U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–943 2017

S. HRG. 114–369 

PENDING NOMINATIONS OF SARRI, KIMBALL, 

KENDALL, WASSMER, MURRAY AND KOTEK 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

THE NOMINATIONS OF KRISTEN JOAN SARRI, TO BE AN ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR (POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET); 

DR. SUZETTE M. KIMBALL, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY; MARY L. KENDALL, TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL AT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; VICTORIA MARIE 

BAECHER WASSMER, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY; DR. 

CHERRY ANN MURRAY, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF 

SCIENCE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; AND JOHN FRANCIS 

KOTEK, TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY (NUCLEAR ENERGY) 

OCTOBER 20, 2015 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman, and a U.S. Senator from Alaska .................. 1 

Reed, Hon. Jack, a U.S. Senator from Rhode Island ............................................ 3 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member, and a U.S. Senator from Washington .................................................................................................................... 4 

Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, a U.S. Senator from West Virginia ........................ 5 

Manchin III, Hon. Joe, a U.S. Senator from West Virginia ................................. 5 

WITNESSES 

Sarri, Kristen Joan, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior (Policy, 

Management and Budget) ................................................................................... 7 

Kimball, Dr. Suzette M., to be Director of the United States Geological Survey ......................................................................................................................... 13

Kendall, Mary L, to be Inspector General at the Department of the Interior .... 20 

Wassmer, Victoria Marie Baecher, to be Under Secretary of Energy ................. 30 

Murray, Dr. Cherry Ann, to be Director of the Office of Science at the 

Department of Energy ......................................................................................... 34 

Kotek, John Francis, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Nuclear Energy) ...................................................................................................................... 39 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 4 

Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 5 

Kendall, Mary L.: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 20 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 22 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 150 

Kimball, Dr. Suzette M.: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 13 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 15 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 129 

Kotek, John Francis: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 39 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 41 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 217 

Manchin III, Hon. Joe: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 5 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Murray, Dr. Cherry Ann: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 34 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 36 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 205 

Reed, Hon. Jack: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 3 

Sarri, Kristen Joan: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 7 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 10 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 79 

Page

IV 

Vitter, Hon. David: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 48 

Wassmer, Victoria Marie Baecher: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 30 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 32 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 193 

Wyden, Hon. Ron: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 227 

(1) 

PENDING NOMINATIONS OF SARRI, KIMBALL, 

KENDALL, WASSMER, MURRAY AND KOTEK 

Tuesday, October 20, 2015 

U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL

RESOURCES

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. The Committee will come to 

order. 

We are here this morning to consider a total of six nominations 

before the Committee, three for each of the Departments that are 

under our jurisdiction. 

For the Department of Energy we have Dr. Cherry Murray to be 

the Director of Office of Science, Ms. Victoria Wassmer to be the 

Under Secretary of Energy, and Mr. John Kotek to be the Assistant 

Secretary for Nuclear Energy. 

For the Department of the Interior we have Ms. Mary Kendall 

to be Inspector General (IG), Dr. Suzette Kimball to be Director of 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and Ms. Kristen Sarri to be the 

Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget. 

I have said before this Committee that Secretary Moniz, in my 

opinion, is doing a good job at the Department of Energy. I do not 

necessarily agree with everything, but he works with us. He listens 

to us, and I think that he deserves to have a team in place to support him. 

Unfortunately, I am not able to say the same when it comes to 

the Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Instead, the Interior Department’s record has been very frustrating, particularly if 

you are an Alaskan. We are seeing decisions out of the Department 

of the Interior that are really destroying our hope to be independent as a state. 

Ms. Sarri, the Interior Department describes the position that 

you have been nominated for as providing overall policy direction, 

leadership, guidance and assistance on a broad range of management and operational issues. I would say that the Department 

needs serious help in those areas given the repeated policy disappointments that we are seeing in my state. 

2 

We had one bit of good news when the President came to the 

state in August when he made the decision to rename Mt. McKinley as Denali. We appreciated that. 

But Interior has also closed off half of our national petroleum reserve which was specifically designated for oil production. It has 

stalled projects in the NPRA that would help restore throughput in 

our TransAlaska pipeline system. It has effectively locked nearly 

all of ANWR up as permanent wilderness despite opposition from 

70 plus percent of Alaskans. 

I am certainly not going to forget the heartless decision that Interior made to deny King Cove an 11-mile, life-saving road nearly 

two years ago or the absolute lack of assistance that Interior has 

provided since then as we have seen 32 more Medivacs from that 

community. 

We have had more recent examples that get my attention in a 

very, very strong way. A few weeks ago the deteriorating regulatory environment played a key role in Shell’s decision to abandon 

seven years of work and $7 billion in investment in the offshore 

Arctic. And just this past Friday, Interior rejected lease extensions 

and canceled the offshore sales that are scheduled for 2016 and 

2017. 

If you are an Alaskan and you are reading the headlines, you 

have to wonder what is going on within Interior. Why do they have 

it out for us? How can Interior set up a regulatory regime that prevents companies from having commercially viable exploration programs and then claim that it shows a lack of interest somehow in 

the Arctic? 

So Ms. Sarri, this is a long way of saying that you are going to 

need to convince me that you are part of the solution and not part 

of the problem for Alaska at the Interior Department. 

I have had good discussions with Ms. Kendall, but I am attempting to reconcile two conflicting impulses when it comes to this particular nomination. I strongly believe that Interior needs a permanent IG. I am disappointed the Administration has let the position 

go unfilled for six and a half years, but I am also committed to ensuring that the individual that we confirm is fully independent, 

with good judgment in difficult situations and a firm grasp of the 

responsibilities of an Inspector General, not only to the Secretary 

but to Congress as well. The law requires an IG to meet her independent obligations to Congress. While we expect that the IG always approach her work with civility, she must never compromise 

her independence. 

Ms. Kendall, I am sure you understand that the bar for an IG 

is high, especially as your confirmation would be tantamount to a 

lifetime appointment. The tenure that you have been involved with 

us for in this position has been marked by controversy, so you will 

hear legitimate questions raised today as to whether or not you are 

the right fit for the permanent positions. 

For the purposes of the Committee here this morning, we are 

going to be hearing again from all six of the nominees. Several of 

our colleagues will also introduce the candidates. There is a vote 

on the floor scheduled for 11 o’clock. 

In terms of the order here this morning we will first hear from 

Senator Reed. After we hear from Senator Reed, who will introduce 

3 

Ms. Sarri, our fellow Committee members Senators Capito and 

Manchin will introduce Dr. Kimball. After those introductions we 

will ask the nominees to come forward, and then nominees will be 

invited to introduce their family members or any guests that are 

present. After those introductions I will swear in the witnesses, we 

will have a short statement from each nominee and then when the 

vote is called we will assess where we are. I would like to keep 

moving throughout the hearing this morning without taking a 

break, but we will assess that at the 11 o’clock hour. 

With that, I would like to turn to our colleague, Senator Reed, 

from Rhode Island. Welcome to the Committee. I know you are a 

busy Senator this morning as well, so we appreciate you coming by 

to make the introductions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JACK REED, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

RHODE ISLAND 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, Senator 

Cantwell, members of the Committee. I am delighted to be able to 

introduce Kris Sarri, the President’s nominee to the Department of 

the Interior as Assistant Secretary of Policy, Management and 

Budget. Kris is joined today by her mother, Rosemary, her sister, 

Cathy, her niece, Gabriella, and her nephew, Alex, and I extend my 

warmest welcome to all of them. 

Kris is a native of Michigan. She first began service on Capitol 

Hill in 2001 as the Legislative Director of the bipartisan Northeast 

Midwest Senate Coalition which I chaired along with Senator Collins, and in that capacity she brought thoughtful, bipartisan, analytical skills to bear on a daily basis. 

She was somebody who worked both with Senator Collins and I 

very well and very effectively, and I think she will do that in the 

Department of the Interior. She always, indeed, made sure there 

was a thorough, thoughtful basis for the policies that the coalition 

proposed. 

After her work there, I was so impressed I asked her to join my 

office. She did. She was a key member of my team with respect to 

appropriations, natural resources and energy issues. Superbly gifted, talented, intelligent, thoughtful, asks the right questions and 

with a temperament that really inspired, not only confidence but 

collaborations. So I cannot think, again, of a worthier nominee that 

would come before this Committee. 

After leaving my office she was so good she was plucked away 

by the Department of Commerce where she was a Deputy Director 

of Policy and Strategic Planning and a principle advisor to the Secretary of Commerce. I think, once again, because of her success 

there, she was identified as someone who could add skill and expertise to the Office of Management and Budget. She served there as 

the Director of Legislative Affairs. Once again, contact with offices 

on both sides of the Hill in a bipartisan, thoughtful manner, and 

she really distinguished herself. She understands how policy works. 

She understands it is about principle, collaboration and compromise. She is particularly gifted when it comes to the issues in 

the environment that are so important to the mission of the Department of the Interior. 

4 

I know she is going to do a superb job, and I thank you very 

much, Madam Chairman, for having this hearing. 

For my colleagues, she has got the temperament, the collaborative spirit, the tactical skills and the sincere commitment to 

serve the public interest with the highest standards. With that, I 

would urge the Committee’s support, and once again, thank the 

Chairwoman for her gracious hospitality. 

Thank you, Madam. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for joining us, Senator Reed. 

Senator Cantwell? I did not mean to skip over you. 

Senator CANTWELL. That is okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. But felt that we should get our colleague here in 

and out of the Committee. I apologize, and I defer to you at this 

time. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. That is quite alright. We appreciate our colleague being here and speaking on behalf of the nominee. 

I thank the Chair for scheduling what I consider to be an important hearing and welcome all six of the nominees that are before 

us today because these are important positions. 

We have six nominees whose work really is the underpinning of 

the missions of two of our departments that this Committee has jurisdiction over. We have before us nominees for the top management positions for the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy, and I consider these key, essential people to helping our agencies work. We have the leads of both agencies’ premier 

science groups, and they provide very important scientific information and research necessary for the Departments to help carry out 

their missions. 

In addition, we have the head of the Nuclear Energy Office, who 

is responsible for designing safe nuclear reactors for the future and 

also finding a path forward for disposing of the waste from our current and past civilian and defense nuclear programs. 

Finally, we have the Inspector General for the Department of the 

Interior, who is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the Department’s diverse and important operations. 

We are fortunate, I believe, to have six highly qualified, experienced nominees in front of us. Four of the six individuals have actually been performing the functions of these offices to which they 

are nominated in their current jobs and as the Principal Deputies 

to those offices—three of them for more than a year, so they have 

already demonstrated their fitness and ability to serve in the positions to which they have been nominated. Indeed, the Committee 

approved Dr. Kimball’s nomination last year. 

I look forward to hearing from all of these nominees this morning, and I know that my colleagues will have great questions for 

each of them. So thank you for helping us move these important 

positions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

At this time I would ask the six nominees to come forward and 

we will have introductions, again, as I mentioned from Senator 

Capito and Senator Manchin for Dr. Kimball. 

5 

Senator Capito, if you would like to proceed with your introduction? 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I apologize in advance for my voice or lack of, so this is probably 

a good thing I have no voice. I am very pleased to join my colleague, Senator Manchin, in introducing Dr. Suzette Kimball today. 

I met her in April when she came to visit and talk about her position and her nomination to be Director of the USGS. 

I wanted to highlight a little bit about, how I feel the USGS really impacts a small state like West Virginia and how appreciative 

we are of their efforts. 

USGS helps to identify coal and mineral reserves, monitor water 

quality and provide accurate mapping which has been incredibly 

important throughout Appalachia. The scientists and researchers 

at USGS work to help keep our country safe from national disasters by monitoring earthquakes, wind, wildfires, volcanoes and 

their warning systems provide real-time information in times of crisis. Also, the USGS network of stream gauges throughout West 

Virginia and the United States are an important resource that 

helps our kayakers and our whitewater rafters make the most of 

their trips down river, helps fishermen find the best place to cast, 

helps engineers design bridges that can withstand floods and helps 

cities and towns better manage their water supplies. 

The USGS played a pivotal role in helping the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection respond to the January 2014 

Elk River chemical spill by collecting water samples and performing rapid analysis. 

I know that Dr. Kimball, in her past, has accumulated much valuable expertise and experience that she will bring to this position 

and that will benefit not just those of us in West Virginia but 

across the country. And I welcome her here today as a fellow West 

Virginian. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator Manchin? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator MANCHIN. Let me just say that what my colleague and 

my friend, Senator Capito, has said is all accurate and very true. 

I am also pleased to be able to speak on Dr. Kimball’s behalf. She 

has lived in West Virginia for 17 years and has served as a Deputy 

Director of the U.S. Geological Survey at the Department of the Interior since 2010. 

Dr. Kimball and I share a passion for the rich history of our 

state and dedication to public service. She is an active member of 

the Eastern Panhandle’s farm land and historic preservation communities. In fact, she and her husband, Curt, live in a White House 

Farm. It is a local landmark built in the 1740’s and used during 

the Revolutionary War to aid the American troops. Their farm was 

even surveyed by George Washington, so it is pretty special. 

6 

Beyond our personal connection Dr. Kimball continues to impress 

me with her dedication to the scientific mission of the U.S. Geological Survey. The USGS is not a partisan agency. I repeat, not a partisan agency and issuing burdensome regulations, instead they provide crucial, impartial information and added to the Federal agencies and to the public. As Senator Capito just mentioned, she is, 

they were greatly involved in helping us during the historic effects 

of a spill in the Elk River that affected 300,000 West Virginians for 

quite some time. So I really appreciate her and her interest and involvement in that effort. 

I think I speak for all West Virginians when I say I am delighted 

Dr. Kimball has chosen West Virginia as her home, and I am grateful for her service. 

I would also like to remind this Committee that in June 2014 we 

approved her nomination by unanimous voice vote with not one 

dissention, so she has been at this for a while. I think it is time 

that we move on, if you will. 

She is doing the job. She has not changed one bit. She is the 

same Suzette Kimball that she was a year ago and she has been 

for quite some time. She will serve us very ably and capably. 

So I appreciate, very much, the opportunity to speak on her behalf and hope that all the Committee would receive her as we know 

her. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Manchin. 

At this time I would invite any of you at the table to introduce 

any family members that you might like to present before the Committee, and after that we will swear you each in. 

If we want to begin at this end, Ms. Sarri. 

Ms. SARRI. Thank you very much, Senator. 

I am so happy to have my family here with me today. I have my 

mom, Rosemary, who is sitting right there; my niece, Gabby; my 

nephew, Alex; and my sister, Cathy, with me. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good. Well, welcome to all of you. 

Ms. Kimball? 

Dr. KIMBALL. Thank you very much, Senator. 

I am really honored to be able to introduce my husband, Curt 

Mason; our daughter, Michelle Muerr; our close family friend, Lisa 

Herman; and her son, Aaron, who is already an accomplished political analyst. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Ahh, very good. We might need his help. 

Welcome to all of you. 

Ms. Kendall? 

Ms. KENDALL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I am pleased to introduce my daughter, K.J. Adler, who is also 

my best friend. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great, it is nice to have you here before us as 

well. 

Ms. Wassmer? 

