 months to 

look and see what the new one is, so that they will know the reality of their decision. 

But I’m not sure that’s enough to kind of calm down the notion 

that maybe people want to leave before this change. I don’t know 

that you want to comment, but I do think it’s important that you 

hear that from me. I think Senator Bingaman would say it, and 

perhaps more eloquently, because there’s no question it’s a very, 

very serious issue. It’s a serious issue for America. If that personnel capacity is diminished substantially, we can’t stand that for 

8 or 10 years. It’s got to continue in a rather, to borrow your word, 

seamless manner. 

Mr. SELL. Senator Domenici, I’m happy to briefly comment. I do 

know how important Los Alamos National Lab is to you. But more 

importantly, it is very important to this country. We must have it 

and they must be very successful. So the issues underlying this 

competition and the request for proposals are very serious, and I 

look forward to getting to the Department if I’m confirmed and involving myself in a way that can allow the Department to have a 

successful competition which will result in the continuation of excellence, which is the legacy of Los Alamos National Lab. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator, you’re chairing and now we ask Senator Salazar if he’d 

like to ask some questions. Thank you. 

Senator SALAZAR. Dr. Scarlett—I guess we should call you ‘‘Doctor,’’ right? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Well, actually you’ve just elevated me. I’m what’s 

called ‘‘ABD,’’ All But Dissertation. 

Senator SALAZAR. All But Dissertation. We’ll call you Assistant 

Secretary. 

Let me ask you two questions about water. The first has to do 

with the Colorado River system and what is happening with the 

continued decline of water levels at Lake Powell and the conflict 

that currently is under way between the lower basin and the upper 

basin with respect to the allocation issues under the Colorado River 

Compact. 

My question to you is, what is the status of the Department of 

the Interior’s involvement on the allocation issues of water on the 

Colorado River? And second, from a personnel point of view, where 

is the Department in terms of appointing the Assistant Secretary 

for Water and Science to replace Bennett Raley in that position? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Thank you, Senator. As you rightly note in alluding to the water issues, water shortages in the West are a very significant issue, one in which we have—to which we’ve paid a lot of 

attention. Indeed, in portions of the West we are experiencing 

drought that is as severe as has occurred in some 500 years. 

With respect to the appointment of the Assistant Secretary, that 

decision is in process. No individual has been announced. But I can 

assure you that that is a very high priority for the Secretary to get 

that position filled. It is a critical position in the Department. 

23

With respect to the Colorado River and the water allocation, let 

me step back more broadly and say that we have been very committed both with Assistant Secretary Bennett Raley and certainly 

going forward to working within the context of State water law; 

and also a second principle is to work in very close collaboration 

with the relevant States and the relevant water users. That is the 

approach that we have been utilizing as we move forward. 

I would have to go back to the office and look at any specific details in terms of where we are in discussions on the Colorado River 

water allocation challenges and will be happy to do that. 

I would add one more thing. As part of the larger water issues, 

Secretary Norton advanced our Water 2025 program. That is an attempt to try and get ahead of some of these water issues by improved water conservation, by water marketing where appropriate, 

and also by new technologies that ensure that the water that is 

there is delivered efficiently rather than evaporating or dispersing. 

And we look forward to working with communities on a competitive 

process through our grant programs to help address individual 

community water issues through that program. 

Senator SALAZAR. I think for all of the seven States that share 

the water from the Colorado River and are subject to both compacts 

on that river, I would ask that the Department of the Interior keep 

us informed as to what happens relative to the current discussions 

on the sharing of water from the Colorado River and how the surplus criteria are determined and enforced. 

Let me ask you a broader question, relative to process on Indian 

reserved rights claims. I’ve had the opportunity in my life to work 

on both successful negotiations that have resolved Indian reserved 

rights claims and I also have been a part of and watched massive 

expenditures of time and resources being spent on Indian reserved 

rights cases which really have led to nothing. And it’s not a Republican deal, it’s not a Democrat deal; it’s not a Secretary Norton initiative or a Secretary Babbitt initiative. It’s just I think the nature 

of the beast whenever you are dealing with these very complicated 

cases where there is so much at stake. 

I think it would be useful for the Department of the Interior to 

consider having a special position that is not a political appointed 

position, but where someone can have continuity with respect to 

some of these major cases that go on year after year. In my own 

experiences, what I have found is about the time that you get 

somebody up to speed on an Indian reserved rights claim that person moves on and somebody else comes in. 

I think that the Department of the Interior can play a major role 

in helping us resolve some of these issues that consume so many 

resources all across the Western United States at least. I just suggest that you take a look at the processes that have been used historically by the Department of the Interior to try to bring those 

cases to some resolution. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, Senator, we certainly concur that these are 

very complex, challenging issues and they take very many years. 

We remain committed to a focus on settlement rather than litigation. I believe the Secretary announced at our budget hearings last 

week that we have appointed Jennifer Gimbell within the Department to have as her portfolio a complete focus on the Indian water 

24

rights settlement issues. We think that should help to bring us 

some continuity over time and also some significant attention as 

we move forward. 

Senator SALAZAR. She’s a very good choice. 

With that, Senator Murkowski, I’m finished and I wish you very 

well. Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Salazar. 

Mr. Sell, welcome again. Nice to see you here in this capacity. 

As you know, we achieved some success in the last Congress as it 

related to moving forward at the Federal level with certain incentives for an Alaska natural gas pipeline, helping to address what 

we recognize in this country is an ever-increasing shortage of natural gas, and up in my State we’ve got the ability to supply vast 

quantities. We’ve just got to figure out how to get it from there to 

here. 

That process is moving forward at the State level. Now there are 

several applications that are pending. We don’t know yet who the 

project sponsor will be, but there is going to be a lot of coordination 

that will be required at the Federal level. The DOE is going the 

play a vital role as this project moves forward regardless of who 

the project sponsor will be. 

DOE’s responsibilities will include granting the necessary authorizations, establishing an Office of Federal Coordinator, conducting environmental reviews, and really just a lot of coordination 

amongst various Federal agencies. We learned at the budget hearing last week that DOE does not have funding in its fiscal year 

2005 budget to carry out its responsibilities under the Alaska gas 

pipeline legislation and that DOE would need reprogramming authority to fund the responsibilities; and also, looking at the 2006 

budget, doesn’t include any funding as well. 

So I am looking for your assurance that you will work with us 

as we are moving forward to make this very important national 

project a reality as we determine what funding is required, certainly for instance with the Office of Federal Coordinator. These 

are things that we need to get in the pipeline, so to speak, as soon 

as possible. So just looking for your assistance on this very important issue. 

Mr. SELL. Senator, if I’m confirmed and make my way over to the 

Department of Energy, you will absolutely have my assistance in 

doing that. Your leadership in the last Congress in getting the relevant authorizations passed was critical. The lower 48 desperately 

needs the natural gas of Alaska and we need to build the pipeline 

to get it to the marketplace. It’s a very important issue for the 

President and for this country and for the Department, and I look 

forward to the opportunity of getting over there and resolving these 

initial—or working with you to try to resolve these initial funding 

issues, and then as the project proceeds. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good. Well, I appreciate that. I’m sure we 

will have a great deal of contact as we’re moving forward to make 

this very important project a reality. 

We had an opportunity, I guess it was about a month and a half, 

6 weeks or so ago, when this committee took up the issue of natural gas and the supply, and we, the committee, heard testimony 

from a gentleman from Alaska, they have the director of the Alaska 

25

Division of Oil and Gas, Dr. Mark Meyers, talking about the potential not only in Alaska but in the country for an unconventional gas 

source, natural gas hydrates, with the recognition that in my State 

we’ve got about 590 trillion cubic feet of onshore hydrate reserves, 

potentially 32,000 trillion cubic feet of potential offshore hydrate 

reserves—really, enough gas out there to supply the Nation for 

generations. 

And it’s not just, these hydrates are not just located in Alaska, 

but down in the Gulf of Mexico, and truly a huge potential for us. 

Dr. Meyers was actually here in Washington yesterday and gave a 

presentation to some of us after lunch to just kind of educate a little bit more about the potential for this. 

Now, in 2000 the Congress passed the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act and this had authorized appropriations through fiscal year 2005 for the methane hydrate research 

and development. Those appropriations and authorizations are set 

to expire this year. I’m working with Senator Akaka to renew this, 

to make sure that we will continue the funding for what I feel is 

incredibly important research in the hydrate area. 

We’ve been working with the Department of Energy. We’ve been 

working with the National Academies. We’ve read the National Research Council review of the act and view this again as something 

that has the potential to really make a difference. It’s not something that has been focused on because we’re either looking at our 

conventional reserves here domestically or we’re looking to foreign 

sources of LNG. 

This is not so pie in the sky that we should not be focusing our 

attention and our funding in this area. Again, the fiscal year 2006 

DOE budget does not include any funding to continue the research 

that was done—that was begun under the 2006 act. So again I 

want to point this out to you as an incredible opportunity for the 

Department. I’ve had the opportunity to speak with Secretary 

Bodman about this and just let him know of the great potential, 

and I would ask for your enthusiastic support as we move forward 

in good research on this as well. 

Mr. SELL. Senator Murkowski, I appreciate you bringing this 

very important issue to my attention. I was aware, although not involved in the development of, I was aware of our proposal or the 

Department’s proposal in the fiscal year 2006 budget, and you will 

have my enthusiasm in working with you. And I would like perhaps also to have the opportunity to meet with your expert from 

Alaska as I myself pursue an education on this important opportunity. So I look forward to doing that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We’ll make sure that you have an opportunity to meet with him. He’s got some great, great information. 

Ms. Scarlett. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, might I add something on that? Our 

Minerals Management Service and our U.S. Geological Survey have 

also done some methane hydrate research work and perhaps we 

ought to work together with the Department of Energy to coordinate those efforts and ensure that we have a good program. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Absolutely. 

And I would feel remiss in not taking the opportunity with both 

of you under the spotlight today to extend an invitation to you both 

26

to come up to Alaska’s North Slope, visit ANWR, visit the operations that we have. We feel that we have really taken the technology to its highest level and beyond as we have figured out a way 

to provide for exploration and production in an Arctic climate and 

do it in balance with the environment. 

I think that I can speak for the others that joined me on this trip 

this weekend that they were beyond just impressed, but really 

quite amazed at how well we have been able to balance what we 

do up North. The greatest example was the trip out to an exploration well from a facility, a production facility that is not connected by road. It is its own little island out on the northern plain, 

and it’s connected to the exploration rig by an ice road that was 

built last month, and the rig was hauled out there on the ice road. 

The pad is built out of ice. 

They’re exploring right now. They’ll be done in another 10 days 

or so. When they’re done, they haul it out on the ice road. In another couple months, spring is going to come. Spring will be brief. 

But that ice road will melt. That ice pad will melt. There will be 

nothing out on that tundra except a plug that’s about as tall as 

probably you, Mr. Sell, and about this big around [indicating], and 

if there was nothing found it will be capped so you won’t even be 

able to view it from the tundra. 

But again, it’s our recognition that we’re dealing with a fragile 

ecosystem up there during the summer. So we only do our operations in the winter, operations of the exploration. It’s fascinating. 

I could go all day long, but we’ve got votes beginning right now. 

I want to thank you for your time here this morning. I thank you 

for your willingness to serve the President, the administration, and 

the country. So thank you for joining us. 

And with that, we’re adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(27)

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

RESPONSES OF MR. SELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DOMENICI

OIL PRICES

Question 1. When President Bush introduced his National Energy Policy in May 2001, oil was $27 a barrel. Today it is well over $50. 

What, if anything, do you think the Department of Energy should do to address 

the continuing rise in oil prices? 

Answer. Senator, the Department will continue to seek to work with Congress to 

pass comprehensive energy legislation, support efforts to open the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge to environmentally responsible exploration and production, and continue to move forward in our efforts to develop new, sustainable sources of alternative energy like ethanol and hydrogen. 

Almost seven out of every ten barrels of oil we use are for transportation fuel, 

so our efforts to promote more efficient cars and trucks in the near term, and alternatives to petroleum such as hydrogen in the long term, are likely to be the most 

effective in reducing petroleum demand. 

NUCLEAR POWER

Question 2. Last week Secretary Bodman testified before this committee on the 

DOE’s FY 06 budget request. During that hearing I asked him if he would look into 

a delay occurring in the Office of Nuclear Power 2010 (NP2010) regarding disbursing the awards made by the DOE to two energy consortia last November. 

We have real momentum for the first time in three decades on the course for new 

plants, I would hate to think our own Department of Energy is the major impediment at the beginning of this historic process. The Secretary gave me his word that 

he would look into the delay and get things rolling. 

If you are confirmed, will you make that same commitment? 

Answer. Senator, I am aware of the exchange between you and Secretary Bodman 

and I will commit to reviewing the circumstances should I be confirmed. 

YUCCA MOUNTAIN LICENSE APPLICATION

Question 3. The Department now plans to submit a license application to NRC 

late in 2005 for the construction of the repository, a year later than the schedule 

the department provided to us last year. Last week I asked Secretary Bodman to 

provide this committee with a status update on the Yucca Mountain project. 

When you get to the DOE in your new role, will you commit to this committee 

that you will work to expedite getting a completed license application submitted to 

the NRC? 

Answer. Yes. 

YUCCA MOUNTAIN LICENSING SUPPORT NETWORK

Question 4. The NRC has indicated they will not docket a license application until 

six months after certification of the License Support Network, a web-based data collection of all relevant documents for the application. 

Will you provide me with a status of the work being done at the department to 

address the shortcomings the NRC identified in the earlier license support network 

submission? 

Answer. Although I am not personally familiar with the details of the Yucca 

Mountain Licensing Support Network, I have been informed that the Department 

is currently working through the schedule with its contractor and about half of the 

documents have been reviewed. I understand the Department anticipates certifying 

the LSN by mid-year. Completing the licensing support network has evidently provVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:22 May 06, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\20961.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
28

en to be a more difficult challenge than the Department initially projected. Nevertheless, it is necessary that the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

provide a document collection that is accurate and as open as possible to the participants in the licensing process. 

RESPONSES OF MR. SELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SMITH

Question 1. For the last several years, the Administrator of the Bonneville Power 

Administration has reported directly to the Deputy Secretary of Energy. I believe 

this has been beneficial for the Administration and for the ratepayers of the Northwest. Will this direct line of reporting continue when you are confirmed as Deputy 

Secretary? 

Answer. Senator, I appreciate your experience and knowledge on the issue and 

place great weight on your recommendation. If confirmed, I plan to review all the 

operations relating to the activities and responsibilities of the Deputy Secretary and 

will take your sentiments into consideration. If I ultimately conclude that a change 

in the reporting relationship is needed, I will discuss that matter with you before 

any change is finalized. 

Question 2. As you may know, BPA has invested a great deal of effort over the 

past year to develop a Strategic Direction document to provide guidance for Bonneville and the region as we seek to clarify load obligations and assess infrastructure 

needs in the Northwest. The development of this plan is the result of many discussions between the congressional delegation, Bonneville, the Department of Energy 

leadership and BPA’s customers and stakeholders in the Northwest. In fact, the Administration recently offered support for BPA’s Strategic Direction. In the even that 

the legislative proposals discussed in the President’s fiscal year 2006 budget proposal are not acted upon, is it reasonable to assume that you and the Department 

of Energy would continue to be supportive of Bonneville’s Strategic Direction? 

Answer. Senator, at this time I am not familiar with the status of the development of the Strategic Direction for Bonneville Power. However, if I am confirmed, 

I will become familiar with the actions to date and work with you on this issue. 

Question 3. It has been my observation that most Administrations, regardless of 

party, do not want Administration officials discussing agenda items that may be in 

the President’s budget proposal prior to the actual release of the budget. Has this 

Administration requested that officials not discuss budget provisions prior to the 

submittal of the budget to the Congress? Did you feel obligated not to discuss budget proposals prior to the transmittal of the budget to the Congress? 

Answer. Senator, as you are aware, the development of the President’s Budget is 

an important process. The confidentiality of internal deliberations is important to 

a thorough exploration and consideration of issues. As such, staff are not authorized 

to release details or discuss potential budget proposals with individuals outside of 

the executive branch prior to the time the President authorizes the release of the 

budget or specific details therein. As you note, confidentiality considerations are not 

unprecedented and are, in fact, necessary to a well-functioning policy development 

process in all branches of the government. 

RESPONSE OF MR. SELL TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR BUNNING

Question 1. Mr. Sell, the Department of Energy has reduced spending for cleanup 

at the Paducah plant. Why was the funding for cleanup reduced? Was the funding 

reduction expected as part of the accelerated cleanup agreement for Paducah? Is the 

Paducah Plant on target to meet its completion date for accelerated cleanup that 

was agreed upon with the state of Kentucky? 

Answer. Senator, I am aware of your great interest in Paducah and your concerns 

about the proposed reduction in the FY 2006 Budget request. If confirmed, I will 

ask the Office of Environmental Management to provide me with a full explanation 

for the proposed reduction as well as a briefing on the status of the clean up. 

RESPONSES OF MR. SELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

NORTHERN NEW MEXICO MATH AND SCIENCE ACADEMY

Question 1. I am concerned about the projected shortfall in the development of our 

21st century math and science workforce. New Mexico, in partnership with Los Alamos National Laboratory, has a very successful professional development program 

called the Northern New Mexico Math and Science Academy. We would like to export this model program throughout DOE’s national laboratory complex, which has 

a vast untapped potential for addressing needs in math and science education. We 

29

are in the process of putting together a planning meeting in New Mexico to try to 

figure out how to do this. • Do you share my concerns about math and science education?’ 

Answer. Senator, I share your concern and I appreciate your support for the Department’s effort to strengthen America’s place as a world leader in math and 

science education. If I am confirmed, I look forward to working with you and with 

Secretary Bodman in this effort. • Would you be willing to lend your support—and the Department’s resources—

to the putting together the planning meeting? 

Answer. Senator, I am not in a position today to commit the Department’s resources. Should I be confirmed, I will look forward to working with you to determine 

the most appropriate avenues for moving forward and to determine how best to utilize the tremendous assets we have in the Nation’s laboratories. 

PAJARITO HOMESTEADERS

Question 2. Section 3147 of the Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization 

Act established a fund in the Treasury to compensate the Pajarito Plateau homesteaders whose homesteads were taken by the Army for the Manhattan Project 

more than sixty years ago. The Act directed DOE to deposit $10 million into the 

fund. The Act was signed into law last October, more than four months ago, but 

the Department has yet to deposit the necessary funds. • Are you familiar with this situation? • What is causing the delay? • Will you take whatever action is needed to see that the funds are deposited 

promptly, to correct this longstanding injustice? 

Answer. Senator, I am not personally familiar with the legislation, but should I 

be confirmed, I will look into the issue and take whatever actions are necessary to 

meet the requirements of the statute. 

RESPONSES OF MR. SELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SALAZAR

RENEWABLE ENERGY ECONOMIC MODEL

Question 1. Mr. Sell, I am concerned that the current estimates used by the Department of Energy to determine the costs and benefits of a Renewable Portfolio 

Standard are not realistic. For example, the Energy Information Administration’s 

economic model has oil prices at about $35 dollars per barrel for the year 2005, even 

though actual prices are currently $53 dollars per barrel. The projected costs of renewable energy would compare much more favorably than current estimates allow 

if a credible model for oil and natural gas prices were used in the baseline assumptions. Secondly, that same model does not account for a modest reduction in the 

price of wind power over time. 

I do not expect that you are intricately familiar with these models or the numbers 

used. But what I would like from you, Mr. Sell, is your assurance that if confirmed, 

you will provide me with cost and benefit estimates of an RPS using a better set 

of input numbers. Specifically, I would like to see a model that starts oil above $50 

per barrel in 2004 dollars, steadying out at a new price floor of $40 per barrel by 

2025. I would like to see the results of this model for two different approaches: one 

with wind power prices held constant and one with a modest reduction in those 

prices over time. I am positive that using this more realistic approach will show renewable energy compares much more favorably than it does under current EIA 

analysis. 

Mr. Sell, can I have your assurance that if confirmed, you will provide me with 

that analysis? 

Answer. Senator, I am not familiar with the modeling associated with the analysis 

you reference. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is an independent statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. If I am confirmed, I would be happy to work with you and EIA to develop analysis that you 

will find helpful to better understanding the impacts of a renewable portfolio standard. 

RURAL AREAS

Question 2. Mr. Sell, I am also interested in the development of rural America. 

As Deputy Secretary, what approaches would you recommend to make sure that 

rural America will benefit from the Department of Energy’s policies? 

Answer. Senator, I appreciate your raising the issue during my confirmation hearing. Rural America, as well as all other parts of the country, need abundant, affordable and reliable sources of energy. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you 

30

on this issue. I appreciate the importance you place on the development of renewable sources of energy and the importance these resources could play in rural communities. Certainly, the Administration’s policies to encourage greater use of ethanol, biodiesel, and wind energy have had a very positive impact on rural areas. 

Furthermore, rural communities, particularly in the West, have enjoyed a long and 

beneficial relationship with the Power Marketing Administrations. I look forward to 

working with you on other approaches we may be able to develop together that will 

be good for rural America. 