Ms. WASSMER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to introduce my mother, Viola Becker; my husband, Franklin Wassmer; 

and my son, Christophe Wassmer, who were able to join me today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good to have the family here. 

Ms. Murray? 

7 

Dr. MURRAY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

It is my pleasure to introduce my sister, Nancy Murray, and her 

husband, Brad Curtis, who come here from Tucson, Arizona. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great, long way to come, good support. 

Mr. Kotek? 

Mr. KOTEK. Thank you, Chairman. I am sorry to report my wife 

and school age children are back home in Boise. [Laughter.] 

Where they’re attending to their studies, so. 

The CHAIRMAN. If they are in school that is a good thing. We appreciate that. 

At this time I would ask each of you to rise. The rules of the 

Committee which apply to all nominees require that you be sworn 

in connection with your testimony. Please stand and raise your 

right hand. 

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? 

[All nominees answer, I do.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Before you begin your statement I will ask you 

three questions addressed to each nominee before this Committee. 

Will you be available to appear before the Committee and other 

congressional Committees to represent departmental positions and 

respond to issues of concern to the Committee? 

[All nominees answer, 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? 

[All nominees answer, no.] 

Mr. KOTEK. No, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is that a no by each of you? I was not sure. 

[Laughter.] 

No. 

Are you involved or do you have any assets held in blind trusts? 

[All nominees answer, no.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Go ahead, be seated. Thank you very much. 

At this time I would ask that each of you present a short statement to the Committee. Your full written statements will be included as part of the record. After statements from each of you, we 

will have an opportunity, as members of the Committee, to present 

our questions to you. 

With that, Ms. Sarri, if you would like to proceed? 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTEN JOAN SARRI, TO BE AN ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR (POLICY, MANAGEMENT, AND 

BUDGET) 

Ms. SARRI. Thank you very much and good morning. 

Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell 

and members of the Committee for welcoming me to the Committee 

this morning. It’s a privilege to be considered by this Committee as 

the President’s nominee for Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget (PMB) at the Department of the Interior. 

8 

I want to thank Senator Reed for his support of my nomination 

and throughout my career. It’s his dedication to public service, his 

work to improve the lives of others and his work ethic that really 

serve as a model for me. 

I’m very pleased, also, to introduce my family, my mom, Rosemary; my sister, Cathy; my niece, Gabby; and my nephew, Alex. 

My mom is a constant supportive inspiration to me. At the age 

of 89, she is still an active social worker and she still comes with 

me to Michigan home football games. So she’s an involved member 

of her community. She, at a very early age, instilled in me the benefits and the need to engage in public service. 

I also want to acknowledge my dad, who was a Greek immigrant 

to this country after World War II. He fell in love with our national 

parks, and every summer he used to pack up us in the family station wagon and take us on a new adventure out West. It was really 

these adventures out West that inspired my love of the great outdoors, and it’s something that I hope I’d pass along to my niece and 

to my nephew. 

My family has been a constant source of support for me, and I’m 

always thankful to them for their love. 

Finally, I want to thank members of this Committee and their 

staff for taking time to meet with me. If confirmed, I’m looking forward to continuing the conversations that we had and strengthening the vital relationship between this Committee and the Department. 

Throughout my career I’ve sought out opportunities to promote 

community development, natural resource stewardship and job creation by building partnerships and working to strengthen the effectiveness of government. Prior to joining the Administration, as Senator Reed mentioned, I have spent about nine years on Capitol Hill 

working for the bipartisan, Northeast Midwest Senate Coalition, 

Senator Reed and also the Senate Commerce Committee, where I 

was fortunate to have Senator Cantwell as my Subcommittee 

Chair. 

In each of these roles I had the opportunity to work with Senators who focus really on how government should work best to 

serve the American people while bolstering our economy and protecting the environment. I learned from them the value of strong, 

bipartisan cooperation and the need to gain other perspectives 

when developing policy. It’s these lessons and experiences that I 

carry with me. 

Now as this Committee well knows, the Department of the Interior is a significant contributor to our nation’s economy. And Interior has special trust responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska 

Natives, Native Hawaiians and affiliated Island communities. It’s 

also responsible for conserving and protecting our natural resources 

and our cultural resources. So I view PMB’s role as supporting the 

Secretary, Deputy Secretary and our bureaus as we work to drive 

impacts for the American people in our diverse areas of responsibility. 

PMB does this in several important ways. First, it works to ensure the sound stewardship of Interior’s fiscal resources. Second, it 

works to increase the efficiency of our programs and reduce costs 

so we can invest more in mission. And third, through the manageVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:47 Jan 23, 2017 Jkt 098943 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\98943\D98943.TXT D98943
9 

ment of the Department wide programs and policies, PMB helps 

with coordination and cohesion throughout the Department. 

For the past year I have served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for PMB, and I’ve had the privilege to work with a 

team of highly skilled and committed staff. If confirmed I hope to 

continue to strengthen the Department in a few key areas. 

First, Interior’s work force. It is large, geographically diverse and 

increasingly eligible to retire. If confirmed I would want to work on 

efforts to increase our work force diversity in order to deliver mission effectively for the American people. 

Second, Interior is committed to improving access to public data 

with preferred transparency and also to improve resource management. For example, we are working with our partners in industry 

and academia and across the Federal Government to make public 

land data more available to help build apps, support tourism and 

improve customer service. And if confirmed I would like to continue 

with these open data efforts. 

Finally, PMB is responsible for Department-wide programs from 

wildland fire management to the cleanup of contaminated sites to 

emergency management. It also plays a key role in coordinating 

across bureaus and with other agencies on policies from invasive 

species, to land conservation, to youth engagement. And if confirmed I would welcome the opportunity to work with this Committee and the Congress on these issues. 

Again, I want to thank the Committee for considering my nomination, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sarri follows:] 

10 


Insert offset folio 001 here 98943.001
11 


Insert offset folio 2 here 98943.002
12 


Insert offset folio 3 here 98943.003
13 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Sarri. 

Dr. Kimball? 

STATEMENT OF DR. SUZETTE M. KIMBALL, TO BE DIRECTOR 

OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Dr. KIMBALL. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the Committee. I’m honored to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee to be Director 

of the USGS. 

And I thank you, Senators Manchin and Capito, for your kind introduction. I’m very proud to be a resident of wild and wonderful 

West Virginia. 

I would also like to acknowledge and honor my family, those here 

today and those watching at home. One cannot accomplish these 

types of jobs without the full support of one’s family. 

I was raised to not only value public service, but to also see it 

as a responsibility. My father and brother had military careers. My 

mother was a teacher. Most of my cousins have served in the military or civil service and my husband dedicated his career to civil 

service, so for me, public service is the family business. 

Although I did not have a childhood steeped in outdoor experiences that set the stage for my career path, I had the good fortune 

to take a geology course from a remarkable educator, Dr. Gerry 

Johnson. His compelling lectures engaged my imagination and passion for understanding the processes that drive Earth systems and 

the impacts of natural events. 

My PhD program in Earth Sciences at the University of Virginia 

showed me the value of integrated environmental sciences, a context that forces one out of narrow, academic boundaries and requires competence in a spectrum of disciplines. This perspective 

will serve me well if confirmed as USGS Director as the questions 

we face today also transcend traditional academic fields and asks 

us to understand not only the geologic foundation in operative 

physical processes but also the potential impacts to biological systems and to the human environment. 

I’ve had the good fortune to serve in both academia and the Federal Government. My years in the National Park Service gave me 

an understanding of the pressures that land managers face and the 

types of information that can be most useful to them. This experience gives me a unique perspective to support and partner with the 

entire Department. 

Since coming to the USGS in 1998 I’ve had the opportunity to 

see the breadth and depth of this outstanding organization from 

many perspectives. It’s noteworthy that we do not issue regulations 

nor do we manage resources. The scientific nature of the USGS, its 

national perspective and its non-regulatory role enable us to be 

both policy relevant and policy neutral. 

Since its founding in 1879, the USGS has made enormous contributions to the health and well-being of the country and the 

world as well. These achievements include the science that has delineated the mineral and energy resource base in the nation, that 

helps protect lives and livelihoods from the effects of natural hazards, that enable safe public water supplies, that supports restoraVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:47 Jan 23, 2017 Jkt 098943 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\98943\D98943.TXT D98943
14 

tion of ecosystems and that provides assistance to other nations for 

resource and hazard issues. 

Our society faces pressing issues that science can and must help 

address, challenges like ensuring sustainable development of natural resources, dealing with climate change, coping with natural 

disasters and ensuring water and food security. 

We live in a global economy. Understanding the worldwide distribution of both resources and risks is essential to the country’s 

security and economic health. The USGS has made progress to address these issues including regional landslide assessments and 

earthquake early warning system. And we continue to develop nationwide, 3D elevation data, new hyper spectral technologies to 

map mineral distributions. And we brought new life cycle analyses 

to critical minerals analysis. We have advanced the national assessment of groundwater availability. We have developed new 

strategies to contain the Asian Carp and other invasive species. 

And we’ve contributed to the science needed to understand critical 

ecosystems such as the sagebrush steppe. In all of these efforts we 

appreciate the support of Congress and in particular, this Committee. 

Looking to the future the USGS needs to continue these efforts 

for which we have unique capabilities, but we also need to be responsive to emerging needs. We are increasing the involvement of 

sociologists and economists in our studies in order to ensure that 

our science is relevant to the public. 

We’re providing new technologies to protect public health and 

safety and new tools for communities to become resilient in the face 

of challenges such as changing climate or water scarcity. And we 

are engaging young scientists to be part of our future, a future that 

will be worthy of our long history of achievement for the nation and 

the world. 

I’m deeply grateful to Secretary Jewell and President Obama 

that they’ve chosen to nominate me to lead this outstanding scientific organization. If confirmed, I look forward with working with 

you to address the challenges that face our nation. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you. 

And I’ll be happy to respond to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Kimball follows:] 

15 


Insert offset folio 4 here 98943.004
16 


Insert offset folio 5 here 98943.005
17 


Insert offset folio 6 here 98943.006
18 


Insert offset folio 7 here 98943.007
19 


Insert offset folio 8 here 98943.008
20 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Kimball. 

Ms. Kendall? 

STATEMENT OF MARY L. KENDALL, TO BE INSPECTOR 

GENERAL AT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. KENDALL. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member 

Cantwell and members of the Committee. I’m honored to be considered by you for confirmation as the Inspector General for the Department of the Interior. 

I have been privileged to lead the OIG for the past six and a half years during which time the OIG has had 195 convictions, $4.5 billion in criminal fines, penalties and restitution, over $119 million 

in questioned costs and $55 million in funds put to better use. On 

average over the past five years the OIG for Interior ranked fifth 

for return on investment among the 72 OIGs. 

My leadership style underpinned by employing dignity and respect has proven effective in motivating the OIG work force to conduct meaningful work, reduce influential reports and affect significant change in the programs and operations of Interior and which 

put the OIG in the top 15 percent of the best places to work in 

2014. 

Recently I met with many of you and/or your staff. We’ve discussed many issues, some important to your constituents, some of 

which you embrace with enormous passion and some that have 

made my nomination subject to controversy and criticism. I’ve tried 

to address the controversies that have followed me from the House 

Committee on Natural Resources. Whether I have done so to any 

of your satisfaction, I do not know, what I do know is that I have 

been true to myself, my principles, my best judgment and the law. 

My personal style to engage in civil discourse, even when addressing difficult issues, has been criticized by some as being too 

accommodating. Civility, in my experience, however, is not an accommodation but rather a strong and effective tool in communicating with and holding DOI accountable. 

Coming to this hearing I have both the benefit and the burden 

of having a track record as the acting Inspector General. And as 

such, I have made certain legal, policy and management decisions 

that have not always been well received by some Members of Congress, of my staff, of the public and even officials of the Department. Although I sometimes joke, I am rather serious when I say, 

if I am making everyone a little unhappy, I’m probably doing my 

job. 

As with many things in life, having the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I may have made some of those decisions differently. Yet in 

the moment I have always acted on my conscience and principle, 

guided by the best information available at the time with the advice of trusted and tested advisors and with integrity, independence and objectivity as my guides. I have always conducted myself 

in the best interest of the OIG and of the greater IG community 

both of which have provided me unflagging support throughout my 

entire ten years in the IG community. 

I do not expect to convince you by my words here alone today of 

my independence and objectivity, rather I point to some of the most 

influential work the OIG has done since 2009 which I describe in 

21 

my much more detail in my written testimony. The depth and 

breadth of the programs in DOI are both vast and complex. Under 

my leadership the OIG has focused its attention and resources on 

the highest risk and highest priority issues in the Department and 

to address the areas of greatest vulnerability to fraud, mismanagement and misuse of Federal funds. 

Madam Chairman and members of this Committee, I sit before 

you today as a career civil servant for over 29 years. I sincerely believe that public service is a public trust requiring me to place loyalty to the Constitution, the law and ethical principles above private gain. I have no other ambition than to continue my public 

service with dignity and respect for our employees and for our 

stakeholders. I believe in the mission of the Inspectors General. I 

am committed to the OIG for Interior and if confirmed, I will continue to do the very best job I can to lead this respected organization in its ongoing efforts to prevent and detect fraud, waste, abuse 

and mismanagement in the Department of the Interior. 

Thank you for your attention and consideration. I’d be glad to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kendall follows:] 

22 


Insert offset folio 9 here 98943.009
23 


Insert offset folio 10 here 98943.010
24 


Insert offset folio 11 here 98943.011
25 


Insert offset folio 9 here 98943.012
26 


Insert offset folio 10 here 98943.013
27 


Insert offset folio 11 here 98943.014
28 


Insert offset folio 9 here 98943.015
29 


Insert offset folio 10 here 98943.016
30 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Kendall. 

Ms. Wassmer? 

STATEMENT OF VICTORIA MARIE BAECHER WASSMER, TO BE 

UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY 

Ms. WASSMER. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking 

Member Cantwell and other members of the Committee. It’s my 

honor to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee for 

the Department of Energy’s Under Secretary for Management and 

Performance. 

If confirmed I will work every day to support Secretary Moniz 

and to advance the Department’s critical efforts to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear legacy issues through strong performance and 

management practices. 

Before I begin I’d like to thank my husband, Franklin, and my 

two sons, Alexander and Christophe, two of whom are here with 

me today, along with my mother, Viola Becker. I would not be here 

without their encouragement and support. My two sons, now both 

in high school, routinely challenge me to grow in ways I never 

could have imagined, and they also make sure I laugh. My husband, Franklin, who has worked for the last 20 years in the local 

public charter school movement, grounds me every day to not only 

do meaningful work, but to live a meaningful life. 

Our commitment to community and public engagement, instilled 

in us by our parents, has been the cornerstone of our own family. 

Commitment to public engagement is what propelled me to spend 

the majority of my 25-year career in public service, including 17 

years in management and leadership positions within the Federal 

Government. Most notably, I currently serve as the Assistant Administrator for Finance and Management at the Federal Aviation 

Administration. Previously I served as the Chief Financial Officer 

and Vice President for Administration and Finance at the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). 

At the MCC I was responsible for realigning corporate services 

to better support the agency’s mission. Within my first six months 

I instituted an annual customer satisfaction survey as well as a 

new performance management system to increase employee engagement. We saw a double digit improvement in 2011 from our 

2010 customer survey results as well as a double digit improvement in my team’s FedView survey results over that same period. 

I reconstituted an executive oversight board, tightened our internal 

controls and improved management practices, all of which helped 

to optimize budget resources to better support the mission of the 

MCC which is to reduce poverty through economic growth. 

In August 2011 I became the FAA’s first ever Assistant Administrator for Finance and Management overseeing the transition of 

the agency’s finance, acquisitions, information technology and regions and center operations into an integrated shared services 

model. 

Today I am responsible for the efficient and effective performance 

of these critical services and support of the agency’s aviation safety 

mission. I also manage the FAA’s $16 billion budget and lead the 

31 

agency’s efforts to identify cost savings, leverage technology and 

ensure critical acquisitions remain on cost and schedule. 

Over the last four years my team and I employed strategic planning, performance and program oversight to help the agency save 

more than $360 million through our cost control program. This included nearly $130 million in savings through our strategic 

sourcing program. We also reduced the agency’s administrative 

footprint and exceeded our environmental goals in fleet and petroleum usage. 

In addition to receiving clean audit opinions each year during my 

tenure, we have led the agency in achieving the CEAR awards for 

the FAA’s annual performance and accountability reports. 

We have also implemented an enterprise-wide, integrated IT strategy, decreased IT contract costs by more than $30 million, deployed a new cloud-based email system, implemented a cloud strategy utilizing an innovative brokerage model contract and consolidated our IT help desks from seven to one. We did this all while 

addressing increased cyber attacks. 

I believe my experience and formal education have prepared me 

well to take on this new role at the Department of Energy. I have 

a deep understanding of what it takes to be an effective leader in 

a government agency, to be a responsible steward of the taxpayer’s 

resources and to create and transform an organization to be high 

performing. 

I believe in working collaboratively and accountably as a team 

creating an environment that brings out the best in everyone as we 

work together to take programs to new levels. 

Growing up my parents instilled in me the belief that public 

service is a noble calling and it’s an honor to be able to serve others. If confirmed as the Under Secretary I will work every day to 

be worthy of the privilege. 

Thank you and I welcome any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wassmer follows:] 

32 


Insert offset folio 17 here 98943.017
33 


Insert offset folio 18 here 98943.018
34 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Wassmer. 

Dr. Murray, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DR. CHERRY ANN MURRAY, TO BE DIRECTOR 

OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Dr. MURRAY. Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today as you consider my nomination for the 

position of Director of the Office of Science at the Department of 

Energy. It’s an honor to be here and to be nominated by President 

Obama and supported by Secretary Moniz. 

The DOE Office of Science manages ten national laboratories, 

many major scientific user facilities and it’s the largest supporter 

of physical sciences research in the U.S. If confirmed I look forward 

to working with this Committee to maintain the nation’s leadership 

in science. 

I was born in Fort Riley, Kansas. My father was in Officer Training. He was also in civil service all his life. He spent his career as 

a diplomat and alternately in the Army. Until I was 17 I moved 

with my family almost yearly. We lived in Japan, Pakistan, South 

Korea and Indonesia. My parents were both artists, and I assumed 

I’d also be an artist. I’d spent the first two years of high school in 

Alexandria, Virginia. In ninth grade I had an inspiring chemistry 

teacher. I was enthralled by doing lab experiments and by the 

beauty of math that explained the science. For me, it was like creating order from chaos. I was hooked and I decided right then to 

be a scientist and to keep art as a hobby. 

I attended MIT where I received my Bachelor’s degree and Doctorate in Physics. I then spent 27 years at Bell Labs Research 

which was, at the time, one of the top places to do research in the 

world. At Bell Labs we focused on everything from basic science to 

applied engineering and product development and I rose to Senior 

Vice President managing research and development, inventing and 

innovating the future of telecommunications. During those years I 

experienced directly how breakthroughs in fundamental science 

lead to the most disruptive technologies in the market. I also 

learned that the transition from basic science to technology development and ultimately to new products is never easy and it is not 

a linear process. It is more of a spiral. 

In 2004, I became Deputy Director for Science and Technology at 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and experienced how important science is as an underpinning of our national security. In 

2009, I became Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied 

Sciences at Harvard. 

Having interacted with spectacular undergraduate and graduate 

students who eagerly want to solve problems that make a difference in the world, I am optimistic about our nation’s continued 

science leadership. 

I was a member of over 20 national academy study committees 

including the Committee that wrote the Rising about the Gathering 

Storm report. I also served on the Presidential Commission on the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and I now serve on the Congressional 

35 

Commission to review the effectiveness of the national energy laboratories. 

As in all technology advances the major technology revolution 

that is happening right now in our energy system will be catalyzed 

by advances in science. In the past, as a nation, we could rely on 

the great industrial research labs. They could provide leading edge 

science relevant to technology and did, but industry is no longer 

doing as much fundamental science now. We must harness the 

enormous potential of the DOE national laboratories, working with 

our great research universities in collaboration with industry. 

I look forward, should I be confirmed, to leading the DOE Office 

of Science and the national laboratories it stewards and to be working with this Committee to ensure that the U.S. continues to be a 

leader in scientific advances and the translation of these advances 

into new technologies, important for our sustainable energy security, national security and economic growth. 

Thank you. I’d be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Murray follows:] 

36 


Insert offset folio 19 here 98943.019
37 


Insert offset folio 20 here 98943.020
38 


Insert offset folio 21 here 98943.021
39 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Murray. 

Mr. Kotek? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN FRANCIS KOTEK, TO BE AN ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF ENERGY (NUCLEAR ENERGY) 

Mr. KOTEK. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, 

members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today as you consider my nomination to be the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy. 

I’m honored to have been nominated for this post by President 

Obama. I also deeply appreciate the confidence that Secretary 

Moniz has expressed by asking me to serve in this capacity. And 

I’m grateful for the statement of support for my nomination provided by Senator Risch and the Idaho Congressional Delegation. 

I’d like to start by thanking from the bottom of my heart, my 

wife, Denise. She’s been extraordinarily supportive of me throughout our 21 years of marriage, and she understands completely the 

challenge we’ve been asked to undertake, having herself worked at 

DOE back in the 1990’s. 

Now earlier this year I was appointed as Principle Deputy Assistant Secretary in DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy. This is actually my third stint as a DOE employee having started my career 

at DOE Headquarters in 1989 then rejoining DOE as Deputy Manager of the Idaho Operations Office from 2003 to 2006. Between my 

first two jobs at DOE I was on the staff at Argonne National Laboratory at the old Argonne West facility in Idaho which is now part 

of the Idaho National Lab. 

While I was born in Hawaii and raised in Massachusetts, I’ve 

called Idaho home since 1999. And I should note that during my 

time with Argonne in 2002 I served as the American Nuclear Society’s Congressional Fellow working in the Office of Senator Jeff 

Bingaman when he chaired this very Committee. 

After leaving DOE in 2006 I went into the private sector advising 

clients on a wide range of energy and natural resource issues with 

the particular focus on the siting of controversial facilities. I believe 

that my facility siting experience coupled with my nuclear background served me well in my role as Staff Director for the Blue 

Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, a position I 

served in from 2010 to 2012. 

My time as Staff Director was truly one of the highlights of my 

career and not just because it gave me an opportunity to work for 

people like Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton and Brent Scowcroft, Senators Pete Domenici and Chuck Hagel, and of course, Dr. Ernest 

Moniz. The main reason my service was such a highlight was that 

it gave me an opportunity to help a bipartisan panel, made up of 

some of the best minds in the country, dig deep into a controversial 

issue and develop a set of recommendations that were unanimously 

adopted and widely accepted by individuals and organizations on 

all sides of the nuclear waste issue. I know that the Commissioners 

have been heartened by the work this Committee has done to incorporate the BRC recommendations into proposed legislation, and 

I’m eager to work with you and others to see the nation’s nuclear 

40 

waste management program advance and set a solid foundation for 

the program going forward. 

Looking at the mandate of the nuclear energy organization more 

broadly, I’ve long believed that nuclear energy can and should play 

an important role in meeting our twin objectives of meeting rising 

global energy demands while addressing the threat posed by emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases. To be sure, nuclear energy isn’t the only way of tackling this challenge and I believe the 

President’s All of the Above energy strategy gives us the best 

chance of meeting carbon reduction goals both at home and abroad. 

In the nine months since I returned to DOE I’ve seen great opportunity for DOE to work with industry, universities, our national 

labs and with international partners, to ensure nuclear energy 

technologies can continue to meet current energy demands while 

providing opportunities for new nuclear energy supply in the intermediate and long terms. I’m particularly excited about the opportunities for technologies like small modular reactors and even more 

novel reactor technologies to provide safe, affordable, low carbon 

electricity and other energy products, potentially including processed heat, hydrogen production and desalination services. 

If I’m fortunate enough to be approved by this Committee and 

confirmed by the Senate, these are the kinds of areas that will be 

my focus. 

I also look forward to working with this Committee to identify 

additional opportunities to advance nuclear energy as part of our 

low carbon energy future. I hope to secure your support so that I 

might have that opportunity. 

Thank you, and I welcome any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kotek follows:] 

41 


Insert offset folio 22 here 98943.022
42 


Insert offset folio 23 here 98943.023
43 


Insert offset folio 24 here 98943.024
44 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kotek. 

Thank you, each of you, for your comments this morning, and 

again, your willingness to serve and your willingness to go through 

the gauntlet of questions that we will have for you this morning. 

Just for the information of members, my intention is to continue 

the committee process throughout this vote. I would ask that when 

the vote is called if you just leave and vote and then come back. 

After Senator Cantwell and I have asked our questions the first up 

on the Republican side is Senator Cassidy and he will be followed 

by Senator Franken—just so you know when to pop in and out. 

At this time I will proceed with the first round of five minute 

questions and direct my first one to you, Ms. Sarri. 

You have indicated that you have now been the Principal Deputy 

there at PMB for about a year or so, and that in this role there 

is a department-wide review coordinating across agencies which, of 

course, is necessary in this area. I mentioned in my opening remarks, and I think you might hear the frustration in the words, 

I am a little bit under the weather this morning, otherwise you 

would have heard a little more animation in my voice as well. So 

maybe you have been saved by a long airplane flight and a little 

bit of the flu. 

But there is a great deal of frustration in my state right now, not 

the least of which is coming from the Shell announcement that 

while they did not see what they were hoping, it was also complicated by the fact that seven years and $7 billion leads them to 

turn away from a prospect that was not only important to Shell, 

but very, very important to the State of Alaska. Then on Friday to 

learn from the Secretary, by voice mail, before a public announcement that the lease extensions were not going to be renewed, not 

going to be considered, as well as cancellation of the offshore leases 

for ’16 and ’17, an incredible blow and a hit to the State of Alaska 

in regards to our opportunities to explore anything offshore. 

This is at a time when again the Secretary and the President 

know full well that we have got a pipeline that is less than half 

full and we are looking as a state to be able to move in some of 

these areas—and we have been hindered at all turns. 

The question that I have for you this morning is what was your 

role in these decisions as they relate to offshore Arctic? What was 

your role as Principle Deputy at PMB in these decisions? 

Ms. SARRI. Senator, thank you for your questions. I have the 

same cold as you do, so I hope you feel better. 

Let me just first start by saying really quickly that Alaska is incredibly important, obviously, to energy production in this country. 

And the safe and responsible development in the Arctic is an important part of that picture. 

The CHAIRMAN. But we are not seeing it coming out of the Administration. 

Ms. SARRI. I was not involved in either of the decisions announced on Friday. My role at PMB is really on those cross-cutting 

policy initiatives. I mentioned a couple just invasive species and 

youth issues, energy issues that firmly lie with BOEM and BSEE. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you had no involvement in terms of the decisions either as it related to the lease extensions or the cancellation 

of the ’16 and ’17 offshore leases? 

45 

Ms. SARRI. No, Senator, I did not. 

The CHAIRMAN. The drilling regulations that are coming up are, 

again, something that we are very, very keenly looking at. BOEM 

and BSEE are in the process of developing these regs now to address offshore drilling safety in the Arctic. The concern that many 

have is that what Interior will lay down will be regs that are so 

burdensome and so excessive in terms of the regulatory controls 

that effectively pushes even further off the opportunity for activity 

in the Arctic. 

In this position you are being nominated for, how would you 

work to bring greater certainty because that is what we are looking 

for here is certainty to the Federal regulatory environment in the 

Arctic? 

Ms. SARRI. So, Senator, again, that’s something that BOEM and 

BSEE work closely on when they’re doing regulatory development. 

And the important role I think I play in that effort is to make sure 

that those two Bureaus have sufficient staffing to meet their regulatory mission and to carry out regulations working with industry. 

The CHAIRMAN. So when you say that, I mean, your title is Policy, Management and Budget. So you are suggesting to me that on 

the policy side of it the only thing that you do is make sure you 

have sufficient staffing available for that? 

Ms. SARRI. On this particular issue that you were raising where 

my nexus is really working on the budget side of the equation and 

not so much on the regulatory development. 

When it comes to the policy issues at PMB, it is really on those 

that have cross-cutting nexuses with all the different Bureaus 

where you want to have that cohesion and coordination. As I was 

mentioning one of the big areas that we play in is invasive species 

which have an impact across public lands and in communities or 

wildland fire development. 

So when it’s very mission specific to a bureau we, the bureau, are 

responsible for that effort. But with that case coming out, I think 

one of the important things I need to do is have a responsible role 

in terms of making sure we’re budgeting responsibly for that and 

also where it’s appropriate for me to offer oversight. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will have some further questions here. 

Senator Cantwell? 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Like you, I have many questions for our nominees but only five 

minutes, so I am just going to throw it out there and see if we can 

get a lot of feedback. 

Mr. Kotek, I wanted to ask you about the recommendations to 

separate defense and commercial waste—whether you will come up 

with a plan to move forward on that, whether that plan would include impacted communities, and what technical issues do you 

think need to be addressed so that we can get there? 

I am so glad that Dr. Cherry and Ms. Wassmer are sitting next 

to each other because when it comes to cleaning up Hanford, you 

represent both ends of this puzzle. 

Dr. Cherry, I want to know if you agree—the National Lab Commission that you served on said that science should play a larger 

role in helping us with some of our major nuclear waste sites and 

46 

the remaining issues. Some of the waste, we still do not even have 

solutions for on the science side. 

Ms. Wassmer, how do you plan to complete in a timely fashion 

both getting the Vitrification plant done and the Waste Treatment 

plant done? So both of the waste treatment facilities, obviously, 

have had many challenges. How do we complete that? 

Lastly, Dr. Kimball, I do not know if you read the New Yorker 

article about the Cascadia Fault and the challenges of what is an 

analysis of a 300-year event that could hit the Pacific Northwest, 

but my colleague, Senator Murkowski, and I have introduced legislation on better monitoring. What do you think we need to do to 

actually get that better monitoring in place? 

So, as quickly as you can go. 

Mr. KOTEK. Certainly, I’ll start. 

Thank you for the question, Senator. What you’ve touched on, of 

course, is the Administration’s commitment to a consent based 

siting process to develop new facilities for the storage and ultimately for the disposal of nuclear waste. The Administration is 

committed to a consent-based siting process that involves working 

with states, tribes, local governments, in a way that leads to signing agreements with what we’d call, a willing and informed host, 

community for those facilities. 