RESPONSES OF MR. SELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CANTWELL

HANFORD—HIGH LEVEL WASTE RECLASSIFICATION

Question 1. The President’s 2006 budget proposes to cut funds for the Environmental Management program by $548 million—the on-going cleanup at Hanford 

would be required to bear more than half of all the proposed reduction. Hanford 

clean-up is not optional. It is disturbing to me that these cuts at Hanford, in addition to being poor cleanup policy, are also at odds with the Secretary’s commitment 

to the Department’s ongoing financial obligations under the TriParty Agreement. 

Secretary Bodman and I have talked about my ongoing concern about waste reclassification. In response to my requests, he stated for the record, that DOE-authored language in FY ’05 Defense Reauthorization bill applies exclusively to Idaho 

and South Carolina AND NOT WASHINGTON. Despite the commitment of the Department for the record, the President’s budget cites ‘‘uncertainties’’ regarding the 

classification of waste that is scheduled to be removed from the 177 underground 

tanks at the Hanford Site. Your experience in working on the Hill—your potential 

new role as Deputy Secretary—combined with this ‘‘uncertainty,’’ and deep budget 

cuts raises a red flag to me. 

Will you give me your assurance that you and those you will supervise in your 

new position, if confirmed, will not pursue the same type of legislative end run—

previously supported by the Department of Energy—that we saw during the Defense 

Reauthorization bill last year—a policy that would have compromised DOE’s commitment to cleaning up ‘‘everything that is technically feasible but no less than 99 

percent’’ of the waste in Hanford’s tanks? 

Answer. Senator, I agree with you on the importance of cleaning up the Hanford 

site in a manner that protects human health and the environment. The remediation 

of waste in Washington, Idaho and South Carolina is by far the greatest environmental challenge facing the Department of Energy. If confirmed, I will seek to work 

with you on these very important issues in a direct and open manner. I will assure 

you that the Department will consult with you and the State of Washington on the 

cleanup of tank waste. 

Question 2. I also want to ask you some questions about the Department’s efforts 

to implement Section 3116 of the fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report, which became law last October. Section 3116 establishes 

new procedures for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste in South Carolina 

and Idaho that resulted from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at DOE facilities. 

Forty-eight members of the Senate supported my efforts voted to remove these 

provisions during Senate floor consideration of the fiscal year 2005 Department of 

Defense Authorization bill. I remain concerned that the provisions in the Senatepassed bill allow DOE to leave millions of gallons of high level nuclear waste next 

to drinking water supplies in South Carolina, and that this same approach will be 

proposed for Hanford. While this section was modified in Conference, I feel loopholes 

still remain that cast serious doubt about whether the environment near these facilities will be protected. I want to ask you about the actions the Department is taking to implement this new law. 

The opening lines of Section 3116 specifically eliminates the ability of the federal 

government to regulate these tanks under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the 

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 or any other laws that define classes of radioactive waste. This language is silent on states’ authority, delegated to them by the 

federal government under the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts, to issue 

permits protecting surface water and drinking water. 

Do you agree that conferees did not exempt the Savannah River and Idaho sites 

in Section 3116 from the requirements of the federal Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts, and that those laws and the regulations that implement them, 

which do contain lists of radioactive pollutants, are not overridden? 

Answer. Senator, I am aware that this legislation was enacted in the last Congress but I am not familiar with last year’s conference proceedings or the resulting 

31

statute at a level of detail to provide an answer to the question you have posed. 

If confirmed, I intend to familiarize myself with the tank waste issue and this new 

law. 

Question 3. The National Academy of Sciences issued its report on DOE’s on-site 

nuclear waste disposal program, a report mandated fiscal year 2005 Department of 

Defense Authorization Conference Report. The report also urged stronger and more 

comprehensive risk-based planning to govern DOE decisions about on-site disposal. 

I want to ask you about these findings, and how the proposed fiscal year 2006 budget will help DOE address the National Academy’s recommendations. 

As I understand it, cleanup of DOE’s nuclear complex over the next several dec- ades will cost at least over $140 billion, but you are seeking to reduce costs. The 

proposed fiscal year 2006 environmental cleanup budget is about $6.5 billion, a 

steep cut from the fiscal 2005 appropriation. 

I understand that the report says that recovery of ‘‘every last gram’’ of the nuclear 

waste at these sites is ‘‘technically impractical and unnecessary,’’ but it also finds 

that DOE cannot credibly make decisions about exempting wastes from deep burial. 

The report also calls for outside technical review of risk assessments and, crucially, said final decisions should be in the hands of another federal agency, U.S. 

EPA or the NRC. Specifically, the report says that ‘‘a separate federal entity is 

needed as the regulatory decision maker’’ with respect to reclassification. 

Another NAS panel this week took major issue with the plan to reclassify High 

Level Waste criticizing DOE for trying to reclassify material by mixing it with cement and also seconded the notion for the need for some review of DOE’s reclassification of tanks. 

The Secretary did not have a chance to review the report when he testified before 

the Committee on March 1, 2005. I assume that you have had a chance to review 

its findings. Do you agree with the report’s findings, and if so, are you willing to 

work with this Committee to implement the findings? 

Answer. Senator, I appreciate the question. I have not had the chance to review 

the report but will do so and will commit to working with you and the committee 

on this issue if confirmed. 

Question 4. I am also concerned that nuclear waste greater than Class C, and generally not suitable for near surface disposal, will remain on-site with limited oversight. Section 3116 allows these wastes to stay on-site at Savannah River and Idaho 

pursuant to a plan developed by the DOE in consultation with the NRC. I would 

have preferred that NRC be explicitly required to follow existing regulations regarding disposal of greater than Class C waste. 

As I read it, Section 3116 instead requires a new ‘‘plan’’ to be developed that as 

no particular requirements. Have you examined this issue and do you concur with 

that interpretation? 

Answer. Senator, I have not had the opportunity to review the language but, if 

confirmed, I will do so in order to more fully understand what is required in the 

new law. 

Question 4a. Can you detail for me the resources that will be allocated to be doing 

to make sure that DOE and NRC develop clear guidelines and a plan for disposal 

of this waste? 

Answer. Senator, I am not familiar at this time with the requirements of the legislation, but if confirmed, will commit to you that I will review the law and the Department’s plans for implementation. 

Question 5. The National Academy report is effectively calling for far more oversight than currently exists in the program and questions DOE’s ability to make 

judgments on waste management in calling for final decisions by another agency. 

It states ‘‘The credibility of DOE’s planning and decision making is reduced by the 

apparent conflict of interest created by DOE’s authority to both propose and approve 

of disposition plans for radioactive wastes.’’ 

Ultimately, I think we may need additional legislation on this matter, but I want 

to know whether, should you be confirmed, you plan to conduct another internal review of this issue this year? 

Answer. Senator, I have not been associated with this issue in great detail so I 

cannot comment at this time on the need for another formal internal review. But, 

if I am confirmed, I will personally review the issue as part of assuming my new 

duties. I will look forward to working with you on these very important matters. 

Question 6. Your budget also sites some seismic issues as reasons for the budget 

cut backs for the construction of the Waste Treatment Plant. This seems a little 

counter intuitive to me—that is to cut budgets when you find more problems instead 

of addressing the issue head on. 

Can explain how these seismic issues come to the fore and how your cut to the 

budget helps move us through these problems? 

32

Answer. Senator, I am only generally aware of the seismic issues and cannot comment at this time on how the issue has affected both the construction of the Waste 

Treatment Plant and the budget. Should I be confirmed, I intend to learn more 

about the challenges that exist for the Hanford cleanup and I would look forward 

to working with you on your concerns. 

Question 7. As you’re probably know by now, it’s been estimated that this proposal would raise Northwest power rates by $1.7 billion, and reduce the incomes of Northwest residents by another $1.3 billion. I agree with some of my colleagues on this 

committee that this plan represents an effort to privatize BPA—which is deeply disturbing. Further, this proposal truly represents a one-two punch to our regional 

economy. 

The reason I keep raising the issue of the BPA rate hike proposal is because of 

the devastating economic impact it would have on the Northwest economy and my 

constituents. Are you aware that the West as a whole has lost about $35 billion and 

an estimated 589,000 jobs because of the energy crisis of 2000-2001 (according to 

an article in the journal, Competition & Trade)? 

Setting aside all of the economic devastation this plan would cause in my region, 

I’ve read in the press that the administration has said that this Northwest rate hike 

plan would somehow ‘‘level the playing field’’ because our region has been blessed 

with affordable, cost-based electricity. I’m a little bit confused by that statement, 

however. Are you under the impression that, somehow, if you jack up power rates 

in the Northwest that-magically-power rates in other parts of the country, say Texas 

or the Southeast or even the Northeast, will actually go down? 

Answer. Senator, I am not under that impression and appreciate the opportunity 

to clarify this aspect of the President’s proposal. It is my understanding that this 

proposal addresses price anomalies within a region, not across regions. 

Question 7a. If raising Northwest power rates doesn’t lower power rates anywhere 

else, how do consumers anywhere in this country benefit from your proposal? 

Answer. Senator, it is my understanding that the President’s proposal would benefit consumers in the Northwest by removing the price disadvantage that some customers of other energy suppliers in the region have. 

Question 8. As I think you know, a 1996 federal law requires BPA to pay higher 

interest rates on its debt due to an agreement with their ratepayers to pay $100 

million immediately. The customers received assurances that rates would remain 

cost-based and reserved the right to sue the federal government if that plan was 

amended. 

Is it your view that BPA power is a subsidy to the Northwest? 

Answer. Senator, it is my understanding that GAO, CBO, and DOE’s Energy Information Administration have each concluded that the taxpayers do not recover the 

full cost of the power produced by hydroelectric facilities they financed. I recognize 

that there is a difference of opinion on this issue, and I would welcome the opportunity to review credible analysis to the contrary. 

RESPONSES OF MS. SCARLETT TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DOMENICI

INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS

Question. I have repeatedly expressed my frustration over the Department’s failure to seriously engage in the ongoing Indian water rights settlement negotiations 

in New Mexico. In responses to questions at last week’s hearing on the President’s 

Budget, Secretary Norton committed to address this issue. 

Will you commit to meaningful participation by a high-level Department official 

in all future New Mexico water settlement negotiations? 

Answer. I share your concerns regarding Indian water right settlement negotiations in New Mexico. These negotiations are of great importance to the Secretary. 

If confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I will commit to ensure that a high-level Departmental employee is assigned to work with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the 

Department’s bureaus to resolve future water settlement negotiations. 