As we learned through the Blue Ribbon Commission process, 

communities, states, tribes are going to need to answer two fundamental questions when it comes to their willingness to host such 

facilities. One is can we do this in a way that’s fully protective of 

people and the environment? And then second is can our community, state, tribe, feel like they’re better off for having taken on this 

challenge until it becomes incumbent upon us to provide information, technical resources, other assets to them as they work 

through answering those types of questions. 

Senator CANTWELL. So will you come up with an actionable plan 

on separating defense and civilian waste? That is what I am asking. 

Mr. KOTEK. Oh, I’m sorry. 

When it comes to the defense waste, yes. We have, the President 

acted on a recommendation from the Secretary to, in fact, pursue 

a separate repository for defense waste. That announcement was 

made back in March, and we’re now in the process of developing 

plans for that. 

Senator CANTWELL. Great. 

Mr. KOTEK. So yes, and thank you. I’ll look forward to working 

with you on that, if I’m confirmed. 

Senator CANTWELL. Okay, great. 

Dr. Cherry? 

Dr. MURRAY. Thank you for the question, Senator. 

Of course, science really is the underpinning of pretty much 

every technology, and one of the things that the Commission noted 

is that with the enormous amount of resources that we’re spending 

on environmental cleanup more science is definitely necessary. 

So already we’ve had scientific consensus, workshops and meetings of scientists and environmental managers to try to figure out 

what are the scientific breakthroughs that we can do. And you will 

see more on this. I’ll be very glad to work with you. 

47 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSMER. Thank you, Senator, for the question related to 

WTP and the importance of that for the Hanford site. 

I’ve had high level briefings from the Department of Energy. And 

if confirmed, I would be getting more to speed up with the details. 

But I do understand the phased approach that the Department is 

recommending in terms of that facility and do believe that it’s very 

important to ensure that we can both treat, store and then ultimately safely dispose of waste. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I will look for it. I know you have done 

good work at the FAA, but part of the issue at Hanford has been 

somebody proposes some great idea, a new secretary comes along 

and then they realize later that doesn’t work. And then we’ve spent 

billions of dollars, and we have to go back. 

I just hope that we will move forward on a path of certainty 

here—we have leaky tanks, and we need to get them cleaned up. 

Dr. Kimball, getting our monitoring system? 

Dr. KIMBALL. Right. Our priorities are absolutely to provide the 

kinds of information that are necessary to protect public health and 

safety, and early warning systems are very important. And that requires monitoring. 

We very much appreciate the attention that this Committee has 

provided and you and Chairman Murkowski in introducing the legislation that would establish the National Volcano Early Warning 

System. We feel that that’s an important step forward and the attention, the national level attention, that this legislation brings to 

the issue, we feel is very important. 

I look forward, if confirmed, to working closely with you to ensure that we do have those kinds of systems in place. 

Senator Cantwell [presiding]: Thank you. 

Senator Cassidy? 

Senator CASSIDY. Ms. Sarri, I think you mentioned your mother 

is a Michigan football fan just to get the sympathy vote. Did you 

know, that is just, kind of, my bias? [Laughter.] 

Of anyone. 

Ms. SARRI. Did it work? [Laughter.] 

Senator CASSIDY. Not from the Michigan State people, you know, 

they are—— [Laughter.] 

First I would like unanimous consent to introduce a letter on behalf of my Louisiana colleague, Senator Vitter, regarding Ms. Kendall’s nomination. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

48 


Insert offset folio 25 here 98943.025
49 


Insert offset folio 26 here 98943.026
50 

Senator CASSIDY. Ms. Kendall, you came by my office. We had a 

nice visit. Thank you. 

Some of the questions will be followup to that or even the same, 

but it is more for the public record as opposed to our personal conversation. 

To set the stage for others when the Macando oil spill occurred 

there was a report issued by the Department of the Interior suggesting that eight safety experts felt as if the moratorium instituted by the Department was appropriate. As it turns out those 

eight experts did not agree with it and said that it would not measurably reduce risk and would have a lasting impact upon the nation’s economy that my state still suffers from that decision to go 

forward with the moratorium despite the experts saying not to. 

And there was an investigation that ensued. So with that stage set, 

I will proceed. 

As you know and as we spoke in the office, there was an issue 

that you were to investigate who altered the report and yet simultaneously were being involved—took membership on the Safety 

Oversight Board of the OCS. There was a tension there. On the one 

hand you were to investigate something of which you were a part 

of. So would you please address that? 

Ms. KENDALL. I will, Senator, thank you. 

The details are, sort of, in the weeds, but the distinction is the 

Safety Oversight Board was charged with putting together longterm solutions or recommendations for safety and oversight in the 

Outer Continental Shelf. The report that we were being asked to 

review, the IG was asked to review, was something called the 30 

day report. And it was a short-term report requested of the Secretary by the President to make immediate recommendations to 

solve some of the immediate problems that were being faced in the 

Gulf because of the Deep Water Horizon disaster. And so the Safety Oversight Board did not have a role in that 30-day report. 

Senator CASSIDY. Can I ask? Was there anyone on the Safety 

Oversight Board who could have potentially, knowing that you 

could not know then what you know now, who could have potentially been involved with the alteration of the original report in the 

sense where you are rubbing shoulders, breaking bread, with those 

whom you might otherwise have to hold accountable for having altered a report? 

Ms. KENDALL. I don’t believe so. And it was not—— 

Senator CASSIDY. Could you have known that when you joined 

the Safety Oversight Board? It does not seem as if it is conceivable 

that you could have known. 

Ms. KENDALL. Undoubtedly, I couldn’t have. 

Senator CASSIDY. So just intuitively if you are rubbing elbows 

and breaking bread and coming together on a mutually agreeable 

basis we have got to figure this out. At the same time you may potentially be holding someone accountable for something which truly 

was wrongdoing. It seems as if you have set yourself up for a conflict of interest. 

Ms. KENDALL. I understand how that perception could be or that 

conclusion could be drawn. In fact, however, the Safety Oversight 

Board was not involved in that 30-day report. 

51 

Senator CASSIDY. I accept that. But, as we spoke earlier, it would 

have been hard to know then that there were not people on one 

board who may have been responsible for a wrongdoing elsewhere. 

Ms. KENDALL. Except there were only three people on the Safety 

Oversight Board, and I knew who was involved in the 30-day report. 

Senator CASSIDY. I accept that. 

Now I have an email from an Assistant Secretary in which it 

seems as if some of the Inspector General’s staff were uncomfortable with your involvement with the Board. So I will not quote at 

length, although I could, but just suffice it to say it does seem as 

if within the organization it was perceived as a conflict of interest 

by some. 

Let me ask as well, and we have spoken about this before but 

again for the public record, the House has previously or I guess 

maybe, the Senate, but I am more familiar with the House, has requested information of your staff as regards to this whole episode 

and the Inspector General’s staff did not submit that information. 

Now in our conversation you said, well, never before have Inspector Generals been offered this and it was really up to the House 

to go to the Department to provide the information. 

But at some point if there is a set of circumstances in which you 

would serve on an Oversight Board, because we really have to 

make things work here and this is a bending of the rules or a potential conflict of interest that maybe could be overlooked in order 

for the greater good, if Congress is going after a record and Interior 

will not give it to them, it almost seems like the Office of Inspector 

General not giving it as well serves the interest of the Department. 

And we are frustrated because we cannot exercise oversight because both are playing rope-a-dope. What are your thoughts about 

that? 

Ms. KENDALL. Well Senator, in this case we’re talking about documents that Executive Privilege came into play. 

Senator CASSIDY. As I gather though, that was something that 

you invoked that the Administration did not invoke prior to you. 

Ms. KENDALL. No, we did not invoke it. The OIG did not invoke 

it. 

Senator CASSIDY. Okay. 

Ms. KENDALL. The Department led up to invoking it. Only the 

President can invoke Executive Privilege, and what we were doing 

was trying to get the House Committee and the Department to talk 

and resolve that issue as opposed to asking the OIG to play referee. 

Senator CASSIDY. Then I will go back to my point. If the Department decides to rope-a-dope and not give information to Congress, 

we have no place else to go but the OIG. Theoretically your loyalty 

is to both, to the Department and to Congress. In that case it 

served the purpose of the Department but not for the purpose of 

transparency. 

Thank you again. I yield back. 

The Chairman [presiding]: Thank you, Senator Cassidy. 

Senator Franken? 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. Kendall, welcome. It is always a pleasure having a Minnesotan in front of the Committee. 

52 

In your testimony you underlined that some may mistake your 

civil dealings with the Department of the Interior as being too accommodating. I appreciate that you bring some Minnesota nice to 

the Federal Government. 

However, could you tell me about how you view the role of the 

Office of the Inspector General as an independent entity? 

Ms. KENDALL. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator. 

The OIG plays an important role in terms of holding the Department accountable. We do that through audits and investigations 

primarily, and our findings come through and then we follow up 

with recommendations. 

I think that the responsibility of the OIG is to call things as it 

sees them through its audits and investigations and make meaningful recommendations that will help the Department improve its 

operations and resolve problems. 

Now those are not always happy discussions, but I think they 

can always be civil. And that has been part of my role is to engage 

in difficult discussions with the Department usually about difficult 

problems that are not easily solvable but to do it in a productive 

and a polite manner. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

I know that Senator Cassidy was asking about some of the controversies around the Deep Water Horizon oil spill. In 2008 Congress established an Integrity Committee to investigate allegations 

of wrong doing that were made against Inspectors General. The Integrity Committee includes a Senior FBI official who serves as the 

Chairman, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, the 

Special Council and Foreign Inspectors General. 

You mentioned in your testimony certain controversies which 

Senator Cassidy mentioned involving your office’s handling of matters related to the moratorium, the drilling moratorium, which was 

exhaustively investigated by the House Natural Resources Committee. 

It is my understanding that the three Gulf State senators asked 

the Integrity Committee to investigate allegations of misconduct involving your handling of this matter as well. I understand that the 

Integrity Committee appointed an Inspector General from another 

Department who conducted an independent investigation but could 

find no evidence to support any of the allegations. The Integrity 

Committee reviewed the Inspector General’s report and adopted its 

findings and conclusions as its own two years ago, and the matter 

is now closed. Is that a fair summary of the Integrity Committee’s 

investigation and conclusion? 

Ms. KENDALL. I think it is a fair summary, sir, but we also provided that information to the Committee in written form so the 

Committee has that. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

I would like to move on to Dr. Kimball. 

Next month the Administration will fly to Paris for historic negotiations on an International Treaty to curb greenhouse gases. 

While the state of science is sufficiently matured to act, climate 

change research is ongoing and remains a priority both for me and 

for the U.S. Geological Survey. 

53 

Dr. Kimball, can you describe how you envision the role of climate change research within the USGS as well as some of the current areas of exploration? 

Dr. KIMBALL. Yes, Senator, thank you very much for that question. 

Senator FRANKEN. Bad microphone. 

Dr. KIMBALL. Thank you. 

The USGS has been studying climate effects for several decades, 

nearly all of our 136 year history. And we are in a unique position 

because we can examine the geologic record and look for those 

changes that are associated with natural processes verses changes 

that are exacerbated by other activities. 

So we do intend to continue. We have a missionary dedicated to 

climate and land use change in which we brought together the 

work that we’ve been doing across the bureau to eliminate internal 

duplication of effort and to ensure efficiencies. 

We plan to be working on downscaled models to look at the impacts of climate variability associated with things like drought, reduced snowpack and snow melt, coastal changes, changes associated with different storm regimes, both in terms of tropical storm 

intensity and tropical storm patterns and to look at how those impact and are connected with decisions about land use change and 

carbon sequestration and carbon storage to identify climate resilience activities that can be taken at local and community levels to 

mitigate these impacts. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. I am out of time, but Madam 

Chair, since it is just you and me, can I ask one more question? 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. [Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Thanks. 

This is for Dr. Murray. I am pleased that the bipartisan energy 

bill that we passed out of Committee in July includes additional 

funding for energy storage research and development. As our grid 

continues to evolve I believe that new energy storage technologies 

will be essential for providing enhanced grid stability and enabling 

variable renewable energy sources to meet continuous electricity 

demand. I also believe that the Department of Energy has an important role to play in this effort. 

Dr. Murray, what role do you see for the Office of Science in developing transformative energy storage technologies including 

through ongoing activities at the Joint Center for Energy Storage 

Research? 

Dr. MURRAY. Thank you, Senator, for the question. 

Of course, science has a lot to do with energy storage. For the 

first, materials are essential. 

The study of catalysis, the study of chemical reactions, the study 

of new possibilities for materials in the modeling using high performance computing, all of which is going on at JCESR, the Joint 

Center for Energy Storage and Research which, is an Office of 

Science hub, is looking at the generation beyond lithium ion batteries. What that has accomplished so far, just in its first three 

years, has gotten the industry, who have been working on storage, 

as you know, for hundreds of years, to accelerate their technology. 

So the lithium ion industry is decreasing the cost of lithium ion 

batteries just because we have this storage hub. They’re creating 

54 

a data base of different types of electrolytes and different types of 

materials that could be used. You can up, if you can make it work, 

you can up the storage capacity of a battery by using magnesium 

which has two charges instead of lithium which has one. And so 

they’re going in that direction. 

So this is beyond. It’s collaborating with industry but it’s beyond 

what industry would feel comfortable doing because they have no 

idea of whether it’s going to end up anywhere near a product. But 

that’s where, I think, the Office of Science fits. It’s between the 

universities who cannot easily do these big projects which go from 

science all the way to prototype and industry which looks at the 

prototypes and says, you know that’s a good idea. I think I can actually make that cheaper and I can make a product out of it. 

So it’s this joint—this hub is working extremely well, and I invite 

you to visit it. 

Senator FRANKEN. I would love to do that. Where is it? 

Dr. MURRAY. It’s located at Argonne National Lab. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. 

Dr. MURRAY. Near Chicago. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. 

Well, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, for indulging me. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

Senator Portman, you are up. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate it. 

I was here earlier and had the opportunity to hear some of the 

testimony and some of the questions, and I appreciate all of you 

being willing to step up and serve. Many of you have served before 

or in other capacities. 

My questions are to the Department of Energy, to our friends 

who are here interested in getting confirmed for important positions that are going to affect the livelihood of a lot of people in my 

state, including at the Piketon Nuclear Enrichment, Uranium Enrichment Plant, in Pike County, Ohio. We have had a tough time 

there. 

As some of you know this is the site where we uniquely enrich 

U.S. uranium. It is important for our nuclear arsenal. As Mr. 

Kotek said earlier, it is important for our nuclear energy industry. 

It is also critical because it provides tritium which is required for 

the arsenal and our nuclear navy, of course. 

So we have recently had 500 employees at the site who received 

warn notices. This is for the cleanup of the old technology. This is 

very frustrating for me because for years and years we have received commitments from the Administration, this Administration 

and others, to clean up the site. And frankly, the commitment has 

not been honored. 

So my questions are going to relate in part to that cleanup. Ms. 

Wassmer, you are interested in being Under Secretary of Energy, 

so you are going to have a lot of responsibility for the cleanup side 

of things. 