Question. Can you also assure me that you will work to ensure that the Department seeks enough funding to implement these settlements? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Department’s Bureaus, the Office of 

Management and Budget, and other appropriate agencies to seek adequate funding 

to implement the water settlements. 

OIL AND GAS

Question. In spite of a commitment by this administration to expand oil and gas 

development on public lands, recent reports indicate that fewer acres have been 

33

leased during the past four years than were made available during the preceding 

four years under the Clinton Administration. 

What are the primary reasons for this? 

Answer. The law requires BLM to hold quarterly sales. The majority of parcels 

offered at these sales are requested by industry. The BLM only leases lands pursuant to land use plans that designate certain areas as suitable for leasing. The BLM 

deferred leasing on 2.7 million acres bureau-wide in 2004 so that we could update 

land use plans or complete Endangered Species Act or National Historic Preservation Act consultations. 

In addition, the number of protests of parcels being offered for oil and gas leasing 

in the last two years has dramatically increased. For example, during the period 

1997 to 2000, the BLM received 666 protests (the first level of appeal) on leases the 

BLM offered for sale, and 366 appeals of leases the BLM offered for sale. During 

the period 2001 to 2004, the BLM received 4,425 protests and 925 appeals. Most 

of the protests and appeals concerned environmental issues. These protests slow the 

issuance of new oil and gas leases. Even after protests have been dismissed, some 

parties are challenging the leases at the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) and 

Federal Court to prevent new leases from being issued. The IBLA and court decisions have often imposed more land-use management requirements before oil and 

gas leases can be issued, resulting in further delays. 

Question. What steps do you believe should be taken to improve access to development of our nation’s oil and gas resources? 

Answer. The BLM has taken a number of steps to improve processing of Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs) and to improve the process for leasing lands for 

oil and gas development. For example, the BLM tracks the processing of APDs on 

a weekly basis so that managers can make necessary adjustments in workloads. The 

BLM has implemented a computerized tracking system to better identify bottlenecks 

in the process for approving APDs. The BLM is providing technical assistance to industry to ensure submission of complete applications. Between 2001 and 2004, we 

approved over 17,000 APDS, an 88 percent increase over the numbers of APDs approved between 1997 and 2000. 

The BLM has formed Quality Assurance Teams to identify tasks that Field Offices 

are successfully implementing so that these successes can be duplicated in other offices. These Quality Assurance Teams also identify areas for improvement. The 

BLM has worked with State Historic Preservation Officers to streamline cultural resource clearances. 

The BLM has implemented Best Management Practices, which provide guidance 

for companies to use in developing their operating plans. This should allow the BLM 

and the energy industry to minimize the amount of surface disturbance to the public 

lands while maintaining access to energy resources. We continue to look for ways 

to improve the permitting process to allow increased access to oil and gas development on the public lands. For example, we are nearing completion of revised guidance for oil and gas companies that will assist them in developing complete APD 

packages. Complete application packages will allow the BLM to process the applications while minimizing delays to obtain additional information. 

Question. It has now been nearly four years since President Bush unveiled the 

report of his National Energy Policy. At that time, oil was $27 a barrel, now it is 

well over $50. Natural gas has seen a similar rise in prices. 

What, if anything, do you think the Department of the Interior should be doing 

to address this situation? 

Answer. The Administration’s efforts to increase production of oil and gas from 

Federal lands and waters will serve to sustain and promote domestic supply and 

help moderate prices. Oil and gas production from onshore and offshore Federal 

lands currently accounts for about 35% of the U.S. domestic production. The Department is actively working to increase the opportunities for development of oil and gas 

resources on the Federal lands it manages and on the Outer Continental Shelf while 

maintaining and enhancing environmental protections. 

In support of the Administration proposal, the Department is also working to promote exploration and development of the area within the Alaska National Wildlife 

Refuge (ANWR), where the U.S. Geological Survey estimates a mean expected volume of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil if Congress acts to lift the 

ban on development. The President’s FY 2006 budget assumes enactment of legislation to open ANWR to exploration and development, with the first lease sale held 

in 2007 expected to generate an estimated $2.4 billion for bonus bid revenues. The 

Department is also working with other Federal agencies on the approval and permitting processes for the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline. 

34

Question. The Nation’s land management agencies have a long history of continually creating new processes and procedures that, in total, have nearly paralyzed 

their ability to accomplish their missions. 

What do you propose to do to improve streamlining of procedures by agencies 

within the Department? 

Answer. The Department is committed to encouraging and facilitating increased 

access to oil and gas resources, in a manner that is consistent with land use plans 

and the BLM multiple-use mandate. To this end, the BLM has made significant 

progress in expediting and facilitating access to energy resources. Recent funding 

increases and management improvements instituted by the BLM have greatly increased the capacity to process applications for permits to drill, resulting in an 88 

percent increase in APDs approved between 2001 and 2004 compared with APD approvals from 1997-2000. The BLM has established quality assurance teams to review field office processes for applications permits to drill (APDs) in order to identify 

opportunities for employing best practices. Utilizing cost and demand data, the BLM 

has shifted resources to field offices where they will have the greatest impact. The 

BLM is currently evaluating additional ideas, including streamlining the NEPA 

process, pursuing e-Permitting, and sharing personnel across field office boundaries 

and program. 

Similarly, the MMS is implementing a number of directives under the National 

Energy Policy designed to improve and, where appropriate, streamline procedures 

to ensure safe and efficient operations on the Outer Continental Shelf and promote 

OCS oil and gas leasing and approval of exploration and development plans on predictable schedules. MMS completed the 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

for 2002-2007 in July 2002. The Program proposed up to 20 lease sales in the Gulf 

of Mexico and offshore Alaska. All sales have been held on schedule. MMS also continues to process exploration and development plans in a timely manner. MMS regulations require that all exploration plans must be processed and final action taken 

within 30 days, and Development and Production Plans must be processed and final 

action taken within approximately 120 days. For the last two years, all plans for 

the Gulf of Mexico OCS met these goals. In addition, MMS works closely with a 

number of other Federal agencies and State and local governments to streamline 

many of its activities. MMS works closely with the Coast Guard to promote consistency and improve coordination on joint regulatory oversight responsibilities for OCS 

operations and on coordinating reviews for permitting deepwater ports (e.g., for Liquefied Natural Gas imports). To further streamline its procedures, MMS’s ongoing 

e-Government Transformation project will re-engineer business processes, using 

technology to receive and process data and information, resulting in more efficient 

and effective work processes. 

I would be pleased to keep you informed of our progress as we continue to develop 

improvements to the process. 

LAND ACQUISITION

The Department continues to put in large requests for land acquisition each year, 

and at the same time bemoans the maintenance backlog that continues to grow. 

Question. Why should Congress provide money for land acquisition when it seems 

we cannot afford to manage the lands for which the Department is already responsible? 

Answer. Mr. Chairman, I agree that taking care of what we already manage is 

a top priority. The Department of the Interior manages one in every five acres of 

the United States. We believe significant conservation results are possible by work 

in partnership and cooperatively with landowners, Tribes, states, local agencies, and 

other organizations. Such partnerships leverage Federal funds sometimes at a ratio 

of more than 4 to 1. They enable us to achieve conservation goals while maintaining 

productive economic activity and thriving communities. They also enable us to 

achieve significant conservation goals without taking on long-term operating expenses that accompany land acquisition projects. 

Consistent with this perspective, over the past four years, the Department’s budget has emphasized: 1) taking care of the lands and facilities currently managed by 

the Department; and 2) addressing conservation goals through partnerships with 

private landowners, Tribes, States, and local communities. Our budget over the past 

four years has proposed significant funding increases for these activities. Consistent 

with that focus, we have, in turn, significantly decreased proposed funding for land 

acquisition since 2001. 

Nonetheless, the Department continues to propose some funding for land acquisition, including purchase of easements in which the base property remains in private 

ownership. Under this Administration, these acquisitions have focused on transVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:22 May 06, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\20961.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
35

actions: 1) within existing park and refuge boundaries; 2) national priorities such 

as enhancing commemoration of the Lewis and Clark expedition and the site of the 

Flight 93 plane crash; and 3) lands through which acquisition can resolve conflicts 

and help solve land use and water problems, such as the proposed acquisition of the 

Barnes property in the Klamath Basin. 

The Department proposes $107 million in FY 2006, which contrasts to an enacted 

level of Interior federal land acquisition funding in 2001 of $303 million. In making 

decisions about each proposed acquisition, the Department looks at the cost of operation and maintenance associated with the purchase of the interest in land to be 

sure that it is affordable and appropriate—and that alternatives to land acquisition 

do not exist. 

WESTERN WATER

Question. How does the Department plan to deal with water storage needs in the 

West? 

Answer. First, the Department intends to maintain and preserve the existing storage infrastructure that has been developed over the past 103 years. This includes 

continuing to maintain and operate projects such as Glen Canyon Dam and Lake 

Powell. These storage projects have been critical to the West in coping with drought 

and ensuring water supplies to maintain community well being and economic 

progress. 

Second, we are looking at new storage capacity in key locations. For example, the 

CALFED legislation that Congress passed late last year includes studies of four 

storage sites that would benefit farms, fish and wildlife, and municipal and industrial uses. 

At the same time, we must ensure that any new storage projects are economically 

and environmentally justified. The Department intends to maintain its standards 

for thorough review of project justifications. 

Ensuring adequate water supplies requires storage; it also requires enhancing the 

efficiency of water usage through better technologies that reduce evaporation, provide water flows in more targeted ways, and enable water trading, where appropriate. The Department’s Water 2025 Initiative focuses on enhancing water availability through these means. 

Question. Is Water 2025 the Department’s primary mechanism for addressing future western water needs? Please describe the program’s achievements to date. 

Answer. As beneficial as Water 2025 is, the Department recognizes that addressing future water needs in the West requires a mix of different strategies. These include vigilance in the efficient operation and maintenance of existing facilities, particularly the array of storage projects installed over the last century. We also look 

for additional storage opportunities that are justified from economic and environmental perspectives. The Department is collaborating with the Western states to address Western water needs. 

The Challenge Grant Program, a key feature of Water 2025, elicited an overwhelming response in FY 2004 and 2005. We received over 100 proposals in both 

years, enabling the Department to select an impressive array of water conservation 

and water management projects for Federal cost-sharing. 

With the $4 million available for the FY 2004 Challenge Grant Program, 19 

projects were selected in 10 different states throughout the West. Those projects 

broke ground in 2004 and will be completed during 2006. One of the 19 projects, 

Springville Irrigation District in Utah, was completed just six months from the date 

of the award and the rest are progressing according to schedule. 

The 19 selected projects represent a total of almost $40 million in on-the-ground 

water delivery system improvements, including Reclamation’s contribution of $4 

million and a non-Federal contribution of approximately $36 million. This represents a 10% investment from the Federal side. These projects improve water delivery systems and involve a combination of different measures to improve water management and conserve water. 

Ten projects will collectively convert almost 20 miles of leaky dirt canals to pipeline, eliminating water losses due to seepage and evaporation, resulting in substantial water savings. Five projects focus on the installation of measuring devices; several also involve the installation of Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 

(SCADA) systems. Both greatly improve water delivery control and reduce spillage. 

Three projects involve installation of automation technology allowing precise, remote 

control of water diversions and/or deliveries. Two projects involve water marketing, 

including one project to establish a pilot water bank in the Deschutes River Basin 

in Oregon to facilitate the voluntary transfer of water among water users. 

36

In addition, under the Water 2025 funding, Reclamation is entering into a strategic alliance with a consortium of universities, including the International Center 

for Water Resources Management at Central State University in Ohio, the Ohio 

View Consortium, and Colorado State University in Colorado (collectively, ‘‘Alliance 

Universities’’ or ‘‘AU’’). Reclamation and the AU will develop remote sensing technologies to aid in making water management decisions. 

In October 2004, Reclamation entered into a Water 2025 cooperative agreement 

with the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD), awarding the district 

$1.3 million for delivery system improvements. The award was a 50/50 cost share 

between Reclamation and MRGCD, for a total of $2.6 million for the project. This 

project will improve and modernize irrigation surface water conveyance facilities 

through the replacement of turnouts and old gates, concrete lining of canals, installation of telemetry, measurement devices, and automation. The project also involves 

the development of a computer system able to manage hundreds of gates, with information being published on the internet which will be made available to other water 

agencies to aid in managing flows of the Rio Grande. MRGCD expects to begin construction and implementation of the improvements in the spring of 2005, and will 

complete the project in the fall of 2007. 

Of the $19.5 million appropriated in FY 2005, $10 million has been allocated to 

the grant program. Reclamation has received 117 proposals requesting $35.5 million 

in Federal assistance, $10 million more than was requested in FY 2004. The combined Federal and partner funding totals $115 million in water delivery system improvements across the West, of which $79.5 million would come from non-Federal 

matching funds. Reclamation will select the projects by July 2005. 

The FY 2005 funding for Water 2025 also included $1.75 million for continued 

water conservation and efficiency improvements related to the MRGCD. Reclamation and MRGCD are working together to develop a plan for application of this additional funding. 

Taken together, these projects advance the purpose of making water delivery and 

use more efficient. 

Question. Why isn’t there a construction component to the Water 2025 program? 

Answer. Larger Reclamation construction projects have traditionally been authorized by Congress individually, while Water 2025 work in the field has focused on 

competitive, cost-share grants for projects such as conservation improvements and 

installing technology for measuring and accurately delivering water. Although some 

conservation improvements aimed at preventing leakage in canals involve significant capital investment (headgates, canal lining, pipe replacement, water measurement flumes), these improvements are not regarded by Reclamation as part of its 

construction program. 

TITLE XVI RECYCLING AND REUSE

Question. Every year Congress supports the authorization of new Title XVI recycling and reuse projects, despite the Administration’s stated objections to the program. Last Congress, Commissioner Keys appeared before this Committee and testified that the program has a 15-year funding backlog. 

The Administration’s FY 2006 budget requests approximately $10 million to support a handful of projects. As you know, this Committee will hold a Water Conference in April to examine numerous water issues, including the Title XVI program. 

What role do you believe the Department should play in the area of water recycling and reuse? 

Answer. Since 1992, the Department has actively supported water recycling and 

reuse through its Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse program. The program 

has provided significant financial assistance to local water agencies and has helped 

to demonstrate that water recycling is an excellent water management tool to extend water supplies. The Department is committed to continuing to fund those 

projects that have been supported in the President’s budget request in prior years 

but questions the need for more Federal dollars through Reclamation to fund additional projects, given other potential funding sources throughout the West. However, 

the Department is committed to focusing Federal funding on research to lower the 

cost of desalination and recycling. By advancing the science of water treatment technologies, we believe the cost of implementing water recycling and desalination 

projects can be reduced to a level that makes these types of new water supplies 

more affordable to a greater number of local communities. 

The Secretary’s Water 2025 initiative currently focuses on projects and awards 

matching challenge grants on a competitive basis to help finance these projects. One 

of the components of the initiative is to reduce the cost of new water treatment techVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:22 May 06, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\20961.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
37

nology, such as desalination, through research and development efforts funded by 

competitive cost shared grants. 

Question. What criteria does the Department use for either supporting or not supporting projects authorized to receive federal assistance? 

Answer. The Department is frequently asked to testify on proposed new authorizations for Title XVI projects. While we understand the importance of many of 

these efforts, we have focused our budget proposals on completing projects already 

started rather than funding additional Title XVI projects. Our budget has proposed 

focusing on improving existing water projects and water availability by addressing 

aging Federal water infrastructure and the safety and security of these facilities and 

by helping to prevent conflict over water in the West through Water 2025 competitive grants. 

Question. In the recently enacted CALFED legislation, Congress directed the Department to review, within 180 days of enactment, the feasibility of proceeding to 

construction of a number of projects studied as part of the Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study and the Bay Area Water Plan. 

What is the status of this effort? 

Answer. In January and February of this year, the Bureau of Reclamation wrote 

to more than 160 water and wastewater agencies and organizations associated with 

the two comprehensive water reclamation and reuse studies in northern and southern California seeking information on any water recycling projects that the agencies 

may have sponsored as part of the studies. Reclamation requested that the agencies 

provide copies of existing planning and environmental studies and other supporting 

documentation that may have been produced for each potential project. When the 

reports and supporting documentation have been transmitted to Reclamation, a review of each project will commence. I would be pleased to keep you informed of our 

progress. 

DROUGHT

Question. As you are well aware, the Southwestern U.S. has been experiencing 

drought conditions since 2000. The Pacific Northwest is also experiencing water supply shortages and the current snow pack is well below average. In anticipation of 

our upcoming water conference, this Committee has asked for proposals to address 

the drought situation. 

What is the status of the voluntary protocol that the Department is working on 

with the basin states to deal with water shortages on the Colorado River? 

Answer. The Department has asked the seven Colorado River Basin States for 

consensus recommendations by April regarding the development of ‘‘shortage guidelines’’ for the Lower Basin of the Colorado River. In light of the significant drought 

in the Colorado River Basin since 1999, the Department anticipates initiating a public process to develop Lower Basin shortage guidelines later this year. The Department anticipates that this process will follow a development protocol similar to that 

utilized by the Department for the development and adoption of Lower Basin Interim Surplus Guidelines in 2001. In that process, the seven Colorado River Basin 

states submitted a consensus-based recommendation that formed the basis of the 

Surplus Guidelines adopted by the Department and now relied upon by the Secretary in the preparation of each year’s Annual Operating Plan. 

Question. What other measures is the Department using or proposing to deal with 

the drought situation? 

Answer. The Department is currently using Reclamation’s existing drought authority to provide some water management tools, on an emergency basis, such as 

moving non-project water through Federal project facilities, allowing temporary 

water transfers, encouraging water banking and markets, and providing small 

grants to affected communities for drought emergencies. On a larger scale, we have 

found that the best time to prepare for drought conditions is not during the drought 

but during times of plenty. Reclamation has been working over the past decade to 

assist our water contractors in upgrading their facilities, installing new water management technologies, and generally improving their ability to manage water much 

more efficiently, especially during times of shortages. Water 2025 helps promote 

these activities and projects through the competitive challenge grant program, especially in areas of the West where we can predict conflict over water is likely. 

Drought occurs somewhere in the West almost every year, but other pressures on 

western water supplies exist, such as population growth and environmental needs. 

The tools we are currently implementing through Reclamation programs will work 

for both drought and other water-shortage situations. 

All of the foregoing efforts are in addition to continued operation and maintenance 

of our storage infrastructure, which has made an impressive contribution to the efVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:22 May 06, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\20961.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
38

forts throughout the West to meet water requirements in the face of sustained 

drought. 

Question. Is Interior coordinating with any other federal agencies to address the 

drought situation? 

Answer. USGS hydrology programs relate to predicting and monitoring droughts. 

The US Water Monitor website has been developed in cooperation with NOAA, 

NRCS and the National Drought Mitigation Center. In addition, the Department, 

through the Bureau of Reclamation, is coordinating with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service, both at the headquarters level 

and, more importantly, at the watershed level. The USDA-NRCS provides runoff 

predictions on a bimonthly basis for most of our Western watersheds. We work 

closely with them in analyzing and disseminating this important water management 

information to affected water users. Also, through Water 2025 and other Memoranda of Understanding, we work with USDA to identify where Federal programs 

and projects can be coordinated more effectively, communicating and contributing 

our resources where practicable. 

RESPONSES OF MS. SCARLETT TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SMITH

Question. I would like to be supportive of the Administration’s request in the Fish 

and Wildlife Service budget for the acquisition of the Barnes Property. However, in 

order for me to be supportive of this $6 million request, I need to know how any 

water created by the inundation of the Barnes Property and the adjacent Agency 

Ranch property will be managed within the federal project (i.e. will this water be 

available for irrigation, will it be water bank water, etc.?). Please let me know how 

this water will be used by the federal project and how it will be credited against 

the Endangered Species Act obligations of the federal project. 

Answer. The Barnes tract would be passively managed in conjunction with Agency 

Lake Ranch to accomplish three goals. These include: 

1. Helping protect and recover the endangered suckers at Upper Klamath Lake 

by providing additional habitat for the suckers, especially juvenile-rearing habitat. 

A major problem in recovering the fish is that there is little recruitment from the 

juvenile stage to the adult population. Providing additional juvenile-rearing habitat 

in most years is a key step in recovering the suckers. 

2. Storing additional water in Upper Klamath Lake to provide water that can be 

counted as part of the water bank. Storing water on Agency Lake Ranch alone adds 

approximately 12,000-15,000 acre feet of water in most years to Upper Klamath 

Lake (when Upper Klamath Lake fills). This water is counted as part of the water 

bank and is managed to meet coho salmon flows under the NOAA biological opinion. 

Any additional storage at currently managed sites would flood the adjacent Barnes 

Ranch, a private holding. With Barnes acquired by the FWS as part of Upper Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge and managed conjunctively with Agency Lake 

Ranch, between 34,000 and 42,000 acre feet of additional water would be stored in 

Upper Klamath Lake. This water would be counted as part of the water bank. By 

increasing this component of the water bank, Reclamation will be able to reduce the 

amount of land idled and/or ground water pumped to provide the water needed for 

the water bank. Additionally, the consumptive use portion of water rights that go 

with the Barnes property (roughly estimated at 2,700 acre feet) can be counted as 

part of the water bank, further offsetting the need for land idling and groundwater 

pumping to meet the water bank requirement. 