President Obama said in 2008, the failure to clean up this site 

quickly will one, delay future economic development opportunities. 

Very true. I was out there a few weeks ago, and again, they cannot 

move forward with the economic development of that area, one of 

the poorest areas of Ohio, unless they get this cleanup done. Of 

55 

course, they need to remove the radioactive and other waste that 

is there. 

Second, according to the President, will only add additional mortgage costs. Wow, with the commitments that have not been made, 

the taxpayer gets stuck with the bill, about $4 billion more over 

time to the taxpayer already with the slowdown in the cleanup that 

we have seen in this Administration. 

Third, he said, will pose undue environmental risks. Well, yes, 

part of the reason you cleanup these sites is to ensure that the 

communities are safer. We are really frustrated because again and 

again the Administration has made commitments and not kept 

them. 

In 2009, DOE made a secretarial commitment to the community 

to accelerate the cleanup and complete the work by 2024, and if 

you are interested in having that in writing I am happy to provide 

it to you because Secretary Moniz wondered about that. It is true, 

and we have talked about it many times. 

The press release at the time said accelerating the cleanup was 

an effort to jump start the local economy and create jobs. Now we 

are being told in that community that it is going to be 2044 at the 

earliest. Again, 500 people are having their jobs threatened. 

So I have a few questions for you, Ms. Wassmer, as you take on 

this job. Thanks to some language that my colleague, Senator Alexander, got into the Appropriations bill when the House side did in 

the CR, we were able to keep employment levels at their current 

level. In other words, not have these warn notices be implemented. 

Again, Congress seems to have to step in every year and provide 

this last minute help. That is not the way to run a railroad. It is 

certainly not the way to run people’s lives. 

So very quickly if you could just give me a yes or no on this, the 

Secretary committed to me a couple of weeks ago that he would advocate for additional funding for the cleanup and the long-term 

spending package. Would you support the Secretary’s efforts to secure this additional funding in the Piketon cleanup so that after 

December 11th, for the longer-term package, that the people at 

that plant know they are going to have a job? 

Yes or no? 

Ms. WASSMER. Thank you, Senator, for your question. I do understand the importance of Portsmouth in relation to our national defense, and I do also understand during the CR period that the Department has committed to ensure that there are no involuntary 

left layoffs. 

Senator PORTMAN. I have limited time, so I need a yes or a no 

on the long-term cleanup. 

Ms. WASSMER. Sir, absolutely, we will have the—— 

Senator PORTMAN. For the long time CR, yes or no. 

Ms. WASSMER. I am committed to ensuring if I am confirmed 

that we would have long-term cleanup at the Portsmouth site. 

Senator PORTMAN. And that for the long-term CR, in other 

words, after December 11th, that you would support the funding in 

there to keep these people from losing their jobs. 

Ms. WASSMER. Sir, I—— 

Senator PORTMAN. This is what the Secretary told me that he 

was going to advocate for. 

56 

Ms. WASSMER. Sir, if the Secretary has shared that with you, if 

I am confirmed, I will support, absolutely, his direction and guidance—— 

Senator PORTMAN. Every year you guys put in your budget inad- equate funding for the cleanup. You were $80 million short last 

time. My question for you is very simple. Are you going to advocate 

this year to be sure the cleanup levels in the FY’17 budget request 

are adequate to keep the layoffs from happening and to keep the 

cleanup on pace at least to the level it is at now? Yes or no? 

Ms. WASSMER. Sir, if I am confirmed I would be happy to work 

with you on this issue. 

Senator PORTMAN. Okay. 

I would say to that question, you would be happy to work with 

me, when I supported Secretary Moniz in his confirmation. He 

made that same commitment. When I supported the Deputy Secretary, Sherwood Randall, I got that commitment. The Assistant 

Secretary, Regalbuto, I got that commitment, the Head of the Office of Environmental Management. All during their confirmation 

hearings they made assurances they would work with me. They 

said those same words, and they have not. 

So we need to see that follow through. And you know, frankly, 

I am not much in the mood to do other confirmations until I get 

real commitments on this. 

Mr. Kotek, you and I have talked about some of these issues before. I am sure and I know you have a great background in the nuclear area and I appreciate what you said about nuclear power and 

its importance, but I would just ask you one simple question about 

the new technology which is ACP technology. We had 120 centrifuges that are spinning out there. Suddenly DOE surprises us 

all, as you know, a few weeks ago and says we are going to pull 

the plug on this after many indications the opposite would be true, 

not providing us the report that was due to Congress in April to 

defend that. We got that report the night before the hearing when 

Secretary Moniz was here. Do you believe that we do need to have 

a domestic source of enriched uranium? 

Mr. KOTEK. Thank you, Senator, for the question. 

Of course, the availability of uranium to meet our nuclear energy 

needs in the U.S. is very important to my organization of the future of nuclear technology. 

The specifics of the ACP project in the uranium enrichment program in DOE actually falls into a different organization, so I am 

not familiar with the specifics of the report you referred to or other 

things. But I certainly would be pleased to work with you, if confirmed, to ensure that we have got uranium available to meet 

present and future needs here in the U.S. 

Senator PORTMAN. Your predecessor was very involved in this, so 

I hope that you will be as well. And to the extent you believe in 

nuclear power as you said earlier, I would certainly hope you would 

believe that we ought to have a domestic source of enriched uranium and not be dependent on the Russians and others for our enriched uranium. Can you make that commitment today? 

Mr. KOTEK. Yes, sir. Thank you for the statement. I agree that 

we need to ensure that we have got availability of domestic enriched uranium going forward. 

57 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Heinrich is next on the list. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. Wassmer, DOE’s Office of Management and Performance is 

responsible for the very important work of cleanup and disposal of 

defense nuclear waste including work in New Mexico at Los Alamos National Labs, obviously, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

(WIPP) in Carlsbad. WIPP, as you know, is the nation’s only deep 

geological repository for defense transuranic waste. 

So first, I would just say that I would invite you to visit WIPP 

once you are confirmed. I know that reopening that facility remains 

a very high priority for Secretary Moniz; however, I hope you agree 

that the safety of the workers and the surrounding community has 

to be our top priority as that process moves forward. DOE’s recent 

internal assessment of trends in safety showed continuing problems with senior management’s attention to the conduct of operation, maintenance and safety culture. The review cited schedule 

pressure as an underlying causal factor in that report. 

How do you see your responsibilities in overseeing WIPP’s recovery as a site and how would you refocus efforts to restore safe operations and a safety culture at that facility? 

Ms. WASSMER. Thank you, Senator, for your question related to 

the WIPP facility. 

I have had background briefings and understand at a high level 

both the unique role in being the first operating repository there, 

but also the current stoppage in relation to the incidents that you 

referred to and the importance in ensuring safely the expeditious 

return of that facility. 

And so, if I am confirmed, I can share with you I would get up 

to speed with the details, would be very interested in visiting the 

site and making sure that we have the safe return of services at 

WIPP. 

Senator HEINRICH. I look forward to that. 

I will say that we are all eager to see that facility reopened, to 

see the staff there get back to work, but we need to do it in a way 

that puts their workplace safety, at the absolute top of the priority 

list. 

Dr. Murray, I want to ask you a question. 

The Commission to review the effectiveness of DOE’s national 

laboratories released its draft final report last month, and one of 

the Commission’s recommendations that I was very heartened by 

is that all DOE programs and laboratories fully embrace technology 

transition and that mission and continue improving the speed and 

effectiveness of collaborations with the private sector. I thought 

that was a fantastic development. It is something a number of us 

have been trying to move forward for some time. 

I just wanted to ask you if you agree that technology transfer is 

an important, central part of the overall mission of the national 

laboratories and what do you think DOE can do to address the 

challenges that small businesses have in finding constructive and 

straight forward ways to engage with the labs to commercialize 

those innovative technologies? 

Dr. MURRAY. So thank you, Senator, for the question. 

58 

I am, myself, from my background at Bell Labs, very, very interested in technology transfer. And if confirmed, I will work with the 

Department to help a better technology transfer. 

One of the things that I learned while I was at Bell Labs is that 

the best technology transfer is with two feet. It’s really people. So 

one of the things I have been thinking about that would help the 

national labs work better with small businesses, startups in particular, is to have post docs at the labs transition to the startups. 

This works really well in universities. It’s not really practiced except by accident at the DOE national labs now, and it gets around 

a lot of the difficulties in intellectual property and in making the 

agreements with very small companies and the national labs work 

well. 

The other thing that I will point out that I was very pleased to 

discover as a member of the Commission and having been away 

from the national labs for a while was that several of the national 

labs are starting what I will call a best practice of providing an 

umbrella agreement for small business in their vicinity. So small 

business can sign up, they can get a voucher and make use of the 

lab with very little, three month, negotiation of contracts which has 

to get better. I absolutely am on it, if I be confirmed. 

Senator HEINRICH. I very much appreciate your reference to the 

voucher approach. I think that is one of the best practices. It is 

something that I have included in tech transfer legislation. 

I know Sandia National Laboratories does something similar to 

what you were mentioning called entrepreneurial leave that has 

been very effective. 

We need to figure out those places around the country where 

things are working and standardize them more across the complex. 

I think one additional place that I would encourage you to look is 

by simply looking at the concept of creating sort of a front door that 

is outside the gate, literally, a space with these labs where small 

business can engage directly with the labs without going through 

all the steps that it takes to go behind the gate for the first time. 

Dr. MURRAY. Yes, thank you, Senator. I completely agree that is 

a very good practice, and Lawrence Livermore Laboratory has done 

that. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Flake? 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Ms. Sarri, as you know in 2013 we had a shutdown, a government shutdown that affected a lot of states, particularly the parks. 

Six states provided a combined $2 million to keep some of the national parks open during that time. 

When the Federal Government reopened the Park Service, Department of the Interior was reimbursed then made whole, but the 

states that provided the money have not seen that money reimbursed. I believe that you have stated your opposition to that reimbursement. Is that correct? 

Ms. SARRI. Senator, I appreciate that you brought that up when 

we had a courtesy meeting, and I wanted to make sure I went back 

and fully understood the Administration’s position. And my understanding is if Congress enacts that legislation we would want to 

59 

work with this Committee and obviously with the parks and the 

states to offer that reimbursement. 

Senator FLAKE. So your position is different now? 

Ms. SARRI. Yes, Senator, it is. 

Senator FLAKE. Okay, that is good to know. That was passed 

here on a bipartisan basis twice by voice vote, and the legislation 

was sponsored on a bipartisan basis by Senator Heinrich, myself 

and others, to make sure that the states were reimbursed. I am 

glad to hear that. 

Let me go for one issue. Just last week the Office of Inspector 

General issued a report finding that the National Park Service 

(NPS) was improperly using a construction account to fund reimbursable activities performed under interagency agreements. In its 

report the OIG said that NPS is using the construction account to 

pay non-construction expenses and treating its account as if it were 

a revolving fund. The report further states that NPS disagrees, arguing that it has authority to use the construction account as a 

‘‘convenient method to fund reimbursable expenses.’’ 

In your capacity as Principle Deputy Secretary, Assistant Secretary for Policy and Management and Budget, did you provide an 

analysis of the Park Service’s use for its construction account and 

do you believe that this is a proper use of funds? 

Ms. SARRI. Senator, thank you very much for the question. 

I’m actually not familiar about this particular issue. I don’t think 

we provided analysis at the departmental level, so I would like to 

get back to you more on the record on that one. 

Senator FLAKE. Okay. 

Ms. Kendall, do you have anything to share on that? Is that the 

issue that we discussed in my office or? 

Ms. KENDALL. Simply that we, quite vehemently, disagree with 

the Park Service’s position on that expenditure and hope that we’ll 

be able to resolve it either through the appropriations folks, in this 

body and the House, or that they will stop utilizing that fund for 

that purpose. 

Senator FLAKE. Okay. 

Ms. Sarri, will you commit to getting back to my office on that? 

Ms. SARRI. Absolutely. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, I appreciate that. 

One other thing, Ms. Wassmer, we have heard from some in Arizona about the cost containment concerns with WAPA. Can you 

commit to work with us to address some of these concerns that 

have been raised in terms of cost containment? 

Ms. WASSMER. Thank you, Senator, for the question. 

If confirmed, I commit to looking into the details related to 

WAPA as you have referenced. 

Senator FLAKE. Okay, thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Manchin? 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Kimball, in March 2011 I submitted a letter along with Senators Barrasso and Paul to then Chairman Bingaman and then 

Ranking Member Murkowski of this Committee seeking an oversight hearing concerning the Office of Surface Mining’s proposed 

stream protection or the stream buffer rule. There was evidence 

60 

that the DOI management in 2010 tried to discard a contractor’s 

economic analysis of this rule that suggested up to 29,000 coal jobs 

could be lost nationwide as a result of these proposed regulations. 

The Department of the Interior management also threatened to fire 

the contractor. 

Our letter to the Committee stated independent, scientific analysis of proposed regulations must remain objective and free from 

political pressure. 

Five years later the nation’s coal industry continues to struggle. 

We have lost that many jobs, if not more, the serious economic consequences that would be associated with the latest version of this 

rule. I have also seen general reports that your office has been 

under immense pressure from this Administration to provide more 

favorable numbers and ignore the conduct that occurred in 2010. 

Can you comment on these claims? Do you have knowledge of 

these? 

Ms. KENDALL. I do, generally, I have knowledge of what we investigated that was relative to the political allegation of political 

influence. 

Senator MANCHIN. They seem to be very upset about the contractor that you all threatened to fire because they put out the 

facts. 

Ms. KENDALL. My recollection and I would ask if I could get back 

to you. 

Senator MANCHIN. Sure. 

Ms. KENDALL. With more details. 

Senator MANCHIN. I would like that. 

Ms. KENDALL. Our investigation determined that the contractor 

was not improperly terminated, that the appearance looked 

like—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Let me followup with one okay? 

Ms. KENDALL. Sure. 

Senator MANCHIN. Because you can get back to me on the accuracy of that. 

Ms. KENDALL. Okay. 

Senator MANCHIN. Whether he was fired or not and what but can 

you comment on the pressures from this Administration has been 

exerted regarding the thousands of projected job losses? 

Ms. KENDALL. I had no involvement in that, sir. 

Senator MANCHIN. Okay. 

Well, if you can, I really need to know about this because it is 

really disturbing. Our state is really getting plummeted by this, 

and it is just ridiculous. If a person is putting out the facts as they 

see them and if they do them and then you do not like the results 

and there is someone making those decisions to get rid of these 

people because they are not giving the answers they want, then we 

need to know about that. 

Ms. KENDALL. Understood. 

Senator MANCHIN. Now, Dr. Kimball, can you comment on the 

extent of and the reasons for the dramatic rising estimates of the 

U.S. shale gas resources over the last few years? The reason I ask 

this question is, we are making decisions, we will be, on exporting 

LNG and different things and also our potential economic vitality 

from this resurgence, if you will, if we use it for manufacturing. 

61 

And do we have the reserves? And why have they not been accurate on their estimates? 

Dr. KIMBALL. Well thank you for that question. 

There are two reasons that have affected the estimates of our 

shale gas resources. One is that through the years there are increasing numbers of surveys of subsurface conditions both by 

USGS, by state geological surveys and by industry. And so that 

helps us understand the full breadth of resources across the nation. 