3. Contributing, over the long term, to improving water quality in Upper Klamath 

Lake and downstream in the Klamath River. Typical operations for Barnes Ranch 

involve using the Barnes’ water rights to irrigate their land for forage, and then 

pump the tail water into drainage canals connecting with the lake. This water has 

a high phosphorous and nitrogen content and adds to the nutrient loading of Upper 

Klamath Lake. This contributes to the severe algae problem in the lake, a serious 

water-quality problem for fish in Upper Klamath Lake and also a significant source 

of water-quality problems downstream. The additional wetlands habitat will also 

add substantially to the prime waterfowl and wetland habitat contained in Upper 

Klamath National Wildlife Refuge. 

Question. How much money will be needed to stabilize the levies at the back of 

the Barnes Ranch property? 

Answer. A preliminary estimate from the Bureau of Reclamation is approximately 

$2 million, a portion of which can be met through account work by the Reclamation 

to increase the storage on Agency Lake Ranch. 

Question. If Barnes Ranch is acquired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it 

will be adjacent to the Agency Ranch property owned by Reclamation and near another federal parcel managed by the Bureau of Land Management. How does the 

39

Department of the Interior intend to coordinate the management of these three parcels? Is the Department considering consolidating these three parcels under the 

management of one Interior agency? 

Answer. Our intention is to develop an efficient, effective, and coordinated approach to managing these parcels. The area actually includes four parcels, counting 

Upper Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Agencies have had preliminary discussions about combining the other three parcels with Upper Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge, since one option would be to manage them efficiently and at 

modest cost by FWS. 

Question. Next year, the power rates in the Klamath Basin could go up ten-fold 

from the current rate. What is the Department doing now to prepare for these increased power rates? Is the Department studying ways to reduce power use by the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, by Reclamation and by the BLM in the Upper Basin? 

How much of Reclamation’s annual reimbursable operations and maintenance costs 

are attributable to power? What does the Department anticipate that cost to be once 

power rates increase? 

Answer. The Department is negotiating with PacifiCorp and the power users. Key 

issues include the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission re-licensing of the 

PacifiCorp’s power project, provisions of the Interstate Compact, falling water 

charges, and rate equity for all users. It appears that the FERC re-licensing process 

will not be completed by 2006 and an extension will be requested. The Department 

believes the provisions of the 1956 contract between CopCo (now PacifiCorp) and 

Reclamation should similarly be extended. Energy efficiency has been an ongoing 

concern of the Department, and the operation of Bureau facilities is continually 

being reviewed to ensure cost savings where ever possible. 

The specific amount of Reclamation’s annual reimbursable operations and maintenance costs attributable to power is difficult to determine because the data currently 

on hand do not separate maintenance costs from power costs. Reclamation estimates 

that operation and maintenance costs for electrical power to operate numerous 

pumps within the Klamath Project currently range between $100,000 and $175,000 

each year. These costs represent between 25% and 50% of all O&M reimbursable 

costs. If power costs to the Project were to increase 10 times, as some have predicted, reimbursable costs to the irrigation Districts would range between 

$1,000,000 and $1,750,000 each year and become the single largest reimbursable 

O&M expense. I would be pleased to keep you informed as we proceed through this 

process. 

RESPONSES OF MS. SCARLETT TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BUNNING

Question. Ms. Scarlett, has the Department of Interior examined how to fix the 

expected funding shortage for the Combined Benefit Fund which receives funding 

from the AML program? 

Answer. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act requires that OSM 

transfer an amount equivalent to the amount of interest earned on the Abandoned 

Mine Land (AML) Fund to cover the health benefits of unassigned beneficiaries of 

the Combined Benefits Fund (CBF). We are required to transfer annually up to $70 

million or the actual needs of the CBF, whichever is less. 

In recent years, the amount of interest earned has not been sufficient to meet the 

needs of the unassigned beneficiaries. The Administration has taken several steps 

to improve this situation:

• We have implemented and extended a prescription drug program which lowers 

the cost of prescription drugs to the CBF members saving an estimated $190 

million thus far. 

• We have changed our investment strategy to generate more funds for CBF. 

• We have proposed making available to the unassigned beneficiaries more than 

$100 million in funds equivalent to the amount of interest that was credited to 

the account or otherwise not available for use in prior years. 

• We have proposed removing the $70 million cap so that all interest earned in 

a year, up to an amount equal to the needs of CBF for unassigned beneficiaries, 

could be utilized to transfer funds to the CBF. 

• In order to help defray the costs of health benefits for coal miners even if Congress allows the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) fee to expire, the Department 

has taken steps to honor its responsibility to continue to transfer funds to the 

CBF. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 amended SMCRA with an additional requirement providing that even if the AML fee expires, operators must continue 

to pay fees to fund annual transfers to the CBF. That is, although AML fees 

for use in reclamation would no longer be collected, the fee will be established 

at a rate sufficient to continue to provide for transfers to the Combined Benefit 

40

Fund with respect to unassigned beneficiaries. The Department is currently reviewing public comments provided in response to its published, proposed rule 

that will implement this provision. 

• As proposed, the new fee rates will be based upon estimates of the CBF’s needs 

for unassigned beneficiaries, the AML fund’s estimated interest earnings, and 

projected coal production for which there is a reclamation fee payment obligation. The rates will be adjusted as necessary to reflect any differences between 

estimated and actual CBF expenditures, AML fund interest earnings, and fee 

collections in prior years. 

RESPONSES OF MS. SCARLETT TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

1. SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY

Question. A recent poll of scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service conducted by 

the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility found a very disturbing level of political interference with the agency’s scientific work. It also found that many USFWS scientists feel unable to express their 

concerns without fear of retaliation. 

Will you commit to looking into this problem in a way that avoids further intimidation? 

Answer. The Department places great importance on the integrity of science and 

the role which it plays in the decision-making process. The Department has over 

the past four years taken a number of actions to enhance both the integrity of our 

science and the role which it plays in the decision-making process. We take seriously any concerns employees or others might have about scientific integrity. To 

that end, our Inspector General has investigated several allegations of interference. 

In two recent cases cited by critics as instances in which Department leadership 

interfered with flows of scientific information, neutral observers have closely examined the accusations and found them unsubstantiated. For example, regarding the 

Missouri River, in a letter to former Senator Daschle dated May 14, 2004, the Inspector General stated that he ‘‘found no evidence to suggest the Assistant Secretary’s decision to remove scientists was made for any reason other than to resolve 

the stalemate between the Corps and FWS; no evidence that the Assistant Secretary 

attempted to influence the team members in any way; and no evidence that the 

team co-chairs and members perceived any undue influence or political pressure.’’ 

Also, regarding the Klamath Basin, in a letter to Senator Kerry dated March 1, 

2004, the Inspector General stated that his office ‘‘found no evidence of political influence affecting the decisions pertaining to the water in the Klamath Project’’ and 

that ‘‘the administrative process followed in this matter did not deviate from the 

norm.’’

The Inspector General also noted that his ‘‘review of the available documents and 

the rulings of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California support 

the conclusion that the Department had compiled the necessary information to support its various decisions related to the Klamath Project’’ and that ‘‘none of the individuals interviewed—including the Whistleblower—was able to provide any competent evidence that the Department utilized suspect scientific data or suppressed 

information that was contained in economic and scientific reports related to the 

Klamath Project.’’ Rather, the Inspector General noted that, to the contrary, the National Academy of Sciences specifically disagreed with the criticism that had been 

directed against the Department for using ‘‘junk science’’. 

Notwithstanding these particular findings, upon receipt of the recent PEER statements regarding concerns among employees about science integrity, Assistant Secretary Craig Manson is evaluating options for improved communication and procedures for ensuring high scientific standards and information flows throughout the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

I have a personal commitment to scientific integrity and look forward to working 

throughout the Department and with the Secretary to meet our goals for scientific 

integrity. 

Question. Will you further commit to looking into ways to prevent further political 

interference with science at the Department? 

Answer. The Department of the Interior has over the past four years taken a 

number of actions to enhance both the integrity of our science and the role which 

it plays in the decision-making process. Responsible for managing approximately 1 

in every 5 acres of land in the United States, the Department of the Interior frequently faces challenging ecosystem and resource management issues. Interior has 

addressed such challenges by significantly enhancing the use of science in its decision-making processes. 

41

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), our primary scientific agency, seeks through 

its Science Impact Program to replace conflict with a solutions-oriented focus underpinned by a spirit of cooperation and consensus seeking. To further these research 

activities, the Science Impact Program has established external partnerships with 

universities, including one with the University of New Mexico, to focus external innovation in the use of USGS science information and to provide specialized skills 

beyond those traditional to the USGS. The Department has also taken significant 

steps to ensure the quality of the science we use. We have, for example, (i) crafted 

Information Quality Guidelines to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated to the public; and (ii) are developing 

a draft Code of Scientific Conduct that has been independently reviewed by a panel 

of leading scientists and ethicists to help ensure the integrity of all scientific work 

done by both our employees and our contractors. 

2. RESPONSIVENESS

Question. Our experience over the last several years has been that it is oftentimes 

difficult to get factual information and technical and legal support from the Department without long delays and clearances. We also believe that career employees 

have been forbidden to provide such information and support to us without clearance from political appointees. 

Will you pledge to work in a bipartisan manner with us on the energy bill and 

the many other legislative matters relating to the Interior Department? In committing to address our concerns, will you review, and modify as necessary, any guidance 

or instructions that have gone out to career employees to ensure that they understand that they are free to take our calls and to be responsive to our requests? I 

have particular concerns about employees in the Solicitor’s office feeling constrained 

in their interactions with us. 

Answer. I pledge to work with you in a bipartisan manner on comprehensive energy legislation and any other legislation before the Committee. During my four 

years working as Assistant Secretary of Policy, Management and Budget, I have 

tried always to work in a bipartisan, fair, and open fashion with members of Congress and their staff. 

The Department has a process for responding to requests from Committee staff. 

We ask that Committee staff call our Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs. 

Housed within that office are the Legislative Counsel and her staff of legislative attorney advisors. I believe that office has been responsive to all calls or letters received by Committee staff and has made staff available from the Solicitor’s Office 

when legal questions are asked. This process of interoffice coordination is a longstanding policy set forth in the Departmental Manual. 

Our policy of coordination helps to ensure that relevant offices are aware of any 

Congressional concerns or issues so that they can provide complete, accurate information. Notwithstanding this Departmental policy of coordinating responses to 

Committee staff requests, I want to ensure that the Department is fully responsive 

to requests for meetings or information at all times. 

3. HYDROELECTRIC RELICENSING

Question. Last month, I sent Secretary Norton a letter co-signed by several other 

Senators of both parties expressing serious concern about a rulemaking pending before the Department relating to hydroelectric relicensing. The rulemaking proposes 

a new appeals process at the Interior Department that would give a license applicant the right to an appeal a license condition or fishway prescription if the applicant is not in agreement with the Department’s actions. However, the proposed rule 

grants no such right of appeal to Tribes, States, or other interested parties. I am 

strongly opposed to this provision. 

When can we expect to see the final rule issued? 

Answer. The Department received numerous comments reflecting various perspectives on this issue during the 60-day comment period on the proposed rule. Those 

comments are now being reviewed. The Department expects to publish a final rule 

in late spring. 

Question. Do I have your commitment that you will look carefully at this provision, which I believe raises serious issues of procedure and fundamental fairness? 

Answer. I can assure you I will look closely at this issue and the procedural and 

fairness elements associated with it. 

4. NATIONAL PARK MANAGEMENT

Question. The National Park Service Organic Act states that the purpose of the 

National Park System is ‘‘to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic obVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:22 May 06, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\20961.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
42

jects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such 

manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’ The National Park Service management policies address the potential conflict between the two directives protecting park resources and providing 

for their enjoyment. Specifically, section 1.4.3 of the management policies states 

‘‘when there is a conflict between conserving resources and values and providing for 

enjoyment of them, conservation is to be predominant. This is how courts have consistently interpreted the Organic Act. . . .’’

At the confirmation hearing of Fran Mainella to be the Director of the National 

Park Service, I asked her whether she agreed with those management policies, that 

the conservation of park resources is the primary mission of the National Park Service. Her answer was ‘‘I am advised that the courts have consistently interpreted the 

Organic Act this way. Therefore, I would agree that the resource is always the primary focus.’’

Can you tell me whether you agree with this policy, that conservation of park resources is the primary mission of the National Park Service, and can you assure 

me that the Department will not seek to modify or overturn the Park Service management policies to that effect? 

Answer. The National Park Service Organic Act makes it clear that the National 

Park Service mission is to conserve park resources unimpaired so that each generation of Americans may fully enjoy them. The Park Service views this as a combined 

mandate to: (1) conserve park resources in an unimpaired condition; and (2) provide 

the public with opportunities to enjoy those unimpaired resources. I am totally committed to meeting both these responsibilities. These goals can be achieved in tandem, as the Organic Act envisions. As Director Mainella has noted, visitor enjoyment depends upon conserving park resources in an unimpaired condition. Should 

I be confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I will work closely with the National Park Service to fulfill the vision set forth in the Organic Act. 

If confirmed, I will work to ensure that NPS Management Policies continue to 

conserve park resources as set forth in the Organic Act and as required by the 

courts. 

5. TESHEKPUK LAKE LEASING

Question. A 1998 Record of Decision for the Northeast Planning area of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska opened 87 percent of the area for oil and gas leasing, but kept much of the area around Teshekpuk Lake closed to leasing because 

of its importance to wildlife. The Department is now considering opening the 

Teshekpuk Lake area to leasing. The Bureau of Land Management claims that ‘‘new 

information since the 1998 ROD’’ and ‘‘various scientific studies on the biological resources of the area’’ support opening the area to leasing. Many ornithologists and 

wildlife professionals have said that they are ‘‘not aware of any new studies’’ that 

would lead to that conclusion. 

Please provide copies of the ‘‘various scientific studies completed on the biological 

resources of the area’’ since completion of the 1998 ROD. 

Specifically, what biological studies were conducted and what new information did 

they provide, regardless of whether that new information does or does not justify 

opening the area to leasing? 

Answer. At the time the 1998 plan was crafted, we had very little sub-surface information. During the past seven years, however, 18 wells have been drilled which 

have provided real data that demonstrates the ability to drill in the sub-surface. We 

are providing copies of all of the reports, with the exception of one that will be provided as soon as the BLM receives it from the BLM Alaska State Office. 

Biological studies completed since 1998

Influence of oil/gas development on nest success of shorebirds. A statistical consultant was hired to analyze pilot data comparing nest success of shorebirds in the 

oil fields with undisturbed areas of the Arctic Coastal Plain, such as the NPR-A and 

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The report of that analysis has been completed 

and additional fieldwork has begun based on the results. (Report included.) 

Effects of oil field development on population and distribution of tundra swans. 

This study and its report are complete. The objectives were to determine whether 

swans have shifted their nesting distribution in response to facility development and 

whether swan population trends in the oil fields differ significantly from trends for 

the North Slope population as a whole. (Report included.) 

Workshop to review studies of impacts to vegetation from winter oil/gas activities. 

This workshop has been completed. The current Research Monitoring Team has chosen not to include impacts to vegetation among the highest priority issues for a 

monitoring plan for the NPR-A currently in development. (Report included.) 

43

Workshop to discuss a cooperative monitoring program to document subsistence concerns. This workshop has been completed, but follow-up actions are ongoing. The 

goal is to provide a means by which subsistence hunters and other local residents 

can express concerns to the appropriate agency about industrial impacts to subsistence activities and resources, and be assured they will receive some type of resolution to their concerns. (Report included.) 

Workshop to standardize aerial bird surveys on the North Slope. Agencies and private industry have conducted low-level aerial surveys using various methods to 

monitor populations of large waterbirds on the North Slope of Alaska. This workshop has been completed and will result in more consistent and comparable survey 

results, increasing the utility of these data sets for the management of migratory 

birds. (Report included.) 

On-going studies 

Summarize subsistence harvest and seasonal land use data for four villages. The 

analysis and summary of these data are near completion. The objectives are to describe the current subsistence land and resource use by residents of Nuiqsut, 

Atqasuk, Wainwright and Barrow; document the annual harvest of wildlife and fish 

resources within the NPR-A; identify areas within the NPR-A that are of particular 

importance to subsistence users; document hunter/industry interactions and determine whether those interactions have led to changes in hunters’ behaviors; and 

identify and minimize potential impacts to subsistence hunters from industry actions. 

Impacts of Seismic Trails, Camp Trails and Ice Roads on Tundra Vegetation in 

the Northeast NPR-A. This study is similar to one that has been ongoing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) since 1985. It will give us a better idea of how 

impacts to the tundra and recovery by tundra vegetation compare to that in ANWR. 

Overlapping vs. off-setting ice-roads year-to-year. A stipulation in the 1998 ROD 

requires offsetting ice roads from one year to the next. This would impact a greater 

area, but presumably with less intensity of impact per acre and thus provide a benefit through less severe impacts and quicker recovery. This study is meant to suggest which alternative is environmentally preferable. 

Caribou demography, distribution and movements in relation to oil field infrastructure. This study is ongoing. It is intended to model, using real data from caribou ranging through oil fields, the effects of oil field infrastructure on caribou productivity. This is the most critical issue in the caribou vs. oil fields debate, and one 

which has never been directly addressed. 

Determine relative importance of avian nest predators. This study is ongoing, with 

the final year of data collection in 2005. The objectives are to identify predators responsible for nest failure of selected species of waterfowl and shorebirds; compare 

the relative impact of various predator species within the oil fields and away from 

development; and develop better methods to identify predators responsible for nest 

failure. 

Distribution, density and productivity of yellow-billed loons in the NPR-A. The 

fieldwork for this study was completed in 2004; data analysis and report preparation are ongoing. The primary objective is to design and implement yellow-billed 

loon breeding and production surveys in the NPR-A. This research will also assess 

the feasibility and justification for a long term study to address potential impacts 

of climate variation on abundance, breeding biology, distribution and productivity. 

Population size and productivity of raptors along the Colville River. This is a longterm monitoring effort, and is ongoing. The objectives are to provide managers with 

current raptor nest site information; monitor population size and productivity trends 

for arctic raptors; and identify factors contributing to recent poor productivity for 

peregrine falcons. 

Effects of noise from vibroseis equipment on arctic fish. The fieldwork for this 

study is complete and report preparation is ongoing. The objective was to measure 

sound energy levels of vibroseis equipment at various distances from the sound 

source; use underwater video to record the reactions of fish from the noise generated 

by the vibroseis equipment; and use caged fish for both treatment and controls to 

determine the physical and physiological effects of sound exposure. 

Population distribution of molting geese near Teshekpuk Lake. The fieldwork for 

this study was completed in 2003. Data analysis using a Geographical Information 

System and report preparation are ongoing. The objective is to monitor and assess 

potential changes in the populations and distribution of molting brant and other 

geese and to document habitat selection of specific shoreline habitats. 

Document local knowledge of subsistence fish life histories. This study is ongoing. 

Its objectives are to conduct detailed interviews with ‘‘key informants’’ in Nuiqsut, 

Barrow, Atqasuk and Wainwright; collect spatial and temporal data on fish; focus 

44

on life histories of key subsistence fish species; identify fish bearing lakes and rivers; and digitize data in Geographical Information System format. 

Literature review of effects of pipeline height on crossing success by caribou. This 

review is ongoing. The objectives are to review all published and unpublished information regarding potential effects of pipelines on caribou movements, and to prepare and publish a synthesis and annotated bibliography of the information. This 

will summarize a wide body of knowledge in a single document. 

Literature review of rare plant distribution on Alaska’s North Slope. This review 

is ongoing. The objective is to detail in a single, comprehensive report all known information on rare plant distribution and habitat types in the NPR-A. This information will better suggest to managers where unrecorded populations of rare plants 

may occur. 

We would be happy to provide a briefing for you or your staff if you need further 

information. 

RESPONSES OF MS. SCARLETT TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SALAZAR

BLM/OIL & GAS

Question 1. As you are aware, Ms. Scarlett, Colorado and the BLM is experiencing 

a boom in the number of drilling permits (APDs) applied for and the resulting boom 

in wells actually being drilled on our public lands. I am concerned that while the 

BLM is emphasizing and funding the personnel needed to process APDs in a timely 

fashion, it is not funding the needed oversight to enforce the stipulations and conditions under which those APDs are approved. 

The President’s budget calls for maintaining funding for Oil & Gas Management 

programs at 2005 levels by increasing user fees for processing APDs, will this fee 

be implemented? If the fee is not implemented, what effects will that have on BLM 

oversight of oil & natural gas exploration and production? 