The second is that our analyses and our assessments are directed 

toward technically recoverable resources at the time that the assessment is done, and technology has been increasingly effective in 

being able to extract these resources. And as technology evolves 

more and more of the resource becomes available for extraction. 

Senator MANCHIN. Well, my followup question is how do you all 

manage to stay on top of the estimates of the technically recoverable gas? 

If we are wanting to know how much that we can, not what we 

have, but what we can recover to market? 

Dr. KIMBALL. We’re fortunate to have very close working relationships with other Federal agencies, Department of Energy for 

one, in this regard and with industry. And we have developed a 

good working relationship with industry in terms of protecting proprietary information and yet being able to use that information to 

improve our assessments. 

Senator MANCHIN. So if we are making determinations on our 

votes on different types of energy topics would you say your estimates are conservative? I mean if we are using your estimates 

would they be on the conservative side or maybe on the liberal 

side? 

Dr. KIMBALL. I actually don’t have an answer for that. I would 

say that we tend to provide estimates that are conservative, but 

that doesn’t mean that each and every estimate that we do falls in 

that category. 

Senator MANCHIN. This find is very unusual, this Marcellus 

shale and the Utica shale and now we have Rogersville and all this 

coming on in our little state of West Virginia. It is so much energy 

coming on the scene here, and we never saw that coming. You all 

did not see it coming either, I don’t think. 

Dr. KIMBALL. No, I don’t think that we were, not USGS, but as 

a nation prepared to fully understand the extent of those resources 

and the capability of technology to extract them. 

Senator MANCHIN. Is there anything else out there we might 

have under our feet that we do not know about that could really 

give us another boost? 

Dr. KIMBALL. Probably, but I couldn’t tell you what it was today. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Manchin. 

Senator Lee? 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Thanks to all of you for being here and for all you do for our 

country. 

Ms. Kendall, I have a few questions for you. 

It appears based on a review of publicly available records on the 

OIG website that the OIG under your leadership has not underVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:47 Jan 23, 2017 Jkt 098943 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\98943\D98943.TXT D98943
62 

taken a comprehensive review or investigation of the Endangered 

Species Act program including a review of the circumstances surrounding the 2011 settlement, the so-called mega settlement, between Fish and Wildlife Service and a number of environmental activist organizations. Can you tell me why your office has not looked 

into the listing and delisting process in general or into the decisions that were made in connection with the 2011 mega settlement? 

Ms. KENDALL. The settlement question has come up before, Senator. And quite frankly, we asked, it was in another hearing, if 

there were specific concerns about issues in that settlement and 

have not been advised that there are specific concerns. 

We did not look at the settlement. We have not been asked to 

look at the settlement and are not aware of issues, other than the 

usual issues involved in endangered species decisions which are always controversial. 

Senator LEE. Right. Well I would assume even in the absence of 

a request from Congress or someone else that you would look into 

something involving periodic review listing decisions just to see 

how they are made and to see whether they are being made according to the appropriate statutory standards? 

Ms. KENDALL. Not necessarily. If we have information to suggest 

that they are not being properly made we would, of course, look 

into them. But we have not received any of that sort of allegation 

for a good number of years. 

Senator LEE. Okay, Okay. So generally you would not reach out 

to do that absent some kind of allegation of mismanagement or 

malfeasance in connection with a listing or delisting decision? 

Ms. KENDALL. Correct. 

Senator LEE. And you have not received any of those? 

Ms. KENDALL. We have not. 

Senator LEE. Okay. 

Now concerns have been raised, including in a 2014 congressional investigation, about possible conflicts of interest and lack of 

transparency in connection with the peer review process that is 

used to justify ESA listing decisions. 

For example, it is my understanding that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) has a policy dating all the way back to 1994 requiring FWS to seek the expert opinions of ‘‘independent specialists’’ for 

its listing decisions and also for its recovery plans. It is also my understanding that the Fish and Wildlife Service regularly seeks out 

the same scientists whose work they are relying on to serve as peer 

reviewers such that, in effect, they are being, in many cases, asked 

to, kind of, review their own work. It seems to me that might possibly be less than independent. Would you share that concern? 

Ms. KENDALL. I’m not familiar with this issue, Senator. I would 

certainly be glad to learn more from you and your staff and let you 

know if it’s something that we think we should look into. 

Senator LEE. Okay, great. We would be happy to share our concerns at a staff level and see if we can get to the bottom of that 

and see if we can get that question answered. 

Do you have any concerns with the FWS using peer reviewers, 

the very same scientists whose work they rely on to justify their 

63 

listing decisions? I mean, assuming that is happening, would that 

concern you? 

Ms. KENDALL. What you’re saying may be of concern. It’s hard 

to apply theoretically. It would also be a matter of how many scientists there actually are for a given area of expertise. So, I really 

can’t opine on a theoretical. 

Senator LEE. Right, right. So in some instances that might happen if it is a very narrow subspecialty and there are a limited number of scientists? 

Ms. KENDALL. I can only surmise that that’s a possibility. 

Senator LEE. Okay. 

One listing I do want to bring to your attention involves the 

Gierisch Mallow, a small flowering plant that is found in Utah. In 

its 2013 listing decision for this species the Fish and Wildlife Service said that the peer reviewers generally concurred with their 

methods and their conclusions. However, to my knowledge the only 

publicly available comment in the record for this listing is that attributable to a peer reviewer from a Dr. Lee Hughes. That opinion, 

as I understand it, says that a listing was prompted by the mega 

settlement lawsuit in 2011 and is not well thought out based on 

that scientist’s 20 years as a BLM scientist. Are you familiar with 

that? 

Ms. KENDALL. I am not. 

Senator LEE. Okay. I assume, you would agree that based on 

that fact pattern if the facts as I understand them are correct, that 

might warrant further scrutiny? 

Ms. KENDALL. Again, I would be very happy to work with your 

staff for more detail on that. 

Senator LEE. Okay, out I would assume you would see a problem 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service stating that peer reviewers generally agreed with their listing decision on the one hand, but then 

finding that comments from the only identified peer reviewer found 

in the record actually contradict that decision. 

Ms. KENDALL. Again, theoretically that sounds like a potential 

problem but I have no knowledge about the issue. 

Senator LEE. Okay. 

Fish and Wildlife’s decisions whether to list a species have, as 

you can appreciate, an enormous impact on the people who live and 

work near that species, near where that species is found. 

Do you have any concerns with the peer reviewers comment that 

the listing was done to satisfy a lawsuit and was done, that it was 

not ‘‘well thought out?’’ 

Ms. KENDALL. Again, it sounds potentially problematic but I have 

no knowledge about the underlying issue. 

Senator LEE. Yes, okay. Well I assure you that it is, in fact, problematic. And unless my understanding of the facts is somehow incorrect, unless I am somehow mistaken, I would think that the fact 

pattern that I have described is not just potentially problematic but 

very problematic. 

Now, I hope I am wrong. I hope you can come back to me and 

say, look, you have been misinformed and you do not have anything to worry about. But if in fact these facts as I have described 

them are true, I would assume that you would at least be willing 

64 

to look into them and to address the problem that they would create. 

Ms. KENDALL. Yes, sir. 

Senator LEE. Okay, thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Lee. 

Senator King? 

Senator KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I would like to address a brief comment to Ms. Kendall, Ms. 

Wassmer and Ms. Sarri. 

There is an important poll that came out this morning in the 

Presidential race, and it found that Mr. Trump and Dr. Carson had 

49 percent of the support in the Republican Party. The reason I 

think that is significant is that neither one of them have any experience, whatsoever, in government and a big part of their appeal 

to the public is a distrust of government. 

The fact that outsiders are doing so well this year, it seems to 

me, is something we should think about in terms of the relationship of government to the American people. That makes the role 

of the Inspectors General and the management folks doubly important because we have to regain. I am not making a political statement here. I am just saying we need to recognize that in many instances we have lost the trust of the American people as an institution. 

You all are in a particularly important role to try to rebuild that 

trust in terms of investigating and dealing with issues of malfeasance and misfeasance and also in terms of managing the taxpayer’s money effectively. 

There is not a question here, but I just want to emphasize I consider the positions that you have been nominated to be incredibly 

important because of the underlying issue of trust of our democratic system and our ability for the government which is quite 

large to be able to effectively meet the needs of the American people. 

I was struck by the fact that the two leading contenders for 

President in one of our major parties are both outsiders in that 

sense. I am not saying that is good or bad, but I think it reflects 

this underlying concern the government is not accountable and is 

not responsive. So these are very important responsibilities, and I 

just wanted to emphasize that. 

To go from that rather abstract level to some specifics. Ms. 

Kimball, you mentioned the 3D elevation program that you are 

doing. I have had some interaction on that program with a company in Maine, Kappa Mapping. I believe it is a very important 

program that is very useful, and I think will become more useful 

in the future. I hope that is one that you will continue. 

Again, on the science as we deal with these difficult issues, and 

Senator Manchin was asking you questions about how much gas is 

there and all of those kinds of things, we can only make good decisions here if we have good science and good data. It is absolutely 

crucial that you keep, you are one of the leading science people in 

the government, that you keep providing us with as good, clear, 

unpoliticized data as you possibly can. I assume that is your commitment. 

65 

Dr. KIMBALL. Thank you, Senator. 

It’s absolutely my commitment. If confirmed I can also guarantee 

that it is the commitment of all of the men and women of USGS 

to do just that. 

As for the 3D elevation program, it is one of our priorities. We 

see the good elevation data is absolutely a foundation for understanding a lot of the other scientific issues that we face today 

whether that’s landslides and debris flows or whether that’s riparian systems and flood systems. Having that information is essential. 

Senator KING. And appropriateness for development. 

Dr. KIMBALL. Absolutely. 

Senator KING. Crucial information. 

Well, thank you. 

Dr. KIMBALL. Yes, sir. 

Senator KING. Mr. Kotek, by the way, I was impressed that you 

all brought your families. I think if I had to appear before a Congressional Committee, I would want my family as far away as possible. [Laughter.] 

It is wonderful that you did that. 

Mr. Kotek, we are sort of turning the page on high level nuclear 

waste and going to looking at consolidated interim storage with 

consent. 

Number one, I think it is important to realize that we have high 

level nuclear storage sites in this country today. So it is not a question of whether there will be some, it is a question of where they 

are. We have one in Maine where the Maine Yankee plant closed 

about a dozen years ago, and we have a high level nuclear storage 

site. I think you have been there. 

So my question is, as we are looking at this, sort of, new option, 

what is the timing? Is this another 25 years or are we talking 

about something that could happen within the reasonably foreseeable future? 

Mr. KOTEK. Thank you, Senator, for the question. 

Yes indeed, I’ve been to the site to which you’re referring and 

was struck by the fact that at that beautiful piece of property 

you’ve got spent fuel being, you know, guarded, protected, and everything else is gone from the reactor. And that was one of the 

things that I think really struck the members of the Blue Ribbon 

Commission when the Commission paid a visit. 

With respect to timing the Administration put out a strategy 

back in 2013 that at the time forecast about eight years to get to 

what we call the pilot interim storage facility, about 12 years to get 

to a full scale interim storage facility. And then set a year of 2048 

for ultimately a repository. 

So, you know, I think in the not too distant future, given the appropriate appropriations and authorizations from the Congress, 

we’d be in a position to move out with development of the site 

using the consent-based process to which you refer. And if confirmed I look forward to working with you on that. 

Senator KING. I will be 104 in 2048. I wish you could do it a little 

bit sooner than that. I would love to see that Maine Yankee site 

eliminated. And, you know, Eisenhower retook Europe in 11 

months. 

66 

Mr. KOTEK. I should add to that point, sir, that in terms of setting priorities for moving fuel the Administration’s strategy places 

top priority on dealing with fuel at the shut down plant sites such 

as Maine Yankee to go first to interim storage. So I would think 

that we would be able to move forward. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hoeven? 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thanks to all of 

our witnesses for being here today. 

I would like to start with Dr. Kimball. 

In May 2011 I asked then Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar, to 

update the U.S. Geological Survey’s 2000 estimate of the reserves, 

recoverable oil reserves in the Williston Basin. The USGS worked 

for about 19 months to complete that update and revise its findings 

of the Bakken reserves, recoverable oil reserves in the Williston 

Basin, and of course, increased their estimate very, very significantly. That was very important both in terms of stimulating drilling activity further or additional drilling activity in the Basin as 

well as helping us encourage and in fact get the infrastructure development that we needed as part of that energy development, that 

energy—that oil play. 

My first question is do you have plans to, I think now we replace 

about 1.2 million barrels of oil a day and huge amounts of natural 

gas as well. So my question is do you have plans to update USGS’s 

estimates of the recoverable oil reserves in the Williston Basin? 

Dr. KIMBALL. Well, thank you, Senator. And we thank you because you were instrumental in bringing all the people to the table 

to help us move forward with that last assessment. 

We periodically review and update our assessments. I do not 

know, right now, what the timeframe is to review that assessment, 

but I will find that information out and provide it to you. 

Senator HOEVEN. Okay, and then would you be willing to work 

with me? USGS has been very responsive and very good on this, 

so I would ask that you work with us to plan out the next update 

because it is very important as we continue to develop the Bakken, 

particularly now, with some of the competitive pressures that we 

face. 

Dr. KIMBALL. Yes, sir. I would be very happy, if confirmed, to 

continue working with you to make sure that we have the assessments updated as needed. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Dr. Kimball. I appreciate that. 

I would like to turn to Principle Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Sarri, welcome. 

In March 2015 the Bureau of Land Management, which of course 

falls under the Department of the Interior, issued final regulations 

for hydraulic fracturing on Federal and Indian land. There are 27 

states that produce virtually all of the oil and gas in this country, 

and those 27 states have regulations that oversee hydraulic fracturing. The BLM rule duplicates those efforts with a second layer 

of regulation. 

U.S. District Judge Skavdahl in Federal District Court in the 

State of Wyoming has issued a preliminary injunction in regard to 

that regulation. I am going to read a quote from his decision in 

67 

issuing that preliminary injunction, ‘‘Congress has not authorized 

or delegated to the BLM authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing 

and under our constitutional structure it is only through Congressional action that the BLM can acquire this authority.’’ 

So my question to you is both as Principle Deputy Assistant Secretary and now as nominee to be Assistant Secretary, what does 

that court ruling say about the policies that are being advanced 

under your tenure? 

Ms. SARRI. Senator, thank you very much for the question. I’m 

aware of the regulations. I wasn’t directly involved in those so I 

maybe have higher level comments and I’m happy to get back to 

you with more information on the record, if that’s helpful. 

Ms. SARRI. What I think BLM was attempting to do was provide 

standardization and a level playing field with a greater regulatory 

certainty around hydraulic fracturing. Obviously we have to have 

authority for the work that we’re doing when we undertake regulations, and so we look to that as part of our regulatory process. 

Senator HOEVEN. Why is it necessary to have duplicate regulations? Why not work with the states that already have those regulations in place? We do that in many other aspects of energy oversight and regulation. That is why we have SIPs, State Implementation Plans, when we work with Federal agencies. We use the practices that you have identified. Why have the duplicate regulation? 

Ms. SARRI. I think the effort here was where states had stronger 

regulations in place that we would look at those. But to actually 

set, kind of, a baseline or bottom line that would govern fracking 

across all states was the effort here. 

Senator HOEVEN. There is not an industry sector I talked to, we 

could take energy, we could take agriculture, we could take manufacturing, we could take high tech, we could take financial services—there is not one single industry sector that I talked to that 

does not come in and they say they are absolutely mired in red 

tape and regulation and bureaucracy which adds tremendous cost 

and makes it more difficult to create jobs. 

So my question to you is why not work with the states in a primary role? They are already providing this regulation. And then if 

some state is not or does not want to oversee it properly then you 

could come in and provide that regulatory structure. Why not take 

that approach rather than duplicate regulation? And this goes to 

some of the comments that Senator King just made. 

Ms. SARRI. Okay. No, I appreciate that. So let me get back to you 

more specifics on hydraulic fracking. 

But overall let me just say about the regulatory approach. This 

Administration has been trying to do a regulatory look back across 

all of the departments of the Executive branch to get rid of duplicative and outdated regulations. It’s an important part of our regulatory agenda. 

I think you’re right. When you’re looking at regulations you have 

to look at what states have and what the state role is and what 

the state has in play and the also what the Federal role is. And 

if it is something that crosses off in multiple state boundaries 

whether you actually need to have, kind of, a consistency that is, 

what is a baseline for regulations of which then the states can 

68 

buildupon more. I actually think that that can create great certainty in the economy as well. 

Senator HOEVEN. Earlier you said that the Department was willing to look at working with states that have a regulatory regime 

in place so that perhaps we could eliminate this double layer of bureaucracy. Are you willing to commit, if confirmed, that you would 

work with us on that approach? 

Ms. SARRI. Senator, if I’m confirmed, I would be willing to work 

with you and I’d also be willing, obviously, to sit down and talk 

with BLM on these particular issues. 

Senator HOEVEN. Okay. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. 

Senator Hirono, you have been very patient. 

Senator HIRONO. Finally. [Laughter.] 

Save the best for last. 

Mr. Kotek, I could not help but note that you were born in Hawaii but that you consider Idaho your home. We in Hawaii like to 

think that anybody who has experienced Hawaii takes with them 

the Aloha spirit wherever they consider home. Lucky for you I do 

not have a question for you. [Laughter.] 

Anyway, Dr. Murray, as a supporter of the ability of small businesses to interact with the labs and to enhance the technology 

transfer aspects of what goes on at the labs, I am glad that your 

responses to Senator Heinrich’s questions in this arena was one of 

commitment to that proposition. So I encourage you to continue 

with those efforts. 

For Dr. Kimball, thank you very much for USGS and their very 

important role in tracking the lava flow on the Big Island that was 

threatening one of our communities. We are very appreciative of 

what you all do. Thank you also for the opportunity to chat with 

you recently in my office. 

I am aware that the Department of the Interior, through the 

USGS, serves as the lead agency in the Federal Open Water Data 

Initiative. And as we know from the unfortunate drought that is 

plaguing California and the West, awareness of water availability, 

use, conservation, etcetera will become increasingly important in 

the future and of course, that also applies to Hawaii. 

As USGS works to collect data to supply the Open Water Data 

Initiatives and other future initiatives such as predictive modeling 

and comprehensive decision support tools that will help communities be responsible water users, can you highlight some of the 

ways that Congress can help USGS in completing these kinds of 

water initiatives? 

Dr. KIMBALL. Well thank you very much for that question, and 

I did appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about these 

issues as they affect the Hawaii and the Pacific Islands. 

I think that issues associated with water resources and water 

availability are national issues that are important, and I believe 

that the only way we can effectively address those issues is to 

bring all sectors of both government, industry and local and community efforts together so that we have the authorizations that 

allow us to collect the information and that we have the good working relationships with local and community groups that permit that 

exchange of information and the ability to enhance our surveys. 

69 

One of the things that we’ve been working with that we believe 

has a great deal of potential is the concept of citizen science and 

bringing those communities that are dependent on this information 

into the dialog. And we really welcome the opportunity. And if confirmed, I would very much welcome the opportunity to work with 

you and the Committee to identify ways to enhance the water data 

collection, monitoring and dissemination efforts across the country. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you very much because this, as in so 

many other areas, requires a lot of collaboration at all levels including, as you say, the citizens, citizen scientists. I think that was 

your reference. That sounds really interesting. If there are things 

the Committee can do to enhance and support those collaborative 

efforts I certainly would want to discuss those with you. 

For Ms. Sarri, in your testimony you mention PMB’s role in coordinating across businesses on policy issues such as invasive species management. I think you are aware that Hawaii is practically, 

maybe, the invasive species capital of the country because the impact, the negative impacts of invasive species is something that we 

totally understand. 

In March of this year the Department of Navy released a regional biosecurity plan for Micronesia and Hawaii that makes recommendations to the State of Hawaii, Guam, CNMI, Micronesia 

and the Marshall Islands as well as Palau. So this requires a lot 

of collaboration among the Departments of Defense, Agriculture, 

and Interior. The purpose of the report is to be used as a tool in 

coordinating across agencies to prevent, manage and control 

invasive species in the Pacific region which is a huge region. 

Question. Since the Department of the Interior serves as one of 

the 13 Federal departments and agency members of the National 

Invasive Species Council can you speak a bit on how you, as Assistant Secretary for PMB, would work within your Department to implement or help the jurisdictions implement some of the priority 

recommendations of the Navy’s report? 

Ms. SARRI. Senator, thank you very much for your question. 

If confirmed, I would be definitely working very closely. Interior 

happens to be one of the leads of the National Invasive Species 

Council. We’ve been working very closely with Agriculture and with 

NOAA to, kind of, reinvigorate, I would say, the Council. 

And the issues that you raise and issues particularly on what’s 

taking place in the Pacific are very important to prevent invasive 

species from coming into areas of the Pacific. But when they do get 

there, early detection and rapid response is absolutely critical. So 

at Interior we’ve been making additional investments in terms of 

looking at early detection and rapid response issues, prevention 

and education. 

I would anticipate, especially as we lead up to the World Conservation Congress, that the issue around invasive species and biosecurity in the Pacific are going to be a central issue. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hirono. 

Senator Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

70 

Ms. Kendall, I would like to ask you about a report that your office, the Office of Inspector General, issued on the Office of Surface 

Mining’s ongoing stream buffer zone rulemaking. 

For years Members of Congress have expressed grave concerns 

about this rulemaking. Prior to the issuance of your report the 

House held a number of hearings which examined the rulemaking 

including the jobs that would be lost as a result of the rule. A redacted copy of the report indicates that your office completed the 

report on February 28th of 2013, but your office did not release the 

report to the public or to Congress until December 20th of 2013, 

10 months after your department completed the report. So you 

completed it, and then we waited 10 months until you released it 

on December 20th. 

Now I would note that December 20th was the Friday right before Christmas. It was also three days after this Committee held 

a confirmation hearing on Janice Schneider. She was nominated to 

oversee the very office under investigation, the Office of Surface 

Mining. So you waited ten months and then you released it the Friday before Christmas, three days after the Committee held the confirmation hearing so we could not ask questions about it. 

The question is should it have occurred to you, since you are up 

front now for a position and confirmation, shouldn’t it have occurred to you that the Senate and the public had an interest in seeing your report prior to Ms. Schneider’s confirmation hearing and 

in any case, why did you wait to release the report until three days 

later? 

Ms. KENDALL. Senator, I am almost embarrassed to say it. I don’t 

recall the details of that delay, and I simply can’t answer your 

question because I don’t know. But I would be happy to get back 

to you on that. It sounds wrong. I would hope that there’s a meaningful explanation. I’m sorry I don’t have it here today. 

Senator BARRASSO. Because I think to people that look at this it 

certainly seems like you are playing games with Congress. So I 

would love to hear back from you on that. 

I understand you did provide a copy of the report to the Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Lands and Mineral Management. I 

am also going to ask that you look into whether prior to December 

20th you shared the report or any information related to the report 

with anyone else outside the Office of the Inspector General and if 

so, with whom? I will ask that you followup in writing. 

Ms. KENDALL. I will do that. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Kotek, before joining the Department of 

Energy earlier this year you worked as a Strategic Consultant for 

the Fluor Corporation. Since 2011 the Department has given Fluor 

about $1 billion worth of publicly-owned uranium from its stockpile 

of excess uranium. In exchange Fluor has provided decommissioning services at the Department’s gaseous diffusion plant in 

Ohio. The Government Accountability Office has said that these 

transactions violate Federal law, so I question whether the Department receives full evaluation for the uranium that it gives to this 

company. 

If confirmed, you will be responsible for overseeing the public’s 

stockpile of excess uranium. You will play a significant role in deVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:47 Jan 23, 2017 Jkt 098943 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\98943\D98943.TXT D98943
71 

termining the circumstances and conditions under which the Department disposes of excess uranium. Given your past employment 

by this corporation do you plan to recuse yourself from decisions 

that would benefit this corporation and if not, why not? 

Mr. KOTEK. Thank you, sir, for the question. 

Regarding my specific involvement it had to do with a cleanup 

contract at the State of Idaho, within the State of Idaho. 

Regarding a specific recusal those matters are still under discussion within the Department right now and we’d be happy to get 

back to you when there’s some determination made there. 

Senator BARRASSO. So it’s your position that you do not have a 

conflict of interest with respect to the decisions affecting the corporation? 

Mr. KOTEK. Thank you, sir. 

I have been and will continue to be completely forthcoming with 

the experts in the Department who makes those determinations so 

they can give me the appropriate guidance. 

Senator BARRASSO. Because I question whether the Department 

actually has received full value for the uranium that it gives to the 

corporation. The corporation did not consume the uranium that it 

receives from the Department, instead it sells the uranium, as you 

know, to another party. 

Earlier this year I called on the Department to condition all future transfers of uranium on the requirement that the company 

publicly disclose the terms under which it sells the uranium. If confirmed would you be willing to do that? 

Mr. KOTEK. Thank you, sir, for the question. 

My understanding of the process is that, you know, DOE structures its uranium transfers in a manner that results in a fair market value price for the uranium. Of course, as you’ve referred, the 

transfers to Fluor B and W are exchanged for services and the 

value of the services that DOE receives are based on prevailing 

market prices at that time and that DOE is immediately credited 

with the value and services by the contractor. 

So that’s the process, as I understand it. And going forward we’d 

be happy to continue to work with you and your staff on that matter. 

Senator BARRASSO. Do you think it is an unreasonable request, 

given your past employment by the Fluor Corporation? 

Mr. KOTEK. Sir, again, I think, given my particular situation I 

will work with Ethics Council inside the Department to understand 

where, you know, those things I should and should not be involved 

in and will proceed accordingly. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Ms. Kimball, I want to come to you for a moment. I thank you 

for joining us in Alaska. It was some time in August, I forget when, 

but we were actually celebrating the fact that over half of the State 

of Alaska had been mapped through the IfSAR data. I your written 

testimony you state more than 63 percent of the state has been 

mapped appropriately. I think at that time we were celebrating 53 

or 57 percent. I do not know exactly, but I commented at the time 

that there are very few places in the country where we would be 

celebrating getting half way there. I think it speaks to the issue 

72 

that we face in Alaska as it relates to the adequacy of our mapping 

and the need to get going yesterday. 

Thank you for your efforts to work with us. I know we have 

many in the state that appreciate that, but we also recognize that 

we have a ways to go, so I want to work with you to do that. 

Last year USGS announced that Afghanistan was the first country to be almost completely mapped using hyper spectral imaging 

data. Of course that gets your attention when we here in this country are trying to get ourselves mapped and we see that our government is supporting the full mapping of Afghanistan—almost completely mapped. 

Can you tell me what the status of collecting the hyperspectral 

data is here in this country and where we are with the status of 

LIDAR or Landsat eight and nine data in the United States and 

in Alaska, specifically? 

Dr. KIMBALL. Well, thank you for that question. It was quite an 

honor to participate in the sky breaking ceremony in Alaska last 

month. 

As far as the hyperspectral data goes we were able to map Afghanistan because we had received support from USAID and the 

Department of Defense to do so as part of the reconstruction efforts, and that allowed us to develop the software and the analytical tools to enable hyperspectral to be used to look at mineral deposits on the surface, within the soil surface, where we don’t have 

surface expression for minerals. 

So we have now brought that technology home, and we are using 

it initially in Alaska to map certain areas in order to test that system in the kinds of conditions that we have and to address assessments of mineral resources in Alaska which has quite an enormous 

potential in that regard. 

The CHAIRMAN. So is that underway now? 

Dr. KIMBALL. Pardon me? 

The CHAIRMAN. Is that underway now? 

Dr. KIMBALL. I believe it has started. I will confirm that. I believe that it has been started. 

Dr. KIMBALL. And as we are able to refine those techniques then 

we will pull that technology out across the country. 

In terms of LIDAR and Landsat, we now have two Landsat satellites operational, Landsat 7 and Landsat 8. We’re working very 

closely with NASA to move forward in the planning and the execution of the next Landsat mission which will be Landsat 9 that we 

anticipate having launched somewhere between 2021 and 2023. 

We are working diligently between the two agencies to ensure 

that we do not have a data gap. With two satellites in the air we 

get that information on an eight-day repeat cycle which is very important for many uses especially in the agricultural sector. 

As far as LIDAR, it continues to be a high priority for us. And 

you will see that in the Administration proposals to enhance and 

continue acquisition of LIDAR data to support the 3D elevation 

program. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, we appreciate your work in that regard. 

Ms. Sarri, I want to go back to you and followup on your earlier 

comments. 

73 

I understand what you said about your not being involved in the 

decisions that were made by Interior either as it related to Shell 

or as it related to the announcement about not moving forward on 

the Shell extensions or also the 2016 and 2017 lease sales. I am 

perplexed though, and I do not follow why you would not be, I 

guess. 

In the Interior’s press release they cite to specific items in light 

of current market conditions, low interest, low industry interest, 

DOI today announces. We were informed by the Under Secretary 

that it did not make sense for budgetary and resource reasons to 

prepare the lease sales. That was what we were told. 

Given that your position that you have been acting in for Policy, 

Management and Budget is specific to budgetary and resource purposes, I guess the real question that I have if you have said that 

you were not involved in these decisions is why were you not involved in these decisions if they were, in fact, related to budgetary 

and resource reasons? Further, if you will, did your office conduct 

any form of analysis of the economic impacts that these decisions 

would have on the State of Alaska whether it be future oil production, whether it be the jobs that would not be created or something 

else? 

Ms. SARRI. Well, Senator, as to the Assistant Secretary’s remarks 

I would want to go back and ask her for some clarification. My understanding about the reason the decision was made was the lack 

of interest in the leases during this time period and then also market forces and the low energy prices. So my understanding is those 

were the drivers of it. 

The CHAIRMAN. I hope that you understand that lack of industry 

interest is not lack of interest in the resource. It is lack of interest 

in dealing with an Administration that has simply made it impossible for them to move forward. That is where the lack of interest 

is. I think that that needs to be reported back, because the interest 

is clearly there. But if you cannot meet the terms and conditions 

that have been set by the Administration for operating, what are 

you supposed to do? 