Answer. The BLM will publish a proposed regulation shortly. We will request 

comments from the public and then publish a final regulation by Fall 2005. The regulation, to be implemented in FY 2006, will provide funding to allow the BLM to 

more effectively meet increased customer demand by processing additional leases 

and APDs. The BLM expects to collect $9.7 million through cost recovery in the oil 

and gas program primarily from a new fee for APD processing. With these additional funds, the BLM will be able to process virtually all of the remaining backlogged APDs, except for those few that are delayed through litigation or complex environmental review. In FY 2006, BLM plans to process 500 more APDs and 250 

more oil and gas leases than in FY 2005. If the regulation is not implemented, BLM 

will not process as many leases and APDs. 

Question 2. The increase in drilling activity in Colorado demands an increase in 

the number of inspectors and inspections in Colorado to insure it is done properly. 

Can you please tell us what the Department’s priorities are in regards to Oil & Gas 

Management in terms of inspectors and inspections and how those priorities are reflected in the BLM budget justification? Will more funds be provided to the BLM 

in the Rocky Mountain West for more inspectors? 

Answer. Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) are integral and key components of 

Departmental management of both onshore and offshore oil and gas operations. In 

fact, I&E activities are identified as a high priority in the Department’s Strategic 

Plan. The Department has committed considerable resources in recent years to ensure that we have an effective I&E program. Over the past four years, the BLM 

recognized the need to strengthen its I&E program as the number of APDs approved 

and drilled increased. The BLM has been successful through its budget justifications 

to document its need for additional inspectors and obtain additional funding. Those 

funds have been used to hire additional inspectors in priority Rocky Mountain locations, including in the Piceance Basin of Colorado. 

The FY 2006 President’s Budget Request maintains the past level of funding for 

the I&E program for oil and gas, coal, and other minerals. The BLM is committed 

to ensuring that priority inspections are completed even if adjustments within the 

oil and gas program are needed to keep pace with industry demand. 

Question 3. Would the Department be amenable to an increase in Oil & Gas Management funding for increased oversight of oil and gas operations on Federal Lands 

as well as ‘‘split-estate’’ lands? 

Answer. Senator, the Department very much appreciates your interest in and concern about these issues. We believe the funding level in the FY 2006 President’s 

Budget Request, when combined with the amounts we expect to collect through cost 

recovery, provides adequate funding to accomplish oversight of oil and gas operVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:22 May 06, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\20961.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
45

ations on Federal lands as well as for oversight of oil and gas operations on split 

estate lands. 

Question 4. How does the BLM view the ‘‘split estate’’ issue in the west and what 

is their position on retaining mineral rights when they sell or trade BLM property? 

Answer. Many of the split estate lands in the West were patented under the Stock 

Raising Homestead Act of 1916. This Act allows surface owners to be compensated 

for damages to crops and stock raising values of the land as a result of mineral development. The BLM’s policy is to include the surface owner at the earliest possible 

time to assure that his or her desires are included in the use authorization. The 

BLM cannot force the surface owner to respond when the mineral estate owner files 

an application to drill a well. However, the BLM will make a good faith effort to 

involve the surface owner and will accommodate their requests if at all possible 

without significantly reducing the mineral developer’s right to enjoy the minerals. 

The BLM requires that the mineral operator make a good faith effort to reach an 

agreement with the surface owner prior to entering upon the lands. The BLM allows 

the mineral developer to post a bond for the benefit of the surface owner in lieu 

of an agreement, but only if a good faith effort fails to achieve an agreement. The 

BLM then makes an effort to contact the surface owner to assure that he or she 

understands their rights. The BLM is committed to working with mineral operators 

and surface owners to assure that fair and equitable treatment is afforded to all. 

For the sale of lands, the BLM must retain the mineral estate, as required by section 209 of the Federal Land Policy Management Act. For exchanges of lands, the 

BLM can determine whether to dispose of the mineral estate, based on an evaluation of the public interest, which includes consideration of the mineral potential and 

the mineral value. 

Question 5. Is the Department willing to let the BLM get involved in disputes between landowners and energy companies when there is unmitigated damage to the 

surface rights of the landowner? 

Answer. Many of the split-estate lands in the West were patented under the Stock 

Raising Homestead Act of 1916. This Act allows surface owners to be compensated 

for damages to crops and stock raising values of the land due to mineral development. 

The Act, and its implementing regulations, provides a mechanism for surface 

owner involvement and compensation while the mineral estate owner retains the 

right to develop the mineral estate. The BLM encourages all parties to work together under principles of accommodation. Absent any agreement, the law provides 

a remedy through the posting of a bond for the benefit of the surface owner. It is 

our experience that surface owners will fare better if they negotiate an agreement 

for compensation. Mineral operators also fare better with a negotiated agreement 

because they do not suffer lengthy delays that will result from bond filing and appeal even if the bond is deemed adequate. The agreement is a private contract between the surface owner and mineral developer. The BLM is generally not privy to 

the contents of the agreements because often the parties to the agreements prefer 

to keep confidential the terms of their agreement. The BLM will advise either party 

about their legal rights and recommend appropriate terms for the protection of resources. 

DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS

Question 1. Recent media reports have uncovered that the Department of Education was paying media figures to promote the No Child Left Behind law. Can you 

assure us that no contracts of a similar nature have been, or will be, provided by 

DOI? Will you direct your IG to conduct a full review in order to prove a full accounting of the contracts, especially to so-called ‘‘personal service contracts,’’ entered 

into by your office? Will you submit those findings to this committee? 

Answer. GovWorks is a Federal acquisition center within the Department of the 

Interior created pursuant to franchise fund authority provided by Congress in the 

Government Management Reform Act of 1994. GovWorks provides a variety of procurement, cooperative agreement, and grant agreement services to other Federal 

agencies on a service-for-fee basis. 

GovWorks has not awarded or administered public relations contracts using paid 

media figures. 

We are developing procedures for future public relations contracts to include language prohibiting the use of paid media figures unless explicitly authorized by public law. 

GovWorks does not enter into ‘‘personal service contracts’’. 

We have worked closely with our Inspector General over the past several years 

to review GovWorks and its practices. As a result of the IG’s reviews, we have made 

46

numerous changes to how GovWorks operates. Our IG is continuing to review 

GovWorks fee-for-service activities. We would be happy to share the results of that 

review with you. 

Question 2. As we work to reduce the federal deficit the Department of Interior 

has had to make tough choices, choices that not all of us agree with. Cuts to PILT 

and the LWCF stateside grants are examples of these cuts. While there have been 

cuts to these important programs can you please walk me through the reasoning 

behind increasing the funding for Departmental Management? 

Answer. The increased funding in the 2006 budget request for Departmental Management is primarily for investments in Department-wide systems that will improve 

the effectiveness and efficiency of business practices throughout the Department’s 

programs and covers fixed costs, including the January 2006 pay raise and health 

benefits and other costs that are not discretionary. The Department Management 

budget also includes budget-neutral shifting of funding of the appraisal function to 

Department Management. While this shift appears to increase the DM budget, it 

is simply a result of relocating existing functions from one set accounts to another. 

Specifically, the 2006 request for Departmental Management is $120.2 million, a 

net program increase of increase of $10.8 million above 2005. Almost all of this program increase—$9.4 million of the total is for deployment of the second phase of 

the Financial and Business Management System. This increase provides Department-wide benefits and involves all 8 bureaus under the Department. The new system will replace the financial and business systems now used by the Department’s 

bureaus and offices with a single system that provides improved access to information and results and will facilitate more productive operations. 

As with the proposals for the Department’s bureaus, the Departmental Management proposal includes the full amount needed to cover pay and other fixed cost increases for 2006. The fixed cost increase for DM is $6.1 million. 

Finally, the request for Departmental Management includes the transfer of $7.4 

million to support integration of the real property appraisal services. These costs 

were previously included on a decentralized basis in bureau budgets. The transfer 

is one of a number of efforts implemented by the Department to address longstanding concerns related to the integrity and transparency of appraisal work. 

Question 3. As you know, Colorado has over 8 million surface acres and over 25 

million sub-surface acres in Colorado managed by the Department of the Interior. 

It is very important for my office, as well as the offices of my fellow Senators, to 

be able to rely on the Department and its agencies for timely and accurate information regarding those federal lands in our state. Will you assure me that your office 

will do everything possible to respond in a timely manner to requests from my office 

and from my colleagues for information from the Department?’’

Answer. You have my assurance that I will work to ensure that requests from 

your office and all members of Congress receive timely and accurate responses. 

ROAN PLATEAU

Question. In the West, many people feel that oil and gas leasing and drilling decisions are often being made with little public input or review. Other times, the BLM 

approves oil and gas drilling or leasing against the strong objections of citizens and 

local governments, who might want to limit drilling, or who favor stronger protections or other public uses. 

How will you work with the BLM to ensure that public land use decisions are 

honoring local communities, involving the broad public, and considering updated 

science and current public uses regarding these national lands? 

Answer. Involving the public in decisions that affect them is a central principle 

of the Department under Secretary Norton’s vision of cooperative conservation. Public lands issues have a direct affect on the health of a community and the community issues have a direct affect on the health of the public lands. The Department 

of the Interior is strongly committed to engaging the public and giving them that 

voice. Over the past 4 years, Interior has enhanced the public’s role by: 1) strengthening the role of Resource Advisory Councils; 2) establishing NEPA guidance to enhance consensus-based decision-making and adaptive management; and 3) establishing a cooperative conservation interagency team to enhance training and other 

measures that build agency capacity to work closely with the public. On August 26, 

2004, the President issued an Executive Order on Cooperative Conservation. Under 

the umbrella of that Order, we continue to invest significant effort in making cooperative conservation and strong public input into our decision making a keystone 

of the Department. We will continue to work with local communities, involve the 

public, and at all times ensure that citizen input and science inform important land 

use decisions. These issues are complex, interrelated, and defy easy answers. I am 

47

committed to ensuring that the BLM and all Interior agencies work cooperatively 

with our Federal, state, tribal and local government partners and all interested parties. 

Specifically in the case of the Roan Plateau, since 1997 when Naval Oil Shale Reserves 1 and 3 were transferred to BLM, the Bureau has worked diligently in an 

open public process to develop a balanced resource strategy for the Roan Plateau 

planning area. The Draft Roan Plateau RMP/EIS is the result of an extensive cooperative effort with state, local and federal government agencies, private partners 

and the public. The State of Colorado, Garfield and Rio Blanco Counties, and the 

communities of Rifle and Parachute are official cooperating agencies for the planning process. Numerous public meetings have been hosted by the BLM and cooperating agencies. Public input is being carefully considered by the BLM and its cooperators in developing a final plan which will guide the management of a wide 

range of multiple uses on these very important public lands. 

The Roan Plateau Draft EIS also utilizes science and updated methodologies to 

analyze effects of current and projected resource use as noted in your question. Examples include comprehensive sensitive plant and wildlife inventories, state-of-the 

art air quality modeling, and thorough natural gas reserve assessments.

Æ