Ms. SARRI. Got it, understand, Senator. But I will get back to 

you. I think maybe what Secretary Schneider meant in her—— 

The CHAIRMAN. It was, I am sorry, it was not Secretary Schneider. I do not want to get confused here. 

Ms. SARRI. Okay. I’m sorry. 

The CHAIRMAN. It was Mr. Beaudreau, who—— 

Ms. SARRI. Oh, Okay, I’m sorry. I must have misunderstood 

there. I’ll go back and take a look at it. I’m assuming what they 

meant was, you know, where we have shown we’re working under 

a constrained budget. And if the market wasn’t at this time necessarily supporting it. And I understand you have a different perspective in terms of that, that issue, then you would look to move 

some of your budgetary resources to other places. 

But I will make sure I get clarification and get back to you on 

the record on that particular question. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you aware as to whether or not there was 

any assessment or analysis as to the potential impact? 

74 

Ms. SARRI. I will also get back to you. There was not any assessment done by my office on this particular issue, but I will ask if 

there was an assessment done by BOEM or BSEE. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Cantwell? 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I wanted to go back to Dr. Murray and ask about DOE’s role in 

advanced materials. Obviously these are very important materials 

for lightweight manufacturing, whether used in trucks or airplanes. Can you speak to what we need to do to continue U.S. leadership on this issue and what do we need to do in the area of recycling of these materials as well? 

Dr. MURRAY. Thank you for the question. 

Yes, DOE has a major role in materials in the new manufacturing initiative as well as manufacturing for recycle. And if you 

look at things like 3D printing and what’s called materials 

genomics which is basically looking at the properties of materials 

and making a data base and then searching the data base in multidimensions to figure out which material would actually work better 

than the one that we have all been using because it just happened 

to work when we tried it the first time. 

That is making materials, I will call it science, and materials engineering more into a science than it has been before. It has been 

very Edisonian so a company will use a material because it knows 

it works and it just doesn’t want to bother because it takes about 

seven years to move a new material into manufacture. 

We’re trying to shrink that down to, let’s just say, three years 

and to look at the space of materials. And this is being done in the 

storage hubs that I was talking about earlier which is an Office of 

Science hub on novel energy storage and batteries. 

So they’re looking at there’s an anode. There’s a cathode, and 

there’s an electrolyte. And all of these can be, instead of picking 

one and then trying out others, look at the whole space of what you 

could do and pick out computationally what might be interesting 

projects. And then go and study them in the lab. 

And this is turning out to be quite fruitful. It’s only fruitful because we have enough computational power and enough experimental expertise to be able to get the properties of the materials 

measured accurately enough. 

Senator CANTWELL. Is that where the exascale computing comes 

in? 

Dr. MURRAY. Absolutely, that’s exactly right. 

Senator CANTWELL. So we need to do both. 

Dr. MURRAY. We need exascale for that reason in particular. And 

it will be the wonderful thing about exascale, if we can get to the 

power density, the low power density of new chips for the exascale 

computing, we will have very small exascale computing will fill this 

room, of course. We will have very small pedascale computers because you can just carve out a part of it and then you can have 

one in every hospital or every, for precision medicine or you can 

have one in R and D plants to do this materials genomics. It really 

is a revolution. 

Senator CANTWELL. I like that word. 

75 

How important do you think it is that we fund this research and 

development in these areas for DOE? 

Dr. MURRAY. Well it’s spectacularly important. 

Senator CANTWELL. Okay, thank you. 

And Graphene? Where would you put that? 

Dr. MURRAY. Graphene is really a very interesting material. 

Back when I was doing research at Bell Labs in the 1990’s, nobody 

thought you could get a single layer of carbon. That was totally impossible. 

When, some years later, people realized that you could put scotch 

tape on graphite which is well known in battery materials and just 

pull off a single layer of carbon. And that is the strongest material 

known to man when you try to pull on it. And that—it’s a very interesting conductor. It’s not quite a semiconductor, but you can 

make it into a semiconductor. 

And it has very interesting physics properties. And it’s a little bit 

hard to deal with. And it’s not yet in manufacturing but it has 

started a new thought process about putting other two dimensional 

materials together. And this is where coming back into batteries 

you can create these new two dimensional materials by putting layers together. So it was actually a very important part of material 

science. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well this shows how important material 

science is to energy solutions; that has people interested in the 

Northwest. 

Dr. MURRAY. Yes, absolutely. 

Materials is important to absolutely everything including, I will 

say, software because you have to run software on something. And 

that something turns out to be your exascale computer which you 

can’t make unless you can understand the materials properties. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. MURRAY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I have one final question, and this is directed to you, Ms. Kendall. 

I will have other questions that I will submit for the record to 

you and others who have appeared before us today, but in the interest of time I will just ask my final one. 

You have heard comments from colleagues here regarding issues 

during your tenure, the stream protection rule or stream buffer 

rule has been mentioned a couple different times. 

This dispute between your office and the House Committee on 

Natural Resources persisted through 2014. It included your decision not to respond to a subpoena from the House, and to my 

knowledge that is still at a stalemate that has not been resolved. 

Have you taken any steps since formally referring the matter? 

What have you done in terms of referring this to the Secretary and 

then, not only what have you done in advancing this to the Secretary’s level, but what have you done to assist the House Committee to receive a satisfactory response to this subpoena? 

Ms. KENDALL. Well, as you know, Madam Chairman, last November I sent a memo to the Secretary referring the issue formally 

to her. Having found really nothing happening a couple weeks ago 

76 

my counsel reached out to the Office of the Solicitor, with whom 

we’ve been working on this issue, urged them to, again, sort of, activate the issue and reconsider their decision to lay claim to privilege, although the word has not been used, as you know. 

As recently as yesterday I spoke to the Chief of Staff for the Secretary and urged him to ask someone from the Department to actively engage the House Committee on Natural Resources. They 

had said they had no outstanding request, but I am told that they 

did reach out, as of yesterday and—— 

The CHAIRMAN. To the House Committee? 

Ms. KENDALL. To the House Committee and we’ll be engaging in 

the process of accommodation which is the precise process that I’ve 

been asking both sides to engage in. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for that update. 

This goes to a series of questions that you and I had discussed 

when we were visiting in my office in terms of the role, what the 

law requires of the IG with respect to reports to Congress and 

whether there is an independent reporting obligation and then 

again, this independent duty to assist Congress. 

So again know that these are very important. I was interested 

in the direction Senator King was taking with his comment there 

about the polling data on Presidential nominees at this point in 

time, but I do think he does make a point about the imperative of 

the various IGs throughout the government that they maintain 

that level of independence, that they maintain that level of true 

impartiality here and ensuring that there is a commitment made 

to the process. That is what we are seeking to, kind of, call out 

here. 

You mentioned in your opening statement that hindsight is 20/ 

20 and that there may have been some situations where you may 

have done something differently or taken a different approach. Can 

you give me any indication as to which decisions, if any, you would 

have made differently and why? 

Ms. KENDALL. Yes, I can, Madam Chairman. 

The one decision that I think has followed me the closest and the 

hardest was the decision to be willing to be a part of the Safety 

Oversight Board, in retrospect with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. 

Going forward I would do that differently. I think my office could 

have conducted the very same work that it did conduct without my 

participation on something like that Board, although it was in extraordinary circumstances and extraordinary times given a national crisis. But that is one, certainly, that I have rethought many 

times over and think that, although the ends may or may not justify the means, in the end our office did the work that needed to 

be done to review the entirety of Outer Continental Shelf oil and 

gas production. 

And I think my team did a fabulous job, a very comprehensive 

job and did it very quickly, but we could have done it without my 

participation in that Board, I believe, going forward. 

At the time, as I said in my testimony too, I was operating under 

the best information I had at the time and utilized in my best judgment. But we can always second guess decisions we’ve made. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. 

Senator Cantwell, any followup? 

77 

Well, thank you all. I appreciate the time that you have given 

us, and to the families that have been very patient as you have 

provided support to the six men and women in front of us, we 

thank you for being here today. 

With that, the Committee stands adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

(78) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

79 


Insert offset folio 28 here 98943.028
80 


Insert offset folio 29 here 98943.029
81 


Insert offset folio 30 here 98943.030
82 


Insert offset folio 31 here 98943.031
83 


Insert offset folio 32 here 98943.032
84 


Insert offset folio 33 here 98943.033
85 


Insert offset folio 34 here 98943.034
86 


Insert offset folio 35 here 98943.035
87 


Insert offset folio 36 here 98943.036
88 


Insert offset folio 37 here 98943.037
89 


Insert offset folio 38 here 98943.038
90 


Insert offset folio 39 here 98943.039
91 


Insert offset folio 40 here 98943.040
92 


Insert offset folio 41 here 98943.041
93 


Insert offset folio 42 here 98943.042
94 


Insert offset folio 43 here 98943.043
95 


Insert offset folio 44 here 98943.044
96 


Insert offset folio 45 here 98943.045
97 


Insert offset folio 46 here 98943.046
98 


Insert offset folio 47 here 98943.047
99 


Insert offset folio 48 here 98943.048
100 


Insert offset folio 49 here 98943.049
101 


Insert offset folio 50 here 98943.050
102 


Insert offset folio 51 here 98943.051
103 


Insert offset folio 52 here 98943.052
104 


Insert offset folio 53 here 98943.053
105 


Insert offset folio 54 here 98943.054
106 


Insert offset folio 55 here 98943.055
107 


Insert offset folio 56 here 98943.056
108 


Insert offset folio 57 here 98943.057
109 


Insert offset folio 58 here 98943.058
110 


Insert offset folio 59 here 98943.059
111 


Insert offset folio 60 here 98943.060
112 


Insert offset folio 61 here 98943.061
113 


Insert offset folio 62 here 98943.062
114 


Insert offset folio 63 here 98943.063
115 


Insert offset folio 64 here 98943.064
116 


Insert offset folio 65 here 98943.065
117 


Insert offset folio 66 here 98943.066
118 


Insert offset folio 67 here 98943.067
119 


Insert offset folio 68 here 98943.068
120 


Insert offset folio 69 here 98943.069
121 


Insert offset folio 70 here 98943.070
122 


Insert offset folio 71 here 98943.071
123 


Insert offset folio 72 here 98943.072
124 


Insert offset folio 73 here 98943.073
125 


Insert offset folio 74 here 98943.074
126 


Insert offset folio 75 here 98943.075
127 


Insert offset folio 76 here 98943.076
128 


Insert offset folio 77 here 98943.077
129 


Insert offset folio 79 here 98943.079
130 


Insert offset folio 80 here 98943.080
131 


Insert offset folio 81 here 98943.081
132 


Insert offset folio 82 here 98943.082
133 


Insert offset folio 83 here 98943.083
134 


Insert offset folio 84 here 98943.084
135 


Insert offset folio 85 here 98943.085
136 


Insert offset folio 86 here 98943.086
137 


Insert offset folio 87 here 98943.087
138 


Insert offset folio 88 here 98943.088
139 


Insert offset folio 89 here 98943.089
140 


Insert offset folio 90 here 98943.090
141 


Insert offset folio 91 here 98943.091
142 


Insert offset folio 92 here 98943.092
143 


Insert offset folio 93 here 98943.093
144 


Insert offset folio 94 here 98943.094
145 


Insert offset folio 95 here 98943.095
146 


Insert offset folio 96 here 98943.096
147 


Insert offset folio 97 here 98943.097
148 


Insert offset folio 98 here 98943.098
149 


Insert offset folio 99 here 98943.099
150 


Insert offset folio 100 here 98943.100
151 


Insert offset folio 101 here 98943.101
152 


Insert offset folio 102 here 98943.102
153 


Insert offset folio 103 here 98943.103
154 


Insert offset folio 104 here 98943.104
155 


Insert offset folio 105 here 98943.105
156 


Insert offset folio 106 here 98943.106
157 


Insert offset folio 107 here 98943.107
158 


Insert offset folio 108 here 98943.108
159 


Insert offset folio 109 here 98943.109
160 


Insert offset folio 110 here 98943.110
161 


Insert offset folio 111 here 98943.111
162 


Insert offset folio 112 here 98943.112
163 


Insert offset folio 113 here 98943.113
164 


Insert offset folio 114 here 98943.114
165 


Insert offset folio 115 here 98943.115
166 


Insert offset folio 116 here 98943.116
167 


Insert offset folio 117 here 98943.117
168 


Insert offset folio 118 here 98943.118
169 


Insert offset folio 119 here 98943.119
170 


Insert offset folio 120 here 98943.120
171 


Insert offset folio 121 here 98943.121
172 


Insert offset folio 122 here 98943.122
173 


Insert offset folio 123 here 98943.123
174 


Insert offset folio 124 here 98943.124
175 


Insert offset folio 125 here 98943.125
176 


Insert offset folio 126 here 98943.126
177 


Insert offset folio 127 here 98943.127
178 


Insert offset folio 128 here 98943.128
179 


Insert offset folio 129 here 98943.129
180 


Insert offset folio 130 here 98943.130
181 


Insert offset folio 131 here 98943.131
182 


Insert offset folio 132 here 98943.132
183 


Insert offset folio 133 here 98943.133
184 


Insert offset folio 134 here 98943.134
185 


Insert offset folio 135 here 98943.135
186 


Insert offset folio 136 here 98943.136
187 


Insert offset folio 137 here 98943.137
188 


Insert offset folio 138 here 98943.138
189 


Insert offset folio 139 here 98943.139
190 


Insert offset folio 140 here 98943.140
191 


Insert offset folio 141 here 98943.141
192 


Insert offset folio 142 here 98943.142
193 


Insert offset folio 143 here 98943.143
194 


Insert offset folio 144 here 98943.144
195 


Insert offset folio 145 here 98943.145
196 


Insert offset folio 146 here 98943.146
197 


Insert offset folio 147 here 98943.147
198 


Insert offset folio 148 here 98943.148
199 


Insert offset folio 149 here 98943.149
200 


Insert offset folio 150 here 98943.150
201 


Insert offset folio 151 here 98943.151
202 


Insert offset folio 152 here 98943.152
203 


Insert offset folio 153 here 98943.153
204 


Insert offset folio 154 here 98943.154
205 


Insert offset folio 155 here 98943.155
206 


Insert offset folio 156 here 98943.156
207 


Insert offset folio 157 here 98943.157
208 


Insert offset folio 158 here 98943.158
209 


Insert offset folio 159 here 98943.159
210 


Insert offset folio 160 here 98943.160
211 


Insert offset folio 161 here 98943.161
212 


Insert offset folio 162 here 98943.162
213 


Insert offset folio 163 here 98943.163
214 


Insert offset folio 164 here 98943.164
215 


Insert offset folio 165 here 98943.165
216 


Insert offset folio 166 here 98943.166
217 


Insert offset folio 167 here 98943.167
218 


Insert offset folio 168 here 98943.168
219 


Insert offset folio 169 here 98943.169
220 


Insert offset folio 170 here 98943.170
221 


Insert offset folio 171 here 98943.171
222 


Insert offset folio 172 here 98943.172
223 


Insert offset folio 173 here 98943.173
224 


Insert offset folio 174 here 98943.174
225 


Insert offset folio 175 here 98943.175
226 


Insert offset folio 176 here 98943.176
227 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 177 here 98943.177